Ocasio Cortez Could LOSE Reelection TOMORROW And She's Worried, This Could End The Leftist Democrats
Ocasio Cortez Could LOSE Reelection TOMORROW And She's Worried, This Could End The Leftist Democrats. The Democratic primary for Ocasio Cortez is tomorrow and she faces a fierce challenger Michelle Caruso Cabrera.AOC vs MCC is the 2nd most important election this year.Was the leftist Democrats win in 2018 an accident or is this what the people now want? AOC Is a celebrity so she may be able to muster a powerful defenseBut older voters are no so progressive and younger voters rarely vote. MCC is a centrist Democrat with support from moderates and conservatives. Many questions will be answered tomorrow but some new ones will emerge. What will happen in November with Trump?#AOC#FarLeft#Democrats
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Tomorrow, June 23rd, we will see the second most important election in this country this year.
The first being the presidential election.
Will Donald Trump win or will people choose Joe Biden?
But the second most important is the primary race in New York's 14th district.
This is the district for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
If she loses, We can make a lot of assumptions about what that means for the progressive movement that are trying to take over the Democratic Party.
Based on the election victory in 2018 for Ocasio-Cortez, it would seem that maybe it was just a fluke, that she only won by a few thousand votes and she used a primary technique to actually do it.
And based on many of the news stories and some of the actions taken by Ocasio-Cortez, I would say she seems pretty desperate.
A press release put out by her principal opponent, Michelle Cruz Cabrera, says that AOC kicked the press out of their most recent debate.
Now, why would she do that?
Ocasio-Cortez has also been extremely active in trying to get people to come out for the census.
Why would she do that?
You see, early on, the Democratic establishment was trying to shut her down.
They threatened several things.
They would remove her district outright.
She'd have nothing to run for re-election for.
She would have to challenge another incumbent.
And thus, we saw her come out full force defending the census, justifying her district.
But they also said they would primary her.
And now she is facing a rather establishment centrist Democrat in Michelle Caruso Cabrera, who's actually got some pretty prominent backing.
I think AOC is scared she might actually lose this for another reason as well.
The neighboring district to AOC is seeing a pro-Trump Democrat as their frontrunner.
And with AOC as the far-left progressive supporting policies that are not particularly popular in this country, maybe with a small group of progressives, she may actually be on the fringe and her luck may now run out.
Michelle Caruso Cabrera, full disclosure, I have donated to her.
She is a centrist.
She speaks very reasonably.
She has some policies that are considered conservative.
And while she doesn't have the national profile of AOC, she may actually pull out some conservatives in this district, although there are very few, but many who think that AOC has done them wrong, that she's too celebrity-obsessed.
However, on the other side, AOC has 7.3 million Twitter followers.
Maybe she can muster enough to win and keep her seat.
Let's read these stories I got lined up, because what I want to do here, I think this does play into whether or not Donald Trump will win.
I'm not going to pretend like what happens here will guarantee, like if AOC wins, then we can say Trump will lose.
I don't know for sure, but there is some data we can extract from this.
They say that Joe Biden is the nostalgia candidate, that people would vote for him simply because he invokes memories of the good old days of Obama when things seemed normal.
Well, AOC is more like the Trump candidate here.
She is the new upstart.
She is divisive, loud, angry, on Twitter, the celebrity obsessed, not too dissimilar to Trump in many ways.
Now mind that, their policies, their positions are very, very different for sure.
Will people choose a centrist Democrat who reminds them of how things used to be?
Let's get started with this first story about her first re-election test.
But before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give.
I've got a P.O.
box.
But the best thing you can do, share this video.
I'm competing with the mainstream media as per usual, and they've got massive marketing budgets and support from YouTube's establishment, propping them up in the algorithm.
I don't have that.
So if you choose to share this, it's way more powerful than any marketing budget.
Now if you just want to watch, hit the subscribe button, hit the like button, hit the notification bell, and let's read.
They say Ocasio-Cortez faces first re-election test as progressives work to maintain their movement.
The New York Democrat knows the primary process well as her upset victory over Joe Crowley, a member of the House leadership who was thought to be in line for Speaker, allowed her to gain a massive following in the 2018 midterm election.
She is She, in turn, has used that following to champion her progressive ideals, her own legislation, and pressure House leadership on major issues over her term.
But the primary Tuesday marks the first test for the freshmen and fellow members of The Squad, three out of the group of four women of color.
who over their first two years in office have become some of the most sought-after voices
in the progressive wing, are facing primary challenges ahead of the November election.
Rashida Tlaib, Rep. Ilhan Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez.
Every lawmaker's re-election and their race for sophomore year, so to speak,
is always the biggest test, because it is a test of how deep and long your roots go
with the people who are voting for you, and how much you've been able to win and maintain
their trust, said John Reinisch, a Democratic strategist based in New York, adding that a
lawmaker's first re-election fight is always going to be your most intense.
And AOC certainly is coming off scared and desperate.
I mean, think about it.
With all due respect, AOC was a bartender before this, and I mean no disrespect.
I mean this literally.
I actually think it's really incredible that you can be a bartender and run and win.
But AOC won through a primary technique, which is where you get a tiny, tiny fraction of the voters to upset the primary and then win in the general because it's a heavily Democratic district.
AOC, according to a press release from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, kicked the reporters out of their last debate.
Now, why would she do that?
This was reported by the Parkchester Times and the Jewish Voice local outlets.
They said that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign cited social distancing as the reason for limiting the capacity to 10 people and would not bend on the original condition.
At the event meets NYC social distancing ordinances.
The Barchester Times reported who organized the event literally had to wait outside.
Incredible.
It's also important to note that AOC has got nothing done.
Now she has name recognition, and let's not play games, that's powerful.
In a district of 750,000, AOC has dumped tons of money into trying to get people to come out to support her.
That is her using her establishment power.
She's played games, doing celebrity livestreams, doing high-profile events to get her a massive following for her re-election.
But will it be enough?
This is going to be shocking to some of you, but some of the only bills that I believe AOC has actually gotten through are renaming post offices, or something to that effect, that most of the things she sponsored have actually not gone through, and the Green New Deal was notoriously divisive, controversial, And downright absurd.
She had to pull the frequently asked questions from her website because it mentioned, like, farting cows and getting rid of airplanes.
And it mentioned giving money to people unwilling to work.
I gotta imagine the good people of the Bronx might not be fans of this.
But mind you, mind you, the neighboring district has a pro-Trump Democrat as the frontrunner.
It's gonna say a lot.
This alone will say a lot.
We'll get to that.
But first, let's talk about AoC and what appears to be her fear.
Now, I brought up the bartender thing for a reason.
While I absolutely respect that she's come from humble beginnings, I also recognize It's a long fall, right?
If you're somebody who's a lawyer, making a good salary from a prestigious family, and you get elected into office, and then you lose after your first term, you think, well, I can always go back to being a prominent lawyer.
Ocasio-Cortez, does she want to go back to being a bartender and a footnote in history?
And again, I'm not being disrespectful.
I mean, being a bartender is a fine profession.
But I have to imagine that she doesn't have anything to fall back on.
Perhaps she could be a progressive activist, speaker of some sort, but really the only thing she has to her name right now is this one term.
And she got in here quite honestly by luck.
Now, I'm not a big fan of the idea of luck.
She worked really hard.
She had a great campaign.
She won.
She beat Joe Crowley.
He made those mistakes.
But she is not someone you typically expect to do this, so luck definitely played a role.
There's a combination of factors in success, and luck is not the largest, nor was it the largest for AOC.
She had to be there, she had to show up, she had to work hard, she had to present something to people, and she did all of those things.
But I do believe luck pulled her over that finish line because it's notoriously difficult to defeat an incumbent, which she did.
Now we can see this.
Ocasio-Cortez makes push for all New Yorkers to be counted in 2020 census.
This, in my opinion, has to do with the fact that they're trying to get rid of her district.
They may redistrict her, but just for the next one, for the next election, which I believe is 2022.
But she's certainly taking it seriously.
We also then saw her calls for extending the census period because of COVID.
Now, you can argue, look, this is normal.
She's just defending her district, and sure, because the census can make sure that they get proper funding allocated to their district.
But I do think this plays a role in the threats coming from the establishment that they were going to remove her district outright, which would make it harder for her to then try and primary someone again.
Being the incumbent is a massive advantage.
They would take that from her.
But then we saw on to the main fight.
Michelle Crusoe Cabrera.
She seems... She actually... I really do like the woman.
I think she sounds pretty good.
Now, there are some issues I have, personally, with Michelle Caruso-Cabrera.
She seems to be very much in favor of just party-line tickets, straight Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi.
I'm not a big fan of what the establishment Democrats have done.
But Michelle Caruso-Cabrera wrote a book, and she's a centrist.
Like, for real.
Like, she's actually entertained many conservative positions.
She talked about how Medicare for All is too far.
These are pipe dreams.
She sounds like a realist.
And that's why she's a centrist.
And mind you, these people try to act like centrists don't have positions.
No, it means that Michelle Crusoe-Cabrera has many left-wing and right-wing positions.
It sounds like she's actually talking to people about what might help their district.
Considering a pro-Trump Democrat is just next door, I have to imagine Michelle Crusoe-Cabrera has a really good chance.
But AOC has something on her side.
Massive fundraising from across the nation.
AOC has this advantage.
A massive coalition across the nation of people who are progressive and want to see her win.
But AOC doesn't represent the United States.
She represents New York's 14th district.
If people are donating to her from across the country, that can be great in terms of her putting out advertisements, which she's been doing, but is it going to get voters to actually turn out?
AOC has dumped $400,000 into her campaign advertising of the primary, they say.
AOC has spent nearly $400,000 in ads in the week before her primary this Tuesday.
Some view this as a sign of AOC being nervous as her opponent, former CNBC anchor Michelle Kruse-Cabrera, continues to pump resources into her campaign.
Ocasio-Cortez placed $363,000 in ad buy across broadcast, digital, and radio.
According to Advertising Analytics.
By contrast, Caruso-Cabrera invested $18,000 June 7th-13th, but also loaned herself $1 million for campaign expenditures at the end of last week per FEC filings.
A May poll from AOC's team shows she leads Caruso-Cabrera 73% to 11%.
Now that's from Ocasio-Cortez's team.
It's hard to know if that's real.
I gotta be honest.
I really do think AOC will win this one.
Let's just be realists.
She is a major, major celebrity.
But I gotta say, man, they were saying the same thing, similar things, about Joe Crowley.
AOC will never win.
She meant nothing.
Joe Crowley's polls, he's gonna be fine.
Joe Crowley didn't even want to show up to debate her.
He didn't want to give her the time of day, and she won!
Will people choose nostalgia over celebrity culture war candidates?
I don't know, man.
But look at that number.
A May poll says she leads 73 to 11.
Maybe.
But if people who know AOC are answering these polls and they don't know who Michelle Caruso Cabrera is, maybe she won't win.
I gotta say, most people think AOC will win.
I mean, she is the most prominent Democrat.
Let's just be real.
If she wins, what does that really mean?
I don't know.
I really don't know.
However, Lauren Hitt AOC's communication director said we feel very comfortable.
It would be difficult for someone to close the gap.
We don't take anything for granted.
We can afford to be extra safe.
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera isn't playing any games either.
Check this out.
AOC rival Michelle Caruso-Cabrera turns to Wall Street for huge fundraising windfall.
I mean, listen, man.
You can talk about the polls, but let's just be real.
We got ourselves a hot political fight.
Now, for me, this is like my MMA.
This is my Super Bowl, alright?
These political battles, these high-intensity, money's flying around, who's gonna win, what does it mean?
This is where I'm gonna be making chicken wings, ordering pizza, sitting back and watching TV all night.
I gotta be honest.
This is gonna be... This is huge.
AOC is the leader of the progressive insurgency into the Democratic Party.
Whether anyone wants to admit, she is the biggest following, the biggest name.
Trump calls her out by name at his rally just the other day.
If she loses, man, will that look bad for the insurgent left, the progressives.
And if Michelle Caruso-Cabrera wins this primary, it will be establishment victory.
And maybe people want that.
Check this out.
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, look at this.
They say your donors include Blackstone CEO Steve Schwartzman, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon.
Both gave the maximum $2,800 for the Democratic primary against the far-left freshmen.
Five other Blackstone employees and three other Goldman Sachs executives also donated to Caruso Cabrera.
Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone and his wife kicked in a combined $11,200 to Caruso Cabrera.
They gave the maximum each for primary and general election.
Caruso Cabrera can only spend half of that for the primary.
The Post previously reported that pro-President Trump Republicans and corporate types contributed to Caruso Cabrera's campaign, as well as the anti-AOC super PAC partly financed by her husband, investment banker and GOP donor Stephen Dizard.
And that's what we can see here.
That's just what's going on.
Now, why would Republicans donate to Michelle Caruso Cabrera?
They say it's because, you know, they're just trying to sabotage AOC.
Perhaps it's because Michelle Caruso Cabrera is a centrist Democrat.
Perhaps they realize that AOC cost them 25 to 40,000 jobs leading the protest against Amazon.
These are wealthy individuals who understand the damage to New York AOC has done.
These jobs from Amazon weren't going to be in AOC's district, as far as I understand.
But she still led the protest, went down to the financial district, and then once it all fell apart, she tried acting like it wasn't her fault.
If you're a realist, if you're working class, perhaps you look at AOC as someone who got swept up in this and it went to her head.
She's like the story of that one-hit wonder, who all of a sudden comes into money and goes nuts with it.
She is not the person who has worked her way up and earned her position here representing the working people of the Bronx and Queens.
She got a luxury apartment in D.C.
She's chillin' there while COVID's, you know, breaking out in her district.
And she tries denying it.
Now look, I gotta be honest.
I'm biased in favor of Michelle Cruz Cabrera, mostly because she seems to be a centrist Democrat.
That when you look at her policies, she's entertained a more reasonable approach to getting things done.
Actually talking with conservatives.
Actually entertaining more moderate approach to politics.
And I really, really, really respect that.
It reflects on me.
But mind you, MCC is also being backed by Wall Street and Goldman Sachs individuals.
I'm not a fan of that.
But I do think that regardless of where your donations come from, it ultimately comes down to who the person is.
And so I'm not going to hold that ultimately against Michelle Caruso-Cabrera.
What I will hold against her is her absolute stance on supporting Pelosi and Biden and the establishment party.
There's no real populist centrists.
But AOC represents something worse to me.
Hey, everybody, let's chill and work together to fight back against the elite.
Why, in fact, Michelle Cruz Ocbira really does represent the elite.
But AOC represents something worse to me.
I feel like she's aimless.
I feel like she's just playing the progressive party line.
And in recent times, she's just come off as desperate to be a celebrity.
She's recently walked back a lot of her progressive promotion of candidates.
There were progressives challenging Democrats, and she's backed off from that.
She's started towing the party line a bit more because she wants to keep her job more than she wants to stand up for what she believes in.
And as we see the far-left tear down statues, I'm sorry, man.
I gotta say, I will take a Michelle Cruz Cabrera over AOC.
To be fair, though, 100%, I don't live in this district.
I absolutely do not like the idea of national donations to local politicians.
Local in the sense that she represents NY14, and that I don't live there, and many others don't.
But I'll also point this out.
AOC is the most important Democrat right now.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, she represents change.
A change that I think is dangerous.
I think she's proposed nothing.
I think she's celebrity.
I think she's very much like Trump.
And you guys, I've told you, I've never been a big fan of him for a lot of reasons.
One of the reasons is the lack of professional candor in politics.
I don't like the establishment either, so I understand why people like Trump.
I certainly, you know, my position has always been, and most of you know, Orange Man is bad, but he's not that bad.
Come on, calm down.
You know, Trump is someone I would absolutely consider voting for, especially facing up against Biden.
But Biden, I think, is trash, complete garbage.
He doesn't represent anything.
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera wrote a book, and you should check it out.
I haven't read it, but it's generally just a very centrist view, a very moderate view that I respect.
So admittedly, I hate making these calls in politics, 100%.
And this is it for me.
I'm done with the Democrats because of Pelosi, because of AOC.
But this is it.
This is the last one.
This is, you know, for me.
We'll see how things play out.
I think there's a good reason to suggest that MCC, they call her, might actually win.
And it's this.
The specific nostalgia Biden wants to evoke.
November 7th, 2016.
This is from August.
This is an article from the Washington Post, but the sentiment has been brought up by a lot of people.
A lot of voters might choose Biden not because of policy, but because they just want to go back to the way things were, even if it means electing the oldest man in history who can't speak straight.
At least the Trump cycle ends and the crazy news and everything.
But I'm sorry, my friends.
I'm sorry.
That's not possible.
Times have changed.
Trump didn't change them.
They changed.
And Trump rose to represent a certain group of people.
And so did AOC.
The difference?
While Trump lost, he lost the popular vote, he won the electoral college, Trump was able to win his primary across the board and defeat everybody.
He got lots of votes.
AOC barely squeaked by.
This is the ultimate test.
Was AOC's election an accident?
Will the people of the Bronx choose a professional, you know, news anchor turned politician or a bartender upstart insurgent progressive?
I don't know if it can prove anything, depending on who wins.
And AOC seems like she will win.
So don't be surprised if she does.
But I think it can at least lend a little bit to the assumption that people want to return to normalcy.
But are we too far gone?
Perhaps.
Let's take a look at this story.
It's the poorest and bluest congressional district in America.
An anti-gay, pro-Trump Democrat is leading.
Wow.
Look, they can argue about AOC, you know, winning, but this guy's pro-Trump.
There's another question.
That's why I bring this up.
The question isn't so much about a return to normalcy of nostalgia.
The question is, if we have crossed that line and we've gone too far, which I think we have, then will people choose Trump or will people choose Ocasio-Cortez?
If it really is about left and right, then maybe the new normal is the progressive populists versus the right-wing populists.
But maybe the new normal is something different.
Maybe the new normal, as we cross this line and our political world changes, it's just populist, period.
And that means it's really about Donald Trump.
Does Trump represent the will of the people better than anyone else, including the establishment Democrats?
Perhaps.
The bluest congressional district in the U.S.
is located in the Bronx in New York City, bordering famous liberal congresswoman AOC's district.
But among the 12 contenders vying for the open congressional seat, one of the top contenders is a conservative Democrat, Reverend Ruben Diaz Sr., a polarizing city councilman with a history of endorsing Republicans and making homophobic comments.
is known for wearing a cowboy hat and courting controversy.
In 2011, he held a rally against same-sex marriage, while his granddaughter held a dueling event in support of it across the street.
This guy... This guy is... This is amazing!
There's a real risk that a Trump Republican masquerading as a Democrat could represent the bluest district in America, said New York City Councilman Richie Torres, one of Diaz's main rivals in the race.
Hillary Clinton won the congressional district by over 93%.
Listen.
You don't get it.
These primaries are a different ballgame.
If you can't muster real support, you lose.
And if a Trump Republican running on a Democratic ticket can win, then what does that say for AOC's district, which is, they're so close together.
These districts are very small, because they hold, you know, it's New York, it's very population-dense.
If this guy is winning, I don't know, maybe he wins, maybe MCC loses, maybe they both win, maybe they both lose.
But this should make AOC scared.
And that's why I think she is.
Because, listen, AOC's district is like D plus 30, meaning about 20% of the people who live there are Republican.
Maybe.
It's probably a lot less.
What if every single one of them came out?
I mean, then you've got, what?
150,000 people who would vote for MCC over AOC?
What about the moderate Democrats?
Then you're looking at a couple hundred thousand.
If this vi- I- I- I- This is gonna be amazing, I gotta be honest.
Because AOC only got, like, 15 to 17,000 votes in 2018.
In a district of 750,000.
It's a little bit more than that.
This is the real fight, not the actual general election coming up in the next few months, in November I believe, because nobody ever votes Republican in this place.
So they know the primary is where the real election happens.
What if people actually turn out and you get hundreds of thousands?
It's gonna be crazy, man!
It's a crazy new world and I am so excited for tomorrow, I gotta be honest.
I think AOC is going to dominate.
I think people are going to go in and they're just going to give it to her and she's going to crush it.
If this guy wins, it'll be huge news though.
Pro-Trump?
Pro-Trump in the Bronx?
Man, that'll be crazy.
Let me throw out one last point about Trump, alright?
They try to tell you that Trump's rally was a fizzle, that he's embarrassed, that he's angry.
Trump rally gives Fox News the largest Saturday night audience in its history.
If you take just Fox News and the livestream views, you end up with, I think, like 13 million viewers.
And that's just Fox.
Other networks carried him as well.
So we could be looking at 15 million people watching that Trump rally.
That's huge.
So maybe they don't want to show up for his rally.
Maybe we don't know why.
Maybe it was COVID.
Maybe it was violence.
Maybe it was cancel culture.
How many people have lost their jobs for simply following someone like, I don't know, Mike Cernovich or Jack Posobiec?
It's happened!
Or Alex Jones, even.
How many people were scared to show their faces?
How many people didn't want to show up and face violence?
How many people watched at home?
13 million.
Not including any potential election.
So I'll just say 13 million, man!
That's a lot of people.
So you want to talk about what the American people want.
I don't think it's the far-left insanity.
And I think the riots have shocked people as well.
AOC is the candidate of Antifa.
She's a democratic socialist.
That's who she's aligned with.
That's it.
Will they reject that?
It's not just about whether or not they like it or don't, it's whether or not they're getting access to the information.
So we will see.
But let me just leave you with this.
Despite dreamy polls, the Democrats can't shake their 2016 nightmare.
They're having a hard time accepting some good political news.
And that's good for them.
They should be scared.
Hubris will be their downfall.
So let me tell you this.
Tomorrow, the second most important election in this country, Was AOC an accident?
Do people want to return to normalcy?
Have we crossed that line?
Is that line pro-Trump or is it progressive?
I don't know.
We'll get a little bit of information tomorrow based on what happens, but I don't know.
Don't pretend like you do.
So if you find yourself as a resident of New York, and this is where you will be voting, then you better go out and vote, whether you want AOC to win, whether you want MCC to win, or third party, or the Republican, whatever.
Oh, well, it's a Democratic primary, so.
But you gotta go out and vote.
Do not think you've got this one in the bag, otherwise you will lose.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m. YouTube.com slash Tim Casta News, and I will see you all then.
Last night there was a shooting in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone or Capitol Hill organized
protest. And now this, I believe, is the third shooting to have taken place because just
the other night there were two shootings.
One person was in critical condition.
I don't know what their current condition is.
Another person died.
My understanding now is this person is in serious condition, and Man, I gotta tell you.
At a certain point, the left has to just get tired of being wrong.
The mayor said we could have a summer of love on our hands.
She said it was like a block party and that everything is fine.
But the residents have been complaining.
In fact, in this story, there's a quote from one of the residents saying, the mayor needs to come down and actually spend a night here to see what's really going on.
Well, here you go.
Now, here's the crazy thing.
This shooting was captured on livestream.
You can't see the actual person shooting, but you can hear them, like, you can hear the gunshots, you hear the person, you see the people running.
And after the shooting, they detained the filmer because he was white, and took his phone from him, checked it, and then gave it back.
This place is an absolute disaster.
They are now creating racial segregation zones.
Okay, first it was the farms where they said black only.
Now a video has emerged of a bunch of white people enforcing a black only area.
These people have lost the plot, man.
In California, they just voted to repeal the civil rights legislation of the state that stops the state from discriminating based on race, color, ethnicity, sex, national origin, etc.
The state from doing it, so public issues.
They repealed it.
And all of the stories about it are like some nonsense about affirmative action, but the bill has nothing to do with it.
So it's actually really clever.
When I talk to my friends and say, this bill in no way says affirmative action, they're like, but the news report said.
I'm like, I don't care what it said.
Here's what the bill does.
We know what these people are doing.
But anyway, this is about the CHAZ.
We'll get to the racial segregation stuff in a second.
I actually did a crime report lookup for the past two months and No, no shootings.
Mike, Mike, Mike, you know, what was interesting to me is...
We're seeing these stories of the shootings, and I have to wonder, is this normal for Capitol Hill?
And it looks like, no.
However, Capitol Hill does have really, really bad crime.
So, I guess it's fair, right?
But imagine if you lived here.
Imagine you live in a big city, I'm sure many of you do, and just one day, your neighborhood is taken over, and now there's gunshots outside your house, not even two days apart.
Here's a story from Fox News.
Another shooting reported at Seattle's CHOP 1 in serious condition.
Less than 48 hours after a 19-year-old was fatally shot in the protest area near Seattle's CHOP, another shooting reportedly broke out on Sunday night that resulted in an individual being hospitalized in serious condition.
The Seattle Fire Department arrived at the scene at 10.46 p.m.
and went to a staging area near the zone's perimeter.
Fire Department spokesman David Cuerpo told the Seattle Times.
The department was soon notified the injured person has already been taken away.
Both victims in Saturday's shooting, whose identities hadn't been released, were also transported to the same hospital via private car.
The person arrived in a private vehicle and was in serious condition, Harborview Medical Center spokesman Susan Gregg said in a statement.
Further details about what transpired Sunday night weren't immediately available.
It wasn't clear whether anyone was in custody.
Cuomo News reported that it took Mayor Jenny Durkin 40 hours to issue a comment on the Saturday shooting.
She confirmed that her office is working with police and fire officials to make changes on Capitol Hill in partnership with black-led community organizers, demonstrators, and small businesses, residents, and trusted messengers who will center de-escalation.
No, you failed, Durkin.
You have failed this city.
There's no question about it.
Listen, Trump mocked her.
The Republicans did.
And they said, you gotta go in and clear this up.
Trump said that if they don't, he will.
You know what?
I disagree with that.
Because, for the most part, it was a bunch of hippie dancing.
But there are armed people there.
There are armed ideological extremists guarding the entrance and the barriers, the areas they set up.
So it was only a matter of time before the shooting started.
Now the shootings the other day seemed to have been targeted based on one witness account.
SUV pulled up, guy gets out the rifle, shoots a guy.
It may have actually been two shootings last night.
Check this out.
The police say the Seattle Police Department is investigating a reported shooting inside the CHOP Zone.
One person at HMC with gunshot wound, hearing reports of a second shooting, but have not been able to verify at this time.
Conflicting reports.
Will update with more information when available.
Police were unable to confirm reports of the shooting and said in a tweet that there have been conflicting reports.
Now, they're unable to confirm a second shooting, the first one we know the person's got a gunshot wound.
It's on video.
They go on to say that it's been the source of criticism, blah blah blah.
Cuomo News reported that medics from CHOP had rushed both victims in Saturday's shooting to the hospital where one died.
We also saw a video, I don't know if you saw the video I did on this, the segment, where somebody was filming and medics arrived, EMTs, and they refused to enter the zone.
This stuff pisses me off, man.
They demand the police leave.
Then there's a shooting.
Then they demand that these EMTs enter this area.
That's insane, man.
I'm sorry.
You can't expect medics, emergency service personnel, to go into an area where there was just active gunfire.
But these people are insane.
They don't realize the game they're playing.
They think it's all fun and games.
They think it's silly, right?
Until someone actually gets shot.
The CHOP zone is a several block area cordoned off by protesters near a police station that we know.
Here's a quote from a local.
I would invite Mayor Durkin to spend one night in the CHOP area, one resident told the news station, and she can feel for herself what it's like.
Well, now we have multiple shootings, so yeah.
Maybe she can't feel for herself what it's like.
Maybe she'll listen when, you know, people tell her that you gotta have some kind of presence there.
Man, I'll tell you what, I don't know if you saw the episode of Joe Rogan with Bret Weinstein, but that, man, it's starting to freak me out.
Because Bret says, I think twice, the beginning and the end of the segment, it's like a 24-minute segment on the Joe Rogan podcast, check it out.
He's asked by Rogan, what's coming next?
Now, Bret mentions that he predicted all of this.
And he did.
He absolutely did.
He was targeted at Evergreen.
If you're not familiar with the story, they called him a white supremacist.
He's very progressive.
He condemns systemic racism, institutional racism.
He's very progressive.
They called him a white supremacist.
There was violence.
The police stood down.
A whole bunch of craziness happened.
And he predicted it would get worse.
And it's based off the assessments of smart people like Brett and national security consultants and many other high-profile individuals that I, too, believe we are headed towards some kind of civil war.
And that's what Brett said when he was asked by Joe what comes next.
And he says, some kind of civil war.
And unless we have some kind of real leadership that can stop this.
Some people thought he was saying real leadership like Trump, like a president.
I don't think so.
I could be wrong.
But he mentioned real leadership within this movement.
Someone you can actually talk to to figure out what they want.
But there's nobody.
There isn't anybody.
So what happens?
This will just get worse.
It's the only thing I can see.
Check this out.
This is spotcrime.com.
And I pulled up the Capitol Hill area.
And this is going back to... It's actually going back to, I think... Let me see if I can pull up the date here.
It's going back to... Oh, actually... Let me see if I can refresh it.
This is going back to, like, May 20th, I believe.
So I set it to April, but it only goes so far back to about May.
And we can see that the latest reports they have... No shootings.
None.
I do believe they have the most recent shootings, you can see right here, from 6-20.
And there's vandalism in the Capitol Hill area.
That's not surprising.
But shootings don't seem to be particularly common based on what I've read.
I also pulled up the general crime rating from Area Vibes.
F. Meaning, crime's a serious problem in this place.
You can see here, this is Cal Anderson Park.
This is the CHAZ right here, this area where my mouse is.
Lot of crime.
Lot of crime.
And now shootings.
It's getting bad.
Two shootings.
Maybe three, maybe four.
But three people injured in shootings in just about two days.
And what happens next?
The police won't come in.
The protesters won't back down.
The protesters won't work with paramedics or police.
Why wouldn't it keep happening?
If somebody's in the chop or the chazz or whatever you want to call it, anyone's got the opportunity to just go in and do whatever they want now.
I mean, think about it.
If you went in there and stole from somebody, what would they do about it?
Nothing.
Now, they've chased people down.
They've beat people up.
People have been shot.
But that's it.
It's lawless, man.
You got a wild, wild west going on right here.
Now I want to bring you to, uh, what happened following the shooting.
TheChadOfChaz, RealSaleemJuma tweeted, I think a streamer may have just been held up and assaulted in Chaz.
Can someone please check on Sean Gooey please?
The information was relayed to me from people watching his stream before it was cut off abruptly by two men who aren't Sean.
Breaking.
Another shooting in Chaz.
From what I could gather, the streamer who caught the incident was then accosted and interrogated by left-wing thugs from the John Brown Gun Club.
Antifa-like militants.
They stole his phone.
And here's the best part.
It's okay.
His phone was returned to him.
His phone was returned to him and the streamer is fine.
His phone was confiscated because he's a white guy in the middle of a protest with multiple threats against it by white supremacists extremists and there are bullets being fired from outside CHOP into the protest area.
Stop.
Yeah.
The police said the shooting was inside the chop.
Sorry, try again.
Okay, fine.
The police are lying.
Whatever.
I don't care.
They stopped the guy because he was white.
Tweets have been going around talking about how there's like a mini, uh, I don't know, race war going on where This is one of the tweets that came out of the Chazz that many of the Black Lives Matter protesters, the black people specifically, are talking about the white people needing to back off and let them run things, but the white people keep arguing they have to be there because white supremacists will threaten them if they aren't.
This is what happens when society breaks down, when this ideology becomes pervasive.
We can see exactly where it goes now.
I do want to point out This guy, Sean Gooey, mentions, here's his unedited footage, he says, I want people to see what happened, please only link back to the original video, whatever.
He mentions that he wasn't actually accosted, that they just took his phone from him.
But one of the interesting things I want to point out is from this guy, Chad of Chaz, let me see if I can, I'm gonna go to his Twitter account, and see if I can find the video about the racial segregation.
So this is the video, I pulled it up, it's actually a repost from somebody else, but it's basically it.
So you can see all these people have lined up, and it says, Blackout, an all-black, what does that say, healing spirit?
What does that say?
Healing... spice?
What does that say?
Does that say healing spice?
I have no idea what it says.
This woman basically tells him that if he's part of, like, what they refer to as the Black Diaspora, she didn't say diaspora, but that's typically how they refer to it, that he can come in.
This, to me, is nightmarish.
This is what nightmares are made of.
I was talking to a friend last night, somebody who's overtly progressive and identitarian, like, much like this, not, like, left-identitarian, and we were talking about the solutions to these problems, the problems like what's happening in Chaz.
I completely disagree with racial segregation in any capacity.
And I think we had kind of a interesting moment in our conversation that shines a light on the problems of what they're doing.
And it's simple.
I concluded that we need class-based solutions.
I believe Brett Weinstein, who I mentioned earlier, said something similar.
That we need to focus on everybody, and if black people are disproportionately impoverished, it will disproportionately help them if we do class-based solutions.
Education, things like that.
One of the things my friend said to me was that, you know, the way property taxes pay for schools is really messed up because you'll end up with, across the street, a really, really great school.
On the other side of the street, a really, really bad school because of the dividing line.
And I'm like, but that's just a call for class-based solutions.
You just have the property taxes spread out further, and then all the schools are a little bit better.
Arguably, some would be a little bit worse.
So there's, you know, there's ramifications, there's challenges for sure.
But race solutions aren't it, and ultimately what I said was, in California, as I've mentioned several times, they voted to repeal their civil rights legislation.
It's the Civil Rights Amendment to the California Constitution.
It hasn't been ratified, but they did vote, and it probably will pass.
This means that the state will have the authority to discriminate based on race.
That, to me, is horrifying.
I said, since Loving v. Virginia was passed by the Supreme Court, this allowed interracial marriages and interracial cohabitation.
We have created now two generations of mixed-race families.
Mixed-race families make up about, I believe, 3% of the population.
It is the smallest minority in the country.
And if you want to get down to it, each individual mixed-race category is substantially more minority-ish, or whatever the point I'm trying to say is.
There could be someone who's, you know, black and Asian, or white and Asian, or Mexican and black, etc.
Afro-Cuban, for instance, you know.
And so there's no real way to figure out what this mixed-race community really means.
But since we've decided that people of different races can cohabitate and have children, and I'm glad they did, considering my family's history, We can't go back to racial segregation.
It's impossible.
These people think they're helping by creating black-only spaces.
They're not.
What about somebody who's got a white mom and a black dad or, you know, a black mom and a white dad?
So they'll be a lot in this space.
But what about his family?
I once was approached by YouTube.
It was a long time ago.
They were looking for creators of diverse backgrounds to talk about their experiences.
And they asked me if I would do one of these interviews.
Ultimately I don't know what it ended up being, but I do think they published it.
And I thought it would be hilarious to be the only person who had a conversation.
They want to do conversations with their parents to talk about these issues.
And I said, I want to talk to my white dad about his experience.
Because certainly he's not racist.
He's very anti-racist.
He married into a mixed family.
I didn't end up doing it, but I thought it'd be funny.
The problems they're creating, it's simple.
If you say that we're gonna have, you know, reparations, if we're gonna have special programs only for this race, then how do you quantify privilege for the new generations of mixed-race people that have emerged since 1967?
It's impossible.
Literally impossible.
The reason I was trying to explain is, look, When I grew up with my family, and most of the family I interacted with was the Asian side of my family, we don't fit into any of these little boxes the progressives want to fit us in.
When I talk to conservatives, none of this has ever become a consideration.
That's just the way it is.
Look, there are identitarians associated with the right, I guess?
I don't know what that really means when they say right-wing identitarian, because they actually have the same ideology as the leftists.
They just have a different, you know, end goal, I guess?
It's not really right wing, but the conservative side of this country has never made my race
an issue.
The left absolutely has.
And this presents two problems.
I have been told specifically by my friends, in literally the conversation I was having
the other day, that I'm very white passing, therefore I have privilege.
And I said, how do you know that?
How do you know what my lived experience is?
How do you know what happened to me when I went out for jobs?
Because I'll tell you this, you are wrong.
100%.
And that is the problem.
You say, well, you know what?
You're white enough, so you're probably okay.
Not true.
That's ridiculous.
My family was subjected to generational wealth disparities because of miscegenation laws.
So why would you assume that my family doesn't have this historical trauma the same as these other families?
My immigrant family that fled two different countries to come to the U.S.
for a better life.
Why would you assume, based on the color of my skin, I must have privilege?
That is not true.
And there's even an argument that my family is more oppressed.
Completely.
Why?
The Mexican community, the white community, the black community, these are communities.
There's even an Asian community.
There's no...
Mixed, partial hoppa, whatever you want to call it.
There was no one in my neighborhood that we would sit down and have our own churches.
It doesn't exist.
So who do I turn to when I feel like we are facing, you know, problems?
Nobody.
Literally no one.
You know who I turn to?
Americans.
That's the only thing that we could actually, actually do.
But I grew up on the South Side, you know, people of all races, and these things weren't considerations for me.
Now we can see what they try to implement.
They've tried to create a space where they're literally... Let me break this down for you.
Do you know who was enforcing segregation pre-civil rights?
White people.
Do you know who's enforcing segregation now?
White people.
They're literally doing the same thing.
The arguments are the same.
I'm not kidding.
They're like, this is their space for healing so they can be away from us.
Right?
Separate but equal.
That's what their argument was.
They're better off with their own.
That's what their argument was.
Now I can't, I can't ever agree with that because There is no system in which you implement these policies where my family will be better off.
It will only be worse for me and, to varying degrees, every other family that's emerged from Loving v. Virginia.
100%.
These people are well-intentioned, misguided, and evil.
But it's the banality of evil, right?
The idea that their intentions aren't to be awful, nasty people.
They just have no idea what they're talking about, and they have no idea why what they're doing is damaging to our country.
We can see on the grander scale the violence, the shooting, and what's going on in Chaz, and why it's really, really awful.
But I'll tell you what's really scary about this.
They're winning.
I had a conversation with some journalists I knew, and I predicted this.
And it's funny, they didn't believe me.
They were like, oh, you're crazy, that's never gonna happen.
I said, yeah, okay.
Let me tell you something, dude.
These people, who are telling white people what they shouldn't do, they say that we're talking to our race.
This is what freaks me out about these people.
Many of them, at the higher levels, are promoting Farrakhan, who's an anti-Semite.
Many of them are giving space for segregation.
They're enforcing segregation.
My family had to flee these kinds of people.
They're back.
They're the Democrats.
They're the left.
They're the progressives.
They're the good guys, they say.
No.
They're reactionaries.
They're leftist reactionaries.
If you're not familiar with the term, reactionary refers to those who resisted.
I believe it was the French Revolution.
Those who resisted the French Revolution were called reactionaries, reacting to the revolution.
Reactionary now means, typically, a more kind of right-wing, but not really.
It's like those who want things to go back to the way they were.
What do you think these people are?
They're not creating something new.
They're telling all of us we need to go back to segregation.
They're saying, but they're equal, right?
And we need equity?
Do you remember what you learned in your history books?
Separate but equal?
I do not want this.
I want everyone to be equal and together and friends.
Working together for a better future.
In Chicago, the neighborhoods are all racially segregated.
You cross one street, boom, everybody's black.
You cross one street, boom, everybody's Latino.
You cross one street, boom, everybody's a white immigrant.
They have areas, they call these places by their ethnic names.
Little Italy, Ukrainian Village.
That's how it is.
These people are making it worse.
They're bringing us back to a time that we fought so hard to end.
And guess what?
It's the progressives, and they're winning.
So I'll tell you what I see.
I see a future where these people will look at me and say, nope, you must be white.
Or, if I get a tan and shave, so like typically in the summer, or when I get a tan and don't shave, I have black facial hair, and I get very dark in the sun, all of a sudden now I'm not white.
See, this is the most ridiculous thing.
When people say that I'm white passing, therefore, it's like, dude, you have no idea what my life has been like.
So, I don't know.
You know what, man, I could rant on issues like this the whole time, but What's going on in Shaz, in my opinion, is the well-intentioned downfall of our country.
The downward spiral into chaos, the entropic end.
Maybe it's a little extreme to say, but I throw it back to Brett Weinstein, who I think is probably one of the smartest people dealing with these issues.
And he mentions the potential for civil war, no leadership, and how these people, their solutions are wrong.
Their strategy is brilliant, but their solutions are nonsensical.
I believe it's what he said.
I'm probably misquoting you, Brett, I apologize.
So you guys should go check his stuff out.
I know where this is heading.
And there's no rhyme or reason.
But it's going to make people hate each other, it's going to make people fight each other, and it's going to leave people like me in the dust, in very dangerous circumstances.
I'm not thrilled about that.
People are getting shot in the chest.
Two shootings now, two days in a row.
This is not the first time they've enacted racial segregation, and I have warned of this going back a very long time.
They have been segregating at Black Lives Matter events as long as I've been covering them.
At a church where the organizers were setting up a protest, a room was labeled Black Only Space.
You know, Black Diaspora Only.
And I've seen it over and over and over again.
Occupy Wall Street did the same thing.
They segregated everybody based on race.
This will create racial animosity.
This will create people who hate each other based on race.
Let me give you a simple example.
during Occupy Wall Street. They created voting bodies in their spokes council, they called it.
It was a group of black people and they were told to decide amongst themselves how to spend money
and they would send a representative to vote. They also had the Asian caucus, the Latino.
What happens when someone from the black spokes council, the black caucus, stands up and says,
this money must be spent on this product for our community?
And then the Latino Caucus stands up and says, no, this money should be spent on this product instead.
The fight now becomes literally based on their race, not the idea.
The one racial body says, it's those Latino caucus that are blocking us, that they're the problem.
And there you go.
Instead of saying it's the people who make the beds, it's the people who clean the floors, instead of saying it's the wealthy, instead of saying... No, it becomes racial.
It becomes completely racial.
And now you have tensions based on race.
Now people start hating each other based on race, and that's what they're creating.
I'll leave it there.
Otherwise, I'll rant forever, but stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
NYC sees staggering shooting numbers.
Top cop warns of storm on the horizon.
I've been seeing stories pop up across the country of mass shootings.
We apparently had like a hundred gunshots fired in, I believe it was in North Carolina.
We have a story out of Chicago, the worst weekend they've seen all year.
I think it's 104 shot, 14 killed.
We've got a shooting in Minneapolis.
I got a bunch of stories, man.
They're all lined up.
It's happening everywhere.
New York saw 55 shootings in the past week, up from 18 the year before.
the year before. And again, a top cop is warming, warning there's a storm on the horizon.
In the movie V for Vendetta, there's a famous scene where the chancellor, if you're not familiar with the movie,
it's a futuristic 1984 style dystopia.
And the Chancellor tells his, you know, top lieutenants, I want them to remember why they need us.
And so he instructs them to inundate the media with all of these crazy stories about crime and viruses and things like that.
And then people are supposed to feel like they desperately need the government.
This is something different though, and it just reminds me of that point in the movie.
Because I think what that movie got wrong is you don't need to make up a reason as to why you want to convince people they need you.
You need only allow crime to actually happen.
And this is my concern.
We're seeing something's happening.
It could be a perception issue, just like I mentioned with V for Vendetta.
That's why I bring it up.
It could be that the media is now inundating with these stories of shootings and propaganda to remind us why we need the police.
Or it could be that police have been demonized and demoralized to the point where they're not going to respond, or that criminals now have the utmost confidence they will get away with it.
You see, when it came to the looting across the country, these people were going around smashing windows and stealing things.
You know why?
They knew the police were overwhelmed because of the protesters and the political riots and took advantage.
So I'm differentiating between the looters and rioters, although they were similar and there was overlap.
Looters were straight up driving up to stores in New York, smashing windows, grabbing stuff, and running.
They knew the cops were overwhelmed.
And right now, criminals know police are under fire.
And they're demoralized.
And that means, if enough people want to commit crimes, they can.
But take a look at what's going on in Seattle.
You actually have a cop-free zone, where now we've had, I believe, three different shootings.
Three individuals being shot.
How many criminals across the country are seeing the police fail to act, calling in sick, or straight up refusing to act, and thinking, so long as they're strained and we all commit crimes at the same time, we will get away with it?
I imagine it's a lot of people.
Let's read the story here and see what's going on.
And what is this storm on the horizon?
That's the line that kind of freaked me out.
Fox News reports.
The NYPD has reported a staggering increase in shooting numbers and injuries, as officials warn there is a storm on the horizon and say changes must be made.
An estimated 74 people were wounded in 55 shootings citywide from June 15th through Sunday night.
An NYPD spokesperson said Monday, the department told SpectrumNY1 it saw 18 shootings for the same time period last year.
That is a dramatic increase.
Those numbers include a 24-hour period on Saturday that recorded about two dozen shootings in that time frame.
NYPD Commissioner Dermott Shea said Monday morning that skyrocketing shooting numbers are just the latest symptom of a much bigger problem.
I hope I'm not the only one.
It takes a long time to turn a ship that sees the iceberg directly in front of us.
We've been trending this way for a while.
Shea was featured on the show to discuss a recent chokehold incident that occurred in Queens over the weekend, which resulted in an officer being suspended without pay while the department further investigated the use of force.
But about halfway through the interviews, Shay changed gears, noting that in addition to the officer's use of chokehold, the quality of life nexus concerns him.
He outlined the latest shooting numbers and stressed, if people aren't talking about it, they will be soon.
We had a hundred shootings in May.
First time we hit that number in probably five years.
We were trending up before COVID hit on shooting.
The shame of this is I've been warning people since November or December that this is coming.
A month or two ago, I told you there is a storm on the horizon.
I want to stop briefly and say about that chokehold.
The officer, in my opinion, deserves to be suspended 100%.
And it plays into the bigger story about the storm on the horizon.
The reason the officer should be suspended is that he used a banned chokehold.
Can't do it, right?
But more importantly, if you are an officer right now, and you are facing heavy scrutiny from the public, Because they think you're the bad guy.
Then do not stick your neck out.
I'll tell you what happened.
Chokeholds can be appropriate.
This officer probably thought duty comes first, politics second.
Well, now you're suspended.
Now you've put other officers at risk.
The challenge, I suppose, is that crime is going to go on the rise unless they actually take the action they think they need to take, but...
There's no solution.
Other than stand up for yourself, and if they say, don't engage, then don't.
Let the criminal go.
Now, I don't know the full circumstances, so I'll leave it there, but let's keep reading about this storm on the horizon.
Shea emphasized the need to have hard conversations about quality of life issues and said,
nearly every shooting that occurred over the weekend involved marijuana, alcohol, and dice
games. We cannot step away from quality of life policing, and we also need to support our police
officers that are out there doing a very difficult job. We cannot expect the police to go out there
and fix laws that are broken. We cannot stop our way out.
We cannot stop our way out of this problem. We need bad people held accountable, and right now
we have a lack of accountability.
Just Sunday, NYPD's chief of crime control strategies, who oversees crime statistics
and trends in the city, told the New York Post, the gun arrests that the police department has
made are stalled because courts have been closed as a result of the pandemic.
We have over 1,000 people that have indicted on gun possession charge, where the cases are open, and they are walking around the streets of New York today.
Roughly 800 more people were charged with criminal possession of a weapon, but have not yet been formally indicted.
Now, I have a question.
How many people did you release from the jails, who were, because of COVID, who are violent offenders?
I don't believe, I believe most of the people that were released were not, but how many criminals have been put out, thus increasing the likelihood of crime?
I'd have to imagine enough.
Roughly, uh, it's going to be a massive backlog," Lepetri continued, where concerned.
As for the shooting numbers for the whole year, an estimated 17% were cases in which the shooter or the victim was a parolee.
Well, there you go, Lepetri told the Post.
We've never seen a higher percentage of parolee-involved incidents with shootings since we began tracking in 2005.
Here's a story from NYC.
Shootings skyrocket as court closures let pistol perps walk free.
And that's what they referenced in that story.
So that's one of the reasons.
And there are probably a lot of reasons.
I wonder what Dermot Shea meant when he said a storm was coming.
What storm and why?
It was going up before COVID.
What's causing this?
I honestly don't know.
I would believe right now That police demoralization is playing a large role in this.
Think about it.
You've got a certain individual committing a crime, maybe armed, and you're told that if you do your job, you could have your life destroyed.
Not just because you might go to jail for a criminal charge, but because the woke outrage mob might publish your address and threaten your family.
Thus, the demoralization is getting particularly severe.
But whatever this thing they're talking about is, whatever this storm is, it's happening everywhere.
And that's something that needs to be paid attention to.
Chicago, 104 shot, 14 fatally over Father's Day weekend in Chicago.
Five children were among the 14 people killed, including a three-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl killed in separate shootings in Austin on Saturday.
Do they mean on Austin?
What do they mean in Austin?
Chicago saw the highest number of gun violence victims in a single weekend this year, with 104 people shot.
The weekend saw more shooting victims, but less fatalities, than the last weekend of May, when 85 people were shot, 24 of them fatally.
Chicago's most deadly weekend in years.
Now this was the last weekend of May.
You may recall.
That was when the riots were erupting, I believe.
It was after May 24th when the George Floyd protests started and then became riots.
I wonder if this has something to do with it.
A video has emerged.
So going around.
It shows a police officer pulling over a woman on June 3rd.
As she stops to talk to protesters, the cops pull her over.
She starts filming.
The officer says, exit the vehicle.
You're being detained.
And she says, I didn't do anything wrong.
The cop asks her again and says, if you don't, I will remove you.
She says, I didn't do anything wrong.
That is the wrong answer.
You can be detained.
And if they tell you to get out of the vehicle, you get out of the vehicle.
The officer tries to reach his hand through the window.
She shrieks.
He cracks his rejectable baton and shatters the window, grabs her, and pulls her out.
This video is going viral, and it's shocking.
I think the cop went too far.
Shattering the window in the woman's face ended up cutting her up, and she started bleeding from the mouth.
I understand why the officer was on a short fuse, but it doesn't excuse his behavior.
But you gotta understand what's going on outside.
June 3rd.
This was when the riots were erupting across the country.
I don't think any of these cops are taking chances with anyone, and if they tell you you're being detained, get out of the car.
You do it.
She didn't.
I don't know exactly what ended up happening, but he shattered the window in her face, and he should not have done that.
I'm not highlighting this to excuse the cop.
I'm pointing out police are on edge, okay?
They're not going to want to respond to calls.
I don't know if they're still doing the blue flu in Atlanta, but they did it for four days at least.
It may still be going on to day five.
They're calling in sick.
In one zone in Atlanta, only three officers showed up, and two of them I believe were supervisors.
They actually had detectives answering 911 calls because the police are saying no.
What do you think happens when the criminals hear the police will not come out?
This.
I don't know.
Chicago's had some of its worst violence in years in the past couple of weeks.
Now, going on for a whole month.
Five children were killed.
They describe Monday, Sunday, and Saturday, Friday, non-fatal attacks.
It's severe.
I'm not gonna read through this.
You know why?
You know I'm not going to give you the nitty-gritty details on Chicago?
First of all, I'm from Chicago and you know that.
And you also know that they call Chicago Chirac.
And you're probably thinking, yep, what else could you expect to happen in Chicago?
But how about this?
19 victims injured in Saturday morning NYC shootings, NYPD, from June 20th.
How about this?
100 plus gunshots in mass casualty incident at North Charlotte block party.
How about this one?
I gotta refresh it because it's NBC.
One dead.
Eleven injured in Minneapolis shooting.
Is this normal?
I don't know.
I don't.
I really don't.
You know why?
I can tell you this.
We know for a fact the violence in Chicago is worse than it's been in years.
What about all these other shootings?
Well, in New York, they say it's up 55 shootings from the same time last year, which was 18, so it's definitely way up.
Why is all of this happening?
Because of police demoralization, right?
My concern was with all these stories, maybe what's really happening is that we normally just don't care.
And now we're hearing these stories because we're actually concerned.
Maybe now the media is actually reporting on these things.
Kind of.
But here's the real sad part.
Where's the nationwide outrage over Chicago?
Over children being killed?
None.
The same people who argue for gun control don't want to talk about these mass shootings?
Why not?
Perhaps it's because it conflicts with their narrative.
The narrative being that the police should be defunded and disbanded.
And perhaps it conflicts with the fact that they run these cities.
So Minneapolis has a mass shooting.
Of course the media covers it.
But the bigger issue isn't so much, you know, you'll hear this a lot from journalists.
They'll say, people are always complaining that the mainstream media won't talk about it.
And then, you know, you'll see these articles.
They do talk about it.
They will report it.
But what we really mean is the activist class of media that controls the news cycle.
Or, you know, manipulates it.
When one person loses their life in police brutality, the media makes a collective decision, we're running with this story, and they go nuts.
Tony Timpa, I believe it was his name, happened way before George, relatively earlier, earlier compared to George Floyd.
But it didn't make the news.
Why?
The media didn't want to make it an issue.
The activists didn't want to make it an issue, and nobody chased after it.
So, when it comes to Chicago and all this violence, when it comes to Minneapolis, where are the activists now complaining we need our police back?
Where are the activists to come out and start defending the police?
They won't do it.
They won't.
Because their narrative is, the police are bad.
They've chosen this path, they're running with it, and the rest of us suffer.
So long as the media doesn't tell you the problem is happening.
Now, of course, NBC News is covering this.
Chicago Sun-Times, NBC4, and Fox News, the New York Post.
But what I mean is CNN, MSNBC, HLN.
I don't know if HLN still exists.
I don't think it does.
But these big media outlets.
The New York Times, Front Page.
Where is it?
The Wall Street Journal even.
Let's get a national conversation right now on whether or not we need the police.
I'm sorry.
The New York Times went woke.
So now their whole thing is the cops are bad.
Don't you understand?
Don't you understand how bad they are?
And then what happens?
Well, bad things happen, right?
There is no circumstance in which getting rid of the police will make anyone safer.
Let's use their narrative and say the cops are a criminal gang.
They commit violence and all these things.
Will it make the neighborhood safer to get rid of them?
No.
Even if you believe the worst possible depiction of the police, there is no circumstance where abolishing them makes you safer.
That's it.
That's it.
There's more.
I got more stories.
Husband killed, wife wounded in shooting in Philadelphia.
Another shooting.
And we also heard that there were a ton of shootings in Philadelphia as well.
Seems like shootings are just way, way, way up.
And while this is all going on, and many of us are sitting back wondering why so many shootings are taking place, the protests haven't stopped.
They have not stopped.
The media just got bored of these stories because no one cares.
I'll give you an example.
I'll give you an easy example.
I did a video on my main channel titled something about, uh, the left has torn down a statue of Thomas Jefferson.
I think it got half a million views.
And then there was some news, and then a day or two later, the leftists tore down George Washington.
It's a very similar story, right?
Well, I titled it the exact same way I would.
Why?
Because that was the intent.
Not to overhype it, but to just tell you what happened.
The far left has destroyed a statue of George Washington.
It got, I think, 300,000 views.
For me, I talk about things that I think are important.
So yesterday I talked about Trump's rally.
It's nothing to do with conflict, crisis, on-the-ground protests.
It's just what I thought was the most important story.
Things that were bubbling up and things that, you know, were in the conversation as I see them.
I have curated my list of Twitter people I follow.
Based on that, I produce content on what I'm watching.
Sometimes the stories are about civil unrest, sometimes they're not.
I think it's a very, like, broad view of things.
I could be wrong.
It's just my personal perspective.
What we're seeing now is... I'm sorry, the example with my view count was specifically to say that the news media will put out a story saying protests in DC, and they'll get a million views.
The next day, they'll say protests in Portland, and they'll get half a million.
The next day, they'll say protests in Chicago, 100,000.
And then they say, enough.
No one cares.
We won't cover this.
I'll still cover it, if they're still doing it, right?
So then I did another video about Ulysses S. Grant being torn down.
At a certain point, however, the protests do dwindle in size, and they become less relevant.
And then I'm not really going to talk about it either.
But I try to hold on to things that I think are important, like the tearing down of our founding fathers and past presidents.
But the protests in Portland, they return for the 26th consecutive day.
There are still protests in Seattle.
The jazz is ongoing, and there are still protests, I believe, all over the place.
I mean, there were protests in Ohio only a few days ago.
There were protests in Washington, D.C.
The media won't tell you this.
The media will highlight the shootings, though.
The national level, you know, won't.
The news cycle will not be dominated by this.
The national cycle became dominated by talk of Donald Trump and his rally size and the TikTok teens shutting him down.
But they're not going to talk about the fact the protests have continued demanding abolition of the police, the defunding of the police, while crime skyrockets, while shooting skyrocket and the rest of us suffer.
And now I'll bring you to something that I think is just maybe unrelated, but I don't think it is.
Looters chant Allahu Akbar during Stuttgart's worst ever riots that turn the city into a battlefield as police reveal those involved were mainly young people with a migration background.
I don't know why, for what reason, but it was one of the worst riots Germany has seen in a long time.
And they say they don't believe it was politically motivated.
So then what was the motivation?
Perhaps it's the complete demoralization of the police.
I know, it's Germany, it's not the United States, they're not dealing with the same issues, but did you know that there were protests and riots taking place in the UK?
That they were tearing down statues as well, and there were protests in France?
So yeah, this news from the U.S.
reaches Europe, and we have a shared culture.
So when the police become demoralized, people take advantage.
Or perhaps it's that these people learned that when enough people come out to loot and riot, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.
And so that's what we see overseas.
I don't know if this is a trend for us.
I don't know if this has anything to do with us, and I don't have a whole lot to say about it.
The question I have is, to go back to the original point, If there is a storm on the horizon, what would that storm be?
Top cop warn.
Top cops warn.
More than one.
Storm on the horizon.
What is it?
Is it more looting, more rioting, more shootings?
Because the police have been berated and attacked?
You know, small town police, which I've mentioned before, are not big city police.
They're not the NYPD.
They're not Chicago.
Yet they are being attacked as well.
And now we are going to see what happens in these big cities when your police don't want to respond and feel like they can't defend you because they'll put themselves at risk.
An interesting point was made as a Reddit post about firefighters and EMTs being criticized for refusing to enter Seattle's CHAZ after somebody got shot.
And there are several posts from EMTs responding saying, I'm an EMT and I will never go into this place if it's not secured.
And what do you think is going to happen now when these protests continue and police refuse to secure things?
It's we're going to see the escalation.
We're going to see people who don't want to come in and respond.
We're going to see EMTs saying, I'm not going to stick my neck out and put my life at risk.
The first and most important thing is that I remain safe.
The police will respond and make sure the EMTs feel safe, but the police probably now are being told, if you do your job, you're going to get in trouble.
So why would they?
And then the dominoes fall down one by one.
Why would the EMTs?
Why would the firefighters?
What happens now when these far leftists go and torch a building?
The firefighters say, I'm not going anywhere near that.
There's a riot going on.
No cops, not interested.
They destroyed low-income housing in Minneapolis.
How did that help the poor?
It didn't.
Oh, but it was an expression of rage, the language of the unheard.
Sure.
And it made it all worse for everybody.
The people who funded the project, the taxpayers, as well as the people who could have lived there.
It was a disaster.
We need police, man.
We do.
And, uh, for all their problems, I think, you know, we could call for reform.
But there's a storm on the horizon.
Call it what you want.
Some professors have called it a civil war.
I've alluded to as much.
But I have because I've heard it from smarter people than I. I'm only telling you what I'm hearing from the people who are supposed to be predicting this.
And that's what they're saying.
We not only have professors, more than one, who track this kind of behavior, telling you some kind of civil war, but we now have top cops in NYC saying a storm is on the horizon, and shootings are on the rise, and liberals are buying guns in droves.
And I got my receipt right here for all the guns I just bought.
For self-defense.
I don't want anything bad to happen, but everybody's scared.
So they're buying weapons probably for home defense.
I got all the good stuff.
Gun locker, security and everything.
And it's because I'm worried about someone coming to my home and I want to be able to protect myself because the police can't do it.
Let me just make that clear.
I mean no disrespect to these cops, but they're being demoralized and attacked.
And so long as these people keep saying they're the ones who are causing the problems, I'm going to have to take care of myself.
I'm not going to be able to sit here and say, eh, the cops will be fine.
They'll come and protect me.
I don't know that.
They haven't been able to in many of these big cities.
And if the police think a storm is on the horizon, then don't be surprised if people run out full speed to go buy guns.
And don't be surprised with the expansion of cancel culture.
Movies being banned, books being banned, art being banned, people losing their jobs.
Don't be surprised if there are many people, formerly liberal, who went out and bought a gun and when asked say, oh, I hate Trump, I hate him.
Yeah, don't look at me, I don't like the guy.
But really, they're thinking, if I say I do, and I would support him, I'll lose my job.
I'll be ostracized.
So they don't.
But come November, they will slam that button for Trump.
That means the polls are skewed.
That means fundraising is skewed.
But it means people are terrified, and they're buying guns.
Liberals, formerly gun control people, are watching their cities be torn apart.
And the police are warning them.
Who do you think they're going to vote for?
I guess we'll just, uh, see what happens next, as per usual.
The next segment will be at 4pm over at timcast.net.
Check it out. It's my other channel and I will see you all then.
Following up on my main channel segment from over at Timcast.net, check it out if you haven't
already. I wanted to highlight this story from the back end of it about Donald Trump's rally and why
the rally doesn't prove anything and we may be looking at still a Trump landslide.
Now, no one really knows for sure at this point.
Is Trump gonna win?
Honestly, I have no idea.
Some people think he is, some people aren't so sure.
And FiveThirtyEight is predicting a possible Joe Biden landslide.
Doesn't it feel like 2016 all over again?
It's like we're stuck in a time loop.
Trapped in purgatory, I guess.
Well, here's the story.
Trump rally gives Fox News largest Saturday night audience in its history.
7.7 million people.
You combine that with the live viewers, and we're looking at 13 or so million people who watched this.
At the same time that they're saying Trump was upset, that only 6,200 people showed up, that they had to break down the outdoor seating area, it was a huge embarrassment, Trump had massive, massive online numbers.
Now here's what I think you need to consider.
Obama had a massive inauguration.
A lot of people.
Donald Trump, physically, didn't.
And they mocked him for it.
But what they don't understand is that the internet is giving access to conservatives when they normally didn't, and they're now able to watch him.
Not every single person could fly to Tulsa to go to his rally.
But they certainly wanted to watch online.
So while they're saying Trump's campaign is floundering, Joe Biden's polling way better, Donald Trump is seeing massive online numbers.
Check this out.
They say a whopping 7.7 million total viewers tuned into Fox News from 8 to 10 p.m.
during Trump's remarks, making it the most watched Saturday in the network's history during that time period, according to Nielsen data.
Trump's State of the Union address is the only telecast on Fox News in 2020 to outdraw the 9 p.m.
hour of Trump's speech, which averaged 8.2 million total viewers.
The Trump campaign has stated that even more viewers tuned in when including the live stream numbers.
So that's 4 million or so.
So that brings us to about 11 million in terms of unique.
The reason I would say around 13 or so is just because other channels carried this.
And I have to imagine that it's higher than just Fox News, right?
That's the point.
Fox News saw 7.7 million.
Other channels certainly, you know, carried Trump's comments.
They also had Fox Business, which picked up another 580,000.
Here's why I highlight this.
And June 18th, 538 says our new polling averages show Biden leads Trump by nine points nationally,
but the race is closer in swing states, which could allow Trump to win the electoral college.
If the race tightens, they say.
Today we launched our general election polling averages nationally and for all states with a sufficient number of polls.
Recent polls show former Vice President Joe Biden with a solid lead over President Trump nationally.
And in most swing states, Biden currently leads Trump 50.5% to 41.3%.
They say.
Biden also leads Trump in swing states, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona.
Although his lead in many swing states are not as wide as his margin in national polls, suggesting the Electoral College could once again favor Trump in the event of a close election.
They then show us the table.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's the one thing I want to highlight, because this was trending on Twitter.
They say a potential problem for Biden is that Trump could have an electoral college advantage if the election tightens.
Biden currently leads Trump by only 6.6 points in the current tipping points state, Minnesota.
But this is narrower than Biden's 9.2 lead in the national polls.
So while a Biden landslide is possible, if he wins all these swing states, so is a Trump electoral college victory, depending on which way the race moves between now and November.
The rest of this article covers how our polling averages work, blah, blah, blah.
I don't care.
Okay.
Joe Biden.
Is he going to win?
He's a nostalgic candidate.
That was the point for my main channel segment.
People are apparently going to vote because they want to feel good.
They want to feel like things used to be before Trump came in and everything went crazy and the culture war.
But maybe it's not Trump's fault.
And maybe we've crossed into this territory where people want some kind of cultural victory.
They want to win against the leftists or whatever.
Joe Biden.
Had a Twitter trend, Biden landslide.
But this is the hubris I warned about yesterday.
The Democrats seem so sure they're going to win, but they're not taking into consideration the culture war could play a very serious role.
Donald Trump is leaning into the culture war very heavily.
He's talking about a lot of these issues, statues being torn down.
The Democrats and progressives are arguing it doesn't matter.
The economy is what matters.
Okay.
Are they going to blame Trump for the economy when it's the Democrats who are the ones who are suffering?
The Democratic states, I should say.
Now, here's one of the stories I highlighted.
I want to read into it.
Despite the polls, Dems can't shake their 2016 nightmare.
So this counters the narrative of 538's potential Biden landslide.
We can see that Trump's ratings are through the roof.
Millions, 10 plus million, 13 million maybe, watched his rally.
And now we have this.
Politico says, President Donald Trump is down, or within striking distance, in nearly every battleground state.
His approval ratings are stubbornly low, and he's threatening to bring down the GOP Senate majority with him, while helping to douse Republican chances of the House takeover.
Some Democrats are even beginning to feel confident about their prospects this fall, yet many can't let themselves enjoy it.
I'm not confident at all.
I think the easiest way to ensure Trump's re-election is to be overconfident.
You are right.
Smart move.
Too many Democrats are looking at national polls and finding them encouraging, said Chris Coons, a close ally of Biden.
Too many Democrats assumed that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in and didn't vote or didn't work.
Rep.
Debbie Dingell, who calls herself Debbie Downer, for repeatedly raising the alarm in Democratic circles, said she heard directly from people in her district they planned to vote for Trump in 2020.
Everyone will roll their eyes and say, that's Debbie, but I was right in 2016.
She was among the few Democrats to warn Hillary Clinton was on track to lose Michigan.
Anybody who believes the polls right now is overconfident.
Yeah, well, here's the problem for y'all.
As much as there are some who are warning, there are many who are overconfident, and many more, I believe, who are overconfident.
But here's where I think things are different this year, this time around.
You have a lot of people who have learned from their mistakes, a lot of people who didn't vote for Hillary because they thought she was going to win and she lost.
This may counter, no matter what anyone says, it could counter what happens in 2020, what happened in 2016, that people are going to say, no matter what, I have to vote.
Now, how many people thought Trump couldn't win and didn't vote?
This is where we just don't know.
We just don't know.
You got to admit it.
Trump had low turnout but really high ratings.
What does it mean?
Nothing.
Anybody who's telling you they know, they don't.
So Donald Trump's voters in 2016, many probably said, what's the point of voting?
We're not going to win anyway, right?
And then he won.
Both sides now know everything is on the line.
You didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because you thought she'd win?
Well, you should have.
Maybe she would have won.
You didn't vote for Trump because you thought he'd lose?
Well, he narrowly won, and now you risk losing it all.
What if all of those Democrats who would have voted for Hillary but didn't think they needed to, now come out for Joe Biden?
Trump wouldn't stand a chance.
What happens if every Trump supporter who wants to support Trump, who thought he couldn't win, now realizes they must stand up and defend him, votes?
Well, then Trump may actually win.
But also, how many new people have been activated both by efforts on the left and the right to get those votes?
We may be looking at a record voter turnout from people who just feel like they have no choice.
This is their moment.
I've heard conservatives say this is the last chance to save democracy.
I've heard the left say the same thing.
I've heard the right say that the Obama administration is the most corrupt in history and that they were trying to sabotage Trump's campaign.
And I've heard from the left that Donald Trump is the most corrupt president we've seen in history.
Both sides seem to think they're right.
Now ultimately, for me what matters is liberty.
So within these factions you have the politically homeless civil libertarian types, the intellectual dark web, that doesn't want to see, for the most part, doesn't like Trump, but is scared right now that the culture war left are burning books and tearing down statues and what that means.
You also have conservatives who are pro-life, liberals who are pro-choice, there are many different factions in this battle.
Will the intellectual dark web types begrudgingly vote for Trump?
Maybe they will.
Some of them are progressives.
Many of them, in fact.
Would they vote for someone they think is inept?
Well, if their fear is based on the left destroying statues and attacking our culture and getting violent, then maybe so, because Joe Biden isn't the strong person to actually take care of this.
Ultimately, the smart move for anyone, be it Democrat or Republican, is to recognize your uncertainty.
Democrats who are pointing out—or 538, I think, is doing the worst.
They're saying the worst thing.
But they don't care.
They're not in the bag for anybody.
They're saying Biden could landslide.
And that's 2016 all over again.
Seeing these progressives come out saying that Trump is underwater by double digits, no matter what you think, the polls can't be wrong, blah blah blah.
They're wrong, man.
I'm sorry.
If somebody called me and asked me who I was going to vote for, I wouldn't tell them.
I would say nothing.
Because there are people who are scared they'll be cancelled.
There are people who are scared they'll be fired if they come out and say what they truly support.
So the polls are probably skewed worse than ever.
Here's a couple points I can make.
First, maybe the polls really have been corrected, and people are proud to speak up for what they believe in, and Trump is gonna lose.
Or, the culture war is worse than ever, and the left has been gaining ground, and Black Lives Matter is more popular than ever, and many people are really scared about whether or not to say they support it or don't.
Look at the businesses that got ransacked.
Let's talk about the support for Black Lives Matter.
Businesses were burned to the ground, and the victims said, But I still support the movement.
Why?
Because a violent mob came for them.
There's a woman right now who is cooperating with police because they burned down her bakery.
She's getting death threats.
So how many victims are just claiming to support Black Lives Matter out of fear?
Fear that if they say the wrong thing, the mob will come for them?
The numbers could be completely off.
People are just pretending.
But when they think about the money, when they think about what they really want, the freedom, why would they vote for Joe Biden?
Which brings me back to the first story.
Trump's record, or I'm sorry, Fox News record viewership because of Trump.
This exemplifies my point of view.
That people are scared to show up and show their faces.
But behind the scenes, where they're safe, they'll do it.
So maybe Trump really will win.
But look, in the end, you just don't know.
You better go out and vote no matter who you want to win because if it's your guy and you don't show up, you will lose.
I got a couple more segments in just a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
In what may be one of the strangest conspiracy theories I've ever seen, high-profile progressive activists and Black Lives Matter supporters are convinced that the government, the state, the police are leaving commercial-grade fireworks all over major cities in a shock-and-awe campaign of some sort to stop the violent riots and the protests.
And I'm so sorry.
Wow.
Talk about Lunacy.
These people have lost the plot, man.
Look at this.
1619 Project lead for the New York Times pushes conspiracy theory, appears to delete and reactivate her Twitter account.
Nicole Hannah-Jones, the lead writer for the New York Times 1619 Project, caught backlash Sunday for telling people to read a conspiracy theory about the use of fireworks being an attack by the government on black and brown communities.
They say, she tweeted, read this, Hannah Jones posted Sunday, about a conspiracy theory suggesting the government was planning attacks on minority communities.
The post suggested that the numerous fireworks going off in Brooklyn over the past two weeks is actually part of a coordinated attack on black and brown communities by government forces.
This alleged attack is intended to disorient and destabilize the Black Lives Matter movement.
I'm sorry.
That's what they believe.
Okay, check this out.
I think I actually have the thread here.
It's from SonOfBaldwin.
This is what she posted, but the first thing you need to see is the context.
Fireworks complaints increase by 230 times in June as officials seek supplier crackdown.
There are videos emerging of people throwing explosives into people's homes in New York.
People chasing each other down the street, firing fireworks at each other.
Why?
I have no idea.
Where are they getting commercial-grade fireworks?
I have no idea.
Somebody's getting them.
The complaints right now over fireworks, substantially higher than they were for every other year
prior to 2020.
So something strange is happening.
And here's what the progressive far leftists think.
From Son of Baldwin with 5,100 plus retweets.
Good morning, family.
Reporting from Brooklyn, there was yet another night of extremely loud fireworks starting at 8 p.m.
and ending at about 2 a.m.
This is the second week straight of this, every night during the same time period, like clockwork.
Last night was the loudest I have ever heard fireworks in my entire life.
It sounded like war.
The media is reporting this as though it's just black and brown kids blowing off steam.
But I don't believe that's the case.
My neighbors and I believe this is part of a coordinated attack on black and brown communities by government forces.
An attack meant to disorient and destabilize the Black Lives Matter movement.
The goal, we think, is multifaceted.
1.
Sleep deprivation, as a means to create confusion and stoke tensions between black and brown peoples.
2.
Desensitization, as a means to get us used to the sounds of firecrackers and other fireworks, that when they start using the real artillery on us, we won't know the difference.
It's meant to sound like a warzone, because a warzone is what it's about to become.
We think this is psychological warfare, the first wave before whatever the next stage of attack is.
We think this is because there is no way in the world that young black and brown people would otherwise have access to these professional fireworks.
These are Macy's 4th of July New Year's level displays and sonic booms reserved, generally, for the wealthiest people and institutions.
That's true.
Where are they getting commercial-grade fireworks?
And that brings me to another story.
Remember Cassandra Fairbanks, who was tweeting against Black Lives Matter, received a bunch of death threats, and then just about three or so in the morning, someone showed up firing commercial-grade fireworks at her house.
The police found the artillery launching, whatever you call it, systems.
Who were those people?
Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch says it wasn't Antifa we asked.
Could it be as simple as Antifa showed up and fired fireworks at Cassandra's house?
Maybe.
Could it be as simple as some people found fireworks, bought them, and brought them to New York and they run around chasing each other with fireworks because it's a trend?
Remember when yo-yoing was popular?
I remember when I was a kid, all of a sudden everybody was buying yo-yos.
I remember one time everybody was buying Beanie Babies.
Maybe some people went out and bought a bunch of fireworks.
It's really that simple.
unidentified
Or maybe there was a conspiracy by the government.
Yeah, I'll tell you what, maybe people are just buying fireworks, guys.
here we go, let's read more and these kids are being supplied these things by the truckload
hours and hours and days and days and weeks and weeks worth of explosives
y'all know young black and brown people would be able to afford even a fraction of the supply
he says y'all, oh he says no young black people, I'm sorry he says no young black people would be able to afford this
We think the government is providing these to the neighborhood young people.
These young people are unaware of how they're being used against their own communities, and think they're simply being allowed to have the kind of fun that is generally considered illegal.
After being cooped up during the pandemic, this is cathartic for them, but they clearly don't understand their pawns.
The government and the mainstream media are being coy or pretending to be clueless about it all, of course.
The government told residents to call 3-1-1 or 9-1-1 when the fireworks happen.
But when you call those numbers, no one shows up.
And why would they if they're the ones behind it?
The New York Post exposed the fire department for taking part in it.
But as you would imagine, the government is leaving it up to the fire department to investigate itself and eventually clear itself of any wrongdoing.
The New York Times is reporting on it as a culture clash, but we think it's a passive-aggressive assault on the minds of the black and brown people who are rebelling against the status quo.
This is gaslighting with literal lights.
Please share this message.
If you know anyone participating in these fireworks attacks, please educate them about how this is an attempt to undermine the struggle for liberation, and try to persuade them to not allow themselves to be used by the enemies of the people.
I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but fam, please trust me.
I've lived in New York City long enough to know a rat when I see one.
And New York City has some of the biggest rats you've ever seen.
P.S.
This could also be the police attempting to retaliate against our calls to defund Abolish the Police by creating the circumstances for a continuous public nuisance and then purposefully failing to respond to it.
For the folks who didn't see, check this out.
The New York Post.
Video shows FDNY firefighters light off illegal fireworks in Brooklyn.
Is this for real?
They got a video of this?
Now, we do see fireworks being set off in front of a fire department.
And they say, and there's fireworks going on over there.
But this is not what people are complaining about.
It looks like someone just lit low-grade fireworks.
And it could be because we're a couple weeks out from the 4th of July.
But they do have this video.
They say, They may be New York's bravest, but they sure aren't the brightest.
In a Brooklyn neighborhood overrun with nightly illegal fireworks, one resident found out that some of the amateur pyrotechnics aficionados are none other than the FDNY firefighters.
The 33-year-old Crown Heights resident said he and his wife were passing by Ladder 123 at about 11.30 p.m.
when he saw a group of firefighters ignite what appears to be a fountain firework display.
Let me stop you right there.
This is a conspiracy theory, people, okay?
Let me explain to you.
It's the makings of a perfect conspiracy.
Trends happen.
Now, it's happening all over, but do you want me to believe that in Baltimore, in New York, in California, and all these places, Truckloads of fireworks are being brought in by the police to supply young people with explosives for some reason to shock and awe.
Sorry, not gonna believe it.
I mean, it's possible.
It's within the realm of real life.
It's not like you're saying the moon's made of cheese or something.
But listen, you see this story about the FDNY.
And what they let off is a very common, cheap, and sometimes illegal fountain firework.
You know what I'm talking about.
You light it and it sprays things about 10 feet, and little things fly out.
That is not a commercial-grade mortar shell or artillery, whatever they call them, where they're launching in the air and exploding and spraying neighborhoods like people are complaining about.
So for them to see this story and then think the FDNY is doing it and the government is doing it, that's exactly how conspiracy theories work.
There are videos of kids lighting firecrackers and throwing them in windows.
There are videos of kids lighting Roman candles and then pointing at each other and shooting at each other with them.
So yeah, it's probably kids who are in on the trend.
Someone bought fireworks, let them off in the neighborhood.
Somebody else went out and bought fireworks.
Now everyone's buying it to get in on the fun, to play the game.
It's really that simple, man.
And then you hear about it in the news, and then other cities do it.
Trends happen.
Dude goes on to say, Over on the Facebook thread, hundreds of people are saying that it's happening in their cities across the entire U.S.
Same times.
Same levels of extremely loud noise.
Same professional-grade materials.
Same non-response from authorities.
Some folks I blocked were like, But this was happening before the protests.
No, the F it wasn't.
But the holidays.
How many different ways do I have to say this?
This is not like previous holiday celebrations.
This is planned, coordinated, ongoing effort that began way before any such related holiday.
This ain't just some 4th of July S. This is something else.
But this is part of the protest.
It's the protesters doing this.
It's protesters trying to prevent their own people from sleeping, trying to trigger their own people, trying to bewilder and confuse and stress their own people.
Stop gaslighting.
No, bro!
It was their own people burning down their own shops, smashing their own windows, looting their own stores.
We've seen the videos.
Yes, they don't care about you.
They don't care you need to sleep.
They don't care if you own the business.
They're the ones who are throwing bricks through your windows.
This doesn't sound like anything like your normal typical gearing up for the 4th of July.
That's true.
It doesn't.
Think of that and multiply it by a thousand.
And I'm not exaggerating.
This was like someone unleashed an entire military force on Brooklyn.
My neighbors just spoke to an NYPD officer who said, there's nothing the NYPD can do about it.
Told them to basically deal with it the best they can.
Things are becoming clearer and clearer to me, fam, because shootings surge in NYC.
That's what he posts.
White people in the Washington Heights, it's like this every year.
Black and brown people in the Washington Heights, it has never been like this, ever.
This is some next-level scheduled coordinated S. In an attempt to save- Man, this guy goes on and on and on, he doesn't stop!
In an attempt to save their jobs and maintain their unchecked power, cops are trying to make it seem like crime is going up without them.
And I wouldn't put it past them that they, themselves, are responsible for these shootings.
Man, I tell you what.
From Facebook.
When I was in the army, I was in a special operations unit called Psychological Operations.
This was absolutely one of the tactics we used for destabilizing the populace.
This has been a tactic used by spec ops in the CIA in just about every conflict the US has been involved in since Vietnam, and it's extremely effective.
Y'all are going nuts, man.
Sometimes people buy fireworks.
This is just the trend.
Show me some evidence.
Why don't you go out and film a cop lighting this off?
Because I've seen the videos of young black men lighting them off.
Have I seen the CIA?
No.
I'm sorry, dude.
It's just not the case.
You want to believe it.
Because you don't want to believe someone would do this to you.
It happens, man.
I'm sorry to say it.
Look at this.
Random guy just tried to sell this all to me for 75 bucks.
Seemed like a great deal, but I know it's illegal so I didn't buy it.
What is this?
Fireworks?
Look at all this.
The honey had to be 20 bucks itself, so I don't know how cheap these guys are getting it.
Bro, they looted trucks, man!
There were nationwide riots, they went in the trucks, they stole everything, they loaded them up, took off, and then started selling them on the cheap to people for fun.
You want to tell me it's the CIA.
It's happening all over.
Yes.
Shipments were coming in for the 4th of July.
Rioting happened, and trucks got looted.
We watched the videos.
They stole big boxes of who knows what.
They got a bunch of fireworks they don't have to do with, so they sold them on the cheap, and now kids are running around lighting them off.
Welcome to what happens when riots happen.
Look at this.
Fam, does this gear in these photos look similar to you?
You kidding me, dude?
Look at this.
They're guys holding babies, right?
They're firefighters.
Then he shows this picture, and there it is.
The guy is a firefighter.
Oh, snap.
Because he's got a strap on.
Look at this.
Yellow with black straps.
The strap doesn't even look the same.
He's wearing a backpack, bro.
These people have lost the plot.
Completely.
He's wearing a backpack.
It's a backpack.
It's a backpack, dude.
They've gone nuts.
This guy goes on and on and on.
5,000 retweets.
Then he shows us this.
The police are putting on a show at 3 a.m.
where they're driving with their lights on.
They do this all the time?
I'm gonna wrap it up there, man.
You get the point.
I can't tell you why it's happening.
But do I think the CIA?
No.
But listen.
When you see the woman who wrote the 1619 Project believing this level of insanity, don't be surprised when you see the New York Times publish insanity.
The media's busted, man.
These people have lost it.
I got one more segment in a few minutes.
I'll see you all shortly.
Paranoia and hysteria is sweeping across this country.
I used to do a segment talking about the people who believe that fireworks are being planted by the CIA to destabilize the Black Lives Matter movement, but also the police themselves are also facing a state of hysteria.
I'm gonna eat this one right here.
Major correction.
I tweeted this story out.
Three NYPD officers were poisoned at Shake Shack.
Turns out the whole story was bunk.
It was paranoia.
Straight up.
I tweeted it out.
I said, shake shack straight poison some police, this is getting insane.
You know why?
Because I'm subject to the same freak out as everybody else.
To my credit, you know, as much as I'll accept I got it wrong, I saw NBC News tweeting about this, and a verified NYPD account saying this happened, and they were rushed to the hospital, and that's why I thought it was real.
And it's a mistake.
I should have learned a lesson, especially with Covington.
When I saw the verified people claiming Covington happened, I just believed because these journalists were saying it.
It must be true.
That shows my personal bias.
We all have them.
People try to say, you know, I'm objective and all that stuff.
I get things wrong, man.
I do.
Here's what I see in this.
When Covington happened, I saw a video of nothing.
I didn't know what it was, so I didn't make any conclusions.
When these tweets came out about Shake Shack officers getting poisoned, I saw verified journalists saying it, and that they went to the hospital, and then when the reports came out that there was no criminality, but they still ingested cleaner, they just believed it came from the machine.
Then I said, seems like this happened, but it was just paranoia, right?
That's my bias.
I shouldn't have just assumed the police were telling the truth, for sure.
I should have waited, 100%.
I should have said, allegedly investigating, but I jumped the gun because this to me seemed like, would the police really lie about something like this?
The answer is no, they wouldn't.
But like many people, this is what our biases are.
It turns out what really happened.
The officers thought their drink tasted funny.
That's about it.
They threw it away.
They carried on.
When they told their supervisor, the supervisor became paranoid and called in a crime scene.
That's when someone sent an email, I guess, to a union member, published it on Twitter saying they were poisoned and vomiting, passed out, went to the hospital.
Never happened.
Let me read the story for you.
The Daily Mail says, revealed, three NYPD officers poisoned by Shake Shack milkshakes, never got sick, and the department overreacted with tweet that cops were under attack.
They say on June 15th, three officers, who were based in the Bronx but on protest duty in Lower Manhattan, ordered milkshakes from Shake Shack, but found they smelled and tasted odd, and they suspected they had bleach in them.
However, those officers never felt sick and threw the drinks away.
Yet the mishap escalated into a crime scene investigation where caution tape was put up, evidence was collected, and the Detectives' Endowment Association claimed the cops were intentionally poisoned.
The NYC Patrolman's Benevolent Association tweeted that NYC police officers cannot even take a meal without coming under attack.
Now City Council Speaker Cory Johnson and Councilman Richie Torres are demanding a probe into the union's inflammatory behavior.
Good.
They should.
This was wrong.
Here's a photo.
We can see the bag of Shake Shack burgers.
I'll tell you what, man.
Shake Shack has got this really, really awesome thing.
It's like a mushroom burger, deep-fried, stuffed with cheese.
Amazing.
So, uh, I bring that up just because I feel bad that Shake Shack got besmirched in all of this.
I'm gonna apologize straight up.
I got this one wrong for sure.
Shake Shack did nothing.
The officers didn't get sick.
Shake Shack made fine food, and they should not be facing negative... Look, people are gonna believe this is real, and they're gonna avoid Shake Shack now, and it's unfortunate, it really is.
So, 100%, I apologize for believing this story when I shouldn't have.
So let's see, they say, the incident took place as the protests, you know, were going crazy.
More than 350 officers had been injured.
New facts prove the Shake Shack workers had no way of knowing their customers were police officers, because they ordered the treats via a mobile app around 7.30 p.m.
They ordered three shakes across two orders.
A female officer purchased a strawberry shake from the restaurant on Broadway and Fulton Street, and her two male colleagues grabbed cherry and vanilla drinks from the eatery.
When they tasted their drinks and found something was off, they threw them in the trash and alerted a manager, who apologized and gave them vouchers for free food or a drink.
But the evening took a dramatic turn when they reported the incident to their sergeant.
The supervisor responded by calling the emergency service unit to set up a crime scene and search for evidence by 9.20 p.m., about two hours after they got their orders.
The cops were rushed to Bellevue Hospital and were examined and released despite not ever feeling sick or exhibiting any symptoms.
Now here's the issue.
That, I think, may have been the smart move.
If you were poisoned, you might not feel sick.
So you should go to the hospital.
There was concerns about, you know, cops being injured.
In Vegas, a cop got ambushed, shot in the head.
Another shop had been killed in Oakland.
So it makes sense.
High alert.
We can call it paranoia, but just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after you.
However, paranoia combined with a game of telephone results in fake news.
It's unfortunate, but it happened.
Somebody emailed the union, who then thought the story was confirmed, tweeted it out from a verified account.
Then we heard from NBC and other outlets, every single outlet, that the investigation was underway and they went to the hospital.
And people immediately made the assumption, if they went to the hospital, they must have been sick.
This clearly must have happened.
Turns out it didn't.
They say, The cops were rushed to Bellevue Hospital, even though they weren't sick.
At the same time, a lieutenant from the Bronx sent out an email to the Union stating that six cops started throwing up after drinking beverages they got from Shake Shack.
Just not true.
And here are the tweets.
The Detectives Endowment Association said, Tonight, three of our fellow officers were intentionally poisoned by one or more workers at a Shake Shack at 200 Broadway in Manhattan.
Fortunately, they were not seriously harmed.
I think there's going to be a defamation suit or libel because this is not a statement of fact and that's serious and it's damaging Shake Shack's reputation.
They say, later on, that there was no intentional harm.
They issued an update.
Despite the escalated tensions around the Drinkmas app, detectives closed the case quickly after interviewing five employees and reviewing surveillance footage that showed the shakes were made normally.
The culprit was found to be residual milk stone remover, which is used to clean the milkshake machines left inside the device.
But the incendiary messages sent out by Detectives Endowment Association and Police Benevolent Association had already done its damage after the case was closed.
So, to my credit, I can easily pull one of these arguments where I said Shake Shack poisoned officers.
I never said on purpose.
Hmm, did I?
No, I did say, I think I may have repeated intentionally, but you know, typically what you'd get from things like this from traditional media is they'd say something like, well, they were poisoned.
They were.
So it was a Milkstone Remover.
It's a cleaner for the milkshake machines, and this happens.
They need to make sure that after they clean it, they thoroughly rinse it, and then after they put the shake material in it, they clear it, right?
So, you might want to put water in it, clear it with water.
This happens fairly often after cleaning machines.
The first drink that comes out might have some residual cleaner in it, and it turns out that's what happened to the cops.
But the cops were ordered with a mobile app.
No one saw them.
And when they arrived, the drinks were already done.
So, this one, hysteria.
You could argue, uh, but there's no point in trying to pretend like the story was correct.
They said it was intentional, and everybody jumped the gun.
So again, apologies for getting the story wrong.
Chief Rodney Harrison says, after a thorough investigation by the NYPD's Manhattan South investigators, it has been determined there was no criminality by Shake Shack's employees.
So here's what I basically said.
There was no criminality.
Questions then emerged about how it could be that the cleaner got in their drinks anyway.
But based on the mobile app, it stands to reason it was an accident.
They were in fact given drinks with cleaner in them.
They did not drink them.
They did not get sick.
It's a lesson learned, right?
I've been wrong before.
That's why I always tell people, I'm not always right.
I did a story a couple weeks ago, a couple months ago actually now, about Trump saying disinfectant in the skin or whatever, in the lungs, and everybody mocked him, and I said I thought it was stupid too, and then people easily Google-searched and showed there are UV light treatments that go in your lungs, and there are treatments for getting H2O2 and other disinfectants in your body, so long as your body can actually I'll handle it.
So it's important to remember, we're not always right.
While there are concerns and fears about police being attacked that I think we should take seriously, we gotta be more, I guess, vigilant.
Now, look, I have to be more diligent in covering these stories.
Here's the inherent challenge.
Same thing is true for Covington.
With Covington, I was able to find live stream evidence immediately.
This is a different kind of story.
This was the police making a claim.
This was people confirming the cops went to the hospital.
All of that really happened.
And in the end, it turned out to be that the story wasn't true.
To be fair to myself, I think it's important to say there are very different circumstances.
If you show me a video, take it out of context.
I'm not just going to believe whatever it is.
If you tell me that it's confirmed from NBC that officers were rushed to the hospital after ingesting a cleaner, I'm going to believe that's the case because they literally went to the hospital.
But of course, it's also fair to point out just because they went to the hospital doesn't mean they were actually sick, and that's what happened here.
The police are just as paranoid as everybody else.
And now we've got people pushing this insane conspiracy theory about fireworks being planted by cops.
Combine that with cops fearful that they're being attacked, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
Somebody is doing something with fireworks for whatever reason.
Maybe it's not the CIA, maybe it is, I have no idea.
But I think it's stupid to speculate one way or the other.
People are attacking cops, though, and that's the big challenge.
It's easy to believe that cops were poisoned because a cop found a razor blade in her food in Alhambra.
A cop found, um, two national guardsmen found broken glass in their pizza dough.
Those stories may be fake, too.
Honestly, I don't know.
But when they're reported by credible outlets, all I can really do is make the assumption that they're true.
Think about it this way.
When Russiagate was going on, I reported many of the same things these people did, but I was a skeptic.
Many of them just assumed it was all true.
I said, here's what they're saying, now hold on a minute.
Same thing is true for these stories.
Sometimes it can be factually incredibly reported, and it can still be wrong.
