Far left Rioting BACKFIRES As Armed Counter Groups Strike Back, Regular Americans Have Said ENOUGH.
In one instance in a small town nearly 700 counter protesters such as "Blue Lives Mater" and Bikers for Trump showed up to a protest of only 80 black lives matter activists.Regular Americans across the country are starting to get fed up with the chaos and are joining the fray. In Chicago and in South Philly locals showed up to defend statues armed and many in masks to tell the far left enough.These people are not typically politically active but they are certainly being activated now. One could only imagine these people will demand law and order from Trump come November.#FarLeft#Trump#Democrats
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past several years, we have seen street fights between somewhat political factions.
I don't know if political really makes sense because it's kind of more tribal factions, but there have been a couple years of Antifa versus the Proud Boys, Trump Supporters, Patriot Prayer, etc.
And these are individual Antifa groups in various areas, though many of these groups on both the left and the right were coordinating for some reason or another.
Typically, you'd see a right-wing rally.
They would say, we want to go march through this place.
Antifa would come to defy them, and typically, in my experience, Antifa was instigating the fights, though that wasn't always the case.
Now, this was factional violence, and many people thought this would not escalate.
Because the Proud Boys, small group, and they're not really that relevant anymore anyway.
Antifa, they're fringe leftists, not really that relevant anyway.
However, there has been what I can only call an activation, I guess.
I have seen on my phone, all of my contacts, I've been getting inundated with messages that people were downloading something called Signal.
Signal is an encrypted communication app, which is typically used by the left.
And I noticed that many of the people on my contact list who are downloading it were rather lefty individuals.
I've also noticed a massive uptick in viewership, not just for me, but for many other YouTube channels.
It would seem that regular people are starting to tune in to the culture war and what's going on.
This could be good, this could be bad, but now the far left has to contend with something they probably didn't expect.
Regular people.
I'm not talking about the right, the far right.
I'm talking about regular people, many of whom may actually be Democrats.
There have been several stories.
The first one, a Black Lives Matter protest of 80 people in a tiny Ohio town, where just 13 black residents live, is overrun by 700 white counter protesters armed with rifles, handguns, and baseball bats.
My friends, you are seeing the backlash, the backfiring of the far left riots.
Regular people, for the most part, don't pay attention to news.
And this is a fact that most people recognize, especially if you're a YouTuber, for instance.
I mean, how many views would a nursery rhyme video get?
Or, like, a Minecraft video versus something political?
Now politics does well, but it is not the number one form of content on YouTube or in
media in general.
Music videos tend to get more views.
But something is changing.
Regular people were thrust into the fray whether they liked it or not.
Now all of a sudden they're paying attention and they're not happy about it.
In South Philadelphia, a city that is 82% Democrat based on the last election in 2016,
you had a hundreds potentially of armed men, masks, guns and baseball bats defending their
In this small Ohio town, 700 people showed up, rifles, handguns, and baseball bats.
These people don't get that politically active.
These people are probably not watching YouTube every day.
They're not on Twitter.
But they saw something in the past couple of weeks.
Buildings and businesses being smashed, shattered, and destroyed.
That probably shocked them to their core.
Peaceful protests.
That can ignite a conversation that helps Democrats.
Shocking imagery of riots and looting.
And it terrifies people.
And it's terrified them to the point where they're actually coming out now.
Now, I assume many of these people who are showing up in defiance of these left-wing protests don't know the difference between a peaceful protest and a riot.
All they know is that at these Black Lives Matter protests, People started rioting.
All they know is they saw looting across the board.
These people are standing up in opposition now to the protests and they're doing it with force.
I can only imagine that this, this extreme turn, shows a sign of what's to come in November.
Now all the polls say Donald Trump will lose and many people feel, you know, I'm seeing high-profile Trump supporters expressing their displeasure with the president.
But I have to imagine when people, regular people, who normally don't care, have to get active and go out on the streets, how many more people are scared and won't go on the streets?
How many more have heard about this?
And how many more will show up in November and slam that button for Donald Trump because they do not like the riots?
Especially when you consider, according to, I believe it was Morning Consult, 58% of registered voters wanted Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.
He didn't do it.
Maybe they will hold it against him because he didn't.
Or maybe they will crave law and order, like I have been warning for the past few years.
One actually would talk about Antifa versus the Proud Boys.
I said, so long as the far left keeps up the violence, eventually regular people will demand law and order.
And as we know through history, these riots result in Republicans winning.
But when you've convinced apolitical people, notably in Philadelphia, a blue city 82% to show up with baseball bats to oppose the far left, I can't imagine these people are going to be like, Biden's the guy for us.
I want to read for you now some stories talking about how regular people are now rising up and defying the far left.
And I want to talk about what this means.
Now, you may not have seen it in the news, and certainly I haven't been talking about it in some of my videos, but these protests haven't stopped.
In Portland, in D.C., in many small towns, there are still active protests.
In some instances, active riots, notably in Portland.
At a certain point, the regular American breaks and they say, I can't live like this.
You have locked us down for months over the pandemic.
Then you came in and cheered for these people to protest and they destroyed my town.
These people are now taking matters into their own hands in, I believe, Portland.
A guy just crashed his car into people.
I mean, these things are getting serious.
Let me read for you the story, and we'll break down exactly what's going on.
But before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give.
I have a P.O.
box if you want to send things.
But the best thing you can do is just share this video.
I'm competing with the mainstream media on YouTube, and YouTube props them up.
Many of you may not know this, but you can't even Google search this channel.
There is one way around Google's censorship or throttling—sharing.
There's nothing they can do to overcome your willingness to say, hey, everybody, check out this video.
It really does support the channel.
But if you just want to watch, hit the subscribe button, hit the notification bell, and let's read the news.
From the Daily Mail.
Black Lives Matter protest of 80 people in tiny Ohio town, where just 13 black residents live, is overrun by 700 white counter-protesters armed with rifles, handguns, and baseball bats.
They say a Black Lives Matter protest was overrun, heavily armed white men and women from motorcycle gangs and back the blue groups flocked to the small town of Bethel Sunday shouting blue lives matter and all lives matter and facing off with the small group of village residents who had been demonstrating peacefully calling for an end to systemic racism and police brutality across America.
Shocking video footage showed a protester being surrounded and violently punched in the back of the head by a counter-protester in front of two cops who stood by and did nothing.
Clashes between the two groups persisted for a second day Monday, leading the police chief to declare a curfew for the population of just 2,828, and several people were arrested.
Sunday's demonstration was planned by Bethel's Solidarity with Black Lives group as a peaceful affair, and it was expected to draw around 25 people, showing solidarity with the movement to end racial inequality.
However, it amassed around 800 people, as 80 protesters found themselves confronted by around 700 members of motorcycle groups, back-the-blue organizations, and Second Amendment advocates, the counter-protesters, some of whom are believed to have come from out of town.
were pictured with rifles, bats, and clubs slung over their shoulders while some wore Donald Trump t-shirts.
They yelled, Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter, and allegedly threatened the protesters and ripped Black Lives Matter signs out of their hands.
Around 250 motorcycles were used to take over the protest area, forcing out demonstrators.
Peaceful protesters accused the group of inciting hate and violence, with one demonstrator being punched in the head and 10 incidents now under investigation by local police.
Horrifying footage circulated on social media showing cops standing by and taking no action as a peaceful protester is punched in the head by one of the counter protesters.
Now, let's make one thing absolutely clear.
Peaceful protest is an American tradition.
I mean, protest, even sometimes not necessarily peaceful, is a part of American history.
But you have an absolute right to protest peacefully, and these people were wrong to attack the peaceful protesters.
The only problem... What does peaceful protestor even mean at this point?
I honestly don't know.
What we're seeing now is a fear and factional violence.
And I can't tell you who started what.
Now it's very easy for them to say, the protest was peaceful!
These people attacked them!
Maybe that's true.
And if it is, shame on those who would attack peaceful protesters.
I seem to recall a video from MSNBC, however, where there was a police station being burnt to the ground while they said it was peaceful.
I seem to remember all of these violent riots where they said things were peaceful.
They don't seem to want to tell you what really is going on, so it's very hard for me to judge who started what.
So I won't.
What I will tell you, though, is it's unsurprising to me that hundreds, 700 plus people came out and defied this protest group for one reason.
They don't know what the intent of the protest is.
They can call themselves peaceful, but we just went through weeks of violent riots.
At this point, regular people are going to say, no, I don't know.
I don't care.
Stop.
Take a look at this story from the Chicago Sun-Times.
Video shows retired Chicago judge swinging at protester after Columbus statue defaced.
The encounter, which took place Saturday in Little Italy, came during a heated argument about the Italian explorer and racism.
And I warned of this.
You know, I've been talking about this escalation for a long time.
Some argue that Trump is allowing them to do these things because it'll rile up people to come vote for him to prove just what's wrong with the Democrats.
Yeah, sure, maybe.
But Trump needs to do something to show that he's strong in the face of these protests.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
I honestly don't know.
I am seeing some people be rather upset.
But regardless of what Trump is doing, regular people are coming out of their homes and saying no to these people.
Perhaps that is America's saving grace.
The defiance and the American spirit.
You know, I was often worried that as we see movies, video games, collectible card games ban things because they're racist.
They're now banning Aunt Jemima, mind you.
I don't really care if they're gonna get rid of Aunt Jemima, you know, to be honest.
But I am concerned about history and art.
Schools banning Thomas Jefferson and Washington.
They're changing the names.
Or tearing down statues of Jefferson.
These things actually freak me out.
And you know what?
I'm not the only one.
Regular Americans are defiant.
You come to them and smash up their windows and tell them what to think and what to believe and yet they're gonna say, F you.
And they're gonna come out and a retired judge will actually take a swing.
People won't stand for this.
If you force regular Americans to take sides, they will probably take the side of, screw you.
I mean, that's the American spirit.
We're seeing it in Chicago and we're seeing it in these small towns.
You know, I grew up in Chicago.
I lived on the South Side.
And I'll tell you what, man.
You show up to a South Side Irish neighborhood, bring in this business.
You show up to South Philly, bring in this business.
And you'll be surprised to find the people who show up with the bats and the masks aren't Trump supporters.
They aren't political.
In fact, many of them are Democrats, union boys.
And they're going to say to you, not in my neighborhood.
But this kind of thing has been, look, just kind of getting worse.
Portland is where it gets really, really bad.
This guy wasn't a counter-protester.
This guy wasn't a protester at all.
Portland protesters injuring three, police say.
This guy wasn't a counter-protester.
This guy wasn't a protester at all.
This is a guy who's just driving through Portland.
And then he hit some people.
Now, it's not crazy.
I know YouTube might get mad at me for the headline.
He didn't go full speed.
It wasn't, you know, he was slowly driving through and he pushed people out of the way.
They rolled up on the hood, fell off.
They got injured.
Yeah, it was kind of bad.
This guy came back, got out of his car, yelled some stuff, and then drove away.
Regular people are being forced to engage in this kind of, you know, this kind of conflict.
We also saw something rather shocking in New Mexico.
The guy got shot.
I got shot at a protest, and they argued that the guy who had the gun was a militiaman.
Turns out he wasn't.
The local militia actually came to the aid of the man who got shot.
But when three people were hitting this guy and yelling, this guy fought back.
Apparently the man who shot was a former city councilman.
I'm telling you.
Regular people are being pulled into the fray.
And I believe they're going to overwhelmingly side with law and order.
They don't care about your revolution.
They don't want a revolution.
They want to order a slice of pizza, crack open a beer, and watch the game.
For better or for worse.
Maybe it's better that people pay attention to what's going on and they get active and fight back.
Maybe it's better that they, you know, stand up for what they believe in.
Maybe it's better they don't.
I don't know.
But they are.
And that's all that matters.
Self-villy, man.
I tell you what.
I looked this up.
I mentioned it several times.
82% Democrat.
They came out and surrounded a statue of Christopher Columbus.
And I don't think these guys even know or care a whole lot about Columbus.
This is more about you coming into our homes and telling us we can't appreciate art.
Telling us we can't hang up a statue.
We can't put up a statue.
Telling us what pictures were allowed to actually display.
What card game cards we can use.
Eventually people say no.
Look, you want to have a conversation.
You want to vote democratically.
We'll take this into consideration.
You want to show up with weapons, bats, ropes, and vandalize our town.
We're going to say no way.
And regular people are doing just that.
This is actually the story I covered a couple days ago.
It's actually kind of shocking.
Because there was a left-wing journalist who was filming, got roughed up a little bit.
I'm not cool with that.
But you know what?
I'll tell you what.
There's a big difference between Antifa showing up to someone's neighborhood, occupying several city blocks and telling you you can or can't do something, and residents telling you can or can't do something.
Look, man, when Antifa tells journalists not to film, when they attack people who hold different views, you see that video of them dragging the preacher through the Chazz in Seattle?
It's freaky.
These are people who show up to our neighborhoods and tell us what to do.
Now, what's happening in Philly is a little different.
I understand it's also bad when these local residents in South Philly rough up a journalist, tell him he can't film.
That's not okay.
He can.
But you have to respect when you go into someone else's home, when you go into someone else's neighborhood.
And yeah, that goes for me too.
I have covered this stuff for nearly a decade.
Okay?
In the past few years, I haven't been on the ground, but for the first six, seven years, I was.
And I always made sure to tell everybody, when you go into a neighborhood that is not your own, you must respect the people who live here.
Yes, you have a First Amendment right, but be mindful of how local residents will react to what you're doing in their neighborhoods.
I know this, I covered Ferguson.
Now, a lot of people, they would point the finger at me and say, you would go to Ferguson and film things, they didn't want you there.
That's not true.
We stayed, for the most part, on West Florissant, where the police were active and there was violence.
And when we went into the neighborhoods, we were very cautious of their cameras and always asked permission.
We didn't need to.
We're allowed to film.
But think about what happens when you go to South Philly, you go into their neighborhood and you want to take down a statue.
They're going to fight.
They shouldn't hit you.
But they're not going to stand for it, man.
Over in Seattle, we're now seeing what things are really like for people who don't have access to the police.
Everything you're seeing with these people taking Madison into their own hands should show you what the next wave of no police will be.
Seattle business owner near protest zone detains robbery suspect.
Police never show up despite 911 calls.
Yeah, it's unfortunate because the cops can't show up.
The first thing you will see with no police is chaos.
The next thing you will see is armed vigilante groups.
I don't even know if vigilante is the right way to phrase it, but I guess technically they're taking the law into their own hands because no one else is.
That's kind of what happened in New Mexico.
The militia that was there, they call themselves the New Mexico Civil Guard, wrote in a post they backed off and were going to watch as the protesters toppled a statue.
I guess they were there because the police weren't doing anything.
But the guy who had the weapon who was attacked and then fought back, the guy with the gun, He was probably someone just... I mean, he was someone showing up saying, I'm going to stop you from breaking the law.
When the police don't do their jobs or they're not around to do it, regular people will start to rise up.
In this instance, it was one guy.
The New Mexico Civil Guard backed off.
What do you think happens when these far leftists start showing up to smaller towns like we saw in the first story?
It's not just gonna be one person.
It's gonna be 700.
What happens when they show up in, you know, a big city or a suburb?
It's not gonna be 700.
It's gonna be 70,000.
Well, okay, maybe not 70,000, but eventually you're gonna get a lot of people saying, Enough!
No way!
So maybe 700.
I mean, I gotta admit, the reason I would jump to a number as large as 70,000 is because you gotta think about the 10 million people who live in New York.
And what happens when they go up to the, you know, northern part of the city, and a lot of people are saying, no way.
Eventually, you get numbers that are massive.
I mean, we're seeing protesters in the tens of thousands.
700 people showed up in a town of 2,800.
So what does that mean for the big cities?
I think it means things are gonna start getting particularly crazy.
Check out this.
This tweet's going viral, and I'll tell you what this means, this tweet.
It's a video of a woman that they're calling, you know, Officer Karen.
You making a mistake?
In this video, the woman, rather, I gotta admit, I think it's kind of cringe, not trying to be mean, but she talks about how she orders an Egg McMuffin from McDonald's.
She pulls up her mobile phone, she orders through the app, because she wants to have
the food prepared before she gets there.
Upon arriving, they tell her that in fact her food isn't quite ready, and to pull ahead.
And she starts to get nervous and says, I don't want the food anymore.
Now a lot of people are making fun of her.
They're attacking her saying, maybe you should quit being a police officer, maybe they should
arrest the police officers involved in the killing of Brown Taylor and things like that.
Listen, man, this is a woman working for the police department who has nothing to do with
anything you're talking about.
Every single cop is not some evil villain twirling their mustache.
It's just some lady who wanted to get an Egg McMuffin.
Now to be honest, if it were me, and I didn't get my Egg McMuffin, I'd be like, I'm gonna leave.
But, do you not understand why she's freaking out?
We've had many stories about police having their food tampered with.
May all be coincidence.
The story in New York, now they're saying that in fact the police never actually ingested anything at all.
Well, the police still went to the hospital, and the initial report was that they had been poisoned.
The police asserted it was intentional.
They later said that it was actually remnants of the cleaner from the shake machine.
Now I think Shake Shack has said there was actually no contaminant at all.
Maybe.
That's the official statement from Shake Shack.
Believe what you want.
Perhaps it's not true the cops drank anything.
Maybe they drank milkshakes, their stomachs started to hurt, and they got worried.
But we heard from two National Guardsmen who said there was glass baked into their pizza.
We heard from one cop in Alhambra, in basically Los Angeles, they found a razor blade in their food.
These could all be coincidental.
But you gotta understand, cops are on edge right now, which is really dangerous.
It really is.
We saw a viral video of one cop saying there's a crusade against the police, and because of that, his 10-year career was over and he was quitting.
Now you can see this officer.
Let me explain to you why she was freaking out and what this means.
She ordered her food in advance because she didn't want the people at McDonald's to know that she was a cop out of fear they would tamper with her food.
Her food should have been done already if she ordered it in advance.
So as she pulls up saying, can I have my food, and they say it's not ready yet, she's probably thinking, they're going to tamper with my food right now.
Because they should have just handed her the bag, right?
You order in advance for pickup, the food's ready when you get there.
She was freaking out.
Now, I gotta admit, if it were me, I'd carry on.
I wouldn't make a video where I'm crying because I didn't get my Egg McMuffin.
I probably wouldn't overreact, and if I got the food, I would check it.
But she is on edge because police feel like they're under attack across the country.
The NYPD union came out, and they were furious.
You know what?
We need police reform.
But you gotta understand, as police become demoralized and start to resign across the country, what is to come will not be pleasant for the far left, at least as far as we can see right now.
Which brings me to my final and my main point here.
Regular people rising up, and they will not, they will not have the tolerance that some of these officers have.
You have complained, yes, about police brutality.
You have said it is not right that that cop kneeled on that man, and we agreed with you, 100%.
Eric Garner should not have died over Lucy's.
George Floyd should not have died over having someone kneel on his neck.
And there's a lot of controversy around this now rising.
Breonna Taylor should not have been killed.
And they're not the only ones.
There's a whole list of names of people who should not have died.
But to assume, because of this, every single cop is an evil villain who wants to cheat you and lie and steal your rights would be wrong.
And I'll tell you what, man.
The alternative should be much scarier to you.
The alternative is going to be a bunch of dudes in South Philly showing up with guns and baseball bats.
The alternative is going to be a dude who shows up to stop you from taking the statue, and when you fight with him, he doesn't use a beanbag.
He uses actual live ammo and puts you in critical condition.
When the police get called, the police start with rubber bullets.
When there are no police because they're scared, demoralized, or they've resigned, or they just don't want to come out, you get vigilante groups with rifles.
And that's when things break down in the worst possible way.
What did we see in New Mexico?
If the cops had been there doing their job, maybe the statue would have still come down because many cops have just stood by and watched.
Nobody would have gotten shot.
They could have come in and broke things up.
You complain about the riot police coming in and grabbing people and arresting them, and yeah, sometimes it's wrong.
Sometimes the police do it, and they shouldn't.
I've seen police start the conflict.
But you know what the alternative is?
When there's no police?
What happens when a bunch of dudes show up from the local neighborhood, they take their weapons with them, and they say, we're not gonna give you a warning shot.
The police might.
The police will fire pepper balls.
Ouch.
I've been hit in the face with a pepper ball before.
I've had a pepper ball shatter because they shot the wall next to me and it sprayed my face with plastic bits and pepper spray.
Not fun.
Fortunately, I had goggles.
I have seen people hit with rubber bullets.
I've picked them up.
And you know what?
They walk away.
They get some bruises.
When the cops are gone because they're completely demoralized or you've disbanded, there will be a period of lawlessness.
We're already kind of seeing it with the nationwide riots.
And then what comes next is going to be 700 bikers for Trump.
Blue Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, whatever you want to call it.
There's going to be a bunch of people saying, you do nothing, you protest peacefully, you're good.
You cross that line, they're not going to restrain themselves the way a police officer would.
This guy in New Mexico got charged with aggravated battery.
He may actually get off on self-defense charges.
If the police showed up, this would not have happened.
If the police were there to keep things in line, it would not have happened.
But you know what?
The left is saying defund, disband, or even abolish the police.
And in many areas they've done just that.
New York has gotten rid of a 600-person unit reassigning all these cops.
We've seen in Los Angeles and New York a diversion of funds.
Minneapolis has outright disbanded their police department.
And there are many more calls to do just that.
So I'll tell you what.
I think the far left wants this to happen.
They want to force regular people to join the fight.
But I gotta tell you, man.
The right is not the instigator.
The right is not instigating this.
The right, for the most part, is complaining online.
To their own detriment.
And the left is going out in the streets and destroying things.
Eventually, regular people who don't engage in politics will be activated.
And I think we're seeing it now.
So to bring it back to the beginning, to the first point.
I see all these people signing up for Signal.
And they're lefty people.
And I see what they're posting online.
And they are 100% being activated towards the left and the extremist left.
And I then see viewership skyrocketing for moderate and conservative channels on YouTube.
People saying no to the violence.
People saying no to defund the police.
People saying yes to law and order.
Because that's what we really need.
And that makes me realize when you see these people show up in Philly, I don't think these people are Republicans.
But I think you just made them Republicans.
If they're going to come up and say no to you, if they're going to watch the videos of the Bernie Sanders campaign staffers saying, put these people in camps to re-educate them, will they go out and vote for Joe Biden?
I don't think so.
I think they're being forced to enter the fray they didn't want to.
And they're going to ask, who is going to do this?
Because I don't want to.
You think any of these people, you know, these South Philly guys wanted to come out with baseball bats?
Or do you think they want to hang out with their buddies and have some wings?
Crack open a beer and talk about sports or something.
It was all taken away from them.
Well now they're going to be given a choice.
Joe Biden can fall asleep on the job or you can hire the guy who says law and order.
Now Trump may not be doing a good enough job right now.
But maybe they don't want to support the left.
Maybe they will say, you know what, Trump, please, can you clean up the mess?
Once Trump is in his second term, I think the floodgates will break open, for better or for worse.
And I think this is leading to a Trump second term.
It's hard to know for sure, man.
Like I mentioned, high-profile Trump supporters saying they're not confident, they're not happy.
But if these regular people now are confronted with an extremist left, why would they vote left?
Even if Joe Biden has nothing to do with it?
Is he coming out and condemning any of this?
Nope.
Trump is.
And they're gonna be like, Trump, please do it!
Now, when Trump doesn't have to worry about a re-election, he's gonna be like, alright, I will.
And then he will bring out the Insurrection Act.
I believe that Bill Barr and Donald Trump, if Trump is re-elected, will unleash floodgates that will rain down a torrent Upon this country and again for better or for worse.
I think we're gonna see indictments I think I think we'll see people get arrested from the previous administration I think we're gonna see a rapid advancement of certain regulations on big tech censorship and things like this And I think you may actually see the insurrection act You may actually see the National Guard and the military be deployed to restore order in this country again for better or for worse Like I said two years ago three years ago if Antifa keeps doing this The people in this country will cry out, save us!
To Donald Trump.
And that's how you will get a rise of the police state.
And authoritarianism.
Not because of the left.
We'll see how things play out.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm.
And I will see you all then.
Google appears to be panicking after they crossed the line in announcing a ban on a conservative website called The Federalist.
You may have seen the story, but for those that aren't familiar, the other day, an NBC News journalist announced that they had teamed up with some left-wing activist organizations, one of which isn't even in the United States.
contacted Google and told them to ban, basically, alerted them to some problematic content from the Federalist.
A spokesperson for Google confirmed they did ban the Federalist, but this led to a major backlash.
And then all of a sudden, Google comes out saying, no, no, no, no, no, we didn't actually ban them.
Oh, but it is too late.
Ted Cruz blasts Google over the Federalist treatment.
He's written a letter.
to Google making some requests for communications between the activist groups and Google,
basically calling them out. And Google may have just opened up some serious, serious
antitrust vulnerabilities.
They may have just exposed their soft underbelly and now we are looking at potentially Google getting some, you know, there may be some action taken against Google.
This could be, I don't know, the catalyst perhaps that breaks Google up or at least in some capacity.
Google's anti... their monopolistic abuse of power.
I'm sorry though.
I am not confident anything will be done.
The GOP, in my opinion, is toothless.
Look, I got respect for Hawley and Ted Cruz trying, but I'm not confident because they've tried before and nothing ever happens.
And you know what?
I gotta be honest.
When these people all lose re-election, the Republicans, I'm gonna laugh about it, to be real.
You know, they've had every opportunity to listen to every single personality, every influencer, every creator, every independent journalist, who is either moderate or conservative, politically homeless, intellectual dark web, to say, they are coming for you, and they will destroy you, and what do they do?
Sitting around doing nothing.
Okay, maybe that's a little naive of me.
Maybe it's a little arrogant.
I don't know what they've been doing.
Maybe there's some stuff going on behind the scenes, and maybe this does succeed.
But I gotta say, man, this has been going on for years!
And nothing has happened.
How many hearings have we had where Ted Cruz pulled up, you know, Google and said, you know, what are you doing, or Twitter, or whatever?
And they do nothing.
I sat across the table from Jack Dorsey, and what happened?
Nothing.
They said, thank you for your feedback, and they continue to do this.
We are five months away from an election, and you think they'll stop now?
Now this one, Google, I think they are panicking.
I think they realized that by going after the Federalists, they seriously exposed the vulnerability.
Maybe that's what the GOP actually needs to make some moves against Google.
Let me show you the tweet real quick that I put out, and we'll explain what's going on.
I said, NBC contacted Google and complained about Zero Hedge and The Federalist.
Google then promptly banned both from their ad network.
Now, Google has since changed the story dramatically.
The lead doesn't even make sense.
Take a look at this.
This is what gets loaded on Twitter.
Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles.
The two sites, Zero Hedge and The Federalist, will no longer be able to generate revenue from any advertisements served by Google Ads.
However, Google then came out shortly after the publication and said The Federalist was never demonetized.
We just want them to remove their comment section.
Oh boy, was that a mistake.
Everything they did.
I'll tell you what, man, look.
You want to complain about Republicans or you think they're doing a good job?
Put that aside.
Google, in panic, Really, really hurt themselves.
Check this out.
They say they wanted... Here's what they said.
As the comment section has now been removed, we consider this matter resolved and no action will be taken.
Section 230 states that a web service provider will not be held responsible for comments or for content posted by users to their site.
It's a little bit more complicated than that, but the general idea is if you comment on my site, that's not my speech, that's not my responsibility.
Google hides behind Section 230 as a shield for literally everything Google does.
Search results, for instance.
YouTube, for instance.
Like, what I'm saying will not be... Google won't be held responsible for my speech right here.
Oh, but Google, you done made a mistake.
You mean to tell me that you will hide behind Section 230, but then you will claim the comments on the Federalist are the responsibility of the Federalist?
You see, you want to have your cake and eat it, too.
Technically, you can.
But this is a major, major vulnerability that now many of these other politicians might say, you can't do that.
And that needs to change.
And it creates a clear path to changing Section 230, which could be bad for everybody.
Let's talk about anti-monopolistic endeavors that could be taken up against Google.
Google removed the Federalist, according to the spokesperson.
Now take a look at this article.
NBC News has changed it, and now the story makes literally no sense.
This is why I believe Google is lying.
They say, Google bans website Zero Hedge from its ad platform over comments on protest articles.
A Google spokesperson said in an email that it took action after determining the website violated its policies on content related to race.
Now they may have changed it, but check out this quote from Google.
We have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on and explicitly prohibit
derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence, or discrimination based on race from
monetizing. When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we've
removed both sites' ability to monetize with Google. Google spokesman, you actually said to NBC,
Now, a lot of people talk about the publisher versus platform distinction.
That's not super relevant.
It is relevant, but it's not the big vulnerability.
The issue here is an issue that can be brought up.
If Google itself is a publisher, that means it directly competes with the Federalist.
And guess what?
Regardless, It does.
The Federalist can serve ads on its own platform and monetize this.
How does Google make sure they dominate the market and destroy all other publications?
This is how you do it.
Now, the Federalist uses Google Ads, but the Federalist can use other ad networks, right?
Here's what these companies like Google do.
They will tell you you're in violation of their, you know, their policies.
And if you want to monetize, you got to bend to their rules, which removes comments on the Federalist.
Literally giving a community forum advantage to Google's own platforms.
Let me break this down for you.
People use comment sections to debate and discuss ideas.
YouTube has a comment section where people debate and discuss ideas.
Google and The Federalist are competing with each other for viewership.
Google threatening The Federalist will create a space over time where the only way you can talk about these ideas is to actually be on Google's platform.
That is monopolistic power, where they are crushing their competition.
Now, Google isn't a publisher the same way that Federalist is.
But that's not relevant.
They do compete.
Google wants your eyes on their platform to sell ads.
The Federalist wants your eyes on their platform to sell ads.
Google dominated the ad space, basically forcing everyone to use it, because they're a monopoly, and then using that power to advantage their own company that allows racist and bigoted comments, but would remove it from the Federalist.
That.
is extreme monopolistic abuse.
So Ted Cruz writes a letter, and I think I have it somewhere.
Let's see if we can pull it.
Here we go.
This is a letter from Ted Cruz.
He said, The recent actions of Google to demonetize a conservative media publisher, The Federalist, raise serious concerns that Google is abusing its monopoly power in an effort to censor political speech with which it disagrees.
Now, here's another example that Ted Cruz brings up.
It could be political.
We know that following the election of Donald Trump, this is from a left-wing site, The Verge, they released a video showing Google employees extremely distraught about the election of Donald Trump, to say the least, talking about the things they can do to change that.
They say, oh, but this is just a hands-on meeting.
Don't worry, we're not biased.
Now they're banning conservative sites, but they're not banning progressive sites that also run offensive and derogatory comment sections.
Which you have to understand, right?
Let me bring this up.
What Ted Cruz mentions is that there's a bunch of other left-wing sites that don't get targeted.
Let me read his letter a little bit for you.
He says, this is part of a bigger problem.
The culture of free speech in this country is under attack, and Google is helping lead the charge.
Whereas Americans once understood the best response to speech was more speech, some Americans, with the help of some of the most powerful companies on the planet, are now pressing to silence and punish those expressing views that do not align with the prevailing and ever-shifting progressive orthodoxy.
These individuals demand that people with different views lose their livelihoods if they step out of line.
Employers must fire dissenters.
Companies like Google must, to use the most Orwellian term, demonetize them.
As evidenced by its actions yesterday, Google seems more than happy to play this censorship role by trying to break the financial back of a media publication with which it disagrees.
As NBC News reported, The Federalist, a conservative media organization and publisher, was banned from generating revenue from any advertisements served by Google ads.
According to the report, Google took this action after NBC News Verification Unit, apparently working at the behest of the so-called Center for Countering Digital Hate, notified Google that The Federalist had published an article claiming that the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google.
Now, I want to stop there.
They backtracked like crazy.
But the first report that came out, NBC sent an article where the Federalist was critical of NBC.
So NBC says, don't mock us.
How dare you?
Hey, Google, look at this!
And then Google says, you're banned because we got NBC's back.
Well, they backtracked rather quickly because I think they just realized when you break out into the real world, And start demonetizing independent companies, especially ones with massive financial backing, which some people presume the Federalist probably has.
Well, now you're in trouble.
Google's powerful.
They absolutely are.
But this is why we have government to regulate the private sector.
Now, what he goes on to talk about is he mentions a bunch of other websites.
I think it's on the next page.
Check this out.
He says, Google's decision to target the Federalist is transparently politically motivated.
Numerous progressive media outlets allow comments, including the Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Wonkette, Slate, Jezebel, The Root, Salon, The Intercept, The Young Turks, and many others.
I don't know what the objectionable comments were that individual users might have posted on the Federalist, but any objective review would no doubt demonstrate at least as many profane, racist, or indefensible user comments on these other sites that would equally violate Google's alleged standards.
What you gotta understand here is that comment sections, as I mentioned, are used for debate.
In my comment sections, there's often lefty people, on Twitter especially, who say dumb things to me.
And there are people on the right who say dumb things to me, too.
Everybody says dumb things.
And then you get the left and the right saying some smart things.
But the fact is, I'm highlighting the small percentage of really dumb things said by a lot of people.
These left-wing websites are not just loaded with left-wing comments.
The left might say, well, yes, but the right-wing MAGA chuds were posting racist bigotry in the comments, and Google said we don't want that on our service.
Right-wing MAGA chuds also go to these other left-wing sites and smack talk in the exact same way.
Left-wing people and right-wing people go to comment sections of various YouTube channels and post comments.
So the point is, Ted Cruz is right.
If you want to argue the left isn't engaging in this behavior, I would say you're wrong.
The left is probably posting tons of racist things.
But you could argue then that Google is biased, and that's the kind of racism they support.
They're specifically targeting a certain kind of speech.
I can break it down even easier for you.
If you think right-wing speech is what's being banned here, then why... I assure you, right-wing speech is appearing on these left-wing comment sections 100%.
I know because I've read them before.
In which case, this is Google specifically targeting a right-wing publication, and I think this is all going to be very easily provable, which is why Google panicked, backtracked, even after they already issued a statement saying they banned the Federalist.
I think they realized they've got antitrust coming their way.
They've got accusations of election interference.
I mean, this one's going to cut deep.
This was them finally stepping over the line, and they realized it too late.
I can only imagine.
That when they banned the Federalist, and then all of a sudden their lawyers, their phones started lighting up like crazy.
The lawyers started calling all these executives like, what did you do?
No!
You can ban someone on YouTube, man, that's your platform.
But when you do an ad network deal with someone, that's a contractual, like, they're hosting your ads.
This is different.
You're banning them from an ad network for extremely obvious, like, wow.
This is crazy.
So, Ted Cruz asks some questions.
He says, it is also deeply ironic that Google is financially... Oh, he mentions this.
He says, one need not look that far on any given day.
There are thousands of profane, racist, and indefensible comments posted on YouTube, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google.
That right there, boom, antitrust.
Google hosts comments.
YouTube's comments are rule-breaking, according to their own ad network.
But Google will run its own ads on its platform, and then ban other people for the exact same type of comments.
That shows you right there.
This is a monopolistic abuse.
And I think Google's probably already sitting down, their lawyers are drafting their nuclear options, and they're probably sweating bullets like, well, we did it.
Here it comes.
They might lose.
Now, like I said in the beginning, unfortunately, I think the Republicans have no teeth.
I don't think they're gonna be able to do anything about this.
I really, really don't.
I am not confident, especially this close to an election.
Really doubt it.
Sorry, man.
Look, Ted Cruz, I think this is a great letter.
I think it's very intelligent.
I think he makes a bunch of really, really great points.
And I think literally nothing will happen.
End of story.
They need to amend Section 230.
Perhaps Section 230 should state, so long as you're only removing unlawful speech or something to that effect.
And then there could maybe be some kind of debatable provision.
I don't know.
It's tough because posting gore and things like that, that was the original intent.
Like, if someone posts a video of, like, Gore, you know what I mean?
Like legit, really nasty stuff.
It's not illegal, but they can delete it.
Well, now we're at an impasse because they've used that and abused that to enrich themselves, to shut down their competition, their market competition, and advance their own political ideology.
This is what we're seeing here with the Federalist.
The Federalist is direct competition, but it's also political competition.
It's ideological and monetary competition with NBC and Google, and they teamed up to take down a competitor.
That's crazy to me.
So Ted Cruz asks some questions.
He says, or he has some requests.
Within seven days, by June 24th, Google is requested.
You see what I mean about no teeth?
I'm sorry, man.
Look, I can respect you asking the questions, but I know what Google's gonna say.
They're gonna take one look at this and they're gonna go, F you!
And they're gonna crumple up and throw it in the trash.
That's what'll happen.
Here's what Ted Cruz is asking for.
He wants Google to... Google has requested to provide to the subcommittee the following.
All communications in the past year between Google and the NBC News Verification Unit concerning the Federalist.
All communications in the past year between Google and the Center for Countering Digital Hate concerning the Federalist.
All internal communications or deliberations in the past year at Google or YouTube concerning the Federalist.
Google is also requested to answer in writing by June 24th the following questions.
Has Google examined the comment section of any of the progressive organizations listed in this letter and made any assessment whatsoever how they compare the comments on the Federalist that were claimed as a basis for demonetization? 2.
Will Google apply the same standards to all media organizations or just those with which it has political disagreements?
Does Google believe Section 230 protects the Federalist?
Why or why not?
4.
If any offensive comments appear on YouTube, will Google begin immediately demonetizing its subsidiary?
Within three days, the deadline given to the Federalist.
Now, I want to be honest.
YouTube did do that.
They did start targeting people based on their comment section, for sure.
Now, The issue with YouTube's comment section isn't about whether the comments are offensive, it's about them banning the comment section, banning the Federalist over essentially the same comments.
Now, you could argue YouTube has an auto-filter, which filters out a basic, like, a ridiculous amount of things, even things that aren't offensive.
And they can argue, well, the Federalist, their comment section doesn't have these filters, so there are things appearing on the Federalist that don't appear on YouTube.
However, People bypass these filters using clever workarounds, spacing letters out, so I assure you, on YouTube, they do exist.
So, yeah.
YouTube.
You're gonna demonetize everybody now, including myself, because you wanted to monetize a Federalist.
You see how this comes back to hurt you and everybody else.
But more importantly...
The bigger question I have about comments is not the content, but it is the market competition.
Okay, so Ted, and everybody else, and Josh Hawley, think about this.
People like to go online and debate each other.
People like to go into comment sections and debate each other.
And sometimes those debates get offensive.
YouTube is trying to remove a publisher that attracts eyeballs and allows a forum for debate.
Right now, because of Google, if you want to have that debate, you have to go to Google.
Not entirely, but they've gotten rid of a competitor.
in a online forum debate space.
They have forced the Federalists to remove that function from their site in which they
directly compete.
So that, I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but that sounds like it's an issue, right?
Ted Cruz says, is Google's preferential treatment to YouTube on far more favorable terms than
those extended to the Federalists consistent with the Sherman Act?
Why or why not?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I look forward to your response.
So look, I'm glad to see that Josh Hawley is launching now, targeting Big Tech's Shield.
He's got several coming up.
I'm glad to see they're actually making these moves.
I just don't think anything is gonna happen, I gotta be honest.
And you know what, man, we're really close to an election, so what's gonna happen?
If the Republicans lose the Senate, or lose more of the House, or can't take the House, or if Joe Biden wins, congratulations.
I think we will see something so horrific in terms of the rapid escalation of censorship, of the banning of art and books and movies.
I don't know if this country can recover from this because they talk about the silent majority, right?
What does that mean?
Does that mean there's a bunch of people who believe in free speech who are sitting on their hands waiting until the house burns to the ground before they get off their asses and actually go and do something?
Perhaps.
It's unfortunate, man.
Something needed to be done a long time ago.
And I think I made the video two years ago where I said Republicans were too stupid, not the voters, the politicians, because the voters are screaming about it!
They're getting banned!
They're mad!
And I said the politicians were too dumb!
They don't realize what the media has been doing, how they've been lying.
And we are literally now at the point where NBC, a massive and major corporation with heavy leftist political biases, has teamed up with a foreign activist organization to get an American media publication stripped of its ad revenue.
There's a lot more problems here.
Notably, that Google dominates the ad space as it is.
They have a monopoly on ads, on search.
Facebook controls social media for the most part.
Twitter controls public conversation.
These companies own everything.
We need to be protected from them.
I don't know the answers.
And so, look, you can slap all the criticisms at me that I can bring these things up and I can point these things out and there's not much I can do about it.
That's fair.
100%.
So for all the criticisms I have for the Republicans who haven't got anything done, Sure, sure, sure.
I think it's fair to point the finger at me and say, yeah, well what am I doing about it?
Yep.
I think it is fair to say I'm bringing these things up and I've been warning repeatedly, repeatedly saying, hey guys, look at this thing, look at this thing.
And maybe that's not enough.
But I'm not a politician.
And maybe it's a lot harder to actually do these things than I realize.
So I'll be fair about that.
So let me take back any perceived personal slides and say it's not my intention to say that Hawley or Cruz or any of these other Republicans are themselves not good enough.
I did say the Republican politicians were too stupid.
Maybe that was a bit too strong.
What I should say is they haven't gotten the job done.
And because they haven't gotten the job done for whatever reason, be it political impossibilities or a lack of will or a lack of capability, Maybe too late.
Maybe too late.
Now look, I know Google flipped backwards, you know, did a quick backflip, freaking out.
But maybe it's too late, and I think Google's probably thinking they're gonna be fine.
I don't think we have the political unity right now to do anything, but I will tell you, I tell you what, Elizabeth Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, there have been a lot of people calling out big tech monopolistic powers.
Now the problem with the left is they want more censorship.
So you know what I think will happen?
There is a willpower in government for regulation of social media.
And perhaps what we may see is one of two things.
The ineffective GOP doing nothing.
Sending a letter and making requests and then nothing happens.
And then ultimately, the Democrats come in and regulate and the Republicans just say,
whatever, whatever, we can't, we're not going to get anything done.
So the left comes in, destroys Google, imposes a whole bunch of crazy restrictions on them,
destroys their businesses and they dry up.
Something else might happen.
There may be bipartisan support for some kind of stripping of Section 230.
Because think about it this way.
The Democrats are upset that these sites won't ban hate speech.
The Republicans are upset that they're not playing fair.
There is a mutual agreement that can emerge between the two.
If you have hate speech on a platform that won't go away, And you want it to go away, but they won't listen, what do you do?
Now, if you have them censoring conservatives and propping up their political opponents and empowering their enemies, what do you do?
Well, the Republicans say, stop doing this and play fair.
The Democrats say, start banning hate speech.
But when these big tech platforms don't do either, and nothing gets done, then I think you can see where the political unity will lie.
Destroy them!
Completely destroy them!
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, anybody else!
Light them up!
You know why?
That'll get rid of the hate speech and it will get rid of the political bias.
Light them up and... I'll keep the hyperbole a little low here, but I think that's the political unity.
Seeing someone like Ted Cruz team up with AOC and say, we just want to destroy these companies at this point because no one likes what they're doing.
They haven't a friend in the world.
That's what Mike Cernovich said.
The regulation will come for them and they won't have any friends.
But I think you might see by part... Look, In order to get this through, you're gonna need a lot of votes, alright?
Maybe you'll need the House.
Well, if the House is Democrat, and the Senate is Republican, right now, what can they do?
Chop them up to tiny little bits?
Nuke these companies into oblivion.
Congratulations, Google, you had a chance.
You could've done- You know, to be fair though, I do bring up another good point.
In that, all these companies are really doing, for the most part, is hedging their bets.
Who do they think will win?
And which good side can they try and be on?
For the longest time, they've pandered to the left, thinking the left is going to win, and so they need to do what the left wants.
Well, it's not going to work out that way.
Perhaps you should have adhered to some kind of standard, and then you could have had some kind of legal argument as to how you're just abiding by the law.
Hey, the First Amendment would have been a great one.
You could have said, look, even though it doesn't affect private companies, we have to maintain some principle, and the First Amendment is it.
And it would have been a really hard argument to beat if they did.
They didn't.
They panned it to the left, and now you've got a feud between who gets to have that power.
Bye-bye, Google.
Bye-bye, Facebook.
I don't know if it'll be Republicans, because I think they're rather toothless, but the Democrats are fervent and crazy, so I think they'll do something, so something's gonna happen.
I don't know.
I guess all we can do, as per usual, is wait till November to see how people really feel about things.
But I am really worried about what happens if the Democrats win and they start exacerbating all of this censorship.
Then, you know, channels like this will be a thing of the past, and you will be expected to go to church every, I don't know, Monday.
What day will they pick?
I don't know.
And you'll go to the park, and you'll sit down with your legs folded, holding your hands in the air, and you will mindlessly chant like they did in Bethesda.
Go watch that video if you haven't.
The new religion coming your way.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
First, they started coming after speech.
Then they started complaining about racist history.
Then they wanted to destroy certain statues.
Then they started overtly changing history with things like the 1619 Project at the New York Times, which has been debunked by many, many scholars.
Now, they've started coming for statues of our founding fathers.
It really does seem like their goal is to completely erase American history and do this whole decolonize thing.
They've been talking about decolonizing since, as far as I can remember, Occupy Wall Street, when I started getting more into politics.
And the idea is, every single person who came to this country is a colonizer, blah blah blah.
Yet at the same time, immigration is fine.
I don't know what they really mean by this, but now we're seeing a more dramatic push.
Let me explain something to you.
George Washington was a slave owner, apparently.
And Jefferson, apparently, as well.
Most of us know our history.
We understand what life was like at the time.
But the Founding Fathers laid the groundwork to make a free and open society.
And it worked.
If we went back in time and looked at the bad things that literally everyone did, then, you know, we'd get rid of basically everyone.
But I guess that's the point.
You know, you start with the Confederates, because the Confederates lost, and the Confederacy wasn't even a thing for that long, and people say, well, why do we have statues for the Confederacy anyway?
But then, like Trump said, how long until they go after Thomas Jefferson?
Now another funny thing has happened, because apparently they're getting rid of Aunt Jemima, the pancake mix.
And I made the unfortunate mistake of trying to make a joke, and it was a bad joke, so I'll apologize.
I'm not really apologizing for the bad joke.
I'm not apologizing for offending people, I'll apologize for doing a bad joke.
But I want to talk about this, because there's something really fascinating in my bad joke.
The joke I made was basically that they're tearing down statues of Jefferson, and that if you had spoken up, you could have saved Aunt Jemima.
I don't actually care about Aunt Jemima.
It's literally a racist stereotype.
It really is.
You know, if you look up the history.
Unless they changed it, but I'm pretty sure it literally comes from racist imagery.
I'm surprised Aunt Jemima's been around this long, to be honest.
But the joke was the juxtaposition of Aunt Jemima versus the Founding Fathers.
And I was surprised to find the left thought it was real.
And then I realized why.
They have no reverence for the Founding Fathers.
And that's why the joke went completely over their heads.
While many other people were laughing, like, who cares about Aunt Jemima?
The left saw it as me actually acting like Aunt Jemima was important.
These people have no grounding in reality.
They don't understand, like, a fictitious pancake mascot versus somebody who created the greatest nation on the planet.
Let's read the story, and then we'll talk about the juxtaposition of Aunt Jemima and the Founding Fathers, and I think you'll get a kick out of this one, and I definitely gotta own up to perhaps overestimating the abilities of people to read sarcasm.
The Washington Times says, Two San Francisco Bay Area schools named for Founding Fathers who were slaveholders will get new names following a push by Black Lives Matter activists, according to a newspaper report.
The Berkeley Unified School District Board unanimously approved a resolution in support of Black Lives Matter during a meeting last week.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Monday, the move started the process of renaming Jefferson and Washington elementary schools.
The current school names commemorate the first and third U.S.
presidents, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom owned slaves.
And yes, Thomas Jefferson also was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.
Berkeley community members tried in 2005 to rename Jefferson Elementary, but the motion was not passed.
The current Black Lives Matter movement, following police killings of George Floyd, inspired a renewed, successful effort to change the school names, the Chronicle said.
Also included in the resolution is a new year-round Black Joy campaign, described as resources and training for teachers to identify additional measures of racial inequity and collect data in schools, the newspaper reported.
And that's the gist of the story, but I gotta be honest.
I do find it shocking.
Look, just because one person lost their lives doesn't mean that our country is inherently evil.
This is a great country and reform has worked.
If this is a big reform push, fine.
But don't you think it's a little absurd to erase the names of our first and third presidents?
I mean, come on!
Are you actually trying to... Look, if you want to erase history and change history, I think that's wrong and I think you've got a serious problem.
But at least there is an argument rooted in disputing the perspective and narratives pushed by certain groups.
I mean, history is written by the victors.
But you can't deny that these people are literally presidents of this country, so what?
You want to dissolve the entire country?
I tell you what, they do!
They really do.
Not these people voting for this, but boy are they gaining ground, 100%.
Now this I take very seriously.
Whether you want to condemn them for the things they engaged in, slavery for instance, we can throw that out and praise them for at least giving us a system that solved these problems.
To counter the argument, Where they say, if you're going to ignore these atrocities, then what about literally every other dictator or horrifying individual throughout history?
The legacy of these individuals is civil liberty and civil rights and a great nation which has actually helped the marginalized communities that have been impacted by colonialism.
It's actually lifted them up.
This system has evolved over time based on the Founding Fathers to create a better system.
So you want to criticize them for the bad things they did in the past?
Yes.
But you praise them because at least they laid the groundwork to do something good.
Dictators of the past, Mao for instance, laid the groundwork for horrifying torture and genocide.
We literally hear activists today saying that, you know, that their people are being genocided in this country, in the United States, because of police brutality.
And that is absolutely insane.
Insane, okay?
We have problems with police brutality.
We can solve these problems.
It is not the end of the world.
But these people need justice.
The people who have been killed by cops, often unjustified.
Not always, but there are many of them.
Individuals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and all of their constitutional rights as well, and the Bill of Rights.
And that means when a cop kills somebody unjustified, we need some kind of justice.
It doesn't always mean you lock the cop up and throw away the key.
Sometimes cops make mistakes.
But if a cop makes a mistake, alright, a serious one, and ends someone's life, perhaps they forfeit the right to be a lethal enforcer.
And I don't mean someone who goes out and kills literally, I mean someone who has the capability to kill.
I've talked about this before, and a lot of people got mad.
I was arguing that if a cop engages in this behavior, desk duty, you know what I mean?
If you make a grand mistake that ends a life, well then you go to administrative work.
I don't see why that's a big deal.
You don't lose your job, it was a mistake.
You were asked to go and put yourself in harm's way.
Well, that was an argument from a long time ago.
Now the argument is basically Civil Guard, non-police first responders.
I find it hilarious that we've militarized our police to the point where we have to make a new department
because police have killed people, I guess, whatever.
But there's an argument for some kind of civil guard.
These are people who don't have guns, who don't respond to violent crimes, or, you know, robberies, or things like that.
They respond to public disorder, and nuisances, and homeless, and drug abuse, and things like that.
Makes a lot of sense.
But anyway, anyway, I digress.
There are literally people claiming they're being genocided, and it's just not the case.
Okay?
None of what happened, in my opinion, in the past month, justifies erasing our past presidents Because there are a lot of bad ones.
A lot, a lot of really bad ones.
And what are we gonna do, just pretend they don't exist and erase their names?
No, come on, man.
We hold reverence for the people who led this country.
But now Aunt Jemima!
Aunt Jemima is being removed.
I'm showing you this to make the specific point of, I don't care about Aunt Jemima.
I really, really don't.
Look, man, if a pancake brand and corn syrup company wants to change their mascot, I really don't care.
You know the Land O'Lakes people?
Got rid of the Native American on the cover of Land O'Lakes.
And apparently the art was made by a Native American person, and it was meant to be, like, a good, positive thing, and they got rid of it.
So, so, fine, whatever.
Look, I don't care what these companies do with their mascots.
Presidents are of historical merit.
Aunt Jemima and the Land O'Lakes lady aren't.
Aunt Jemima brand to change name.
Remove image that Quaker says is based on racial stereotype.
My understanding, it is.
They say we recognize Aunt Jemima's origins are based on a racial stereotype, Quaker out said, adding that the move is an effort toward progress on racial equality.
Now some people have pointed out It's surprising that Aunt Jemima as a brand lasted this long, and why didn't we see social justice outrage a long time ago about Aunt Jemima?
So here's my general understanding.
Some guys invented a quick-rising flour.
You know, it's basically got baking soda in it or something.
And then when you cook with it, you can make pancakes.
They tried to figure out a way to brand it, and there was a minstrel show, which now, as most of society agrees, is very offensive, and there was a character named Old Aunt Jemima.
They decided to use that image.
They then found a woman they would have represent the image.
Many people on the left are saying that, and I don't know if this is true, but I'll take their word for it for now, that the woman in question, the mascot for the Aunt Jemima brand, was actually born a slave in like 1836.
Ultimately, I don't care about your pancake mascot.
I really don't.
And that's the joke I tried to make.
And I think, unsurprisingly, conservatives got the joke and laughed.
And many leftists were like yelling and hooting and hollering as if they had gotten me.
And I think what we actually see is a fundamental misunderstanding of each other's worldview.
I assumed this joke would have been obvious to everybody.
Here's what I said.
You sat back and said nothing when they tore down that statue of Thomas Jefferson.
You fanned me away when they announced schools named for Jefferson and Washington would be renamed, but now it's too late!
You could have stopped this.
It's meant to be exaggerated and completely over the top.
But I think when it comes to Twitter, the left and the right have a caricature view of each other.
And so as I'm sitting here, and the tweet didn't get ratioed.
It's got 1,200 retweets from a lot of people who are laughing about the joke.
But then I noticed in left-wing circles, they were like, you know, wow, Tim Poole's actually upset.
You know, I can't believe he's defending Aunt Jemima.
And I'm like, did you really think that's what I was doing?
And so, like usual, I don't label jokes that I think are absurdities.
Maybe I should have.
You know what?
So here's what I'll own up to.
I misjudged what the left understood or how they viewed the world.
And I thought about this.
I'm like, why am I getting so many lefties sending this around?
Because they believe it.
Why do they believe it?
Two reasons.
The first is that everybody views each other through a lens of the most extreme possible interpretation.
A lot of people on the right do it.
A lot of people on the left do it.
They make assumptions.
Here's how I've explained it before.
I was at a rally in Boston, and I was talking to a Democratic Socialist.
And he said—there was a right-wing rally and a left-wing rally, and they were facing off.
And he said that, well, the right was all racist and all that stuff, and, you know, they're extremists.
And I said, no, they're not.
I was like, it's a bunch of regular dudes down there.
And then he pointed and said, don't you see the Confederate flag?
And I said, sure, but that's one guy.
And he was like, no, man, like, they're flying the Confederate flag.
And I said, You guys are flying the Soviet flag.
And he goes, no, we're not.
And I said, yeah, you are.
And I pointed to the guy on their side flying the Soviet flag.
And he was like, well, that's not that's just one person.
And I'm like, now you see what I'm trying to say, dude?
You can't assume something.
But here's what happens, the way I explain it.
If you're on the left, and you look to your right, you'll see someone standing in the center.
Standing behind them is someone holding a Confederate flag.
From your perspective, you just see one group of people, even though they're to the right of me.
They're further away.
When they're looking down, you see what I'm trying to say?
The guy in the back of the group with the flag, they assumed it was all one group.
It wasn't.
It was another guy with a flag, and the same was true.
The Soviet flag was behind their main group of protesters.
But when the right looked to the left, what did they see?
One group of people and a Soviet flag.
Now, to be completely honest, the front of their group was Antifa with crowbars and baseball bats, hence my personal bias on this issue.
That's the point I'm making about this joke, though.
When they see me make this joke, they don't realize that me as a moderate doesn't care about Aunt Jemima.
In fact, good, get rid of it.
I think it's stupid.
They look to their right, and they see centrists in the front, and conservatives in the far right, but to them, from their perspective, it looks like one group.
You see what I'm trying to say?
The other issue, the more important issue as to why they thought this was a real tweet, And I realized this when I thought about it, I'm like, why, why, how could these people think this was real?
So when they saw me tweet this, they view Thomas Jefferson and George Washington the same way they view a pancake mascot.
And maybe that sounds funny or, you know, but I mean that quite literally.
Aunt Jemima as a pancake mascot to me is literally something that can be chucked in the trash and gotten rid of and I literally don't care.
Our founding fathers are heroes to our nation who defied the authoritarian regime of the crown, stood up for the civil liberties and rights of all people, Understanding, yes, slavery was a thing back then.
And many of the founding fathers opposed it, and only gave in to it because they were desperate for the help of the southern states.
I'm not a fan of that mentality.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend, nah.
But you know what?
They wanted freedom from the crown.
Some people have argued that if America did not break away from the British Empire, slavery would have ended sooner.
You can bring all these things up, but I tell you this.
My family, alright?
And this is why I, you know, more recent times I've been bringing up the whole mixed race thing, simply because of the identitarian politics that's been emerging.
But it's a meme when I bring it up, and I bring it up for this reason.
I don't have a worldview built upon white heritage or anything like that.
I have a worldview built upon a family that was forced to flee several states because, up until 1967, it was actually illegal in many places to be, to cohabitate or be in a mixed-race family.
So when I think back to what this country represents, it represents the ability to reform and to be accepted for people who would defy the status quo.
The Founding Fathers were far from perfect.
But to me, they're heroes.
They defied the monarchy.
They stood up for civil rights and civil liberties.
They had broken backwards views on a lot of things relative to today.
But I'm not going to hold them to a standard based on how far we've come.
In fact, I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson had mixed-race kids, too.
But you think about the illegality of it, and you think about the fact that in many countries today, they still have slavery, they still have overt racism, they still have racial covenants and race-based policies.
China, for instance, had a viral video where they were telling black people they couldn't go to McDonald's.
That's how horrifying these other countries are.
And then I think back to what Thomas Jefferson wrote, what George Washington represented, what he fought for, and all of the other founding fathers, and I think, man, While they may have come from a place that we would look down upon today, they were a shining light, and that light has carried forward and created a great society of freedom and equality that has allowed my family to stop running, to be successful.
Now, I understand there's a big difference in what mixed race means.
Some people are mixed, but they still look overtly one race or another, and so there are still challenges with race.
But it's rather shocking to me that I grew up with stories from my family about what it meant to have to flee a state when people found out you were in violation of the law.
What it meant to have your family members have to pretend to be the help or maids.
It's rather scary.
And then I grew up in a world where I get to be successful.
And I'll tell you this.
Well, first I'll say, so when I look back at the Founding Fathers and I learn our history and the defiance, I'm very proud of what America is and what it represents because I am that success story in two ways.
First, my family, I grew up, I didn't have to run from anything.
But my family before me, my parents, Yes, they did.
That's crazy to me.
And people don't get this, especially these white suburbanite progressives, don't understand what it really means.
Now, they'll prop up Loving Day, and they'll talk about this stuff, but they don't get it.
They really, really don't.
And I gotta admit, even to a certain degree, neither did I, because I grew up in a successful world, a country that did right and did well, and so I have tremendous reverence for Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest of them.
And I think about today.
The other factor is the American dream.
Not only did I come from a family that had to experience the illegality of their love, quite literally, Now, I'm a rather successful American personality, speaking on political issues.
And the better I do, the more I succeed, the more proud I am of this country, because this literally wasn't possible decades ago.
Not even that long ago.
And I look back, and it's probably why I'm a moderate on a lot of political issues, and it's probably why I disagree with a lot of conservatives on issues of racism, because I've got a more direct view of what that meant.
But America won.
What America is and the civil liberties and the civil rights, we won.
So here I am.
Okay, I grew up in a family where they said, where I was told, yeah, we had, when they found out who we were, we had to flee.
And I'm like, wow, that's crazy.
And then I grew up and I work hard.
And I'm a fairly liberal person, policy-wise, although that really doesn't mean anything anymore.
And I work hard and I succeed.
And every day I do better.
And I've come to a point of success and I said, the American dream exists.
For those that work hard, you can come from the gutter.
It doesn't mean everybody will win.
It doesn't mean everybody will be successful.
But it means that this is a country where over time we do better.
And now there are people who literally want to tear it down.
Who would spit in the face of the founding fathers who created a system so good, not perfect, but so good, that I could be a success story.
And I take great offense to that.
I have been the victim of police brutality.
I've been falsely arrested.
I've had cops try planting drugs on me.
I have every reason to claim the police are an evil machine destroying our nation, just like they would, and it's not true!
It's absolutely not true.
For all of the negative things I've experienced in the South Side of Chicago, and dealing with my family and the law of this country, I still recognize we won!
And here's what really drives things home for me.
Policy-wise, I am fairly liberal.
I have been posting about systemic racism, I talked about it in several videos, and I've routinely said social justice, a lot of these issues, are actually good things.
The problem is the authoritarian application, and that many of these people are overt racists, and they want to destroy our history.
My fear is that if we get rid of the names like Jefferson and Washington and forget the great ideas they had, we forget our past and we forget that guiding light that made everything so successful and that scares me.
Which brings me to the current iteration of social justice politics and where I find myself.
Guess where I find myself?
With two political factions.
One, I kid you not, where they tell me just pretend to be white.
And guess who that is?
Now, many on the left would say it must be the right wingers.
No, it's the left.
When I talk to my liberal friends and try and tell them the story of my family's past, they say, well, you should just pretend to be white and just don't, don't, don't, don't admit.
And I'm like, do you think I can do that?
Sometimes people perceive me as white, sometimes they don't.
Sometimes I get overtly asked in certain circumstances.
You must be something else.
Explain.
It's not so clean cut.
These people make assumptions about race.
And then they tell me I don't understand my own privilege and all this other nonsense.
And you know what conservatives say?
Literally nothing.
This is my experience.
Regular people, my regular friends, some left-leaning, they never bring up racial issues like this to me, but now they've started to, and it's freaking me out.
Why was I able to spend 34 years of my life without experiencing this?
Why was I able to be friends with you, one of my friends for 20 years, with you never questioning these racial issues, and now you want to racialize everything about me?
I don't want to live that way!
My family fought against that stuff, they struggled against that stuff, and we won!
And what do I have now?
I go and talk to conservatives.
Never comes up.
Not once.
I'm not even exaggerating.
Not even exaggerating.
I sit down at a table with a bunch of Trump supporters asking questions.
Not even a question.
I've been invited out to dinners with a bunch of MAGA hat wearing Trump flag, you know, Trump waving flag, you know, Trump people.
And we'll talk about politics and it doesn't come up.
But I go to Occupy Wall Street, I go to these left-wing rallies, and they throw it in my face non-stop, and it's horrifying.
It is reactionary.
Quite literally, these people want to go back to the days of old, when we had segregation, and they're doing it in Seattle.
They've created a segregated farm.
I've seen them do it at churches.
I've seen, during these Black Lives Matter protests from Ferguson, Baltimore, they create rooms, racially segregated.
I gotta admit, that stuff scares me.
Especially growing up hearing the stories I did.
And you end up with these well-to-do white people who don't know the difference of why someone would jokingly mention why Aunt Jemima is, you know, they don't understand the joke.
They literally don't get the importance and significance of our founding fathers and why this country is so great.
And you know what will really give you some perspective is going to other countries.
Go to Brazil.
A lot of racism.
No free speech.
Go to China.
Extremely racist.
Bro, I went to Korea.
And what did I find?
Oh man, are they racist.
Oh yeah.
Very, very racist.
It's really interesting to go to Korea, because I'm part Korean, and see their reaction to me and what it represents.
There's an interesting curiosity of like, wow, how did, you know, the people from our country go about moving and how did you come to be?
Like, what's your family history?
And also, but you're not Korean.
So it's a really weird place for me to be in when these people want to create a racialized world that my family was talking about how it was scary.
How I grew up hearing stories about how we won and how the founding fathers were the ones who laid that groundwork for us to succeed.
And now I can be a successful individual where I can mind my own business and actually run a successful business and it's true for many many other people.
That isn't to say that there's, you know, not problems.
Like we have problems for sure and we're fixing them because we always have.
I'll try to be more mindful of the perspective of the left, who holds no reverence for the Founding Fathers.
And hopefully what I just explained will let you understand why I respect the Founding Fathers.
For all of the bad things they did, they wrote down in a document, all men are created equal, they drafted a constitution, and it may have not been their exact interpretation necessarily, but over time the interpretation was agreed upon by basically everyone in this country.
We have moved towards the light, based on the work these men did, and I will always respect that.
And I will never let people erase that.
Because you can see what people like Mao have done.
What Stalin did.
These people who purged all of their history, killed all of these people, and would erase photos of Tiananmen Square.
I'm not playing that game with these people.
But I'll leave it there.
I think a lot of you can understand my point of view.
Maybe some of you can't.
Maybe, uh, this is a good enough explanation, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm.
TimCast.net.
Check it out, and I will see you all then.
On today's episode of Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes, a second man has been charged in torching the Minneapolis Police Department.
The police in Atlanta are offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of a woman who was seen on camera lighting a fire or contributing to a fire that burned down a Wendy's.
And now we have exclusive footage of the man who got shot in New Mexico.
I don't know how much I can show, But when you approach a man with a skateboard and attack him while someone yells something about killing another person, don't be surprised when that person draws their weapons and takes aim at you.
In today's episode, we get started with Reuters.
Second man charged with torching Minneapolis police station during protests.
They say a 22-year-old Minnesota man was charged on Tuesday with aiding and abetting the arson of a Minneapolis police station during protests over the death of George Floyd.
Dylan Robinson, who was arrested in Breckenridge, Colorado on Sunday, is accused of hurling a Molotov cocktail inside the 3rd Precinct Police Station in Minneapolis and igniting a fire in the building's stairwell on May 28, according to the criminal complaint.
Robinson appeared in U.S.
District Court in Denver on Tuesday to hear the charges against him.
The U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota said in a written statement prosecutors said he is from Brainerd, Minnesota.
Robinson is the second man arrested, June 3rd, in connection with the blaze.
Brandon Wolfe, 23, was arrested in Minnesota and charged with one count of aiding and abetting arson, prosecutors said.
The police station was set on fire during the demonstrations, three days after the killing of George Floyd.
The incident was captured by a bystander cell phone video and led to the firing of Chauvin.
We know all this.
Authorities said they identified Robinson from social media posts and surveillance cameras.
Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms tracked him to Breckenridge, Colorado, a mountain town about 80 miles west of Denver, where he was taken into custody according to an arrest warrant affidavit.
Robinson is due back in Denver federal court on Friday for a detention and removal hearing, a spokesman for the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Denver told Reuters.
Amazing.
This man's from, I believe he's from Minnesota, they said.
They believe that he was from Minnesota.
And he made his way to Breckenridge.
They will track you down.
They will find you, and you will be charged and arrested.
Now, there's a lot of bad things about the surveillance state, and admittedly this isn't one of them, but it is still scary.
They have pictures of you.
They have your phone records.
They have your GPS records.
They will find you if you go to a small mountain town.
You're not going to get away with the things you engage in.
I find it fascinating that these people who are being arrested are in their early 20s.
These are young, dumb people who don't know how the world works, and they're basically LARPing.
Live Action Role Play.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Justice will come for you.
I understand the frustration and the anger towards the police.
But what you have to understand is that we need proportional responses.
If the police have consistently gotten away with certain things, if they're not being held to account, burning down one police station does literally nothing but empower them.
So you know what?
That's why we have justice.
And I've warned many of these far leftists.
As I stated in my main channel video, if you didn't see it, go to TimCast.net, check it out.
The more the far left does this, the stronger the state becomes.
They love it.
The cops love it when you do this stuff.
You know why?
They turn around and say, see?
This is why we need all of these weapons.
This is why we need to have body armor and high-powered rifles and armored personnel carriers.
Because these crazy people will burn down a police station.
You know what?
It's not entirely wrong, but it shouldn't be this way.
We shouldn't be rapidly escalating the use of force and the armaments of our police, but here you go.
Tweedledee and Tweedledum show up saying, I'm mad at cops because I saw a video on Facebook.
Well, now you can spend the rest of your lives in prison.
But there may be some room in that prison for another woman.
Police search for instigators who started Wendy's fire after Rayshard Brooks' shooting.
Channel 2 Action News obtained new video of a woman who police say is responsible for starting a fire that torched a Wendy's restaurant just hours after a deadly police shooting there.
The fire destroyed the fast food restaurant off University Avenue, where 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by an Atlanta officer.
The investigation into his death is ongoing.
The Atlanta Police Foundation says a lot of tips have come into Crimestoppers Atlanta after they posted a $10,000 reward for her arrest.
Listen, if they can't track you down using surveillance means, they can do the next best thing.
$10,000 to anybody who can provide information leading to her arrest.
And you know what?
There's gonna be a lot of people who want that sweet juicy 10K, I'll tell you what.
A channel to... A lot of tips have come in.
People want the money.
A Channel 2 viewer recorded the video on Saturday night.
It clearly shows a white woman in shorts with a ponytail spraying something into the flames at the restaurant.
She smiles and nods and walks away from the restaurant as flames spread.
Atlanta police shared a second video of the same woman on their Twitter account and still photos of a second woman dressed in black with an aerosol can.
You know what the left tried doing?
They argued that this was actually just someone trying to put the fire out by pouring water on it.
And then the police released photos where you can see her cheering, raising her fist, and carrying an aerosol can.
At least we believe that to be her.
Atlanta Police says they're offering $10,000 reward for information on the individuals responsible for starting a fire that led to the destruction of a Wendy's restaurant at 125 University Avenue.
Dave Wilkinson is the president of the Atlanta Police Foundation and a former Secret Service agent.
He says it's clear police are searching for a small number of people who came with different intentions than peaceful protests.
We're talking about individuals that are literally throwing Molotov cocktails.
The folks that are setting businesses on fire.
It appears their intention for being there is to destroy property, wreak havoc, and create violence.
There's no question, when you see that video of the suspects, they certainly look different.
They certainly dress differently.
Atlanta police say the department made 36 arrests on Saturday night and just six on Sunday.
Wilkinson also warned of morale at an all-time low for the police department.
Now, the next story I have for you, and I will wrap these up, because the point with these stories is that law enforcement will come for you.
Consider this, as usual, an addendum to the main segment I did on my main channel.
The police will find you.
They may not arrest you on the spot, but this is what the police do, okay?
Some people complain that when you're in the middle of a conflict, a crime is being committed, the cops can't get there in time, and that's true.
Now for me, strangely enough, I was being mugged once and the cops came out of nowhere and stopped the mugging.
I was saved by several police.
It happens.
It really does.
But they can't always be there.
It's just not possible.
So you have them patrol.
Or, you have them follow up.
In this instance, we have two people, Tweedledee and Tweedledum in Minnesota, now probably going to spend years in prison.
Maybe they'll get probation, we'll see.
But torching a police department, I have to imagine, is pretty serious.
Now, I can't say the same for the next person.
Maybe this woman is going to be, you know, captured, arrested, someone makes some quick cash.
But I can't say the same for the next person.
See, in New Mexico, a man shoots and critically injures a protester who attacked him with a skateboard as violence broke out during a bid to tear down Spanish conquistador statue in New Mexico.
Now, I've talked about this.
I covered this when it happened the other day.
But we now have exclusive footage Now I'm not going to show you the man on the ground, but I am going to show you the moments during the scuffle.
YouTube may not be too happy with it, but I'm going to scroll down.
And these images were published by the Daily Mail because there's important context here.
In the video, you can hear what appears to be someone yell something along the lines of, going to kill you.
I don't know if he says he's going to kill you, I'm going to kill you, we're going to kill you, but it does sound like he's saying he's going to kill you.
I believe this man who's yelling is warning these Antifa black-clad individuals as the three of them, you can see, pile on this man in a blue shirt.
This man in a blue shirt, as I mentioned in my main segment, isn't a militia member, not a cop.
He's just someone who is showing up to give you your stupid prize.
Now, in this photo, you can clearly see there's something in this Antifa Far-Lefty's hand.
We don't know what it is.
Many people have said it was a knife.
Some people believe he was actually carrying two knives.
I don't know.
Nobody does.
Well, maybe the people who are there, the cops, might know what they were covered, but we'll see what happens.
You can see him drawing his weapon, taking aim.
This man being shot is not the same man who was initially attacking the man in the blue shirt.
You can see the green backpack.
So I gotta say, you know what, man?
The guy on the left here in this image, who's got his arms up, is holding some kind of item, and is facing down the barrel of a gun, ran up after they were beating on this guy, grabbed the skateboard from the other guy, and took some swings at the man in the blue shirt.
The man in the blue shirt drew his weapon, pointed it at whatever he saw, and he fired, I believe, four rounds, critically injuring.
Critically.
The man in black falls over.
The Civil Guard, uh, the militia members are actually the ones that render aid to this man and detain the man in blue.
So, let's leave them out of this.
Surprisingly, they had nothing to do with it, it would seem.
But I'll tell you what, guys.
You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
I know it's a funny thing to say.
I know a lot of people hear that and they just like, they chuckle, but I want you to think about what that really means.
I've been to some of these countries.
I have seen people enter into situations where they know not what they bring.
They know not what they create or what they foment.
Some people want revolution.
Some people are playing stupid games and have no idea what's happening in the world around them or what it really means to call for what you're calling for.
These left-wing revolutionaries that would burn down a police station or attack a random guy in the street are now going to learn a hard lesson in real life.
But you know what lesson I hope we never get to learn?
And unfortunately, they will hopefully never learn?
What happens when you get your revolution?
You want to know what happens if these people actually knocked out the police departments or the federal government?
They would cry themselves to sleep every night huddled in the corner of their burnt-down home as roving bands of vigilantes and violent gangs steal and murder and kidnap.
Man, I'll tell you what.
In Austin, Texas, it's really funny to see these small women engaging in these acts as well.
Like the woman in Berkeley.
I'm not gonna bring up her name or anything, but there's a small woman who engaged in overt acts of violence, went viral for it.
These small women don't realize what will happen without this government.
I'd like to tell you some of the horror stories that exist in lawless states, but I honestly don't think I can because the video would probably be banned, and I'm not exaggerating.
There are some things where criminals take vehicles.
They call it a... Let's just phrase it this way, alright?
Abuse safaris.
I'll frame it that way.
You can try to infer what that means in lawless areas.
I've worked on stories with sources trying to figure out who these groups of criminals, kidnappers, who engage in these safaris, who they are, what the story is, and there was an effort by some journalists trying to infiltrate these groups because you can pay them large sums of money to take you into lawless areas where they collectively abuse women.
I'll put it that way.
You don't want to know what life is like when there are no police.
You don't want to live in the Wild West.
You don't want to read the stories about what life was like for people before we had the security and the police that we do today.
But you know what?
Hopefully they never have to learn.
Hopefully they don't.
But maybe they will, and it will be their own undoing.
Go to some of these countries, man.
These kids really need to see a wake-up call, but I'll leave it there.
The cops will get you.
And if they don't, and you engage in this, you might find yourself in a hospital.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In today's episode of News People Just Don't Wanna Hear, We gotta talk about it.
Rayshard Brooks was on probation for four crimes, including cruelty to children, and was facing going back to prison if he was charged with a DUI.
Now, it's not just even about being charged.
Simply being arrested could be enough to land him back in prison.
And now we know why he fought the cops.
Now we know why he stole their weapon, ran and fired at them.
This is a man Who was willing to... I mean, dare I say, look, a taser is a lethal weapon.
Maybe he didn't know that, but it seems like he was willing to severely injure these cops because he didn't want to go back to jail.
This is why he did what he did.
Now, you can argue that the cops didn't have to kill him and all that stuff, but listen, this is not a George Floyd story.
So we're gonna read through this, see what's going on, and I tell you what, man, I'm already seeing.
I've been seeing it for a long time.
Lefty friends of mine who are still pushing the narrative.
This is a man who was asleep in his car and got killed.
No.
This is a man who was drunk in the drive-thru of a Wendy's whose car was running And someone called the cops on him, and they had to move his car and then arrest him for a DUI.
And instead, he didn't want to go back to prison.
So he fought, stole an officer's weapon, successfully defeated, I guess, the two cops, fought them off, and was running, turned around, shot at them with the taser, and then they returned fire.
Let's read the story.
But I also want to point out one very, very important thing as well.
I have another exclusive story.
This is in the Daily Mail.
This dude... I don't think wanted to kill this guy.
for me. Fired officer who shot Rayshard Brooks dead, begged the father of four to stay alive
as he desperately administered CPR, body cam footage reveals.
This dude, I don't think wanted to kill this guy. I mean, a lot of people, you know, want
to frame things as this evil cop. But it sounds like a tragedy.
And it sounds like, man, if you are committing a DUI, I can't believe that right now we're seeing the left defend a DUI driver.
Like, you gotta understand, when people drive drunk, the real danger that they can bring about, the lives that can be lost.
And the cops were doing everything they were supposed to do, and this guy fought them and stole their weapon.
Let's read the story.
Rayshard Brooks was on probation and faced going back to prison if he was charged with a DUI.
It was the fear of incarceration that likely caused Brooks to panic in the face of imminent arrest and caused him to make a break for it.
Brooks was shot and killed on Friday, June 12th, when cops received a 911 call to the Wendy's at a University Avenue in Atlanta.
Brooks was drunk and asleep at the wheel of his car and blocking the fast food restaurant drive-thru lane.
And this dude, you gotta be pretty drunk to fall asleep sitting in a drive-thru, man.
The 27-year-old father of four was polite and compliant with officers across the 20 minutes during which officers Devin Brosnan and Gareth Rolfe questioned him as to how much he had drunk and how he had ended up in the drive-thru.
As the interaction neared its tragic conclusion, Brooks suggested to officers that he could just walk home saying that it wasn't that far.
But after Brooks failed a field sobriety test and blew a 0.108 when breathalyzed, 0.08 is the legal limit in Georgia, Rolf, who has since been fired, moved to cuff Brooks, who suddenly resisted.
Both officers were clearly taken by surprise.
Now let me give you some advice, alright?
You don't answer questions for police.
You don't.
Don't care.
There are some good cops out there, a lot of them actually.
Don't, doesn't matter.
You get stopped by the cops, you don't talk to them.
You know why?
This is why we have a Fifth Amendment.
This is an issue of our constitutional rights, not trying to be respectful, and I'll tell you where Brooks made a mistake.
First of all, He got drunk, and he drove his car.
That's the real mistake.
Everything after that is minor and peripheral.
However, in the event that you find yourself making such a similar mistake, the appropriate thing is to not answer questions, and not submit yourself to a breathalyzer, and you might get arrested, for sure.
But you don't talk to cops.
Because you don't know if you may be incriminating yourself.
Now, I'm not a fan of people breaking the law.
This man should have been arrested.
Should have been charged.
And he should not have fought cops.
And he also should not have died.
But I'll tell you what.
Life or death situations, especially like this, are not some magical fairytale world.
It's not a strategy game where you're like sitting there thinking for five minutes, what should I do next?
I know, I'll kill the guy.
It doesn't work that way.
He had a weapon, alright?
So the first thing, all you can really say is, this dude, when he drove drunk, well, that's it.
Right there.
He made the first mistake.
He endangered the lives of other people.
Now you gotta consider what these cops are thinking when they engage the situation, right?
They say, as their body cameras fell to the ground, the scuffle that ensued, one shouted to Brooks, stop fighting, and warned him, you're gonna get tased.
Daily Mail has uncovered the fear that could have caused Brooks to panic.
Let me tell you.
Cops get a phone call that a man is drunk.
Driving drunk.
And they're thinking like, alright man, this could be bad.
Someone's blocking the drive-through.
The dude fails a field sobriety test.
They look up his information and find that he has, I believe, he was on probation.
I believe he had felony charges.
Now they're concerned this guy could be violent.
He's already harmed other people.
Apparently, I got some reports that they called in backup.
When this guy resists, there are two officers trying to hold him down, and he wins.
He fights them both off, and even steals one of their weapons.
Now you can argue the cops were inept or incapable, but it's fine, it doesn't matter.
Whatever your argument is, this guy, violent past, criminal history, probation, caught drunk, steals weapon, you got, you got a powder keg right in front of you.
And like I mentioned before in the other video, this cop had to make a decision.
Am I gonna let this guy just run off with my weapon while he's drunk and belligerent, where he's getting violent and he's already hurt other people?
Can't do it.
Is the guy gonna use the taser, turn around and use it on those cops?
No idea.
Was the intent to end his life?
Absolutely not.
It wasn't.
But the cop used his gun.
Because he was facing a lethal threat.
I wish Brooks didn't die.
I honestly do.
I even oppose the death penalty.
Recently, I've heard some good arguments for it as a deterrent effect or as a bargaining chip.
Don't care.
Too many innocent people die on death row.
Too many.
It's not that many, but it's enough.
It's better that 100 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
And I believe that was Ben Franklin who said that.
Originally coming from Blackstone's formulation, ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.
I cannot condone the state ending the life of an innocent person in the hopes that he was guilty.
Not a fan.
I can say the exact same thing for Brooks.
I wish there was a circumstance where you could just let him go, but I do understand.
I've been in intense life-or-death situations.
Now, I'm not armed in these situations, right?
I've been to Ferguson.
Bullets were flying, hitting the deck.
And you don't know what you'll do.
You don't know how you'll respond.
And when you're trained to stop a threat, and this guy is a threat, it's unfortunate, but this is what happens.
Well, here's the other big update.
So we understand why this guy was fleeing.
The police officer who shot dead, Rayshard Brooks, begged the father of four to live as he desperately administered CPR to the dying man.
Former officer Garrett Rolfe shot Brooks twice in the back on Friday when a peaceable call-out suddenly escalated into unspeakable violence.
Rolfe's body cam came off during the violent altercation that erupted when he tried to cuff Brooks, telling him he had too much to drink.
But the camera never stopped recording as it was picked up and carried around by the other officers called to investigate the shooting before eventually being returned to its owner.
DailyMail.com can reveal what happened in the moments after the shooting.
They say, oh here, it looks like we can see they're desperately trying to treat the man.
They're wearing gloves, look.
There have been a lot of stories of cops who have shot somebody, and then left him there to just bleed out.
Those are horrifying.
This is not that case.
This, I do not believe, I believe this cop, I mean we'll see what happens man, I don't, it doesn't seem to be anything wrong.
The cop asked him, will you do a breathalyzer?
Will you do a field sobriety?
You're under arrest.
Calmly, the dude fought him, stole his weapon.
What would you have the cop do?
How do you deal with a drunk, violent individual with a taser running away and attacking people?
I know the person shouldn't have died, but the intent isn't just to kill him.
They tried to save his life.
The intent was to stop the threat.
What would have happened if Brooks ran off the taser, took a hostage?
He's been violent in the past.
What would happen if instead of taking a hostage, he just threatened other people and started, you know, firing the taser at other people?
Now, I believe the taser can only fire one shot, I'm not entirely sure, but he could still make contact with people.
So apparently, what happened?
Amid angry shouts and accusations from bystanders, Rolf can be heard clearly pleading.
Mr. Books, keep breathing.
Keep breathing for me.
You know, so many of these activists want to live in this binary world, where cops are stormtroopers who just want to kill people, where this poor man who was innocent, just sleeping in his car, they don't want to talk about what's really going on in the street.
They don't want to talk about why people have guns, why people lose their lives.
They don't want to talk about what cops have to deal with.
I remember talking to my dad when I was younger, and he said, cops have a crummy job, man.
They snap sometimes.
And they shouldn't.
And that means, police, to be a cop, you gotta have a certain level of... I don't know, man.
Mental fortitude.
For sure.
Because you're gonna be dealing with a lot of really, really awful things.
And when the cops act out of line, they gotta be held accountable.
But to act like all of these situations are just a binary of black or white, the evil cop sees the innocent black man and kills him, is just absolutely untrue.
This cop tried to save his life, and so did many other cops.
And there are videos where you see cops save babies, remember that viral video that went around?
You see videos of cops running into buildings, into the gunfire to save lives.
But right now, what's getting clicks for the media is the negative press, and this is what scares me.
I like the idea of police accountability and police reform, so maybe we'll get something good, but this could go too far.
We used to get a lot of videos that were pro-cop because they're heartwarming, but anger gets more clicks.
It really does.
So you're going to see stories about cops where they want to induce anger to get those shares to make that money.
And that's why we are now dealing with something that isn't a... Like, I'll put it this way, man.
I think more people die from peanut allergies than from police brutality.
That doesn't mean we ignore police brutality, but it does mean there's something weird going on when we care more about police brutality than peanut allergies.
Now, I don't know what you do in response to peanut allergies, and I think in response to police brutality, there's maybe some action you can take, so it makes sense that we're talking about it.
But we can't live in this binary world, man.
We have to understand that these situations are not so clear-cut.
This man who shot, you know, Rayshard Brooks is not evil.
Rayshard is not evil.
Rayshard was scared, didn't want to go to prison.
The cop was trying to do his job, and he entered a violent situation.
This is just called escalation.
These things happen in conflict.
Nobody wanted the other person to die in this situation, but this is what happens when you fight.
This is what happens when this dude was committing a felony.
I believe DUI is a felony.
I could be wrong.
I'm pretty sure.
So Rayshard started this chain of events when he got drunk and he got in that car.
The outcome is unfortunately predictable.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Kayleigh McEnany.
Wow, maybe the best press secretary we've ever seen.
I'm not gonna bury the lead on it.
I'm gonna go, I'm gonna jump right to this.
Jim Acosta asks her about Donald Trump's rally and COVID fears and she literally pulls up the physical copy of the New York Post showing the sick hypocrisy.
Man, I just really love the hypocrisy being slapped in their faces.
You know they're trying to sue Trump to block his rally from happening?
How are we in this fractured timeline is the question I often ask, right?
How is it that CNN can simultaneously say, wow, 10,000 protesters, what a great thing?
And then, but Trump is going to have a rally.
Finally, finally, they walked right into the trap.
And to see Kayleigh McEnany pull up that paper, I can't believe when I saw this article, I could not help but laugh.
Glorious.
Kayleigh, excellent job.
Let me read you the story and then we'll talk about Trump's rally.
They say, as expected, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany was inundated with questions about President Trump's decision to hold a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma this Saturday.
Jim Acosta, acting very concerned, noted that Oklahoma has experienced an uptick in coronavirus cases recently since the state has begun to reopen.
McEnany responded with the cover of the New York Post.
On Tuesday's front page, the Post exposed a bit of media hypocrisy, on the one hand, and Democrat hypocrisy.
NBC News was concerned about Trump's upcoming rally and how it will draw tens of thousands of people at a time when we're supposed to still be social distancing.
On the other hand, the outlet glowingly reported on a Black Trans Lives Matter rally, which also featured thousands of participants.
So I saw this tweet, and at first I read it, I'm like, yeah, she literally held up the paper, she brought the physical newspaper into the White House press briefing.
Absolutely amazing.
So here's the image, you can see it.
Alternative News tweeted, Jim Acosta just repeatedly criticized Trump for his upcoming rally and how social distancing will be impossible.
Press Secretary then whipped out the front page of the post showing that it's only okay, according to the media, for people to gather in groups while they're in the streets.
After fielding what she tallied was her 10th question on campaign rallies, the press secretary instructed the press room to exhibit the same concern for protesters who are not social distancing and are not wearing masks as they are for Trump campaign goers.
Protests and riots have sprung up all over the country after the tragic Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd.
And it's not just one protest or one rally in New York.
Across the country, the protests have not stopped, even in small towns.
If you haven't seen the segment I did on it, go to timcast.net, check it out, I put it up today.
A small town like Ohio or something.
A town of 2,800 people.
Had 80 people show up to protest, and around 700 counter-protesters.
But mind you, the protests are still happening.
Where is the media to condemn this?
And why aren't we hearing these stories about the ongoing protests?
You know, in Portland, it's like day 20 of protests.
In D.C., they're still marching.
Yet we don't see news coverage of it.
Why?
Old news.
With Donald Trump's campaign rally, oh, we can't have that.
By the way, Acosta wondered, why is Trump holding a rally in the first place,
since it's not in support of anything? What? It's not in support of anything.
A defiant McEnany explained that he and his supporters are rallying on behalf
of the administration's successes. Or Trump's re-election in five months?
Come on, dude.
She ended the briefing and walked out by waving the NY Post cover once more and adding, I hope we start seeing more consistent headlines.
Bravo, Ms.
McEnany.
Wow, she has been absolutely on fire with calling out the fake news.
And I wonder how many people can see it.
Look, I think it's silly often when people say, the media won't tell you this, the media won't cover that.
It's true, I say it sometimes too.
But I try to be more reserved in my use of this because, quite honestly, the media does report on these things.
Has Jim Acosta now done his stand-up or did he criticize her without explaining she called him out?
Tribalism.
I really doubt he mentioned anything.
But let's take a look at the real hypocrisy.
So my respect to Ms.
McEnany, but we got a serious problem right here.
Check this out.
Now, this is good news.
Judge denies request to force coronavirus safety measures at Trump's Tulsa rally.
Wow!
How could this be?
That we are in this world where thousands of people can protest, no lawsuits.
That's it.
Why is it that the conservatives are always on the defensive on this one?
Somebody actually tried suing Trump to force him to either end his rally or have some kind of safety measure.
Yet no one is suing any of these organizations that are setting up these massive protests that are in violation of CDC guidelines.
The media won't call it out.
It's truly a disgusting time, man.
Look, a lot of people have said, you know, Red Pill Tim, Red Pill that, whatever.
No, let me explain something to you.
What you're seeing is the spread.
Back in, like, 2014, this weird wokeness was infecting, this weird leftist tribalism was infecting gaming, and film, and eventually comics.
And some people started to take notice.
The people mostly in the communities noticed because they were being attacked.
They then started calling it red-pilling when people realized what was happening.
No, that's not fair.
Because what was happening to your industry wasn't happening to every other industry.
It wasn't about waking up to the reality of the world.
It was about the left infecting your discipline.
We've now seen the media be completely zombified.
I worked for these media companies.
When I started at Vice, they were not all about wokeness.
When I started at Fusion, they actually rejected partisanship.
But the zombie bite hit and it started to spread.
The infection got worse.
And I jumped out, shattering through the window, flying to the floor, burning up the contract.
I'm kidding.
But I walked away from a fairly lucrative job and wanted out of my contract.
Ultimately, they refused to let me out.
The contract expired and I left because they were infected by the zombie bite.
It is progressively getting worse.
Now the entire media industry is infected.
The New York Times is firing people.
All of these new... like, what, wait, like eight or nine in the past couple... in the past week or so being fired, purged, accused of all these awful things.
They've taken over.
And in their takeover, they will not tell you the truth because the real journalists have been kicked out.
And what's replacing them are zombified ideologues.
Because of this, conservatives will consistently be on the defensive.
Everything they say will be fake news.
They'll be called conspiracy theorists and liars.
My favorite thing right now is that there's an effort to get me labeled a conspiracy theorist because I comment on other reporting certified by a third-party agency.
Think about that.
Rachel Maddow, literally screeched for years, is she called a conspiracy theorist?
No.
Only by conservatives.
And therein lies the bigger problem here.
I think conservatives need to stop acting like this press matters.
Stop, listen.
I was once told, I was invited to a speaking event, and they told me they'd cover my accommodation, but they wouldn't pay me to speak.
And I was considering doing it.
And I was told by my agent at the time, that you are their event's entertainment.
They are going to make money off of what you do, and they don't want to pay you for it, but they will certainly profit for it.
And I said, that's a really good point.
And because of that, I said no to doing the event.
And you know what?
I don't really do events anymore, unless I'm hosting them or putting them on, because I don't want to deal with... I'm not going to be someone else's entertainment.
This is what conservatives need to realize when they give statements when they talk to the press.
For one, they're going to lie about you and smear you because they've been infested and zombified.
It's effectively now weird, you know, body snatchers wearing the old organizations as a skin suit flopping around with non-profit money.
I love that analogy, by the way.
But they're not going to give you a fair shake.
They will use you, however.
So maybe it's time you start saying no.
And many people already do, but I often see people try and give... Look, I'm talking about the GOP.
I'm talking about Republicans who are like, they get asked a question and they say, oh, let me give you a comment so you can write articles and make money and then lie about me.
How about you, you guys in Congress and the Senate, when you get asked by these big outlets, say, no comment.
Honestly, I don't know if it would be a great thing, but hey, if they're gonna lie about you, if they're gonna lie about Trump and they're gonna lie about what's going on with the American people and prop up a double standard that benefits your ideological opponents, you have nothing to gain from talking to them.
You are not sharing your ideas with their audience because they're lying about your ideas.
They do it all the time.
But you have access to your own platforms now.
That's why we're seeing a rise in conservative media on social media.
It's why I think the Daily Wire and Fox News dominate on Facebook.
Because people know you're getting fake news when you turn on CNN.
It is so fake.
Brian Stelter is like one of the worst purveyors of fake news.
Because while I can point to Chris Cuomo for straight-up lying, Brian Stelter is the guy who's the shield for all of them.
It's beyond just one person saying a lie.
Brian Stelter is the one who masks what they do, any covers for them.
We're the real news.
Don't listen to this spin.
Well, you'll still get the real news from some prominent outlets, but they're all starting to get infected.
The New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, they're fairly conservative.
There's a lot of conservative outlets.
So I'll put it this way.
Why don't you just refuse to give comments to outlets that you know to be biased?
That could include some conservative outlets.
Maybe just stop letting these people profit off of what you think and what you say when you know they're not going to frame things properly.
Now the fear I see here is the left and the right creating their own media outlets and then no one agrees on what's happening.
The only problem, that's already happened.
So how do you stop this?
I don't know.
Get some conservatives in these companies?
No, they've purged the conservatives.
And there you have it.
The only path I see moving forward is that the left and the right will have their own individual outlets and there will be no unbiased journalism.
In which case, stop giving them comments.
Stop engaging with people who just want to lie.
This is the one reason why I block people on Twitter.
I didn't used to do it, but I do it now because people will take things out of context to create gotcha moments and hot takes.
I'm not interested in being your entertainment for your crowd.
So if you're going to come to my Twitter and start screen grabbing everything to make an out of context joke, I'm just going to block you so you don't do it.
And it's that simple.
But I don't know.
All I can really say is, at least we have Kayleigh McEnany holding up the New York Post, and at least we have the New York Post calling it out, right?
There are a lot of people who are doing good work in media these days, but we got serious problems, and I think it's only a downward spiral.
Maybe these companies will collapse under the weight of their own wokeness, and then independent channels and honest channels will rise up in their wake.
So, you know, maybe we're in for some good news in the future.
As per usual, I guess we'll wait and see.
But thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m.
on this channel.
Actually, unless you come to the podcast tonight.
So, 8 p.m.
tonight, we'll do the TimCast IRL podcast live.
If you want to check it out, it's youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
