All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes
01:46:35
20200602_Tue_Barnes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to American Countdown on this Tuesday, June 2nd, 2020.
As riots continue to consume large parts of the country and the president stepped up to the plate to try to put an end to these ceaseless political instigation and insurrection across the nation.
Tonight we'll be discussing whether black lives matter as a group.
Is actually a civil rights group or is more a political group intending to sow divisiveness, not unity, in order to develop power, not solutions for civil rights matters.
As we go into that, let's take a look back at what has happened over the past weekend and again last night.
Shootings took place in Las Vegas, St.
Louis.
Cops were attacked in New York City.
Uh, the across the country in different places, the level of death and the level of mayhem and the level of murder continues unabated in many parts of the country as Democratic mayors and governors refuse to have the National Guard step in in many places in many spaces, leading the president to say he will have to do so soon unilaterally if they don't take meaningful remedial action soon.
In many respects, groups like Antifa and some of those that are out there committing the violence, putting the bricks in place for the violence to occur, committing the violence themselves, instigating it or inspiring it in others, putting weapons around the White House, across from the White House in the park where they plan to utilize them, unsuccessfully, thanks to the actions of the Secret Service, the Marshals, and the federal law enforcement officials there, they get inspiration from films like the end of the movie Joker.
So let's take a look back at what that is to give a sense of what they consider celebratory success, not infamy.
Let's play video clip number seven.
Let's play video clip number seven.
Let's play video clip number seven.
Let's play video clip number seven.
Let's play video clip number seven.
Let's play video clip number seven.
Hey, Wayne.
You get what you fucking deserve.
No, pal!
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! Let's
go! Let's
go! Let's go!
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
These Joker-style riots that have rocked the country have taken place throughout the weekend and continue unabated by those politically inspired by cinematic images like that.
Let's take a look at video clip number three.
It went from what looked like a completely intact store to a complete loss and just a number of You can count on your fingers.
It's astonishing how fast this thing went up.
This is awful.
We saw graffiti.
Once the door was broken, we saw something similar happen earlier.
And as you can see, there's definitely a fire here.
This is the parish office.
I have never seen anything like this.
The building's beginning to collapse!
The building is collapsing!
The building just exploded!
Oh my God!
And it just collapsed.
There you go.
The building just collapsed in the midsection as well.
And you hear even some cheers of people again who are watching.
Somebody out here, I'm sorry, get out of the car.
I'm sorry, get out of get out of the car.
This right here?
Yeah.
They put them there on purpose.
This is the setup.
They put them there on purpose, bro.
Y'all know where we at.
They gonna set them right up on the railroad.
Y'all know what building this is right here.
I ain't even gonna say what name it is.
Hey, where do them Greeks go to?
Where did the first set at?
Get inside.
I want to be clear in how I characterize this.
This is mostly a protest.
It is not generally speaking unruly.
Ain't nothing left here.
So when we start coming to the suburbs, when we come to the government center, then what's all gonna do?
You see what I'm saying?
So, hey, that's just what's gonna happen, you know?
You have some people are laughing, some people are videotaping.
Just threw something on fire, Chris, a firecracker.
I'm on fire!
No!
No!
Get him the f*** out of the goddamn truck!
Get him the f*** out of the goddamn truck!
Pull the sand down!
What the fuck is you doing?
What can you do, PJ?
What?
Let me tell you, Fred!
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no!
from la Shaun.
Super, it's nobody.
Well stop.
Stop.
It's the one.
Few moments.
People pregunt.
Me good, not his mother can I now?
Most of you lead by this network.
His dude was speaking peace.
His dude was speaking peace.
Watch out, yeah.
Watch out.
It's alright.
It's alright.
*music* We're all here together, okay?
Indeed, it's something like the late 1960s when a homicidal maniac wanted to inspire a race riot to bring in the age of Aquarius.
Old Charlie Manson.
That was the last time we had riots like these, but at least those riots appeared to be limited to that community and issues raised in that community, though it helped devastate those communities ultimately.
We'll get to that in the later part of the hour.
But it is a reminder of the sort of helter-skelter mindset and mentality, as captured well here by Paul Watson in video clip number eight.
David Proctor.
David,
I mean, I know you're a sophisticated guy.
The world is a mess.
The world is as angry as it gets.
Or you think this is going to cause a little more anger?
The world is an angry place.
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
And as you see, Gotham is burning.
Black-roofed country.
No gold payments.
I'm tired.
I'm tired.
Stop laughing, you freak.
This isn't funny.
I want to be clear in how I characterize this.
This is mostly a protest.
Bruh.
It is not, generally speaking, unruly.
It is not unruly.
It is not unruly.
Bruh.
Rioters set the city's 3rd precinct police station on fire.
It is not unruly. It is not unruly.
It is not unruly.
Fuck 12!
Fuck 12!
Block 12!
It is not unruly.
I have never seen anything like this.
The building's beginning to collapse!
The building is collapsing!
The building just exploded!
Oh my god!
It is not unruly.
Sure, Dan.
We're here to celebrate diversity.
I fell into a burning ring of...
We are the closest fan in the crowd, ladies and gentlemen!
It's real bogus.
Wow!
They gotta get it right.
I mean, otherwise, this was gonna happen.
Ain't nothing left here, so when we start coming to the suburbs, when we come to the government center, then what's all gonna do?
You see what I'm saying?
When we start coming to the suburbs... Then we had the job of getting acquainted with our new neighborhood.
Meeting our neighbors.
Making friends with the people we'd be living close to, probably for the rest of our lives.
When we start coming to the suburbs!
The attractive home of John and Margaret Bryant.
The home they've always dreamed of.
The happiest investment they have ever made.
When we start coming to the suburbs!
Because next time, this is your motherfucking house!
We're coming to your fucking house!
The fact is, we weren't strangers very long.
Those neighbors of ours, working people like myself, made us feel at home right off.
We're coming to your fucking house!
When we start coming to the suburbs!
Did you hear about it?
That's life.
That's what all the people say.
You're riding high in April.
Shot down in May.
But I- Hey!
Hey, hey.
Hey!
She got a knife.
She got a knife.
Hey, hey.
She got a knife!
- Did it, Patrick! Patrick!
We saved the city!
Today, we found Corboy Bala, who invested his life savings into opening this sports bar, cleaning up.
While our camera was there, looters came back to try to steal his safe.
Right!
Try to steal the safe!
I don't know what we're gonna do.
It's so hard to game.
So hard.
The conservative target defender fears the Leninist, but you can only expropriate the capital of corporations if I deem your motives rationally justified.
And these people don't give a damn about George Floyd.
I go, hell, leave this shit alone.
These motherfuckers need to go home.
The conservative target defender fears the Leninist, but you can only expropriate the capital of corporations if I deem your motives rationally justified.
Nope.
That's where you're wrong, Polly.
You don't need a reason to expropriate the wealth of a $58 billion company.
Cuck.
Yes, Kantbot, I'm sure as he loots the new Panasonic TX55GZ950 Biolid HDR 4K Ultra HD Smart TV, Tyrone is feeling morally fortified and vehemently righteous in knowing that he is expropriating wealth from a $58 billion company and she-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e Just because of five minutes of horror.
But 400 years. - Damn, we got four.
- We're black, kids, quick, kids, quick. - Wow, wow. - But 400 years.
In respect and support of my black owls and friends and family, I will not be tweeting on May 31st.
I will be retweeting tweets that recognize them and give them the spotlight they deserve.
But I will not be tweeting and everyone who isn't black.
You shouldn't, either.
You win!
There's nothing I'd rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account.
A bunch of undercover cops were the main ones starting the arsons.
Spread the word.
Y'all really think black people would burn down affordable housing?
Full of low-income families and disabled people.
If you don't believe undercover cops burned down the Target, you have to know they did this shit.
sure dan so even the most liberal well-intentioned white person has a a a virus uh in his or her brain
Now this isn't to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American Young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system.
that they're disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence.
It's absolutely crucial for you to help me fight the war on free speech by supporting me via Subscribestar.
Link in description.
No doubt, that is the world in which we reside, and the question is why?
Why was BLM so easily an accomplice, an aider, and a better of Antifa's tactics and techniques in utilizing the cover and pretext of protest to be able to engage in mass looting, mass arson, mass assaults, mass burglary, mass criminal behavior, to try to attack and destabilize local police forces and the government?
Well, that's because BLM is not a real civil rights group.
BLM was created by someone whose master was literally in social justice.
It was created by people who are not rooted in the civil rights community.
For example, if you are rooted in the civil rights community, the most prominent and most successful organization in American history has been the Black Church.
The Black Church is predominantly Protestant, predominantly Evangelical, predominantly culturally conservative, but they are rooted in their community going back centuries.
They have real strength, real organizational power.
Martin Luther King came out of the Black Church.
That is how he was able to mobilize and motivate millions of Americans across the racial divide to unite behind civil rights calls and unite behind civil rights solutions.
In the same context, even the Nation of Islam, the Black Nation of Islam has equally recognized the same techniques and tactics as the Black Church.
And that is why Malcolm X, while believing in arming yourself for self-defense, did not want violent protests to ever occur, and you won't find a violent protest that took place under the watch of Malcolm X. In the same, both of them were brilliant at organizing people politically, oriented towards civil rights solutions, not just rhetoric and language and political partisan power, but instead where their goals and their objectives were to have meaningful change.
Both preached self-empowerment as a critical and essential component of that.
The goal being to bring the communities together and to bring the black community out of poverty, bring the black community out of political disadvantage and disability and economic hardship that they suffered in the 1960s.
By contrast, the Black Lives Matter group has no organization within the black church, doesn't come from the black church, doesn't participate or work with the black church in any meaningful manner in its organizational hierarchy.
Indeed, the second group you would look for for true civil rights solutions within an organic, authentic civil rights group driven by and directed by civil rights would be black businesses.
This would include restaurateurs, gym owners, other business people across the entire business spectrum, of which there are millions across the country.
Construction company owners, distributors, truck drivers, you name it.
People who have the means and the wherewithal, both financially and institutionally, to support organization to change things for civil rights.
People who are also rooted in their local community, who know what the highlighted concerns are, who know the best approaches to take.
There again, you will find none of these people involved in the hierarchy of the organization or orchestration or founding of the Black Lives Matter group.
Third, you would look for policy analysts, civil rights lawyers who've been on the front lines, people like myself and others all across the country who've been doing civil rights suits for more than 20 years, people who have familiarity through those court cases, through those litigation, through the discovery that takes place in those cases, to know where are the problems, what are the solutions.
Again, if your objective is, let's have a more united country, let's have a less divisive country, let's have a country that solves its problems, that cures its defects, then that would be part of your objective.
You would also bring in policy analysts.
Many of those policy analysts share the left-wing objectives of BLM, but they're people that are familiar with where the problem really is versus where the problem really is not.
They understand that racial animus does not motivate a lot of police abuse and misconduct.
It involves Police union contracts that cover for bad cops.
It involves training mechanisms that fail to screen effectively for problematic police officers with personality disorders and sociopathic proclivities.
It involves police and prosecutors covering up for misconduct and malfeasance in their office.
It involves things like that.
But that's the kind of institutional reform the BLM would pursue if They brought civil rights lawyers and policy analysts into the equation.
There again, they're completely missing from the hierarchy of Black Lives Matter.
You won't find the black church involved.
You won't find black businesses involved.
You won't find prominent civil rights lawyers or public policy analysts involved.
That's because BLM isn't about civil rights.
BLM doesn't care about civil rights.
They chose the label, the title, Black Lives Matter, as an inherently exclusionary title, meant to promote racial divisiveness as a political objective to seek partisan power, not to seek meaningful uniting of the country, not to cure and heal the racial divides in the country, not to provide any policy solutions.
That's why they excluded the black church from meaningful participation in its organization and orchestration.
Well, they have achieved a lot of prominent success from big neoliberal foundations and major corporations.
And you have to ask yourself, what's their objective involved in this process?
People like Target and the rest happy to virtue signal their support.
People like Airbnb sending out emails about how they're happy to virtue signal their support.
But not take on meaningful institutional reform.
As Dr. King said a long time ago, that would require a major restructuring of economic and political power.
And that is something that they're not actually interested in fundamentally.
They want virtue signaling for the perspective of an identity politics that continues to keep Black America as a politically dependent class within the Democratic Party apparatus.
Because the moment they achieve meaningful success, the moment they achieve equality, Is the moment they lose their power base, is the moment they lose their pretext and excuse for obtaining and seizing power and prominence.
That's why if you look at the biographical profiles of those who founded BLM, you won't find the black church in that history, you won't find black businesses in that history, you won't find organic civil rights support in that history, you won't find civil rights lawyers in that history, you won't find policy analysts in that history.
And if you once you knew that, you could predict and forecast that they would be happy to join the Joker Jubilee in creating chaos and anarchy and violence across the United States because they are happy to accommodate Antifa's objectives because ideologically they share many of the same political perspectives.
They are not seeking political reform.
They are seeking their own form of political revolution.
But a revolution that is not real in restructuring power, but instead inflames prejudices and inflames injustices.
Continue.
Come back after the break and we'll get into more as to how BLM is a fake civil rights group.
Welcome back to American Countdown.
We want you to continue to support our sponsor that makes this show possible.
Critically important is independent information and news in an era and age that if you picked up a lot of Twitter feeds or if you only followed those kind of folks on social media, the institutional press, The gated institutional narrative about all of this is that there are just nice, non-violent, peaceful protesters out and about who are just being randomly attacked by the police, and the crazy president, Orange Man Bad, is sending in the military to go and just shoot all of them.
That is the message that the mainstream press would like to spread.
You saw it there in that one video where the MSNBC person, while literally standing in front of a burning building, is sitting there telling everybody, nothing's unruly here, everything's cool and kosher, everything's fine.
That's the mindset and the mentality coming out from the institutional press.
In fact, you have friends of mine across the country, on the political left, who follow the mainstream press, who are unaware that many riots are even occurring.
They just think the police are going out attacking and hurting people randomly for no good cause, other than to suppress civil rights and civil liberties in the country.
One of these fake narratives that was spread by the press yesterday was that when the president walked across the street to St.
John's Church, that before that happened, in order to create that photo opportunity, the president had sent people out to tear gas and send pepper bullets into the local protest community.
That was in fact entirely false.
What they did is they cleared them out after they discovered weapons were present, and they started throwing bottles at Secret Service members and other law enforcement members.
Then they cleared them out.
It had nothing to do with the president walking across.
He was happy to do so, even in the face of potential confrontation and violence.
That takes us back to another time when the president did so, which we'll get to a little bit later.
But we do encourage you, the only way this show can stay alive is if you support the sponsor of the show that supports a wide range of independent broadcasts.
You can go to Infowarsstore.com and currently things are on sale from anywhere from 60% off to as much as 100% off.
So a wide range of sales are taking place on things like air filters, things like protein bars that I buy, things like coffee, things like various forms of health supplements to help you sleep.
Which might be useful these days in the current environment, depending on which city and town you're living in, or a wide range of other things that are good for your health.
It's a place where you can get healthier, wealthier, and wiser because you buy things that are good for your health, you get them at a discount, and you help support a network that provides independent information where you, the audience, get to choose what you want to see, what you want to review, what you want to read, what you want to hear.
That's what makes this possible.
So we continue to encourage your support of our sponsor to make this show a practical reality and to break through the gated institutional narrative that wants to suppress and oppress the truth in the name of its political partisan causes.
In that same context, there is background and information to understand the actual solutions do exist.
Solutions you oddly won't find on BLM's website.
If you go to BLM's website and you go through their co-founders, you'll discover that mostly what they're rooted in is theater.
What they're rooted in is art.
These are people who are designed to create sort of live public performance displays for political objectives.
These are people who are not necessarily as motivated to actually create real policy change that leads to real reform that leads to institutional change that helps the people they claim to serve.
For example, Patrice Concolores is an artist first.
That's how she first describes herself.
Then you get the organizer, and then the language freedom fighter, whatever that means.
We'll get into how many of these people are inspired, connected to Antifa and other groups, are inspired by Che Guevara's Guerrilla Warfare book, which is in fact actually a very poor text on guerrilla warfare.
We'll discuss that in the bottom half of the hour, when we'll take your calls as well.
Uh, and she's the founder of Black Lives Matter.
And what's her background?
Civil rights lawsuits, uh, uh, civil rights organization and active participation in meaningful change, the, uh, the black church, the black business community.
No, she has no history in any of that.
Her history is on multi, unquote, multimedia performance art pieces.
That's the founder of Black Lives Matter.
Is that someone that's going to be a civil rights organization?
Co-founder is Alicia Garza.
Again, writer, public speaker, special projects director for certain different groups in the country.
And, you know, talks again about how her work has received numerous recognitions, about how part of the Black Girl Rock Awards, the New Guard Awards, Glamour Awards, this is not necessarily rooted in the black church, black business, civil rights lawyers, or policy analysts, or the kind of community that is likely to bring real institutional reform and change.
She also talks about how she's Here's the kind of language you get on BLM's website to give you an idea that this is not so much a MLK-rooted organization, a Malcolm X-oriented institution.
Most important, this co-founder explains, as a queer black woman, her leadership and work challenged the misconception that only cisgender black men encounter police and state violence.
So this is someone who's not at all, this is someone rooted in identity politics of the academic left, not someone rooted in the civil rights community of the real world of African American life.
Opal Temedi is a third founder, a Nigerian-American writer, talks about how she's really good at creating social media strategies and online platforms, creating a national network, and uses the same language and rhetoric, talks about how she's heavily involved in immigration groups.
Indeed, if you go to their action, you go to the BLM page, you think you'd find, okay, here's a bunch of civil rights cases that I should follow about exposing the problem.
Nope, you won't find that.
Oh, well, maybe I'll find a bunch of policy analysis from a wide range of civil rights lawyers and other analysts from across the ideological political spectrum talking about what the problem is and how we can solve it.
Nope, won't find that.
Maybe you'll find some historical context.
What happened in the riots in Newark in 1967 and Detroit in 1967 that led to those communities being wiped out for 50 years.
While some on the left celebrated those riots as revolutionary and insurrectionary acts that in turn led to black political power in those cities, what the rest of the world remembers is that for 50 years the last place you wanted to move to was Newark and Detroit.
Was anybody sitting around ever thinking, man, I can't wait to move to Newark.
I can't wait to put my business into Detroit.
These were towns and cities that were thriving working class communities for the better part of a half a century until those riots helped devastate the political credibility of those towns as places to live in, work in, or set up shop in.
And so those people who knew that historical context would know riots almost always backfire on the goals of civil rights and civil liberties.
Yet you won't find any of that history on BLM's site.
The supposed lead civil rights organization, according to the Van Joneses and the rest of the world, is an organization that is not rooted or steeped in civil rights at all.
Not civil rights history, not civil rights organization, not civil rights success, not civil rights reform, none of it.
And instead, in fact, if you go into many of their action points, and what they've been active doing, it usually involves helping illegal immigration, Which is disproportionately not a civil rights matter, or disproportionately helping various gay and transgender movements.
Also not a disproportionate black civil rights matter.
So this is an organization that is not dedicated, not committed, to meaningful institutional civil rights reform.
That's why they've, in fact many of them, are hostile to the black church.
The leading organization for civil rights in the country has been the Black Church, but the so-called leading organization for civil rights today is hostile repeatedly to the Black Church as an institution and its individuals.
They don't share its beliefs.
In fact, they're adverse to its beliefs.
This is why BLM is not a legitimate civil rights group rooted and steeped in civil rights history.
It is a political group seeking identity politics as a means of solution and resolution.
Seeing various forms of political action as theater, seeing something that will go viral on social media, something as art, something as performance art, something like a live Joker in real time.
That is the origin of BLM and its organizers and its key founders.
That's their mindset, that's their mentality, that's their history, that's their known expertise.
So that is why they are happy to go hand-in-hand with the Antifas of the world to create the Joker Jubilee of performance art we've been witnessing over the past four days.
They are not concerned with motivating civil rights change.
Indeed, if anything, the Floyd case presented a potential risk to them.
Because Floyd was a uniting case.
A case where people could say we have systematic issues with civil rights with a portion of the police force in our country that we need to fix.
But if you dug into the George Floyd case, who would you find as key culprits?
A Democratic District Attorney, who later became the Democratic United States Senator from Minnesota, who right now, who was a Democratic presidential candidate, who right now is a leading vice presidential pick for Joe Biden, and to be the de facto President of the United States.
Because you know who it was that let that cop back on the street?
Who killed George Floyd, or at least was partially responsible for his death?
At least excessive force, whatever the autopsy says.
The autopsy doesn't have a conclusion about what the primal cause was, what the primary cause was, but it recognizes that the use of force may have exacerbated the health condition that George Floyd was already experiencing at the time.
Indeed, the police were called to the scene because George Floyd was clearly exhibiting signs of mental and physical distress, according to the 911 caller.
The 911 caller mostly called them not because they were mad about the crime being committed, which is relatively minor, a small counterfeit bill for some cigarettes.
It was because he was, quote, acting weird.
They thought there was something wrong with him.
And so instead of treating it like a mental health, physical health emergency, the police officers that showed up decided to treat it as an opportunity to show George Floyd, who's boss.
And that police officer who had his knee on his neck in such a casual, calm and cool manner for almost nine minutes is someone who they knew he was dead before they even brought in the ambulance.
And the ambulance didn't appear to have medical personnel, it appeared to have police personnel to disguise the fact that he was already dead at the scene.
But you can see that from them checking his pulse at the scene.
These are people that were accustomed to it, particularly the lead officer.
So, as I told people at the time, the history of civil rights abuse, all you have to do is track the history of that officer.
They will have had a history of complaints.
They will have had a history of problems.
They will have had a history of issues.
And that was precisely the case with that lead officer.
Indeed, he was up for potential termination as civil action and criminal prosecution almost a decade before.
But you know who was the prosecutor who protected him?
The prosecutor who defended him?
The prosecutor who got him off the hook?
The prosecutor who put him back on that street to do what he did to George Floyd?
Amy Klobuchar.
Amy Klobuchar, now the senator from Minnesota.
Amy Klobuchar, the popular, the New York Times-endorsed candidate for the presidency of the United States.
Amy Klobuchar, one of the leading people to be Vice President for Joe Biden, and everybody knows given how senile Joe is, that means that she would be the de facto President of the United States.
You see, that George Floyd story could not be meaningfully investigated, because it would be a uniting case, number one, And number two, it would be a case, it's called divide and conquer for a reason.
You don't unite and conquer.
So these people pursuing divisive politics don't like uniting cases as step one.
That's why they push Ahmaud Arbery, that's why they push Trayvion Martin, that's why they push Mike Brown.
Indeed, the two cases cited by BLM, Mike Brown and Trayvion Martin, two of the worst cases ever brought as evidence of abuse of conduct.
In one case, not even a police officer.
And in neither case did it support the racial abuse narrative that the BLM propagated and pushed to the world.
But the second problem, which was even more significant, even more consequential for the Democratic Party, that needs a dependent, identity-driven African-American community to maintain and sustain their power in cities, counties, and states, and potentially the country.
The problem, too, was going to be it was going to be a leader of the Democratic Party that was going to be exposed.
It's the Democratic Senator.
Like Kamala Harris, who was Attorney General in California, repeatedly covered up police corruption, repeatedly covered up prosecutorial corruption, repeatedly covered up government corruption, covered up corruption involving CalPERS in a near $1 billion transaction, where the money disappeared, thanks to its connections to a construction company and entities that ultimately ended up having ties to other Democratic politicians in California, now subject to a key-tam suit.
I know about it because I'm the one bringing that key-tam suit.
to expose the fraud and corruption that took place there.
Kamala Harris has a similar path, a similar past as Amy Klobuchar.
So this is why institutional reform couldn't happen, because if George Floyd case moved on, moved on its own accord, moved forward on its own terms, what would be revealed, what would be exposed is the Democratic Party's deep connection to police corruption in major cities.
The Democratic Party's deep connection to prosecutorial corruption and the cover-up of police corruption in major cities, in major counties, in major states.
It would put the record of people like Amy Klobuchar directly on high-profile blast, but it would also ultimately lead to questions about the people like Kamala Harris and others as well.
That the Democratic Party partisans and the racially divisive political agitators organized on their behalf could not let stand.
So is it a coincidence that they then so quickly and easily tried to divert the world's attention under the guise of a George Floyd protest to create riots, to create looting, to let Antifa run loose and aflame the country while trying to continue to build a bogus narrative that was against the president.
Most likely it's not, because BLM is a political group.
A group organized by racial identity politics and other forms of identity politics, that is not meant to empower people, but to disempower them.
To make them victims, not make them people in charge of their own affairs.
Go back and listen to Dr. King, or go back and listen to Malcolm X. Malcolm X famously, in one of his speeches, would go on about, don't complain to me about racism in the world, when you can set up a factory as much as any white man can set up a factory.
That was the self-empowerment message of Malcolm X. The self-empowerment message of Martin Luther King.
That's a message that doesn't work if you need a dependent political group.
Understand that for a long time, once African-Americans could vote after the Civil War in certain parts of the country, but not many, thanks to the Compromise of 1876 that gave us the Posse Comitatus Act of 1877, that then gave us the Klan of 1878 through 1968 or thereabouts. that then gave us the Klan of 1878 through 1968 Those policies were deliberately chosen and picked to promote a certain political agenda.
The Republican Party maintained the support of African-American voters, even in 1932, in the middle of a depression.
The way they did so was by making African-American voters feel that they were under constant attack, number one, that they were under attack because of their identity, number two, and that their only solution was, at that time, the Republican Party, number three.
The Democratic Party just flipped the script.
The Democratic Party said, no, we will be your protectors.
But in order to maintain the 90 percent level voting thresholds within the African-American community, they need the African-American community to stay dependent and to stay organized around their racial identity.
If, instead, they vote based on their cultural beliefs, if they vote based on their economic self-interest, they may vote differently.
And that doesn't help the Democratic Party.
If the Democratic Party actually achieved any success at empowering the African-American community, the African-American community, like the immigrant community of the 1930s, who became Republican in the 1970s, would no longer need them in order to achieve protection.
That's why they need them to stay dependent.
And in order to stay dependent, they need to not have policy successes.
And that is why it has gone on the way it has.
But there are, in fact, meaningful solutions out there.
There are, in fact, meaningful resolutions out there.
There are, in fact, meaningful remedies out there.
And that is why, in this context, we have to not allow what we're seeing on the streets to dominate our perception of future events and not let us influence us unduly.
Let's take a look at video clip number 10.
So what we have there is we have shootings happening in St. Louis.
Louis, cops being shot at.
Let's take a look at video clip number 11, where a man just trying to defend his business is attacked and assaulted.
What are you doing?
Hey, somebody.
But what?
Oh my god!
Are you okay?
That's the Joker Jubilee unleashed by the BLM-type organizations, the Antifa-type organizations who did so deliberately and overtly.
Not everyone in BLM shares those kind of objectives, but many of its founders and orchestrators and organizers do.
And that is why we're seeing what we're witnessing across the country, destabilizing the country and also in the same time frame, losing the confidence of a potential meaningful civil rights reform right on the eve of that happening, right on the cusp of that happening.
That didn't happen because of what has taken place over the last couple of weeks, as we see across the country.
We see in New York, we see in Detroit, we see in Chicago, we see even in places like Fargo and Grand Rapids, Michigan.
But this was not, in fact, a necessary outcome or a necessary result to what took place.
If we study the actual data in the documents, we have, for example, an African American Harvard professor Put out an empirical analysis of racial differences in police use of force in July of 2017.
And it's a detailed paper.
And what he did is he made meaningful statistical analysis using all of the available data to determine whether or not racial animus or racial discrimination could be an explanation for any police misconduct or officer-involved shootings that occurs.
And what he found was racial differences could not explain it.
That in fact racial animus could not be behind it.
That instead, certain problematic patterns of police officers with a certain subset of the police, and not by any means a majority, but basically you have about 5% of cops in a lot of precincts who are bad.
Some of them are sociopaths, some of them are just trigger happy.
You have up to another 10-15% who can be bad under the wrong set of circumstances or situation.
What Professor Fryer detailed was how in fact that is the issue.
Not the issue of a racial identity driven politics.
So the reason why BLM can't involve people like Professor Fryer is because he refutes the entire assumption of their existence.
All lives do matter.
Black lives do matter.
Blue lives matter.
Everybody's life matters.
There is no life that doesn't matter.
And police abuse takes place and they don't care whether you're white or Hispanic or black.
But the abusive, sociopathic cop, or the trigger-happy cop, or the cop that's not good at handling escalating situations, or the cop around those bad cops who acts bad because he witnesses and sees it?
That's the problem, and it's a problem that's not rooted in identity politics and can't be cured with partisan elections of particular people in office.
Instead, in fact, that was the conclusion from the article and from the details as even the NPR, National Public Radio, a liberal-leaning organization, also ultimately concluded.
What they noted is, quote, new study says white police officers are not more likely to shoot minority suspects.
Indeed, last year, if you were an African-American man, you were more at risk of dying from a wasp, bee or hornet sting than you were from a police shooting as an unarmed individual.
Once you factored out whether both sides were armed, whether or not the what the nature of the conflict and confrontation was, once you looked at the data and dug into it, as the Harvard professor did, you find the issues are issues within police misconduct.
Issues are not racially disparate or racially discriminatory as their explanation.
Indeed, if we look at people shot to death by U.S.
police by race from 2017 to 2020, you can get the data at statista.com, and we look at the chart for that, we'll find that in fact, first of all, the predominant number of unarmed people shot by police are white.
It's usually a majority of the people shot each year.
It will vary because there really aren't that many police shootings that even occur, particularly if you look at unarmed individuals.
And that's been true every single year.
Indeed, the racial proportion of those shot will be proportionate to those arrested for violent crime.
So, the issue is not an issue when a police shooting or police beating occurs.
The issue is not one of race, typically.
That doesn't mean it never happens.
There are clearly cases of racial discrimination and racial prejudice that occur.
It's just not the most common or most likely explanation most of the time.
Most of the time.
And here's where the data has been very helpful about what solutions, in fact, do exist.
There are solutions that have been described by economists, by political scientists, by sociologists, by police experts.
There are people that used to be cops for 20 years that have gone in this field to study it, that have come up with resolutions that work.
As a civil rights lawyer for 20 years, I know what many of those solutions are because I try to get police departments and other law enforcement to follow them in the suits that I bring.
The goal is to bring institutional reform, not to have a Joker Jubilee and a performance art piece for Instagram and social media like BLM and Antifa have been propagating for the last several days.
When we come back, we're going to be taking your calls.
what your questions are and what your inquiries are and what you want to have answered.
So call in.
You can call in at 877-789-2539.
That's 877-789-2539.
Or if you're calling in internationally, it can be 512-646-1776.
That's if you're calling internationally, 512-646-1776.
So call in and we'll listen to what you have to say.
We've been getting great questions and great inquiries and great information.
Maybe you just have something you want to participate in, something you want to contribute to the conversation.
Because what we need is more dialogue, debate, and discussion, more policy solution and resolution, and less political theater, and fewer Joker Jubilees.
British are coming.
The British are coming.
You are about to be part of a great debate.
And one more.
America first.
And the clock.
What's your country?
Welcome back to American Countdown.
We'll be taking your calls this hour as we get into some of these issues and questions and conversations.
You can call in at 877-789-2539.
That's 877-789-2539 and we'll be answering some of your questions and inquiries.
That's 877-789-2539.
And we'll be answering some of your questions and inquiries.
In addition, I told people that if they actually went to ban.video in the American Countdown section and commented therein, I would be answering some of your questions tonight as well for those that had such questions asked.
So to respond to one of those from GoldChaos, is there a way to legally go after the media and the politicians for supporting an international terrorist organization and their operations on U.S.
soil?
If that is possible, this could be a great opportunity.
Mr. Floyd then would not have died in vain.
I mean already his death is helping America get rid of certain agents and organizations.
But can we go further, get rid of the media, arrest politicians, or at least charge them all with something?
So the natural frustration of those who have been sort of complicit or participant at some level or some layer with the activities that have taken place over the last four or five days is natural.
Now as a practical matter, the media for the most part, it's difficult to sue unless you can show overt complicity.
So unless you can show overt cooperation, overt complicity, you had some high-profile lawyers who were actually involved with the violence in New York City who have been arrested.
The question will be whether you had media co-participants involved.
And so if there were media co-participants involved, then they can in fact be subject to potential investigation themselves.
Well, we want to limit the scope of that so that it's not misused or abused to go after people simply for the expression of speech.
We want to maintain the freedom of both speech and the press in the United States, so we need to make sure the manner and mechanism of our reaction, our mode of reaction, does not invite or create its own problems and question our own constitutional history and heritage.
It should be our guidepost as we go about dealing with these matters and not be tricked or tempted into uh, undermining those constitutional protections because it may seem momentarily or temporarily useful or helpful.
Uh, so that's a good question.
And, and as in, people can continue to call in and we'll start to take a year calls and get into some of those matters.
Um, and, but in that context, there is a better sort of bigger, broader context also to get into as it relates to groups like BLM in part more in TFA specifically.
Uh, But Antifa has tried to cabin and control its behavior to mostly street theater and street violence as a sort of form of performative art and political destabilization.
A professor, Mark Bray, up at, was at Dartmouth, wrote a book that he himself called the Antifa Handbook that was meant to celebrate them and sort of give them a hagiographic imagery.
They think they're part of a revolutionary insurrectionary movement that is going to be taking out the Nazis and the fascists.
That's how they justify to themselves and to the world their course of conduct.
But their real history tends to have a darker turn.
Indeed, as has been acknowledged by those who understand and have read Antifa's history, their orientation goes back to the communist street violence of the 30s, 40s, and 50s.
And that ultimately led to a much more dangerous group.
Groups like the Red Brigades.
Groups like the Red Liberation Army.
In places like Germany.
In places like Italy.
Let me show you a part of a documentary from that time period called Age of Terror that gets into some of the history of some of how the mindset of that, we're going to resist the fascists, led to particularly dangerous and dark turns of that kind of violent leftist insurrectionary logic.
Let's play video clip number one.
30 years ago, Europe was hit by a new type of terrorist.
Young, idealistic, left-wing, and incredibly violent.
For the Red Terrorists, revolution was the end, and any means were justified in reaching it.
From eight people involved, eight people said, yes, he has to die.
There were two of us shooting into each car.
I've got to say to myself that I killed two people.
This is the story of how revolutionary dreams turned to terror.
Of the terrorists who murdered and maimed in the name of revolution.
and of their successors who continue the struggle to this day.
The story begins here.
This is Cuba.
To some, a land of salsa, sun and cigars.
To others, the birthplace of a brand of far-left revolution which has been exported from Berlin to Bogota and inspired thousands to kill.
In January 1959, two young men rode into the city of Havana.
Together with a small band of ragged revolutionaries, they'd succeeded in overthrowing Cuba's right-wing dictatorship.
One of these men, Fidel Castro, would go on to lead the Cuban nation, and for the next 40 years would become America's public enemy number one.
The other would eclipse even this.
Ernesto Che Guevara.
Guevara was mythical.
In other words, he had the ideology and the adventure.
And it doesn't get better than that.
It was a double myth.
Communism on one side, and daring on the other.
Che Guevara was immortalized by his death in 1967 while fighting for revolution in Bolivia.
He became a symbol for aspiring rebels determined to tear down capitalist states all over the world.
In fact, after Cuba, his own attempts at sparking uprisings in Africa and South America were failures.
But he left one enduring success, his writings.
Che's Guerrilla Warfare, published in 1960, became the Bible for revolution.
The year after Guevara died, 1968, the world seemed to explode.
The escalation of the war in Vietnam.
The assassination of Martin Luther King.
Soviet tanks rolling into Prague.
From Paris to Washington, students took to the streets, rallying to the image of Che and the protest songs of Bob Dylan.
They thought they could literally change the world.
Among them was a young German, Peter Jürgen Buch, who would later become a kidnapper, a bomber and a gunman.
Those young people on those days had the feeling it just need one step To reach revolution.
Many had the idea, if we wouldn't reach it, there won't be a second chance in the future.
Another young idealist was Valerio Morucci.
He would later become a terrorist assassin.
1968 exploded onto the world, and I was swept up in it.
It was like a tidal wave that carried me through to the very end.
I was a communist by nature.
But then I also had other passions.
My greatest idol back then was Bob Dylan.
Much more than Guevara.
But then Guevara was murdered and Bob Dylan wasn't.
and I was really affected by Guevara's death.
The flame of revolution was lit by different sparks in different countries across the globe. - In Germany, it was guilt about the Nazi past.
For me it all started with a conflict at home.
I asked my father what or what he didn't do in those Nazi time and as many fathers around in Germany at that time he wouldn't like to answer.
Well of course I started To put more questions to him, I was angry, I was upset about the way he tried to get away with it.
Che Guevara had written that just a small band of radicals, suitably motivated, could overthrow an entire state.
A few angry young Germans, like Peter Jürgen Buch, took this literally.
A militant left-wing group called the Red Army Faction, more commonly known by the names of two of its members, Andreas Bader and Ulrika Meinhof, was formed in 1968.
It began by setting fire to department stores and soon moved on to bombings and shootings.
Then, in 1972, after the Baader-Meinhof leaders were imprisoned, a handful of their followers began a killing spree that was to last for the next five years.
Of course we thought we had the right to change things.
Of course we thought we had to fight against those Nazi guys still in power in Germany and we had the feeling the moral is on our side and the future too.
In September 1977, Book and three others set out to kidnap a former SS officer turned industrialist, Hans Martin Schleyer.
There you get some of the background of what took place in the 1960s and 1970s when they escalated their activities to overt acts of formal terrorism and bombings and kidnappings and the like.
But they built it based on sort of a romanticization of revolution, a romanticization of Che Guevara, and taking a lot of Che's tactical guidance, which was actually terrible tactical guidance, to heart.
They really believed...
They really believe that they could effectively cause a revolution with only a small group of people.
This is the mindset that consumes this part or portion of the population.
And that's how we got to where we're at today.
So let's take some of your calls and some of your questions.
Let's start with Casey in Oklahoma.
Good afternoon.
How are you doing this evening?
Hey, doing good.
My question is, how is there so much corruption and they're getting away with it?
Who's leaving the bricks around in various cities for basically inciting riots with all the surveillance they have?
And nobody's caught?
Nobody's been brought in about it?
I'm really concerned with how the Marxists and the fascists have taken over.
They've infiltrated every level of society.
They've poisoned our children and turned them against us.
I've got three boys and I've got a little girl now.
And, uh, I'm just blown away.
My little girl will never go to public school.
I'm not- I'm not- Malcolm X said only a fool would allow his enemies to educate his children.
And I'm just so blown away by how- this younger generation is, and how they have no problem destroying the things that the future generations, even before me, have built.
And I'm tired of it.
It- I- I'm done talking.
It's- I- I don't want to be like that, but you can't reason with these people.
They're so detached from reality.
It's kind of like what you've got to do with the rabid dog back in the country.
You take them out and put two behind their head.
I'm not saying do that, but I'm just saying, there's no recourse for us.
The courts are corrupt.
The AG bar is corrupt.
No one's going after, they don't go after former presidents.
This is really disturbing.
And it's really starting to get to a point, just like Gerald Cilente said, when people lose everything, they lose it.
And a lot of Americans in my part of the country, here in Oklahoma, they're at that point.
Well, there's no doubt that that's a natural reaction and a natural response.
Let's take that part in different components.
The genius of people like King and X as well, going back to people like Gandhi, going back to the American Revolution, is that if you can find non-violent mechanisms and means of appealing to people's conscience, it is a far more effective means of institutional reform.
Our constitutional governance and guidance just needs to be applied to and appealed to.
As both Huey Long and Martin Luther King argued, that they were simply arguing not for revolution, but for a return to constitutional principle.
A return to original principle.
And that is what we need here.
We have the guideposts to govern us in meaningfully reforming our institutions to better protect our population and to better enshrine our core constitutional rights and liberties.
They're there in the Constitution, they're there in our civil rights, they're there in our civil liberties, they're there in our civil history.
We just have to continue to act on them and to do so in a manner that is most likely to be publicly persuasive.
And that manner historically has always been using the civil means of justice to attain those means of justice.
Means of organization that avoids violence and the risk that attaches to it.
Any kind of violence that takes place will ultimately almost always backfire on those who engage in it.
That's what the groups on the left figured out in the 60s and 70s and 80s.
As soon as they engaged in violent acts of insurrection, it led to the discrediting of any organization or idea they were associated or attached to.
We have to follow the same nonviolent approach, even if it may seem difficult, frustrating or exhausting to be part of, given the kinds of institutionalized corruption we see in our political arena and sometimes as well in our legal and courts arena.
But ultimately, only democratic resistance that appeals to the human conscience on a universal basis of human beings facing common conflicts and appealing to the conscience as the means of enacting and acting on that conscience to me to make meaningful reform is the only way real reform will ever come about, only democratic resistance that appeals to the human conscience on a universal basis of human beings facing common And in that context, but there is a fair question about how has this been so well organized?
Why was there nobody aware of its organization?
Can we completely rule out the possibility of infiltration in these organizations instigating these kinds of violent issues?
For example, if you go back to 2008, there are a couple of kids from Midland, Texas, who met up here in Austin, who became motivated to be part of Antifa-like groups by an FBI informant, and then led them to play in Molotov cocktails at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in 2008.
And questions later arose whether they came up with that idea or whether that entire course of conduct was inspired by an FBI informant, and whether the FBI informant helped create a reality that wouldn't otherwise exist.
We have to remember that, as we have shown on this show, as people revealed during the church committee hearings, the FBI had informants inside the Klan all the way through the 60s who knew about almost every major violent act the Klan engaged in, including bombing churches, including the beating up of the Freedom Riders. including bombing churches, including the beating up of the Freedom
And the FBI took no affirmative action and, in fact, had their own officers either, not only that it already infiltrated, either instigated, either instigated those actions, encourage those actions, engage in it themselves, or at a minimum acquiesce in it without consequence.
So we cannot completely rule out, given the long history of COINTELPRO, that goes back to the Pinkerton days as a sort of intellectual inheritors or ancestors, where they infiltrated labor union movements solely for the purposes of undermining those movements, solely for the purpose of trying to instigate unnecessary violence that would be counterproductive to those movements.
We cannot rule out that possibility given the long history of agents of either the government or other political actors doing so for their own pernicious Or personal partisan purposes.
So the in fact, in that capacity and in that context, we should look at video clip number 22, which talks about the history of agent provocateurs.
We may not have that one yet.
But the long history, the term itself, agent provocateur, says it all.
It's where an agent provokes someone to do something that they would not have otherwise done, a form of entrapment legally, to basically help discredit that particular movement.
We can just go back to the United States.
They planned on institutionalizing this in 1962 at Operation Northwoods.
Operation Northwoods was a actual, the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on it.
And it was to do false flag and staged events all across the United States, including real deaths, real murder, real mayhem, solely to use it as a pretext that they would then blame on Cuba to go into Cuba and invade Cuba.
So this reality is something we have to be aware of and the possibility of it, particularly given the context of, as the caller notes, the fact that people are showing up and dropping off pallets of bricks.
It appears to be organized.
In some cases, it appears to be white vans pulling up with the License plate blocked out, leaving the bricks for people to then use to instigate more violence, to help facilitate the tools of violence.
Whether or not there have been stand down orders or effective stand down orders in some of these cities and counties where police appear to just stand by while the rioting occurred, while the looting occurred, while the assaults occurred, while the arson occurred.
We cannot rule out the possibility, there were of course Minneapolis, people in Minneapolis who said they thought they saw undercover officers involved.
We can't completely rule out that possibility given its ugly history in America and throughout almost every government alive today or functionally today.
So there is definitely that risk and that possibility and it requires investigation both by ordinary people and hopefully by the relevant authorities.
So thanks for your call.
Let's go to John in Houston.
Hello, yes, can you hear me?
Yes, sir. - Awesome, yes, I just wanted to comment on what I just heard.
Mr. Jones figured out what company it was with the bricks.
It was a company called Acme, Acme Construction, Acme Supply and Safe.
It's a super generic name.
And basically, the conclusion there is that it definitely has some sort of deep state connection.
And the issue with all this stuff is that Obama legalized these normally illegal activities.
Am I right?
Is that why?
Wouldn't you say that that's kind of the source of all this?
So I think there's aspects to which the Obama administration greenlit a wide range of behaviors.
It effectively encouraged, incentivized the behavior and rewarded behavior like BLM, promoted BLM in a wide range of contexts, and in that capacity they did.
Legally, there's only limited steps that were taken.
I mean, there were steps to militarize some police, and that was a bad idea, and I'll get into that in a little bit.
But there's no question that there's some controversial components of that, but most of this was sort of beyond that.
What if they have told people that Donald Trump is not a legitimate president and Obama is still the president, but they're literally taking orders from Obama legally to do this stuff?
So in that capacity, I don't think it's so much to that degree.
I think it is more a component of people have been effectively taught that Trump is a Nazi.
So particularly in the Antifa world, in the Antifa world they've come to convince themselves that they're fighting Nazis, they're fighting fascists.
And some of the original leftist groups, as you saw in that documentary in Germany, were rooted in fighting actual Nazis.
But then they took it, of course, too far.
Once they greenlit violence, they became, as one of the members of the groups there in Germany himself would later admit, they became their fathers.
As he puts it.
Because they came to green light and justify extreme actions in the name of whatever cause or objective they were serving.
It's the dangerous path that that mindset and mentality inevitably and inescapably leads people on.
So in that component that's where there is real risk and real aspects to that.
But we also cannot completely rule out the possibility of agent provocateurs and their involvement potentially on some political cause's behalf or some agency's behalf.
I think we now have, let's look at video clip 22.
Thank you.
Indeed, there's a long and notorious history of agent provocateurs by those who wish to have organizations behave in a way that becomes self-discrediting.
And in this context, they didn't need a lot to instigate that because you had built up ideology within TIFA, a built-up sense of fear and frustration and futility in parts of the African-American community.
That is the classic recipe for rage.
Then you have a criminal underclass happy to utilize this as an opportunity.
In fact, if you go back to the interviews of the 1967 Newark riots, There's part of the narrative from that event that has been mostly suppressed by later academics and media types.
In fact, if you look at the history, there's documentaries like Revolution 67 done by POV for PBS and others, but they don't get into a lot of the original detail.
You can go to some of the original interviews, now available on British Path and other locations that have stored up the AP and the Reuters and other media interviews from that time period, that archive, now released for public view.
And you'll find they're interviewing people from Newark who are identifying the real sequence of what took place there.
That, in fact, there was a cab driver who was assaulted, a false rumor spread that he had been killed.
That led to some initial actions.
But as the locals said, what happened then were criminal opportunists used it as a chance to loot, and then radical political actors from outside the scene escalated the violence in the hope of creating a political result.
None of it was rooted in the local community itself.
Within the majority of the local community had no interest in it.
They were not interested in burning down stores.
They were not interested in mass looting.
They were not interested in assaults.
They were not interested in the National Guard or state police being on their streets either.
So, in fact, there is a counter-history to the official narrative that attempts to blame just the locals on a particular set of events.
Often there are outside people who are active and agitating within the local community for the purposes of attaining some ulterior political agenda, sometimes to discredit that actual organization, sometimes for a more radical agenda than has been democratically accepted by the local populace.
So, in that regard, let's go to Damien in Arizona.
Hey, how are you?
How are you doing, Robert?
Good.
Yes, hi.
This is probably a bit of a rhetorical question, because seeing as the observation proves that about 99% of governments don't really abide their oath, but too rarely mentioned items from the Constitution, Article 4, Section 1, Clause 1.
Why don't the Republicans ever challenge the Democrats who subscribe to socialism to be inviolate of 441?
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government.
If those who are animating government do not subscribe to Republican form of government, how are they even legal?
Also, the other, the second part is Bill of Attainder.
I understand the origins of it is more to do with sins of the blood, but the legal doctrine premise is to equal protection under the law.
The state cannot treat those who can be identified, be it a biological association of blood or by a volunteer group association.
So how does that not extend to treating government the same exact way where they have twisted it so much that they're now going with some entirely fictitious thing called qualified immunity?
It's maddening.
Yes, so two to those components.
A bill of attainder principle that is protected in aspects of the Constitution that prohibit both ex post facto laws and bill of attainders is to make sure that the government can't retroactively change the law on you effectively.
So that it can't go back in time and say that something that happened before is we're now going to redefine its legal nature or structure after the fact.
Ex post facto.
Bills of attainder also provide, protect against various forms of restraint on civil liberty that can occur in the Constitution, preclude certain aspects of that occurring.
The same with protecting a Republican form of government.
In the broader context, there's no question the Constitution is sort of the guidepost to prevent and preclude a lot of the illicit activities and actions that are taking place across the country.
But it's why we need to maintain it and sustain it as a guidepost in what the President does.
So, in that capacity, for example, Executive Order 1111, there's been some questions about whether the President can exercise actual constitutional authority.
Well, President Kennedy did exactly that back in 1963.
1963.
I'm going to go through what that order details and how, in fact, it affords the authority for the president to meaningfully react, to meaningfully take action that can preserve and protect people's individual civil rights and civil liberties, even when governments and local governments are refusing to do so, like Mayor D'Estasio in New York, even when governments and local governments are refusing to do so, like Mayor D'Estasio in New York, who has a position that if you try to go pray or you try to go to But if you want to go loot Fifth Avenue, well, just have at it.
And if you're a cop who tries to defend yourself, de Blasio will attack you.
Where if you're a cop who doesn't defend yourself, you just get assaulted and hurt on the streets without any meaningful remedy.
We're far days away from the days of Rudy Giuliani in New York.
It's a different kind of mayor governing there, where lawlessness is the law of the land.
When we come back, we'll talk about that and more.
Welcome back to American Countdown. - Uh, Let's go into some of the bases by which the President's actions can be taken, but before then, just a reminder to support our sponsor, InfoWarsStore.com, where you can get yourself healthier, wealthier, and wiser in one short order.
There you can find a wide range of products that support your health, both in terms of self-education and information in terms of books and materials, but also a wide range of products that are good to help you sleep, products that are good for your dietary habits, good for any of your biological needs and physical needs to support you in this time and place.
You can get things like storable food, get things like whether it's beets or whether it's any wide range of products from the red pill to the rest.
You can find things that help you, that support your physical health, your biological health.
They're all on sale as well.
Anywhere from 40, 50, 60, 70% off.
Things like air filters and the rest you can also get.
Sale continues throughout this week.
Some products are being sold out, so you still have an opportunity to get what you want.
You can also get the clothes or other things that you need.
There's even an InfoWars mask if you need one of those to be able to work or go into a local store.
So you can get all of those things at InfoWarsStore.com.
And in the process, not only do you get healthier because you have products that are good for you, wealthier because they're on discount, cheaper than the alternative, but also wiser because you're supporting independent media that allows you to be the chooser of your audience, you to be the choose, you to choose what you want to hear, what you want to read, what you want to see, what you want to listen you to choose what you want to hear, what you want to read, what you want To participate in an open debate and discussion and continue to break through the gated institutional narrative the media and the institutions would like to establish.
And it's stead in that same capacity that some aspects of the media and the press are saying that the president cannot send the can himself activate the National Guard or send in military force that's related to the National Guard.
It needs to be that because that's rooted in the Second Amendment's history of the militia.
The National Guard is locally rooted and locally connected.
They're the ones that are best equipped, best able, and the constitutionally authorized one to act in these kind of times.
But there's no question the President has the power to do so.
Indeed, let's go through and go back through Executive Order 11111 that President John Kennedy signed in 1963.
Explaining why he was doing what the president is now considering doing across the country, where needed and necessary, where the mayors and governors refuse to call in the National Guard, as is the case in New York and in other parts of the country.
President Kennedy laid out, whereas on June 11, 1963, I issued a proclamation, whereas the commands contained in that proclamation have not been obeyed, and there have been unlawful obstructions of justice, and combinations referred to therein continue,
That through the laws authorized to him, and these included the Insurrection Act of 1807, which has been adopted at the time, in conformity with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1877, in conformity with other laws that have been passed during the time frame as well, to make sure the military force is limited in its use to only the National Guard, to in that state, to not doing policing activities, to simply dispersing
Uh, rioters or looters and simply supporting the local police and making sure the laws are upheld.
He, in this order, he said the Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to remove obstructions of justice in the state of Alabama, to enforce the laws of the United States in Alabama, including to suppress unlawful assemblies, unlawful combinations, unlawful conspiracies, and unlawful domestic violence.
Which opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws within that state.
So the President can simply use the exact same language as President John Kennedy from his Executive Order 11111 to activate the National Guard in any city, county, or state where they are not bringing it in on their own accord.
They have that power as well.
The President can send them in where the Governor chooses to activate them or the Mayor requests it.
But where they're not doing so, he has the clear authority and can use the same plain language that President Kennedy used All right, yeah, I want to talk about Antifa briefly.
I think a lot of people, I've heard plenty about them over the last couple years or more.
to Joel in Ohio.
- You here? - Yes, sir. - All right, yeah, I want to talk about Antifa briefly.
I think a lot of people, I've heard plenty about them over the last couple years or more.
And what I remember is they weren't really this super organized organization that could pull off something like the Antifa.
And now we're looking at them and all of a sudden they're completely organized, completely funded.
I mean, yeah, they put out bulletins and stuff on them, but there's something else going on.
These people behind the scenes, the invisible enemies are pulling the strings and all this.
I think they've just been recruiting all these people and the poor people that are actually out in the scenes that these events are taking place in.
Are none the wiser, and they're just as much a victim as everybody else in all this.
But, not so much focusing on Antifa, I wanted to bring up the blueprints that I'm seeing with the counterattack to the Antifa that they're seemingly staging right now.
I don't know if you have heard about them, but the Boogaloo Boys, or the Boogaloo Movement, I mean, have you heard about this?
I don't think I have, no.
Well, I just heard about it today, actually.
So I started looking into it, and there was a old school bus painted with graffiti and different stuff that was pulled over and confiscated in Columbus, Ohio by the Columbus Police Department.
And inside that bus, they found tons of different weapons.
They said bats, meat cleavers, hatchets, other projectiles.
And now they're claiming that, or some of the news outlets in Ohio are claiming that that bus belongs to this group called the Boogaloo Boys.
And if you start pulling that up on your search media there, you'll find out that they're blaming this movement that appears to be constructed by the FBI, that they are Part of 4chan, 8chan, and they also throw in a bunch of innuendos that they're somehow connected to InfoWars.
So, I looked into it, I couldn't find anything about them, and all the people that are saying that they're this extremist right-wing group also admit that they're a new group and they've only been around for a few months.
And that they're planning a civil unrest attack and are going to shoot cops and all this other stuff.
Like, it just seems, and the only, when you start looking for it, the only thing you'll find is a handful of FBI arrests.
Now, we've all seen this before where the FBI sets up a fake hate group and plants the attacks on somebody that has nothing to do with it.
Oh yeah, I mean that's the long history of the federal law enforcement in various capacity, whether it was the Bureau of Narcotics.
For example, the OSS recruited many of their original officers, particularly for those that would be engaged in the most criminal kind of behavior from the Bureau of Narcotics, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
They were deeply involved and embedded with the CIA and with parts of the Army.
In doing MKUltra mind-experimenting projects throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s and even 70s until exposed by the Church Committee and by, in part, the COINTELPRO expose that took place because some folks decided to walk into the media Pennsylvania FBI offices late after dark and ended up discovering a bunch of files that they disclosed to the world.
And so only because of that do we fully know them.
So we know governments are fully able and capable of doing this kind of thing.
And we have to definitely be cognizant of this risk.
Because a lot of people are going to want to use the rioting and the looting and the arsons and what's taking place, the political destabilization, as a moment of opportunity.
Not only do you have the sort of radicals on the left who see it as an insurrectionary opportunity and the rest, you're going to have people within institutional sources of power who have their own agenda afoot.
And in particular, that's what, to me, raised questions about using any form of rioting-type violence as a means of political success, while there's been this false biography and false narrative, both within the Academy, within history, within the media, to push these riots in the past as somehow being politically successful.
When mostly they have been political abominable failures, should highlight and spotlight the risk attendant to that kind of method of operation.
And anybody knowledgeable would in fact react that way.
That's why you had UFC fighters like Chuck Liddell and John Jones trying to stop the violence out actually on the street.
Trying to do so.
You had J.R.
Smith reacting to someone trying to invade his car.
So you've had this history of people who recognize this method and mechanism of street violence does not achieve the kind of success that they may want to have happen.
So they've learned the wrong lesson.
So that could explain part of what's taking place.
But I agree, the degree of organization and sophistication to what is occurring, to now some of these false groups being blamed.
Remember, initially right away it's people out there, Susan Rice and the rest, blaming foreign governments, blaming Russia.
I know people who, there's been people in the intel community been trying to say it's either the Chinese government or the Russian government or whomever they don't like, pushing that they are somehow involved There was someone purportedly using Mandarin Chinese that was outside of the protest outside the White House, that kind of behavior.
Then there's additional people who want to source it to other locations.
And remember, initially, the media, CBS, other people, the mayor of Minneapolis, tried to blame white racist groups, which was really sort of nuts.
The ability to claim that the Klan had secretly infiltrated Antifa and was doing this violence was very low likelihood.
but the reality is that-- - Well, they switched from Antifa now That's why I brought up the whole, this Boogaloo movement.
They're, I encouraged the Infor's crew and the listeners to look it up.
And there's tons of articles today and yesterday and even from like a week or two ago.
And if you take the time to actually read through all of it, they're insinuating that even the Q movement is part of these nut jobs.
And they're saying they want to kill cops and start a civil war.
To bring down the establishment and that they're pro-gun supporters and all this stuff.
And basically it's the polar opposite of what all these people believe in.
We would never go out and attack cops.
We would never go out and shoot innocent people.
But look up the articles.
They're all over the place right now.
They're saying that we are infiltrating Antifa and that we're doing false flag events in the name of our organization.
And that it's us doing it.
Well, the thing with all of these folks is to sort of always remember that projection is a common mechanism of confession by those who are engaged in illicit activities.
Just find yourself in a random conversation someday and if someone's accusing you or someone else of something that you know doesn't make any sense at all, If you listen to them carefully, nine times out of ten they'll be confessing what they themselves are up to or what they know someone else is up to on their side of the aisle.
That people have this natural need to want to confess.
And the way in which they confess is they blame and accuse others.
And if you just change the word from you to I, you'll often see these people are confessing what they're actually up to.
And there's no question we have to be on high alert for the risk of false flags, high alert for the risk of false attributions to who is responsible and accountable.
And also we have to worry about and be alert for the overreaction of certain folks, whether it's police, whether it's military, whether it's the president.
We cannot allow, for example, there's people saying, hey, let's just expand the Foreign Terrorist Organization designation so we can use it domestically.
Well, first of all, there's good constitutional reasons why that cannot occur.
The Foreign Terrorist Organization designation is part of foreign policy of the executive branch executing their foreign duties and obligations.
And because they're not domestic entities is why they can do what they do in terms of money laundering investigations, in terms of being able to shut down money sources, shut down aiding and abetting sources, shut down political propaganda sources, etc.
We do not want that to start to apply domestically, because the moment it does, it opens the door, a Pandora's box if you will, to let out the surveillance state against domestic political organizations.
And that has always been misused and abused throughout American history.
Just go back and look, it was under the guise of looking at communist counterinsurgencies that J. Edgar Hoover spied on every anti-war group, peace promotion group, civil rights group, labor group that existed from 1935 to 1973 and when Hoover finally died and kicked the bucket.
Is the only time that stopped.
And the only other reason it stopped was President Nixon refused to allow, tried to dehuverize the FBI, refused to allow Mark Felt to take over, who had been the head of COINTELPRO, to continue those behaviors at the FBI, for which he was rewarded by Mark Felt becoming known as Deep Throat and becoming the leader of the Watergate counter-coup insurgency by those at the FBI who thought their rogue behavior should continue unabated forever.
So we should be on high alert.
That people are going to use the emotionally charged circumstances and settings and surroundings we find ourselves in to either falsely attribute blame to someone else.
I mean, remember, they had informants inside Waco.
They had FBI agents involved undercover in Waco.
So there has been a long history of undercover FBI activity, undercover, whether it's COINTELPRO, whether it's OSS, whether it's CIA, whoever it is, local law enforcement.
For example, just look at the recent documentary on Malcolm X on Netflix about the assassination of Malcolm X.
And what you'll find is one of the key heads of security for Malcolm X was in fact put there by a combined FBI New York Police Department undercover informant.
That in fact there was another informant that may have been connected to the Newark mosque who was involved in the assassination that the FBI covered up and instead they railroaded two innocent people instead.
So we have to be constantly, consciously and constantly cognizant of the reality of the risk That government somewhere will misuse and abuse this opportunity to either falsely attribute blame to certain groups for ideological or political purposes or try to seize and obtain power they do not deserve and is not warranted and is not merited.
So we have to keep that balance.
We need sort of the cool nonchalance that President Trump exhibited some years ago when there was riots trying to prevent him from speaking at a California event and he ended up just slipping in through the back door and didn't try to deal with confrontation, didn't try to escalate the situation.
He just refused to allow them to dictate and determine his course of events.
They even ended up putting it to a popular theme song or popular song from a film.
Let's take a look at video clip number six.
Let's take a look at video clip number six.
Let's take a look at video clip number six.
Let's take a look at video clip number six.
All the provocateurs and the rioters and the looters did not achieve their desired objective that day.
All the provocateurs and the rioters and the looters did not achieve their desired objective that day.
They were unable to prevent and preclude the president from giving his speech.
And he did so at the time as a candidate for the presidency.
And he did so with the sort of cool chalance that's going to be required in this time of confrontation and violence.
In the same capacity, there are ways to start, and what the President should parallel what he does in terms of exercising his National Guard authority to bring peace and safety and security to the city streets across the country.
Probably start with New York City, using his authority as President Kennedy did with Alabama and Mississippi in the 1960s.
Now New York and other major cities are the source of the problem and the confrontation and the conflict.
In the same capacity, he could launch a real civil rights reform of our institutional abuses.
Because the President himself has been a centerpiece of police abuse and misconduct.
By the way, the high-ranking members of law enforcement at the FBI and the Justice Department weaponized their tools, weaponized foreign surveillance to target a domestic opponent, political adversary, and went after him deliberately and intentionally and corrupted our legal processes to achieve it.
We have a federal judge trying to do that right now in D.C.
that has led to appeals before the D.C.
Circuit.
And I believe, in fact, Judge Sullivan will have an order from the Court of Appeals ordering him to dismiss the charges against General Flynn.
But the President should use that as an opportunity not only to revisit the FISA laws in our domestic surveillance state that has become a nature of abuse throughout the country, but also to look at the other forms of police abuse that take place.
There is data and information that show how we can get rid of, or at least dramatically reduce, the amount of malfeasance and misconduct by law enforcement against ordinary individuals, whether they be George Floyd or anyone else.
For example, articles and studies that show from the Chicago Tribune, can police data predict how bad Apple officers influence their fellow cops?
New study says yes.
In other words, you've got a few bad apples that can poison a bunch of others.
Get rid of those bad apples, you're going to clean up most police departments in the country.
In addition, we should not have the police doing things that are really for mental health or physical health requirements.
When mental health experts, not police, are the first responders, it dramatically reduces not only violent confrontations, but also the necessity of involvement and intervention in the criminal justice system.
In addition, competent, capable civilian reviews that are not politically driven, but in fact have the policy analysts, the civil rights lawyers, the church members, and the business community that knows how to handle these matters within the African-American community, that knows how to get real reform.
The conservative case for civilian review, as you can find at the Web Archive.
Bad Chicago cops spread their misconduct like a disease.
Get rid of the bad apples, you cure the problem.
Militarization and police violence.
Stop the militarizing of police forces and you'll stop a lot of this.
But one person spoke to all of this as to what our dreams and ideals should be some time ago.
I got to be in the church when they commemorated a memorial to him some years later.
Let's take a look at video clip 23.
All we say to America is be true to what you said on paper.
Thank you.
If I lived in China or even Russia or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions.
Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges because they haven't committed themselves to that, over that.
But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly, somewhere I read Of the freedom of speech, somewhere I read.
Of the freedom of press, somewhere I read.
That the greatness of America is the right to protest for rights.
And so just as I say we aren't going to let any dogs or water hoses turn us around, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around.
Well, I don't know what will happen now.
Thank you.
We've got some difficult days ahead.
But it really doesn't matter with me now.
Because I've been to the mountaintop.
I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life.
Longevity has its place.
But I'm not concerned about that now.
I just want to do God's will.
And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain.
And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land.
I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.
So I'm happy tonight.
I'm not worried about anything.
I'm not fearing any man.
My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
That would be Martin Luther King's last ever speech.
This is a CBS News special report.
That would be Martin Luther King's last ever speech that he gave.
He gave in a church in Memphis.
I would sit in that same church pews in Memphis when they would commemorate the Civil Rights Museum about 30 years later and listen to Reverend Jesse Jackson speak in the same inspired terms of uniting language that can still yet occur in America.
It will be on the President to do so.
▲
Export Selection