Trump Just Launched The NUCLEAR Option Against Sanctuary Cities, Democrats Promise NO Deportations
Trump Just Launched The NUCLEAR Option Against Sanctuary Cities, Democrats Promise NO Deportations. With a court win behind him Trump announced that he would be stripping federal funding to sanctuary cities.Activist groups and Democrats were outraged and vowed to fight back.Alongside the new policy Trump has pushed Immigration agents and Elite border guards into sanctuary cities in one of the most dramatic escalation of enforcement in recent history.But what is the right path? As Democrats increasingly push open borders rhetoric and Trump escalates federal law enforcement what do we do?Democrats far left policies are becoming untenable.Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, the front runners for the Democratic nomination have both endorsed an end to deportations in most circumstances. Their policies are essentially open borders as far as it matters.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump has just launched the nuclear option on sanctuary cities, stripping their funding and flooding ICE agents and elite Border Patrol guards into these cities, states, and counties that will not cooperate with federal law enforcement.
The gist of the idea, the conflict goes like this.
ICE agents want to arrest illegal immigrants, usually those who have committed some crimes or continue to do so.
Local jurisdictions argue.
That by arresting these people at courthouses or if they were to cooperate with ICE, it would discourage illegal immigrants from participating in the legal system.
Unfortunately, that may be true, but it creates an interesting legal predicament where you literally have repeat offenders who are illegal immigrants, people who are here committing crimes against American citizens, and we have laws to deport them.
The question then becomes, should these individuals be allowed to break some laws in the hopes that you can arrest them for the other laws they broke?
Honestly, it seems strange to me.
And Trump is taking heavy-handed action.
He recently won a court case saying that he can strip funding.
From Sanctuary Cities.
Now, this funding typically went to law enforcement.
So, again, the whole thing seems very, very strange to me that the federal government would be giving law enforcement in these jurisdictions money to enforce their laws, but then they would not cooperate with the federal government.
I think this is the obvious outcome.
Interestingly, these jurisdictions are outraged this would happen.
Now, as for the flooding the streets with surveillance and ICE, things are starting to get a bit more extreme.
And for me, I'm kind of frustrated.
Why do we only have the two extremes, elite border agents in tactical clothing with rifles going to people's homes, or the Democrats saying decriminalize border crossings?
We now have both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, the frontrunners, saying They would put a moratorium on deportations.
What happened to sane and rational policy?
The problem?
With the Democrats ever encroaching open borders like policies, you know, they're grains of sand in the open borders heat.
Donald Trump reacts In a more heavy-handed way.
It is not a good thing for either side to be doing, but they're both being pushed.
More importantly, I should say, the sanctuary city laws are encroaching, and I think for obvious reasons.
You have Democrats who want to pander to immigrant votes, you have a media that conflates illegal immigration with immigration, and then you have activists trying to rally the activist base for primary votes. So
they act against the wishes of the of regular Americans who are not okay with mass illegal
immigration. You then get Democrat politicians saying we're going to put a moratorium on
deportations because guess what? Joe Biden just flip-flopped now saying he would actually do this. In
response, sanctuary cities are emboldened.
They stop cooperating with the federal government.
They start protecting criminals.
I understand there are studies and there are arguments, but in the end, the response is obvious.
Donald Trump and the federal government increase their tactics to go after illegal immigrants.
I can't tell you what the right or wrong answers are.
I can only tell you the whole thing is running out of control.
Now, I will say, in my personal opinion, we absolutely need border security.
And what the Democrats have been proposing, in my opinion, have gone completely nuts.
Bernie Sanders, not even that long ago, last year, was saying no to these policies.
All of a sudden, he's completely on board.
And you know what the leftist media is calling it?
Not a flip-flop.
They call it the evolution.
No, I'm sorry, I call it the abandonment of principle.
But let's get started by reading exactly what's going on with these three huge stories.
Trump says government will withhold federal funding to sanctuary cities.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
I don't think we're gonna break any echo chambers on this one, but I do think there are a lot of moderates, people who maybe used to call themselves Democrats, maybe people who voted for Barack Obama, who was nicknamed the Deporter-in-Chief.
Because of how many people he had deported.
Yet, for some reason, after Obama leaves, here we are with even Joe Biden now apologizing for past immigration policies.
Mind you, the whole kids in cages thing started under Barack Obama.
I'm not a big fan of that stuff, okay?
I don't think most people are.
We understand the problem, however.
Which is strange.
It's strange now to me to see Joe Biden actually flip-flop, to see the Democratic Party embracing rhetoric Americans are not interested in.
Now, before we read this, I will give a warning as well to those on the right.
Increasing militarization of law enforcement and police is not something Americans want either.
Hopefully this doesn't become a runaway problem.
But the challenge now is how do you enforce our laws when you have repeat offenders being protected by sanctuary districts?
The only response I could see happening was escalation.
And that is very terrifying to me.
Let's read the story from the New York Post.
They report.
President Trump on Thursday said the government will begin holding back funds for sanctuary cities like New York following a federal appeals court decision last month.
As per recent federal court ruling, the federal government will be withholding funds from sanctuary cities.
They should change their status and go non-sanctuary, do not protect criminals, Trump tweeted.
The U.S.
Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled on February 26th that the government can withhold millions and millions in dollars in law enforcement grants to cities and states that do not give U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to jails and alert the agency when an illegal immigrant is being released.
The decision overturned a lower court ruling ordering the administration to release the funds.
The Big Apple joined seven states, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, that sued the government in 2017 after the Justice Department said it would block the funds.
The appeals court ruling pertained to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, named after the NYPD officer killed in 1988 in Queens, that is handed out to local governments to assist with law enforcement.
Now, this ruling has to do with stripping away funds that are supposed to, as we just read, go to law enforcement.
As I stated before, I find it kind of strange that these cities would expect to receive this fund if they're not cooperating with this law enforcement measure.
I want to actually show you the New York Times from the ruling so we can get a general idea, and then I want to show you the actual The amount of states, counties, jurisdictions, we actually have a list of all the different sanctuary cities, as well as some literal examples of what's happening, but mind you, some of the bigger news is that ICE, there's a quote, flood the streets.
ICE is going ham.
CBP is going ham.
Donald Trump absolutely has unleashed the hounds.
Trump can withhold millions from sanctuary states' court rules.
The New York Times reported on February 27th.
The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars from law enforcement agencies in states and cities that do not cooperate with U.S.
immigration authorities, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
The decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan was the first by an appellate court to side with the administration's arguments that it can impose conditions on the release of the money, which comes in the form of grants.
Three other appeals courts have previously affirmed lower court rulings that it was unlawful for the White House to tie the grant money to state and local governments' cooperation with the federal authorities.
Administration officials hailed the ruling, quote, Today's decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities.
Alexi Walternist, a Justice Department spokesman, said, Officials with the jurisdictions that filed the lawsuit that led the decision vowed to continue battling the administration.
So this is far from over.
Trump may have this victory right now, but it seems likely that there will be more lawsuits and Trump will continue to be challenged.
But I want to show you this story.
Flood the streets.
ICE targets sanctuary cities with increased surveillance.
Immigration agents are boosting their operations in sanctuary cities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
And we have this story from earlier in the month.
Border Patrol will deploy elite tactical agents to sanctuary cities.
Agents from a special tactical team that normally confront smugglers on the border are being sent to sanctuary cities across the country.
What I want to highlight There's a problem in that the more we see an escalation of, say, militarization or surveillance, there is likely to be an overlap against legitimate innocent citizens and a potential violation of constitutional rights.
I want to stress the risk to expanding surveillance.
We have to be very careful here.
While we can go after criminals, and in many instances I think that could be a good thing, the threat is the violation of our Fourth Amendment.
In the process of trying to surveil people who are actual repeat offenders, criminals, and illegal immigrants, we absolutely must maintain innocent civilians do not have these surveillance measures placed on them.
One of the biggest fights in the early 2010s was over the expanding surveillance of the federal government.
And I do not see this as a good thing for anyone.
Now, I totally get illegal immigrants in this country, especially the ones that are committing repeated offenses.
And I got a story for you.
A dude who apparently had committed multiple offenses, and when ICE came to arrest the guy, there was a huge controversy and a freakout.
But how do we balance this is the serious question.
As we see more and more Democrats want to push sanctuary laws and they stop working with federal law enforcement, we see the heavy handedness and expansion of federal powers, or I shouldn't necessarily say powers, but their tactics, the increasing aggressive tactics.
When it comes to the elite border agents, there's one part of the story where they show a guy he's wearing, like, you know, fatigues, like, camo fatigues, showing up at someone's house with a rifle.
A lot of people are concerned that we're stepping away from traditional enforcement of, say, a guy in uniform, maybe a shirt, maybe a vest, just coming and arresting you, to now seeing tactical officers doing this.
I gotta say, man, the whole thing is, in my opinion, bad across the board, and I gotta say it's kind of freaky.
How do we enforce these laws, however, with the expanding Sanctuary Cities policies?
I honestly don't know.
So I'll read this, but first, let's take a look at this.
Over on the Wikipedia page for Sanctuary Cities, they say, As of 2018, more than 560 cities, states, and counties consider themselves sanctuaries.
We can see here on the screen, this is a map.
These are all the counties that in some way defy sanctuary- I'm sorry, federal immigration law.
We can see that Massa- I believe it's Massa- No, that's not Massa- Is that Massachusetts?
No, I'm sorry, that's Connecticut.
Connecticut and California, as well as parts of Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, as well as various counties around the country, do not work with federal law enforcement agencies.
And this, in my opinion, is a bad thing.
It really, really is a bad thing.
Let me show you an example.
We have this story.
ICE arrest of illegal immigrant in Pennsylvania prompts executive order demanding warrant.
Here are the serious challenges.
I think you absolutely need a warrant to make these arrests.
Apparently this instance is where we can see the conflict going bad in both ways.
In a video that went viral, there's a man being arrested, and the man arresting him is in plain clothes.
He shows what appears to be his credentials, and then says, I have a warrant in my car, but then later says, I can make the warrantless arrest.
No.
Like, I don't know.
You know, if a police officer sees you actually commit an offense or a crime, okay, they can arrest you.
But one of the challenges here is the potential for a violation of civil rights, and there are reasons why we have constitutional protections in these regards.
We absolutely do not want to see people showing up saying that they're law enforcement in plain clothes and just taking someone away.
Law enforcement should have many restrictions.
We err on the side of innocence.
However, this particular case shows us why it's so complicated.
This guy apparently is a repeat offender and he was on trial for DUI charges.
Okay, when people drive drunk, they risk the lives of innocent people.
We actually take this very, very seriously.
We suspend driving privileges.
Or in this instance, if you're in the country illegally, you, first of all, shouldn't be.
You are subject to deportation if you're here illegally.
But what if you're someone who's a repeat offender?
Let me read this.
They say, an ICE agent took Franklin Urrutia Corden, a Guatemalan national on trial for DUI charges, into custody on Monday at the Northampton County Courthouse in a move that attorney Joshua Fulmer described as unbelievably disturbing.
I literally lost my mind, Fulmer said.
The agent refused to tell me where he was going.
I've never seen this happen.
The agent was wearing plain clothes, and a video of the interaction posted online shows Fulmer asking the ICE agent for a warrant that was not provided.
County Executive Lamont McClure responded to news of the arrest by issuing an order mandating that ICE agents obtain a warrant before taking illegal immigrants into custody at a courthouse.
No one will be permitted to be arrested in this courthouse by the federal government without a warrant from a federal judge.
I mean, I agree with that 100%.
While I absolutely think we need border security, we should not be propping up these Democrats as they flip-flop and become more and more extreme on their immigration policy.
We need to make sure that we maintain boundaries.
I do not believe you can just come in and say, I'm arresting this person.
If you're not in uniform, you show me a badge, fine, but you need a warrant.
Unless, of course, we're dealing with an imminent threat.
You can see the crime being committed.
Now, I think we know this guy is an illegal immigrant.
The journalists have confirmed as such.
The guy's in court.
It's apparent.
We still need to have restrictions.
Just like with the surveillance story.
I think it's important to have restrictions to make sure we err on the side of freedom and not on the side of security.
Because those who would sacrifice their freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.
Now, for this particular story I highlight because I really do find this one tough.
You know, I sat and read this story for a minute trying to figure out what is the best way to deal with someone who's, say, driving drunk in our country illegally, but also at the fact that law enforcement is arresting him without providing a warrant.
And I gotta say, the dude should be arrested, the dude should be deported, and the law enforcement officer should have a warrant.
So here's what we saw earlier this month that I covered.
Border Patrol will deploy elite tactical agents in sanctuary cities.
I just want to highlight this again as we move now into ICE flooding the streets with increased surveillance.
The New York Times says immigration agents are boosting their operations in sanctuary cities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
I think you get the gist of the story.
I don't know if it requires much more in-depth analysis.
You get it.
There's an escalation happening.
There's an escalation on the side of the Democrats, which I am now going to get into, and there's an escalation on the side of law enforcement.
There doesn't seem to be a safe fence to actually sit on with this.
Things are getting crazy, and I am absolutely going to call out the Democrats on this.
Joe Biden, his campaign reversed and said he's supporting a moratorium on deportations.
This, to me, is nuts.
Now, of course, Bernie Sanders is doing a flip-flop as well.
Bernie Sanders still supporting a moratorium on deportations, but saying that certain, you know, like, you know, felonies, for instance, people can be deported.
But the fact that Joe Biden is now supporting this, to me, shows that The dramatic escalation in far-left policy in our politics is getting worse by the day.
I do not want to see, you know, tactical officers marching, showing up on people's doorsteps, making these arrests without warrants.
But we're seeing the Democrats increasingly pushing open borders policies.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, acting as a surrogate for Bernie Sanders, or, I don't know if that's the right word, but she was rallying for him while he was in the impeachment trial, said that he was committed to breaking up customs and border protection and ICE.
This is the overt call for open borders.
So now we have to seriously question what happens to our country when we're simultaneously seeing a left saying, pay off all student loan debt, universal healthcare, universal college, and no deportations.
As somebody who was part of what used to be, I guess, the traditional liberal in this country, which we don't really see anymore, here's the future I see being built by Democrats.
With Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders calling for a moratorium on deportations, saying they want, well, and for Bernie at least, I'm not sure about Biden, saying they want to decriminalize border crossings.
I think Biden actually said no on this one.
What do you think happens when you tell people, we have government benefits, you will not be deported, and it will not be a crime to enter this country illegally.
And for Bernie, when you get AOC saying he wants to break up the actual border guard agency, so there's no guards, you can cross the border, you won't be deported, we have federal benefits.
It's worse than you think.
It's not just open borders.
Now there are some people like the Democratic Socialists of America.
Bernie Sanders claims to be a Democratic Socialist, but not a card-carrying member of the organization.
But the organization itself voted in favor of open borders.
When you have open borders with these policies, you are not going to see some utopia where people can just walk into the country and get a job and everyone's happy and the economy does great.
You will end up seeing a surf class.
People who still can't legally work, but will take under-the-table jobs in cash.
They'll get paid, they'll get no benefits, no healthcare.
Well, assuming Bernie does universal healthcare, they'll get taxpayer-funded healthcare.
But they're, according to some studies, going to be less likely to be paying taxes as they get cash under the table.
You will create a class of people who will not receive OSHA protections, who will not receive, you know, certain employment benefits.
They will not receive the protections, union rights, because they're not here legally.
They won't get deported.
And that's what Bernie Sanders called the Koch brothers proposal back in 2015.
And I'm not exaggerating.
He actually said that.
It used to be among regular liberals, people like me, we recognized wealthy corporations, industrialists want to bring in surf class labor.
They want people to come to this country illegally so they can pay them nothing, relatively nothing, and they do other shady things too.
There was a documentary I watched where there were a couple companies that I will not name because they'll probably get litigious, but they would encourage people to come and take these jobs illegally, and at the end of the month, they would report them all to ICE, get them all deported, so they wouldn't have to pay them.
That's what the corrupt industrialists were doing, and Bernie Sanders was all about calling that out.
But guess who actually came out and started solving these problems?
To a certain degree, I might add.
Donald Trump... Well, I don't want to say it was Trump himself, but there was a raid on several processing plants that handled meat, and many people were deported, and then local people in the community took those jobs.
I don't want to conflate these stories, but I can't believe I am now seeing the guy, Bernie Sanders, who in 2015 said a Koch Brothers proposal, who just last year said, there are too many poor people in this world, we can't let them all in, now flip-flopping and saying he wants a moratorium on deportations.
Bernie Sanders is pandering to the woke crowd.
He's playing the same game that all of the woke far-left people made, and they're going to get woke and go broke.
Joe Biden's making the same mistake.
To me, it's absolutely shocking.
Elizabeth Warren just dropped out earlier today, and she also got woke and went broke.
She started pandering to identity issues, just like we are now seeing Joe Biden and Bernie do.
But I'll tell you this.
Illegal immigrants can't vote.
Maybe they have family members who can and they'll support these things, but you are catering to a vote that can't vote.
Just like the youth vote, Bernie, that you were courting and didn't actually get.
When you come out and repeatedly defend people in this country who can't vote, what do you think's going to happen?
People in this country who can vote are going to say, I do not want you dissolving our borders and allowing repeat offenders to stay in our communities.
It would be fair of me to mention, the policies are based around Sanctuary City's policies.
The general idea is that they want people who are already in the community to come and participate in the legal system.
But my question for them is, why should we be having these people who aren't even citizens, who are in the country illegally, participating in the system at all?
I do not think we should be paying to jail them if they commit a crime.
I do not think we should be paying to imprison them if it's a serious crime.
And I don't even think we should be paying to deport them.
But that's the tough call.
What should we do?
Put more people in prison?
I don't see how this makes sense.
It's mind-blowing to me because I grew up as a moderately... Well, I was younger.
I was pretty far left.
But I'm a moderately liberal individual.
And I know that the United States has a massive prison population.
They have more prisoners than I think like most other countries save China.
We have a lot of prisoners.
We need criminal justice reform.
We saw bipartisan support for criminal justice reform.
Donald Trump was involved in this and he deserves credit for it.
But now if we're actually proposing that in sanctuary districts, we're going to have criminals repeat offenders and we're going to foot the bill to jail them.
No!
Just deport them back to their home country.
It'll be cheaper for us, they cannot be in jail, and that's problem solved for everybody.
I mean, maybe not for their home country, but why are we going to give out government benefits and government costs to pay for the infrastructure and imprisoning people who should not be here and who have an ability to go somewhere else?
Listen.
If somebody in America commits, say, like a DUI, well, they're Americans.
They're a part of our community.
We have to deal with that.
We can't just send them somewhere else.
If someone comes here from a different country, illegally or even legally, if someone is not a legal resident, if they're just here on a tourist visa or a work visa, and they're committing crimes, we should not be paying for that.
We should send them back to their country on a nice little plane.
Nice little plane.
You get a plane ride back home.
And then you're home.
And you essentially got away with committing that crime, because if you're an American, you do it, you're going to jail.
But we want to deport these people.
It's shocking to me that we're at a point where the Democrats are proposing us paying more money to jail these people.
How does this make sense?
How can the Democrats simultaneously argue for government benefits like health care and school, but open borders?
It's not possible.
How can they simultaneously argue that we need to reduce the prison population, but then argue these people who are going through the legal system should remain in this country?
You know what?
I have no idea, but I will tell you.
What's gonna happen?
The federal government, Trump, are gonna start escalating their tactics, and I don't want that either.
But I'll tell you what.
I don't see why we are paying for what these people are doing.
They can go home.
Maybe their home country is not as nice as it is in America.
But when you're here as a guest, under our good graces, and you take advantage of our goodwill, don't be surprised when we ask you to leave.
Put it this way.
If you have kids and your kid acts up, you ground them.
Yeah, right.
You say, hey, you're grounded.
Go to your room.
If the neighbor's kid comes over and acts up, you say, get out of my house.
You don't lock the kid in your own room and pay for him.
That makes no sense.
I don't understand why we as a country are doing this.
It makes no sense to me.
All I know is that Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, in my opinion, are pushing nonsense.
But you know what?
It's a rock and a hard place.
Because I will not be supporting an escalation in federal government law enforcement activities.
It's the last thing I want to see.
But, you know what?
Right now, it seems like you have two choices.
I'm not going to pretend or try and exaggerate that what we're seeing with law enforcement from ICE and CBP is the worst thing we've ever seen.
You know, some people have tried making historical video references.
No, no, no, calm down.
A dude showing up to your house and arresting you and playing clothes out of warrant is a problem.
It's not the end of the world.
What the Democrats are proposing in terms of moratoriums on deportation, decriminalization of border crossings, you get the point.
That, to me, is absolutely insane.
How do you have a country if you don't even have borders?
How can you guarantee citizens' health care if anyone can walk across the border and just take it?
It's not infinite.
People have to do the work.
Supplies have to be made.
You get the point.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you then.
Recently at a pro-choice rally, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, issued a threat to two Supreme Court justices, and it just so happens to be the two that Donald Trump had nominated and essentially appointed.
It's Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
He said, you will pay the price if you do not rule in his favor.
Basically, we'll read through this, I'll be fair, but let me just tell you something.
Civility is breaking down and this was shocking to even me.
Now, a lot of people on the right are saying this was a threat on the lives of the Supreme Court justice.
Well, hold your horses there, mister.
It's definitely a threat.
I don't want to say it's a physical threat.
I don't know what kind of threat it is, but it did say you won't know what hit you.
Now that can be a figure of speech.
He says you will pay the price.
Okay.
Let me ask you something.
Can you vote out a Supreme Court justice?
No.
Uh, can you impeach him?
Yes.
Can you impeach a Supreme Court justice for ruling legitimately on something against you?
No.
Of course, I don't think that would stop the Democrats.
We've seen how they've been acting in the past couple of years with scandal after scandal.
And they've already tried going after Kavanaugh.
So here we have Chuck Schumer straight up saying, rule in our favor or else.
The independence of the judiciary being threatened by a Democratic senator.
Now, you've got a bunch of responses.
We'll go through.
But I will just start you right off with my opinion.
This is insane!
What do you think this is?
The Supreme Court is an independent judicial legislation.
It's the highest court in the land.
They are not a political body, or they're not supposed to be.
They kind of are.
And they rule as they see fit.
They serve for life.
What price could possibly be paid?
Well, now Schumer's trying to walk things back and say, oh no, we're going to vote at Republicans.
I don't think the independent judiciary cares if Republicans don't or do get elected because they're appointed for life.
So you really got to wonder what Schumer meant by this.
But he did respond.
First, let's read the story from Fox News from just the other day.
A fired-up Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, appeared to issue a vague warning.
No Fox News.
It was a straight-up threat.
Maybe a threat on their careers, or their allies, or whatever you want to call it.
It was a threat.
toward Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday during a rally held as the court heard arguments in a high-profile abortion case.
At the rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Schumer noted that the case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, is the first major abortion case since President Trump's court picks have been on the bench.
The dispute, dealing with restrictions over who can perform abortions, Involves a Louisiana law similar to one in Texas that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016 before either Trump justice was on the Supreme Court and before conservatives held a 5-4 majority.
He said, I want to tell you, Gorsuch.
I want to tell you, Kavanaugh.
You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.
How did they release a whirlwind?
They didn't do anything!
They didn't rule on this.
They weren't even on the bench when the past ruling was made.
This, look, I gotta be honest.
Chuck Schumer is just, he's just, he's full of it.
He's blowing hot air.
But I'll tell you what.
It doesn't matter if you think he actually intends to threaten these people, or if he's just trying to rally his base.
It doesn't matter.
You can't say these things, okay?
He said, you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
Video of the remarks quickly circulated on social media with Republicans casting the warning as a threat against the two sitting Supreme Court justices.
Why does Fox keep calling it a warning?
Listen, if I say to you, if you get the Gunderson account, then you won't know what hit you if you take that account from me.
That's a threat.
What is it supposed to imply?
Let's say you're in an office and there's a promotion and you walk up to the person who's your rival for the promotion and you say, if he gives you that promotion, you're going to pay the price.
You won't know what hit you.
That's a threat!
What do you mean a warning?
I'm just warning you.
I might do something.
No, it's a threat.
A warning would be if something might happen if you do something wrong.
That's not the way Schumer phrased it.
If he came out and said, you have to understand, if you vote in this way, you will see a wave of voters coming out against the Republican Party and you won't know.
No, he said you will pay the price.
You on the bench.
He didn't say the Republican Party.
He didn't say Trump.
He said you will pay the price.
Schumer did not explain what price this would be as far as the justices are concerned, but reached for comment, his office said in a statement to Fox News.
It's a reference to the political price Republicans will pay for putting them on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.
I don't think they care.
Do you think the Supreme Court justices are trying to get Trump elected, are trying to help him win?
I gotta be honest.
They're probably biased.
Sotomayor's biased and Ginsburg's biased.
The rest of them are biased.
They're all biased.
I get it.
But I gotta say, man, it feels like things are breaking apart when stuff like this happens.
You had Sotomayor issue that strong statement claiming the court was, you know, doing the bidding of Trump or whatever, and that should not have been done.
The independent... Look, Trump got elected.
He gets to appoint who he gets to appoint.
Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, and Mitch McConnell blocked it, something I disagree with.
If you're the president, you make the appointment, move forward.
The argument was, well, if the Senate is in contrast with the presidency, then you're going to have to have an election to determine the right thing to do, blah, blah, blah.
No, I disagree.
That's wrong.
But it doesn't matter, because the Senate can operate as the Senate desires, and the president can operate as the president desires, and this is normal.
If the Republicans held the Senate, then they, well, they blocked it.
They did what they, they're allowed to do it.
Then when you get to, you know, Donald Trump's election, you now have these justices and he can appoint them.
You can't now turn around and threaten people, whether it's physical or otherwise, because they're going to issue a ruling.
This is how things have always operated.
During the rally, Schumer did go on to describe how Republican lawmakers could be impacted.
He said, we will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with
right-wing ideologues that you're going to be gone in November and you will never be able to do what
you're trying to do now ever again. Earlier in his address, Schumer had accused Republican
legislatures of waging a war on women and said reproductive rights are under attack in a way
we haven't seen in modern history. This is not the first time a Democratic senator issued vague
warnings, come on, stop saying warnings, toward the Supreme Court in August.
A group of senators led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse filed a brief in which they accused the court of being politicized, calling it not well, and warning that if it does not heal itself, it could be restructured.
This was taken as a warning that the Democrats would attempt to pack the court by increasing the number of justices and loading the bench with liberals once a Democrat is in the White House.
Great.
Do it.
If it's within your powers, fine.
Don't issue vague threats.
Just say, we're planning on changing the court.
You got a problem with that?
I honestly don't think they would.
I really, really don't.
Well, we have a response from Roberts.
Statement from Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside.
Senator Schumer referred to two members of the court by name and said he wanted to tell them that you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.
You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they're dangerous.
All members of the court will continue to do their job without fear or favor from whatever quarter.
Chuck Schumer responded, saying, Senator Schumer's comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issues of reproductive rights against the decision.
for Justice Roberts to follow up the right wing's deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator
Schumer said while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg
last week shows Roberts does not just call balls and strikes. Sotomayor issued a statement about
the court this affecting or going after the independence of the court.
And yes, Trump called her out and we got to chill out everybody.
But hey, she's the one who issued the statement saying this court is being politicized.
A new president gets in and he picks the Supreme Court justices.
That's how things work.
And they serve for life.
Now you're mad that the court flipped?
What?
For the first time in a decade or whatever?
Or I don't remember the last time.
I was a bit too young back then.
Now you're acting... So let me make one thing absolutely clear.
Because I do have... Of course the media is going to come to his defense.
He said, you.
He didn't say, the Republicans are going to pay the price for this political appointment.
He said, you will pay the price.
Okay?
I don't care what you were trying to mean.
I don't care what you, you, you, you know, what you think you meant.
I care about what you said and how someone in the court would interpret that.
You told them to, to, of their persons, they will pay that price.
And that could absolutely influence their decisions.
Even if he said, you've unleashed the whirlwind and if you make this decision, Republicans are going to pay a heavy price.
It's still a threat.
You are still trying to gain favor through fear in the court while they're making their decisions.
So listen.
Chief Justice Roberts issued that, you know, rebuke of Schumer because Schumer was politicizing a Supreme Court decision, which I get it.
The Supreme Court is politicized.
What are you going to do about it?
This is what you get when you don't vote.
This is what you get when you put up Hillary Clinton.
It's your fault.
Nobody else's.
So what do you think the media has to say about this?
Are they going to say Schumer should not be politicizing this?
It is a dangerous thing to do.
No!
They said Chief Justice Roberts should not be.
Are you kidding me?
Check us out from Newsweek.
Chuck Schumer being reprimanded by Chief Justice Roberts, quote, hurts the notion of judicial independence, say legal experts.
Are you kidding me?
Chuck Schumer should not be coming out and issuing threats to judges, no matter what the threats are.
If Schumer came out and said, I tell you this right now, if you make this decision against what I want, I'm going to donate $100 to your opponents.
Even that, to me, is inappropriate.
Okay, not really the worst thing.
I don't know what his opponents would be.
The point is, don't try and swing favor with the votes through fear, intimidation, or pressure tactics.
Of course, we've seen protesters bang on the doors, we've seen a lot of protests over this stuff, so I get it.
It's the world we live in now.
Cat's out of the bag, I don't know if we can fix it.
Maybe it's just gonna get this bad.
Maybe it was worse back then, I don't know.
I'll make another side point about, you know, what people don't realize with times changing.
Barack Obama- so, so, Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks was basically- and I'm not saying this to be mean to the guy, but he was on the verge of tears in this video when he saw that Bernie Sanders was losing on Super Tuesday, and he said, they're lying about Bernie!
He said the same thing that Obama did.
Obama praised, you know, Cuban literacy programs or whatever, and Bernie said the same thing.
Media tell the truth!
Bro, the people who are reporting on Bernie Sanders right now, who are like 30 years old, were like 18 years old when Barack Obama was elected.
Those people who were 18 back then weren't working in these newsrooms, most of them, they're probably in school, or maybe in the mailroom if they were in a news company, and weren't the ones doing the reporting.
So these people, people like me, when I was young, I didn't know anything about Cuba and what Barack Obama had said.
So now, and I don't know when he said it either, but I also wasn't doing a political commentary beat either.
So I can speak for myself.
You know what?
I don't think Barack Obama should have said the trains ran on time the same.
The point I'm trying to make about with this is that times change and sensibilities change and sometimes people say that shouldn't have been okay then.
That's true for literally everything.
Now, of course, you still have the heavy-handed social justice types who think nothing should be okay.
That's a bit absurd.
I don't think Obama or anyone should have praised this, but you need to realize the difference is there's different people now.
There's different people, right?
So if you want to argue about in the past they've done this or done that, that's fine, but it doesn't mean the machine is wrong because a new generation has stepped in with different sensibilities.
That's called a normal thing.
So let's read this.
from the media. They say Supreme Court Justice John Roberts rebuke of Schumer over remarks made
at an abortion rally risked hurting the notion of judicial independence and public faith in
America's top court, two senior lawyers have said. The Obama era US attorney for the Northern
District of Alabama, Joyce Vance, Obama era, and Chief Justice Robert, uh,
said Chief Justice Roberts comments released in a Wednesday statement risked damaging public faith
and the Supreme Court's neutrality. Why? Because he said don't threaten justices that are sitting
on the bench making a decision? Gibson-Dunn partner Ted Boutrous added that Roberts should
have repudiated President Donald Trump's attacks on Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg last week, suggesting his failure to do so while blasting Schumer brought the court's
impartiality into question.
You know, I can agree with that to an extent.
Absolutely.
But the feud between Trump and Sotomayor was based on her saying the court was just doing his bidding and they were risking all these things.
Fine.
You know what?
To a certain degree, I can respect Sotomayor saying, hey, I'm concerned about the court, but I do not, I still, to a certain degree, for the most part, shouldn't have done it.
The court has always functioned this way, at least as far as I know.
I remember when I was a little kid, it was back in like, you know, when Bush and Gore was running, and when I was talking to people, because I didn't know a whole lot, I remember people telling me the reason they were going to choose one over the other was for the Supreme Court, and that was it.
That was it.
It was like, oh, why are you going to vote for Bush or Gore?
And I'd hear people say, listen, you got to get a Democrat in because the Supreme Court justices, you know, someone's going to retire, then you need to appoint somebody or something like that.
And the same was said about Republicans.
So as far as I know, it's always been that they wanted to get a conservative or a liberal to appoint the judge that they think would favor their ideas and their ideology.
It's, I don't, for me, this is how I grew up.
I don't see it as being any different today.
But you get the point.
I'm going to wrap this up on this one.
Trump responded and he says Schumer should pay a severe price for Supreme Court threat.
I mean, I don't know if I would put it that way, but I think, you know, some people are calling for Schumer's censure for trying to sway the court in any capacity.
The reason I brought up the Cenk Uygur thing is because I can't speak to things that happened when I wasn't working in this field or when I was a little kid.
If you want to go back to the things that Obama said and question why I didn't criticize him, I'll be honest, I was very critical of Obama to my friends, but I wasn't working in media.
And many of the journalists who are coming after Bernie for saying these things also weren't the people leading the charge.
If you want to come at me and say, Tim, but what about in 2007 when so-and-so said this?
I'm going to be like, dude, I don't know.
I can tell you right now that's wrong.
I don't know what they did in the past.
I can just tell you right now, I think that's wrong.
That's it.
Okay, I'm about to be 34.
I wasn't, for the most part, into doing political commentary stuff even a few years ago.
It's only now because the story's basically taken over everything.
I used to do more on-the-ground stuff, but, you know, that's a whole other story.
Basically, you will find that new voices rise, and it's partly because of the willingness to call out things that were not called out before.
So I'll leave it with this.
Civility is going out the window.
We've got an increase in violence.
Bernie Sanders supporters, who happen, like, so Bernie, I'll be fair, Bernie Sanders has some regular sane and good people who are supporters, and that's the majority in my opinion.
But he has rallied gutter trash that get violent and smash windows, and he's only partially called them out sometimes.
His own campaign staff can say these things, and they don't care.
You know why?
The people he's courting don't care.
Guess what?
Different people have different sensibilities.
So maybe we should see more of the older crowd calling this out.
Well, they're not doing it, I don't have to tell you.
What I can say is, maybe some of these things have happened in the past, but new people are now stepping up and are viewing things very differently and calling this out.
The reason you will see voices, for instance, like mine, rising up is because I have certain opinions and sensibilities that a lot of people agree with and many disagree with.
But if someone for a long time never called out this kind of partisanship, if someone for a long time didn't call out the double standards they see from media, then eventually people get angry and tired and search for something new.
New voices in media arise and start calling it out.
It is not a special favor, it is not lying, it is not grifting just because one media company didn't cover things the way you wanted it to 20 years ago and people cover it differently today.
All I can really tell you is, this is insane to me.
Schumer should not be saying these things.
I can't remember, you know, in my career, something like this.
And maybe it's just because I didn't know about it.
So I'm more than happy to call out for anybody.
I'm more than happy to be critical of Trump for the feud with Sotomayor, pointing out Sotomayor's the one who started it in the first place.
That doesn't give Chuck Schumer the right to stand in front of the court and say you're going to pay a price to them.
He said you.
That's the important distinction.
I don't think this will go anywhere.
I don't think it's, we'll see what the ruling is, whatever, I have no idea.
But, you know, the reason I want to do this segment is because when you start having the court, like Sotomayor going after the other justices, Trump getting involved, now Schumer targeting the court, I'll tell you what, man.
Whatever the civil war is, or could be, or culture war, the divide exists in our government.
You've got the Democrats playing dirty, going after scandal after scandal after scandal, tearing things apart, targeting the courts, and here's what I see.
I see a group of Republicans, people I typically don't agree with on many core issues.
Now, the far left I really don't agree with on a lot of issues, way more than Republicans, but...
The establishment Democrat types aren't even offering anything.
All they're doing is slinging mud.
Sotomayor going after the other justices.
The Kavanaugh hearings resulting in the Kavanaugh effect.
Schumer threatening the justices.
Did Brett Kavanaugh come out and say, you know, I really hate you?
It's like, whoa.
Brett Kavanaugh had a reaction when we were going through the trial where people said, aha, he's biased, after he was already falsely accused of absurd things, and they tried smearing him and destroying his life.
That was crazy.
They're starting these things.
Certainly I think people can play better on the right, they can be more tactful, but All I see is, the mainstream establishment Democrats have nothing to offer the American people.
Because Trump, for all of his faults and his nasty demeanor, is giving the American people the core of what they want.
A better economy, immigration reform, trade reform.
These are things people wanted, even Bernie Sanders was for, at least he was several years ago, not so much anymore.
Now, the Democrats all they have?
You will pay a price.
Instead of saying, we're going to do the right thing and we're going to... No, no, no.
He said this because he knows he does not have the actual majority on his side.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Fears of the coronavirus escalating in the US now hitting King County in Washington.
This is the county where Seattle is.
And now they're asking 2.2 million residents to work from home.
They're pulling out 22,000 students.
They're shutting down schools.
They're asking people over 60 to stay indoors.
Begun the soft quarantine has.
Videos are emerging on social media of hand sanitizer and bleach and products being raided from stores.
We have seen stories popping up It really seems like Washington is getting hit hard, and it's mostly because a nursing home got infected, and this is the worst hit state in the United States.
So, I don't know when or if we'll ever get to a hard quarantine point, but we've already seen in New York and Massachusetts, the state government's asking people to voluntarily quarantine themselves.
That's where we're at now in Washington, but they are asking 2.2 million people this time.
This is when it starts getting big.
Now, earlier Donald Trump gave a statement.
It may have been, I think it was this morning, it may have been last, I think it was last night actually.
And he said, a lot of people who get this don't even know they have it.
They go about their business, they go to work, everything's fine, they recover.
That's all true.
Now, of course, people in the media tried saying, Trump said it's okay to go to work if you're sick.
He never said that.
He said some people who have had it didn't know and then went to work.
But I don't want to get into the politics.
Maybe not just yet.
First, let's take a look at what's actually going on with this story.
Daily Mail reports Washington County, with nine coronavirus deaths, urges all 2.2 million residents to work from home, pulls 22,000 students from school, and tells everyone over 60 to stay indoors.
State officials warn primary voters not to lick their ballots.
What?
Do they mean like lick the envelopes?
I don't know.
It's kind of weird.
Like if you got in the mail, I guess don't lick it.
Residents of Washington County, where 44 people have tested positive for coronavirus and 9 people have died, are being advised to work from home and schools are shutting down to avoid possible exposure to the killer strain.
11 people in the U.S.
have died from coronavirus and 165 people have tested positive nationwide.
Washington State has been at the epicenter of the outbreak with 44 cases and 10 deaths.
In the state, King County has recorded 9 deaths and Snohomish County has recorded 1 death.
The country's 11th dead was recorded in California on Wednesday.
The state's first death, the state's first death, an elderly cruise ship passenger in his 70s died after being held in isolation.
The widespread outbreak has now left public health officials in King County, which includes Seattle, and is home to over 2.2 million people, urging local businesses to allow employees to telecommute for the next three weeks in an effort to curb the COVID-19 outbreak.
We can see a bunch of photos here.
We have a photo here.
It says, medics wheel out a person on a stretcher from the Life Care Center of Kirkland on Wednesday as the death toll in Washington state climbed to 10.
Another death was reported in California, bringing the nationwide death toll to 11.
So here's what I want to point something out about these photos.
We don't really see these photos over flu, do we?
The death rate for flu being 0.1%, you know I've covered it, and coronavirus being 3.4%.
I think, look, the president's downplaying it.
I understand why he would do that, but I do not believe it.
I think this is going to get a lot worse.
There are some interesting points to be made.
One of the things that Trump said, was with all of these people who have mild cases and never report it, of course it'll seem like the death rate is really high because they're not factoring in all of the people who got it and were totally fine.
However, I think, I'm not entirely sure I think that's wrong, I think the CDC absolutely does factor in presumed cases, which does lend some credence to the idea that the mortality rate could be wrong if they're making assumptions about who has it and who doesn't.
Keep in mind, that could mean the mortality rate could be way worse or it could be way lower.
The Mail reports they are also recommending that higher-risk groups, including people over 60, pregnant women, and people with underlying health conditions or weakened immune systems, stay home and away from large social gatherings.
The latest recommendations, announced Wednesday, came after an employee at Amazon Seattle headquarters was confirmed to have tested positive for coronavirus, potentially exposing some 50,000 others who work at the plant.
Hours later, officials confirmed that an employee at Facebook's Stadium East office in Seattle had also tested positive.
The company said the office will be closed until at least March 9th.
North Shore School District, which serves 22,000 students across King County and Snohomish counties, announced late Wednesday it was closing all 36 of its schools after a parent or volunteer at Woodmore Elementary tested presumptive positive for coronavirus.
Right now we have 165 confirmed cases, 11 confirmed deaths.
So here we can see this is the Seattle area.
Kirkland over here.
That's the life care center, the nursing home, I believe, that had the outbreak.
But now we're seeing it's infected the Facebook Seattle and Amazon HQ.
I think it's fair to say, look, Trump is right.
A lot of people have this.
It's mild.
They go about their business.
They probably stay home.
They cough a bit, take some medicine.
They're probably okay.
That's true.
But I also think it's fair to say it's probably much more widespread than anyone is giving it credit for right now.
I want to point out how quite humorous I find it at all of the woke journalists who are like, it's no big deal.
You're overreacting.
It's just like the flu.
And then as soon as Trump said the same thing, they went, Trump's downplaying the coronavirus.
Oh, you know what, man?
One of the things I absolutely- I'm sorry for those that are not interested in politics and want to talk about this, but let me just point out.
There are a ton of news stories that Donald Trump has seen and a day later repeated, and then the journalists do a 180 claiming he's wrong.
That is the craziest thing to me.
I can't tell you how many articles I saw where they were like, the coronavirus is nowhere near as bad as the flu.
And then Trump comes out and says it's not as bad as the flu, and now they're yelling at him for it.
So please, spare me.
Let's just figure out what's going on.
The Daily Mail reports North Shore Superintendent Michelle Reed issued a statement saying the schools will remain closed for up to 14 days.
Well, they just made 22,000 kids really happy.
While we continue to monitor the situation and health department recommendations.
Reed said administrators plan to begin conducting classes online on Monday.
Okay, not so happy.
But still probably happy.
She noted that multiple individuals across the district are under self-quarantine after being exposed to the virus at a nursing home in the Seattle suburb of Kirkland, where the majority of the 39 Washington state cases have occurred.
Authorities launched a federal investigation into the nursing home life care center on Wednesday.
Seema Verma, head for the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Wednesday, said the agency is sending inspectors to Life Care along with experts from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to figure out what happened and determine whether the nursing home followed guidelines for preventing infections.
Last April, the state fined Life Care $67,000 over infection control deficiencies following two flu outbreaks that affected 17 patients and staff.
An unannounced follow-up inspection in June determined that Life Care had corrected the
problems, Verma said.
Health officials in North Carolina reported that a person from Wake County tested positive
for the illness after visiting the nursing home.
The patient's flight from the Seattle area to the Raleigh-Durham airport raised fears
other passengers were exposed to the virus.
Yes, they were, obviously.
My understanding is we have the manifest.
Now the trick is to go find them.
That's what Robert Redfield of the CDC said.
Life Care Center said on its website that it is screening employees for symptoms before they start work as they leave.
The nursing home is prohibiting visits from residents' family members.
Meanwhile, public officials in Washington are facing increased pressure To take more aggressive steps against the outbreak, including closing schools and canceling large events.
While the state and Seattle have declared emergencies, giving leaders broad powers to suspend activities, they have not issued any orders to do so.
We have encouraged people who are responsible for large gatherings to give consideration whether it really makes sense to carry those on right now.
Governor Jay Inslee said, right now we are deferring to the judgment of these organizations.
So we have, uh, please stay, you know, healthy, wash your hands, things like that.
That's all pretty obvious.
Well, some individual schools and businesses have shut down.
The governor said large-scale school closings have not been ordered because there are so many ramifications for families and businesses, especially for health care workers who might not be able to go to work because of child care responsibilities.
The state health department issued a notice on Twitter asking residents not to lick their mail-in ballots ahead of the primary on March 10th.
Whether healthy or sick, please don't lick, they said.
Meanwhile, King County Executive Dow Constantine announced that it purchased an 85-bed motel south of Seattle to house patients for recovery and isolation.
Yikes, man.
Look, when China started, It was kind of similar to this.
They were saying, you know, watch yourself, voluntary quarantines, and then the government cracked down heavily.
We don't have the same capabilities in the United States because we're a freedom-loving people that doesn't have the right to go and weld people's doors shut like they... Well, I don't wanna say they welded them shut, but I know they barricaded people's doors shut.
I think it's going to get bad.
I think we're just not seeing it because it's being kept out of sight, out of sight, out of mind.
So I want to show you a couple more stories.
This is a tweet from a local reporter.
This is Genevieve Rahm, Emmy Award winning from KATU News in Oregon.
So it's not Seattle, it's in Oregon.
She said, honestly, I'm just wondering how many times they've refilled the shelves, nearly empty yet again, showing that while there are many products, it looks like disinfectant wipes and similar products are being bought up in mass.
She said, oh, and bleach, also a popular get.
We can see that another shelf is completely empty, though for some reason they've left OxyClean, there is still some bleach.
So, someone responded, same on the north coast, see my feed.
It looks like people are absolutely panic buying, and I'm gonna, you know what man?
If you've watched all of my videos on the coronavirus, you're probably tired of hearing it, but I'm going to say it again because it bears repeating and it always will.
Right now in your area, it's probably fine to go get groceries and stock up.
If you haven't done your grocery shopping, go do it.
Don't all rush out at once.
Take your time.
Don't panic.
But I'll tell you what.
The coronavirus spread is probably worse than everyone realizes.
It's probably infecting way more people than anyone realizes.
And as soon as they announce the emergency in your state, that's when the shelves get stripped bare.
So you don't want to panic.
You just want to make sure you're being responsible and taking care of yourself while you have the opportunity to do so.
Because here's where it gets scary.
Now that I said that, here's the big update.
Daily coronavirus cases outside of China are now 18 times higher than inside the worst-hit nation where the outbreak began, as Beijing offers help by sending 250,000 face masks to Iran.
China may or may not have control over this.
I think it's fair to say if it's true they do have a control on this, it's because they're authoritarian.
Something we can't necessarily do.
Well, I say necessarily, so let's keep our fingers crossed we don't have to enact authoritarian controls.
The other issue is that they're authoritarians, meaning they're probably lying about what's happening.
They've been lying the whole time.
But for now it seems like the coronavirus cases are 18 times higher outside of China.
Is it possible?
China is absolutely lying about how bad it is, and it only looks like it's 18 times worse outside of the country.
Now, the World Health Organization said the reduction, the stabilization in China is correct.
I'm not convinced.
I'm not going to believe them, man.
Sorry.
They're authoritarians.
They lock people up and they lie about it.
The Daily Mail says Beijing confirmed 120 new cases yesterday, in the lowest daily toll since the crisis began to take hold in the middle of January.
World Health Organization figures show 2,103 patients were struck down outside of China, with most recorded in Iran, South Korea, and Italy, but those are the places doing the tests.
If it's true that China has controlled this, it stands to reason it's much worse than 18 times higher outside of China.
The escalating crisis, which has seen 96,000 people infected across the world, has changed course dramatically in the past two weeks.
Data shows the number of daily cases on February 19th, two weeks ago, was 17 times higher in China than the rest of the world combined.
As China's outbreak has dramatically slowed in the last week, Beijing has now started to help other nations battling outbreaks of their own.
Chinese health officials have already sent 250,000 face masks and 5,000 testing kits to Iran, which has recorded more than 3,500 cases and 107 deaths.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said China has set the test to Pakistan, Japan and some African countries, as well as Iran.
Zhao told a press conference, while fighting the epidemic at home, we will continue working with other sides and offer them assistance.
China was ostracized by the world at the beginning of its outbreak, which emerged in Wuhan in Hubei province at the end of December.
Countries around the world restricted travel to China.
The UK still advises against all but essential travel to the mainland.
Now here's really bad news for the economy.
We are seeing conferences get shut down.
We are seeing offices get closed.
I think it was Amazon or Facebook.
I think Facebook said they're going to shut down their offices for a little while.
Schools getting shut down.
An airline, actually Flybe, I think it was.
It's an airline service of some sort.
They're in dire straits, if not completely destabilized.
We're seeing furloughs at major airlines because people don't want to fly amid the coronavirus crisis.
Even though the numbers are substantially less than the flu, the mortality rate is perceivably higher.
I'll tell you this.
It's possible that the total infection rate is much higher.
But then at what point do we get, you know, 30, if it was 34 times higher, then, and the deaths were the same, then we would have around the correct amount, you know, an equal amount of deaths relative to the flu.
This is 35 times more deadly than the flu as far as we can tell right now.
So I think it's pretty important that even though the total cases is low, we stay vigilant as possible.
And that's why the governments are acting this way.
They say China fears travelers could bring in cases of the infection, with 20 imported cases already confirmed from Italy and Iran.
Several cities and provinces, including Beijing, have imposed a 14-day quarantine on people arriving from hard-hit countries.
This week, China flew 146 citizens home from Iran, just a month after governments rushed to evacuate their own citizens out of Wuhan.
The number of new coronavirus cases reported outside of China exceeded those in the country for the first time on February 26th.
So again, what we are seeing now in China, I want you to pay attention to, because it looks like we are getting close to hard quarantines here in the U.S.
I don't want to say that's literally what's happening, but I've already shown you the story.
They are asking everyone in King County, work from home.
This is soft quarantine period.
This is the biggest number we have seen yet.
Like 700 people in New York, that was not a big deal.
Couple hundred people in Massachusetts, not a big deal.
2.2 million.
I think we're getting dangerously close to the period where they say you must stay home.
We're getting dangerously close to the period where the US government needs to come out and start setting up checkpoints because the high mortality rate.
Cases have since skyrocketed outside of China, with worsening outbreaks in South Korea, Iran, Italy, Japan, Germany, Spain, and France.
More than 16,000 cases have now been recorded outside of China, including nearly 5,000 in Europe.
A few weeks ago, Chinese officials were putting in calls to try and shore up overseas support as countries imposed travel bans.
Not only that, people are not boarding these planes.
Now, outgoing calls are to offer technical advice, sharing China's coronavirus fight through video conferences with the EU and other nations.
State media reported that a manual offering advice on controlling the spread of the virus had been translated into Persian and made free to download.
After scrambling with a huge shortage of medical equipment, China is now looking to export material.
An industry ministry spokeswoman this week said China's production of hazmat suits now exceeds demand from Hubei province where the virus first emerged.
So if that's true and they are sending masks out, it stands to reason they did contain this.
Great news.
There was a story I covered where an American company was producing face masks to come to America and the Chinese government turned it around to take them because they needed them.
Now they're saying they don't.
Look, I think the authoritarian crackdown in China worked, but that's not what we want.
I'm gonna say it, man.
Freedom before security, always.
Let me be responsible for myself.
I do not want a nanny state locking things down, because they won't be able to do it effectively.
But there's the big updates for now.
I'll have more updates as they come, so stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
I've got some bad news for Bernie Sanders fans.
The reason why he's not winning is not entirely due to rigging from the DNC.
I want to make sure I clarify some things and I'm a bit fair.
I do think the DNC plays dirty games.
And I'll show you an example of this.
I've talked about the rigging and the cheating.
I've made tons of videos about cheating.
But the cheating is more so how they manipulate the rules to protect insiders, not about manipulating votes to cheat the actual election.
Let me tell you something.
If people don't show up to vote, it's called you lose.
Now, of course, there's a possibility they're ballot stuffing and playing other stupid games.
But I really, really don't think so.
I really don't.
The reality is the Democrats use their establishment connections to prop the game up against Bernie.
So in a sense, you can call that cheating.
I have no problem calling that cheating, especially when Tulsi Gabbard is third in the race right now.
You heard it.
You got Biden, Bernie, and then Tulsi with one delegate.
Now, you may be saying, haha, Tim, very funny, but no, I mean it.
The debate rules state if you have at least one delegate, you're eligible for the debate stage, and of course they're gonna change it so Tulsi can't get in, and so that it's only Bernie and Biden, haha.
See, that's cheating.
Now, to be fair, this isn't the most egregious example, right?
This is, Tulsi's got one delegate.
I'm a fan of Tulsi, I think she's cool, but I gotta be honest, like, I'll say this.
Tulsi should be on the debate stage.
Tulsi should be the nominee.
Not those people.
If only because she's in her 30s and they're both in their 70s.
Come on, DNC.
What are you doing?
But they hate her.
They'll never put her up, right?
Anyway, here's the real point of this video.
The reason I think Bernie Sanders lost is multifaceted.
First, Bernie Sanders is a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack.
A video right now is going viral.
Perez Hilton was putting it out of Bernie wheezing.
Like he's struggling to breathe.
He's talking like this.
So the thing is, you get the point.
You can go watch the video.
I think the dude's too old.
I think Biden is too old.
Bernie is also mentally weak, alright?
Now I know I've just triggered all the Bernie stans, but I gotta be honest with you.
Bernie Sanders says he will drop out if Biden gets plurality coming into Dem Convention.
I gotta be honest.
I gotta be fair.
This, I respect.
You know why?
I actually called out Bernie Sanders and said that I was willing to bet that if it came to the convention and he was behind Joe Biden, he would call for a contested convention.
It's still possible he does, but right now he is saying he will drop out if Biden gets the most delegates.
Okay.
Well, I respect that.
Because that's the principled thing to do.
If you think that's the way the system should work, then the rules apply to you as well.
But I gotta be honest.
I gotta admit.
Bernie is consistently weak on these things.
He is not like Trump.
Now this, like I said, I can respect, but compare it to what Trump would do.
And you can just imagine what Trump would do.
Trump leans on the podium at CPAC and says, I'm a mean guy, but I work for you.
And they cheer for it.
He gets asked a question about calling women fat slobs, and he says, only Rosie O'Donnell.
And then he goes on to say, look, we can't be PC.
He didn't care.
There was a video of a woman jumping up on stage and grabbing the mic from Bernie, or trying to, and then she grabs one of the mics.
He couldn't stop her.
And I'm thinking to myself, this is why Bernie can't get elected.
Like, I understand he can rally celebrity support and, you know, some celebrity support.
And he can rally the youth vote, which he can't actually convince to go vote, sure.
But he couldn't stop a small woman from taking his microphone.
But it's not just about him saying he will drop out.
Because that's a 50-50, right?
I think to a certain degree, Bernie should stand up and actually fight.
Kind of like... So I'll put it this way.
In 2016, he said, I'll go to a brokered convention.
Okay, yeah, I'm like, I get it.
That's what the point of the Brokered Convention is for.
Bernie now changed his plans.
He's like, oh no, whoever gets the most delegates wins.
But it was only because he was in the lead.
Now that he's not in the lead, well, he has no choice but to accept it.
The real thing is him coming to the defense of Elizabeth Warren.
Sanders condemns his supporters' ugly personal attacks against Warren.
Man, I got bad news for everybody.
Bernie might do the honorable thing.
He might say, Joe, you're not corrupt.
Actually, I don't think that's honorable at all.
Saying, you know, Joe's not corrupt.
Joe is corrupt.
Joe Biden is a corrupt guy with a corrupt family.
Everybody knows it.
Somehow they forgot because he's running for president as a Democrat.
Sure, whatever.
But Bernie Sanders has a habit of bending the knee at every possible opportunity.
Elizabeth Warren accused Bernie of sexism, of saying a woman couldn't be president.
And then she refused to shake his hand, and he better rush to her defense like the good little white knight he is.
Now you may call that good character, but I call it unfortunate weakness.
There is a difference between being strong and being mentally weak.
And Bernie straddles the line into weakness.
He can't stop a young woman from grabbing his microphone.
He repeatedly apologizes to everybody.
He can't stand up for himself.
He endorsed Hillary Clinton.
I'm sorry.
You know, I can see someone who can stand up, button their shirt and say, listen, I want you all to knock off these attacks.
We are men of integrity.
We are people.
We are men and women of integrity and people of action.
Gotta make sure if it was Bernie saying it, he'd be politically correct.
But we are people of action.
We do not play silly games, and we abide by principles and rules, and that means we act with honor.
That's not what Bernie does.
Joe, I'm so sorry you're not corrupt.
Your own fans were calling him corrupt.
Have a spine.
Call him out.
You can't do it, I'm sorry.
Well, this brings me to the next little bit, the cheating bit.
You see, because of these things, Bernie supporters are convinced he can actually win.
And he's only losing because the machine has been rigged from the start.
Why, Sean King tweeted out that Rachel Maddow reported the Democrats were trying to rally against Bernie, and Rachel Maddow said, what?
No, I didn't.
And in fact, it seems like she never did.
The clip then posted by Sean King was not what he claimed it was.
The reality is Bernie is just a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack, was recently wheezing on camera.
He's just too old for this man.
And he's a socialist, so, you know, he's gonna get some support, but the young people didn't even come out for him.
They all pretend like they care and they don't actually do anything.
Here's what we're seeing now.
I've seen a lot of left-wing activists post this article.
Massachusetts 2020 Democratic primary.
Exit poll versus reported vote count.
Now, I don't need to read their analysis, but here's what they show.
It is actually interesting.
Joe Biden's exit poll was 28.9 and Bernie's was 30.4.
But the actual reported count.
Bernie got 26.7 of the vote.
Biden got 33.4.
I think I know why, if I can play a silly stereotypical game.
But the reason I'm highlighting this is because I've seen a bunch of leftists say, Aha!
They rigged the vote!
And this is proof!
See, CNN, they're the honest ones, apparently.
I think this was an exit poll from CNN's website by TDMS on election night.
I'm assuming they're saying it's from CNN, I guess?
Anyway, no, TDMS Research, okay.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
It's not CNN.
It's from TDMS Research.
So they're the honest ones.
When people were leaving, They asked them, who did you vote for?
The difference between the exit poll and the actual turnout does not prove a conspiracy.
I know they want it to because they want to say, see, look, all the people said they'd vote for Bernie, but then Biden won.
That proves there was something afoot.
No, it doesn't.
It proves there was a margin of error.
More importantly, It proves that Bernie's activist fans were adamantly exclaiming who they voted for.
They were proud.
And when the exit pollsters were asking the 1,394 people, who did you vote for?
They enthusiastically said, Bernie Sanders.
And Joe Biden's crotchety old people were like, and walked away.
The people who came and vote for Biden are the passive liberals who don't pay attention.
So when they showed up to vote, they just checked the D-box and they walked out.
That was it.
They probably didn't care to answer questions, and thus the margin of error exists.
There was no grand conspiracy against your candidate.
Well, actually, I'll walk that back a little bit.
We know the establishment literally, like, worked at their best to stop Bernie Sanders.
It's not even a question.
They've publicly said they want to stop Bernie Sanders.
So call it whatever you want.
But I want to talk to you about what the cheating actually is.
Take a look at this from Heavy.
All right, man.
Look.
I'm a fan of Tulsi because I think our foreign policy is bunk.
earns a delegate. Alright man, look, I'm a fan of Tulsi because I think our foreign policy is bunk.
I really, I'm disappointed, like I think the Afghan peace deal might be falling apart.
We'll see what happens.
But that's the first and most important thing to me.
Tulsi Gabbard, as I've often given her praise, is a... She's a major in the National Guard.
Boom, right there.
I think that's way better than Bernie and Biden combined.
Seriously.
She's a major national guard.
She's a lot younger.
In every way, she would make a better president than any of these people.
Yet for some reason, she gets cast aside and slammed down.
I think it's fair to point out, a single delegate is not debate worthy.
I'm sorry.
I'm a fan of Tulsi, but let's be real.
She's not an actual contender at this point in the race.
Now, she is a literal contender.
What I mean to say is, it would be kind of fair to say, come on, man.
You got one delegate, you got like less than a percent of vote in some of these states.
It's not necessarily, it doesn't really make sense to put you up against, you know, Biden and Bernie when they're doing so well.
But I do still think she should be on the debate stage, period.
The rules were set.
And as soon as she gets a delegate and cross the threshold, they say, oh, now we're changing it because Super Tuesday is over.
That's arbitrary, dude.
That's how the game is rigged.
You see, they can't take these actions against Bernie to be too heavy handed.
People would be like, Bernie's got 500 plus delegates.
You can't boot him out.
What if they came out and said the debate threshold is now 600?
So only Joe Biden qualifies.
Or I don't know what number he's at right now, but something like that.
You know what I mean?
The point is, this is how the real cheating works.
The insiders protect insiders.
Are they going to the ballot box and changing votes?
I really, really, really do not think so.
So you can post everything you want, but maybe it's time to come to terms with the fact that, yes, they've thrown roadblocks in your way.
Yes, they've smeared you.
And I think that's all wrong.
The media is trash.
But in the end, I think the bigger issue is that regular liberals, given the option between a socialist and Obama's VP, are going to choose Obama's VP.
It's that simple.
Tulsi should be on the debate stage, and she should be the nominee.
But you know what?
It's not gonna happen.
So, I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
A couple of bills are being proposed, one in Arizona, one in Alabama, and to be honest, probably in a bunch of other places, but I don't have those articles pulled up, so we'll keep it in these two states for now.
Suggesting, or I'm not suggesting, but stating straight out, that transgender students can't compete in girls' sports.
There is some... Well, I think these might be wrong.
I gotta read the Arizona one, and we'll walk through the nuance.
But the Alabama bill says you must compete based on the gender on your birth certificate, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
You know why?
One thing that really bothers me in this whole transgender athlete debate, when conservatives take pictures of Mac Beggs, who is a trans man, meaning born female, and claim that's an instance of someone born male fighting women, it's not the case.
In fact, in this particular instance, you'll see all the photos.
There's one famous photo where it's, you know, the person, the Macbags is holding the person and it looks like some kind of headlock or something.
Macbags was born female, transitioned to male, and wants to compete against men.
I think that makes sense.
The challenge is that going the other direction, it doesn't make sense.
So the bills need to be specific about girls' sports.
Or, I honestly don't know the exact solution, but I know it's not uniform.
Just saying you compete based on your biological gender doesn't make sense if you're going to have a woman taking testosterone fighting another woman.
Sorry.
You need to figure out a different solution to this.
And don't ask me, I'm not the smartest person in the world, but let's read this and we will talk about it.
Arizona House passes bill banning transgender students from competing in girls' sports.
The Arizona House of Representatives passed a ban on students who are transgender girls from participating in girls' sports at schools across the state.
Tuesday.
Okay, let's, okay, the bill.
HB 2706 requires that teams in the state must be expressly designated for males, men or boys, females, women or girls, or co-ed or mixed sex.
Athletic teams designated for females, women or girls may not be open to students of the male sex under the proposal.
If that's as far as they go, I think it's a step in the right direction.
Probably we'll need some, you know, polishing.
We'll need to figure out to get this right.
But the problem isn't people competing based on the gender they identify as.
It's males competing in the women's division.
If a female wants to compete in the men's division, I think, you know, there's no real issue there.
That's her choice.
But if women don't have the choice and men go into their division, that's when things get kind of murky in terms of Title IX and civil rights.
The bill passed along a party-line vote of 31 to 29 on Tuesday, and it will now be sent to the state Senate.
It will apply to both public and private schools, as well as community colleges and universities.
The bill, introduced by GOP state rep Nancy Bardo, originally required that students get a sworn doctor statement detailing their genetic makeup.
Yikes, dude, come on.
Internal and external reproductive anatomy and normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone.
That is getting a little...
A little specific, I gotta say.
However, Bardo later amended the bill to only require a genetic test.
That also seems to me to be odd.
If a student's sex is disputed, okay, that's still odd, but I get it.
The Arizona Republic reported, Democratic lawmakers called the original proposal as
the show me your genitals law.
Dude, I think that law went a little too far to be honest.
We can just have you show, like, your birth certificate.
Even this, to me, is like... We just want to make sure we protect women in their division.
There's a reason why we separate them.
And it's because men tend to win.
It's possible that women can win.
We just had this big story of a female won a male championship.
Because it happens.
It's entirely possible.
But it's a tendency.
That's the issue.
Democratic state legislators have criticized the bill, arguing that the measure is an overreach by the state into a choice that should be left to students, their families, and their schools, according to the outlet.
We're policing gender.
Minority leader Charlene Fernandez said.
She's a Democrat.
The Arizona Republic reported.
We're trying to decide if that person is feminine enough or not feminine enough, and we're using that to justify subjecting our transgender athletes to additional barriers to participating in sports.
Well, let me just give you some science.
Prenatal testosterone plays a role in physical development.
That's the challenge.
Lawmakers argued for more than five hours of debate before the bill's passage, with Republicans claiming that the legislation is protecting women's sports.
Bardo said Tuesday that, quote, we tried to make it very emotional, like we're going after a group.
But no, this is a pro-woman bill.
This is a bill to save women's sports because, frankly, it won't be saved if we don't clarify the law.
The Arizona Interscholastic Association, which governs athletics at schools in the state, Also already has policies for transgender students to compete in athletics.
It requires students receive letters of support from parents, a school administrator, and a health professional.
The student also has to receive support from a committee and the association's executive board, according to the Arizona Republic.
So laws like this are starting to pop up in many different places.
So this is the other state.
That one, to me, First, sounded a little odd when it was first introduced.
But I think we're getting somewhere good.
Please, can we make sure we protect civil rights?
We protect individual liberties?
But that also includes the females and the transgender individuals.
It's tough, I know it is.
And I don't care what your opinion is on the individuals themselves, or the group, or anything like that.
The point is, in this country, an individual is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But that includes the females who compete in women's sports alongside their transgender, you know, peers.
So I don't know how you want to get it done, but I think it has to get done.
Now this bill I read a little bit about, and I think from the surface it sounds wrong, wrong, wrong, and I'll explain why.
They say, nationwide controversy is brewing as states consider banning transgender athletes from sports teams they identify with.
The new legislation will force transgender athletes to compete under their gender assigned at birth if it passes.
Let's read a little bit more.
Alabama is currently pushing for the Transgender Athletes Ban that many across the country have already established.
A bill that is sponsored by Alabama State Rep.
Chris Pringle and is known as the Gender Is Real Legislative Act, or GIRL Act, calls for transgender athletes in K-12 public schools to compete based on the gender listed on their birth certificate.
Pringle is confident that the bill will pass.
He said it will pass There's a lot of support in the chamber from other colleagues.
A lot of people want to be co-sponsors of the bill.
So I see when we get it up, it passing overwhelmingly.
Okay.
Which brings me back to the story of Macbags.
If you have someone born female, and they start taking testosterone to transition to male, well, to a man, the gender identity, because there's, I don't know how you describe it, but they're always going to be female.
You now have someone who won't have the advantages of prenatal testosterone and, you know, male puberty, but they will have an increase in testosterone, which will increase bone density, muscle mass, and all these other things.
Having them, because their birth certificate says female, compete against biological females who aren't taking testosterone does not make sense.
You would want them to compete against males.
Like, in most circumstances, I'm sure there's a lot of people who still think they shouldn't do it, But I don't think this is going to work, because now what you're going to see is trans men fighting for the right to compete against men, being told you can't under this law.
The reality is, gender is a real thing.
And I think they're missing a key component.
Men tend to be taller, faster, stronger.
Tend to be, not always.
Women tend to have wider, you know, tend to be shorter.
They tend to have more body fat, things like that.
These are realities.
But that means it's not a two-way street.
You can't simply say that men should compete with men, women with women, trans women with men, and trans men with women, because it doesn't take into account biological reality.
A trans man, someone born female, will have a massive advantage over cisgendered females.
According to Pringle, transgender students will still be able to compete, they just have to compete under the gender assigned to them at birth.
I'm interested in protecting the young ladies who have trained and worked very hard and competed as female, because we all know boys are stronger and faster and it's all about fairness.
Great.
I'll tell you what you're going to see.
You're going to see another Macbag situation where conservatives are going to get angry and confuse Macbags for being biologically male, which Macbags is not.
I don't know what Meg's pronouns are, and I don't want to get banned on YouTube, so I get it.
Welcome to censorship world.
But I'm trying my best.
I gotta love what you guys.
I do talk about this a lot because we need to talk about it.
You know why?
Because trans people are deserving of their individual liberties and civil rights the same as everybody else, but so are females, so are males, so is every individual.
And it's becoming harder and harder to actually talk about this, hence my, I don't know Meg Beggs' pronouns.
He, I'd assume, but I could get in trouble.
Why, just recently, the famous rapper Zuby, who you may be familiar with, got suspended on Twitter for saying okay dude to somebody.
That's not even gendered!
Like, I guess it was 50 years ago, but it's just a comment.
It's not supposed to mean you're a man or to misgender someone.
That's how insane things are getting.
So we absolutely must insist we can have this conversation.
Because I'll tell you what I'm doing right now.
I'm sure I'm going to get a bunch of angry feminists screeching at me saying, you know, transphobia, whatever.
I don't care.
The reality is, this bill doesn't address the problem correctly.
Needs to be called out and criticized.
We need to solve this problem.
And maybe the answer is just a transgender division.
You know why?
A trans man, that's somebody born female, will have an advantage over females, but a trans woman will have a disadvantage over biological males.
In which case, maybe they can compete in a transgender division, where the disadvantage and the advantages start to sort of, you know, I honestly don't know.
What I do know is we can't do nothing, and we can't just end sports for females.
Because with this bill, you're gonna see the same thing.
While you won't see a biological male winning, you're gonna see a female taking testosterone winning all the time.
And that's still part of the problem, isn't it?
Look, steroids were banned for a reason.
One of the jokes I've seen is that maybe it's time we just let everybody take whatever they want to be the best.
And it was like a meme where someone's just got a bunch of needles and stuff and they're like full of crazy hormones and blood doping or whatever and it's nuts.
I don't think that's the answer.
I think it's a phony joke.
The issue is, well the reality is, when it comes to sports, we're trying to find the best of the best of the best.
We know that men, the best, the fastest, you know, best swimmer male is, I'm sorry, the best swimmer in the world, the fastest, is gonna be a man.
You know, the best wrestler, the best physical, whatever, typically will be a dude.
Women?
They get their own division because of this.
It's just reality.
Deny it all you want.
It's not going to change anything.
But when we see these, I think we're seeing that the reaction isn't the correct approach.
There's a better way to do things.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In what may be one of the most insane viral videos I've ever seen, a group of people go into what appears to be a- I'm sorry, it is a Walgreens, and they're raiding the cosmetics department.
Now, I can't tell you exactly why, because confirmation requires some, you know, boots-on-the-ground stuff, and to find out who these people are, what they were doing, is more complicated than just commenting, but the reality is, as most of us assume, California's Prop 47, which made it so that basically, if you steal anything under $950, nobody's gonna come and arrest you, has resulted in an increase in crime.
That's just the sad and horrifying reality of San Francisco's attempt at what they call, I don't know, restorative justice or criminal justice reform.
All it's done is led to an increase.
And the city, in my opinion, is a raging dumpster fire.
Total anarchy.
Viral video shows what San Francisco's no-arrest policy looks like.
California's Prop 47, a 2014 law that reclassified some theft and drug possession offenses as misdemeanors, has resulted in a serious retail crime problem in the state, especially in areas such as San Francisco.
For outsiders, it's hard to believe that scenes like the viral one below are commonplace in the state, and that empty store shelves have been mistakenly believed to be a result of a business closing rather than severe shoplifting.
Act for America says San Francisco has no arrest policy.
This is Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district.
I'm going to play for you now this video, and you are going to have your mind blown when you see this.
California's Prop 47 leads to rise in shoplifting thefts, criminal activity across the state.
Who would have thought that when you have an ever-expanding, dense metropolitan area, where people have no ties to the community, and you start pulling back on these laws, that the people who don't care about the community start committing crimes!
That's what Prop 47 has led to, and I gotta say, it seemed like it was pretty obvious.
There's a story that I've told several times, and I want to tell you now because it falls in line with similarities to this story.
In Ferguson, when the riots happened in 2014, I was there.
And when police came in and started trying to break up protests, looters started looting buildings.
Guess what?
The people looting the buildings did not live there.
They came from other areas to exploit the Ferguson community because it was free stuff, and that was their chance, and then they ran off with it.
They exploited the chaos for this goal.
With California's law, you're saying it's going to help marginalized people and the people in your community, but guess what?
People from outside your city will come and exploit this.
I don't know what the answer is.
I agree we've got a problem with criminal justice, with crime.
I get it.
We want to make this all go away, but this doesn't seem to be the answer.
The same thing like with bail reform in New York City.
And I err on the side of understanding and agreeing with bail reform, but they did it wrong.
In New York, they said, if you commit a certain crime, I think a misdemeanor, they don't charge you money, and you're just free to go.
That makes sense in a certain light.
I always err on the side of freedom instead of security.
I mean, well, I say always, but typically.
The point being, you know, if you let out people who are accused of crimes, I gotta say, it's better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
But there are still realities we have to pay attention to.
Notably, that there are criminals who will exploit the system.
And perhaps, you don't do... Here's what you do.
You want to do bail reform, right?
How about a three-strike policy?
If you get arrested three times, then you get your bail revoked.
Okay?
They arrested a guy who started laughing.
Say, because of bail reform, you can keep getting away with it.
Well, how about this?
You arrest a guy the first time, you say, okay, we're gonna let you out on bond with no cash, because it's not right to lock up people just because they're poor.
If you arrest them again when they commit another crime, then you say, okay, now we're going to, you know, let you out again.
But the third time, you say, no, sorry, the good graces are done.
We have witnesses, we have probable cause, that way we err on the side of freedom and we give a better opportunity.
I'm not saying that's the right thing to do because people might still exploit the system.
I'm just saying what they did was a blanket like doors open.
This story from Fox News will explain, kind of, what you are seeing with three hooded masked individuals just dumping everything into bags and no one can do anything about it.
What are you gonna do?
What can you really do?
In a lighted garage on one of San Francisco's busiest streets, a young man in baggy trousers and messy brown hair pulled down his pants.
He had been hiding two pairs of stolen jeans with a tag still on them.
He handed them to another man waiting nearby, took some money, pulled up his pants, and headed back to another store on Market Street, home to the city's high-end designers and big-chain retail shops.
The incident wasn't a one-off.
These brazen acts of petty theft and shoplifting are a dangerous and all-too-common consequence of Proposition 47.
A referendum passed five years ago that critics say effectively gives shoplifters and addicts the green light to commit crimes as long as the merchandise they steal is less than $950 in value.
The decision to downgrade theft of property valued below the arbitrary figure from felony to misdemeanor, together with selective enforcement that focuses on more serious crimes, has resulted in thieves knowing they can brazenly shoplift and merchants knowing the police will not respond to their complaints, say critics.
Why do you live there, guys?
Now, to everybody who doesn't live there, let's all sit back.
You guys can move to the right of the room.
And to everybody who lives in California or San Francisco, notably, we're all going to ask you the same question.
Why do you live there?
I understand maybe it's hard to move, but at a certain point, you got to cut your losses, right?
Human waste in the streets.
Dude, if my city had to launch a poop department, I think it's about time.
I think it's about what I like.
It's time to go.
I got a fire department.
I got a police department.
We got the waterworks.
A poop They literally have poop cleanup in San Francisco.
That's how bad it is.
You've got a serious homeless crisis, you've got emerging diseases, and now this stuff?
These videos are insane.
I couldn't imagine working at a store or trying to run a store if people are gonna walk in and just raid everything, and you can't do anything about it.
But guess what?
If you thought I was done there, you'd be wrong!
Why?
Well, because we're only at six minutes, and you know YouTube videos gotta be ten minutes long.
I'm kidding, by the way.
No, I actually have a story to show you.
The reality is that Prop 47 passed in 2014 has made homelessness worse at least.
That's what some are saying.
Fox 11 Los Angeles says homelessness explodes since Prop 47 was passed in 2014.
They say on Sunday night Fox 11's Bill Malugan did a fascinating story about how the meth epidemic is gripping the homeless community on the streets of LA.
The Mexican drug cartel CJNG is smuggling in huge supplies of meth because the demand is so high.
The interesting reason the cartel's business is flourishing and homelessness is increasing is due in large part to California's Prop 47.
Bravo!
Bill Bodner, the special agent in charge of the DEA in Los Angeles, told Fox 11 he believes Prop 47 is enabling this addiction cycle because it changed drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.
There's no reason to be afraid for shooting up in public.
There's no motivation to go to treatment.
They used to be given a choice.
Do you want to go to jail?
Do you want to get a felony conviction?
Or do you want to get treatment?
There's no hammer now.
Now they get a ticket, they tear it up, and they walk away!
They're using drugs the same day again, so it has not worked.
Aw, think about that.
You watch someone loot a store of hundreds of dollars in cosmetics, and they go, well, here's a fine, and they go, thanks, and they walk away.
And that's it.
And their friends maybe get away, or maybe they say, I'll try again next time, because I'm not going to pay your ticket, I don't care in the first place.
We're all asking ourselves, why has homelessness and drug addiction exploded recently?
What has changed?
Well, Prop 47 was sold to voters under the shamefully misleading name Safe Schools and Neighborhoods Act in late 2014.
While it did make good on its pledge to reduce prison and jail populations by thousands of inmates, it left thousands of people on the streets who are not arrested for felony drug use.
Listen.
If you eliminated all crime, there would be no criminals.
But it's a joke made that the only reason people are criminals is because you have crimes on the books.
Get rid of the books, no crimes anymore.
Congratulations, you successfully reduced your prison population by just not arresting people anymore for committing those crimes.
You just say, well, these aren't the same crimes, so congratulations.
The people who now did things that you didn't want can now do those things with impunity.
I mean, not necessarily impunity, but you get the point.
Since then, homelessness has surged, drug addiction has soared, and type 2 crime to support drug use has skyrocketed.
One of Prop 47's authors, George Gaskin, is running for L.A.
District Attorney, so naturally he's doubling down on his support of this failed proposition, because this is his legacy.
At the very least, police must be given back the authority to arrest drug addicts and give them a choice of prison or treatment.
Now, let me stop you right there, Fox 11.
When you got someone walking into a store and just snatching stuff up, arrest them!
It's that simple!
But just, they give them tickets.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to live in that place?
Beats me!
But that is the epitome of oligarchy and wealth disparity in this country.
Think about how awful San Francisco is.
You've got the ultra-wealthy global elites, the tech giants, living there, surrounded by human waste, drug abuse, homelessness, It's like a dystopian nightmare, man.
You can go there and see all the cool, fancy, crazy, sci-fi, tech, wizardry, whatever you want to call it, Starbucks across the street from Starbucks, I kid you not, and then some dude laying in his own crap and crap all over the streets.
That's like... We were warned about this possibility, and maybe something needs to be done about it.
I don't know what the answer is, but I'll tell you this.
If y'all start moving out of these places and just, like, leaving, Maybe that'll be the first step.
Just get out of there, you know?
Like, I don't know.
You know what?
Maybe you want to live there.
Hey, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
If you want to live there, far be it from me to tell you what to do, but I'm gonna leave it there.
