Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 1, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:12

20200601_Mon_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Monday, June 1st, 2020 on American countdown.
	And it really does feel like American Countdown after a weekend of riots tore the country apart, with a lot of those riots appearing to be politically instigated and politically motivated.
	Tonight, we'll talk about the recipe for those riots and president's response to it.
	Whether it's necessary, the degree to which it's legal, what power he has, what limits on that power he has, and whether or not this is the appropriate response, and in fact maybe the only response that could meaningfully make a difference.
	But first let's go to the President's statement in the Rose Garden that he made just recently.
	Thank you very much.
	My fellow Americans, my first and highest duty as President is to defend our great country And the American people.
	I swore an oath to uphold the laws of our nation, and that is exactly what I will do.
	All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd.
	My administration is fully committed that for George and his family, justice will be served.
	He will not have died in vain.
	But we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.
	The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities.
	And as their president, I will fight to keep them safe.
	I will fight to protect you.
	I am your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters.
	But in recent days, our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa, and others.
	A number of state and local governments have failed to take necessary action to safeguard their residents.
	Innocent people have been savagely beaten, like the young man in Dallas, Texas, who was left dying on the street.
	Or the woman in upstate New York, viciously attacked by dangerous thugs.
	Small business owners have seen their dreams utterly destroyed.
	New York's finest have been hit in the face with bricks.
	Brave nurses who have battled the virus are afraid to leave their homes.
	A police precinct has been overrun.
	Here in the nation's capital, the Lincoln Memorial, And the World War II memorial have been vandalized.
	One of our most historic churches was set ablaze.
	A federal officer in California, an African-American enforcement hero, was shot and killed.
	These are not acts of peaceful protest.
	These are acts of domestic terror.
	The destruction of innocent life, And the spilling of innocent blood is an offense to humanity and a crime against God.
	America needs creation, not destruction.
	Cooperation, not contempt.
	Security, not anarchy.
	Healing, not hatred.
	Justice, not chaos.
	This is our mission, and we will succeed 100% We will succeed.
	Our country always wins.
	That is why I am taking immediate presidential action to stop the violence and restore security and safety in America.
	I am mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including Your second amendment rights.
	Therefore, the following measures are going into effect immediately.
	First, we are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country.
	We will end it now.
	Today, I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets.
	Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled.
	If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.
	I am also taking swift and decisive action to protect our great capital, Washington, D.C.
	What happened in this city last night was a total disgrace.
	As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property.
	We are putting everybody on warning.
	Our 7 o'clock curfew will be strictly enforced.
	Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
	I want the organizers of this terror to be on notice that you will face severe criminal penalties and lengthy sentences in jail.
	This includes Antifa and others who are leading instigators of this violence.
	One law and order, and that is what it is.
	One law.
	We have one beautiful law.
	And once that is restored and fully restored, we will help you, we will help your business, and we will help your family.
	America is founded upon the rule of law.
	It is the foundation of our prosperity, our freedom, and our very way of life.
	But where there is no law, there is no opportunity.
	Where there is no justice, there is no liberty.
	Where there is no safety, there is no future.
	We must never give in to anger or hatred.
	If malice or violence reigns, then none of us is free.
	I take these actions today with firm resolve and with a true and passionate love for our country.
	By far, our greatest days lie ahead.
	Thank you very much.
	And now I'm going to pay my respects to a very, very special place.
	Thank you very much.
	So that's the President's response, in part built on the fact that a lot of people were upset that he had not responded earlier in the week.
	What we're showing is some of the videos that happened all across the country, videos of looting, videos of rioting, videos of arson, videos of assault, that were broadcast by people just taking it on the street all across the country.
	Uh, from Santa Monica to Boston, from Chicago to Detroit, uh, to, uh, parts of all parts of the country, Cleveland, Atlanta, uh, you name it, even places as far apart as Fargo, South Dakota, experience these degrees of violence and rioting.
	Indeed, the fact that it occurred in places like Austin, Texas and Fargo, uh, uh, South Dakota, Is an indicator that something more was going on than simply a spontaneous response to a political controversy.
	The way a riot is supposedly occurs as people are mad about a particular event, feel frustrated about the futility of political solutions, short of political outrage expressed in protest.
	And so that they then, in that local community, form a protest.
	But here, that did not make a lot of sense.
	Here, a lot of the protest actions that ended up becoming violent, riotous actions, had no correlation to anything that happened in their community.
	Indeed, even the Minneapolis riots were in response to the George Floyd death, where there had been quick action taken dismissing the police officers involved and initiating criminal prosecutions.
	So there was no particular apparent political justification for these actions.
	That's because they need a combination of the recipe for riots involves the rise of Antifa.
	The pushing of fake media narratives meant to build fear, frustration and futility within the African-American community and the incorporation of the criminal class.
	They needed all three.
	They needed the BLM to be sponsoring protests that could be used to mask the riotous actions to come, to be the pretext for mass organizations of people that included Antifa and the criminal class to engage in specific violence against both people and property wherever and whenever they could.
	The fact that BLM so easily accommodated their request by so quickly forming these protests is indicia that they are in cahoots with some of the groups involved and are not meaningfully involved in trying to build solutions to civil rights issues.
	Indeed.
	If you go through the history, you take the broader background and context of these kind of riots, we look at the broader historical context, we can start with the role of Antifa.
	The role of Antifa, a loosely organized group of people that consider themselves quote-unquote anti-fascist, derived their name from a German organization that was colloquially known as the Black Bloc because their tactic was to organize to dress in all black.
	To organize as a block so that it is difficult for them to be identified in order for them to commit violent and criminal acts without legal or police consequence.
	That began in 1977 in Germany, but you have to go further back to understand the true complete historical context of what this involves and what it entailed.
	Really you could go back to the 19th century and you see particular groups that are idolized by some of those that are involved in the Antifa related movements.
	And that is people like the Paris communes of the 1840s.
	That led to the label communist derives in large part from the Paris communes who are able to use their control over the streets to effectively seize power over the city of Paris.
	Indeed, it was their success that led to the grand boulevards that we now see in Paris, as Napoleon III wanted to prevent and preclude such street theater, street violence, street protests from effectively seizing control over a city in the future.
	That's why the streets are so broad.
	Paris streets used to be very small and go into various back alleys.
	This allowed a protest group, a radical group, to seize control of the city.
	No longer possible in Paris.
	So you start from there.
	That's who they sort of idealized.
	There's a lot of romanticism of revolutionary and insurrectionary actions within the Antifa ideological impetus for its movement.
	Then you move forward to the 1920s.
	You can also, to some degree, move to the late 19th century, the rise of violent anarchism as an actual functioning ideology, as anarchists believed that the state itself was the greatest threat.
	And that the overthrow of the state in its entirety required violent action to achieve it and accomplish it.
	Thus, the famous Haymarket bombings in Chicago in the 1890s.
	And groups like the Molly Maguires, Radical Labor Union groups, and the IWW, who believed that violence could be useful to Wobblies.
	Could you be an effective tool of achieving a new economic workplace?
	The Molly Maguires went around bombing mines that had failed to unionize and were popularly pictured in a film.
	Uh, portrayed by Sean Connery amongst others.
	So you had this sort of ideology that justified violence as a mean against the state or against corporate power as a means of achieving a political objective.
	Uh, that began, that continued and in particular using street theater and street protests and street riots and street fights as a critical means of achieving it.
	That manifested itself in the 19-teens and 1920s, and the communists beginning to use street theater, taking strikes and just expanding them into violent theater in the local community or neighborhood, not just targeting the business that is subject to the strike.
	Similarly, a calling for general strikes, that the goal was to take down the edifice of the state.
	And using street violence and street intimidation tactics as a means of seizing power in the way they imagined and envisioned the Paris Commune did in the 1840s.
	That started happening throughout all of Western Europe.
	Of course, it succeeded in Russia in 1917, leading to the famous Russian Revolution and the first achievement of success of the Communist Party.
	But that continued to expand throughout the Western world, including in the United States and in Europe.
	That did not end it, however.
	That, in turn, precipitated the rise of fascism.
	Fascism, in large part, was built on a response to communism, not the other way around.
	Though, if you read the Antifa narrative in their own origin story, their origin story is the fascists arose first, and they just arose to fight the fascists.
	But this is simply the political means and the political pretext to justify their violent course of conduct and violent actions, including premeditated planned violence, which is one of the modus operandi of Antifa in particular.
	So they began in the 1920s.
	They're sort of rooted in 1920s, 1930s communist street violence.
	The fascists emerged in response to them, and ever since then they've often needed a rallying enemy, a rallying adversary.
	So for them, the way they could unite the left and get political justification, political patronage for what they were doing, press patronage for what they were doing, politician patronage for what they were doing, They needed to say that what they're really doing is just fighting the fascist enemy, the fascist adversary.
	When in fact what they want to do is through violence bring about an anarchistic communist state or governmental operation that is as little as possible though communist in principle.
	To take away the power of the police to protect the community or to enforce the government's edicts as they see it.
	That basically sort of emerged into the current form of the Black Bloc, finds its inspiration in a 1960s civil anti-war protest movement here in the United States.
	That was the Black Mask Movement of the 1967 and 1968.
	Where they wore black masks and did all kinds of sabotage and stunts to get attention on the streets.
	A form of street theater that was similar and comparable to what the Paris Commune and the Communists and Fascists tried to achieve in the 1920s and 1930s.
	He who won the street, owned the street, could own the city, could own the state.
	That was the mindset.
	That was the mentality that helped fuel it.
	But that did not end it, of course.
	Taking the ideas of the Black Mask, its ideas of street theater, its ideas of sabotage, and its utility as being a means of disguising any identifying information about you, such that you could not be identified by the public or the police if you were to engage in illicit or criminal actions, the Black Bloc, so-called, the Antifa group of Germany, in fact, Antifa derives its name from a group that the first part of their name was Antifa in Germany,
	Is where this all originated in its current contemporary form.
	They started in the late 1970s in 1977 and forward and it's not a coincidence that their biggest day of celebration and use of violence is May Day.
	May Day was the one of the most popular Labor Day holidays for the Communist Party.
	That's not a coincidence.
	They continue to march and begin the Black Block tactics and technique.
	In fact, they started to be known as the Black Block, even though that's mostly a technique, more than it is a particular ideology by necessity.
	They began to be identified as the Black Block before they were identified as Antifa, and started to spread throughout Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and then the United States, the West, and the whole world.
	You can find black bloc protest in Asia, you can find black bloc protest in Latin America, you can find black bloc groups organizing in Mexico.
	So they began to use that common technique, that common tactic, sort of almost an ISIS method of organization, an Al-Qaeda method of organization, where you identify, where you have basically small cells that don't respond to any particular organized hierarchy in a conventional way.
	And the common techniques are you dress in black.
	Often you do black and red, reflecting the Red Brigades and others from which they draw inspiration in order to not be identified, in order to give yourself an intimidating aura.
	You train and tutor people in the techniques of rioting.
	You can go to YouTube videos and find Antifa guides about how to make rioting more effective, but how to convert a protest into a riot.
	That's the nature of their behavior and course of conduct.
	They learn how to use arson, they learn how to use property damage, they learn how to use physical assaults, they learn how to defend themselves against various police efforts to control or contain or cabin their conduct.
	They usually have medics with them who are ready and prepared to help try to defend and protect them or take care of them if they get injured or hurt.
	That's why in Berkeley, when there were protests and a person ended up getting injured that was part of Antifa, there was immediate calls for a medic.
	It wasn't a call for a 911 medic, it was a call for the Antifa medic that is there on staff, ready to assist and help.
	They mostly draw their support from two different groups.
	From young lefties, much like the 1930s, much like the 1960s, the same dynamic is present.
	These are the sons and daughters of the privileged professional class.
	Most of them, and many of them, have degrees, college degrees, post-college degrees.
	These are would-be radical revolutionary grad students who have lots of pictures of Che at home.
	That's their mindset and mentality.
	They're disproportionately young, though they do have older members.
	What they believe is only by violently destroying the edifice of the state, the perception that the state can protect you, can they achieve their objective.
	Their political cover is that they're just there to stop the fascists and the racists from having control.
	They're there to defend protests against the racists and fascists.
	That is purely pretext.
	That has never really been their organizing principle, and that is evidenced by their course of behavior.
	Their goal was to protect people from fascists, they would only show up at Klan rallies.
	If their goal was to protect people from abusive course of conduct, then they would be organized to provide security for civil rights activists in key parts of the country where it is controversial.
	You won't find them anywhere near there.
	Where you'll find them is in Portland, in Seattle, in LA, in New York, in Boston.
	You'll find them in urban, liberal, lefty cities, where they function as a violent arm of the left.
	The way in which they, while they sort of manifested, their history goes way back, and they manifested in the 1970s in Europe.
	And then began in the 1990s and 2000s in protesting G7 and other events, making their first prominent appearance in the United States in 1999 in the protest of WTO, where there's been allegations that some of them were not necessarily even actual black bloc members, but were government saboteurs, undercover agents meant to undermine the protests there in Seattle.
	Whatever the course we may be, we don't know their full history.
	Some of them likely were the Black Bloc because they believe only violence against property and violence against people and violence against the police can achieve their objectives and aims to basically destroy the state in its current edifice and in its perception of justice.
	They take the movies like V for Vendetta as a script for a certain course of conduct rather than a calling cry, rather than a An action to resist oppression.
	They see it as a means of under of overthrowing the state and the system itself.
	Thus they target the property of corporations.
	Thus they target police and other officials and people they see as their political adversaries.
	Thus they engage in certain kinds of injuries and damage.
	They generally try to stay away from actual looting, theft and that kind of action because that can track and trace back to them.
	They're not petty criminals of that kind.
	They are a politically motivated, politically animated class.
	Now, what led to their prominence in the United States, in part, was the Occupy Movement of 2014.
	There, there were people on the left who saw the Tea Party as sort of an armed aspect of the right.
	They misinterpreted and misunderstood the Tea Party, but they saw it as basically the way that the right could activate its independent grassroots base to seize power on the streets.
	They saw them as equivalent to brown shirts in the 20s or 30s.
	That was an insane comparison, but it reflects what their mindset was.
	And it's why they greenlit the Occupy movement and helped support and subsidize it in various forms, organizationally, with media coverage, with academic justifications, and in some cases with actual participation.
	in involved in it and that brought in antifa as a much more powerful potent group ultimately antifa undermined the occupied movement by its routine acts of violence and assault because one of the other problems with antifa aside from its ideology of anarchistic violence as a means of of achieving their objectives is
	that antifa in order to have people who are going to be effective at perpetuating violent violence need to be like other movements such as the clan such as certain communist and fascist street movements the brown shirts and the rest such as movements like even radical islamic terrorism Many of these movements will say that their participants, their most violent participants, will say that they're motivated by some ideology.
	But that's not really the case.
	If you just scratch a little bit beneath the surface, say, of the Ku Klux Klan, you'll find a bunch of people not so much motivated by race as being just pure old-fashioned sociopaths.
	These are people that will have criminal histories.
	They'll be violent towards their wives, violent towards their kids.
	They'll have history of rape charges and other abuse charges, child pornography charges.
	These kind of things will percolate and pervade those kind of communities.
	What happens is these movements reach out to the sociopath and tell the sociopath, I'm going to give you a political pretext.
	I'm going to give you a moral excuse to act out your most violent and disgusting impulses.
	That's why these groups inevitably and inescapably end up with a disproportionate number of people who are simply dangerous criminals disguised as political activists.
	These are the ones who will do the most horrific and horrendous acts.
	And that is how Antifa sort of came to be.
	Now, the way it got to the power it has now, which I think shocked many people within the political establishment who had been dismissive of it and undermined the left who decided that they could ride a tiger and the tiger has now decided to turn around and devour them, is because of what has happened since Trump's election.
	In that respect, that's about the media narrative.
	And the media narrative plays two roles here.
	One role is in promoting and protecting and propagating Antifa.
	The other is in pushing a fake narrative about race relations and civil rights in America, in order to create the perception, particularly to the African American community.
	That they should be in a state of permanent fear.
	That they should feel a permanent state of futility.
	That they should be constantly, continuously frustrated.
	That they should believe that white cops or random white people are out to cause them harm and will do so at any given moment or the drop of a hat.
	That it's because of an institutionalized belief system that can be only overthrown by some violent anarchistic action.
	This is the mindset that the media has pushed by deliberately choosing cases that are divisive to promote in the civil rights arena.
	Uniting cases, cases for example where people of all races and ethnicities have been the victims of police abuse, There's about anywhere from 5 to 20 percent of any police force in the country that will have either trigger-happy people who cannot handle the escalation of confrontation that will result in a civil rights violation, or that are simply hardcore sociopaths themselves.
	Here again, ask yourself, who's going to go be a policeman?
	You're going to have a lot of people who are good, hard-working people who just want to defend their community and believe in enforcing the law.
	But also, if you're a sociopathic personality, where better to go than the police?
	If you go to the police, you get to exercise your violent instincts and impulses in the name of the law.
	You get to do it in the name of a badge.
	Inevitably, the very nature of police power is going to disproportionately invite people who have the most disturbed and dangerous mindsets amongst us.
	Now we know there are ways to police this and to patrol this.
	We can screen it out through testing mechanisms.
	We can pay policemen a much more manageable salary so it invites a wider range of participants so that the police force doesn't feel obligated to take every applicant.
	We can follow up whenever there's a complaint.
	Any bad police officer who engages in abusive conduct will almost always have a rap sheet and a record.
	Just like a criminal doesn't suddenly become a criminal at the age of 30, a bad cop doesn't suddenly become a bad cop 15 years on into the job.
	They have been a bad cop from the get-go, and they'll have shown it from the get-go, and there'll be a history of complaints and lawsuits concerning him, in one way, shape, or form, just as is the case with the lead police officer in the Floyd case.
	He had a long history of problematic behavior, and you know who covered it up?
	The Democratic District Attorney Amy Klobuchar, who's now, of course, a United States Senator and would-be vice presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Amy Klobuchar.
	That's something that the Democratic Party didn't want discussed, and now neatly won't be discussed much because the riots have taken hold of the political narrative instead.
	A case that could have been uniting, like the Floyd case, suddenly becomes divisive because of the riots.
	And there you must raise questions about what BLM's role and the media's role really is.
	In this context, we have groups like BLM constantly promoting bad cases.
	Cases like Travion Martin and the Zimmerman case, where it was Martin, not Zimmerman, pounding Zimmerman's head onto the concrete when he was ultimately shot in Zimmerman's self-defense, as the jury found.
	The media lied to you.
	BLM lied to you and told you that instead it was the other way around.
	He was just a kid in a hoodie wanting to go out for some Skittles who was attacked by a random white guy wanting to harm any young would-be Obama son.
	To paraphrase Obama's rhetoric on the case.
	Mike Brown famously hands up, don't shoot.
	Except that never happened.
	He was just a bully going around bullying people in the neighborhood and community.
	Decided to take over the middle of the street because he felt like it.
	Decided to attack a policeman in his police car.
	This is part of the media narrative.
	Why do they pursue these cases?
	There are plenty of cases of legitimate police abuse where African Americans have been the victims of violence and misconduct by police.
	Why not promote those cases?
	I do a lot of those cases.
	BLM is nowhere to be found.
	to leading to himself defense.
	This is part of the media narrative.
	Why do they pursue these cases?
	There are plenty of cases of legitimate police abuse where African-Americans have been the victims of violence and misconduct by police.
	Why not promote those cases?
	I do a lot of those cases.
	BLM is nowhere to be found.
	The media is nowhere to be found.
	Why is that?
	Because it's not called Unite and Conquer, it's called Divide and Conquer.
	And when we come back after the break, we'll get into more of the Divide and Conquer strategy, the recipe for riots, as well as the President's lawful authority to deal with Antifa.
	If Antifa wants to declare war against us, we can reciprocate.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	The...
	We continue to encourage you to support our sponsor that makes this platform possible, that makes this show possible, InfoWarsStore.com, where you can buy a wide range of products that make you healthier, wealthier, and wiser.
	If there's any group of people that at times like this remind you between a pandemic, a lockdown and now riots, no better time to be stocked up on products that you need to protect yourself and take care of yourself and make yourself healthier, wealthier and wiser in the process than the products that are available at InfoWars store.
	Includes everything from storable food so that you don't have to go out to a grocery store at moments like this to a wide range of other products that you need from things to help you sleep, things to help you get by, things to help you give you energy, things that just make you healthier generally, help you survive trying times like things that just make you healthier generally, help you survive trying So we continue to encourage you to go to InfoWarsStore.com.
	You get healthier, you get wealthier because they're all at a discount, 50 to 60 to even 70% off on a range of products.
	And you get wiser because you help support independent platforms where you decide what information you want to see and read and hear.
	So everything from brain force to coffee to you name it.
	Things that are just good for you every day.
	Basic health supplements and products.
	Basic health ideas that can help improve your life in an everyday way at a very accessible, in fact, severely discounted price point.
	So we continue to encourage you to support the sponsor to make that possible and to allow shows like this to continue to exist.
	Particularly in times where the institutional narrative is designed to contaminate the public mind, not enlighten the public mind.
	In that respect, we will return back to the questions of Antifa and riots and the sort of media narrative that helped create a permanent criminal class, the integration of the criminal class in Antifa with peaceful protesters and creating the environment, perfect environment, perfect storm for the violence we saw across the country last weekend and continue in some parts of the country probably even to this evening.
	But let's go to the president's power to do what he said he was going to do, which was that if the mayors and governors failed to take action, he would use all tools at his disposal, including potentially using the military, to try to control and cabin the situation.
	But there's several laws that govern the president's power.
	There's the executive branch's power under the Constitution in Article 2, which is pretty broad to secure the public safety and public security.
	The degree to which that can be used domestically has always been questionable and controversial and indeed that goes all the way back to the Constitution's founding.
	There were those who were opposed to it because they wanted no standing army.
	Instead, the goal was to create militias that would protect the local government, and it would be a little de-democratizing mechanism of making sure there was not a centralized national army like King George's that could raid the local community.
	So the goal was that you would have a locally rooted military force that could protect public safety when needed.
	Today's National Guard is generally considered the ancestor to that, even though functionally it doesn't really quite work as well as that, The goal is at least you have people that are from that community involved in any kind of action that takes place.
	And in fact, federal law tries to track that and trace that.
	Indeed.
	So let's first, the first provisions is there's the Posse Comitatus Act of 1877.
	What's significant about that is that that was basically part of the Great Compromise of the election of 1876.
	What happened in 1876 was one president won the popular vote but may not have won the electoral vote.
	As part of a compromise, the Southern states agreed that as long as they passed a law removing the US Army and ending Reconstruction in the South, They would, in turn, give their electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, which is precisely what happened.
	As part of that, they passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which was intended to preclude and prohibit U.S.
	military involvement in domestic U.S.
	policing activities, with a few exceptions.
	Those exceptions are rooted in the Insurrection Act of 1807.
	The Insurrection Act was passed in part to deal with issues that arose after the country started, where things like the Whiskey Tax Rebellion of Western Pennsylvania was suppressed and pushed down with the help of a standing national army.
	There was concerns that that, in fact, was a violation of the original principles of the U.S.
	Constitution, not to have a national standing army that would be involved in domestic activities.
	So the Insurrection Act carved out where and when the military could be involved at a federal level in local affairs.
	There are also a couple of other statutes that have been passed over time that deal with and address this, particularly in the context of the capacity of the army to even form in the first place, or any military branch to be formed, and what can be done and cannot be done.
	So, we'll start with 10 U.S.C.
	275.
	This is the Restriction on Direct Participation by Military Personnel.
	And it goes through the Secretary of Defense shall do regulations and provisions that make it clear that they don't allow or authorize or permit direct participation by any member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in any search, in any seizure, in any arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity is otherwise authorized by law.
	Now, that provision has often been meant to mean that if somebody's in the Army but is also a local police officer, for some reason they have overlapping duties, as can happen with people who are members of the National Guard, that they're authorized under that separate legal authority and not limited.
	But this was intended to prohibit the role of any of the U.S.
	military in any domestic law enforcement activities in general.
	Indeed, and then we have 18 U.S.C.
	1385.
	This is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1877 is where it originated.
	Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus, which just meant that was the way that a sheriff would say, I need to get a posse, I'm going to deputize you to enforce the law.
	So this is, if anybody uses the Army in any way to enforce the law, They will be subject to a fine.
	They can either be fined or imprisoned.
	It's a felony to do so under the Posse Comitatus Act as well.
	Unless, again, expressly authorized elsewhere, which we're going to get to.
	The National Guard has a particular provision and that's governed by 10 U.S.C.
	Code 12406.
	And I'll read from the statute.
	You can find all these laws available to you at the Cornell Law site that is public, a fine law that's available for anybody in the country.
	Whenever the United States or any other Commonwealth is invaded or is in a danger of invasion by a foreign nation, that's one provision, wouldn't be applicable here, or there is a rebellion or a danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,
	Or, the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States, then the President may call into federal service members of the National Guard of any state in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.
	Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the state, or in the case of the District of Columbia, through the District of Columbia director, mayor.
	So, the National Guard, when you've seen the National Guard called into action, the protocol for that, under the law, is that first that you have, for some reason they're unable with regular forces to execute the laws, that's a pretty broad provision, affords a wide range of discretion.
	But it's conditioned upon approval by the state governor.
	So that's why the president's hands have been tied.
	Unless the governor requests the president activate the National Guard, the law doesn't actually specifically authorize the president to do so unilaterally.
	There's only one context in which the president can take action.
	So those are all the limits and restrictions and constraints on what the president can do, and that is the Insurrection Act of 1807.
	And what that allows, it allows the use of militia and armed forces to enforce federal authority.
	And in particular, when you dig into the law, you can find it at 10 U.S.C.
	Chapter 13 of Section 10 of the United States Code, and consists of a range of statutes.
	And as you go through, if you go to say 10 U.S.C.
	251, for example, Federal Aid for State Governments is where if the state requests it, then he can go and send even the military in to suppress the insurrection.
	In addition, Section 252 is the use of the militia and armed forces to enforce federal authority.
	This is Title 10, Section 252 of the United States Code.
	And here's how that law reads.
	Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any state by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, then the President may call into federal services
	such of the militia of any state and use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
	As the law goes on in detail, basically what it's intended to do is where you have lawlessness in terms of federal law or where people's constitutional rights and liberties are being violated, that's when the president can send the military in on his own accord under the Insurrection Act of 1850 There have been people who have been rightly concerned that we should be careful about the use of the Insurrection Act of 1807, lest it become a means to federalize police.
	All of those other laws are intended to preclude and prevent that.
	It's only under this very limited circumstance where you have such lawlessness that the President cannot do anything except send in military to help accomplish it.
	Now the laws still prohibit them from actually doing things like arrests, doing searches and seizures.
	All the things they hated about the British have been precluded from the Army's actions.
	What they can do is simply help restore order by their physical presence.
	And they can order dispersals in particular.
	And indeed, that order to disperse authority has often been utilized in recent times, relatively recent times, by the U.S.
	government.
	The first, and this is Executive Order number 10730 by President Eisenhower.
	There he did assistance for removal of an obstruction of justice within the state of Arkansas.
	And as he laid out, he goes, he authorized the Secretary of Defense to order into the active military service of the United States.
	Units of the National Guard of the United States and within the state of Arkansas, generally they prefer the National Guard and the law basically calls for the National Guard to only be activated that are from that state or a neighboring state.
	The goal again is to meet that old militia understanding of how any sort of military force would be used that would not be a national standing army that could recreate the days of King George.
	So he ordered the National Guard within the state of Arkansas to enforce any orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for the removal of obstructions to justice in respect to enrollment and attendance at public schools in the Little Rock School District.
	So this was the authority to make sure, in fact, that the desegregation of Little Rock schools that had been ordered by the courts would in fact occur, given the governor of Arkansas, Faubus and others, who was refusing to enforce those orders and enforce those laws.
	That precisely meets the point and purpose of the Insurrection Act.
	The supremacy of federal law allows the president to use a military force where necessary to enforce federal law to protect federal civil rights and liberties, as was the case.
	The next time it happened was just five years later.
	That would be 1962.
	Executive Order 11053, Assistance for Removal of Unlawful Obstructions of Justice in the State of Mississippi.
	This would be signed by President John Kennedy, who authorized the Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service, the National Guard of the State of Mississippi, Until relieved by appropriate orders in order to enforce all orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for removal of obstructions to justice in the state of Mississippi, again concerning civil rights matters.
	The next time would be about a year later, June 1963.
	President Kennedy would sign Executive Order number 11111 Assistance for removals of obstruction of justice and suppression of unlawful combinations within the state of Alabama.
	There again, President Kennedy would authorize the Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service of the United States, the National Guard of Alabama, to enforce the orders of the Northern District of Alabama, and to remove obstructions to justice, and this was a new one, and to suppress unlawful assemblies.
	This was, in fact, this was about the Freedom Riders and others.
	Now remember, we saw last week that actually members of the Klan that participated in that riotous attack on the Freedom Riders, members of them were actually FBI undercover informants who knew all about it, yet still participated in it, and the FBI did nothing to stop it and preclude it.
	In fact, it appeared to encourage it and incite it and make sure it occurred.
	So there's some good context there for COINTELPRO misusing its police powers in order to expand those police powers by allowing lawless violence to proceed.
	But here, this is the first time he goes from the first two orders by Eisenhower and by Kennedy are simply to enforce court orders.
	This goes further than that.
	This goes beyond that.
	This was the first testing grounds of whether the statute could be used to go beyond that.
	And it was to suppress unlawful assembly.
	Like the ones of the Klan getting together to beat up people on the Freedom Riders.
	That was part of the inspiration.
	But it went further than that.
	It also allowed the National Guard to suppress conspiracies and domestic violence when those conspiracies and domestic violence impede the course of justice of the United States laws.
	So this was intended to effectively form a justification for protection of the Freedom Riders in 1963.
	So if President Kennedy had the authority to use the National Guard to go in and protect the Freedom Riders in 1963, then clearly President Trump has the power to use, and the governor of Alabama, dear George Corley Wallace, was not part of authorizing that National Guard used, as you can imagine.
	So this shows that even if the governors and mayors don't approve of it, the 1963 executive order precedents of President Kennedy to protect the Freedom Riders is a precedent the president can cite as authority to go in and to go after Antifa in any city, county, or state, regardless of whether any city, county, or state or state, regardless of whether any city, county, or state authorizes them to, at least up to the point of using the National Guard to achieve it.
	Then the next time was executive order number 1118, which would be a further executive order in September of 1963 by President Kennedy.
	Again, authorizing use for the National Guard in the state of Alabama.
	This time focused on enrollment and attendance of students in public schools.
	But it went far beyond what President Eisenhower did.
	It also authorized them to suppress unlawful assemblies, suppress unlawful conspiracies, suppress domestic violence which opposes the law, and all other means and methods and mechanisms necessary within their power.
	So that would also be followed later on in 1967 and 1968.
	By President Johnson, who would bring in the National Guard, usually then at the request of the mayors, to suppress rioting activities that took place after the assassination of Martin Luther King.
	So that is the legal precedent and legal history that the President has to act.
	He does have the power, under existing precedents, to use the National Guard in particular And hopefully he'll stick to that, because going beyond that would be going into a play uncharted territory, and frankly it would be contrary to our constitutional history.
	The constitutional history is we do not have a standing army to go in and solve domestic problems, period.
	And if people don't like that, then they can change the Constitution to do so.
	But until they do change the Constitution to do so, or change the law to do so, we should not have the military involved in day-to-day policing.
	We should not have the military involved in a wide range of activities.
	The National Guard comes from those communities.
	The National Guard is the proper means and tool to enforce it.
	It provides the necessary means of military security to aid the local police in bringing back local political control.
	But at the end of the day, local governments are local governments and should be mostly governed by them.
	We should be limited and restricted and constricted in what we do.
	There's a lot of people calling for the president to ride on a white horse and just declare martial law across the country and become a benevolent dictator and a benevolent king.
	Remember, Trump will not be the only president this country ever has.
	So going the route and going the path of saying, let's just do whatever we can because we're enraged and angered by Antifa, The key part to understand there is that this is exactly what Antifa would want.
	Antifa would love for Trump to do something unprecedented and unparalleled.
	They would love for Trump to send in the Marines, to send in a Navy, to send in an Air Force, to try to control local neighborhoods, particularly minority or poor neighborhoods.
	The political optics of that is exactly what Antifa would want.
	So you give Antifa what they want if you decide to take a path of doing something that's never been done before.
	There is the means to use the National Guard.
	The National Guard is sufficient to achieve the limited objective of restoring law and order in these locations.
	We don't need the military acting as police any more than we need the military to deliver vaccines.
	Another dumb idea that has been floated with the President.
	These are not good ideas.
	They're ideas that sound efficient, that sound clean, that sound neat, that sound effective.
	They're ideas that are also precarious precedents for our future and that go against our constitutional heritage and history.
	The fact that it may favor one political side over the other is no reason to abandon the constitutional constraints on a national standing army doing domestic policing in the United States.
	That is a door we do not want to see opened.
	Uh, for many reasons.
	Antifa can be... Antifa is still effectively a small group.
	It is a group that seized control and part of the streets that it did because people were not expecting it in large part.
	In addition, because they have not met meaningful obstacles in opposition.
	Now they have the Department of Justice investigating them the way the Department of Justice investigated the Klan at one point in the 1970s that led to the Klan's complete collapse and destruction in the United States.
	The same thing can easily be accomplished and achieved here with the combined force of the Department of Justice's legal authority, which can investigate a wide range of investigations by designating them a domestic terror active organization.
	And there's some important relevance and pertinence there as to what that means and what it doesn't mean.
	To be a domestic terror organization does not have the meaning of being a foreign terrorist organization.
	There are some people who thought that you can designate a domestic entity, a foreign terrorist organization, simply because they have international ties or international origins.
	What people need to understand is all the laws governing foreign terrorist organizations come out of the immigration laws.
	In fact, that's where the designation foreign terrorist organization comes from, the immigration laws.
	It comes from the president's foreign policy.
	Because of that, all of the constitutional restraints that exist for trying to enforce that against domestic groups does not apply, because technically all he's doing is enforcing federal law by enforcing federal policy through that federal law.
	And that's why it's in the immigration statutes, in the foreign policy provisions, that the foreign terrorist organization exists.
	And that's why it's necessary, constitutionally, that that designation, which has a whole range of abilities to prosecute people for aiding and assisting and abetting it and funding it, none of those apply to designated Antifa domestic terrorist organization.
	Because Antifa is a domestic organization, those laws cannot apply to them.
	So, like, a lot of people got excited by the President declaring Antifa a terrorist organization.
	That matters.
	It matters politically.
	It also matters in the Department of Justice's ability to use domestic terrorism provisions that allow for investigation, that allow for using one jurisdiction to go after other jurisdictions.
	It makes it procedurally easier to go after violent groups.
	But it does not have any of the powers attendant to the foreign terrorist organization designation, nor would we want it to.
	Because if it did it would empower the government to designate anyone they wanted a terrorist organization domestically and basically completely suspend certain constitutional liberties that don't apply to the foreign terrorist organizations because they're foreign.
	So the idea that we should suddenly take foreign terrorist organization law and start applying it to domestic political groups we don't like.
	Remember at some point somebody else is going to have power in the presidency that's not on your side.
	So those people who see this as well, it's a great chance to crush Antifa.
	Yeah, it's a great chance to crush you next time around it comes where someone else like a Hillary Clinton is in the White House.
	So we need to remember that and stick to the constitutional heritage and constitutional history that our founders established.
	They established it for a reason.
	It's necessary to preserve and protect our core civil liberties against the encroachment of the state, even when that power of the state right now might be used by someone who's on our side and against those causing difficulties in the country.
	Remember, that was the same logic a lot of the left used to embrace President Obama, misusing and abusing executive orders to seize legislative power into the executive branch in the context of the Dreamers and other situations like that.
	And they came to regret their decision because now President Trump has done the same.
	Here we should be limiting the executive order authority to that the Constitution affords and statutes provide.
	And again, there's enough remedies there.
	Those remedies include the power to use the National Guard, even if the local politicians don't want the National Guard.
	Where it threatens the civil liberties and civil rights protected under the Constitution and it is the President's duties to enforce under federal law and the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution.
	That is sufficient and adequate to restore law and order.
	The Department of Justice's extraordinary tools of federal criminal investigative and prosecutorial power also effectuate a means to be able to discipline, restrain, and restrict this Antifa spread from going forward.
	When we come back in the bottom half of the next hour, we're going to be taking your calls and letting you speak and trying to answer your questions in this time of unique American pandemic politics that's now turned into riot economics and riot politics.
	We'll be right back.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Yeah.
	You can call in for this hour.
	We'll be taking your calls.
	Also be answering some inquiries that are made over Twitter and try to respond as best we can on live on the show.
	You can call in if you're dialing internationally.
	You can call in at 512-646-1776.
	512-646-1776.
	That's 512-646-1776.
	If you're calling domestically, you can call 877-789-2546.
	That's 877-789-2539, and we'll answer your questions and your inquiries about the various issues related to the riots or the pandemic or anything else you may want to discuss, its impact on the elections and how that may translate.
	as well.
	So call in.
	We'll be taking your calls throughout the hour.
	In the same respect, there is a third component to these riots.
	One component has been the rise of Antifa, which was heavily supported by the second component, various media narratives that have shaped to create fear and frustration and futility in the African-American community.
	It's called divide and conquer for a reason.
	a perception of targeted racialized violence that isn't actually backed up by the data or the facts of those particular stories, suppressing stories that could unite, highlighting stories that would divide.
	It's not called unite and conquer.
	It's called divide and conquer for a reason.
	But there is a third component to that, and that's the creation of a permanent criminal class.
	This is many of the people that were involved in the organized looting and the arson and Some are just sociopaths who want a political pretext or convenient excuse or useful opportunity to express their sociopathic criminal tendencies and trying to commit violence against other people or properties.
	But in the same way, in the same context, the other factor that is taking place is that there has been a creation of a criminal class, in large part facilitated by the ways we handle our criminal justice system.
	Some decades ago, Michel Foucault and some other analysts took a look at how we have treated crime and the mentally ill over time.
	What they found is that through our history, in our history across civilizations and time, we have not treated crime or criminals the same way.
	Our societies have often treated crime very differently depending on its place and time.
	And the only unifying theme appeared to be that it was often done in order to propagate or protect the system more than it was to protect the people in the community or to help those or rehabilitate those who have separated themselves from the community by committing harm against it.
	In particular, they noted peculiarities about the Western criminal system that we've developed over the last several centuries.
	This is a criminal system where we basically make sure that individuals will become permanent criminals.
	I mean, what system would say, you know what, the way we're going to punish and change crime and reduce crime is we're going to take our youngest criminals, juveniles, and put them in and let them work together with the worst, meanest, and most vicious criminals.
	Where in order to even survive, they're going to need to use more tools of criminality and learn them and develop them to associate survival with the highest levels of violence, because of the violence that will be committed against them.
	And at the same time, create a networking opportunity for criminals.
	Because that's what prisons and jails and juvenile facilities really are.
	Many of the criminal gangs formed and organized in jail, in prison.
	What idea says let's take some of our most dangerous people or people with some of the most dangerous proclivities and let's get them all together in the same room and let them live together, get to know each other, get to learn from each other, mentor one another, network with each other so when they get out they can really commit crime?
	Indeed, we knew that these systems backfire in terms of the way in which we treat crime, the way we punish it, the way we prosecute it, the way our prisons operate, are designed to create a permanent criminal class.
	It creates more risk of crime, not less.
	It doesn't deter crime, it increases its probability.
	This has been shown in study after study after study after study.
	So how is it that this happened?
	Well, what the sociologists and others studying the phenomenon then began to realize is, no crime, no police.
	That indeed, the crime is ought, we need a criminal class, or the system does, the government does, in order for people to feel comfortable with the state expressing its military form on your localized street.
	How do you get people to feel comfortable about the government sending armed people into your neighborhood?
	You create a permanent criminal class.
	You make someone else be more scary than the state exercising its most potentially lethal and violent form of an expression on your local neighborhood because you worry more about the crime and the criminal than you do the state's power over you.
	So indeed, many of our systems of justice are intended to create a criminal class.
	We want that criminal class out there, and then when you can compound that, the way the institutional, the statist, those who support this form of power, concentrated power in the hands of the government, They need a criminal class to justify their existence.
	But not only that, when you propagate a fake narrative that says you should feel, if you're within that criminal class, or you're within just the African-American community, or the Latino community, or other underserved, underprivileged communities, to have to be afraid of the police mistargeting you, to be afraid of the public stereotyping or discriminating against you or causing you harm.
	And that you should feel futility because those cases will never reach resolution, because they chose cases with bad facts rather than good facts.
	This divide and conquer strategy.
	You have sort of the perfect storm, the ideal recipe for riots.
	That's in part how riots can come to occur.
	We cannot, and there have been various reports by some people, of undercover actors, people with ulterior motives, participating in these riots, instigating these riots, helping to create these riots.
	We cannot rule out that possibility because there's been a long and notorious history of both here with the United States and around the world of infiltration of domestic resistance movements to try to get them to act out in certain ways that actually become self-discrediting in the process and again justify more police presence.
	That's why we should be very hesitant to allow Antifa to get its reward by the president doing something reckless by sending in U.S.
	military outside of the National Guard.
	That is not intended to serve the president's interest.
	It's not intended to serve the country's interest.
	It's intended to solve a short-term problem by creating a much bigger long-term problem.
	And that is why we should be careful and cautious about it.
	But we cannot excuse the culpability of the system at some level at creating the dynamic for this to occur.
	Whether it's the media doing puff pieces on Antifa and celebrating them as the tough guys who took on the racists at Charlottesville.
	That fake narrative.
	Because you had the real narrative at Charlottesville where you had people who were wanting to protest originally for heritage purposes.
	Then that is co-opted by the alt-right and a bunch of racist-related groups who co-opt that for their own purposes.
	They could still barely get a couple hundred people there, max, despite all their organizing around the globe.
	Which gives you an idea for how small of an organization it is.
	Some of its organizers appear to have turned out to have been informants, actually, for the government.
	Others of its organizers had a political heritage that did not suggest their involvement in the alt-right and may have suggested ulterior motives or objectives.
	But either way, what happens is once they get there at Charlottesville, the correct history of Charlottesville, is that the police issue a stand-down order.
	The ACLU reported this at the time, as did I.
	So why did they do a stand down order?
	Because Antifa needs the alt-right to be its moral justification.
	Communists needed fascists and fascists needed communists to justify their street violence existence.
	And that's exactly what was going on and that's why the media was building up the alt-right as this fictional fabricated group that exaggerated influence and import, tried to project that the president himself was connected to them.
	This was all part of the plan to justify Antifa's existence, to justify Antifa's pitch, to justify Antifa's promotion.
	What you will find is that without political patronage, without public patronage, without press patronage, organizations like the Klan disappear.
	Organizations like Antifa don't exist.
	They need support from key constituencies within the press, the political class, and the public to even exist and to propagate and have any meaningful impact.
	No less of a person than Bin Laden recognized this as his internal diaries exposed after his capture and execution.
	In which he himself explained within his notes his worry, his concern, his fear that if they didn't take certain actions, or if they did take certain actions in other cases, that either the omission or commission of an act could lead to a loss of public support.
	Which, what would that mean?
	Loss of recruits.
	What would that mean?
	Loss of safe harbors.
	Loss of shelter.
	What would that mean?
	Loss of funds to operate.
	So in order for any of these groups to succeed, they need some degree of support within the press, within the public, within the political class.
	Antifa was getting that in droves, whereas the alt-right had basically none of that.
	The Antifa had tons of it.
	So in order to justify Antifa, they needed to exaggerate the risk of the alt-right.
	They needed to lie about the president and his supporters.
	The media did that en masse for years.
	Then when Charlottesville occurred, also what they needed to have happen is when Antifa stuck its head up in 2015, 2014, 2015 with Occupy, 2016 with the riots against Trump supporters during the campaign, then again after his election, then again after his inauguration.
	They needed to suppress knowledge of it or re-script it to make it look like effective protesting, taking down the evil fascist Trump, rather than the violent risk that they were of this anarchistic organization that supports left communism and violent causes and violence as its means to achieve power.
	In that same context, it worked.
	Because not only did, in most of those cases, most of those people that assaulted people at the Trump rallies, almost none of them faced any consequence, and they got a lot of hagiographic coverage from the press.
	Then the same thing happened at the inauguration and after the election in 2016.
	The few people who were prosecuted in the District of Columbia were then given the same thing that Klansmen got in the early 1960s in Alabama.
	They got juries nullifying verdicts, doing jury nullification.
	Acquitting people that were clearly guilty of committing criminal violence against a wide range of people and property got to walk free in the District of Columbia because the District of Columbia's jury pool looks like a 1962 Birmingham all-white jury pool judging a black man.
	It's to kill a mockingbird on steroids in the District of Columbia.
	But again, this partially was able to happen because the press had propagated Antifa from the get-go, exaggerated the alt-right from the get-go, and then did not cover these jury notification disasters and scandals when they occurred.
	That led to Charlottesville.
	And in Charlottesville, they completely fabricated the course of events.
	They lied about the role of the heritage groups who originally were trying to create the protest, that it was co-opted by alt-right groups.
	They exaggerated the power and the role of the alt-right groups that were present.
	Then the police have a stand-down order.
	There's no National Guard present that could have been.
	The governor chose not to have them present.
	They tried to originally stop the protest, and then when it went forward, knowing that Antifa was coming to fight with the alt-right members there, and the neo-Nazis and Klansmen, rather than increase the level of police presence, they decreased it.
	They issued, in fact, a stand-down order, according to the local ACLU at the time.
	What does that do?
	And not only that, they had the police sort of force the groups into direct confrontation with each other.
	That led to the violence that broke out.
	The media pretended that Antifa really wasn't Antifa, that it was just a group of honest, young colleagues.
	Counter protesters who had no interest in violence whatsoever who suddenly were just violently assaulted out of the blue by alt-right.
	That was your Jake Tapper kind of fake news narrative that was spread.
	But it was in fact fake news.
	This was a violence between fascist groups and communist groups just like the 1920s and 1930s but in a new guise and new coloration.
	That's it.
	But rather than cover it that way, and when the president said it in those terms, good people on both sides, the heritage groups and the counter protesters, and then the bad groups on both sides, the neo-Nazis, the alt-right, the Klan types with Antifa, he was blasted for it ruthlessly, repeatedly, for the next three years.
	Because the media had to write a hagiographic narrative that celebrated Antifa that day, and that's precisely what they did.
	They either tried to cover for it and hide for it, or mitigate or minimize the scope of the violence.
	They beat up reporters that day.
	Or, if they did commit violence, say, but it's in the honor So, what was the message?
	The message was, join Antifa.
	The message was, fund Antifa.
	and others compared them to the veterans who freed Germany from Nazi Germany in World War II who were disembarking from the boats at the beaches of Normandy.
	That's how ridiculous the coverage got in praise of Antifa.
	So what was the message?
	The message was join Antifa.
	The message was fund Antifa.
	The message was Antifa, do this again.
	And so they've been waiting for the opportunity to do so.
	Now their core problem was, the alt-right doesn't meaningfully exist in this country beside a few people at home in their mom's basement on the internet.
	So because of that, they had to wait and bide their time.
	They had to find the right place to strike.
	Now they were testing in little cases, going after reporters and journalists like Andy Ngo in Portland, going after others, seeing what the media response was.
	And the media response, people like at BuzzFeed, Pretended that Andy Ngo was the faker and that Antifa didn't really exist as a dangerous threat.
	That's the kind of lies that reporters at BuzzFeed and others were spreading around the world.
	And they tried that, of course, this time too.
	Trying to pretend that either they don't exist, or if they do exist, they're mostly doing a good service.
	This was the same way large members of the political right portrayed, in the South, portrayed the Klan in the 50s and 60s.
	They either weren't that big, or if they were in existence, they weren't that bad.
	They were lying, and they needed political cover.
	That's what Antifa needs to function and operate effectively.
	So this hagiographic media coverage by the press helped bring about Antifa's strength to where they could do what they did this past weekend.
	Now some of the members of the media were a little shocked because they forgot Sam Adams' rule.
	Sam Adams says, before you unleash the tiger of revolution, be sure you can carry it, be sure you can ride it before it devours you.
	That's what they didn't recognize.
	Antifa is a truly committed group to violence as their means of political objectives and obtaining their power.
	They believe that they need to destroy the credibility of property, the credibility of police, the credibility of the state, in order for their system to work.
	Protests are a natural breeding grounds to expand into making those protests and converting them and distorting them into riots.
	Then you invite the criminal class to join with you.
	The people who want to loot just for the sake of looting, arson, who want a little free stuff while they have the chance, and you have the perfect opportunity.
	The things that anarchy can open the door to, the criminal element as well as the non-criminal element, is what has always made it dangerous to the state and to the public.
	And that is exactly what they did, and the media got partially devoured by the left in the process.
	So the violent left has now consumed them.
	The best way for us to counteract it is to stay within the constitutional norms and means, to be aggressive but effective.
	And to do so, that means not overreacting or overindulging status priorities.
	Instead, do what the president said.
	Use the National Guard to go in where it's necessary, where the local governors or mayors either request it or refuse to request it, but it becomes necessary because people's civil rights are in jeopardy.
	And unleash the Department of Justice against the dangerous, precarious aspects of Antifa to bring meaningful, effective prosecution that does not go afloat into, doesn't have mission creep into other areas such as legitimate legal protests.
	So hopefully that will be the case, and hopefully that will be the response as we move forward.
	But now we'll go to taking some of your calls, and some of your inquiries, and some of your questions.
	Let's start with Cameron from California.
	Yeah, hello?
	Hey, how are you?
	Good.
	Well, my question is, like, what is the point for, like, all these events, all these riots, and all these protests, like, for the people?
	And what does the government like achieve all these events leading up to all these deaths for like against the people and stuff.
	Yeah.
	So two different aspects of that.
	I mean, one is you have to look at who, who gains and what is there to gain from the Antifa perspective, discrediting the police, getting control of the streets, these insurrectionary acts, as they call them, they, that this is how revolutions occur.
	This is how governments tumble.
	This is how states collapse.
	Is by being able to show that the police cannot protect your property.
	The police cannot protect your person.
	Um, and so to them, uh, these were great successes.
	Uh, even if they don't go any further, they'll be considered successes.
	If you watch some of the Antifa documentaries, some of them will be called Black Block, B-L-O-C, uh, like French phrase, uh, documentaries with a German phrase.
	Uh, in reflection of that being their origins, you'll see a lot of them talk about that great insurrectionary day, or that great moment when they seize that street, or when they seize that state capitol, or they seize that building.
	To them, those are achievements.
	Many of these are young lefties who originally believed in peaceable protest, but have come to believe that peaceable protest will not achieve their objectives.
	Others are sort of hardcore Marxist involved in identity politics who want revolution for its own sake.
	Others are anti-social, sociopathic, violent criminals who are just disguising their criminality under a moral political guise of having an excuse for doing what they want to do anyway.
	So, there's three, there's different mindsets and mentalities amongst the different Antifa groups, but they share the objective of trying to destabilize society.
	So, to them, they achieve that success.
	When they can strike fear in the hearts of the public, that the police and the state will be unable to protect them, and that they can expose the state for the fraud that it is in their minds, then they've had a great achievement.
	Uh, they would like to reach out and have more, uh, alliances with, uh, the criminal class to some degree, uh, because they see that as another means to undermine and sabotage the state and the system.
	Indeed, in some respects, they're paralleling what the CIA and what our own State Department does in foreign countries.
	Where we often go into bed and into business with drug and criminal underlords because we see them as the most effective means to smuggle goods in and out of the country, the most effective means to sabotage a government or system, the most effective means to get intel and information, also the most effective means to line each other's pockets.
	So it's not a coincidence.
	I mean, if we go, for example, and track heroin and see that heroin use in the United States tends to track our various international conflicts in heroin-oriented regions, it's probably not a coincidence.
	In the same context, if you go and look at the crack CIA scandal of the mid-1980s, where effectively the Nicaraguans running drugs into the country We're doing so under the protection of the CIA because they had internally decided that that was the best way to overthrow various governments they disliked and fund various rebels they did like in Central America was through the drug trade into the United States.
	And that's why you'll find in the famous story of Free Ray Rickey, Uh, whose documentary, uh, you can watch now.
	I think it's available Netflix or Amazon, uh, but gets into some of his history, but doesn't even go to that history of the show.
	Snowfall does a pretty good job of portraying that whole history, but the, these, uh, without question.
	The CIA and the State Department have been involved with those kind of individuals because that's who they naturally align with when they're trying to either get intel or undermine a foreign government or lie in their own pockets for the purposes of propagating a particular conflict that gets the support of a group of politicians, especially when those politicians can't get democratic support for it, like A to the Contras in the 1980s.
	And so what happens, of course, you can just read the history of someone like Barry Seale.
	There's a guy, you can see a photo of him from the early 1960s, where you have Barry Seale next to people that would become former CIA heads and the rest.
	That goes all the way back to the 60s, those photos there with Felix Rodriguez and Porter Goss and a range of other people.
	Or just look at some of the people that were arrested at Watergate, track some of their names, and see how many of them show up somehow being alongside Fidel Castro in 1958 in the mountains in Cuba.
	Probably not a coincidence.
	The best sort of description of this, the template for this to understand it, is James Ellroyd's, what he calls history disguised as fiction, his American tabloid trilogy.
	That you can read.
	He's the famed author of L.A.
	Confidential and the film, which gets to an idea of how he maps out the world.
	But it goes further than that.
	He starts with American tabloid, then a cold 6,000, and then Bloods a Rover.
	And what he's describing is from 1963 to 1973, how American politics and power truly operated.
	From Howard Hughes to the Kennedys, from Jimmy Hoffa to the Mafia, from the CIA to the sort of operatives that are shadow operatives operating in between the criminal and civil aspects of government in order to function as effective functionaries for the purposes of those underworld elements and ulterior-minded elements within our own government who see power as their only objective and any means as a permitted mechanism for it.
	So, in that context, it wouldn't be a surprise.
	Antifa has a lot of highly intelligent members in it, and for it to want to parallel the statist elements of CIA tactics of aligning with underworld criminal elements to achieve a political objective, it would not be a surprise if that's partially what took place here.
	Because what was unique about these riots was the integration of Antifa and criminal class components.
	Uh, organized criminal class components into infiltrating the protest and then using them as a guise to engage in wide scale criminality.
	So that's Antifa's objective.
	What the government's objective, the left's objective and the media's objective is they've wanted this scary, dangerous, violent arm of power to help them keep power and maintain power in the country without it getting so powerful that it will devour them in the process.
	There's a long history of this.
	To a certain degree, China uses North Korea that way to the rest of the world.
	Says if you don't play ball with our economic policies, maybe we'll let North Korea go off its leash.
	Uh, so it's always somebody wants that dangerous dog on a leash that might be just a little too dangerous to keep the other side politically in line.
	There's an aspect of that that's taking place as well.
	Uh, so, and then there may be other objectives and missions in place, and we'll know that in time.
	And we'll know that better as things unfurl and unfold.
	That's why hopefully the President will not allow this to be used for any unprecedented power grab, any unprecedented use of the military and inappropriate means, because then people will wonder whether that had something to do with it as well.
	So that's the particular games that are being played right now.
	So, Cameron, thanks for your question.
	Let's go to Tim in Washington.
	I've been listening the entire time, and I called to see what your opinion was about FEMA camping Antifa, because I don't think that they're going to stop doubling down.
	But you've convinced me that I'm wrong, but I just don't know of any other solution to stop them from doubling down and causing more damage and destruction and violence.
	My instinct is, I mean there's no question that FEMA camps can be used as excess facilities, but on the federal criminal side we have so many available facilities that can function for temporary imprisonment of individuals that that could suffice effectively.
	We could also use all these underutilized temporary hospitals we built for the pandemic for that purpose.
	My view is I just want to make sure it's carefully done because there's an easy temptation When it's your own political adversary that's on the opposite side to green light uses of tools we would never want used against us or used in general.
	So my own view is FEMA camps could be used as temporary detention facilities for the purposes if it's really completely continuously out of hand as a way of people just doing mass arrest if local jails do not have adequate means of detaining such individuals, placing them in those places.
	But we don't want that to start out as a precedent for too long, because down the road, they'll use it more broadly.
	Down the road, it would be too tempting to someone who wants to abuse the power of state to want to go that path.
	So my view is we can do it that way, that it can be a mechanism of doing so, but we want to be careful about how this all approaches, because what's the greater threat over time?
	Antifa is not a greater threat over time.
	Antifa is a temporary threat.
	The greater threat is we green light the government using its power in ways that it never has before, that's contrary to our constitutional history or heritage, that ultimately ends up getting used against us and the rest of us.
	So that would be my concern, is that we are careful at how we do this.
	There are people on the left who are legitimately concerned.
	That because Antifa is such a disorganized structure, that it's non-hierarchical, it's not really an organized organization.
	Like, there are people saying, oh, you can take their bank accounts.
	Well, there are no Antifa bank accounts.
	What there are are people.
	Not only that, they're organized, and the way that they're organized is to prevent a centralization or concentration of resources or information or intel.
	That's why they operate on a sleeper cell structure across the country.
	They usually name themselves after the local city.
	So it's usually, you know, the Rose City Antifa in Portland or something similar in every other part of the country.
	So they're very tough to catch.
	And what they want you to do is, remember, a lot of them, there's a reason why they like the V for Vendetta mask.
	They want the government to overreact.
	They want the state to overreact.
	They want this because they think the state is the great threat.
	Now they have communist objectives and other objectives that are distinct from, say, libertarian-leaning anarchists or others, but they still fundamentally see the state as a great threat and they want to expose the state for its ugly fascist face underneath.
	So if we do things that sound like something out of an X-Files show, We're going to run the risk of playing into their hands rather than undermining.
	So I would say yes, we can use excess federal facilities including FEMA camps as temporary detention facilities if necessary, but we should be very hesitant to do so.
	We should be very cautious to do so.
	We should be very constricted in how we go about doing so.
	Lest we give Antifa what they really want, and lest we undermine our constitutional history and heritage in a way that we can't ultimately come back from.
	When we give keys to the state, remember the next person that's the head of the manor of the state gets to use those same keys.
	So we want to make sure those keys are not keys we wouldn't want used against us, just because it may be convenient now to use them against our own potential adversaries of the country.
	So when we come back, we'll take more of your calls and answer more of your questions.
	Remember, you can continue to visit InfoWarsStore.com, our sponsor, where you can store up on things so you don't have to go to the local store and find your local Antifa blocking it, potentially.
	And we'll talk more about the nature of the recipe for riots and the recipe for resolution of the riots.
	How to answer Antifa without becoming Antifa.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We'll be taking more of your calls.
	You can call in at 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	And we'll be taking your calls and answering your questions.
	I'm also responding to some people who ask questions on Twitter.
	892539 and we'll be taking your calls and answering your questions.
	I'm also responding to some people who ask questions on Twitter.
	To one question from Scott Grumpy, Scott the Grump.
	Can you talk about the Posse Comitatus Act and/or the Insurrection Act?
	Also can RICO be used against Antifa?
	So the first part of the show discussed in detail those particular statutes to go over those and so the you can watch that part of it to get answers in more detail but also you can look them up yourself those statutes are 18 USC 1385 Also, 10 U.S.C.
	12406, 10 U.S.C.
	252, and 10 U.S.C.
	275.
	And basically what they boil down to is in combination with the Constitution and the concern about a standing power, Uh, is to basically, the president can, if the state requests it, activate the National Guard.
	Or, if the state refuses to, and people's federal constitutional rights are being violated and threatened, or federal law is not being enforced in a particular manner through the judicial system, such as the U.S.
	Marshals have the power to do.
	Then he can activate the National Guard to enforce the laws in that context.
	The best legal precedent for him is President Kennedy's 1963, he issued two, 1963 emergency orders or executive orders whereby he authorized the National Guard in Alabama to suppress conspiracies or to suppress domestic violence.
	What they do not have the authority to do is anybody but the National Guard is not authorized to enforce domestic law in the United States.
	Not only that, the National Guard is still not supposed to be acting as a searcher, doing search warrants, arresting people, things of that nature.
	It's more temporary detention for the purposes of securing order, of ordering dispersals, and physically detaining people for the purposes of enforcing a detention order, but not necessarily enforcing any criminal law.
	So, that's what the laws sort of break down to.
	So, the second question, can RICO be used against ANTIFA?
	Yes, in part, but ANTIFA is not really well suited for RICO statutes.
	The more effective ones will be to look at how the FBI went after the Klan in the 1970s, particularly post-Hoover, in part.
	And those will be the record, because you don't have a hierarchical structure.
	You don't have individuals using entities very often.
	There's often no organizational components of this in terms of Limited liability company or anything like that.
	Ricoh was designed to deal with the mob infiltrating legitimate businesses.
	That combination isn't really very useful as a framework for dealing with Antifa.
	There are other laws however, conspiracies to commit violence, those kind of things, conspiracy to violate civil rights.
	All of that is already governed under existing federal law.
	There's more than enough federal criminal laws, I guarantee you, to enforce against Antifa.
	It's just about an organized effort to go at them and deal with them.
	And if the Justice Department is serious, they could take out 90% of Antifa within a year.
	To the second question from ALRYR.
	Can the military be present as long as they are not acting as law enforcement, but just as a presence?
	Yes, they can.
	In fact, that's one of the most common uses of the National Guard in these contexts.
	Often they simply back up the police.
	They simply do a show of force so that the police can execute the laws.
	And they basically help protect the police.
	They almost act as like a bodyguard for the police in a show of force.
	That is often the most effective use of the National Guard in these contexts.
	So that's absolutely a way they can do so.
	Let's go to one of the callers.
	Let's go to David from Kansas.
	Hi.
	I was a member of the National Guard.
	1961 to 1967, I was a member of the Selected Reserve Force.
	And so we were drilling five days a month.
	One weekend we worked on civil disturbance training.
	The other weekend we had worked on our federal mission.
	I had signed two contracts, one with the state and then one with the federal government.
	And the mission on my assigned mission was to close with and either capture or destroy the enemies of the state.
	So we had some real effective civil disturbance training.
	We were taught how to use plastic tie strips, tagging people, how to select the leadership, how to move crowds.
	And so I don't know that the Guard right now is at that status of training, that they're prepared to be used as a real active force in crowd control.
	And we also was carrying shotguns rather than the rifle so that, you know, a rifle you shoot around and that'll travel a mile.
	So by carrying shotguns, we had a limited range on the fire of the killing range on the rounds.
	So that was my training back in that period of time.
	And what people need to understand is that the National Guard is a military force.
	Oh, absolutely.
	During your time period, they had the training to be able to deal with civil unrest matters.
	Were you ever called into duty at all?
	No, I was in the Oklahoma National Guard, which at that time they had served in World War II and Korea.
	And so all of the senior leadership were veterans of World War II and Korea.
	And the people in Oklahoma respected that National Guard unit.
	And there was no rioting in Oklahoma, so we had no problem.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, the key is having people who respect those who are enforcing the laws.
	And I think the more you have, that's a key reason for the National Guard to be employed from the local area, is they know the area, they're reflective.
	The whole principle of the militia principle of the Second Amendment has often been misunderstood.
	The origin of that was not only about self-defense, that was a critical component of it, but it was to democratize the use of force.
	The idea was, let's not have these distant people, controlled by politicians and some distant capital, having a monopoly on the legal use of force against the rest of us.
	The goal was to have local people who were knowledgeable in the use of force, knowledgeable in the local community, exercise sort of a little-D democratic mechanism of control So they could be activated quickly, activated effectively, and activated in a manner consistent with democratic principles and precepts.
	They would not be likely to abuse their power on behalf of a politician miles and miles away.
	And as our caller just demonstrated, they also were given, back then at least, effective training by people who were familiar with combat and conflict and being effective at minimizing any civil unrest.
	And when you have the command of respect of those individuals and the skill set involved, it is often the best deterrent to any kind of illicit activity taking place.
	So, thank you for your call.
	Let's go to Sean in Pennsylvania.
	Hey, thanks for taking my call.
	I just want to share a story.
	This has kind of haunted me for the last couple of years.
	My boss and I were in downtown San Francisco shortly after Trump was elected in 2016.
	And we were in a coffee shop killing time for a business meeting.
	And there literally was a guy out there with a bus recruiting people, paying $100 cash if they would go protest.
	They had the signs already made up.
	And they tried to recruit us, but of course we had a business meeting or whatever like that.
	I was somewhat knowledgeable back then.
	So I was asking him who was funding him, who was giving him the money to pay the protesters, and he like turned his back and went away, but definitely people are getting paid to protest.
	That was kind of my point.
	Oh, absolutely.
	There's no doubt about that at all.
	One guy was caught on tape in Columbus, Ohio, giving money to a younger African-American man, encouraging him to be more violent and do various threatening acts and be more active, and was caught on tape doing so.
	So this is an old game.
	I mean, that's where when early on there was talk about the possibility of undercover people involved, ulterior actors involved.
	I told people just the long history of staging protests for some ulterior purpose goes back as long as such protests have existed anywhere in the modern world.
	So we cannot exclude or preclude the possibility of ulterior actors paying people to instigate and inflame the circumstance.
	I mean, it was clearly Antifa's political objective was to do that, and various criminal gangs' intentions to do that.
	And given how unusual this is, remember criminal gangs traveling to another location, like for example in Santa Monica.
	You've had in the past riots, but those riots have usually been localized.
	They have been limited to the local community.
	And while the riot is occurring, you've had some people use it as an opportunity to loot, to steal, to commit crime.
	I mean, to give you an idea for the scope and scale of this, there was actually a sophisticated trained group of robbers who went in during the second Iraq war and used it as a guise to rob all kinds of antiquities and art pieces.
	And it turned out they clearly, it may have been a billion dollar robbery.
	And they did so disguised as soldiers, disguised as Iraqi soldiers in one part, U.S.
	soldiers in another part, got all of these art and antiquities, and they clearly had a shopping list, because they went through and got certain things and completely ignored other things, even when they were of comparable value.
	So someone had given them a shopping list after the first Iraqi war, saying, let's use the second Iraqi war as an opportunity to commit heist.
	So here, somebody had got together and thought, you know what?
	And this seems to be pre-planned or at least quickly planned.
	Because, like, what was happening in Santa Monica was you had people, a friend of mine even videotaped one of their interactions.
	They were breaking into a pharmacy store in an upscale part of Santa Monica.
	Then they were about to commit arson.
	They had blocked their license plate so that you couldn't tell.
	They had put some sort of black label on it so you couldn't tell what the identification was.
	They were personally not identifiable.
	They were traveling in four different cars together, and they were traveling and committing robberies and looting and then burning, leaving arson behind to destroy any potential evidence of their looting.
	This was a sophisticated operation.
	It may not be the most sophisticated thieves in the world, but it was a sophisticated operation.
	It was very organized.
	This is relatively unprecedented.
	That kind of looting has not occurred before.
	Looting has occurred before, but not this degree of organized looting in a completely different community, where you got people operating in tandem.
	You go here, you go here, you go here, you go here, you grab this, you grab this, you be the lookout, you be the lookout, I'll commit arson over here.
	So that was what was going on here.
	We appear to have signs of an alignment between Antifa and criminal gangs in different parts of the country, or criminal groups in different parts of the country.
	You didn't see many gang members with gang colors out and about.
	because they generally disfavor this kind of action because it leads to more focus on them.
	But what you did see was criminal groups who had planned this out, prepared this out, and appeared to be working in cahoots all across the country with Antifa.
	And you cannot rule out that various political agitators and instigators from outside who may have funneled money into it, funneled personnel into it, may be involved.
	You just cannot rule out that possibility.
	Because, like I said, the history of riots since 1968 is they don't appear to be spontaneous.
	They appear to be more organized.
	They show the indicia, the fingerprints of organization, of orchestration.
	Why?
	Based on their timing.
	If they're truly spontaneous, they're not going to magically happen every election year.
	So, when they keep happening in certain places, certain points, certain times, understand, you know, research the color revolutions of Eastern Europe.
	Velvet Revolution, Rose Revolution, Orange Revolution.
	Research a group called the Albert Einstein Institute outside Boston, loosely called the Einstein Institute, which doesn't do a lot of Einstein research.
	It does, instead, a lot of training about how you can undermine governments through mass fake protests that become violent rallies, like what happened in Ukraine.
	There was real neo-Nazis behind it and they staged those events to help create a coup that helped change power in Ukraine very quickly.
	So throughout the world, intelligence agencies, government actors, wealthy billionaires, rogue political participants, rogue political groups have utilized, have staged rallies and staged protests for the purposes of some form of subterfuge or sabotage or some form of violent upheaval or overturning Sometimes a fake, a false flag event where they blame someone else for something they did.
	All of those things have occurred at some point in the last half century.
	And to ignore that possibility occurring here, given these signs of orchestration and organization that took place, would just not be credible, given the better evidence would be on the sign that someone helped facilitate this, not that it happened spontaneously all by itself.
	So that was a very good point, Sean.
	Thanks for your inquiry.
	And let's go to Nebraska.
	Anonymous in Nebraska.
	Nebraska on the air, M4 Wars.
	Yes, sir.
	I had a question for you.
	Now, we're going through a state of emergency, right?
	Okay, I caught a group of people, which was some kids, early, their early 20s, like Alex says, you know what they look like, you know?
	We know Nebraska because we're the heartland state.
	We know our own people.
	These people were out of place.
	I should have let you guys down because I should have followed them to their hotel room.
	I should have had it on videotape.
	That's my fault.
	I let you guys down.
	I should have followed them to their hotel room.
	I have a lot of license plate numbers because that's what I wanted to do today.
	And once I went down to the hotel room I had, there were so many cars from out of state that it would blow your mind.
	Okay?
	What they're doing is, Antifa came down here to Nebraska.
	They incited these African-Americans.
	Now, you just said something about gang members, okay?
	Now, when you're dealing with gang members, you're dealing with a state of mind.
	You're dealing with a state of mind to where you're, uh, you're dealing with your hood, how you can make your hood and your people money.
	No different from what Donald Trump is trying to do for America.
	It's like the Donald Trump's hood is America.
	That's how he's trying to make every American get money.
	Now, when I've noticed these people coming down here, I could tell that they wasn't from Nebraska.
	I knew they wasn't from Nebraska because they had that gothic look.
	And like Alex always says, they look like the devil.
	They look like witches.
	And that's exactly when, that's during the pot.
	And when I looked at them, I said, man, these ain't, these not people from Nebraska.
	So as the night goes on, we own property somewhere in, in, in downtown Omaha.
	And I asked, I asked one writer, which was a white, uh, younger kid.
	I said, let me ask you something.
	Why don't you go to South Omaha and ride over there?
	Now, South Omaha is predominantly Hispanic.
	Now, I moved my family over to South Omaha to get away from the gang violence of a certain part of the city that I thought that would be more accepting to our culture.
	When we went over to South Omaha, which was predominantly Hispanic, We got treated like we didn't exist, like we wasn't supposed to be there.
	Now when I look at these riots that's going on in Omaha, Nebraska right now, it's Hispanics that's rioting, it's these people, these white middle-aged people, it's these white teenage kids that look like they have the devil in their eye.
	They look like they're not even conscious, like Alex always says.
	They're not conscious.
	They're not conscious.
	They're not all the way there.
	Now, if you can hear in the background, you will hear the helicopter flying over our metropolitan area.
	Now, this is day four in Nebraska.
	Nebraska is the heartland.
	You know, we go through all seasons here.
	This is what makes us stronger here.
	Now, you're talking to an African-American male that's from the hood that voted for Donald J. Trump, you know, and people want to act like that.
	No, black people don't care.
	Yes, yes, we do.
	To everybody that's doing this violence out here, it's not African-American.
	I should have had my camera rolling.
	There's no way that Somebody is going to go pay $25, $35 for a construction jacket that's green or orange to let you know that I'm trying to stand out.
	They have infiltrated our city.
	Now, Nebraska, we're a Republican state.
	We've been a Republican state since the 80s.
	We're the home of Warren Buffett.
	We're the home of Omaha Steaks.
	And what's going on right here, what I tried to do for you guys tonight was I tried to go by and I tried to get a couple of license plates just to show the standard exactly what's going on.
	If you look at these hotels, you see all these license plates that's from out of state.
	You have license plates that say Washington.
	You have license plates that say New York.
	You have license plates that say, um, Kansas City.
	There's no... I asked this one writer, but I caught him up in the corner, and I said, man, why don't y'all go over to South Omaha, where there's immigrants at, where all the immigrants are at, that get more than all the African Americans have gotten.
	They come here in Nebraska, and they get more than we have.
	How come y'all don't go over there and riot against them?
	He told me, we're South Omaha.
	And when he told me that, that's when I knew that he wasn't from Nebraska.
	Now what's going on right now is you have Antifa down here, causing a riot, trying to turn the black community and trying to incite a race war.
	Now, I don't know.
	I want, I know George Soros and Hillary Clinton's funding these groups.
	Now, I've been listening to Alex.
	I am, like I said before, I'm 45 years old.
	I've been rocking with Alex Jones since I was 18 years old, okay?
	Now, I know exactly what's going on.
	If I could have caught them on tape, because what they do is they come from their hotel, they go and fight the riot, and then they go back to their hotel, and then they leave, and then they come back.
	So what happens, In Nebraska was a shop owner.
	He got beat up by an angry mob.
	And he was getting choked to death.
	I haven't been able to watch the video yet, so I don't want to elaborate on the lot.
	So he was getting choked out.
	He shot at two individuals.
	He missed them.
	And then another young man jumped on his back and was trying to choke him out.
	He shot him.
	And he killed him.
	And so what's going on right now is it was a self-defense move.
	And so right now, now they're rioting for that.
	They're not rioting for the Lloyd individual.
	Now they're rioting for an individual that was trying to protect his business.
	So my whole thing is, what can we do against this Antifa group?
	To put them on blast, because I understand that the FBI is interrogating everybody right now.
	So what can we do, as a community, to put them on blast?
	And let me tell you this, a lot of people might say that African America is not rocking with Donald J. Trump, but we are.
	Because it's the time for a change, and a change is coming.
	This is the first time that I've ever called in and I feel like this is something that needs to be said.
	If you can hear in the background right now, you can hear the helicopter, what we used to call in the hood, the Ghetto Bird.
	You can hear it in the background going around and around the city.
	You know, you can hear it.
	Can you hear the helicopter going around?
	Only a little bit.
	Okay, now we have a curfew they wanted to lock.
	They're locking the whole city down at 8 o'clock.
	Nebraska is the heartland.
	We work hard for what we do.
	We work hard for what we believe.
	We don't believe in no government assistance because, like I tell everybody, I'm a black man.
	How am I supposed to raise my black kids?
	To tell them this is how you're supposed to be an adult.
	You're supposed to depend on the government for a check that comes on the first of the month.
	You're supposed to depend on the government to give you food stamps to feed your family.
	Everything that I do in my life is off of the government.
	We do everything that we do and I do everything that I do as a black male To support my kids and show them how hard that we work to let them understand that, you know, you don't, the Democrats, you don't, you don't need that.
	And, you know, we, we live in a, Hillary Clinton has been down here so many times.
	Joe Biden has been down here so many times trying to get the, that Nebraska vote.
	Trying to, because this is the heartland.
	We have a lot of Fortune 500 companies here.
	I watch you guys every single night.
	Every single night.
	And I appreciate the work that you do.
	I appreciate the minds that you guys open.
	And I feel like that I really let you guys down because if I could have followed them to their hotel room, I could have busted some stuff wide open, you know.
	But yeah, no, no, what you did is you had to expose Antifa is the first part of the process to get people educated and informed is the first critical part of the process.
	Information is self-education.
	Self-education is self-armed.
	A self-armed populace is a populace that will keep democracy and constitutional liberty alive.

▲