New Facebook Policy Bans Antifa But Also Dramatically Escalates The Culture War
UPDATE: After the filming of this video Facebook REMOVED The exemption for breaking the law. The Policy will still ban Antifa however. https://www.facebook.com/communitysta...New Facebook Policy Bans Antifa But Also Allows People To Literally Break The Law. Facebook issues "clarifications" to its new content guidelines in which any group that has ever engaged in a wide range of activities can not only be banned but a special provision will allow people to directly target these people with law breaking activity.Treading lightly in this description, I'm trying to say that Facebook has just pushed one the most extreme bits of escalation in the culture war allowing people to commit overt law breaking acts and I really have no idea why.Now anyone far left and far right can target and incite actions against people deemed bad by Facebook meaning we can expect to see the rhetoric go to the extremes.In a video Paul joseph Watson explains that he is now being directly targeted in this new policy.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yesterday, political commentator Paul Joseph Watson put out a tweet where he said under Facebook's new rules, you are actually allowed to incite violence and send death threats to him personally, both of which are actual crimes.
And here's the thing.
It's true!
You can!
When I first heard this story, I thought there's no way Facebook would ever create a provision that allowed you to commit a crime and actually incite violence.
They did.
But it's all actually confusing.
Because technically, you can't target Paul Joseph Watson But, because they specifically said in the press that Paul is a dangerous individual, you can.
It's all very confusing, so here's what we're gonna do.
Let's break it down, and I'll start by going through what Paul actually asserts at his
summit.news website, where he says, Facebook issues new policy saying it's acceptable to post
death threats against me.
Yes, really.
In the post, he highlights this from their new community standards.
Recently, they issued a clarification because people were complaining their new rules banning white nationalism and white supremacy were too vague.
So Facebook says, we're going to expand and break down what the rules actually are.
And in it, they actually allow you to break the law.
This is one of the scariest and most, I mean, alarming escalations in the culture war we've seen yet.
Under no circumstances should any platform create an UNLESS provision when saying you can't incite violence or send death threats.
Those are crimes.
There should be no exception to this.
But they've actually made them.
Here's what we see.
In the story, Paul says, he highlights this post from Facebook, which reads,
do not post threats that could lead to death and other forms of high severity violence of any
targets where threat is defined as any of the following statements of intent to commit high
severity violence or calls for high severity violence, unless the target is an organization
or individual covered in the dangerous individuals and organizations policy, or is described as having
carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal predator status has been
established by media reports, market knowledge of news events.
This is the weirdest thing, because basically, they're saying you can.
Now, what's specific about politics of Watson?
is this story from Mac and May.
BuzzFeed News reported Facebook and Instagram are banning far-right influencers like Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer.
A Facebook spokesperson said they have always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.
That's absolutely not true, because Farrakhan was on the platform for a long time, who's been engaging in this kind of rhetoric since the 80s, but what they say is individuals or organizations What they go on to clarify is specifically dangerous individuals and organizations.
The ban will affect both Facebook and Instagram, according to reports.
The Facebook cited its policies against dangerous individuals and organizations.
If that's what they're citing in reference to banning Paul Joseph Watson, then yes, they are saying you can actually incite violence against him.
But this story is actually much bigger than that.
Because what people seem to be not realizing Is that when actually going through the rules, Facebook has just announced they will ban all Antifa.
Period.
And it's actually much crazier than that because technically under their rules, you could ban the United States or anybody flying the American flag.
So all they've really done is they've not clarified their rules.
They've made them even harder to understand and actually said, by all means, Facebook allows you to commit crimes.
It's really weird.
It's actually kind of weird and scary because now there can be unestablished groups that advocate for violence, but because the media doesn't talk about them, they're allowed to engage in violent activity?
Facebook is gone.
They've jumped the shark and then some.
Let's check out their policies.
So moving on from these stories, I've pulled up the actual, as you can see, facebook.com slash community standards slash credible violence.
Here we can see.
In the introduction, there is 1.
Violence and criminal behavior.
The first section deals with violence and incitement.
They say, We aim to prevent potential offline harm that may be related to content on Facebook.
While we understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways, we remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence.
We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there
is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.
We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements
from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety.
In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information
like a person's public visibility and vulnerability.
And here we can see, Paul Joseph Watson is correct.
They actually do say that you can incite violence and call for death if the target is covered in the dangerous individuals and organizations policy or is described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses wherein criminal predator status has been established by media reports.
What's interesting here is the media report section.
This is where we can see Paul is correct, but on a technicality.
Looking at the rules on its surface, we can see that Paul does not fall into their second
category, the second category here, dangerous individuals and organizations.
Based on the criteria presented here, Paul does not fall into that category.
into this policy. However, due to public statements made by Facebook, he does. So here's the technicality.
They say when it's established by media reports, Facebook said he falls into this category
to the press. So the media has now established Paul is a dangerous individual and thus he's
right.
The bigger issue here, though, when actually looking at the rules, they say that you are
allowed to incite violence and death against Antifa, the Proud Boys, or any other group.
And to me, this is insane.
We should not be advocating violence at all.
We should absolutely get rid of all threats of violence and not allow it for any extra criteria.
This is mind-blowing stuff.
Check this out.
In their policy rationale, they say, in an effort to prevent and disrupt real world harm, we do not allow any organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence from having a presence on Facebook.
This includes organizations or individuals involved in the following terrorist activity, organized hate, mass or serial murder, human trafficking, organized violence or criminal activity, they say.
We also remove content that expresses support or praise for groups, leaders, or individuals involved in these activities.
Based on all of these, it would seem that Paul Joseph Watson wouldn't really fall into any of these categories, although you could argue he falls into the hate organizations.
But they say this, a hate organization is defined as any association of three or more people that
is organized under a name, sign, or symbol that has an ideology, statement, or physical actions
that attack individuals based on characteristics including race, religious affiliation,
nationality, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, serious disease, or disability.
Technically then, you could claim that Paul J. Watson is critical of religious affiliation,
and thus he is an individual associated with being biased against or hateful against
a religious affiliation.
He's not involved in any organization, though, but they do... So it's very, very confusing.
But let's take a look at this.
They say...
An ideology or physical actions that attack individuals based on nationality.
Therefore, anyone who says anything disparaging about Americans would be banned.
That's kind of weird, right?
Because why would you ban someone for being critical of a country?
What about Iran?
What about Americans are saying, Iran just shot down our drone, therefore they're bad.
Facebook can ban you for this.
They haven't clarified their rules.
They made the rules weirder and harder to understand and actually created a provision that allows you to incite violence.
No less than three times in this do they say that you can incite violence.
They say first.
Statements advocating violence, unless the individual is in their dangerous policy.
They say, aspirational or conditional statements to commit high severity violence, unless the target is in this group.
So they say, in every step of the way, you literally can incite violence.
How Facebook has put together rules saying you can literally be violent on their platform is beyond me.
But I kid you not, we're looking at it.
I put the URL in these videos on purpose so you can see facebook.com.
Further down, they actually say, threats that lead to serious injury towards private individuals, minor public figures, vulnerable persons, or vulnerable groups, where the threat is defined as any of the following, and once again, they can say, in every circumstance, anything that is a call for violence has an exemption, saying, so long as this person in the media In the media has been deemed to be a criminal or a predator, you're allowed to commit violence.
Now here's where it gets really interesting.
This is why Antifa is banned, first.
You could argue that Antifa doesn't target people based on these characteristics, but they do.
Antifa targets nationality, they think America is fascist, but they don't overtly, overtly target nationality.
However, they do target white people, they do say things about white people, and they do have a name, sign, and symbol.
But let's say Facebook doesn't believe that the targeting of white people qualifies, because we typically know how these things fall.
Facebook doesn't believe that, you know, white people can be racist, I guess, although they have taken action against feminists who have targeted men.
So Facebook is probably going to be, you know, balanced in how they approach this.
But Antifa tends to target political affiliation.
Antifa, although they are typically aligned with the identitarian left, they're not big on the yelling about white people.
So let's do this.
First, Antifa in Portland, flying their banner, flying their symbols and their flags, have used racial slurs against black people.
Well, there you go.
The media has established this.
But let's say that these are edge cases pertaining to Antifa, and Antifa overtly targets conservatives, and they aren't protected.
Fine.
They say that Antifa would qualify as a criminal organization.
Any association of three or more people that is united under a name, color, hand gesture, recognize indicia that has engaged in or threatens to engage in criminal activity, including but not limited to, badabing badaboom, Assault.
As we know, many people on Twitter have openly defended Antifa, flown the Antifa symbol, have Antifa-organized pages, and, say, punch a Nazi advocating for assault and engaging in assault.
From there, we can see that it is established in the media, and will now, for all Antifa on Facebook, they will fall into this group.
For one, DHS and the FBI has said Antifa are terrorists.
They said they engage in domestic terrorist violence.
They engage in assault, they advocate assault, and therefore, plain and simple, they're a criminal organization.
However, do any of us really believe that Facebook will take action against Antifa?
I think for the most part, no.
Not even anti-fascists think Facebook will take action against them.
They will take action against the Proud Boys, though.
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
Moving forward.
In the new guidelines, we can see that you can't promote or publicize crime.
It's really weird.
In this section, there are no exemptions.
They say, do not post content depicting, admitting, or promoting acts of physical harm committed against people.
Acts of physical harm committed against animals, except in the cases of hunting, fishing, etc.
The point is, they say, you can't post content depicting, admitting, or promoting these things, but you can call for them.
Is that promoting?
This is where it gets confused.
If someone says, go do X, is that promoting, you know, an act of crime?
I don't know.
So I don't quite understand what Facebook is trying to say, except it is really, really, really weird that they literally have a provision that says, You can't do this unless.
What do you mean unless?
No matter who you call for violence against, it is a crime.
You could call for crime against avowed far-right fringe extremists, and you are still committing a crime.
You're not allowed to do that in the United States.
The last one we have is coordinating harm, which iterates basically the same thing.
Do not post statements of intent, calls to action, or advocating acts of physical harm committed against people.
But you just said in the first policy that you can.
So, no.
I have no idea what you want, Facebook.
Now, many of you may be wondering why all this is happening.
And I have this story here which kind of breaks it down.
I'm not going to read through the whole thing, but just to give you an example.
The Guardian writes, Facebook ban on white nationalism is too narrow, say auditors.
See, auditors were upset that people who were criticizing white nationalism would still be banned, that Facebook needed to take into consideration the symbols.
Therefore, Facebook decided to broaden their policies.
I was also critical of Facebook because when Facebook said they were going to ban white nationalism, I said, what about any other ethno-nationalism or any other ethnic nationalist ideology?
Why just white people?
Why not like, I don't know, Asian ethno-nationalism?
And so this is the point.
Facebook is trying to say, okay, fine.
All racial groups, like all racial nationalist groups, all ethno-nationalist groups, you can't do it.
Instead, all they really did was make things worse.
They wanted to ban extremists, so they targeted Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, etc.
People who are not avowed white nationalists and who have been very critical of it.
But have been associated in the media.
And therein lies the big problem.
Far-left media can lie, as they do about many people.
And then Facebook says, you know what?
You are free to commit a crime against these people.
The law doesn't think so.
But is Facebook now going to leave up illegal content?
That, to me, is crazy.
I am not a free speech absolutist, by no means.
I believe there are reasonable limits to speech.
The Supreme Court has found this to be so.
Incitement to violence, not free speech.
I agree.
Bad opinions, free speech.
It's hard to know exactly where to draw the line.
But for the most part, I believe that there are limits.
Interestingly, on social media, I believe that these platforms can take action based on certain criteria.
Like, if you post a death threat against someone or incite violence, I believe they should remove that.
Most people do.
Or if you dox someone.
Even though doxing, I believe, is protected speech, you are allowed to go outside and publish someone's name and address.
Especially if it's in like the phone book or something.
A lot of this information is already publicly available.
But these platforms will remove that.
It gets really weird then.
When Facebook says we will delete legal content and allow illegal content.
Why is Facebook determining what is acceptable in terms of the law?
That's where things kind of break down and are very very strange.
Now, to give you an example of why Antifa would be banned under this provision, I have this story.
It's recent.
Antifa members allegedly dox and follow library protest mom with baseball bat.
In Chicago, following someone with a weapon would be considered assault.
Assault is putting someone in reasonable fear of harm.
Therefore, by one standard, we've got assault.
We've got Antifa beating up Andy Ngo.
Boom, there it is.
In Portland, Antifa beat up Andy Ngo.
They are now a criminal organization, thus should be banned from Facebook.
More importantly, you are allowed to incite death.
What?
That should not be allowed.
Do not incite death.
Do not commit crimes.
Do not threaten anyone with violence, even if they do fly the Antifa flag.
That is absurd.
Plain and simple.
But here we can see that, um, there it is.
Facebook's policies make no sense and are going to dramatically escalate the culture war.
So I have to wonder, is Facebook's idea that if a bunch of regular people send death threats to Antifa and the Proud Boys, it'll get them to stop?
But then, if a group of people form like the Anti-Proud Boys, where they incite violence which is allowed under Facebook's rules, they then become a criminal organization inciting hate, and does Facebook ban them as well?
So you're saying individuals have a right to incite violence against people?
None of this makes sense.
It's really confusing, and kind of scary that Facebook would even consider allowing a caveat for breaking the law.
But I'll end with a few interesting points that I think are important and funny because, you know what, Facebook, who cares?
Here's a story from The Next Web.
Mark Zuckerberg's new rules for the internet happen to benefit Facebook.
Again, I'm not going to read through this whole thing, but the story basically breaks down how regulation is upon us.
These companies are at risk.
And in response, let me zoom in a little bit.
In response to Elizabeth Warren's call to break up Facebook, they note, Facebook responded to Elizabeth Warren's calls to break up big tech by removing her ads from the platform.
I'll be it briefly.
Here's the thing.
I think that was a shot across the bow.
That was a warning shot to Elizabeth Warren.
You want to use our platform to promote your campaign?
We will delete you if you threaten us.
Now they say it was a mistake.
But think about what that means to a politician.
Elizabeth Warren and many other politicians rely on the reach of Facebook.
Because Facebook is monopolizing the digital space.
So is Google.
Facebook just said to Elizabeth Warren, we will remove, we will remove you from one of the biggest digital platforms if you dare threaten us.
That's what it sounds like to me.
Now, of course, they, oh, it was just a mistake, but why would they remove Elizabeth Warren's ads?
It's not like it's hate speech.
It's not like it violates any of the guidelines.
She's just a Democrat pushing for, like, healthcare.
You don't have to agree with her or like her or trust her, but she's certainly not extreme in any capacity.
This is Facebook telling politicians, we can end you.
It's Facebook saying, we condone certain violence.
They actually will condone violence, so long as it's in their list or the media says so.
I've got a few other things that I think are funny.
In this story from Gizmodo, another example of Facebook's insane reach and why we need regulation, not just for Facebook, is that Mark Zuckerberg used a software bit To track memes claiming that he was an alien.
Check this out.
Citing former employees and internal documents, Bloomberg reported that Storm Chaser had been used by Facebook employees since 2016 to track viral content involving everything from delete Facebook campaigns to claims that Zuckerberg is an alien.
Then they say parentheses, big if true.
Listen, Mark Zuckerberg's not an alien, okay?
It's just people making fun of him.
But why would they have a program to track a meme claiming he's an alien?
The point I made the other day when I talked about this story specifically...
Was that, as an employee of Facebook, do you think they're sitting there going, how dare someone insult my boss Mark Zuckerberg?
I want to track these memes.
Or do you think the Facebook employees would laugh and go, Zuckerberg is an alien.
People tend not to speak kindly of their bosses, like it's a trope that they'll be critical of their bosses, especially Zuckerberg.
It sounds to me like Zuckerberg wanted them to track these memes.
The point is whether or not Zuckerberg actually cared.
They are willing to use powerful tools to track the public opinion of themselves on their own platform.
And while that makes sense, like of course companies do market research to see how people think about them, think about the ramifications of how Facebook can track public sentiment on any issue and how they can manipulate public discourse by getting rid of Elizabeth Warren to then change what people are talking about.
One of the issues may be Elizabeth Warren talks about breaking a big text, I say get rid of her.
That way nobody talks about it ever again.
But you know what?
Here's one final thought on the matter.
Steve Wozniak.
Seems to be a pretty good dude.
Co-founder of Apple.
You know what he said recently?
The other day?
Get off Facebook.
And I can't blame them.
I don't really use Facebook much at all anymore.
I use it kind of for Messenger, but I'm starting to use other Messenger apps, and I don't really care.
Facebook has lost all value to me a long time ago, and they're bleeding American users.
They're adding third, you know, developing nation users, people who are just now getting access to mobile phones and internet.
These are not valuable users for Facebook, and this spells a bad future for Facebook.
Advertisers want access to people with disposable income.
People in developing nations who just got a cell phone, they don't really qualify.
And so what ends up happening?
Facebook is losing its core user base.
Wealthy or middle class Americans, Americans with disposable income, Americans in general who can, you know, spend stuff when the advertisers ask them to.
Facebook is in trouble.
And they're panicking.
So they're tracking sentiment.
They're shutting down politicians.
And for whatever reason, I have no idea why, allowing people to break the law.
Maybe they needed some controversy.
Maybe they can't avoid it.
I have no idea.
But I'll end by saying this.
While Paul's story may be a bit hyperbolic, he's not wrong.
They really do have this provision saying you can incite violence and death against him.
And now you're gonna have people on the right calling for violence against Antifa, and that's allowed too?
I don't even know anymore.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines.
M-I-N-D-S dot com slash Timcast.
Because I'm actually using Messenger there for the most part.
It's hard.
I can't respond to everybody, but Facebook, bad.
Mine's good.
Or at least better.
Nobody's perfect.
I will have more segments coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
So again, thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next segment.
The other day, Donald Trump lost his appeal, and I covered the story.
For those that aren't familiar, it basically means he's not allowed to block people on social media.
It all stems back from a lawsuit after, I believe it was the Knight Foundation, filed a suit on behalf of around seven people claiming that Trump has no right to block them.
It's a First Amendment violation.
The court agreed, and it's kind of weird.
A lot of lawyers said it was a bad decision because it makes no sense.
Twitter is a private company, and there's a lot of things that have to happen before you can argue that Trump is creating a public forum.
So that's what they basically said.
When Trump tweets, he creates a public forum.
The ruling affects every single politician.
Now, you'd be curious.
I wonder if it affects every government employee, period.
Because think about it.
The argument is that if Trump is debating among his constituents or creating a space for which it can happen, he can't interfere in that process.
And this affects everybody now.
But I wonder, if you're a government employee, you're still restricted, like a cop can't violate your First Amendment rights.
So what if a police chief tweets?
Does it now mean that literally every single person working for the government in any capacity, ever tweeting about it, can no longer block people?
It is a really weird court ruling.
What's even weirder about it, and actually it's kind of not, you probably get it, is that even though all these people are suing Trump, they don't seem to bat an eye at the fact that Ocasio-Cortez literally does the same thing.
In fact, she does it way more than Trump does.
Ocasio-Cortez goes on a blocking spree and just blocks everybody.
So here's the news.
So forgive me for going a minute and a half without telling you the story.
Ocasio-Cortez is being sued by not one, But two people for blocking them.
And one of the individuals is actually asking others to get involved.
It's very likely.
This will be interesting.
The precedent was set.
The appeals court agreed Trump can't block people.
This might go to the Supreme Court.
But what's interesting now is if all of these people suing Ocasio-Cortez, it's going to be a boom.
It's done.
They win.
It's precedent.
And an appeals court agreed.
So, Khadija Cortez needs to unblock people.
Why she hasn't?
I don't know.
But I love how you have these people on the left screaming about Trump, saying nothing about AOC.
I'd like to get the Knight Foundation to please step up.
Now, here's an interesting thing.
That my understanding, I could be wrong about this, it's been a while, is that the Knight Foundation did tweet about Ocasio-Cortez blocking the Daily Caller, saying you can't do that, but they deleted the tweet.
I wonder why.
Maybe they lost money?
Tribalism is more important?
Well, let's read this story and see what's happening with these lawsuits.
Now, before we do, head over to TimCast.com slashtunit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address, but of course, Share the video.
That's the most important thing you can do.
And subscribe.
YouTube doesn't suggest independent political commentary for the most part anymore.
They're propping up big mainstream media.
That means if you want people to see what I have to say, it's on you to share it.
You have no obligation to do it.
If you don't, I don't deserve it.
Let's read the news.
From Fox News yesterday, AOC sued over blocking Twitter users following appeals court ruling on Trump.
They say.
Former Democratic New York Assemblyman Dov Huykend filed a lawsuit against Rep.
Ocasio-Cortez in federal court on Tuesday for blocking users on Twitter based on their personal viewpoints, following a federal appeals court ruling earlier in the day barring Trump from doing the same.
Ocasio-Cortez has blocked me on Twitter yesterday, apparently because my critique of her tweets and policies have been too stinging.
Heiken said in a statement announcing the suit, which was filed in the Eastern District of New York and obtained by Fox News.
Just today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that elected officials cannot block individuals from their Twitter accounts, thereby setting a precedent that Ocasio-Cortez must follow.
Twitter is a public space, and all should have access to the government officials on it.
That's the interesting point.
Let me go.
Well, let's open this real quick.
If Twitter is a public space and the court thinks because discourse is happening here, the government can't restrict you.
Why would a private corporation have the right to do that?
It's really weird, isn't it?
Imagine something in the physical world, like in actual real life, where somebody was routinely like the only place they would speak like 90% of the time was on some like pedestal in the middle of a private park.
And the private security of the park would remove anybody they didn't want.
How can you simultaneously say, the Knight Foundation said, politicians are using Twitter for public debate and discourse, therefore we need access to it.
The court says, I agree, it's a First Amendment violation, but the private company that owns the park can restrict access to the public to hear what their politicians have to say?
Maybe there's no legal grounds for stopping them because the politicians are choosing to use the private space for their speech.
But then it's interesting if the court recognizes the government can't restrict your access to the space.
But the private company can.
Actually, that kind of makes sense.
It does.
The government can say, hey, look, we're going to stay out of it, right?
We can't stop you.
But if you want to use the private platform, that's their business.
It's actually a really interesting ruling that I believe may result in a lawsuit, right?
In order for these changes to happen, involving censorship and access to the public space, a couple of things need to happen.
Essentially, couple lawsuits.
The first, Twitter, Facebook, Google need to be challenged on Section 230.
It's not about, necessarily, getting the law on 230 changed.
Okay, so for those who aren't familiar, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to an online service and its users from liability based on what other people post.
That literally means If someone on Twitter says something, you can't sue Twitter, and if I tweet something and someone responds, you can't sue me for the response.
The issue is not whether or not 230 should exist or be removed.
It's whether or not the courts will interpret 230 to grant the right of Twitter to censor
people based on their opinions, like Megan Murphy who said men aren't women though, or
whether or not they will agree that Twitter is a neutral, like they can moderate how they
see fit.
So the issue is, if Twitter has editorial guidelines, and they do, if Google does, YouTube,
Facebook, they do, then the question is, are they immune under Section 230?
Okay, it's simple.
Wall Street Journal is not immune under 230.
Why?
Because the Wall Street Journal chooses what to publish.
Meaning, when the Wall Street Journal publishes a story, they are saying, this is our speech.
Twitter argues, under the First Amendment, that is not ours.
Actually, so Twitter and Facebook and YouTube do two things.
They're arguing both ways, and this is why they need to challenge.
When someone posts something, Twitter says we cannot be legally obligated to host someone's speech we disagree with.
It's akin to making us speak.
If that were the case, you wouldn't have Section 230 protections, right?
So basically, Section 230 says that no online service or user shall be deemed the speaker based on what another user posts.
If Twitter wants to argue on First Amendment grounds they can remove whatever they want, they're actually saying 230 doesn't apply to them.
Here's what needs to happen, okay?
Sorry for the weird, complicated, you know, talk about law.
Forget the, you know, Hawley bill that wants to change the law.
Forget revoking 230.
There needs to be a lawsuit.
The lawsuit will argue, Twitter says we cannot be forced to speak on behalf of, you know, an individual.
They are saying they are the speaker.
They are also implementing editorial guidelines as to what is allowed on the platform.
This is literally the same thing as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, who don't have the same protections.
Unless you want to argue they do, and then you can never sue the New York Times for libel.
That makes no sense.
If Twitter says, this is what's acceptable on our platform, and we will remove anything that we don't want to be forced to speak, they are saying they are a publisher.
And the reason that's important is that means They don't have 230 protections.
It doesn't matter what the law says as of now.
It means there needs to be a lawsuit and a court will then decide whether or not they are a platform or publisher and are protected.
If they lose, prepare to see the rules change fast.
And all of a sudden, Twitter will say we can't moderate because that means we're accepting it's our speech.
They won't do that.
Anyway, I digress.
Let's talk about what's happening with these lawsuits.
So you'll get me on a rant about 2.30.
There's a lot to talk about.
And for those that missed the stories yesterday, I'll be at the White House summit tomorrow.
We'll see what happens.
But it's not just this man, Dov Haikind.
We also have Mr. Joey... Joseph Peter Saladino.
Is that your full name, Joey?
Joseph Peter Saladino has filed a lawsuit against Ocasio-Cortez for blocking him.
Now, if you're not familiar, Joey is running for Congress, I believe, in Staten Island.
And he tweeted...
I have officially filed my lawsuit against AOC for blocking me on Twitter.
Trump is not allowed to block people?
Will the standards apply equally?
Stay tuned to find out.
And he posted a video about it and then he goes on to fundraise for his campaign.
Now, interestingly, let's, uh, I'm not going to read the Sam Cedar thing.
Let's go back to the story and see what Heiken has to say because he goes on to elaborate.
They say he continues, It's unclear if Ocasio-Cortez is aware of this ruling or
not, but either way, I have decided, after speaking with my legal counsel, to
initiate a lawsuit against her for blocking me and a host of other public figures.
Ocasio-Cortez is acting cowardly and should be ashamed of her attempts to silence me.
I have done nothing but address her ignorance and disregard for the truth.
She constantly brags about the millions of followers she has, but she is afraid of my speech.
She is a hypocrite.
I'm looking forward to the day where she has to unblock me so that free speech in America is guaranteed even when it offends me.
I don't see why she's even blocking people.
Just mute them, right?
So we can also see that Liz Wheeler, who is, I believe Liz is with OAN, I'm not sure.
She said, oh my god, haha, AOC has blocked me.
I am always respectful and civil.
I present facts only, nothing personal.
Somebody is threatened by facts and the truth.
They go on to say...
That's, uh, Ryan Saavedra was also blocked.
And, um, I believe they have the Daily Caller in here too.
Oh, the Daily Caller was it, was it all their story?
We can see here from Dov Heikind.
He says, if you or anyone, you know, has been blocked by AOC, please get in touch with me ASAP.
It's interesting.
It is.
I think the important thing to break down is that there are a lot of arguments made on tribal lines, meaning the left is right now ranting and raving about Trump blocking people.
But they're not paying attention at all to AOC blocking people.
It's tribal blindness.
They don't see their own side doing the same thing.
They don't care.
You can actually see this reflected in media.
I'll make an interesting point right here.
It's kind of a personal one.
I announced that I will be at the White House summit.
And I'm not included in any of the stories about the Summit.
Sure, they'll talk about, you know, Carpe Donctum, and they'll talk about Veritas, but there's other people who are going to the Summit who have announced that are not controversial, and they're omitted from the stories, for one simple reason.
The news publications, when they write these stories, are not interested, and they don't think their audience is interested.
They want to frame a narrative.
So when we look at what's going on with Ocasio-Cortez and Trump, the left doesn't care what Ocasio-Cortez does.
They just don't.
They're only angry at Trump.
So when Trump does something, they say, you know, this is bad and we're going to fight it.
And then when Ocasio-Cortez does something, they say, well, who really cares if Ocasio-Cortez does it?
It's a tribal blindness, right?
And it also has to do with Beyond that, everyone's guilty of it, myself included, right?
I'm not unique to the... Like, I can only cover so much.
Now, admittedly, I have covered both Trump and AOC blocking people, and I'm literally talking about the two tribes, but it is true, you know, and that's why I try to have a wide range of content.
It's hard to know what is the most important thing in the world, and people can only choose what they think is important.
That means when there's a story about... There was a story recently of, like, a white supremacist who killed some kid for playing rap music.
It's a heartbreaking story, it's disgusting, and I'm outraged by it.
But personally, I don't think a story about a random hate- I don't want to say random, but like one particular hate crime between two regular citizens somewhere in the middle of the country warrants the little space I have for the content I do.
So I'll give you an example.
The story I'm looking at right here has wide implications for the country and the world.
And while the story of this kid getting, you know, killed for doing nothing by a sick lunatic is horrifying, it's like a random act of violence.
Is it bad?
It is.
And I can talk about that in a greater context of, like, far-right extremism or whatever when it happens, but there's a big difference between Donald Trump, the president, Ocasio-Cortez, you know, a high-level politician, and, you know, one story that happens, you know.
So I'll say this.
There are absolutely instances where I cover lower level and local news issues if it pertains to the philosophy or has an impact on a bigger story.
The point I'm trying to make is, I don't necessarily blame outlets on the left for ignoring stories like this, because they're not focused on it.
However, I do recognize that AOC is a federal-level politician, and what she's doing has huge and serious implications on this lawsuit with Trump, and it should be in literally the same story.
If the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the Washington Post want to write about Donald Trump blocking people, this should be in the story.
It should say other politicians have been called out for blocking people.
Now sometimes they do this, but for the most part they don't.
Why?
Tribal blindness?
Orange man bad?
We don't care about Ocasio-Cortez.
Well, I think at the federal level there's a lot to talk about.
I've talked about Steve King getting pulled from his committees and I've talked about
Ilhan Omar not.
And I think, you know, I try to do my best, but in the end people are blind to what their
own side does.
Plain and simple.
And thus we have all of these people shrieking about Trump blocking people, demanding he unblock them, while ignoring the fact that Ocasio-Cortez does this.
And I'll end with the final point.
And I could be wrong.
I'm gonna say that.
But I'm pretty sure the Knight Foundation tweeted something criticizing Ocasio-Cortez and then deleted it.
I have it in a video somewhere.
And after the video was done, I went back and the tweet was gone.
And I thought it was hilarious.
They probably got reamed by the left saying, don't go after Ocasio-Cortez, what are you doing?
And then they pulled back.
Because this is what we see.
The ACLU used to defend civil liberties.
Now what do they do?
Tribal partisanship.
Like, the ACLU is literally defending racism at Harvard.
I'm not even exaggerating the literal definition of racism.
Harvard is saying, if you look like this person, we're going to restrict access.
We're going to make it harder for you to get in.
They're saying Asians have to score higher.
Period.
Okay, that's racist.
You're literally saying, based on what you look like, you can't come to the school.
And the problem I have with this is that, I'm not going to rant on this too long.
The assumption is that all Chinese people, like, all Asians are Chinese, if that's the case.
Because what happens is wealthy immigrants can get into these schools, and they do, and poor immigrants can't, and then they say, too bad, you're Asian.
The ACLU now defends that.
So we've got a real problem with tribalism in this country.
And this should be a good example.
Ocasio-Cortez is not allowed to do this if Trump isn't allowed to do it.
So let's apply standards and know what the rules are.
But I'll say this, if there's one thing I've seen a whole lot of from the left and from the media, it's double standards.
So it's not like the right is immune, but it really is just every day with the left, double standards in some capacity.
So, look, they even changed the definition of racism so that they can claim something is or isn't racism.
It's literally a double standard.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Ocasio-Cortez says she's open to getting rid of the entire Department of Homeland Security.
That's a lot of criticism for DHS, its formation following 9-11, and sure, that's fine, but let me just say this before we get started.
When adults make plans, they think about what the problem is they're trying to solve or they're trying to accomplish.
What's your goal?
Maybe your plan is like vacation.
Maybe your plan is starting a business.
Maybe your plan is stopping the poor treatment at these detention centers.
When you first recognize there is something you need to do, be it a good thing or a bad thing, you plan for it.
Case in point, the detention centers on the border.
We identify that we have a problem with illegal immigration.
So what happens?
Detention centers.
The president then says, we need more money to fund these centers and border security.
Now, an adult would argue with the other adults about what is the most appropriate way to
get this done.
Instead, what we got were Democrats saying there was no crisis and a media saying it's manufactured by the president.
And they let it stew and fester for so long that we ended up now with a much more serious crisis and failing facilities.
Now, I don't want to act like every single border facility is bad because we have seen the government tour.
You don't have to trust it.
I certainly don't necessarily trust it, but I'm pretty sure There are probably some good facilities and some bad ones, but we've heard the stories about the bad ones.
Most of the problems we're hearing stem from the Democrats refusing to fund the border bill that the president asked for.
We saw the New York Times and other outlets say, give them the money.
Finally, they did.
But Ocasio-Cortez doesn't do anything.
She actually voted— No, I'm sorry.
She did something.
The opposite of what needed to be done.
She then— She's still saying, no, I won't fund this.
Well, if you've got a problem with the border, what do you recommend?
And now we have two kind of weird statements from Ocasio-Cortez.
First, she's open to getting rid of the entire Department of Homeland Security.
And I could be wrong, because I don't have it pulled up.
It might be in the story.
But she said something to the effect of, we shouldn't be detaining people who haven't done us harm at all.
So, open borders.
Now, the reason I bring up the point about how adults solve problems is that you don't just say, abolish ICE.
Okay, hold on.
I get it.
But just because there are problems with ICE doesn't mean you get rid of ICE.
In the beginning, it was like, maybe we should reform ICE.
Okay, buy a new car.
That makes sense.
It does.
Okay, great.
We need immigration enforcement and customs enforcement, because ICE does other things other than immigration.
So maybe we'll fix it.
Instead, what does AOC do?
She says, just get rid of the car and throw it away.
We shouldn't be driving cars anyway.
And it's like, but that's going to create more problems.
Then what happens?
Now we hear Ilhan Omar saying we should just get rid of CBP because Ocasio-Cortez said Customs and Border Protection now is a rogue agency.
The only reason the conditions are bad is because you keep voting no on giving money to them.
It's like, dude, my car is breaking and You know, you, I'm like, hey, would you want to go in and fix this car with me?
And you say, no, we shouldn't even use that car.
We should have no car.
And it's like, okay, well, that's not going to solve the problem.
We need a car.
And this is where it escalates, and again, to the point I made about adults making plans.
You don't just keep saying, get rid of everything, okay?
It's like, now... When things finally got so bad, she said, CBP is a rogue agency, Elon and Mars should get rid of it.
Now she's just saying, get rid of DHS.
It's like, okay, full stop.
You're just saying, get rid of things.
I don't think you're actually trying to solve these problems at this point.
So there's two potentials here.
Ocasio-Cortez has had this plan of escalation the whole time, which I really, really doubt because I don't think she's that smart, where she's like, we got to get rid of ICE.
Oh man, it's still not working.
We got to get rid of CBP.
Might as well get rid of the entire Department of Homeland Security.
Or it's that because every action or inaction she takes results in things getting worse, her solution is the same thing.
Get rid of it.
It's kind of a sweep it under the rug mentality.
More trash because your plan didn't work?
Just throw it in the pit.
Now we have more garbage because you're not solving the problem?
Just throw it all in the pit.
Just, you know what, throw it all away.
It makes no sense.
Okay, I had to wrap up.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
They're promoting CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, and that means I rely on you guys to be like, hey, if Tim Pool's content is good, maybe I should share it.
If you don't like my content, I'm surprised you're still watching, but I still appreciate it.
Let's read on.
From Fox News, they say, last week, AOC suggested she was open to getting rid of the Department of Homeland Security in order to undo a lot of the egregious mistakes the Bush administration did.
Ocasio-Cortez made her remarks during a Friday appearance on the New Yorker Radio with host David Remnick.
ICE is not under the DOJ.
It's under the DHS.
And so now we have, then Remnick jumps in, would you get rid of the Department of Homeland Security too?
I think so.
I think we need to undo a lot of the egregious, um, a lot of the egregious mistakes the Bush administration did.
She added, I feel like we are at a very, it's a very qualified and supported position, at least in terms of evidence, and in terms of being able to make the argument that we never should have created DHS in the early 2000s.
Okay, let me just stop here and ask, what argument?
I understand that there's a lot of concern over the expansion of executive authority.
DHS brought in a bunch of different agencies, took them from under the Department of Justice, and moved them to a new agency, but okay, okay.
I remember back in the 2000s, one of the main arguments was that the executive branch was gaining too much power, especially with things like the Patriot Act, Indefinite detention provisions under Obama and the NDAA.
There's a, um, what is it called?
Article 51, I think?
I could be wrong, but basically, the president has the ability to overturn the entire government and make a new, single-branch government, like some really weird stuff.
So yeah, by all means, let's challenge executive authority.
But if you're not actually going to present me with an argument as to why what DHS is doing is bad, or how this actually relates to your argument, I think you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall all day and figuring out what might stick.
Ocasio-Cortez has this, like, here's what she does.
She says something ridiculous, and then when people call her out on it, she doubles down, finds some weird justification for why what she's saying is true, lies, and then incorporates it into her policy.
The concentration camp argument is the perfect example.
She literally said, quote, never again, a direct reference to World War II.
And then later went on to say, we were not talking about World War II.
What do you think?
What do you think never again means?
And some of the funny responses was like, ah, that's right.
Ocasio-Cortez making references to the Boer Wars and other places where concentration camps had been used.
No, she says nonsense.
And she refuses to admit when she's wrong.
So why now is she saying DHS should be take, should be dismantled?
She literally presented no argument other than there were mistakes from
the Bush administration, like what?
I agree there's an argument for ICE to be put back under the Department of Justice.
Because that would presumably present more accountability, because it's literally Department of Justice.
But it's really light, and I gotta admit, not a whole lot of details on why that makes more sense.
What's the difference between the two departments?
Because different people are running them, and they report to different people, the DOJ is still gonna report to the executive branch.
So what do we do?
Why does it matter?
I would like to hear from you, what specifically is the DHS doing that is wrong, that would make it so that you wanna get rid of the whole thing?
Because to me, it sounds like all they're really saying is, erode the institutions that will lead to complete open borders.
I gotta admit, it really does sound like they just don't like America.
And it's a stupid argument, because of course they're gonna say, no, we love America and we want America for everybody.
It's like, okay, listen.
Communities aren't infinite.
Either you think we should be open and available to every single person in the world and we are a global community, which is true to an extent, Or we have borders and we say, other countries don't agree with us.
Like there are a lot of countries that have weird religious beliefs and they don't agree with free speech.
You know Brazil doesn't have free speech?
So what do you say to people who completely disagree with what we do in the US?
Should we open our borders to tens of millions of people who don't believe in LGBT rights?
I think that would be a huge mistake.
And thus, you have to recognize, well, I think in the end, like a Star Trek future of a one-Earth federated planet and all that stuff, beautiful.
We're not there yet.
We can't just snap our fingers and be like, all of those people on the other side of the world who believe in a completely different way of life, disagree with everything we've done in this country, they should come here and- No, no, hold on.
Hold on.
Legally, slowly, over time, I recognize that American culture is actually a pretty wonderful thing.
Outside of the U.S.
foreign policy, we have done great things towards advancing civil rights for everybody.
And this is what I call real social justice.
Social justice, the idea that some groups are disparaged or marginalized, disparaged and marginalized, and we can do right by them over time.
I am the perfect center-left social liberal, I swear to God.
And they hate it because it's a weird, they've gone so far left they can't recognize what I am anymore.
It's sad.
But quite literally, if you look up center left politics on like social liberal, it literally says reformist.
Somebody who believes it can bring about positive change to protect marginalized groups slowly over time by advancing the law.
And this is the right way to do it.
I understand that there are groups that suffer in this country, but A complete overhaul will destabilize everything, make everything worse for everybody, it will lower our standards of living and make everything worse!
We have a beautiful system right now.
Not perfect.
But we're doing better.
Every single generation.
Why then should we just get rid of all of our institutions, just get rid of them, open up the borders, and let everything fall apart?
That will just lead to conflict and chaos.
You can't.
There are rare instances where there are hard shocks to the system to force something to change.
The first civil war.
There was just no way past this because the economy What a lot of people don't realize, and I should say one of the arguments made is that the end of slavery didn't come about in the Western world, in Europe, in the U.S., because some people finally decided it was moral.
It's actually much scarier than that and much more disgusting.
It was industrialization, the start of industrialization.
When certain economies realized it was cheaper to automate, they said, we don't have a use for this anymore, and they lost support.
But their economy was different.
When they couldn't rectify that, and I understand the Civil War is about a lot of other things, you got a hard shock to the system.
And it resulted in a lot of dead people.
And it's sad.
I wish it didn't have to be that way.
But I recognize that sometimes we come to an impasse.
And it's scary.
I hope certainly we're not facing one now, but it seems like we really are.
Because the left in this country is just going off the rails.
Here's the problem.
Over time, slowly, we can make things better.
We can improve the system.
We can seek out those who are marginalized and oppressed and make their lives better.
What do we get?
Ocasio-Cortez throwing out platitudes and just, like, buzzwords that mean literally nothing, and then people latch onto them, and then push them as policy, and it's like, dude, you're not gonna make things better.
You are not improving the world for the immigrants.
You're not improving America for the working class.
You are literally just saying, shut it down and throw it in the trash.
I kid you not.
We can look at the minutiae in this position of get rid of DHS.
Okay, well, hold on.
What's wrong with DHS?
What needs to be fixed?
I'm listening.
I seriously am.
Do you want to talk about the expansion of executive authority?
I am down with restricting executive authority.
One of the greatest things, in my opinion, about the Trump administration is that for once in my life, it feels like people are saying no to the president.
Unfortunately, they're saying no way too much, but you know what?
No, it's kind of a good thing, okay?
Obama got away with so much.
And here's the thing, I know Bush did too, but I was like, I was too young during the Bush years.
I didn't really like know a lot.
I was growing up my formative years during the Obama administration, questioning why Obama was doing these horrifying things like extrajudicial assassinations, developing the disposition matrix, killing American citizens, prosecuting more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all other presidents combined.
...signing the National Defense Authorization Act with an indefinite detention provision.
I said, what is happening?
And why aren't people on my side willing to stand up and say no to the president?
Tribalism.
They didn't care.
They were the winners.
That's all that mattered.
Obama was in charge and he's our guy.
Therefore, he can do whatever he wants.
Trump gets in.
Trump does very similar things.
We had a commando raid in Yemen, killed an 8-year-old American girl.
We still have weapons deals with Saudi Arabia and the ongoing secret war in Yemen.
It's complicated.
It really is.
But at least Trump is getting some pushback from a lot of people.
And at least he's pulled back from Iran and the North Korea thing.
These are good things.
But tribalism is one of the biggest problems I talk about a lot.
So let me not derail and we'll go back to the main point about Ocasio-Cortez.
In reference to Obama and tribalism, we can see a lot of what's going on with Ocasio-Cortez and how what she says makes no sense.
And it comes to a really obvious and more visible point.
First, to reiterate.
Why get rid of the DHS?
Don't just say it because your side says it.
No, seriously, give me a reason to implement a plan.
More importantly, when Trump blocks people on Twitter, the left freaks out.
When AOC blocks people on Twitter, they don't care.
I have no time for games.
I don't care about your silly my team versus your team.
I want to know what the rules are and I want to know how we're solving these problems.
If Ocasio-Cortez is blocking people and Trump isn't allowed to, neither is she.
We cannot live in a society where there's rules for thee but not for me.
And that's what we get.
So look, it's a good thing, in my opinion, to pull back on executive authority because it's been growing out of control for a long time.
But you seriously can't just step out and say, get rid of all, throw it all, ban CBP, ICE, and DHS.
Okay, listen.
The argument works for no one.
I am the least likely individual to ever have praise for executive authority.
Like the DEA under Obama raiding dispensaries in California after California said we should be medicinally legal.
Why?
States' rights, right?
Why is the federal government trying to come in and impose rules on, you know?
So these things, I have to take issue with, I do.
And it's crazy to me, growing up with the hacker community and the left traditionally being anti-authoritarian,
challenging law enforcement, telling us like, here are your rights, here's how you avoid what these agencies are doing.
And now what do we get? We get like the pro-Russiagate, pro-FBI left.
I'm like, where are you? Pro-CIA, pro-intelligence left?
They've gone off the deep end for the sake of tribalism.
And this is a big problem that emerged under Obama.
Obama did such horrific things.
He wasn't all bad.
He wasn't all bad.
I think Obama... I'm like, I'm like tepid on most politicians.
I'll probably never support an executive leader because of the foreign policy actions the America continually engages in.
But Obama was literally bombing civilians.
Look this up.
Disposition Matrix.
Obama, my understanding is he primarily killed civilians.
And then what did they do?
Well, they were military age males, so that means they're combatants.
It's a dude carrying a pail of water, man.
What are you doing?
I am, like, my main thing in this world, like, the thing that strikes me at a philosophical level is murder and death.
Like, 100% opposed to it, no matter what.
To snuff out life is horrifying and terrifying, and I see the US doing this all the time.
So, you know what, I'm getting off on a tangent.
This video will be a little bit longer than it needs to be.
The point I'm trying to make with Obama is that when he was doing all of these things, where was the left?
Now don't get me wrong, there absolutely were principled anti-war leftists who have been active the whole time.
And to those people, you have my respect.
But these mainstream, high-profile leftists, people like AOC... Well, I don't want to say her specifically, because I don't know what she was doing.
Maybe she was an activist against war.
Where were they?
Where were they then?
Where were they when people like me and my friends on the left were saying, stop.
Stop the drones.
Stop.
Again, there was a lot of great people on the left who were standing up to this, and conservatives.
It really is a bipartisan issue.
Like, I showed the article from Pat Buchanan, the American conservative, praising Tulsi Gabbard.
There are absolutely Americans on all sides who say war?
No.
Enough.
Waste of money, bad for everybody, and death is wrong.
But all of these people now standing up, claiming that Trump had tanks in D.C.
Oh, we can see the fascism.
It's like, are you joking?
The silly little parade, that's what you're concerned about?
Not Obama, Bush, Clinton.
Like, it's been going on forever, man.
They only step up when their tribe loses.
And that's what really bothers me.
I'll end with one more final thought, kind of a non sequitur.
Look, we get it.
Get rid of DHS.
What does that even mean?
But here's the thing.
Beto O'Rourke made some statements about, you know, white privilege in America.
And it said, it kind of reminded me of exactly what I hate the most.
Snooty rich people who believe they have it bad.
I grew up with this.
I grew up on the South Side of Chicago.
I am not, I do not come from a family of great means.
And it was so annoying to me all the time to see snooty, well-off individuals being like, I have it so bad.
And I remember this one woman I knew when I was like in my early 20s who was like bragging about how her parents just give her money and like, but life is so hard and I'm like, let me know when you're sleeping on a mattress under a bridge.
Is that a joke?
It's these snooty rich people that are pushing the left-wing identitarianism, the white saviors, the people like Beto O'Rourke who are like, this country and their white supremacy.
Let me tell you something.
As somebody who grew up in a mixed-race family, and I know it's a meme, but it makes a point, I truly understand how good America is, and how far we've come, and the greatness that lies in front of us.
And so it's disgusting when my family was able to find happiness and succeed, you see these snooty liberal elites living in their ivory towers looking down on us going, the poor savages, they need our help.
No, I'm sorry, we don't.
We've done just fine by ourselves.
Because the Founding Fathers, for all of their flaws, did wonderful things in framing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I can recognize that.
And through the democratic process, in our constitutional republic, we've expanded civil rights beyond where they were.
200 years ago.
250 years ago.
And I think we'll do better.
So please, get off your high horse.
Your ivory tower opinion doesn't reflect that of America.
And as someone who is a person of color and came from homelessness and humble means, I think America's fantastic.
And I'm sick and tired of hearing these snooty elites going, it's so horrible here.
Then please, I won't tell you to leave America.
That's a stupid argument.
But please go and visit these other countries and talk about what's wrong with them.
And then come back and explain to me why this is a bad place.
No, seriously.
Travel the world.
Visit Japan.
Visit Indonesia.
Visit Singapore.
Visit some, you know, North African nations.
And truly get a view of the world.
Then come back here and talk about what is good and what is bad.
They act like America is the worst place on Earth.
It's in fact one of the least racist places on the planet as of our generation and today.
This is a long video.
I got me on a rant.
I'm gonna leave it here.
Thanks for hanging out.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all next time.
And thus it became law when the governor of California signed a bill that will grant government health care benefits to illegal immigrants.
The story from Fox News.
California becomes first state to give taxpayer-funded health benefits to illegal immigrants.
Now this story is actually kind of old, except the new information is that the governor's actually signed it.
It was passed in the state, and a lot of people were wondering if it would actually get signed into law.
The reason being, San Francisco has a human waste problem where homeless and mentally unwell people are just, you know, kind of defecating in the street.
It's such a serious problem the city has to hire what they call a poop patrol.
Then you have Los Angeles with a homeless problem so bad there are concerns that bubonic plague will actually come back.
They've had a typhoid outbreak.
So people are wondering With all of these problems facing California, why would they allocate funding towards the healthcare of illegal immigrants?
It could be political reasons, I don't know.
There was a critique in the New York Times recently from progressives saying that LA, even with a super majority in the Democrats, could not solve the homeless crisis.
Perhaps this is just platitudes and virtue signaling to make it seem like they're doing something when they're really not.
So let's read the story and then I want to talk about the concept of the California sanctuary state as it pertains to illegal immigration.
Before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash donut.
If you'd like to support my work, there are multiple options, PayPal, crypto, and physical address.
But of course, share this video.
If you think it should be shared because YouTube has, as of May 1st, stopped suggesting content from independent creators for the most part.
But let's get to the news.
They say Governor Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California, signed a bill into law on Tuesday making young illegal immigrants eligible for the Medicaid program in California, making it the first state to offer such taxpayer-funded health benefits to low-income adults age 25 and younger regardless of their immigration status.
State officials said they expected the plan to cover about 90,000 people and cost taxpayers $98 million.
California already covered children 18 and younger, regardless of immigration status.
The law will not give health insurance benefits to everyone 25 and younger, but only those whose income is low enough to qualify.
Newsom and fellow Democrats in the state legislature said they plan to expand coverage to more adults in the years to come.
Advocates of the measure have called it a way to improve the health of immigrants in the state by providing them with access to the medical care they need.
Many immigrants in the country illegally already have been enrolled for some government-funded programs, but they covered only emergencies and pregnancies.
Democrats had pushed to expand the coverage to even more adults, but Newsom rejected the proposals, saying it would cost about $3.4 billion to provide coverage to all California adults living in the country illegally.
But he still has vowed to keep expanding coverage in future years.
Now, there's an important point here.
First, what will this be covering?
When we think about the homeless problem in San Francisco and Los Angeles, you need to recognize that mental illness is a big factor.
Drug addiction and other addictions can result in people essentially causing the problems California faces.
It is possible there is a circuitous solution to these problems through what they're doing.
If a lot of the people that are homeless and a lot of the people that are, you know, kind of pooping in the streets or doing drugs are illegal immigrants, providing health care to all young people, period, may prevent an expansion of the homeless crisis.
So I think that's an important point to make.
On its surface, you will get a lot of people saying, this is an insane policy, you can't do this, it makes no sense.
There are good reasons to make that argument.
And that's what I want to get into next.
But I want to make sure I stress, oftentimes the solution to problems are counterintuitive.
And when you have a lot of people who are homeless, we need to figure out why did they become homeless?
Because sometimes the solution isn't necessarily get the homeless and put them in a home.
It's prevent further homelessness so that as time goes on, As we, you know, house the homeless and deal with their mental health issues, we will not be increasing the number, okay?
It's kinda like, before you try and figure out where the leak in your hose is, turn the water off, right?
Otherwise, it's just gonna keep coming.
It's gonna be harder to deal with.
But there is a good reason to criticize this, and that is the California Sanctuary State Law.
They will not allow local law enforcement to work with the feds to track down illegal immigrants.
And this is where things become a bit untenable.
While it may be that a solution to a lot of the problems with mental health, poverty, crime, etc.
is to provide healthcare to people, When you incentivize illegal immigration and say, we will not work with federal authorities to have you deported, you are going to have an influx of illegal immigrants.
You are then going to have to pay for all of that healthcare as the number of illegal immigrants expands, and that can become untenable.
Because more and more people will come because you've offered them free healthcare.
There are a lot of people who know, in the US, If you go to an emergency room, they have to treat you.
And thus, there is some incentive to try and jump the border just to get to the emergency room if you've got some, you know, I don't know, appendicitis or something.
Something that needs immediate treatment you know they'll have to take care of, taking advantage of our goodwill.
But when California says, we won't work with federal law enforcement, well then, you're going to have a massive influx of people, and that's what we're seeing.
Some people are blaming Trump, saying that because Trump says he's going to put the border, border wall people think, now's my only chance.
I disagree.
While I can understand the sentiment, I believe that it's a bit too circuitous when the simple solution is the Democrats are quite literally saying, we will protect you and defend you and not deport you.
Now they're saying we better go before the Republicans shut that down.
The Democrats are holding the fence up saying, come on and hurry up before it shuts.
Let's read a little bit about this from PolitiFact.
So this is a bit of an old story, but because of the sanctuary state law being a bit older, I want to make sure I can separate, to the best of my ability, fact from fiction.
Now I want to stress, PolitiFact is actually a bit biased, plain and simple.
But we'll read this, and I will give you my personal thoughts on what they claim, and my views on how sanctuary states will affect these bills.
There's perhaps no more controversial or mischaracterized piece of recent legislation in California than the Sanctuary State Law.
Critics describe it as lawlessness, an example of the Democratic-controlled state going rogue, and preventing local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration agents to deport undocumented residents.
The law, Senate Bill 54, and also known as the California Values Act, So I want to stop here and say, it's actually a good argument.
Governor Jerry Brown. Supporters say it was designed to encourage undocumented Californians
to trust the police and report crimes in their neighborhoods, rather than viewing local law
enforcement as an immigration force.
So I want to stop here and say, it's actually a good argument. It is. I don't think it gets
to the deeper ramifications of what will come from this.
But it is true that when it comes to car accidents, for instance, there is a, whether it's a
legit problem or not, it's something that's often brought up.
An illegal immigrant will get into an accident and then flee the scene because they're scared of being deported.
Or, crimes will persist because nobody wants to actually report them.
The same is true in black market circumstances.
If someone is selling pot, right, and they witness a serious crime, they're not going to report it because they were doing something illegal at the time.
They don't want to get in trouble.
They want to avoid police at all cost.
It's one of the reasons I'm actually against, you know, drug prohibition in general.
Like, legalize it, restrict it, control it.
When you push it into black markets, that's when you breed crime and lawlessness because you have basically said anything you do in this matter is outside the law.
So, to stress, not a bad argument, but the problem is it will incentivize more illegal immigration, thus not actually solving the problem, expanding it.
If you offer illegal immigrants health care, it's an incentive.
Come here and we will give you health care, if you're a certain age and have a certain income.
If you say, don't worry, our cops won't work with ICE to deport you, people will feel it's a good opportunity to come.
Now, the original problem you faced was that illegal immigrants aren't reporting crimes because they're scared of being deported.
This bill may actually incentivize illegal immigrants to report crimes, but it simultaneously will increase the amount of illegal immigrants, thus increasing the problem of people who don't want to report crimes, and then you're going to spend money on their health care.
Therein lies the deeper problem with the idea of sanctuary cities.
What I see from many on the left is an emotional reaction.
And here is the problem.
I don't know what determines what the tribes are, left or right, conservative, liberal.
All I know is that when it comes to solutions, I agree with many people on the left.
The problem is we don't agree for the same reasons.
Why should we have, like, a sanctuary city law?
Well, they say there's a good reason, right?
That you want illegal immigrants to report crimes.
When you look at the nuance of an issue, sometimes the solutions are counterintuitive.
Let's take a look at something like the minimum wage increase.
I think in some circumstances it absolutely does make sense.
Though I don't think a blanket federal $15 increase to $15 makes sense, I believe there are many circumstances where certain sectors and certain jurisdictions will need to increase a minimum wage.
The problem with the left is they say, money for everyone.
Hold on.
We agree on where we want to get, but your proposal makes no sense.
Okay?
It's an emotional reaction, not a logical one.
Take, for instance, something like universal healthcare.
I am 100% in favor of government, of taxpayer-funded, government, you know, supplied universal healthcare.
Hold on.
I believe abolishing private insurance for everybody makes literally no sense, especially when people are happy with what they have.
Thus, the more apt solution today is probably expanding a public option that people can buy into to create market pressure.
If big businesses are forced to compete with lower-cost government healthcare, perhaps that will cause a change.
So I think we have to move in reform steps.
So thus, when I see the left say something like, Institute universal healthcare, period.
It's like, okay, okay, stop.
I agree.
But how do we get there?
Sit down and talk with me.
What we end up seeing now with these bills is them saying we can't have sick people.
Well, hold on.
We're expanding this to everybody, not just illegal immigrants, okay?
So it is for Californian citizens too.
But what are you going to do about the ever-expanding amount of illegal immigrants that are flooding the borders and are going to strain that system?
Perhaps it should be healthcare benefits to everyone under 25 for citizens.
Wouldn't that make more sense?
But the emotional reaction is, everyone deserves healthcare.
It's a human right.
Therefore, you expand your limited resources to everybody, and eventually, you can't afford it anymore.
New York is facing infrastructure crisis, budget crisis.
It doesn't make sense to add an influx of more people when they can't support their transit system.
The MTA in New York is failing.
It's falling apart.
It's collapsing.
They're struggling to fix it.
The L train which connects Williamsburg, the hipster neighborhood, to Manhattan is going to be shut down soon.
And now they want to add more people saying, you know, New York is for everybody?
It's already pushed to its limit.
You need to fix these things first or otherwise nothing functions.
In the end, I'll leave it there.
I'm not going to do a big rant on, you know, left versus right function, you know, Or whatever.
The point is, I see holes in this plan.
I see an emotional reaction where people want to do nice things for people and I can respect it and understand it, but I think you're wrong.
And we need to sit down and figure out how to actually solve these problems.
So anyway, stick around, more segments to come, and I will see you all in a few minutes.
Trouble in paradise, it would seem.
All of the news about Pelosi and the far-left Democrats fighting is bad news for the Democrats, and it seems now that Nancy Pelosi has scolded the far-left Democrats by saying, do not tweet.
This story from Politico.
Pelosi scolds progressives in closed-door meeting.
The House Speaker urged liberal Democrats not to criticize their centrist colleagues in public.
I want to pause real quick, Politico, please.
AOC and Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar are not liberal Democrats.
They're far-left progressives, okay?
They advocate for no border enforcement.
Ocasio, look, they're effectively arguing for open borders.
Whether or not they're saying open borders or not, they're saying, get rid of CBP, ICE, and DHS, and stop detaining illegal immigrants, and decriminalize illegal immigration.
That's open borders!
For the most part.
Okay.
Now, Pelosi is center-left.
That's fine.
But to call the far left, like, liberal Democrats, please.
Please do not.
But let's read the news and see exactly what's going on with the Democrats and their internal struggle.
Before we do, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, Just share this video if you like my content because YouTube doesn't for the most part.
So I rely on you to suggest my content to people.
If you don't like it, by all means, don't share it.
I don't know why you're watching, but hey, thanks for being here.
Politico writes, Speaker Nancy Pelosi chided progressives in a closed-door meeting Wednesday, calling on them to address their intraparty grievances privately rather than blasting their centrist colleagues on Twitter.
Pelosi's comments, which were described as stern, came during the first full caucus meeting since a major blowup over emergency border funding last month between progressive and moderate lawmakers, as well as a recent spat with Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her freshman allies.
So again, you got a complaint?
You come and talk to me about it, Pelosi told Democrats, according to a source in the room.
But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that it's just okay.
Democrats inside the room said they interpreted that remark as a shot at Rep Mark Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who called moderate Democrats members of the Child Abuse Caucus.
Whoa!
In a tweet, Over their support for the Senate's version of the emergency humanitarian package.
It's insane to me that progressives are blaming the moderate Democrats for actually trying to get money to alleviate the suffering of these children.
It's backwards world.
It is bizarro universe where the progressives think it's not their fault.
That blows my mind.
A Pelosi spokesman said the Speaker's comments were about the use of Twitter in general and not targeted at any individual member.
I'm here to help the children when it's easy and when it's hard.
Some of you are here to make a beautiful pate, but we're making sausage most of the time, Pelosi told the caucus.
The Speaker gave an emphatic defense of the moderates in the caucus, according to multiple sources, telling the room that they're critical to holding the House majority.
Pelosi told Democrats not to make the Blue Dog Coalition their targets, and instead criticized her publicly if they need to go after someone.
The California Democrat added that when her members target her, it helps fundraising, eliciting a big laugh inside the room.
We are a family, and every family has its moments, Pelosi said.
Her remarks also come after Pelosi dismissed Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of the progressive squad in an interview with the New York Times over the weekend.
I will say this.
If I was in the Democratic Congress, And the speaker came to me and said, don't do X. I'd be like, allow me to show you, in no uncertain terms, how I respond to an order of such magnitude.
Pull out my phone, get on Twitter, and start tweeting what she was saying.
I don't take kindly to arbitrary authority.
I don't care for your tribe, and this is why I would probably never be in any of these situations.
I don't care for being a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent.
None of that means anything to me.
In fact, you can take your group and you can... I won't go any further with where that remark goes.
I have no interest whatsoever in being affiliated with anyone.
So I can absolutely respect the far-left Democrats in the sense that they're going to tell Nancy Pelosi where to take her tweets.
At the same time, however, I recognize that there are common-sense solutions to problems, and whether or not you care about Democrat or Republican, sometimes it makes sense to agree with each other if you want to actually solve the problem.
Taking personal issue with what someone says to you doesn't actually do anything, and I would be...
I think we actually are facing a crisis if we have politicians who are more concerned with the emotional bickering than actually solving the problem.
They're more concerned with tribalism than actually solving the problem.
I'll say this.
I don't care for your tribes.
I care for solving the problem.
If the Republican's gonna offer up a solution, I say, I welcome it.
If the Democrat offers a solution, I welcome that as well.
Plain and simple.
But let's see what happened with Pelosi.
They write.
Pelosi questioned the actual influence the group has, given that they were the only four Democrats who opposed the House's original humanitarian package.
Ocasio-Cortez and the other progressives, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, quickly fired back, criticizing Pelosi's remarks in a series of tweets.
Pelosi also indirectly criticized Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, according to Democrats in the room, as she told members to tell their staffers to think twice before they tweet.
Sycat Chakrabarty, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, went after Pelosi in a series of tweets over the weekend, criticizing everything from her comments on the squad to her stance against the impeachment.
Let me ask you a question.
Why is it that when I'm critical of the far-left Democrats, I'm called right-wing or conservative?
But when they're critical of the Democrats, they're not.
Isn't it really interesting that I can be rather centrist, leaning left on many issues?
I can explicitly say, Tulsi Gabbard gets my support for this reason, and here's why I'm pro-choice, why I'm pro-public healthcare, why I think government programs actually make a difference, yet they'll still say I'm right-wing.
Why?
Because I'm critical of the far-left.
How often have I been critical of Nancy Pelosi?
Fairly, not too often.
I've been critical of the Democrats mostly because they called the border crisis manufactured and refused to fund it, and then I praised them when they got on board to solve the problem.
I go on to criticize the far left, but apparently, in today's media landscape, Nancy Pelosi really is far-right.
She really is right-wing.
They just won't really say it because they know it's bad for the Overton window.
These left-wing activists and media know that the average person is going to say, what?
Nancy Pelosi is not right-wing.
So even though I'm to the left of Nancy Pelosi on most issues, for simply criticizing the far-left insanity, they would call me right-wing.
Well, I ask you then, If Nancy Pelosi is actually to the right of me, how am I right-wing if Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat?
That's what's mind-blowing.
And it shows you how insane everything has gotten in public discourse.
Ocasio-Cortez, I think, is nuts.
I think she is a terrible, terrible representative of environ—advocate for environmentalism, and she's ruining all of these left-wing positions I actually like.
I think we gotta get rid of private prisons.
I think we need strong environmental policy.
And then you prop up someone as ridiculous as her, And moderates walk away.
Plain and simple.
Let's read on.
Chakrabarti also tweeted scathing criticisms of the Blue Dogs, calling them the new Southern Democrats.
Oh, my stars and garters.
Right-wing Chakrabarti, I must say, for criticizing the Democrats.
They certainly seem hell-bent to do black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did in the 40s.
Are you nuts?
Give me a break.
Ocasio-Cortez didn't address Pelosi's speech as she left the caucus meeting.
Instead, talking about the annual defense authorization bill that will be on the House floor this week.
But Omar defended her allies, saying she and other Democrats can vote however they want.
I hope that leadership understands their role and understands what our role is.
Well, look.
The authorization for military force, is that what they're talking about?
I don't know what they're talking about specifically, but I am all about not authorizing that and the National Defense Authorization Act pulling back on a lot of that too.
But tell me, where are the Democrats?
Are the far-left Democrats rallying against foreign war?
For the most part, no.
They're pushing identitarian policy and horrifying domestic policy.
Tulsi Gabbard's got it right on foreign policy, and I disagree with her domestic policy, but you know what?
Hey, as long as she's got the foreign policy right, I'm willing to accept that she's got bad domestic policy ideas if it means ending foreign war, reallocating funds back to the U.S., securing our borders, etc.
I think there's a lot to disagree with Tulsi Gabbard on, but at the end of the day, I think most of us realize that you're not going to agree with everything a politician says.
I disagree with 99% of what most politicians say.
In the end, for me, death is the core issue.
Everything else, you know, man, there's so much to talk about and there's so much to go through, I just don't know.
But if you tell me you want to end the death penalty, and you want to stop foreign missile strikes on foreign countries and war, All right, I'm game.
That's the only thing I can really be like, I feel that deep within me, it must be stopped.
And so that's why I support a lot of this.
So I'd like to see any of the Democrats step up, any of them.
Now, what do we have?
We have Trump pulling back a strike on Iran, saying you don't want to kill people.
I'm like, that's actually a really good thing.
And the actions he took in North Korea, even if just symbolic, are huge.
And I can respect that.
So what is the left doing?
I just don't understand.
They call Tulsi Gabbard conservative.
She's technically kind of far left.
They call her conservative because she's anti-war!
I don't even know what's going on here.
I don't even know where I am.
What is this?
Why are they tweeting?
Why are they fighting?
And what are they getting done?
I don't know what these people are even trying to accomplish anymore other than obstructing and just saying Orange Man bad.
I got another segment coming up for you in a few minutes, so thanks for hanging out in one of these Tim rants about the whole screwed up political system.
I will see you in a few minutes on the last story.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, the writer said that the Democrats are making Americans feel like strangers in their own country.
And I can agree with that sentiment.
Do you want to know what will guarantee a massive major American backlash, of which it will be very many white people?
It is this.
The banning of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Not just here, but in other stories as well.
Not that long ago, we saw the story about a Santa Barbara woman who stood up and recited the Pledge of Allegiance as people yelled at her.
We're now hearing that a city wants to... I believe they want to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because they want a more diversive and inclusive place.
Here's the thing.
If you come to America, you pledge allegiance to America.
You don't have to pledge your allegiance to come here or to be a citizen, but it's a representation of we are a shared community with shared values.
It makes no sense to welcome people to the U.S.
and ban the Pledge of Allegiance to welcome them.
They can say it or not.
It doesn't matter.
But it is an American custom.
I do find the Pledge of Allegiance silly and weird that we stand up and pledge our allegiance to a country, but it is something that's a part of America.
What do you think is going to happen when regular Americans see a video of a woman shaking and trying to give the pledge and people yelling at her?
When I was little, I remember frequently sitting for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Why?
Because I was a young rapscallion who thought that I could just, you know, I'm not, I don't got to do what you say.
I do what I want.
I'm not going to stand like, I'm not a conformist.
But that was it.
It was controversial.
And I was told by the school, well, you don't have to.
The school can't make you give the Pledge of Allegiance, but everyone would.
Growing up, in the morning, we'd stand up, turn to the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
I thought it was weird.
Nobody has my allegiance.
I do what I want.
Where are we today?
Today, we're actually at the point where we're banning it.
So I will tell you this.
There are Americans in this country, of all colors and all stripes, but I will say it's going to be a lot of middle Americans and probably going to be a lot of white people.
Who are going to say, this is an American institution.
Something we do to show that we are a shared community.
And they're dissolving this.
And there will immediately be a backlash and fear and people saying, we do need a strong leader who will strengthen America's borders and not advocate and champion those who don't want to be a part of America.
Think about this.
If you're an American who loves America, And you see someone who comes here and says they hate America.
Why would you support that?
That's gotta be scary.
People coming here and hating the country will do it harm.
They will ruin your way of life.
I'm not saying all of that is true.
I'm saying, by all means, you're allowed to hate the country and come here.
I'm saying that's how people will feel.
Something similar we saw with Tucker Carlson criticizing Ilhan Omar and now he's being called racist.
Whatever.
I'm not gonna talk about that.
Let's read this story and see what's going on with the Pledge of Allegiance.
From the Daily Caller, angry crowd in Minnesota shouts USA after council bans Pledge of Allegiance because of diversity and illegal immigrants.
Now before we read on, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, you're gonna have to share this video if you think it's important, because YouTube doesn't really do that so much anymore for independent channels.
But let's read the story.
At least 100 angry protesters vented their fury Monday night against a decision by a Minnesota city council to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, Fox News reported Wednesday.
The group reportedly stormed the council chambers, waved American flags, and shouted USA.
Louis Park City Council announced its decision following a unanimous vote, saying it was banning the pledge in consideration of the city's diverse community.
Louis Park is located in Democratic Minnesota Rep.
Ilhan Omar's congressional district.
We concluded that in order to create a more welcoming environment to a diverse community, we're going to forego saying the Pledge of Allegiance before every meeting, Councillor Tim Brosson said before voting.
But if you are in America, you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
For those that are public servants of the US, wouldn't they appreciate taking part in this?
Look, the point is, I understand we have a diverse community, and we can just tell them, by all means, don't pledge to this nation.
But those of us who serve this country and believe in it will.
Why ban it outright for those who like it simply because some don't?
Seems weird.
Let's read on.
Council member Ann Mavity sponsored the ban, telling local NBC affiliate that she doesn't believe the pledge is relevant, especially for illegal immigrants.
Not everyone who does business with the city or has a conversation is a citizen.
They certainly don't need to come into city council chambers and pledge their allegiance to our country in order to tell us what their input is about a sidewalk in front of their home, right?
But it also means you don't have to ban it simply because some people don't want to pledge.
If you want to come and argue about sidewalks and you're not a citizen, then just don't say it and let other people do it.
Louis Park Mayor Jake Spano is reportedly wavering on the pledge ban, saying that not enough time and deliberation was spent on the decision to stop reciting the pledge.
Mavity suggested things could merit further discussion.
Minnesota Republican Chairwoman Jennifer Carnahan told Fox & Friends on Wednesday that she was present at the Monday night meeting where she said she heard counselors making disturbing remarks.
One of the gentlemen, Tim Brosson, said evidently Minnesotans are upset because we are playing with their hallowed traditions.
I feel like this all flows in one direction.
We know where it's going.
When I was a kid, they said, say the pledge.
When some people refused, they said, well fine, you don't have to say the pledge, but we're going to do it anyway.
to ban the pledge and understand the error of their ways. I feel like this all flows in one
direction. We know where it's going. When I was a kid, they said, say the pledge. When some people
refused, they said, well, fine, you don't have to say the pledge, but we're going to do it anyway.
Now we're at the point where they're saying, even though most people probably would,
we'll ban it anyway. But this brings me back to an older story that I think is really relevant.
In the discussion about whether or not Donald Trump will win, I refer you to this image.
This woman, an older woman, holding up an American flag with her hand on her chest, citing the Pledge of Allegiance, while people shouted and booed that she was doing this.
The story from the Santa Barbara Independent.
This is from January.
Santa Barbara City College embroiled in Pledge of Allegiance controversy.
Police increased campus presence in response to flood of hostile messages.
They say Santa Barbara City College has called in the Santa Barbara Police Department to advise the campus regarding the considerably high volume of hostile phone calls, emails, and social media messages the college has been receiving.
SBCC was inundated with calls after national news outlets reported.
That Board of Trustees President Robert Miller decided earlier this year that the Pledge of Allegiance would no longer be recited at its meetings.
Many of the messages could be interpreted as hostile in nature, the college said.
On Monday, Miller announced the pledge would be temporarily reinstated until the board discusses the matter at a future meeting.
They say, last Thursday's meeting, former City College instructor Celeste Barber and two other women asked the trustees to reinstate the pledge.
Barber concluded her public comments by reciting the pledge while holding an American flag, during which she was heckled by students and faculty members.
Now, I don't know why she used that word, but if it's in the context of explaining what it is, that's fine.
If she was trying to deride or insult someone, it's wrong.
campus. Mass, in a separate controversy, had been placed on unpaid leave after she used the
unabbreviated n-word during a gender and equity meeting.
Now, I don't know why she used that word, but if it's in the context of explaining what it is, that's
fine. If she was trying to deride or insult someone, it's wrong. Okay? At least in my opinion.
In this image, I want to—this is what I see when I see Donald Trump winning 2020.
I see an older one who believes in America, who is scared of the rapid change and disdain for America.
People who would heckle and belittle American tradition.
I don't care for the Pledge of Allegiance.
I find it kind of creepy.
I don't care to actually say it.
I never did.
Like I mentioned, when I was a kid, I'd be like, nah, no way, man.
You can't tell me what to do.
But I say this.
Rejecting the Pledge of Allegiance is done as a sign of respect for the freedom the Pledge represents.
I don't have to.
This is America.
Y'all can go screw yourselves.
I don't gotta do anything.
But it is understanding the flag and the Pledge and what America represents allows me to do that.
In some countries, they would order you to pledge your allegiance or die.
In some countries, for simply loving a certain person, you die.
America is not one of these places.
Although we have our problems, we have taken great strides to make things great.
And although I personally wouldn't engage in the Pledge of Allegiance, I understand what it's for and respect the tradition.
I have no problem If they said, we're not going to do a mandatory Pledge of Allegiance anymore, if this woman came up and said, I'm going to pledge, and they said, we respect your right to do so, I wouldn't be here right now.
What's disconcerting was the heckling, the booing, this woman visibly shaking, scared, fighting back, saying, I will stand up for America, and the people heckling her because of it.
The heckling is what scares me.
If someone got up and started reciting like an ethos from some superhero comic, I'd be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, by all means.
Take your time.
We're in a public place.
Say your business.
If someone wants to sign the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm not someone who's going to do it, but by all means, do your thing.
I understand why you're doing it.
The same is true for religion.
You know, when I was younger, I was much more angsty.
And I didn't like religion.
I was briefly Catholic up until about the 6th grade.
End of 5th grade I left Catholic school.
And I had disdain for religion.
And eventually I realized that there are people in this world who believe different things and view the world in different ways.
And we gotta get along.
And build a future together.
And that means we shouldn't hate each other.
And make assumptions about each other.
And respect even though some people might not be as smart as you.
And understand what you understand.
We have to still break bread and share water.
Otherwise, life is bad.
I'd much rather live side by side with someone who disagreed with me on certain issues than live in a chaotic, war-torn, violent place.
So, the point I'm trying to make is, banning the Pledge of Allegiance is wrong.
By all means, keep the pledge.
I think you should keep it.
If people don't want to say it, they don't have to.
If the people do, they can.
If it ends up with only one person standing up for the pledge in the morning and doing it and no one else says anything, that's fine too.
So long as you aren't attacking and heckling people for saying they love this country and they're going to pledge their allegiance to the United States.
What's worrisome is when we talk about open borders, people get scared.
The Democrats say, oh, we're not really for open borders.
Sure.
But Ocasio-Cortez wants to get rid of all border enforcement.
The Democrats on the stage said they wanted to decriminalize illegal border crossings.
And now when a woman stands up shaking to recite the pledge saying she loves and believes in this country, she's heckled and booed for it.
Where do you think this goes?
I mean, it ends up without an America, with young people who have no love for it, with foreigners who don't care for it.
The only thing they really want is the prosperity of it, not the institutions that made it strong.
If we're going to maintain a society that leaves us prosperous, we must defend the values that brought us that prosper.
If we allow the erosion and people who don't care for America, but simply want its resources to come here and take those resources, well, that's the end.
Look, I think of it like this.
You have a tree.
The tree has oranges on it.
Oranges are delicious.
We love these.
However, if people come and start stripping the tree down to take it for parts, They don't care to support what made the tree strong.
Eventually, there will be no tree, and there will be no oranges for everyone.
Watering that tree and protecting it is what allowed the fruits to be born, so that we could enjoy the sweet, delicious orange that falls from that tree, or we pluck it when it's ripe and ready to eat.
Eventually, people come and pluck those fruits, and there's no fruits left for everybody.
But at least we still have the tree, right?
Then people start hacking away at it to take bits of it for kindling and to use its lumber to build something.
In order to protect what that tree gives us, or the forest, we must protect it from predators, protect it from overuse, water it, sustain it, and defend it.
If people come in and start laughing at us because we're constantly saying we must protect the forests, eventually there will be no forest.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
There will be more segments coming tomorrow on this channel at 10 a.m.