Trump Launches NUCLEAR Option Over Social Media Censorship Of Conservatives, Targets Section 230
Trump Launches NUCLEAR Option Over Social Media Censorship Of Conservatives, Targets Section 230. An executive order targeting social media censorship has leaked showing impending action and it seems Big Tech is scared.The order directs the FCC to clarify what constitutes certain phrases under section 230 and could see Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube lose liability protections if they run afoul.Democrats currently want to outright revoke section 230 protections because they don't like conservatives ability to communicate but conservatives don't like big tech getting it both ways, being a publisher that can censor but also a platform that can't get in trouble.Many people, like Ben Shapiro and Robby Soave, feel that this could get back for the right and end up generating more censorship.I disagree however as this EO would restrict what could be censored.#Democrats#Trump#Censorship
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A draft of Donald Trump's executive order targeting big tech censorship has been released.
It may change.
And by the time you're watching this video, he may have already signed it.
But I got to say, I read through this thing and it looks like Donald Trump has just nuked big tech from orbit.
It's smart.
I feel like a lot of the points made in the executive order make sense.
And this very well may Prevent some online censorship.
Now, of course, all of the pundits are lighting up across social media with their opinions about what's going to happen.
I obviously have mine, and I will say it now, they're all wrong!
They're all wrong.
I don't think people understand what's really going on with Section 230 for the most part.
But I've got a Georgetown law professor who gives us his opinion, and it really does look like Trump's executive order is correct.
He is not, as they say, going to take away liability protections from social media companies per se.
Trump's executive order authorizes the FCC and potentially the FTC to enforce existing law that has long since been ignored.
You see, for the longest time, We've dealt with social media censorship, mostly targeting conservatives.
Really good examples would be hashtag learn to code and rapper Zuby being suspended for saying okay dude.
Section 230 was not intended to protect platforms from removing that kind of content, but they do anyway because no one's been enforcing anything.
So I don't want to mess the context up.
I want to read you the news as CNN reports it, show you the executive order, and go over what this means.
And dare I say, I think In the next month or two, we may not see any dramatic changes necessarily, but we've already seen Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, step up, admit to, presumably, I would say it appears like he's admitting to his mistake in fact-checking the president the other day because they put a fact check on Trump's opinion editorializing content, which is in no way protected by Section 230.
The big question arises, are social media platforms publishers or platforms?
They let anybody sign up and post things within reason.
Section 230 has very clear guidelines as to what Twitter is allowed to remove and still remain a platform.
But if Twitter is editorializing Donald Trump's tweets, which in no way violate any provisions of Section 230, or in no way fall under the exemptions of Section 230, then Twitter, even though for the most part they are a platform, still cross over into publisher territory.
What does that mean?
It means you can sue Twitter for the things other people say.
Long story short, what we're hoping to get out of this executive order, it may not happen, Is that Twitter will be forced to uphold lawful and legal content and taking down things that violate certain rules?
Yes, but they can't ban you for saying learn to code and they can't ban you for having nasty opinions.
But let me let me give you the full context.
First, let's read what the New York Times.
I'm sorry.
Let's read what CNN has to say.
And I do want to show you some conservatives who are very much opposed to some of these changes, and we'll go through what this means.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you could possibly do, share this video.
They really do, and they prop up the mainstream media.
The mainstream sources like CNN get front-page access when dealing with certain issues.
Like, they get a dedicated section.
Meanwhile, I get removed from recommendations.
One of the reasons, you know, people are really concerned about what Trump is doing with his executive order.
I don't think the executive order is going to change this problem I face, which means the only thing I could ask of you is to share the video because it helps keep my channel going.
It's the best marketing possible.
However, if you just want to watch, make sure you subscribe to the channel, hit the like button, hit the notification bell, and let's get to the news.
CNN reports Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies.
I don't want to read too much of what they say, because I actually have the executive order for you, and I'll just give you the legit reporting.
But CNN being biased, we've already seen them coming out against this.
I'm curious.
President Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets potentially misleading.
Mind you, those tweets were opinions.
Twitter should not have been intervening.
The draft executive order being prepared by the Trump administration tests the boundaries of the White House's authority.
In a long-shot legal bid, it seeks to curtail the power of large social media platforms by reinterpreting a critical 1996 law that shields websites and tech companies from lawsuits.
It marks a dramatic escalation by Trump in his war with tech companies as they struggle with the growing problem of misinformation on social media.
The president has regularly accused sites of censoring conservative speech.
They do, it's a fact, and we have more than enough evidence.
We have seen numerous exposés, leaked emails.
It is a fact that they do this.
Hashtag LearnToCode.
It was admitted by Twitter's higher-ups, to me personally, on the Joe Rogan podcast, that perhaps they were a little too aggressive in policing a hashtag.
LearnToCode.
If you're not familiar, conservatives were essentially mocking journalists who had written stories for years saying that coal miners who lose their jobs to just learn how to program computers to find new jobs.
So when journalists started getting laid off, a lot of people said, learn to code.
Some people used it in a neutral reference, like actually just referencing the phrase itself.
Meaning you could be on Twitter and you could say, I'm confused as to why hashtag Learn Dakota is so offensive.
Boom, you get banned.
And a lot of people did.
Arguably, according to this new executive order, would not be exempt.
In this article from Reclaim the Net, they have provided us with the actual draft of President Trump's social media censorship executive order.
For those that aren't familiar, Reclaim the Net is a site that deals with issues of censorship.
I'm not going to read all of it, but I'll read as much as I can.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows.
Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.
Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution, underscoring that the freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as free people.
The emergence and growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.
Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.
As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of a public square.
I'm going to stop right there.
That is not Trump's opinion.
That comes from a Supreme Court ruling.
Let's read.
As president, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet.
Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our businesses, our newspapers, and our homes.
It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to handpick the speech that Americans may access and convey online.
This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.
When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.
Online platforms, however, are engaging in selective censorship that is hurting our national discourse.
Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms flagging content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service, making unannounced and unexplained changes to policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints, and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
At the same time, the social media platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise punish American speech here at home.
Several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.
Google, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party, which blacklisted searches for human rights, hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.
Google has also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.
For their part, Facebook and Twitter have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China's mass imprisonment of religious minorities.
Twitter has also amplified China's propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use its platform to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
Now, we get to the policy portion where we get a bit more in the weeds.
This is very important and I'll try and I'll do my best to break this down for you.
Section 2, Protections Against Arbitrary Restrictions.
A. It is the policy of the United States to foster clear, non-discriminatory ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.
Prominent among those rules is the immunity from liability created by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified.
I'll just give you the quick gist and then we'll read through this.
There are specific provisions in Section 230 that guarantee Twitter, Facebook, YouTube won't be sued if I say something that's defamatory or in other ways causes trouble that leads to a legal problem.
However, there's clear guidelines as to what they can remove and they clearly violate it.
Let's read.
Section 230 was designed to address court decisions from the early days of the internet, holding that an online platform that engaged in any editing or restriction of content posted by others thereby became itself a publisher of the content and could be liable for torts like defamation.
As the title of Section 230 makes clear, the provision is intended to provide liability protection to a provider of an interactive computer service, such as an online platform like Twitter, that engages in, quote, good Samaritan blocking of content when the provider deems the content, in terms of subsection 230c2a, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
Subsection 230 broadly states that no provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of content provided by another person.
But subsection 230c2 qualifies that principle when the provider edits the content provided by others.
Subparagraph c2 specifically addresses protections from civil liability and clarifies that a provider is protected from liability when it acts in quote good faith to restrict access to content that it considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
The provision does not extend to deceptive or pretextual actions restricting online content or actions inconsistent with an online platform service.
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph C2A, It is engaged in editorial conduct.
By making itself an editor of content outside the protections of subparagraph C2A, such a provider forfeits any protection from being deemed a publisher or speaker under subsection 230 C1.
Which properly applies only to a provider that merely provides a platform for content supplied by others.
It is the policy of the United States that all departments and agencies should apply Section 230C according to the interpretation set out in this section.
Let me try and break this down and tell you what they'll then be doing.
The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, they choose which content appears on their front page.
They have employees, they pay them.
There is almost no user-generated content, perhaps maybe other than comments.
The New York Times will not be held liable for what someone in a comment section says.
That's basically what 230 is trying to do.
However, they specifically outline it's in good faith and the content is considered to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
Would anyone consider the rapper Zuby's tweet, OK DUDE, to fall in line with any of those provisions?
Dare I say the answer is no.
If you're not familiar, Zuby is a rapper who on Twitter responded to someone in a political debate saying, OK DUDE.
Like, just basically ending the conversation like, OK DUDE.
However, they apparently deemed this to be some kind of hate speech, and so they suspended his account.
That seems to be completely editorial, and I do not believe any reasonable person, a court, or could justify how that falls under objectionable behavior.
I mean, it's certainly not obscene, it's not lewd, lascivious, filthy, it's not violent, it's not harassing at all.
What Trump is basically saying with this is that if these are the terms set forth, then the FCC needs to start enforcing these, and that means people should be able, if we get this clarification, to sue Twitter in the event that they engage in this behavior.
Long story short, Twitter will have to make a choice.
It'll probably be on a case-by-case basis, but Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook could risk losing their protections if they start editorializing content.
Take a look at what Donald Trump tweeted in terms of mail-in voting.
The other day, Donald Trump said, you know, there's no way that mail-in voting doesn't lead to widespread voter fraud.
An opinion predicting the future.
Of course, there's no way to fact check that.
It's a statement about what he thinks will happen in the future.
But Twitter decided to add a tag to his tweet, thus editorializing well beyond the scope of what's actually protected.
Here's what I want to, I want to clarify this for you too.
This is very, very complicated.
I am not a lawyer.
But if the protection is based on someone posting a comment, right?
Then you certainly wouldn't argue that a commenter publishes for the New York Times.
However, what if the New York Times goes in and starts editing the comments made by people?
Well, now you can argue that they're actually working with those comments as part of their general publication.
Of course, there's a very, very strong argument.
We're going to hear a lot of back and forth.
But just because Twitter has hundreds of millions of users they don't regulate doesn't mean they're not a publisher like the New York Times.
The argument ultimately becomes murky.
I gotta admit, this stuff can get confusing.
Some people on the left have argued it's actually the First Amendment that protects social media platforms from having to allow anyone to speak.
They argue it this way.
If I have a company and my company, say, puts up a sign in the window, and I let some people put up signs in the window, that doesn't mean I have to let everyone put up a sign in the window.
However, if your argument is that the enforcement of Section 230 would violate the First Amendment, then, dare I say, Section 230 has violated the First Amendment from the outset and would need to be revoked.
Now interestingly, Joe Biden himself has called for revoking Section 230 outright.
In the context of Section 230, we can see at the New York Times, he says, it should be revoked.
It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company, referring to Facebook, it is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy.
What we're seeing here, is that Democrats want to remove this protection because they do view Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
as publishers of that content.
If that's the case, and that's the view of the Democrats, then it doesn't matter if 230 exists.
Section 230 isn't supposed to be protecting them at all.
There's no reason to revoke 230 if these companies are operating outside the confines of what the protection is supposed to be.
Therefore, what Trump is saying should be getting fanfare from everybody.
Because think about it.
It means that...
They're not going to be protected from civil liability if they know and help falsehoods.
It also means that they'll have to choose to allow people to speak freely, no matter what.
Of course, I think the real issue for many Democrats is that fake news, misinformation, or information that generally proves them wrong is out of their control.
And they want Facebook to delete things that make them look bad.
There's a lot that's going to happen.
According to this, they want within 30 days, the NTIA, the National Telecommunications Information Administration, to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not taken in good faith, within the meaning of subparagraph C2A of section 230,
particularly the condition under which such actions will be considered to be deceptive, pretextual,
or inconsistent with a provider's terms of service.
He also goes on, however, and says there could be issues with deceptive practices and changing
of terms of service.
I can't, I'm not going to read through the entire thing because I can't make an hour
long video, you know, but I'll do my best to give you the gist of it.
If a platform like YouTube tells you, here are the rules, you can come and build your
business and do your thing, but then arbitrarily in violation of those rules, suspends you,
shuts you down, or due to public pressure, shuts you down, you could argue that's deceptive
because you had essentially a contract with the company they are violating.
Now, of course, many of these companies actually say they can ban you for any reason outright.
You can try, and so you'll probably lose.
In the end, what I think will happen is, There may be clarifications here.
This probably won't do a whole lot.
People may try to start suing Twitter and Facebook for liability issues.
And if their protections are in question, it ultimately could be a very, very bad thing for everyone.
I don't think that's going to happen.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc., they're too big to fail.
So ultimately what ends up happening is they better stop removing legal speech like hashtag learn to code and allow people to say their opinions.
Otherwise, Well, they'll really lose all of those protections.
This is the hope.
Let me show you.
I believe I have a tweet from Count Dankula.
He said, if they choose to be a platform, that means people like Alex Jones and many other people who have been banned could possibly come back.
Opinions and comments that could get you banned, like Learn to Code, wouldn't be bannable offenses anymore.
And Dankula is right on that, though I don't necessarily think it will be an issue of one or the other.
I think it will be a case-by-case basis.
But it involves their liability protection, so it could ultimately just be as Dankula sees it.
That as soon as Twitter steps over that line by editorializing the president's tweet, they lose those protections, in which case they just don't do it.
Jack made a very, very serious mistake, and I'll show you this.
Mark Zuckerberg Yeah, well, Facebook runs a fact-checking arm that goes in and smacks labels on things, so they're granting that power, and they should not.
It's tough, man, because you get a lot of people spreading a lot of nonsense on Facebook.
Making money off it, too.
Well, Jack Dorsey of Twitter chimed in.
He said, There is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that's me.
Please leave our employees out of this.
We'll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally, and we will admit to and own many mistakes we make.
This does not make us an arbiter of truth.
Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves.
More transparency from us is critical.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Jack made a glorious, glorious mistake.
It was one of the most epic failures of policy I have ever seen.
And I mean it.
At a time when Donald Trump and conservatives are looking for a reasonable approach to dealing with censorship, you edited the content of a non-rule-breaking tweet that falls under none of the provisions of Section 230.
It was Trump giving his opinion about mail-in voting.
Not objectionable, not lewd, not lascivious.
Violated none of your rules at all.
Trump didn't make a statement of fact.
He made an opinion.
You can argue you can't mislead people about elections, but Trump was giving his opinion.
What happens is Jack Dorsey put a tag on that tweet which links to the opinions of other people.
And there it is.
You have just forfeited your entire argument.
In Patterson, New Jersey, right now, I live in New Jersey, a member, a leader of the NAACP in the state has called for an election to be outright cancelled because of widespread voter fraud allegations and corruption charges.
The vote was done by mail-in ballot and there are a whole lot of inconsistencies.
Signatures don't match.
People are being disqualified.
Packs of votes are just being discovered.
And so it's even the NAACP saying we got to do this over.
Jack Dorsey saw Trump's opinion and decided to editorialize it by linking to the opinions of other people who don't like him.
In no way was that fixing misleading information.
Jack and his team think they know better.
They think they're smarter.
They're not.
I'm not saying this as a dig against him.
I'm saying it.
They literally see Trump's tweet and say, that's incorrect.
It's being disputed.
Therefore, we should add context.
We should editorialize.
We should add a sentence to what someone else said on the platform.
That immediately crosses them over outside of Section 230 provisions.
It was a huge mistake, and of course, it was exactly what Trump needed to say, there it is.
They have now added a sentence to my tweet.
They have edited my tweet.
They have changed the text of what I have published.
That is what the New York Times does.
That is not what an open platform does.
So we'll see what this leads to.
But I believe now, you could actually argue, with or without the executive order, that based on the actions of Jack Dorsey, they have just forfeited Section 230 protections.
They are actually editing the content of the users.
They're determining what appears.
We'll need lawsuits before things can change.
But let's take a look at some comments from some experts, and we'll give you better context.
Randy Barnett is a Georgetown law professor who said, whatever legal implications may result, it seems that both
Twitter and Facebook are online publishers in competition with other publishers for
advertising and eyeballs. The fact they regulate their content only further underscores this. They
are not an ISP like Comcast or RCN.
If they're not publishers with First Amendment rights, then perhaps they're closer to common carriers who have a
duty not to discriminate.
Georgetown Law Professor.
He brings up a really great point.
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, yes, YouTube, are in competition to sell advertisements.
Well, that's what newspapers do.
They're actually regulating the content that appears on their platform.
Simply because they don't have strong editorial guidelines doesn't mean there aren't editorial guidelines.
There are.
YouTube passed rules on what we were allowed to say about the pandemic.
They gave us editorial guidelines.
They actually sell ads and split the money with us.
YouTube is playing a very, very dangerous game.
My livelihood is YouTube.
I've been very successful and I'm very fortunate.
But I'll be the first to admit, YouTube is very likely to be a publisher the same as any other service, simply because they allow me to be on their platform.
Let me tell you something.
They review channels to determine whether or not you get access to cash.
In which case, there's a strong argument that they're just a company hiring people.
I would not be happy with it, I'll tell you what.
It would be very, very bad for me and my livelihood, but the argument stands.
They're competing with the New York Times.
They have a large group of people who produce content.
The company then sells ads against it.
I don't sell any ads.
I just get paid based on the ads that come in.
It's going to be a really wild ride moving forward, and a lot of people aren't going to like it.
I know I probably wouldn't.
It could be the end of my YouTube channel.
We'll see how this plays out.
Ben Shapiro chimed in, saying here's the inevitable effect of destroying 230 of the CDA.
All comment sections will be taken down, no website has the resources to actively edit all comments in order to shield themselves from liability, and no website is willing to leave comments entirely standards free.
The imitation to redefine unfair business practice to include comment-policing-based lawsuits will likely not end well for conservatives.
I see the appeal, but I'm wondering just why conservatives are suddenly so unconcerned about political bias among regulators.
But I will add, I don't think it matters.
Removal of Section 230, Trump's executive order.
I think the fact is there hasn't been a strong legal case brought to a judge to point out the fact.
Twitter says, publish on our platform.
And we're just a platform, right?
But Twitter sells advertisements on this platform.
Now, the difference between, you know, YouTube and Twitter is that Twitter doesn't pay you, but they do monetize the content you're producing, which would be no different to say, I don't know, the Huffington Post or Forbes, who are publishers and are liable.
Long story short, when the Washington Post says something, They're the ones who said it.
If they defame you, they can be sued.
Twitter makes money off of our content.
They choose who gets to appear and who gets to publish content.
They will remove you for saying things like, okay dude, clearly they have editorial guidelines.
Therefore, what's the difference between Twitter and the Huffington Post?
And I mean that literally.
I understand you can point out solid differences like, well, the Huffington Post, they write articles and Twitter is a microblogging site.
I don't care.
The Huffington Post allows users to post and so does BuzzFeed.
What's the difference?
You could argue that The Huffington Post has the same protections, for sure.
But they do edit the content.
Okay.
Twitter has now stepped into that game and directly edited Donald Trump's tweet.
Well, there you go.
They're now one degree into that same territory.
I also have this tweet from Robbie Suave.
He says, the obvious consequence of removing liability protection would be social media companies censoring more speech, not less.
This order is about assuaging Trump's bruised ego, not protecting free speech.
In fact, if your goal was to force Twitter to take more aggressive action against Trump and against edgy right-wing speech, what you would do is suspend the liability protection, say goodbye to tweets implicitly accusing Joe Scarborough of murder.
In fact, this is part of the reason that many progressives of the Elizabeth Warren variety are adamantly in favor of removing the liability protection, as well as Joe Biden.
Here's what I think we need.
I think we need these companies to stop banning legal speech.
That should be the standard.
Many people are speaking out against, you know, these changes and this enforcement.
I don't agree with that necessarily.
The executive order may work.
It may actually tell Twitter, don't ban lawful speech and set your rules to be as such.
That would mean that someone could be on Twitter and say really, really awful things, like really nasty racist things, and they couldn't get rid of it.
Same for YouTube.
It would mean that they can't ban my videos when I say a name.
It's lawful speech.
It's protected.
It would incentivize them to be hands off, but it would not mean they would ban more.
It means they would ban less.
That way they don't get sued.
The biggest problem right now is that Section 230 has not been clarified.
Trump is seeking to do that and enforce the law under this.
I have no idea how that will play out.
We can only see.
But let me just wrap it up with this.
In the end, probably nothing will happen.
I mean it.
I really, really do.
Nothing will happen.
It would be devastating from, you know, if... Yeah, I think nothing will happen.
I really don't.
I just don't see it.
The courts have struck down so many lawsuits.
An executive order while it's clever, won't necessarily do anything. But it
will be interesting to see how the FCC seeks to regulate certain content. But this really is about
liability protection. So even if the FCC determines that, you know, well, actually, I'll put it this
way. It may be that starting, you know, in one month, the FCC says, here are the clear
definitions of lascivious, of objectionable.
Okay, dude, clearly it's not a pun.
It's not in there.
Twitter then says, okay, from now on, we won't ban legal speech.
That would be the best outcome.
We'll see how it plays out.
A little longer for you today, but stick around.
I've got more videos coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews, and I'll see you all then.
Last night, we saw some of the worst rioting we have seen in this past decade, especially as it pertains to Black Lives Matter.
I have been to many of these riots.
I was in Baltimore.
I was in St.
Louis several times.
I've been in many different cities, like New York, witnessing protests.
I've seen them escalate into full-on riots.
And these are some of the worst images I have ever seen.
They torched several buildings.
One of the buildings was low-income housing just burned to the ground.
You can see it on the screen.
They looted a Target.
Now, we get a lot of crazy stuff that comes out of this, too.
As they're looting this target, some old lady and like a rascal shows up with a knife or something, and then people start fighting with her.
This is just full-on crazy.
Someone in one video had a chainsaw walking around the city.
Why?
I don't know, man.
People are losing it.
A lot of people are making the jokes about the boogaloo and stuff like that.
We saw an auto zone burn down.
And yeah, things are getting crazy.
But here's one of the crazier stories.
Now, I gotta remind you.
Be careful with this preliminary stuff.
The news is still coming out.
There are still images emerging in the past like 20 minutes to an hour of fires burning.
It's the aftermath of the riots and people are still out.
They were out all night.
But one of these stories that has come out, which will need to be fact-checked, mind you, is that two people tried looting a pawn shop and the owner was having none of it.
And the owner was armed with a rifle and these two people got shot.
More videos emerged where people were claiming the cops may have actually killed another guy, maybe pretending to these riots.
I'm going to tell you this right now.
All this stuff you're seeing, in my experience, because I've covered this stuff, I think it's gonna get worse.
Listen, it's Thursday.
That was Wednesday night.
That's not even a weekend.
Now people are seeing all this, and I'll tell you what.
I'm just gonna come out and say it, and I know it's gonna get a lot of those lefties angry.
This is not about justice.
I assure you, it is not.
You know how I know?
Because I've actually interviewed these people, made an hour-long documentary about this stuff.
I've gone down to these communities, and I've asked them.
And I'll tell you what happens, almost every single time.
When I was in Ferguson, there was a group of young black men guarding a liquor store from looters.
And you know what they told?
I was standing next to them as they talked to a reporter from Al Jazeera, who's now with Vice News.
And they said, these people rioting aren't from our community.
They're coming from outside the community.
And they're opportunists, they're just trying to steal from us and destroy our community.
That's what he said.
This dude was talking to a reporter and he said, the people who are running in these buildings, they don't actually care about justice.
And then you end up with these people like, I think it was the New Republic, I'm not sure, some lefty publication, that wrote an article called, In Defense of Looting, or something like this.
I'll tell you what, man.
Opportunism, okay?
People know that when large protests form, they can make that spark for a riot where it allows them to take the opportunistic move of stealing and looting.
You know what I see when I see these riots?
Very few people want justice.
Very few.
Because think about it.
First and foremost, you have the story about George Floyd, which many of you are probably already familiar with.
This guy should not have died.
And it's beyond that.
These cops need to be charged, in my opinion.
I understand we're still waiting for information, so we've got to be calm about these things, but I'll tell you what.
We watched a video of a man saying, please, please, please, I can't breathe.
They could have just moved.
Yeah, some people have said, but Tim, that's a trick they do to try to escape.
The dude was not struggling.
He just said, please.
I've been in a situation where I was cuffed by the cops.
It was at a protest in St.
Louis.
And I said several times over and over again, pardon me, sir, pardon me, sir, pardon me, sir.
These cuffs are cutting off my circulation.
And eventually a cop came up, loosened them up for me and walked away.
That simple.
So if you want to tell me that this dude's lying on the ground saying, please, I can't breathe, and that cop couldn't just get his knee off his neck, nah, you're wrong, bro.
You can argue that this dude did all the worst things in the world, but you know what?
In the end, he was deprived of basically every constitutional guarantee that was set forth in this great nation.
So you want to argue about, you know, what went down, even if you want to tell me this dude did something wrong, Nah, man.
This wasn't a case of someone fighting and running away or pulling a weapon or anything.
It was a case of a man on the ground just saying, please.
And then video came out from across the street showing he wasn't resisting.
Some people try to claim he is, but I'll tell you what, man, I watched that video.
He looks like he's grumbling and he's walking with the police.
He gets near the car and then it seems like he may have fallen over or something.
Even if you want to argue what we see in this video is resistance, what, passive?
He falls down saying, no, you got to pick me up?
That happens all the time.
It doesn't justify anything that happened.
This is, in my opinion, we're as close to a clear-cut case as we can get.
And I got flack for the Ahmed Arbery stuff.
People were like, Tim, you're wrong.
I'm like, no, I want evidence.
It's not so clear-cut.
Well, this, to me, is simple.
I'm never going to be, you're never going to see me cheerleading for agents of the state taking someone's life even if you think he did something wrong.
Innocent until proven guilty.
So I'll tell you what, what's really bugging me about all of this is that you actually have on social media High-profile Trump-supporting conservatives going further than I am, saying it was straight-up cold-blooded murder.
And I'm like, I mean, you have your opinions.
I agree.
I think this was wrong, but they're going hard.
And then we see these lefties acting like conservatives are ignoring it.
I'm like, nah, man.
What are you saying?
Are you even following these people?
The conservatives, they agree with you.
They don't agree with the rioting, and that's where the line gets drawn.
The rioting has nothing to do, in my opinion, with justice, with doing the right thing.
The rioting is a combination of boredom, rage, laziness, greed.
I know because I've seen it.
A lot of people... So we'll deal with the issue of rage, because that's the one that's actually... People might say, oh yeah, they're mad about this.
No, no, no, no.
They're not mad about this.
Many of them are.
The protesters who come out, for sure, are mad about this.
I think we're all mad about this.
Like, 99% of people are mad about this.
But the people who are actually mad about it, who may start rioting or protesting or whatever, are a tiny fraction.
You get a protest of several hundred people, and they're all mad.
Only a few of them have the rage to spark a riot.
The people who come out and start burning buildings to the ground, They're not calling for justice by doing it.
Because I'll tell you this, you can disagree with me, but you're wrong.
You can have your opinion, I get it, but you're wrong.
You know why?
They burned down low-income housing.
How is that about justice?
Taxpayer funds were being dedicated to helping people who couldn't afford houses, and they burn it to the ground.
Not about justice.
Just boredom and rage.
The people who are angry, maybe they didn't know.
All right, that's fair to say.
Maybe they didn't know they were burning down affordable housing, but come on, man.
You think stealing a TV is about justice?
Yeah, that's what they write.
The lefties write, in defense of looting.
Looting is the, you know, poverty class stealing from the upper... No, shut up.
I'm not hearing it, man.
Nah, you're full of it.
It's a desperate attempt to justify the people exploiting these communities.
See, those people in Ferguson, they didn't want their stores looted.
They didn't want their businesses destroyed.
It sets their community back.
It sets their wealth back.
It ensures that their kids won't have something to build and grow and to inherit.
And that's one of the reasons they were mad.
But I'll tell you something really crazy.
Some of the people down in Ferguson when I was there, during the initial start of the riots, A lot of them thought it was a conspiracy.
They actually thought it was a conspiracy that the police were starting riots on purpose because they knew the riots would destroy the community, as the people told me.
Now, I don't believe it, but they did.
And whether or not you want to believe it, it doesn't even matter.
What matters is that they think this is what's happening to their community.
So let me break it down for you.
I was in Ferguson, and there was a group of people, it was a big protest in the street, right?
It was on West Florissant.
Large group of people, and they were doing nothing.
A lot of them were standing around and music was playing.
There was like an initial spark one night, a gas station was burned down.
So I fly out, and through these next few days, people were mostly just standing in the street.
Nobody was looting or rioting or anything like that.
All of a sudden, one day, it's at night, one cop walks out of the group and just walks over and chucks some kind of flashbang at people.
Boom!
The shock freaks people out, anxiety spikes, people start running around all crazy, people start screaming at the police, and then a group of people run straight to the dollar store and smash the windows and go right in.
And it was... That's the catalyst, or I should say, that's the reason why people believed it was on purpose.
Because I went around asking people, like, did something happen?
Like, why did the cops throw that flashbang?
No idea.
I have no idea.
Just walked over and threw it.
It's like, why would he do that?
I don't think... It could be a million things.
It could be one bad person just throwing a flashbang at somebody because he was bored.
I don't know.
He's just evil.
Call it whatever you want.
Some of those people thought it was on purpose.
The reason I bring that up is because these people who are looting and rioting, what justice are they seeking?
The cops were already fired.
The FBI is already investigating.
Trump's called it out and said he's directing a special investigation into it.
Everybody is on your side to get rid of these cops.
Lock them up.
We cannot function if police, for minor infractions, for any infraction, would end your life on the spot.
If you want to take someone into custody, you're responsible for their health.
Now, I understand things can get difficult.
I understand when I hear cops say, like, you know, what if someone's armed?
It's a dangerous job.
I get it.
But not when the dude is on the ground just saying, please, please, please.
There's got to be some standard, right?
Well, now these cops are going to get in trouble.
We'll see to what extent.
I don't like the idea of these guys getting overcharged simply because of mob mentality, but I certainly look at this video and I'm like, I don't see any, I don't, I don't see any defense of that.
None whatsoever.
Because even like, look, even if this guy had done something violent, when you have someone controlled and in custody and they're begging for their life, you don't need them for eight minutes.
And now the dude's dead.
This guy was apparently wanted for forgery.
It's like, of all the things, are you kidding me?
A non-violent crime?
What is he trying to do?
He's trying to defraud somebody out of money?
Yeah, I get it, man.
But think about, when it comes to forgery, like, the financial system has insurance and stuff, you know what I mean?
It's tough.
It really is.
But I want to show you some stuff.
Man, there's so much to talk about.
Ice Cube tweeted the other day, How long before we strike back, he says.
How long will we go for blue on black crime before we strike back?
9.54 a.m.
yesterday morning.
IceCube, you got your wish, bro.
People went out and they torched stuff.
They lit everything up.
I hope you realize what you were asking for.
Because this is not what you want to see.
These people don't seem to understand.
None of these people do.
You don't want to live in this.
You don't want to see this.
And what scares me now is as we talk about the boogaloo and the breakdown and all that stuff, man, you got the powder keg to end all powder kegs.
We're still in a lockdown, okay?
The restrictions are being lifted, business is coming back, but people are hot, hot tempered.
You have poured powder into this keg.
And then with this spark, it lights up.
Well, what happens is something interesting.
I'm hearing from some of my, you know, like right-lib friends and some right-wingers, they don't support the police the same way they used to.
You know why?
In these big cities, these cops were enforcing unconstitutional decree by the governors.
And so they're like, to these cops, it's amazing when I see these comments where they're like, I like the good cops.
I don't like the cops that are enforcing unconstitutional decrees.
That cop in Seattle got fired for saying he refused to do it.
So now you're seeing pro-cop sentiment has dwindled because there's a mistrust that these police are showing up to a gym near my house and they arrested a guy because he went to the gym.
Yeah, these people are not too happy with these.
It's mostly urban, let's be honest, mostly urban police forces.
On the IRL podcast I do, somebody mentioned something interesting saying, in one of the superchats, that conservatives like police because in small towns, you actually do have officer friendly.
It's Al from down the street.
You know who the cops are.
There's relatively few.
You know them by name.
The cops have to deal with the community all the time.
And so it's closer connections.
In big cities, they bring in cops from one area to police another area so that They don't have that, I guess, so that there's no communal ties, so the cops just don't care about what happens?
This leads to cops coming... So, at the gym near where I live, it's called Adelaide's Gym, someone told me they believe the cops who were enforcing this lockdown in the gym They weren't even from nearby.
They brought the cops in from somewhere else because they knew local cops would not enforce this against their local businesses because who wants to be ostracized?
Think about it.
If you're a cop and you live in this area and they're like, we want you to go enforce unconstitutional degree, you're going to be like, Dude, I go to that gym!
Like, no way, dude!
I can't do that!
So they bring in people who don't have to worry about it.
And that creates huge problems.
So I'm watching this video, man.
This is crazy.
In Los Angeles.
I don't know if I have this story pulled up.
I think I do.
Somebody, a squad car was trying to move through the highway.
A bunch of people jump on top of the car.
The car speeds away and someone falls down and gets knocked out, I guess.
People start banging on another cop car.
They're going nuts.
And I'm thinking to myself, all of these big city cops, Who are enforcing unconstitutional lockdown.
They sure are going to regret it.
Absolutely going to regret it.
Because you're losing the support of the one faction that was always there for you.
It's funny.
It's funny, it really is.
Look at this tweet from Sarah Silverman.
This is what the left doesn't understand.
These leftists don't talk to conservatives.
They don't talk to what the right is actually saying.
She said police fired tear gas into a peaceful protest of George Floyd's murder, but stood like the Queen's guard while white a-holes with guns stormed the state capitol protesting having to wear a mask in a pandemic.
We live in two Americas, and if this doesn't make it clear, you're a dummy.
Let me stop you right there, Sarah Silverman.
One group was peacefully, like, I guess they were getting their temperatures checked.
They were legally and peacefully and calmly and slowly walking.
However, she brings up a good point.
A point that I said is quite possibly the greatest 2A argument I have ever seen.
Yeah, why is it?
Peaceful protesters come out, and the cops just start firing tear gas and beanbags, and some people say that the protesters started it, they started a riot, and it's like, regardless, regardless.
What do you think would happen if people showed up and they were armed?
It could get worse for sure, but it makes you think, right?
I got another one though.
This person said, unarmed black and brown folks getting teargassed by the police for protesting.
Let me make sure I click it.
Getting teargassed by police for protesting the murder of a black man by the police versus heavily armed white people being allowed to take over a state capitol because they want haircuts.
You see, this is the kind of nonsensical and unnecessary lie.
Those people agree with you, dude.
The people saying, give me liberty or give me death, recognize the constitutional rights of this George Floyd man were stripped from him and that he was killed.
Not all of them, I'm sure.
Not all of them.
Many people probably disagree.
But most of the sentiment I've seen from the white 2A people are like, We have a right-to-do process.
And although they might not go as hard as the left, the left is like, cold-blooded murder!
These people are like, wow, that cop was responsible for that person's life.
So here you have an opportunity to reach out a hand and say, hey man, will you help us?
This guy's rights were deprived.
And they'd probably say yes.
Many of them.
But then you go out and riot.
You smash windows, burn Target down.
This is where things get really, really weird.
Things get really weird, man.
If there's going to be a boogaloo, as like people say, I think you will see the right tacitly now in line with the government.
And it's weird.
Because you'd think with the unconstitutional lockdowns, you'd think with the violation of their rights, they wouldn't.
There's a line, alright?
The line is when protesters burn affordable housing to the ground.
You're not going to get conservatives on your side with that one.
The line is when they burn at Target and they loot it and steal TVs.
You've lost the conservatives.
This is crazy, man.
It seemed like there was a real opportunity where something was happening where you've got this pent-up rage over the unconstitutional lockdown where the right was angry with the government and angry with police.
And the worst thing that the left could be doing right now is insulting those who are also in this fight against what they view as unconstitutional decree.
Let me tell you a story.
I love telling the story.
It's at Occupy Wall Street and there were two guys and they were both black.
And one guy was yelling, saying to all the other black people, don't stand with them.
They don't stand with you.
You know, like these people have ignored us and ignored our plight, blah, blah, blah.
And this other black dude says, yo, yo, yo, no, man.
No, no, that's not how you do it.
You know what you do?
You reach out to them, shake their hand and say, welcome to the fight.
Now you get it, don't you?
Yeah, maybe now people really do get it.
Maybe in big cities, you have cops that are bad cops.
Maybe in smaller jurisdictions, the cops aren't that bad.
And this urban versus rural divide really changes the way people view what the police really are.
Like, I look at New York City, and I see Stop and Frisk, which was specifically targeting black communities, and was specifically a gun control measure, and I'm like, come on guys, we can come together on this one, right?
The police were going to mostly low-income minority areas.
Michael Bloomberg said it himself.
It was about race.
He did.
It's like, dude, who likes Michael Bloomberg?
And they were going after young people because they were looking for weapons.
The violation, an arguable violation of the Second Amendment, depending on how far you go with your view of the Second Amendment, you think it's absolute.
Then you've got adults in these areas who have a right to carry their firearm, and the police come in and take young people, throw them up against the wall, and then to justify it, they end up arresting them for nonsense.
You have disproportionately affected the minority community in this regard in New York City.
You end up with these protesters saying they hate cops.
Why?
They live in a city where the cops don't live near them, don't care about them, and disproportionately target minority communities.
That's Bloomberg's own words.
And then you go out to a rural area, and you get people who, for the most part, mind their own business, and there's a smaller group of cops, of local county sheriffs and deputies, and they know them.
And they're like, oh, Jim's a good guy.
That's unfair.
Here, I think, it's like, man, maybe we can start seeing people come together once again, but unfortunately, it's just probably not the case.
And it's unfortunate because it's the left.
Look, this is why I have the bias I do, okay?
This is why I point in the direction that I do.
These people are unnecessarily dragging a bunch of conservative and libertarian protesters to support Trump when they probably agree with you.
I mean, not the looting and the rioting, but I'm not seeing anybody cheer for the police on this one.
Imagine if these leftists, the first thing they did was had some like, you know, high profile Black Lives Matter activists reach out to some, you know, right wing protest organization and said, will you march with us?
This man's rights were violated.
You probably would have seen a yes.
And then you'd have these guys and these guys marching together.
Defending the Constitution, defending civil liberties, and it's unfortunate that couldn't be the case.
People hate each other more than they actually hate what the problem really is.
I look at this tweet with 22,000 retweets, or Sarah Silverman's with 70,000, and I ask you this.
To these leftists, these guys standing on the state capitol with their guns, what did they do to you?
These aren't police officers.
These people were protesting the cops.
And the cops were arresting many of them at these protests.
What did these regular Americans do to you?
Nothing, man.
What do you disagree on?
Politics?
Like, the policy we should enact for the economy?
I'll tell you what.
It's the easiest way to divide the people who aren't in power.
And that's what we're getting.
Governor Whitmer called these people racists and bigots.
I know what she's doing.
The last thing she wanted was the Black Lives Matter activists to be like, hey, constitutionalists, we need your help on this one.
That's the last thing she wanted.
The government overreached, took a man's life.
What do we do?
It's a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, at the least!
It's violating his life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at the worst!
And, well, in terms of legal issues, and you could even argue there's potential racism involved.
So you've got this issue that I think people can overlap on.
Governor Whitmer, this is Michigan by the way, where these protesters were, she doesn't want that.
So she wants to make sure everyone thinks they're bigots.
Make sure people are divided at the bottom, so that no one can call out what the real problem is.
The violation of our rights from government actors.
Be it the police who don't care about you, or the governors enforcing unconstitutional decree.
That's where things get scary.
Like I mentioned a few minutes ago, I think because of the looting and the rioting, these people will now tacitly be on the side of government, not because they support what the government is doing, but because you're seeing people just burn the city to the ground.
And because of that, people are going to say, you can't.
And there's a bigger threat now.
It's unfortunate, I guess.
What I mean is, it's unfortunate that there was a real opportunity for all of us to come together and start calling this out.
And I hope it's still there.
But I think these people on the left got to drop the pretense and stop pretending like these dudes who are waving Gadsden flags are their enemies.
The Gadsden flag is a symbol of the revolution of liberty and freedom.
These people all defend the Constitution.
You might disagree on like the fundamental premise behind say, Ahmaud Arbery, but this was not that case.
People got mad at me over the Arbery thing.
And I look at the footage now with George Floyd, and I'm like, no, this is a clear instance of wrongdoing from the police.
Everyone can just let bygones be bygones, drop the past, deal with the problem at hand.
I guess we'll see how this plays out.
Ice Cube, you got your wish.
People are striking back, and it's not pretty.
You do not want to live in this, man.
I'll tell you what.
I was on West Floor sitting in Ferguson.
They burned that whole street to the ground.
And as we drove down the street very slowly, from the street you could feel the heat from those buildings.
Man, if you've ever been near a big building fire, you know it.
I've been at bonfires.
They do this thing in Northern Ireland, big bonfires.
You can feel that heat from very, very far away.
Seeing these buildings burn and the energy just coming off it, it's shocking to people who've never experienced it.
I think it's going to get worse this weekend.
What I don't understand is, there's nothing the government could have done to actually have stopped this.
They fired the cops immediately, the FBI's been called in, the mayor sided with the protesters, yet they still riot.
And that's why I say, it's not about justice.
It's opportunists.
Stop defending them.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I'll see you all then.
I hope y'all are ready for some very spicy news.
You see, they've told us over and over again that mail-in voting does not lead to fraud.
That's just fake news.
Donald Trump tweeting about it?
Slap a fact check on that tweet because it ain't true.
Well, Trump's tweet was an opinion, and they linked to the opinions of some CNN and Washington Post journalists, not facts.
That was a mistake.
We know for a fact this is true.
But let me show you something.
I mean, first, most of you that are watching the video, you can see the headline of the first story, and I'm sure most of you saw the title of this video.
But here we have FEC Commissioner, quote, no basis for Trump claims voting by mail leads to voter fraud.
Uh-huh.
Here's the real headline.
New Jersey NAACP leader calls for Patterson mail-in vote to be cancelled amid corruption claims.
Two more candidates, including one of the race winners, joined the call for a recount and a criminal investigation.
Boy, oh boy.
You gotta imagine it was really funny the other night to see Jack Dorsey tweeting about how we're, you know, gonna keep applying our, you know, labels to tweets that may be misleading, and where our real goal is to show that people have conflicting views on this.
Oh, shut up, bro.
You know what, man?
Mad respect, Jack, for sending a billion dollars to, you know, you're giving this money away and you're doing this cool stuff with it, helping out, whatever, whatever.
For those that aren't familiar, he's giving a bunch of stock away to help, you know.
People, I'm not going to get into that story, but you know, it's cool, it's cool.
I think Jack's all around a good dude, but I think he just doesn't understand what he's doing and how he's making everything worse.
You want to know why I am actually triggered by what they're doing with Trump's tweets?
Because I live in New Jersey!
3,000 mail-in ballots had signatures that didn't match the same person's signature from the previous election.
They disqualified them.
Now, you may be... So, right off the bat, that sounds strange, right?
We also had bundles of votes appearing in mailboxes in one town over from the other one, and you're not allowed to bundle or bring in other people's votes.
So how did these get all bundled together?
Apparently a mail carrier, I think, saw this and was like, yo, this can't be right.
You're not allowed to do this.
This is weird.
Reported it.
Now the NAACP, a leader, is saying, shut her down.
It's not a left or right issue.
Everyone agrees.
Whoa, we can't have this.
But think about the problem that comes with mail-in voting.
You gotta be, I'm sorry, man, a special kind of tribalist idiot to just ignore everything happening around you.
I don't know why they're for mail-in voting, man, I gotta be honest.
Because we have evidence of- we have two instances now where the Republicans cheated.
Okay, not all of the Republicans, but the people cheating were doing it for the Republicans.
I feel like I'm living in a- I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, man.
Nothing seems to make sense.
But it's not just about fraud, okay?
Let's talk about ineptitude.
Let's talk about these votes that were bundled and shouldn't have been.
Maybe it wasn't intentional.
Maybe someone's just really dumb.
Then do we really want to weaken our election systems?
No, we want to strengthen them.
And if we're seeing that mail-in voting has these problems, maybe it's not the right thing to do it, right?
So Jack Dorsey, if you didn't see the story, puts this fact-check label on Trump, and I'm sitting here going like, dude, How dare you?
Where I live, in my state, we're dealing with very serious corruption charges from the NAACP.
Jack, what are you doing?
So, I don't know what the solution is, but I certainly don't think, you know, I should say this, in terms of the lockdown and how we should vote, I don't know what the solution is.
I think things are getting better, but changing the rules makes no sense.
And more importantly, the bigger issue at hand right now, which I'm going to read you these stories.
Is that the journalists claiming there's no mail-in voter fraud are lying to you.
It's unfortunate.
It really is.
Jonathan Dienst and Joe Valliquette, reporters for NBC Local New York, have no problem telling us the truth.
It's literally happening before our eyes.
Why would Jack Dorsey link from Trump's tweet to the opinion of some analysts from CNN?
It makes no sense.
So I'll tell you this.
You want to come to me and say there's no mail-in voter fraud?
Then let me ask you this question.
What do you call it when 28 million mail-in ballots go missing in the last four elections?
We're talking about 7 million ballots per election?
Where'd these ballots go?
Oh, you want to call it ineptitude?
So you mean to tell me that 7 million people have been disenfranchised?
Their vote has been negated?
Perhaps then we need to secure our elections much, much better.
Let's see what's going on in Patterson, New Jersey, because this is the most important story.
This is the example I want you to give to people.
They say, there's no such thing as voter fraud, bro.
Send them this.
And tell them, when they say, there's no such thing as voter fraud, it's Trump, be like, why would you ignore the pleas of the NAACP?
Are you a bigot?
I'm sorry, I gotta defer to the underprivileged, underrepresented groups that are concerned their votes are being disqualified.
I mean this literally.
If there's a marginalized group coming out and being like, our chance at winning is being suppressed because of corruption, you better believe I'm gonna be like, yo, fix this.
Everyone agrees on this one.
NBC reports a Patterson NAACP leader said the recent city council vote by mail election
was allegedly so flawed that the results should be thrown out and a new election ordered invalidate
the election.
Let's do it again, said Reverend Kenneth Clayton.
Amid reports, more than 20 percent of all ballots were disqualified, some in connection
with voter fraud allegations.
These kinds of acts make people not want to vote anymore.
They feel disenfranchised, disconnected, that their votes don't count, and that it's not fair to people, he said.
Now think about what they're saying about Trump.
They're saying in that fact check from Twitter, is Trump trying to suppress the vote?
They say Republicans just don't want people to vote.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
Reverend Kenneth Clayton says, mail-in voting corruption is making people not want to vote.
What's the point if someone can just snatch your vote out of a mailbox and throw it in a dumpster?
What's the point?
So the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will soon be filing a written complaint to Governor Phil Murphy, who ordered the vote-by-mail only election, and State Attorney General Gruber Grewal.
Bravo, man.
I respect this 100%.
I think the bigger problem is that we are changing the rules at the last minute, and these problems are bound to happen.
And Governor Murphy is ignoring what's happening in Paterson.
He was asked about this.
The governor of New Jersey is, what's his name, Phil Murphy.
He was asked about this at a press conference.
He said, we'll get you an answer on this.
And then two days later, he's like, we're going full statewide mail-in voting.
These people are seriously concerned.
I can't stand this state, man.
You know what?
I live here.
I'm leaving.
Patterson activist Ernest Rucker said his experience this election is an example of the kind of corruption that allegedly took place.
Rucker said he never received a ballot, but that election records show someone mailed in a ballot in his name.
I was robbed of the right to vote or not vote, Rucker said.
I was disenfranchised.
We're talking about the NAACP, dude!
It's not a left or right issue.
In fact, you could argue that the left should be in favor of what they're asking for.
Shut it down!
For some reason, it's the conservatives and the Democrats are in favor of this corrupt system.
Or, I'm sorry, that was a bit hyperbolic, I should say.
In favor of a system that could very well open the door for exploitation.
New Jersey Deputy Assembly Speaker Benji Wimberly and his family had a different issue.
My vote and my wife and two sons' votes did not count in this past municipal election.
Wimberly said he is a supporter of Governor Murphy, but given the history of vote-by-mail controversies, the governor should have done more to allow in-person voting and to ensure safeguards were in place for those ballots sent by mail.
That one in five ballots were eliminated, some due to alleged corruption.
Wimberly said he was fed up with this.
That's how you disenfranchise voters.
That's the bottom line.
Let me read you that quote again.
And please, I would like you to take this quote and share it with people.
That's how you disenfranchise voter.
That's the bottom line.
Tell me, who is suppressing the vote?
Securing the election guarantees that the people who vote can't get cheated.
And I'll throw it right back to voter ID too.
If you guarantee you need an ID to vote, you can prevent people from having their votes taken from them.
What happens if one of these people walks in and they want to vote, and they go up to that stand or whatever, and they say, you know, here's my name, John Doe, and they go, you voted already.
I didn't.
Yes, you did.
Too bad.
I'm not going to let you vote again.
And that person didn't really vote.
Why?
Because someone just went in and voted in their name.
So that's less, in my opinion, less serious of an issue.
But the bigger issue is, when you remove the people from the process, mail-in voting, you get it in the mail, you come and fill it out later, someone's going to walk up and snatch it from your mailbox.
And that's what they're complaining about, saying, I never got my vote.
Who voted in my name?
Somebody did.
3,000 votes disqualified. 20%.
Wimberly said he was still waiting for an explanation from the Board of Elections as to why his family's votes were set aside.
He said if the issue is a signature matching the one on file, it's possible for signatures can change over the years.
He said voting booths should be open for elections, adding that if people can shop in supermarkets and liquor stores using checkout machines, they can do it for elections too.
We need in-person voting machines with social distancing.
And let me tell you something.
Maybe the signatures didn't match because signatures slowly change.
You know, I think so.
And that's another big part of the problem.
It's not that someone's going to engage in voter fraud.
It's that I can accuse you of voter fraud.
So these votes come in, and I see this community, a disenfranchised community, and I'm thinking, like, I don't want them to win because I know who they're voting for.
Let's invalidate their votes in any way possible and argue it was fraud the whole time.
See, it's not about necessarily actually committing the fraud.
Anyone could go in and be like, oh, those votes over there?
That's fraud.
And they're not.
You get it?
And then all of a sudden there's this big controversy, and then you've got to postpone it, cancel it, or have a re-election.
You have to have another election.
I'm sorry.
Just because someone pointed and said, here's why these votes are fake.
So now this dude is saying my vote was set aside and I legitimately voted.
Therein lies the problem.
Yet still, we see this over and over again.
Who are these people?
FEC commissioner, no basis for Trump claims, voting by mail leads to fraud.
What?
What are you?
I just showed you that story.
Does this guy not, does this guy not live here?
Like, does not live in America?
Does he not have Google?
I wonder.
Here's what they say.
I call this evil.
Commissioner, Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, on Wednesday night strongly back claims from
President Trump that mail-in voting leads to high levels of fraud, asserting there is
no basis for such allegations and that the falsehoods may well undermine the American
people's faith in our democracy.
I call this evil.
I do.
Either, you know, the banality of evil or overt manipulation.
Because while she's saying this, literally while she's saying this, a leader in the NAACP is saying, our votes are being taken from us, please help.
We need this election stopped.
And she's going, shoving them in the back, shut up, shut up, nothing's happening.
There's no basis for this.
They're all liars.
And you know what?
You get these journalists who, for whatever tribalist reasons, want to come out and say, she's right.
Don't ask me why.
The Democrats want it, therefore the media just bends over backwards to ensure they get what they want.
But we have this explosive story from RealClearPolitics.
28 million mail-in ballots went missing in the last four elections.
Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 mail-in ballots remained unaccounted for, according to data from the Federal Election Assistance Commission.
The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail.
There it is.
20% of votes disqualified in Patterson, New Jersey.
NAACP leader says, yo, stop this.
RealClearPolitics says one in five ballots went missing in the past four elections.
Strike you as odd?
At the very least, we got problems.
We can all agree on that, right?
This has got to be fixed.
Yet for some reason, these news organizations are saying mail-in voter fraud doesn't exist.
Why?
It's not true.
Why are they lying?
Are they just stupid?
Do they not have Google?
I guess that's the case.
States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were never mailed.
And the figure of 28 missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency's survey questions.
This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason.
Although there is no evidence that millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which compiled the public data provided from the Election Assistance Commission, says that the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security.
These questions are particularly relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing states across the country to... You know what, man?
They have this weird thing I can't actually read because they have this video player blocking the... Well, that's ads for you, so I'm gonna have to skip forward.
I can't read this.
The same election cycle, California legalized ballot harvesting, and observers say the practice played a key role in ousting several Republican congressmen in Orange County in 2018, a long-standing GOP stronghold in a state that has become very liberal in recent decades.
Let's talk about what they're saying here, as it pertains to missing ballots.
Maybe it's not fraud.
We don't know.
The ballots are missing.
But also think about this.
With ballot harvesting, you end up with people who show up and say, hey, I'll bring in your ballot and drop it off for you.
That's what ballot harvesting is.
And so the big fear and the concern with these missing ballots is that, let's say there's an old folks home, right?
And you got 30 or 40 people and they just filled out their mail-in ballots.
And then one of these guys is a Republican, and he knows who the Democrats are.
He knows because they argue all the time, right?
And so then he's like, hey, you know, if you guys want, I'll bring them all down to the mailbox for you.
And they go, thanks, George.
And then he takes them all and he goes, Biden, Biden, Biden, you know, Trump, Trump, Trump.
He throws all the Biden ones in the trash, throws all the Trump ones in the mailbox.
And there you go.
Missing ballots.
No one knows what happened to him.
That's one of the biggest fears with ballot harvesting.
But when you look at something like Patterson, you wonder how these votes got bundled in the first place.
Let's just make it simple.
Somebody could go to an area they know is overwhelmingly democratic and pull the ballots before they're even filled out and just throw them in a shredder.
It's just that easy.
And then you never get to vote.
And then they simply say you didn't vote.
That's disenfranchisement.
But of course there's the other problem of once you have mail-in ballots, these stories will pop up and then they will just use them as fuel to disqualify whoever they want.
The fact that millions of unused mail-in ballots are floating around in every election cycle is not a secret type data here.
It's sitting there on the internet, and you're paying for the server cost, notes Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for PILF.
So what do people that really focus on the election process do about that?
They go into ballot harvesting.
If there's so many ballots out there in the wind, unaccounted for by election officials, surely some manpower could be dedicated to go bring them in.
And that's another part of the system where you have weaknesses and risks.
To illustrate risk, Churchwell notes, That in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by garnering over 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump.
But nearly 6 million unaccounted mail-in ballots were never counted in 2016, more than twice her margin in the popular vote.
The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted using methods that may or may not be illegal is great.
Not even that.
There's, what do they say, six million unaccounted for mail-in ballots.
You mean to tell me that Hillary Clinton may have lost because someone torched her mail-in ballots?
That simple, man.
So why are the Democrats advocating for this?
No idea.
It's also possible that six million unaccounted mail-in ballots were for Trump, and they thought they were gonna win because that was enough, and they did not expect Trump to get a margin that he did.
I don't know.
The point is, Hillary lost.
And they say six million mail-in ballots were unaccounted for.
I think it's fair to point out that may have helped Hillary win.
It's hard to say.
Who knows?
There's little doubt.
As the number of mail-in ballots increases, so does fraud.
A 2012 report in the New York Times noted that voter fraud involving mail-in ballots is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention.
Election administrators say, in Florida, absentee ballot scandals seem to arrive like clockwork around election time.
According to a Wall Street Journal report on voter exploitation in Hispanic communities in Texas, mail-in ballots have, quote, spawned a mini-industry of consultants who get out the absentee vote, sometimes using questionable techniques.
Poor elderly and minority communities are most likely to be preyed upon by so-called ballot brokers.
Marginalized communities being targeted and preyed upon, yet the Democrats are insistent that we expand this?
You want these people to be victims?
I guess so.
Concerns about fraud and mail-in ballots were serious enough that a 2008 report produced by the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project recommended that states restrict or abolish on-demand absentee voting in favor of in-person early voting.
Why is Jack Dorsey putting a fact check on something so blatantly one-sided?
Why is he arguing in favor of something that is just plainly false?
Chris Sillizza of CNN and The Washington Post analysts are not fact-checking anything!
And this is what we get.
This is the danger of Twitter's involvement.
So now we have big breaking news.
You probably heard.
Donald Trump is going to be signing an executive order that's going to target Section 230.
I don't have the full details yet, but the draft was just released.
So stick around, because at 4pm I'm going to be going over this and what it means and the reactions.
But you got to understand where this comes from.
This really could, you know, all of this could really just be one big segment, because yesterday I did talk about this being all real.
Well, now I think the most important takeaway from this, and I would ask you, this is a story that needs to be shared.
New Jersey NAACP leader wants Patterson mail-in vote to be canceled amid corruption claims.
This is a story that needs to be shared.
We can talk about social media censorship in the next segment, but they're really tied together.
But the reality is, Twitter is interfering the election.
The people most negatively impacted by this are marginalized communities.
So why are the Democrats in favor of hurting them even more?
Your guess is as good as mine.
And I... Well, actually, no, I'm sure a lot of people have very strong opinions about why they're doing it.
Corruption being one of them.
I mean, think about it.
If this guy is saying, this is corrupt, it needs to be stopped.
And the Democrats are saying, no, no, don't stop it.
Sounds like they're saying we should have more of the system which leads to corruption.
It's simple, it's simple.
I'll look at it this way.
There's two people.
One person telling you to put a lock on your front door.
And the other guy is saying, no, no, don't lock your front door.
You'd be like, why don't you want me to lock my front door?
Why are you telling me not to put a lock on my door?
That seems weird, right?
Who do you think is more likely to want to burglarize your house?
The person telling you to secure your house?
Or the person telling you to not secure your house?
Should be obvious, right?
The NAACP are saying we need security so that we don't disenfranchise our people.
And the Democrats are saying, no, no, don't, don't, don't do it.
Don't secure the election.
I guess we'll see how things play out, but stick around.
Go to timcast.net.
It's my main channel.
I'll have a segment on Trump's executive order coming up at 4 p.m.
For those listening on the podcast, you've already heard this segment, so stick around.
around. I got more to come and I will see you all in the next segment.
If you haven't seen the segment, head over to TimCast.net.
It's been live as of 4 p.m., but I'll give you a quick context if you missed it.
Basically, Trump is set to sign an executive order.
By the time you're watching this, maybe he already did it.
Basically asking the FCC to clarify the rules around Section 230, meaning, long story short, Twitter could lose their Section 230 protections if they're deemed to be a publisher versus a platform.
It's kind of murky territory, but the general idea is that Trump is trying to combat censorship.
Twitter fact-checks two-month-old tweets by China as Trump threatens web giants with bias investigations following outcry over accuracy warning on President Trump's tweets.
The reason why I believe Jack Dorsey and many other platforms are probably freaking out right now is because, well, for one, this is a pending executive order, but in Jack Dorsey's position specifically, he fact-checked Donald Trump's opinion.
This was a huge, huge mistake.
Like, I'm talking Wow, level of mistake.
If you're going to argue that you're a platform, not a publisher, the last thing you want to do is alter the content produced by people who are just opining on your platform.
But Jack Dorsey, his, I should say Twitter, because I don't know if it was him directly, but he's the one taking responsibility for it, altered Donald Trump's tweet to send you to the opinions of people who don't like Trump.
That is complete editorializing.
Well, this isn't the perfect answer.
But it seems like to avoid any question of political bias, they're now fact-checking tweets by China.
This is also following a statement by Mark Zuckerberg basically dragging Twitter.
What do you call it when you have an emotional satisfaction?
Catharsis, I suppose?
Schadenfreude?
Whatever.
Let's read what happened.
Twitter has fact-checked two tweets by China after it caused a political storm in the U.S.
by flagging two of Donald Trump's tweets for accuracy, sparking fury from the president and accusations of bias.
The social media giant added exclamation point warnings to tweets by China's foreign ministry spokesman, accusing the U.S.
of starting the coronavirus pandemic.
The timing of the fact-checks coincide with the political fallout in America from Twitter's decision to add accuracy warnings on two of President Trump's tweets claiming mail-in election ballots were substantially fraudulent.
The decision to single out two of the president's tweets for fact-checking led to furious accusations of anti-conservative bias in the U.S.
Trump is now threatening to sign an executive order today which could expose Google, Facebook, and Twitter to government investigations into allegations of bias in more lawsuits.
But amid the row, Twitter singled out tweets by China's foreign ministry spokesman, Li Jianjiao, accusing the U.S.
Army of starting the coronavirus pandemic.
He said it might be the U.S.
Army, blah, blah, blah.
OK, you know why Twitter is doing this?
They're like, we're not biased.
See, look, no, we're not.
It's not just Trump.
It's China, too.
Donald Trump, in his executive order, specifically called out China, okay?
This is it.
The draft of the executive order got leaked, I'm sure that Twitter saw it, and they immediately were like, quick, censor China, what do we do?
Maybe they got heads up on this first because there were some reports coming out.
I don't know when exactly it leaked, but they're trying to make it seem like they're not biased.
Alright, how about you go and fact check every politician for every false claim?
How about you fact check Joe Biden who lied with the Verifying People hoax?
But before we move on with the story, I've got to give a quick shout out to today's sponsor, VirtualShield.
VirtualShield is a virtual private network service.
It's basically a program you can download that provides your internet browsing with a basic layer of security.
There are hackers, there are government agencies, there are general nefarious actors who want to break into your system, steal your data, and a VPN is one simple way to protect yourself.
Now I always tell people, Look, you have locks on your doors and windows, but you don't expect people to break in, but you still do it.
And to be honest, if somebody really wanted to, they could break the lock on your door.
But you still have that lock, right?
Because it makes sense to have basic security.
Right now, if you go to hidewithtim.com, you can get 50% off your Virtual Private Network service.
It's just $2.50 per month.
I'm eternally grateful to Virtual Shield for sponsoring my channel.
They're one of the few sponsors I actually have, and I think it's a great service.
So if you want to take your internet security seriously, check out hidewithtim.com.
The link will be in the description below.
But let's get back to the main story.
They love running this fake story where they claim that Trump said some pretty nasty people were very fine people, but they remove the context where Trump said, I condemn the white supremacists totally.
He said they should be condemned totally, and was talking about someone else.
They remove that.
They edit it.
Twitter does nothing.
So yeah, Twitter is biased.
And now they're worried.
What do they do?
Here's where it gets funny.
When asked about President Trump's expected executive order on social media platforms, Nancy Pelosi did not hold back her criticism of the companies.
All they want is to not pay taxes.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi, basically, they say that she slammed the companies for pandering to Donald Trump and giving him what he wants, because in the wake of this pending executive order, they may actually have to, I don't know, do their jobs and be held to a certain standard.
Now this move from, I want to elaborate on what Mark Zuckerberg said.
I did briefly talk about Mark Zuckerberg in the main segment, but I want to really dive into him specifically.
Because he's trying to play it up like, here's what he said, we have a different policy than I think Twitter on this.
He wants to make it seem like, oh, no, no, no, we're not going to fact check and we're going to be hands off.
Let me tell you a funny story.
Prager University, you may be familiar with, published a screenshot of a tweet.
It made several claims about immigration.
It was fact checked by Facebook.
So when I saw it appear in my feed, or I think I went to their site, I could see that it said, you know, this has been fact checked by Facebook, and you have to click a warning before reading the tweet.
It was like a screenshot.
They linked to an article which backed up everything Prager U had claimed, 100%.
And I went, wait a minute.
So here's what I did.
I took the same shot, the same screenshot, I made a new image.
This time, in my post, I linked directly to the Fact Check article and said, something like, this article backs up everything in this image, and they flagged my content as false too.
Yeah, Mark.
You're lying, okay?
They're all lying.
They're all... Sure, you know what?
Maybe Pelosi's right.
They just don't want to pay taxes.
That's what it's all about, huh?
They're all liars.
All they want to do is sell ads.
They don't want to deal with the controversy.
And hey, to a certain degree, I can respect that.
But you know what?
You know, this is the territory that you've entered.
And if you want to play games, you reap what you have sown.
So Mark, no, I don't buy it.
You censor people outright all the time.
You banned on Instagram Paul Joseph Watson, and he had this just like him smoking cigarettes in the sunset.
Look, if you're mad that Paul Joseph Watson's got opinions and he's on Facebook and you don't like him, I get it, but why ban the dude from Instagram when it was literally photos of him, like, you know, he's, like, making a face, he's got a cigarette in his mouth, and he's, like, doing a selfie shot.
It's like, you know what, man?
I don't want to play games.
I'm not going to sit here and take these lies from you.
Oh, well, we're better than Twitter.
We wouldn't do that.
No, you're not.
You're just as bad.
It's just that you're not getting called out because you didn't go after the president.
You go after the smaller channels.
Politico reports Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued Wednesday that private companies should not be the arbiter of truth online, implicitly rebuking fellow tech titan Jack Dorsey after the Twitter CEO flagged a pair of President Donald Trump's posts with fact-check warnings that provoked the White House's ire.
We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this one, Zuckerberg told Fox News host Dana Perino in an interview set to air Thursday.
You know, I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.
I think in general, private companies shouldn't, probably shouldn't be, or especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in a position of doing that.
Oh, I love it, I love it.
See, here's the problem.
A new story broke from the Wall Street Journal.
Facebook knows that their algorithm was radicalizing people.
What did they do?
Nothing.
They swept it under the rug.
They're now trying to pass it off like, well, we shouldn't be the arbiter of truth.
No, your algorithm is exploiting people and making people go insane.
There's a big difference between algorithmic promotion and censorship.
A lot of people complain about YouTube.
They say, you know, I posted a video and then YouTube, you know, won't recommend it or whatever.
And I've always maintained this.
In most of my videos on my main channel, I'll say, share the video because YouTube pushes my channel down and props up the mainstream media.
I'm not making a dig at YouTube for doing it.
I don't think YouTube is under any obligation to promote my content, so long as it's visible.
I did complain recently because YouTube shadow-banned one of my videos.
Hey, if I make a video, and it's legal speech, and it's important, you should allow people to see it if they choose to.
You don't have to promote it, so I get it.
It might hurt me and my income, but as long as the video is available for people to seek out and find, I'm cool with that.
Facebook has an algorithm, and the algorithm chooses what you see.
How about this, Facebook?
How about if you want to claim to not be the arbiter of truth, you remove the algorithm, and it's just chronological order.
So when someone posts, it pops up.
Done.
End of story.
No, Facebook wants to maximize the amount of time you spend on site, so they can maximize ad sales.
I get it.
I get it.
What that means, though, is they want to make sure the content they're feeding you is more likely to get attention from you.
So they made an algorithm to do that.
It then spreads fake news, and then when people complain and say, dude, look at all the fake news on your platform, they're like, well, we're not the arbiters of truth.
I mean, the first thing they do is they bend over backwards for the left, start censoring all this content, go way overreach, and start censoring legitimate news from conservative outlets, and then they eventually just say, oh, well, you know, we're not arbiters of truth.
Nah, spare me, dude.
It's a lie.
It's a game.
The easiest way to solve Facebook's problem, okay?
No more fact-checking, period.
Get rid of all of it.
And then when someone posts, it appears.
It's that simple.
Because then if someone spreads fake news, so what?
People spread fake news to each other all the time.
I went to Walgreens like a couple weeks ago, and the lady was talking nonsense about Bill Gates and stuff.
And I'm like, I don't think that's true.
No, I mean it was like real crazy stuff, you know.
I understand there's a lot of weird things about Bill Gates people have been sharing, but I mean like just off the rails.
Like, you know, these... I'm not gonna say it.
I'm not gonna get into it.
Let me just tell you, it was discernibly absurd.
Like, uh, mask conspiracies and, like, government withholding stuff, and I'm like... Okay.
Facebook is me talking to my friends and family.
Alright?
I mean, actually, I don't really use Facebook, to be honest.
But if someone makes a post and they're like, you know, Uncle Bill telling his thoughts on Trump or whatever, yeah, it happens all the time.
Uncle Bill's always got opinions.
Now they just talk more.
The problem arises with the algorithm selecting certain content for maximum viewership, because then what gets propped up is the most insane conspiracy nonsense.
Videos, photos, and articles.
It's then exploited by websites, and that's the big problem.
You want to deal with this?
I'll tell you what.
Twitter should not be playing this game.
At all.
Facebook should not, and YouTube shouldn't either.
But YouTube's very different from the rest of them, okay?
Now with YouTube, We're getting into dangerous territory.
We really are.
Because, you know, YouTube is getting really close to being like an employer and being liable for the things people publish.
I don't want to get into that, but I will tell you, if you're interested in that take, I do talk a bit more over at TimCast.net in my 4PM segment.
However, I'll wrap it up there.
The long, the gist of this is that, you know, the social media companies are freaking out and trying to pander desperately.
Mark Zuckerberg's pandering to Trump is like, no, no, we wouldn't do that.
And Jack Dorsey is like, but I'll ban China too.
We get it.
Now you're worried because Trump has waved the sword.
But stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Right now, as I understand it, rioting and looting is currently going on in Minneapolis for now, I think like the second or third night, depending on where you say it started.
I think it's like the third night over the killing of George Floyd.
It's a very horrifying story.
But I want to go over this story right here.
A looter was shot dead by a pawn shop owner during George Floyd riots.
And there's a lot of really hot opinions about whether or not this guy was justified.
But I really want to talk about this.
Cassandra Fairbanks.
Many of you may know her.
She's been tweeting up a storm, and now they're all trying to cancel her, and you can't.
We're gonna see a good example of what happens when people try to get you fired from your job, but you don't work for, like, you work for yourself, and you've got your own company and everything.
It's really, really funny.
It's kind of like what Rogan was saying in the interview with Barry Weiss.
Where he was like, we're entering a new era where people just will work for themselves, they can't get cancelled.
So Cassandra can say whatever she wants and you can't get her fired and her income is safe.
Same is true for the most part for me and other people.
There's no boss for you to call, bro.
We're secure, we start our own companies, and now we've become immune to your cancelled culture nonsense.
But first and foremost, I just want to lightly go over this story.
They say.
A suspected looter was reportedly gunned down by a pawn shop owner amid riots over a white police officer.
This we know.
I mean, you know what?
I'll be honest.
That's basically the story.
And Cassandra Fairbanks tweeted this.
LMAO.
Looting a pawn shop to F a small business owner isn't fighting for your future.
It's rightfully ensuring you don't have a future, as you can see from that video.
And she was responding to this tweet.
And then I'm gonna show you the collective outrage, which ultimately goes nowhere.
This tweet says... So, okay, there's a lot to go through here, but this is fun.
This is fun.
Bear with me.
Tommy Loren said, How does looting, rioting, and destroying your own community bring justice for anyone?
Tommy, that's a great question!
It's a real question!
It doesn't!
This guy says, if this is your first and only reaction to the death of yet another unarmed black man at the hands of the police, you are part of the problem.
F Tommy Loren and anyone who shares his mentality.
Well, okay, buddy.
The first thing I said when I saw that video was it was an unjust killing.
We need more video, but it looks really, really bad.
Then I put out videos where I'm like, here's the proof the dude wasn't resisting.
So no, I'm sorry, bro.
My first reaction wasn't that, why are you looting?
My first reaction was the cops killed the guy.
How about that?
And now I want to know why you think targeting innocent people, attacking them, destroying their businesses, is in any way bringing justice to anyone.
Let's make one thing clear.
Targeting an auto zone and low-income housing in no way helps fight for justice.
Here's my question.
Who are you mad at and what do you want?
They fired the cops, alright?
The FBI is investigating.
The mayor is on your side.
So, no.
Spare me your lies when you want to go steal a television.
We all want justice for George Floyd.
You want to throw a brick through the window for no reason other than, I don't know, you're a bad person.
Well, this person responds, Cassandra Rules is much worse than Tommy.
She's out here applauding folks getting shot for fighting for their future.
So this one said, Breaking!
Suspected looter reportedly shot dead by pawn shop owner during riots in Minneapolis.
This comes after hours of ongoing mass rioting, and Cassandra posted the clapping emoji.
You know, I'll tell you what, man.
I strongly, strongly oppose the death penalty.
Very much so.
I understand, however, there are circumstances in which you're gonna lose your life, man.
You're gonna lose your life if you cross that line.
I'm sad to hear, I really am, that this guy who was looting this store lost his life.
Straight up.
I know a lot of people are probably saying he deserved it.
Nah, you reap what you sow and all that stuff.
I don't like people dying, man.
I really, really don't.
And, you know, it's a very, very hard line for me for what even constitutes death.
And now here's the kicker.
Like, here's the real point.
Dude was breaking into someone's store.
You've put yourself in a position where someone else might lose their life.
They're going to defend themselves.
So this is the point I often make when it comes to my stance on the death penalty.
If you've subdued someone, and they are no longer a threat, I do not believe you can end their life.
I really, really don't.
So when it comes to George Floyd, it's exactly what we saw.
A man lying on the ground, not resisting, saying, please, please, please, I can't breathe.
And what do they do?
Nothing.
That's the difference.
This dude said, I'ma break into this guy's building and take his stuff.
And that guy in there doesn't know if this dude's gonna hurt him or not, because people are throwing... One guy with a chainsaw, dude!
You see that video of the guy with the chainsaw?
And so he said, I'm gonna defend myself.
And you know what?
I don't know how you can complain about that.
If you break onto someone's property, they got a right to defend themselves.
So here's where it gets funny.
I love this.
This person said... Alright, I gotta pull this up.
What da freak?
A quote tweeted Kassandra.
She said, judging by what has been allowed to take place in Minneapolis, maybe we need more oppression.
I'm pretty sure... Kassandra's half-joking.
So I know Kassandra.
I'm pretty sure she's half-joking about this, right?
Like, obviously, there's a funny point to be made when you, like, go over the top and exaggerate.
But also a fair point to be made that we need more security to stop this in some capacity or whatever.
I don't know if I would agree with like whatever, whatever, if the point was like more policing or more security, I don't know if I agree with that.
But I honestly think she's just trying to troll and get a rise out of people for the most part.
Because if there was going to be a rational discussion about how much policing would be necessary, you wouldn't say this.
And Cassandra is certainly smart enough to have the real conversation about security.
She's very clearly trolling these people.
This guy says, get her fired.
And she responded, you can't lol.
Oh, that's it.
I feel so good.
Karen culture failing.
That's what you got to understand about cancel culture.
Get her fired.
They're saying, I want to speak to your manager.
unidentified
You should fire this person because they are being mean to mean.
I've been canceled like five times, so I've prepared.
I have multiple sources of income and they're rage mob proof.
Bravo, Cassandra, bravo.
I certainly am not one to get bombastic on Twitter in this way, but there is a certain
catharsis in cancel culture failing and failing miserably.
I love it when they post pictures of me and they're like, haha, look at Tim Pool sitting with these objectionable people.
And I'm like, bro, who are you complaining to?
You think I care?
I'm my boss.
I run my company.
Multiple companies, actually.
Ain't nothing you can do about it.
Complain all you want, post whatever you want.
Do you think I'm really trying to get hired by BuzzFeed or the New York Times?
No, man!
I'm running my own companies!
And I certainly got more than enough opportunity, even outside of this, to have to worry about your stupid cancel culture.
You have done this to yourselves.
The drug that induces the fear, the virus of cancel culture, is failing.
We are building, as a society, an immunity to this and good.
With Donald Trump's executive order, maybe it'll even get better.
At first, many people worked for various companies.
And they realized that people were scared to lose their jobs.
So they went ham.
They went at it.
People lost their jobs.
And a lot of those people then made new jobs.
Notably, Jack Murphy.
You may be familiar with Jack.
I shouted him out on a couple episodes ago because we were talking about masculinity.
But he had Antifa come after him, posting pictures lying, dude loses his job.
So what does he do?
Writes a book, starts a new career, and now he's, I'm assuming he's better off.
He's turned it into, it's like a martial arts move, like when they come at you, it's like judo, and you turn their energy against them.
I don't know if you guys watch Cowboy Bebop, but there's that episode where the guy runs at him and then he grabs his wrist and flips, and with a little bit of energy and a redirection, that energy becomes a weapon against the person.
So you see people like Jack, you get cancelled and they redirect that energy in their favor.
So you can try and ban us, you can try and cancel us.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm sorry, man, you've lost that power.
But that won't stop certain organizations from trying.
Outside of the activists, this is the best.
Jared Holt.
Ah, Jared.
Reporting for Right Wing Watch.
Dare I say, Jared Holt actually did a really good job reporting on the ground when I was in, I think it was Portland.
And I wondered why it is that he writes such trash.
Well, he works for a democratic fundraising organization, basically.
Right Wing Watch is an arm of the Project for the American Way.
It's a progressive advocacy group.
In order to make money, it appears, to me, that their strategy is to write sensationalist shock content about the right, and then monetize it by asking for donations.
Jared, that's what he does.
He's not... I mean, you could argue that he is reporting, but I don't think that's fair.
He's advocating.
He's advocating for you to come and fund them for their causes.
Here's what he tweeted.
Cassandra Fairbanks, a reporter for the Gateway Pundit and an influential MAGA world personality, took to a livestream on Twitter over the weekend to read passages from the Unabomber's manifesto and take aim at leftist and anti-racist activists.
And?
How is this news, dude?
Why should anyone care?
Ah, because you live in that crazy, crazy world.
Nah, I'm sorry, dude.
I don't care.
I literally don't care.
It's not news.
These activists are bored, they're angry, they're burning things, they're rioting for no reason.
Just because they want to.
Because it feels good.
They're not getting justice for anybody.
Look at this guy.
Cassandra made a comment about Somalians blowing up their own buildings, and in Minneapolis they're burning down their own buildings, and he says, somebody find this ho, she in D.C.
Find her?
What does that mean?
What are you trying to do now?
Ah, that's where it goes, huh?
You can't cancel her, so now you gotta find her.
Alright, dude.
I get it.
They're desperate.
Cancel culture isn't working so much anymore, is it?
And this is what happens.
Now they're gonna panic.
Oh no!
Oh no, I can't cause this person harm!
Well, they escalate it.
It's too bad.
I'm looking forward to this future, though.
I'm excited about what comes from the executive order, because I think it'll be positive.
Trump's executive order.
I don't know for sure.
But I'll also be the first to point out, man, it could negatively impact my business.
And being on YouTube, it could hurt everybody.
But you know what?
I'm just sick of this.
I'm sick of all of it.
I'm sick of these people.
We'll see how things play out, I guess.
But anyway, I'll wrap it up with this.
You can't cancel us anymore.
You can't cancel the uncancellable.
And Cassandra's loving it, and she's getting as edgy as she can.
There's nothing you can do about it.
Too bad.
Aw, poor babies.
Did you lose your power?
You shouldn't have had it in the first place.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
We have a major breaking update on the culture war front.
CT transgender athlete policy violates Title IX, according to the Education Department.
The U.S.
Education Department found that Connecticut's policy to allow transgender athletes to compete in girls' sports violates Title IX, This is huge.
You may not be familiar with the story, but there's a lawsuit from several young females who are, they run track, and they have to compete against males.
The males identify as female.
But as the story goes, at least, you know, up until the previous reporting, these males weren't undergoing any kind of medical transition in any capacity.
They're just males who say they identify as female.
Well, according to the Department of Education, that is a violation of their civil rights.
And we now have a response from the athletics organization, the Sports Governing Body of Connecticut, saying they're defending the policy.
I don't know what this means.
They could lose federal funding over this.
They now have a federal guidance.
This may aid these young females in their lawsuit.
Let's read the story.
Patch reports.
A Connecticut policy that allows transgender athletes to compete in girls' sports.
Now, I gotta stop there, because they're not being clear enough.
A Connecticut policy that allows transgender athletes to compete, my understanding is, any division.
That means if someone is born female, they could choose to compete in male athletics.
The issue is, they don't, because typically, they can't.
Men and women are biologically different.
However, in some circumstances, like with the issue of Mac Beggs, who is biologically female, but is transitioning via hormones to male, this person does compete against males in wrestling.
So, let's read more.
The ruling, which was obtained Thursday by the Associated Press, comes in response to a complaint filed last year by several female track athletes who argued that two transgender runners who identified as male at birth had an unfair physical advantage.
The office said in a 45-page letter that it may seek to withhold federal funding over the policy, which allows transgender athletes to participate as the gender with which they identify.
It's that the policy is a violation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that guarantees equal education opportunities for women, including in athletics.
It has, quote, denied female student-athletes athletic benefits and opportunities, including advancing to the finals in events, higher-level competitions, awards, medals, recognition, and the possibility of greater visibility to colleges and other benefits.
The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, which oversees scholastic sports in the state, has said its policy is designed to comply with the state's law, barring schools from discriminating against transgender students.
A call-seeking comment was left Thursday with CIAC.
The schools are like, the state is mandating we do this, otherwise it's a violation of civil rights law.
And now the federal government is saying, well, y'all are violating civil rights law, so you're gonna have to pick one.
Seems like the schools are between a rock and a hard place.
Ultimately, though, I think federal law will supersede the state.
But let's read some more on the story.
Attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom, who represent the girls who brought the complaint, said they would have a comment later on Thursday.
The Office for Civil Rights ruling names the CIAC and school districts the transgender runners and those filing the complaint competed.
Gladsbury, Bloomford, or whatever.
Okay, so there we go.
The office said it will, quote, either initiate administrative proceedings to suspend, terminate, or refuse to grant or continue and defer financial assistance to the CIAC and those districts, or refer the cases to the U.S.
In its letter, the Office for Civil Rights said it notified the CIAC and the school districts of its pending decision in February, but that subsequent negotiations failed to result in an agreement over the policy.
The dispute, which is already the subject of a federal lawsuit, centers on two transgender sprinters, Terry Miller and Andrea Yearwood, who have frequently outperformed their competitors, winning a combined 15 girls state indoor or outdoor championship races since 2017, according to the lawsuit.
Lawyers for the transgender athletes have argued that both are undergoing hormone treatments that have put them on an equal footing with the girls they are competing against.
Full stop!
Not true!
Now, it may be true they're on hormone therapy, because the last time I covered this story, they weren't.
But let me just tell you something, man.
Prenatal testosterone plays a role in the development of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles.
I'm not a biologist, but this is a generally understood thing in sports.
That means, when you are developing in the womb, The amount of prenatal testosterone you're exposed to changes your body's development, regardless of whether or not you are changing later on after puberty.
More importantly, you have to point out that even if they're on hormone therapy, they've benefited from their entire lives of male puberty, so they have these advantages.
I'll give you a real world example, so you can understand this.
Recently in skateboarding, and I brought this up because I love skateboarding and this is part of my culture.
An 11-year-old boy made history recently by performing a 1080-degree spin on a standard-sized halfpipe.
It was, I believe, 1999, when Tony Hawk, the most famous skateboarder in the world, landed a 900-degree turn.
It was groundbreaking when he did.
And it's taken nearly... Well, it's taken 20 years for that to be broken.
Now by an 11-year-old boy who added another rotation to 1080.
We don't see this among little girls.
I mean this with no disrespect.
I mean this with all due respect.
The skill level of female skaters is definitely going up and we're seeing some truly impressive moves from young women.
But recently the videos we've seen from younger girls around the same age are getting closer to doing limited spins and nowhere near as good as setting historical records in the sport.
The first 1080 ever performed was on a mega ramp.
So people don't view it as the same.
And it was done by, I believe, a 10-year-old boy.
I think it was Mitchie Brusco.
I'm not entirely sure.
We're just not seeing the same level of competitiveness even before puberty.
And I mean this with all due respect.
In no way do I think anyone should be discriminating against anyone, and therein lies the big problem.
I'm not saying that these biological males should be removed because it's, you know, it's in favor of discrimination.
No, I think we need to avoid discrimination.
There are females who are being deprived of opportunities.
That's a serious issue.
The way they're viewing Title IX, it would seem, is that there are great benefits given to people who perform really, really well in athletics, in colleges.
Women should be granted the same opportunity as men, males and females.
But when we recognize that males and females have different bodies, then you have to place them in separate divisions because they'll perform differently.
Because of the new state laws that are passing, they're putting males in the female division, thus taking away the opportunities of females.
I'm not talking about your argument about what a man is or a woman is.
I'm talking about male and female.
And that's just it.
It doesn't matter what you identify as.
It matters what you biologically are and how that changes things.
You can argue that there are some males that do better or worse than females.
Not the point.
Make a new division.
Maybe they need a transgender athlete division.
And maybe that will afford these individuals new opportunities.
And more opportunities.
And therein lies the bigger solution.
You can't take away someone else's opportunities.
You discriminate against them.
Let's read a little bit more.
The plaintiffs sought to block the participation of Miller and Yearwood, both seniors, from spring track meets, which were later canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
They were also seeking to erase all records set by the transgender athletes.
You know, I think the easiest way to put it is, transgender female is not The same thing as biological female.
We know that, that's true.
Ask anybody, and you'll say, biological female, you get it?
Okay.
Transgender female, you get it?
Okay.
Maybe those need to be separated.
And we need the same thing for transgender males, or whatever, or however you describe it.
Maybe we need four divisions.
Or maybe you have transgender females and transgender males compete against each other because that kind of evens the playing field for both of them.
But it doesn't, it's not fair to one Class, one identity group, to take away things they've fought for to try and help a different identity group.
It just doesn't make sense.
Connecticut is one of 18 states, along with Washington, D.C., that allows transgender high school athletes to compete without restrictions, according to transathlete.com, which tracks state policies in high school sports across the country.
Several other states have policies barring the participation of transgender athletes, and Idaho recently became the first state to pass a law banning transgender women from competing in women's sports.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Legal Voice filed a federal lawsuit contending that law violates the U.S.
Constitution.
Because it is discriminatory and an invasion of privacy.
Now there are some decent arguments there in the invasion of privacy argument, but it's not discriminatory, especially based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which states you can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
It says the basis of sex.
Okay, we're not talking about identity.
You want to add identity, we can have a conversation.
It says on the basis of sex.
That means these runners who are biologically male, by creating a division where any male can enter any division, you are now taking away the opportunities of females.
Therefore, you're violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Of course, the response from the sports governing body is in defense.
I'm not going to read you their response because it's really just a waste of words.
But they say, following the ruling, the governing body of state, Scholastic Athletes, has issued a response defending its long-standing statute.
This is going to get interesting, but I think Connecticut is going to lose this one.
And I think this may be a dramatic change to how these rules are being enacted.
Dare I say, those who advocated for biological males to compete against biological females, I think they're going to lose this one.
I think they already have.
Connecticut is just the first down out of fall.
The lawsuit will likely move forward now with a lot of support from the federal government.
The state may have no choice.
Now it's possible Connecticut under state law says, nope, this is the law, you lose.
And if they appeal and they keep taking it up to the Supreme Court, then we get a nationwide ruling on this.
And I think it's going to favor these young females and not the transgender athletes.
I mean none of this in any disrespect to any communities.
