Facebook Just BANNED A Major Trump Campaign Issue, Immigration, This Is MAJOR Election Interference
After pressure from far left groups Facebook announced that they will no longer allow certain ads to run.This means that a major campaign issue for Americans and Trump's platform, Immigration, will not be able to be run as ads.While some think mark Zuckerberg won't actually enforce these rules we have already seen Trump ads get removed for having the wrong image on them. Why would Facebook allow Trump's campaign to run ads on Immigration if they changed the rules?Democrats of course have shifted far left on the issue of immigration and seem to be pulling out all the stops in their effort to defeat Trump. republicans for now seem to be doing absolutely nothing as big tech censorship and social media bias wreaks havoc on political discourse.Trump however has said he believes Twitter will ban him and has floated the idea of switching to Parler#Trump#Democrats#Republicans
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Facebook has just nuked Donald Trump's campaign from orbit with new rules banning hate speech.
Now, you might say, Tim, hate speech is a bad thing.
And how will this even hurt Donald Trump?
It's not like Trump engages in hate speech, right?
Well, if you've been paying attention to the past several years and how censorship works on social media, then you probably realize hate speech is just something they use as an excuse to target conservatives for the most part.
Because we've seen many left-wing profiles get away with overt hate speech.
We've seen, say, at the New York Times, Sarah Jong post for years hateful rhetoric against white people, and that is protected.
But more importantly, this actually will hurt Donald Trump's campaign, because it specifically will ban one of his most important campaign issues, immigration.
Donald Trump has run ads and put a ton of money into them, specifically stating that illegal immigration breeds crime.
There's drug trafficking, there's cartels.
And these people effectively take our jobs.
These are considered to be scapegoating advertisements, which Facebook will now explicitly ban.
The most expensive ad campaign Trump ran on Google had to do with illegal immigration.
The third most interacted with ad campaign on Facebook had to do with immigration.
And although these campaign ads are actually about a year old, and according to Gallup, the most important issues today are not immigration, Donald Trump is still claiming.
That he will be fighting DACA.
That he's going to win.
Yes.
A campaign issue.
And of course, Donald Trump maintains the position that illegal immigration hurts the American worker.
This violates the rules of Facebook's ad campaigns.
Now you may say, Facebook's not that important.
Trump can win in other ways.
And that's fair.
So I don't want to act like Trump has been completely shut out by these rule changes, but this will directly impact politics and will hurt Donald Trump's ability to reach people on the most prominent social media platform in the world.
The shocking thing about this is that Facebook, by banning these ads, has made a hard political statement and is absolutely interfering in politics.
By saying they will block certain political positions from being advertised, Facebook is dictating what will be acceptable in our elections and in public discourse.
It has gone well beyond just one little person saying some naughty word.
And it is now the president's ability to rally his own people.
In one advertisement, Donald Trump says the Democrats care more about illegal immigrants than they do the American people.
This is part of a larger ad where he talks about cartels and other issues, a direct violation of Facebook's new policies.
This new policy put in place by Facebook is the result of a pressure campaign from far-left activists.
They have been demanding that big brands stop advertising and pull off of Facebook in a massive adpocalypse.
It worked.
Facebook initially resisted, but their stock started to take a big hit.
Coca-Cola, Unilever, and many other brands announced they were pulling off, not necessarily because of the boycott, but because of the polarization.
Mark Zuckerberg bent over and collapsed to his knees and says, please don't leave.
I need that money.
And now Donald Trump's, one of his principal campaign issues, is out the window.
Well, let's read the story and break down exactly what's going on and how I think this will impact Trump.
But let me just tell you all.
Those of you who happen to find yourself as supporters of Joe Biden, if there are many of you who watch my channel, it's good news for you.
Joe Biden's position on decriminalizing illegal immigration and putting a moratorium on deportations is supported by this massive multinational corporation.
And Donald Trump's position is weakened.
That means if you're a Trump supporter and you think you've got this one in the bag, let me just remind you.
As I say over and over and over again, your overconfidence, arrogance will be your downfall.
They are pulling out every single stop.
One of the other things they're doing is trying to make Washington D.C.
a state, which presents a whole list of problems, but would give the Democrats more senators and arguably more congressional power.
That's because they need to change whatever they can to win.
We've got the National Popular Vote, Interstate Compact, now we have Facebook banning hate speech.
But let's break this down.
I don't want to rant too much.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video because I am competing with the mainstream media and their massive marketing budgets, which I do not have.
Also, as more as the censorship encroaches, it's very likely that I will be banned Before the next couple of months, I suppose.
According to The Federalist, they did an interview with Trump where Trump actually expects to be banned as well.
So hey, for the time being, you can share these videos to help support my work and maybe I won't be here in a few months, we'll see.
If you just want to watch, then click the subscribe button, the like button, the notification bell.
Let's read this story from Mashable, which of course takes a very left-biased approach.
Facebook expands hate speech rules in ads, but regular racist posts are still okay.
They're not, but sure, let's read.
Facebook has had enough of hate speech, in ads at least.
The company's founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a slew of new policies on Friday meant to combat incendiary rhetoric and misinformation.
Going forward, Facebook will now ban hate speech from its advertising platform.
The company says the goal is to create a higher standard of content for its ads and prohibit divisive rhetoric.
Today, we are prohibiting a wider category of hateful content in ads, said Zuckerberg.
Specifically, we're expanding our ads policy to prohibit claims that people from a specific race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, caste, orientation, gender identity, or immigration status are a threat to the physical safety, health, or survival of others.
Now let me stop right there and say, I actually think that's fine in many capacities, because for the most part, I agree.
However, immigration status is a very weird thing to put into this.
That's a political issue.
You want to argue that someone based on race or gender or whatever should be protected?
Okay, I can understand that.
Immigration status?
I mean, we're talking about people who aren't even citizens of this country.
Whether or not you want to talk about them positively or negatively should have no bearing necessarily on Campaign ads now to be fair.
I don't know to what extent Facebook will apply this to political ads because they may not be able to this there may be hard limits So perhaps I should walk back a little bit and just say we'll see how they actually implement this but on the surface It really does seem this will have a serious negative impact on Trump's campaign they say Zuckerberg pointed out that Facebook has typically banned certain types of content from its ad platform that are normally allowed in regular posts, and that's the same case here.
If Facebook effectively enforces its own rules, you won't see ads with hate speech on the platform, but may still see hateful posts in your news feed.
For regular posts, Facebook only bans direct attacks, defined as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.
This isn't the first time the company has expanded its definition of hate.
Last year, it reversed its decision to allow white nationalist rhetoric.
Why did they allow it in the first place?
Blah blah blah.
I don't care too much about Mashable's opinions on the matter.
But let me show you how this all started.
The big news in the past few days, Coca-Cola pauses advertising on all social media platforms globally, as did Unilever and many other companies.
You can see they say, Dockers and Levi's also announced Friday they will be pausing ads on Facebook and Instagram, while Hershey said it will be cutting spending on Facebook and Instagram by a third for the rest of the year.
Now for the most part, many of these companies are not saying this is part of the boycott.
They're saying that things are just too divisive and polarized right now.
What I think we're actually seeing is that major corporations know If they advertise on these platforms, they're going to get attacked by the left.
If they try and pander to the left, they'll be attacked by the right.
The polarization means that these ads will only serve to hurt their brands, and the best thing they can do is just back off.
So Facebook decided to pander to the left in an effort to actually try and save some cash.
Well, the boycott is part of a campaign called Stop Hate for Profit.
They say, hit pause on hate.
We're asking all businesses to stand in solidarity with our most deeply held American values of freedom, equality, and justice and not advertise on Facebook services in July.
One of the funniest things, I gotta just point this out, is that hit pause on hate is advocating for censorship and there's quite literally an organization called Free Press I know many people from the Free Press, and boy, have they sure lost sight of what their organization is supposed to be about.
FreePress.net, yeah, funny name, right?
Called for the censorship of certain internet personalities, and is now calling for censorship and harsher hate speech rules on Facebook.
So please, Free Press, change your name, okay?
If you want to advocate for censorship, do it.
Fine.
It's your right.
You can advocate for what you want.
But don't call yourself Free Press anymore.
Now, you know, I think Free Press is the best example of the woke mob taking over an institution and wearing them like a skin suit, as it has been described.
But let's take a look at how Trump is going to be impacted by this.
This is Donald Trump's Facebook ad archive.
I have searched for, it should be, the impressions, high to low.
The post with the most impressions.
This means Donald Trump is pushing these harder than anything else.
Check this out.
Donald Trump said, as your commander-in-chief, it is my duty to put the safety of Americans above everything else, and I promise you that will never change.
Now I need your input on a crisis at our southern border.
The Democrats and the media need to know where real Americans stand.
Okay, what is this post saying?
You're in danger.
You're safety.
What did Mark Zuckerberg say?
If you say that people's physical safety or survival could be impacted negatively by these groups, the ad is gone.
What does this ad from Donald Trump do?
This is the third most impressions of all his ads.
We can already see that several advertisements from Trump have been taken down by Facebook.
Now this is true for many politicians, not just Donald Trump.
But think about what this means with the issue of immigration.
DACA.
What is it?
The allowing people who were brought here as children illegally by their parents, allowing deferred action on deportation for these people.
Trump has vowed to end it.
He recently lost a Supreme Court ruling, but he said, we're coming back, baby.
He says he will renew his effort to end DACA protections.
Now, why would he want to do that?
Because Trump and even, yes, Bernie Sanders have maintained that illegal immigration, whether it's from Dreamers or otherwise, is bad for you, your physical safety in many regards.
Now, not physical safety in the sense like someone's going to attack you, but in terms of your ability to secure your family and your home and have finances to be safe.
Trump is absolutely campaigning on immigration still.
The rhetoric isn't as pronounced as it was in the past, but it's still there.
And take a look at Google.
This is the most expensive ad run Trump has done on Google.
And it's a video where Trump says liberals care more about illegal immigrants than they do about our own citizens.
In this advertisement from Trump, they talk about cartels, drugs, etc.
All of these things considered to be threats to physical safety.
And what has Facebook banned?
Now, let me just Stress this point to as much as I can.
Just because Facebook is going to ban these ads doesn't mean Trump is down and out.
But I am telling you they are pulling out all of the stops.
So when I see people on Twitter or I tweeted something like, I think Trump is on track to lose.
He absolutely is.
If you think he's guaranteed this, I think you're nuts.
Many people said that I was wrong.
They tweeted at me saying, no way, it can't be.
You're incorrect.
Turnout doesn't matter.
Trump's got this in the bag.
When Facebook announces that they've taken a political position and these ads in all likelihood will not be allowed, some people think they won't go that far.
That they're announcing this just to save face, but they'll never actually shut down Trump's ads in this way.
Okay, fine.
Maybe that's the case.
But Facebook did just ban Trump's ads because it had a red triangle in it.
And then they accused Trump of using World War II iconography, whatever.
They'll ban what they feel like banning.
Trump was calling out Antifa with that ad.
They banned the ads.
So why wouldn't they ban his ads on immigration?
They are going to stop Trump from being able to speak to his constituents.
They want to make sure the only thing you hear is negative.
Take a look at what happened during COVID.
Donald Trump was doing daily press briefings and his approval rating was skyrocketing right around here.
Check this out.
This is we can see here around the time Donald Trump started doing his daily press briefings, he reached his highest point ever in the real clear politics aggregate.
All of a sudden, the media started panicking.
They said Trump shouldn't be allowed to have these rallies on TV, so they shut him down and stopped covering his daily press briefings.
And then his approval rating slowly started to go down.
It's now dropped significantly to its worst position in a few years, and his disapproval is very, very high.
Not the highest it's ever been, and his approval is the lowest it's ever been, but this is pronounced.
They want to shut down his ability to talk with people.
There's a viral post going around right now from someone, I believe it's a manager for Candace Owens, who said that they were a far leftist living in Peru and they came back from the far left.
How?
They actually watched Donald Trump give his speech and realized they were being lied to.
So this is what they need to do.
It's one of the things they need to do.
This is a very serious effort to shut down Trump's ability to communicate with you.
Because I'll be honest with you, you don't have to like the man.
And I've been very critical of him in the past.
I mean, a lot actually.
But he's not that bad.
And what I mean by that is the media lies all the time.
Trump says very stupid things.
I am shocked by some of the things that come out of this man's mouth.
But the media is lying, taking things out of context, spinning things, and just trying to destroy him.
That's why I believe Facebook will shut down his advertisements.
And you know what?
So does Donald Trump.
According to an interview in The Federalist, this is from, I believe it's from Ben Domenech.
He interviewed Trump and, this is what he was, let me just read the story for you.
Trump expects to be banned by Twitter.
In response to a question on whether he expects to soon be banned by Twitter, where he has over 82 million followers, Trump said, yes I do.
The president believes the ban from the popular platform will happen in the fall before the 2020 election, an opinion shared by others in the White House.
For Trump and those close to him, Twitter's reaction to two recent tweets, including one where he warned rioters against breaking the law, are being taken as warning shots.
Now, Trump is correct.
say I should join Parley, Trump said.
Maybe we do have over 194 million followers, though, across multiple sites.
Trump complimented Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, saying he had been far more open and less
biased in his treatment.
But as for a Twitter ban, I expect it will hurt them more than they realize.
Now, Trump is correct.
I'm not entirely convinced Trump will be banned.
A Twitter was doing really, really bad.
Trump came along and all of a sudden Twitter became prominent.
But it's funny, this interview comes out, I believe it came out the day before, what's this, let's see what the date is on this, the 27th, so it came out today.
It came out a day after Zuckerberg announced he's gonna make, he's gonna ban these advertisements.
Perhaps Trump doesn't realize.
Let me tell you something.
Trump could absolutely join Parley.
And it sounds like, based on this quote, he doesn't realize that he could be on Twitter and Parley.
And he need only make a few statements on Parley to actually shift the playing field.
He doesn't want to.
Maybe Trump thinks that if he gets banned, it would create a massive press cycle that will benefit him.
I don't know what he's thinking, but I can tell you, losing your ability to speak with your constituents, as I've already shown, is a bad, bad thing.
I'll highlight it one more time.
When Trump was doing his daily press briefings, his approval rating was through the roof.
They took that away from him, and now his approval is dropping.
And it's dropping fast.
They do not want Trump to be able to reach people.
It's why they hate Trump on Twitter in the first place.
They complain about it all the time.
They want Trump banned.
Well, Trump isn't going to go to Parley.
I'll tell you what, man.
Trump needs to go to Parley while he still can.
And he doesn't need to leave Twitter.
But if he goes there now, and he tweets out, join me on Parley, he has access to these 84 or so million people.
If Twitter bans him first, then he will not be able to tell those people to move to Twitter.
If Facebook bans him first, then he will be without.
He'll have no way to inform all of his base where he is.
Now he is the president, he can speak, but the media is not going to give him a fair shake, and they're not going to mention his Parley account.
However, if they do ban him and Trump still does take to Parley and he makes some outrageous statements like he likes to, the media will still probably be forced to cover it, but they could choose not to.
And that's when Trump loses the ability to actually communicate with people.
Let's move on to this story right here.
Bernie Sanders warned that increased immigration would lower the wages of U.S.
workers.
Now he barely mentions it.
This rhetoric is being banned from Facebook.
And even Bernie Sanders admitted this recently, this year, in an interview with the New York Times.
He said, yes, yes, yes, okay, okay, you're right, he admitted it.
These politicians know full well, but shutting Trump down specifically inhibits his ability to speak with the people who need to hear him most, those who are concerned about this.
The Democrats aren't talking about it anymore, and that's the point.
They say now he barely mentions it.
That's right.
And now you can't mention it.
They don't want anyone to be able to talk about this stuff.
What's interesting in this battle is that last year when Trump was making these ads, that was when Gallup reported that immigration was the most important problem.
New high in US, say immigration most important problem, and we can see it rose to about 23%.
The reason this happened was because the media was covering it.
So I'll be fair, and I want to make sure I'm being reasonable here.
It could be that it won't really matter to Trump in the long run because immigration isn't the biggest issue.
Sure, there are some hardline immigration people, but Trump is trying to build that wall.
Maybe he doesn't care anymore.
Maybe the American people have moved on to other issues, and it seems like, yeah, they may have.
According to Gallup from just last week, race relations as the nation's most important problem.
Gallup's long-standing Most Important Problem question provides important context for measuring the impact of the May 25th death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
The question asks Americans to name, off the top of their head, the most important problem facing the nation.
Gallup has been asking this question since 1939, every month since 2001, and throughout the decades prior to that on a less regular basis.
One year ago, the issue was immigration.
Today, it would seem that the issue is race relations.
So maybe, maybe this won't really hurt Trump.
But I'm curious as to why this has become the most important problem.
Now, there are some people who might give you their take on it.
A few months ago, Trump's approval rating with black voters was skyrocketing.
And in fact, in the past few weeks, Trump's approval rating with black voters, according to Rasmussen polls, was like 40%.
I don't know if I believe that.
Maybe among young black men, particularly because of people like Candace Owens and Kanye West.
But I can only imagine this would absolutely shock and terrify Democrats.
The saying goes that if black support for the Republican Party goes over 20%, the Democrats will not be able to win ever again.
That's actually saying ever again.
Now what does that mean?
Can't the support revert?
I'd imagine so.
So let's not exaggerate too much.
In this story, and I've highlighted this several times, approval among black voters for Trump may be higher than you think, and this is according to BlackEnterprise.com.
They say, according to a recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll, Trump has a 14% approval among black voters, with every 8 out of 10 African Americans stating they are uncomfortable with the possibility of him getting re-elected.
Another poll conducted by BlackPak Showed that most African Americans are not only dissatisfied with the current administration, but the overall state of the country right now.
The survey shows that 76% of black voters are completely dissatisfied with the overall direction of the country.
They say, despite the low numbers, there's only one half of the story.
With black voters as a majority may seemingly move in one direction, there is still a stark divide between genders.
In the same Wall Street Journal poll, the results show that 24% of black men approved of Trump in comparison with 6% of black women who approved of the current president.
The current president is Trump.
These polling results are still low compared to other ethnic groups.
32% of Latino men.
You get the point.
The point is that Trump's approval rating may be a lot higher among minorities, and now race relations becomes the most important issue.
If Trump can actually tackle this issue, then he may still win.
So many people on the right, many conservatives, have actually pointed out That Trump's weakest position right now, it's actually white Americans.
Trump is losing support among white Americans, but this could be due to the far-left lurch of the progressive left.
But he's actually been gaining support among black Americans, something that can actually help him win.
It's hard to know exactly how these things will play out, but there's one thing I can say.
So long as these social media companies continue to censor speech and target Trump, especially on his campaign issues, we are going to see people start to adopt these positions because you'll never hear a counter-argument.
This is what's scary.
On Facebook, people who might say, hey, did you hear about this story?
No, I didn't.
And then you'll get banned.
So certain ideas and certain stats and facts will be removed.
Donald Trump won't be able to campaign on an issue that still ranks in the top issues for the country.
He will be shut out.
And if Donald Trump tries to put up ads about race relations, they could just argue it is hate speech based on what Trump says.
Trump could come out and say something like, I believe everyone should be equal.
Well, as we know, colorblindness, as they say, is bigoted.
I recently did a video where I defended this, and they flagged it as hate speech, not a strike.
They flag it in terms of monetization, saying, this is hateful content, you can't post this, or you can't monetize it, and I have to request Google to overturn it.
This is how the game is played.
They'll argue that if you say all men are created equal, all persons are created equal, well, that's bigoted because you are overlooking the systemic racism, blah, blah, blah, and they can just claim it is.
Twitter banned or they put a censor a screening over Trump's tweets.
You can't like it.
And they said it was because he was at glorifying violence or whatever when he was just saying he was going to follow the law.
Trump said he would enforce the law if he tried to break it.
They censored him for it.
This is what they'll do.
They make the rules and then they make moves against Trump.
Now, to be fair, again, perhaps what's really happening is that Mark Zuckerberg is just trying to protect himself with some, you know, some surface-level PR gesture that won't really do anything.
Maybe he won't really enforce anything, and he's just scared about people pulling out, so he needs to, you know, save face.
Or maybe he really will take these actions, but let me tell you something, man.
If you think that Donald Trump is guaranteed to win, that's when you lose.
Trump touts ratings for Rally, Fox News, Town Hall.
These are the real polls.
Maybe Trump's got, what, 83 or so million followers?
Not every single one of them really like the guy.
Some people follow him just because they reply to him and complain on every post he makes.
The real ratings over at Fox News.
Perhaps it was a massive showing.
But perhaps a lot of these people do hate him.
I think it's fair to say that the ratings are good news for Trump.
That's the best assumption you could probably make.
Because most people who want to listen to him really, really like the guy.
People who hate him probably don't know anything he has to say.
Otherwise, they probably wouldn't hate him as much if they actually listened to what he was talking about.
So that's why I think it's fair to say these probably are the real ratings.
So I'll leave you with this.
I lean towards Trump losing as of right now, ever so slightly, for one reason.
Well, for a couple reasons.
The attacks, they're leveling against Trump, mail-in voting, all of these things will pile up.
They're not just going for one strategy, they're leveling the playing field.
But also the hubris of the Trump supporter who thinks they're guaranteed to win.
I believe Trump can win.
I believe there's a really, really, really good chance to win.
I believe there's a really great chance of Republicans to take everything, based on all the riots and the social justice stuff and the tearing down of statues.
But I also think that too many people take victory for granted.
They won't stand up, and they're too arrogant.
We know we're going to win, and the longer you keep saying that, the more people believe it, and the less likely they are to actually go out and vote.
Same is true for people who don't want him to win.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews and I will see you all then.
A couple of nights ago, Donald Trump announced hundreds of people had been arrested in relation to the vandalism and destruction of statues and other public monuments.
I don't know how many people have actually been arrested.
There's no great press release coming out from every single one of these law enforcement agencies.
But there have been several reports locally from various police departments that, yes, several people have been arrested.
We now know, as of the other day, that the FBI is tracking down suspects involved in the Lafayette Park riots where they tried to pull down the Andrew Jackson statue and failed.
I don't know if these people end up being arrested, but seems like the FBI is actually going after them, and Donald Trump is taking everything one or two steps further.
He's going to be signing an executive order, and he's going to be creating a task force.
Well, he did sign an executive order, and he did launch a task force to target extremists, mostly because of the destruction of monuments and private property, or public property, I should say.
But he's not just going after the far left.
He's also concerned about the Boogaloo Boys.
Now, I don't think, as the media would try to portray, that the Boogaloo Boys are necessarily a movement of sorts, but there are people online who use this terminology and are talking about preparing for a civil war.
I'm not going to pretend to know a whole lot about this.
I have covered Antifa a lot in the past, but let's read the story and see what's going on, but I want to point something out.
I've mentioned several times.
The rioting and the protests have not stopped.
They haven't stopped.
They're still going on.
This is one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing what he's doing.
It's been five weeks.
You'd think they'd stop at some point, but no.
The far left genuinely believes it's their revolution.
Not every single one of them, probably, but many of them are on camera saying it.
There's some video from, I think, Portland.
We're a bunch of antifa types are yelling at a cop saying, June 2020 will be in the history books.
This is our revolution, our uprising, blah, blah, blah.
You can see similar stuff on Twitter.
So they really think this is their one chance.
They're not gonna let it go.
They're going to the extreme, and they're trying to tear down Abraham Lincoln in Washington, D.C.
Well, Donald Trump won't let them do that.
However, we did see a rather viral moment where conservative reporter Jack Posobiec went down to see what was going on.
They attacked him, threw water on him, and tried stealing his phone, which is par for the course for Antifa.
But it's created this rather viral moment.
We also have a few other big stories.
Cops are being attacked with fireworks.
So yes, let's read the executive order, but I want to tell you why it's necessary.
I don't know exactly what Trump can or will do, but I'm telling you, these protests haven't stopped.
And I'm going to show you, they're still ongoing.
This is from the Essex Daily Voice.
they say. New Trump order carries long prison terms for defacing monuments. NJ top Fed leads
task force. In advance of the 4th of July, President Trump on Friday signed an executive
order that he said promises long prison terms for those who vandalize American monuments,
memorials and statues. Quote, I just had the privilege of signing a very strong executive
order protecting American monuments, memorials and statues and combating recent criminal
violence. Trump tweeted.
Long prison terms for these lawless acts against our great country.
In another move, U.S.
Attorney for New Jersey Craig Carpenito was appointed to co-lead a task force to counter anti-government extremists, specifically Antifa and those supporting the far-right Boogaloo movement.
The group will be comprised of members of U.S. Attorney's Office and FBI offices throughout
the country who will share information with local and state law enforcement and provide
training on identifying anti-government extremists, the Justice Department said.
Well, I hate to say it, Trump, but you got I got some bad news for you.
Many of these extremists are in media and have been lying about you and many other people for
a long time.
So how do you stop the expansion of this extremist ideology which foments violence when people in media support it over and over again?
Now, this is one of the great challenges of the First Amendment.
They're allowed to.
They're allowed to support it, give their support.
And if that ideology expands, they will subvert the rule of law, which creates a very difficult position for people in this country, how to deal with it and make sure things don't fall apart, right?
Let's keep reading.
They say, Attorney General William P. Barr also reportedly told U.S.
Marshals nationwide on Friday to prepare to protect the monuments from harm.
Quote, this is a challenging assignment due to the breadth of possible targets for criminal activity, Marshals Service Assistant Director Andrew C. Smith wrote in an email obtained by the Washington Post.
A joint operation center will be up and running in Springfield, Virginia with days, said Smith, who asked for volunteers from the services district and divisions.
Marshals ordinarily capture fugitives, protect witnesses, transfer prisoners, and provide courthouse security.
Trump earlier this week wrote that he'd authorize the Justice Department, which oversees the Marshals' service, to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue, or other such federal property in the U.S.
with up to 10 years in prison per the Veterans Memorial Preservation Act or such other laws that may be pertinent.
The President followed that with Friday's announcement of the executive order which prohibits the desecration of public monuments, vandalizing government property, and other acts of violence.
These include Confederate statues, his administration said.
The order also not only withholds federal support tied to public spaces from those state and local governments that don't enforce their own measures to protect public monuments, it withdraws grants from those who don't take the necessary measures to stop it.
Federal assistance is available to help pay for that protection under the order.
Well, I tell you what, man!
Sounds like Donald Trump's covered all his bases in this executive order.
Now, this is a photo of Jack Posobiec standing up to some Antifa lunatics who are coming out thinking that they're the resistance or whatever.
And I gotta... This is... This photo... I don't want to say historic or anything like that, but I'm kind of insinuating it.
But look at this photo.
It really does capture the moment very, very well.
It's two people facing down, and this is a lot of what we're seeing.
But I'll tell you what.
Jack Posobiec was the only one who went down, and he went down in the capacity as a reporter, as a pundit or whatever.
You know, he's not going there to link arms and defend the statue necessarily.
Although I'm pretty sure Jack was trying to defend the statue of Abraham Lincoln.
This wasn't like an organized protest or riot like the left would engage in.
So this shows, I mean look at this with the statue right in the background.
It's very very different how the left and the right are approaching this.
I'm fighting a sneeze mind you.
But here's the official statement from the whitehouse.gov which I want to read to you.
Executive order on protecting American monuments, memorials, and statues and combating recent criminal violence.
Now this is important because it lays out their goal and the purpose for it.
The White House says, The first duty of government is to ensure domestic tranquility and defend life, property, and the right of its citizens.
Over the last five weeks, there has been a sustained assault on the life and property of civilians, law enforcement officers, government property, and revered American monuments such as the Lincoln Memorial.
Many of the rioters, arsonists, and left-wing extremists who have carried out and supported these acts have explicitly identified themselves with ideologies such as Marxism.
That call for the destruction of the United States government.
Well, if that's the case, man, I got bad news for you, Trump.
There's a video of a higher profile, I don't want to say high profile, but a Black Lives Matter activist saying that they're Marxist.
I could be wrong, so fact check me on that one.
I saw an article about it and some video about it.
But many of these people on the left are overtly Marxist, but more importantly, whether or not it's Black Lives Matter or otherwise, there are many people in media who are overt Marxists, who produce fake news and lie.
I mean, actually, a BuzzFeed News reporter just got fired, I believe, got fired for plagiarism.
This is not the first.
So there's another BuzzFeed reporter who quit and went to the Financial Times in the UK and got fired for spying on other news agencies.
And now we're seeing another BuzzFeed reporter, BuzzFeed News, fired for plagiarism.
This is important because both of these guys wrote fake stories smearing the right.
Activists are in media lying and nothing is being done.
They're slowly taking over, particularly at the New York Times.
Now, there was a revolt recently at the New York Times, and they ousted some editor.
They're taking over.
And a lot of people might say, good riddance, who cares, the New York Times is biased, oh boy.
If you thought the New York Times was biased a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, four years ago, wait until the extremists have control of the editorial section.
You might be saying, they do.
Oh, I assure you.
While some people may be biased, the extremists have not yet taken the whole thing, and you will regret it.
Everything that comes out of that paper will be a lie, and already a lot of it is getting bad.
I actually cancelled my subscription recently, and it's funny because it's now like the third time I think I've done it.
But the New York Times has this, like, waxing and waning of, you know, they brought on Ben Smith, who's done a really good job, but now the woke extremists are pushing people out and they're gaining more ground.
And if the gray lady falls to the extremists, listen, it's one thing to have a liberal biased paper.
It's another thing to have the most prominent paper in the country, perhaps the world, taken over by propagandist insurgents.
It's one thing to be biased.
It's another thing to have these people willfully lying, which they've done.
But imagine if every single thing that came out was a lie.
And imagine if no one believed you.
And then people would be like, you're wrong about Trump because I can prove it.
Here's the New York Times, the paper of record, saying straight up, Trump did throw those puppies off a bridge.
They wouldn't lie, would they?
That's what's gonna happen when they get completely overrun, and it's already started happening.
It has.
Front page stories that are completely fake, like the YouTube rabbit hole nonsense, front page story.
They put Philip DeFranco's face in the square talking about right-wing extremists, and he was angry about it.
But that's what they're going to do.
They're going to go after anyone who dare oppose them.
Look, there's no neutrality to these people.
This is what you've got to understand about how the press is going to function once they take it.
Philip DeFranco.
You probably know him.
He's got millions of subscribers.
He does his general news pop culture show Monday through Friday.
I don't know what his schedule is.
But he's neutral, right?
He's neutral slightly left.
You know, he got the Covington thing wrong, but a lot of people did, so... But to them, neutrality is complicit.
It makes you complicit, right?
Silence is consent.
The way they see it is you are either with them or you are against them.
This is why you will see the fake news put his face on the front page.
And there's a really funny thing that happened on the website.
As you scrolled, it said, you know, YouTubers will eventually get pushed down a rabbit hole, and eventually all that's left are extremists.
And because it was randomized, the way it worked was you had all these different YouTubers.
And as you scrolled down, several disappeared.
Until finally it said, all that's left is extremists.
And some people got Philip DeFranco as the final, you know, person.
The New York Times then changed it because they were like, uh oh, we're basically calling people extremists.
But you know what, man?
I'll tell you what.
I've warned these people.
They don't get it.
They think that they can just, you know, if I mind my own business, I'll be okay.
No.
There's no minding your own business, man.
Listen to me.
There's a story going around right now from, I believe it's the Washington Post.
Where they wrote about a private Halloween party two years ago where a woman wore blackface because she was trying to make fun of Megyn Kelly.
No one knows who this woman is.
No one cares about these journalists' private parties or what they do in their off time.
But for some reason they wrote this, I believe it was like 3,000 words, this really massive story about how this incident resurfaced.
And everybody was confused.
Why would the Washington Post write about a random woman who has nothing to do with anything?
No, for real, it's like a random woman.
And it was like she showed up thinking it was funny to make fun of Megyn Kelly and everyone said, yeah, but you're still wearing blackface.
And so she went home crying and took it off.
That was the end of the story.
Why did they name her and ruin her life?
Let me tell you a story, friends.
When I was in Sweden several, I think now three, over three years ago, We had interviewed several people.
There's a big story about the local papers showing up to random people's homes and doxing them, showing their faces and asking them why they were posting anonymous comments online.
Apparently, they had surreptitiously gained access to an anonymous commenting platform used by a bunch of companies.
I believe it was Discus.
And once they found the private information of people who posted anonymously, they went to their homes and they filmed their faces and they challenged them.
Why do you say these things?
Why do you do this?
What's the purpose of doxing private individuals?
CNN's done the same thing.
Shock people into compliance.
There's no other reason because you will not make money off this.
Now, we can talk about why the Washington Post wrote this story about a random woman.
And I'll tell you what.
Simple solution, first and foremost.
Because I'm not big on conspiracies, you know.
The simple solution is they are desperate for traffic and they were like, what about that story?
You know, we could write about that, right?
And then get some kind of like angle out of it.
Shock content and social justice outrage gets clicks.
And so this was them scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard they pulled up some wood chips.
They got literally nothing.
But hey, let's write about some private women in our life.
Now some may look at this like the media is trying to beat you in a submission by telling you you're not safe.
I won't go that far into any conspiracies, right?
I think it's just this simple.
Whatever the reason is, it's what's happening.
CNN actually said, when they covered a story, that we reserve the right to publish this guy's name unless, you know, he never does this again, makes a meme.
And people bend the knee, because they don't want their name plastered everywhere, it'll destroy their lives.
People are scared of being cancelled or targeted by the mob.
So what happens when the Washington Post puts out a story like this?
Well, I'll tell you.
If they put out a story like this, don't be surprised if you find yourself in this situation.
And this is the point.
If you go to, like, Jack Posobiec's Wikipedia page, boy, is this guy evil!
I tell you what, Jack's not evil.
You can disagree with him.
You can criticize him for the things he's done in the past.
That's fine.
But he's just another guy.
Welcome to politics.
There are a lot of good people, bad people.
Everybody has their opinions.
But when you look at how the media tries to go after people, and then how that's weaponized by these left-wing activists, things get scary, man.
Let me tell you.
Once they start taking over the media, these people in the black masks or whatever are emboldened and protected.
We saw it in the past.
The Andy Ngo incident where he was beaten by Antifa was a shock to the system that was really, really bad for them.
And boy, did they panic.
They were like, No, no, he's a grifter!
He's far right!
I don't know, man.
You got a, you know, a gay child of immigrants beaten and bloodied with his, you know, sitting down with like his ear was bleeding.
It's gonna be really hard to make him out to be the villain in that because he's just walking around minding his own business, right?
That's what they're scared of.
However, if the media is under their control, which it's ever increasingly becoming, expect to see photos like this, but they will reframe it.
They will say, you know, white supremacist threatens racial justice activist.
Framing is everything.
And that's what you'll get.
Regular people won't speak up because they know what happens if they do.
Their private information will be published.
A story will come out talking about their Halloween party.
And they'll say, why?
Why did you ruin my life?
And they'll say, oops, who cares?
So it's more an issue of this mob is out of control, completely out of control.
They are romping around, as Matt Taibbi calls them, Twitter Robespierre's, going discipline to discipline, destroying people's lives.
But it's worse than that.
Many of these people work in major media companies.
So I assure you, once the media has completely fallen on these people, you will regret it.
But anyway.
Back to the executive order to make this point.
They say, Anarchists and left-wing extremists have sought to advance a fringe ideology that paints the USA as fundamentally unjust, and have sought to impose that ideology on Americans through violence and mob intimidation.
They have led riots in the streets, burned police vehicles, killed and assaulted government officers, as well as business owners defending their property, and even seized an area within one city where law and order gave way to anarchy, During the unrest, innocent citizens have also been harmed and killed.
It's true.
David Dorn, I believe his name was, got an alert that his buddy's pawn shop was being robbed and he went to go check it out and they killed the guy for some TVs, man.
This is completely correct.
These things are happening.
So I have to wonder, you know, Trump is... Here's what he says.
These criminal acts are frequently planned and supported by agitators who have traveled across state lines to promote their own violent agenda.
These radicals shamelessly attack the legitimacy of our institutions and the very rule of law itself.
Now this is important because he then goes on to mention all of the statues that have been targeted, including Ulysses S. Grant, for instance.
So it is clearly not about the Confederacy.
The traveling across state lines thing is very important because I believe it actually gives the federal government jurisdiction over these criminal acts.
Antifa does travel across state lines to push their ideology to train and to engage in protests against monuments or governments or places they're not even from.
And I'm not talking about the U.S.
because you have a First Amendment right across this country.
I'm talking about a group of people who I've personally met and interviewed that me and other journalists refer to as the tourists because they would literally go to like Turkey and China and other countries and engage in protests to support this far-left ideology.
And this is what I mean when I say that Antifa Though it is not a parent organization like there's no Antifa Inc.
There are individual cells which are active and organized, have property, have financing, and spread this ideology, typically some kind of communism.
Authoritarian leftism, whatever it is.
It's an amalgamation of weird ideas.
But they will travel to Germany.
They will travel to Turkey, to China, to various countries, engaging with, training, and supporting these people.
This is international.
And many people tried saying, you know, when Trump announced that Antifa should be labeled as terrorists or whatever, they say, you can't do that.
Antifa is a domestic organization, blah, blah, blah.
It's not really an organization, blah, blah, blah.
Antifa is a flag.
It has historical roots.
It has a prevailing ideology.
And there are people within Antifa's cells that fly the flag and travel the world.
Okay?
This is not secret information.
I am not privy to anything special.
This stuff all was happening during Occupy Wall Street.
You can watch the videos.
If you're more interested, just Google search it.
But that's what's been happening.
Now, we didn't call them Antifa or anarchists back in the day.
It was just anti-capitalists or the far left.
Antifa is more, you know, came about in the past several years as they actually started branding themselves, but typically we refer to it as the black bloc protesters or something.
I think we said anarchist a bit, but that's not accurate.
True anarchists don't believe in violence.
And I know a lot of people don't understand this and don't believe it, but no, it's true.
True anarchists, be it the left or the right, do not believe you can use violence because violence is how you express your authority over other people.
It's really frustrating to me when I see the left-libertarian spectrum of the political compass is so often ridiculed and misunderstood.
It's a shame.
There's a meme going around right now about like woke social justice stuff.
That is not left libertarian.
That is authoritarian left.
The adherence to a fringe ideology, the imposition of ideology, or progressive structures is authoritarian.
Left libertarian is live and let live.
Right libertarian, free market, live and let live.
Left libertarian, live and let live, let's try and cooperate.
That's it.
Your complaints have all been with the authoritarians.
Antifa is authoritarian.
This guy got in Jack's face and threatened him.
I think actually hit him.
They splashed him with water.
Attacking someone is forcing them to do what you want.
Anarchy means without authority.
These people express their authoritarianism by attacking other people.
Now I've had people say to me, I actually talked to an Antifa guy in Berkeley, and he says, you can't be authoritarian.
Authoritarian is like a system.
And I said, oh, then you can't be a socialist because socialism is a system.
And he was like, well, no, I'm like, no, you can.
If you believe that you have a right to bring weapons and threaten and instill fear in people so they get on their knees begging you for forgiveness, you are an authoritarian.
You believe in authoritarian systems.
You believe in oppressing other people to get what you want.
Libertarian means you walk up to them, shake their hand, and ask them questions, and talk to them, and try and find a way to live together.
Anyway, Trump mentions a bunch of their targets, and he notes, you know, Ulysses S. Grant, and things like that, abolitionists, things like that.
You know.
It says, individuals and organizations have the right to peacefully advocate for either the removal or the construction of any monument.
But no individual or group has the right to damage, deface, or remove any monument by use of force.
100% correct.
Got a problem with these?
You have to vote.
And they say to me, they keep tweeting at me, we've tried voting, we've tried voting, no one will agree.
Well, you're the fringe.
Ah.
No one agrees with you, so you resort to violence.
Congratulations.
You're a dictator.
You dictate.
You tell them, you know what?
I don't care what you think.
I am going to make you do what I want.
Yeah, welcome to being an authoritarian.
Borderline fascist, depending on how far progressive they go.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
Many state and local governments appear to have lost the ability to distinguish between
the lawful exercise of rights to free speech and assembly and unvarnished vandalism.
They have surrendered to mob rule, imperiling community safety, allowing for the wholesale
violation of our laws, and privileging the violent impulses of the mob over the rights
of law-abiding citizens.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
Bravo.
Policy.
policy It is the policy of the United States to prosecute to the fullest extent permitted under federal law, and as appropriate, any person or entity that destroys, damages, vandalizes, or desecrates a monument, memorial, or statue within the United States, or otherwise, vandalizes government property.
The desire of the Congress to protect federal property is clearly reflected in Section 1361 of Title 18 U.S.C., which authorizes penalty up to 10 years' imprisonment for the willful injury of federal property.
More recently, under the Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003, Section 1369, Title 18, U.S.C., the Congress punished with the same penalties the destruction of federal, and in some cases state-maintained monuments that honor military veterans.
Other criminal statutes, such as the Travel Act, Section 1952, Title 18, U.S.C., permit prosecutions of arson, damaging monuments, memorials, and statues on state grounds, in some cases.
Civil statutes, like the public system, okay, we get it.
I'll tell you what, all these people on Twitter, I want to see a perp walk, man.
under federal law as appropriate, any person or entity that participates in efforts to incite
violence or other illegal activity in connection with the riots and acts of vandalism described
in section one of this order. I'll tell you what, all these people on Twitter, I want to see a perp
walk, man. Listen, people try to claim over and over again that I'm right wing or conservative
and my policy positions are very left, but left libertarian.
So I personally take offense when the authoritarian left tries to call me right-wing because I believe in freedom and liberty.
I believe the Confederate statues should come down.
100%!
And as a left libertarian person, I believe I should have a conversation with my community to state my case as to why we should set up a museum, we should put many of these statues there, we should explain why the statues were made, what they represent, we should put a memorial or plaque in the place of that statue saying, on this date, this was removed.
You know my position.
I do not believe these Confederate statues should remain up, and I believe there are actually many other statues that could be taken down, if we have a real conversation about it, not an authoritarian mob trying to destroy everything.
That's not conservative.
But they try to do this because they need to make sure that they control what the left is, that the normies are beaten into submission.
And they're winning, man, whether you want to believe it or not.
They're winning.
We'll see now.
The tides may be turning because Trump is coming out full force with his executive order.
We'll see if this actually works out.
As I mentioned earlier, they said that they're going to actually give grants if you enforce the law, and you'll no longer be eligible for grants if you don't enforce the law.
So we're going to see a lot of states stepping up because they want that sweet green from the federal government.
But who knows?
Many of these governors hate Trump.
Maybe they'll just say, no, I don't care.
I have no idea.
But I can tell you this.
Trump is stepping up, and this may be the action needed, but I can just say I'm glad something is being done.
We need to stop the violence.
We'll see how things play out.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Right now, leftists are sharing a viral video showing the police tear-gassing people at a protest and pepper-spraying them, just chasing them out, pushing them, things like that.
And they're saying that, you know, the cops in Virginia are going nuts.
Conservatives are also sharing this video saying, good for the cops, you know, clearing these people out.
But this video is propaganda for the left.
What they do is they incite an extreme reaction from police, and then as soon as it happens, they film it, and then release it saying, we're peacefully protesting.
It's this clever tactic.
We also see it with these Karening videos.
There was one recently where...
A man followed some woman to her home and she was shaking and screaming as he filmed her.
And when people are like, what are you doing?
He just randomly adds in, you called me a slur.
This is what people do.
You'll see a video where it's like two people are arguing and then all of a sudden the person filming will say, why did you call me this?
And the other person will be like, what?
I didn't.
Yeah, you did.
And then people just take sides.
This is a tactic the left uses.
For the most part, it seems rather exclusive to the left.
Now, the reason I bring this up.
According to the Daily Mail, six protesters are arrested after shooting paintballs and hard objects at police in Richmond's Robert E. Lee statue, while Seattle demonstrators target another precinct.
So over in Seattle, looks like they want to start CHAZ 2.0.
Seems like that committee that published a statement saying, go vote for Joe Biden, we're disbanding, wasn't really the Chazians or the Chazistanians or whatever.
But over in Richmond, They're shooting at police with paintballs.
Now, these are... paintballs don't... I mean, they could theoretically kill someone.
They're paintballs.
You get what a paintball is.
But this is an offensive measure taken against police.
Naturally, the police are going to respond very, you know, I don't know, heavily, to say the least.
The far left then films this and makes it seem like the brutal response was targeting just peaceful protesters.
Now, of course, there are videos of peaceful protesters being arrested, but you gotta watch out for this stuff.
Let's read the story, but I also want to point out in this segment something absolutely hilarious, which all of you Probably could have expected.
Check this out.
Minneapolis council members get private security after threats.
That's how it will work.
How many times do people have to warn?
Does history have to warn these people?
Well, there's a reason.
They're tearing down statues.
They're now calling, I guess, to take down museums.
Not even kidding.
Because they need to make sure you don't understand history.
You see, all of these lefties think that once the revolution happens, they will be the glorious leaders of the political party, and they will be protected.
No.
That's not how it works.
The city council members in Minneapolis who voted to abolish your police now get their own private security.
That's right.
The masses will be left to fend for themselves, fighting in the streets, and they'll be safe.
That's how it always plays out.
Ah!
But you went around destroying history, and you forgot.
Here's a story from the Daily Mail.
They say violent protests and civil unrest continue to sweep the U.S., with police clashing with demonstrators in Virginia as riots broke out once again in Portland and Seattle.
Six people were arrested in Richmond on Friday night after protesters faced off with cops pelting them with paintballs and other hard objects.
I absolutely must point this out, too.
I love it.
Okay, I gotta stop you there.
Listen, man.
Out of 75 to 100 people had gathered and remained by 10pm, despite grounds closing at sunset.
I absolutely must point this out too.
I love it.
Protesters.
Okay, I gotta stop you there.
Listen man, I understand that, you know, there's no arbiter of definitions, you know.
At what point do we determine whether these groups are insurgents, terrorists, revolutionaries?
I think a lot of journalists are reticent to use this term.
But come on.
When you show up with paintballs and start shooting at police, you're not a protester, okay?
That's not what protesting is, right?
You're showing up to tear down a statue.
What is this?
You're attacking police.
You show up with weapons.
You attack police.
That's not protesting.
That's something else.
Call it what you want.
Rioting?
I don't know.
Let's read the news.
They go on to say, Richmond police declared an unlawful assembly minutes later
after protesters began to fire paintballs at officers, leaving four cops and one trooper injured.
One officer required hospital treatment after he was struck in the back of the helmet with a hard
Yeah, they've been trying to take this statue down for a minute.
Look at all the vandalism.
Here's a photo that says, just photos showing a bunch of cops standing around.
around. At least 50 demonstrators are facing a police line inside the barricades around
the statue.
Bunch of photos here of police, they say.
The RPD said they did not use tear gas on demonstrators, but one officer discharged
pepper spray at one point due to ongoing assaults from the crowds.
I'm sorry, man.
There's photos of tear gas.
Okay, okay.
You see, the problem with the phrase tear gas and the thing that cops often do is that tear gas isn't necessarily defined.
Like, the specific definition of tear gas is like chemical irritant.
Some people on the left will call pepper spray tear gas.
Why?
They want things to sound more extreme than they are.
Police, on the other hand, do the inverse.
They'll use something called CS-Smoke, which is a chemical irritant, but it's not a high-grade chemical propellant or something.
And they'll argue, no, no, we didn't use tear gas, just smoke.
Now, look, just call it a chemical irritant, whatever, I don't care.
But that's something you should understand about how these protests work.
Riots, I should say.
Five adults and one minor were arrested in the confrontation.
Their charges range from unlawful assembly, obstruction of justice, trespassing, and assaulting a law enforcement officer.
Shortly after the area was cleared out at 1130, protesters allegedly began shooting fireworks at police.
The department released body camera footage that showed the explosives being launched.
Listen, they can't come out and use lethal force, but they are escalating their tactics.
At what point do you say that armed revolutionaries, just because their weapons are crappy doesn't mean they're not armed, are attacking police officers?
Now, Donald Trump, as you may have seen from the early morning segment, has created a task force and has signed an executive order, so maybe they'll come after these people and shut them down.
For the time being, Seattle, Portland, Richmond, the protests are ongoing.
The riots, I should say, are ongoing.
This is insurrection, I guess.
Let's read more.
At least one protester's pyrotechnic spun out of control and struck an individual in the media, state police said in a statement.
Well, you know, these are conflict zones.
The memorial has become a site of recent clashes and unrest as protesters call for the removal of Confederate statues, obelisks, and other monuments across the country.
I'm sorry, Daily Mail, do your homework.
They're tearing down abolitionists, okay?
It's not about that.
The 12-ton, 21-foot statue of Lee is especially symbolic in Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy.
Friday's skirmish comes amid weeks of demonstrations across the U.S.
triggered by the death of George Floyd.
In the West Coast, protests have escalated into riots in Seattle and Portland, where police precincts have come under siege.
Seattle officials have come under mounting pressure to regain control of the city, where protesters established a police-free Capitol Hill autonomous zone.
Yes.
And now they're trying to do it again.
On Friday, a group of rioters were seen hurling rocks at Seattle's West Precinct, smashing one of the windows.
Officers dressed in riot gear quickly intervened and dispersed crowds.
No officers were injured.
Protesters carried on into the night in Portland after the Police North Precinct was set on fire earlier that morning.
And I'll tell you what, these people have ideological allies in the media.
You were warned, man.
I warned you guys.
I warned Republicans, but they just didn't want to do anything.
And now we're hearing what, uh, maybe you heard Facebook is gonna ban any ad that targets a specific group, you know, and immigration status being one of them.
You literally cannot make ads defending just Americans right now.
That's it!
Facebook deemed it so!
You were warned.
These people are out in the streets.
They're trying to burn down police departments.
They're tearing down statues of abolitionists.
And who's stopping them?
Well, Donald Trump has the task force, and Donald Trump has the executive order.
Alright.
According to Bill Barr, apparently there are 500 open investigations into these people.
Get it done!
Maybe just before the election they'll announce sweeping, you know, indictments and there'll be perp walks left and right and people will cheer for it.
I don't know.
All I can say right now is, look, the executive order is a good first step.
The task force is a good first step.
The condemnation was a good first step.
This is a good second step.
But Trump looks weak.
He does.
You disagree with me all you want, that's fine.
But these people just keep going.
And no one's stopping them.
Now I understand.
People will need to hold their own local politicians accountable for this because Trump is a federal politician.
He can't just go into the states and do whatever he wants.
It's up to the states to actually deal with this.
But I think the states are happy because they know people are dumb and they'll blame Trump even though he doesn't really have the power to do anything.
However, because many of these people cross state lines, that's where these far-left extremists made mistakes.
And this is where Bill Barr and Trump will be able to go after these people because crossing state lines gives the federal government jurisdiction.
Here's what they say.
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan met with demonstrators Friday after some lay in the street or sat on barricades to thwart the city's effort to dismantle an occupied protest zone that has drawn scorn from President Trump.
And a lawsuit from nearby businesses.
Crews arrived with heavy equipment, yeah, and they started to tear it down, ready to dismantle barriers set up by the protesters.
But by mid-morning, they appeared to have backed off rather than risk conflict.
A spokesperson said late Friday night, the mayor met with the black ministers and some of the organizers and suggested steps that she believes can be taken in the coming days, including the removal of the barriers to create more access.
Seattle police had no plans to return this weekend to a nearby precinct that was abandoned following clashes with demonstrators, Durkin's spokesperson said.
Well, let me tell you what's going on.
Okay?
You just listened to me talk for about 10 minutes about it.
But I want to tell you a little bit about- I want to recap that, and then tell you about your future.
What's happening?
Our police are under attack.
Police should be reformed, in my opinion, in some capacity.
There's something they're doing in Colorado I've mentioned.
I love it.
Police are liable for up to $25,000 in damages if they violate your civil rights.
I like it.
It's not perfect, maybe.
Maybe we'll need to think through the results.
But I like the idea.
You get pulled over illegally, you get stopped and frisked, whatever.
They shut your business down.
That's on the officer.
So how about these officers now taking into consideration if they actually want to make a move that will violate your civil rights.
Their defense may still come from the union, but some of that money's gotta come out of their pocket.
Maybe there will be insurance, I don't know.
I'm not saying it's perfect, we do need to think about it.
But I like the idea of individual responsibility.
You want to violate my rights?
This one's on you.
But the police are under attack.
They're literally trying to burn down police departments.
They're firing paintballs at cops.
And in Minneapolis, they recently voted 12-0 to abolish the police.
What does that mean?
Well, as many of us have stated, the future you can expect is that violent mobs show up to your house throwing bricks and you call 911 and they say, well, we're not equipped to respond to violent assault.
We have social workers who can come and respond to maybe talk them down.
Nothing.
Nothing happens.
But what do you think the politicians get?
You think the people who voted for this would ever vote for something if it would threaten them?
No.
Let me tell you a story.
My dad told me this once.
He was a firefighter for like 20-something years.
And we were talking about how firefighters are brave, risking their lives entering burning buildings to save others.
And my dad said, you think firefighters think the building will collapse before they go in?
No, of course not.
If a firefighter thinks the building's going to collapse, they're not going to go in.
Don't make yourself the second victim.
No, when firefighters go in, they think it's structurally sound and they can get in and get out with the proper equipment.
So they don't really expect there's a large risk of them losing their lives.
What do you think about these politicians?
When these politicians say, we're gonna disband the police, do you think they would run into a building as it was collapsing?
No.
They know they will be fine, and it's you who will be without security.
Because they get private security paid for by you.
Congratulations.
And now here's the best part.
There's no civilian oversight for the private security.
You have no recourse for private security.
There's a private company.
I love it.
But my private platform, they're censoring people.
Oh, you're gonna love it.
When a private security guard violates your rights, and they say, who are you gonna complain to?
We're on the payroll of the counselors, baby.
It's your money paying us, and you can do nothing about it.
Check this out.
This is always the excuse.
Minneapolis council members get private security after threats.
The city of Minneapolis is spending $4,500 a day for private security for three council members who have received threats following the George Floyd incident.
A city spokesperson said the private security details have cost the city $63,000 over the past three weeks.
Three council members who have the security detail, Andre Jenkins, Felipe Cunningham, and Alondra Cano, have been outspoken proponents of defunding the Minneapolis Police Department.
Bravo, bravo.
I love it, man.
I love it.
You know, it's funny.
Some people were tweeting at me saying that I'm the useful idiot for Donald Trump, not because I defend the police or anything, but because this, they say, is a right-wing psychological operation.
The far left is coming to shut down your police.
Ooh, the conspiracy, they say.
That Donald Trump is secretly funding the far left and encouraging these things so that he looks like the law and order candidate.
Oh, please, dude.
There's no conspiracy.
These people have been around for a long time.
They've been trying to do this for a long time.
It's happening.
You know, the conspiracy theory people, you gotta love it.
You gotta love it.
That Trump is somehow orchestrating the far left is just insane.
The reality is these people exist.
They don't like police.
They have some real grievances over police brutality.
For sure, I think reform is a good thing.
But they take it to an extreme position, and then use your money to pay their security.
No, I'm sorry.
The reality is the far left is going crazy, and Trump has done very little other than lip service to deal with it.
What has he done about social media?
Monitor?
He's put up a blog post where you can submit when you've been censored.
Congratulations!
Now they're coming for all of you.
And the Republicans had four years to do something about it.
Longer, technically.
And what did they do?
Nothing!
I mean, some hearings, Ted Cruz yelled at some big tech people.
Nothing.
Now they're saying, we're going to get rid of your police and there will be no one left to protect you.
And private security is not beholden to the public.
The public doesn't pay their bills.
Well, technically they do, but the authorization comes from the city council members.
So now you are going to see morality policing and to an extreme degree.
Think about it.
Security guards will absolutely break the law if the money is good enough.
Watch, you can look up these videos of these major international security firms.
They don't care about local laws.
100% they don't.
When they're hired and they get paid six figures and they're told, do whatever you have to in this way, we got your back.
Then they don't get in trouble.
I have seen security guards actually push back police and the cops can't do anything about it.
Because these guys are high paid, multi, you know, massive international corporations that know they control this.
They have the money to get this person out.
And that person knows they'll be taken care of by their private security.
So here's what happens.
No more cops, huh?
Well, the Minneapolis police will have their private security guards.
You'll be protesting.
The Minneapolis, you know, council member will walk out and say, clear him out.
And the security guards will clear you out.
And then who are you going to complain to?
Whose badge number?
Whose name?
Private company doesn't care.
Congratulations.
This is what the left is putting forward.
They have routinely defended the massive multinational corporations that are shutting down our rights.
This is not surprising to me in the least bit.
They say Council Member Felipe Cunningham declined to discuss the security measures.
I don't feel comfortable publicly disclosing the death threats against me or the level of security I currently have protecting me from those threats.
And there it is.
There's their justification for why they get to have armed guards and you don't.
Well, I'm getting death threats, so I can't discuss it with you.
That's it.
Play the victim every single time.
Well, you have to understand.
I mean, these words hurt people.
Speech is violence.
Well, and our violence is speech, right?
That's what they say.
Silence is consent.
But also, if you don't speak up, then you're contributing.
But if you do speak up, it's violence.
You see how the game is played?
The power will be theirs, not yours.
Unfortunately, Most of you watching already know this.
While they go out and fire paintballs and throw things and beat cops, then film propaganda videos to make themselves look like the victims, they start winning over public opinion.
Then, the council comes in, acting like they've just been convinced.
No, they wanted to do this the whole time.
We're disbanding the police, and they're going to create a morality police department.
And these new cops are going to be diversity and inclusion, social justice, anti-racism, all of these buzzwords that have been twisted and distorted by lunatics to force a dogma.
And that's what you'll get.
You will call the cops, and no one will show up.
Actually, that's literally what happens.
We can't do anything.
9-1-1 says to call her trapped in Virginia protests with baby in car.
Maybe you saw the story.
A woman in her car calling 9-1-1.
They're on my car, help!
Well, there's nothing we can do about it, sorry.
Because you don't deserve police.
We don't protect you.
We protect the corporation.
And I mean that figuratively.
The party.
You know, I think the big difference between dystopian right and dystopian left is, is the corporation the monopolistic power that, you know, oppresses you?
Or is it the party that oppresses you?
You can figure out left or right in that context.
It's the horseshoe theory.
It's the teardrop theory.
That at the furthest ends of the left and the right, authoritarianism, you get the same thing.
Call it whatever you want.
The corporation is the same thing, okay?
This idea of one big massive corporation controlling everything and you having no rights may as well just be the party.
There's no difference.
There's none.
It's an unelected group of people who run everything and they get all the goodies and you get nothing.
There you go.
So then when you call 911 because you're in trouble and you're scared, they're going to tell you, do you want us to send a social worker out?
But they're smashing my windows.
Maybe the social worker could talk to them.
What happens when they show up to the city council member's house?
A bunch of armed guards walk out with rifles and they say, back up.
And when they don't, bang, bang, bang.
And you know why the council members won't care?
Why no one can do anything about it?
Because private security will just rotate that guy out and say, too bad.
We're not accountable to the public.
There's no oversight board.
But we get our security.
You don't get yours.
So right now, they're demoralizing the police.
We're seeing them straight up fire paintballs, beat cops, demonize them, and it's working.
And with this demoralization, they then use the negative, you know, the propaganda that makes cops look bad.
And there are bad videos, to be honest.
Like, there are cops who have done wrong.
They do this so that public support rises for disbanding the police.
They then hire their own private police, and you are left wanting.
Scared and suppressed.
That's what they want.
Some of them.
I mean the radicals.
I'm not going to talk about these people specifically because I don't think there's a grand conspiracy necessarily, but the far left likes the idea.
Because I've talked to them about this.
Many of these activists like the idea.
That you know you are not safe, that no one can protect you, and your only recourse is to live on your knees begging them to please not hurt you.
Now they would argue that's how the police function, but the police have oversight boards, and we have a legal system, checks and balances.
Not perfect, bad things still happen.
Under their system, there's no cops.
The morality police will show up, they'll smash out your windows, they'll beat you, and there's no one you can call.
And then when you beg them for help, they'll say, well, what did you say?
Why are they mad at you?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
This was your fault.
Your only option then will be to give them whatever they want because no one will protect you.
And if you keep demonizing the police and allowing this to happen, the cops are going to walk away.
But there's arguments on the other side.
A lot of people seem to think that, you know, regular Americans will rise up.
Not in these blue areas.
The blue areas, they're rising up against the cops.
Will the conservatives go to blue areas?
No.
In which case, I think that the Democrats are on track to take over.
But we'll see how things play out, as I usually say, because it's always in development.
But there is some big breaking news.
Facebook is now basically banning one of Trump's biggest campaign issues, immigration.
Can't talk about it.
At least not in the way Trump does.
That segment will be coming up, well, I believe, that'll be coming up at 4 p.m.
at timcast.net.
I may, there may be a different story I end up picking up, but timcast.net at 4 p.m.
I will see you all there.
Thanks for hanging out.
In an effort to debunk a claim by Donald Trump, activists in media created this monstrosity of a trash news article.
It reads, Trump keeps claiming that the most dangerous cities in America are all run by Democrats.
They aren't.
Really, they're not?
Alright, well, let's take a look over here and wait, what's this chart you published?
Out of the top 20 with the most crime, there is one Republican city.
But wait!
But wait!
Obviously, the cities with the biggest populations are going to have more crime, right?
Well, there we go.
They've actually presented this per 10,000 residents, and oh, not a single Republican city.
So, I know this story is a couple days old.
But I wanted to talk about this because I posted on Facebook, you may have seen this meme going around, where it's like the most pathetic fact check that actually proves Trump right.
And when I posted on Facebook, oh man, did these lefties come out in full force, desperate to defend the Democrats and explain away how it is that the most violent crime happens in Democrat-controlled cities.
Well, the first thing they said to me was, excuse me, Tim, do you even understand what population size means?
You're so dumb.
Yes, that's why you have the per 10,000 residents chart below the mayoral party in cities with the most viral count, before the actual hard numbers.
Here's what I love about this argument, though.
Okay, let's play this game.
Let's play this game.
First of all, let me just say it.
Democratic cities are much worse off when it comes to violent crime than Republican-controlled cities.
And I'm gonna go through the arguments they gave me.
The first, population size.
Alright, let's play this game.
Jacksonville, Florida is in the top.
This is the top 20, right?
New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philly, Memphis.
Alright.
Okay.
I think it's fair to point out.
We'll jump over here.
This is Ballotopedia.
Party affiliation of the mayors of the 100 largest cities.
Let's see if your first point holds true.
That the number of crime is just relative to the population size.
Okay, so we're starting with the population size of cities, and we can see that San Diego is number eight in terms of largest cities.
And guess what?
It does not appear on the cities with the most violent crime.
Now, how could that be?
But Jacksonville does, okay?
And yes, Jacksonville is the 14th largest city in the country.
So no, right away, you're wrong.
Now, I still think it's fair to point out that population density plays a role in this, right?
New York City has extreme population density, meaning more people crammed into a really tight space.
That's why they have more crime than LA.
The population sizes are comparable, but everybody's living on top of each other and the whole city smells like sour milk, so yeah, people, there's more crime in New York City.
But it is true, okay?
Obviously, more people means more crime.
That simple.
It doesn't explain San Diego, which seems to be doing alright, but it is fair to say that the majority of the reason for this is going to be population size.
So how about we play this game?
Per 10,000 residents.
When you actually go down to the per 10,000 residents, you can see that they're all Democrats save one, Springfield, Missouri, which is independent.
So sure, Trump did say all of them.
Is that what they point out?
Here's what Trump said.
You hear about certain places like Chicago, and you hear about what's going on in Detroit and other cities, all Democrat-run.
Every one of them is Democrat-run.
20 out of 20.
The 20 worst, the 20 most dangerous, are Democrat-run.
Okay, fine.
Yes, Trump is wrong.
Because you can see that three of the top 20, based on just general crime, are not Democrats.
One's a Republican.
And per 10,000, one's independent.
But the gist of what Trump was saying was correct.
So it's a silly fact check, but let's get to the next argument.
The next argument people gave me.
I love it.
They said, Tim, it's because Republicans don't run major cities.
Duh!
The major cities are all run by Democrats.
Wrong!
Man, these people don't do any research, okay?
I didn't just post this like, derp, I saw a picture.
I actually went through the work of clipping it, screenshotting it, posting it, you know what I mean?
I actually looked around and read some articles.
To better understand what Trump was trying to talk about, I pulled up Ballotpedia to take a look at the 100 largest cities.
The argument that Republicans don't run large cities is wrong, and let me just throw it to San Diego.
Republican mayor of San Diego, the eighth largest city in the country, not listed in the top crime.
I wonder why that could be, right?
And now I bring you to the next debunk.
29 out of the 100 largest cities are run by Republicans.
Why are none of them adjusted for population in the most violent cities?
Explain that to me.
You can't!
The only thing you can really say is, I guess Democrats are bad at what they do.
They tried to play this game where they said, if Democrats tend to run, you know, more urban areas and Republicans run more rural areas, well, that explains everything.
No, it doesn't.
That's a correlation-causation fallacy, okay?
If just about, if 29% of the top 100 cities are run by Republicans, it would stand to reason that there should be an even distribution based on the amount of cities.
So listen, the point is, When you adjust for per 10,000 residents, we should see six or seven of these cities run by Republicans, because that would be parity based on percentage of cities run by Republicans.
But we don't.
The only conclusion you could make is not definitively, but that it seems there is a correlation between Democrat policy And crime in cities.
Correlation does not mean causation.
So we don't know exactly why it's happening, but to me, my opinion is, it would seem that if Democrats are running a city, things will be pretty bad.
I just want to hop over here and take a look at the Ballotpedia real quick, and just scroll down and show you this.
Look at this.
Let's take a look at the Republican cities.
San Diego, number 8, doesn't appear on the list.
That right there, okay?
Your whole premise is wrong.
Jacksonville does.
Alright.
But Fort Worth, Texas, is the 18th largest city.
Why doesn't that appear on their list?
And how about this?
El Paso, Texas, is number 20.
Why doesn't that appear on your list?
Because they're wrong.
Because there is some kind of correlation between Democrat and violent crime.
It's just the way it is.
You know, what blows my mind about this is I don't understand the obsession with defending the Democrats.
But to be fair, New York's actually really, really safe.
I don't think New York actually appears when you adjust for population density, population size.
New York actually falls off this lift.
The reality is New York's actually really, really safe, okay?
But the reason you're gonna see more violent crime is because you got 13 million people, which means if, you know, a percentage of them commit crimes, you'll have a larger number, but it's actually a lower percentage, so to be fair, you know.
I think the same is true for LA.
LA is actually relatively safe.
Now this is surprising to me.
You can see Houston is still on the list for $10,000.
And Houston is still in the top.
It's the fourth in terms of just overall size.
So that I do find rather interesting.
But let's jump back over here and look at some more of these Republican cities.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Republican.
Fresno.
How about this?
Mesa, Arizona.
Virginia Beach.
Colorado Springs.
Omaha.
Miami.
Come on, man.
Miami?
Now, Miami is technically small, but Miami is made up of, like, a lot of these cities.
Here's the thing.
A lot of these cities are made up of a bunch of small cities.
And when we say like Miami or LA or Phoenix, we're usually referring to the metropolitan area.
And that may actually skew things.
To be fair, maybe that's the real argument you could make.
But hey, I don't think it really matters.
If Miami doesn't have the highest crime per 10,000 residents, then it looks like the problem is Democrats.
So here's the point I was going to make.
Stop and frisk.
Everything's in New York City.
You are out protesting in the streets for these things right now.
These are Democrat areas.
Minneapolis.
The whole spark of protests was literally a Democratic city, the Democratic state, with Democratic politicians, the whole thing Democrat, Democrat, Democrat.
Why are you defending these politicians?
Why do you care?
I don't get it.
I'm not going to sit here and defend the Republicans.
I've been calling them stupid quite a bit.
Too dumb to stop the censorship that's going to cost them their re-election.
I think it's fair to point out I have been favorable to them in the sense of free speech and free expression and civil rights, but they've been rather ineffective, so no.
I'm not going to sit here and act like Republicans are perfect.
I'm just going to sit here and point out Democrats are bad at running cities.
So listen, Donald Trump was factually wrong, but the gist of what he was saying was correct.
Is it all of them?
No.
But Trump was being a little hyperbolic.
He's exaggerating.
It's all of them.
They're all bad.
Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Except for one.
Trump was, for the most part, correct.
So no, I would not want to live in one of these cities, and I've actually, I moved out of them, and I'm moving further and further away because it's more than just violent crime, man.
These cities are just, you know, these cities are just, they have problems, right?
Let's see how this guy wraps it up.
He says, To a large extent, of course, Trump isn't really trying to make a point beyond cities and Democrats are scary.
He's not going to win cities, but he might scare suburban voters.
Voters he desperately needs in November by tying Democrats and crime together.
In 2016, that's precisely what he tried to do.
Blah, blah, blah.
Can you give me a real argument, dude?
You know what?
You can't.
You can't.
That's it.
You can't.
You want to know why suburbanites might vote for Trump?
Because in these cities, people romped about smashing windows and destroying everything and nobody stopped them.
There you go.
So you're worried about losing the suburban vote?
It's not gonna be because Trump made a passive comment where he was technically wrong, but the gist of what he was saying was correct.
It's gonna be because your cities are run like trash, and you did nothing to stop the violence.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
We now have the official numbers, or close to, of the blue flu following the death of Rayshard Brooks and the officers being charged.
And according to CNN, 170 Atlanta officers called out sick after cops were charged in Rayshard Brooks' death.
It's actually surprising to me.
Now, on the surface, it may seem like a lot.
I don't know how many police are in Atlanta.
But I know in New York, they have tens of thousands.
Well, total staff.
I think a good portion are administrative.
I'd expected the number to be a lot larger.
But what we're seeing now is this sentiment over the outrage from police that they're being abandoned has real world effects.
Crime is skyrocketing in New York.
New York is revolting.
And this is the blue flu.
Now, I don't want to rehash this old older story.
I mean, it is an update, to be fair.
I'll read a little bit about this.
But what I really want to get to is New York's reaction.
Police are quitting.
Check this out.
NYPD precinct commander who quit in protest over attempts to vilify cops amid the nationwide protests is given a hero's send-off by his colleagues.
And get this.
The SBA has called on cops to defy Mayor Bill de Blasio.
De Blasio and the cops are fighting each other.
This is what the far left wants, man.
I gotta be honest.
They want the police demoralized.
They want the people and the cops to turn against each other.
I'll tell you what, man.
Said it before, I'll say it again.
Most cops are small-town cops, and they're absolutely fine.
100%.
I have had no problems in my town.
In fact, I've only had really, really positive interactions with the police where I live.
Good guys?
Calm?
Rational?
Responsive?
When you live in big cities, things are different.
It's disconnected.
Nobody knows.
Nobody cares.
You got bureaucracy.
Everybody's stacked on top of each other.
And it becomes a serious problem.
So sure, maybe in New York you got big problems, but most people don't want to abolish their police because they're happy with them.
Let's read a little bit about this blue flu, see what's going on.
CNN says, About 170 Atlanta police officers called out sick in the days after a pair of city cops were charged in the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks.
Garrett Rolfe, who was fired after he shot Rayshard Brooks twice in the back on June 12th, was charged five days later.
We then saw a bunch of protests.
The roll call sheets show the 170 officers were out sick from June 17th when Fulton County D.A.
Paul Howard announced the charges.
They were out sick from... till June 20th.
There you go.
So for about three days.
The killing of the 27-year-old man came amid nationwide protests calling for an end to racism, and yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
The public should know that's a significant amount of police officers who did not come to work during that time period.
You know what, man?
They came right back.
Pathetic.
You know what?
This is why you get what you deserve, man.
Now this NYPD cop, check this out, this dude quit.
Now this guy I got respect for.
Look, I said it.
I worked for a company.
They wanted me to lie.
I said no.
I tried severing my contract.
They wouldn't do it.
This dude is being vilified, so he stood up and said, I'm out.
He's not the only one.
Several cops have announced they would straight up quit.
Now, there's a problem here.
I don't want these cops to quit.
The cops that are quitting seem to be the good cops.
The ones that are standing up on principle, and that's a bummer.
So what are we left with?
The opportunist cops who don't care about honor or integrity?
That sounds like it's gonna make everything worse.
And maybe that's what the far left is hoping for.
They want cops and the public to have, like, fear and anger towards each other.
I'm not talking about Black Lives Matter, I'm talking about the fringe extremist activists who romp about, causing damage, throwing bricks through windows.
They want the cops to be demoralized so they can occupy and set up autonomous zones and do whatever else they want to do.
That's what's happening.
Check this out.
They say an NYPD precinct commander was given a hero send-off by colleagues on Friday after he retired in protest over sweeping police reforms across New York.
Deputy Inspector Richard Brea, who commanded the Bronx's 46th precinct, was treated to an NYPD helicopter flyby, police bagpipers, and a ride in a vintage cop car during his farewell ceremony Friday afternoon.
The veteran cop blasted politicians in a speech at the event, saying they want to blame and vilify officers amid nationwide protests demanding an end to police brutality and systemic racism.
We get it.
I'm just so sick of these articles constantly doing that.
We know!
We understand why there's protests.
I say, Brea announced that he was standing down from the force this week, saying he could no longer lead officers in the wake of reforms across New York City and the wider state, including a ban on chokeholds and making police disciplinary records public.
The reforms were made following the deaths of multiple black people during arrest or in police custody in recent years, and as shocking footage has been widely circulated on social media of NYPD cops violently attacking peaceful protesters over the last month.
There's the media game right there.
That's it.
Have there been police attacking peaceful protesters?
Yes.
Have there been videos of people trying to kill cops?
Yes.
And that's what's left out.
Look, man, I don't like the violation of anyone's civil rights.
I've had bad run-ins with cops.
I like the reform in Colorado where they say the cop could be liable up to 25k if he violates your civil rights.
I really love me civil rights, man!
That constitution's pretty amazing.
Golden.
But leaving this stuff out is what creates the warped perspective which is making things worse.
Saying that, you know, videos of NYPD cops attacking protesters last month.
Yeah, what about the video of the protesters bashing the cop over the head with some kind of object?
Are you gonna talk about that?
How about you just say, videos emerge of NYPD and protesters attacking each other.
There you go.
But they omit it.
I don't know why.
Maybe it's bias.
Maybe it's ignorance.
They say the cop was seen walking out of the Bronx precinct at around 3 p.m.
Friday when he was greeted by a huge crowd of cops from multiple precincts.
Brea beamed as he posed for pictures and hugged his colleagues before giving a rousing speech slamming the police reforms.
Their blood is in the concrete of every street corner.
But these politicians don't want to remember that, he said in his speech, which was met with cheers of support.
They want to blame and vilify everyone here?
I won't have that no, sir.
He added, we have a duty and responsibility to respect and guide other cops.
Braille blasted what he called weak political leadership that is threatening to bring the city back to the 70s and 80s and is dishonoring the memories of cops who lost their lives along the way.
He also paid tribute to his colleague, saying, Well, good for him, dude.
Good for him.
I think the NYPD's got some bad, bad apples, and they're not getting weeded out.
But, look, man, there are a lot of regular people who work as cops.
A lot of regular people.
They gotta deal with a lot of bad people, and I think, I'm sorry, New York City definitely needs some reforms.
They absolutely do.
Now I don't know what reforms they're proposing that's got this guy angry, but I can respect him for walking away in the face of something that he didn't believe aligned with his principles.
Respect, okay?
We may disagree, but I can respect you standing up.
Because I'll tell you what, if the real issue is that you want reforms and you want these reforms, him walking away makes it easier for you, right?
I can respect his honor and integrity, standing up for what he believes in, and there you go.
Everybody should be happy.
Of course.
Let's not leave out the war.
Check this out.
From the S.B.A.
N.Y.P.D.
they said, Defy.
Defy de Blasio.
Lead the N.Y.P.D.
Don't be afraid to be fired.
Doing what is right and not popular is never easy.
Do what is right and the men and women of the N.Y.P.D.
will walk through the fires of hell with you.
Show no fear.
De Blasio is weak.
Defend the city.
Honor your oath.
Yes.
Honor your oath.
Especially, I believe, the one to uphold the Constitution.
There you go.
But the issue now is that Bill de Blasio, he's coming for him.
He's coming straight up.
Look at this.
Very substantial cuts are coming to the NYPD amid calls to strip $1 billion from their $6 billion budget.
And this article they're responding to says, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea, our criminal justice system is imploding.
Yeah.
The freaky lefties want it to.
They want these people released from prison, they want to abolish prisons, they don't understand why we have prisons, and they really just want to sow chaos and discord.
Look, man.
I don't like the idea of prisons.
I believe we need prison reform.
I don't like the idea of private prisons.
I think we need to figure out this problem and work towards better methodology and technology in dealing with crime 100%.
But I will tell you, abolishing prisons is insane, abolishing the police is insane, and watching your city fall apart while shooting skyrocket and the cops are under attack in the media is also insane.
Alright man, look, I've had a lot of interactions with NYPD.
And they lean slightly negative.
Not because every interaction was bad, but because most of them are just boring nonsense interactions.
So if I have 10 interactions and it's like, uh, how do you do?
Can you tell me where to go?
Yes, here you go.
Thank you.
It's neutral.
But then you get a few where it's like, what are you doing?
Hey, what's going on here?
And that's slightly negative.
And that's the problem.
Most people have those encounters and they don't really care.
They don't really realize the little things the police do for them.
When you don't see.
How the police are protecting your neighborhood, you assume they're not.
Out of sight, out of mind.
So you can go to Times Square, you can go to Manhattan, and experience relatively little crime.
We know that per 10,000 residents, as per my previous segment, New York does not track in the top 20 cities.
Crime is actually relatively low in New York, though the numbers are large because of the larger population.
New York is actually very, very safe.
And it's one of the safest cities in the country.
Seriously.
Even though it does have a large number of crime, again.
Per capita, not so much.
And you can thank the NYPD for that.
But you don't see it.
You don't watch the cop save someone's life.
So you just ignore it.
But then you have these minor negative encounters, and everybody sees the negative and the worst of the worst, and they don't realize what the cops are actually doing.
I can't tell you how many times I've walked right up to a cop in New York City.
Hey, excuse me.
Can you tell me how to get to this?
I'm looking for that, you know, whatever station.
And they're like, yeah, yeah, no problem, man.
They help you out.
They're right there.
They can help you out.
Now, I know anybody can do that, but I'm just saying there are little things that most people don't realize.
These cops know stuff.
They can help you.
They can point you in the right direction.
They're there.
They're there.
And they are a deterring force for crime, especially... Look, man.
A lot of people try to play this game where they say that certain minority groups don't feel safe when cops are around.
Look, I don't believe it, man.
I've had cops kick my door in at gunpoint, and I'll tell you what.
When I see cops, I do feel slightly safer, depending on the area, to be honest.
When I see cops when I'm driving, I don't feel safer.
Nah, I get worried, right?
Everybody, you know, you go like, oh man, I'm gonna be pulled over.
When I go outside, I'm out of my own business, and you see cops, I don't think twice.
Sometimes I'm a little like, you know, I don't want to get jammed up.
But when you're in a big city, and you're playing a basketball game, and there's cops in the corner, I actually feel a little bit safer.
Now people, I know what they're immediately going to say, they'll say, that's Tim's white privilege.
You know what?
Spare me, dude.
Mixed race, Southside, high school dropout, all that game.
You're not going to play that stuff with me, dude.
I'm from the Southside.
I have had cops jam me up, mess with me, plant drugs in my car, all the bad stuff.
And I tell you this, police are still accountable to some extent, right?
If a cop breaks the law, yeah, sometimes they cover it up.
Sometimes they get away with it.
But what's the alternative?
A criminal or gangbanger?
Nobody's going to hold them accountable.
Except the police!
Alright, so take what you can get.
We'll figure out how to solve these problems.
Reform seems to be the right path.
Most people agree.
But we gotta stop pretending like every single cop is evil.
Look, you treat cops with respect and you need to recognize the world they live in.
They're constantly dealing with the dregs of society.
So I totally understand why they're gonna be on edge and be upset.
It's no excuse for violating someone's rights.
But I try to have some empathy for other human beings.
That is not an excuse for the cops that break the law and violate rights.
No, none at all.
But when I see a cop who gets mad as a short temper, I'll try to empathize and I'll try to do my best to be accommodating and not cause problems.
Guess what?
Sometimes you get detained.
Sometimes you get arrested.
You know what I do?
You put your hands behind your back.
You go through the motions because think ahead.
What's the alternative?
Fighting?
No, you'll just get charged with more and it'll be harder for you to figure out what went wrong.
It's tough.
The system is not perfect, but it's the best we have for now, and we can improve it.
But we need our cops.
We do.
But we also, we do, we need reforms, let's be honest.
Okay?
But we can make sure we do it in the right way, and we respect the officers that do go out and do a really I'm sorry man, I think it's a crummy job.
I think it's an honorable job, for the most part.
But man, dealing with the nasty, like the worst of the worst all day, especially in New York.
You got people like, aw dude, in L.A.
man?
I've seen some nasty stuff in L.A., people taking dumps on the street and stuff.
And you wanna deal with that?
You're a cop, someone calls you and says they're taking a dump on the street.
You gotta understand what these cops deal with, man.
So let's figure out the right way to do this and not jump the gun and go insane and create a war between our cops and our communities.
I got one more segment coming up in just a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
Guns flying off the shelves.
A 500% increase in Illinois.
This should be obvious to anybody, and it's something that we've talked about quite a bit.
As things get crazy, you see these blue states go nuts and rush out full speed to go and buy guns.
And it's not just about Illinois.
Check out this story from CNN.
Gun and ammunition sales soar as defund the police movement grows.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to read you this story, but let me tell you, Let me tell you my quick story.
As many of you know, in recent times, I've gone out and purchased several weapons.
Several guns.
Legally, went through all the hoops.
It's actually kind of difficult in New Jersey.
I wouldn't, you know, maybe difficult isn't the right word.
Tedious.
Confusing.
Let's say, let me just say, trying to figure out how to do it your first, uh, how to figure out how to legally buy a weapon in New Jersey, it is quite annoying.
But here's my advice, if you find yourself in one of these states, the best thing you can do, and I learned this, I should have done this first, is call a local gun shop.
Talk to them, and they'll, they'll tell you everything you need to do very, very quickly.
It's actually not that hard, even in New Jersey, which is kind of a restrictive state.
They had a bunch of crazy laws and rules, but it's just time consuming, which can be
a bit annoying.
But sure enough, when I went to the local shop, man, are they sold out.
Like their walls are bare.
Inside the case, there's like very little.
There's just like squirt guns, like as a joke.
Yeah, man.
And they're out of a ton of ammo.
I'll tell you what, people are going to buy these guns because Covid George Floyd fallout.
But more importantly, as CNN points out, surprise, surprise, as people call to defund the police, people rush out to buy weapons.
What do you think that means for the average person?
It means the average person is actually really happy they had cops.
Even in a place like New York City.
Check this out.
Where are these protests happening?
Big cities.
What are they protesting?
Big city police departments.
And why is it that many people in these cities think we can have more gun control?
Because they have police!
Isn't that funny how that works?
The people who live in these cities who are mad at the cops for being racist and being bigots and enforcing shop and frisk are also the same people who are like, I don't need to get a weapon because I can call the police.
You see the weird conundrum here?
So as the activist base starts calling for the cops to be disbanded or defunded, the other people are now like, but I need my police and they run to the store and they go and buy guns.
Welcome to the new world, man.
The Second Amendment's stronger than ever, I guess.
Here's the story.
So look, the story from the Chicago Tribune.
You get it.
500% increase in Illinois.
But let's check this story out from CNN.
Gun and ammunition sales soar as defund the police movement grows.
Coronavirus-fueled fears of social unrest already had Americans panic buying guns and bullets at record rates earlier this year.
That was before the police killing of George Floyd caused an international uproar, leading to protests that, at times, descended into riots, arson, and looting in cities across the United States.
Those circumstances and the rise of the Defund the Police movement, championed by Black Lives Matter activists, have led to higher sales for firearms and ammunition dealers.
Firearms dealers across the country have reported a recent spike in sales, citing the unrest following police brutality protests in support of George Floyd and calls to defund the police as catalysts, according to gun industry analyst Rob Southwick, founder of the market research firm Southwick Associates, Inc.
Anything that can cause people to feel unsafe in relation to possible physical crime to self, others, and property can drive firearm sales.
Background checks for firearm purchases reached an all-time high in March and maintained record highs for April and May according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms trade association that monitors gun sales-related background checks to track industry trends.
Semi-automatic handguns outpaced shotguns by a two-to-one margin As the weapons of choice among first-time gun buyers, according to gun merchants surveyed by NSSF.
The latest national background check stats won't be available until July, but since Floyd's death on Memorial Day, NSSF Director of Public Affairs, Mark Oliva, said gun sellers have reported a sales spike similar to the one caused by the coronavirus.
You are seeing a reaction to people's concerns about being able to provide safety for themselves and to the ones they love.
Let me give you some knowledge, friends.
Knowledge, all right?
Some say, and they could be wrong, that revolutions start when people lose basic necessities.
Now, I'm not sure off the top of my head what they are, but I know food, security, and I think shelter might be one of them.
I'm not entirely sure, but security and food are two of the three.
And they say that when these three things are not met, you get a revolution.
Why?
Because the anxiety starts building up in people, they start panicking, and then the stress becomes too much to bear, and they lash out.
Security.
When people feel like they're not safe, and they can't do anything to get safe, they're like rabbits, sitting in that field, shaking like little balls of tension, freaking out until they finally just snap.
Well, what happens when you lose your police?
When you have a pandemic?
The anxiety starts rising.
The normalcy we've come to expect is going away.
The police are going away.
What do we do?
We have to feel safe.
How do we do it?
That's how you do it.
These people are rushing out to gun stores because they want to feel safe.
And they don't like the idea of being vulnerable.
You know, many suburban houses have very, very weak front doors.
I mean it, man.
Look, I grew up on the south side of Chicago, as most of you know.
I'm not saying this to make a point about my upbringing, to make a point about the style of homes in this area.
You have a screen door, and you got a front door.
But I noticed something when I would go and hang out in the suburbs.
Most people's front door is just like a solid pane of glass, and that's it.
Meaning someone could walk right with a rock and then walk right inside.
But when you got a low crime area, neighbors you trust, and a police department that's just around the corner because you live in a small suburb, you feel safe.
You don't got much to worry about.
Well now they're calling for defunding the police.
The riots have left the police overwhelmed.
And what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to just sit there and say, I don't feel safe and there's nothing I can do?
No, you're going to do what you can to get that feeling back.
And that's what people want.
More than 6.5 million gun sale background checks were conducted from January 1st through April 30th, according to the latest NSSF research, which showed a 48% year-over-year rise from the same period in 2019.
Firearms retailers surveyed by NSSF in May estimated that 40% of their sales came from first-time gun buyers.
I definitely talked about this in the past for sure.
All of us said 40% of those first-time gun buyers were women.
Whoa!
That's huge!
A relatively high rate for that demographic group.
You know why that's so huge?
68% of millennial women are Democrats.
So I wonder what percentage of millennial women are going out and buying guns right now?
That's hilarious.
Although gun sales have been up across the country, a rise in first-time gun buyers in left-leaning states like California have helped fuel the national uptick in firearms and ammunition purchases, he noted.
People are coming off the fences and the sidelines and they're making decisions with their wallets about where they are in this debate about firearms ownership.
Right here, baby!
Look, this is a true story.
It's like five months ago, six months ago, I was like, I do not want any guns in my house.
I don't want to be responsible for this.
We got, we're in a suburb.
We got a good police department.
They're right around the corner.
I do not want to deal with dumb people doing dumb things.
I bought some gun safes.
I went out and bought some guns.
I bought some ammo.
You know what?
It was a luxury.
This was before the pandemic.
It was a luxury.
Everything was fine and normal.
You know what we were doing on the IRL podcast?
We were talking about birds of prey and Sonic the Hedgehog.
It was normal life.
Well, the apocalypse started, and everyone's freaking out, and crime is skyrocketing in major cities.
People went around smashing windows with rocks and starting fires.
The cops are being assailed in the press and vilified politically.
You see, last year I had someone try to break into my house.
And I was advised, sort of, by the cops to get a firearm to protect myself, because even though they can get here very, very quickly, and they did, I mean, they got here fast, man.
Like, less than a minute, I gotta be honest.
Good dudes.
Much respect to the cops out here.
They still told me, you know, if it were me, here's what I'd do, and I'm like, That's a good point.
It is.
And so, I can no longer sit back and pretend like I can just rely on a police department.
And that's really how I felt.
You know, a lot of these people who try to claim that I'm a conservative really don't get it.
I'm not.
I really did have this worldview where I was like, I'll just call the cops.
I can always just rely on the cops.
I don't need this.
I don't want this.
Why would I want this in my home?
And then everything changed when mass violence swept across the country and the police couldn't respond.
And you hear all these stories.
Now the one from Virginia where the woman's in her car and they're banging on her car and she's like, what do I do?
And they're like, I don't know.
We can't help you.
And that's when you start to realize, at least these 40% of new gun owners, 40% of women, are now realizing, you could be set upon by some ne'er-do-well.
And you cannot just sit there and cross your fingers that the machine will come to save you.
It won't.
Even though I had experienced negative things, I still thought, for the most part, I could rely on the police department.
And you'd think, even after experiencing someone trying to break in, that would have been a lesson for me.
Now, to be honest, after that happened, I did investigate trying to get a weapon.
And ultimately, it was just very confusing to get it in New Jersey.
So I was like, I can't deal with this.
Look, I work too much.
I work double shifts every day.
And so I'm like, I can't do this.
I focused on work.
I forgot about it.
And that was it.
But then, to be completely honest, when COVID happened and I saw everyone rushing out and the lines out the door, I was laughing.
I talked about it in videos.
I still didn't go out.
So finally I did what I had to do.
It took about two weeks, and finally I was able to go to the store, point out the things I wanted, got some advice.
Then you gotta wait a couple days for them to do the background checks and all that, and now I would say that I feel safe and secure, and I feel like my home is protected.
I'm very much opting for, you know, just home defense style stuff, and it's for these reasons.
Everyone else feels the same way.
Illinois, to me, is shocking because Illinois is a very, very anti-2A state.
To see all these people, 500% increase in applications.
I tell you what, man.
I'm not excited.
And this is what I was told by one of the guys who does fingerprinting.
He was like, a lot of untrained people out there carrying weapons, man.
It's not going to be fun.
Well, that's a good point.
It is.
So I can say this to everybody.
Actually, no, look.
Just tell your friends, okay?
If you've went out and bought a weapon for the first time, go to the range, go to a training course, get trained, okay?
Don't think you're gonna walk out there with dual Desert Eagles and be like some kind of, you know, defending your home.
Like, if you don't know what you're doing, it's gonna be dangerous.
You've gotta respect, you know, these firearms.
I'm not an expert.
Most of you watching, many of you, probably are more than I am.
I'll tell you this.
I learned this at a very young age, probably because I have a dad who's a Marine.
Uh, about how you respect a weapon.
And it is ALWAYS loaded.
And too many people play stupid games because they just don't understand.
When you're holding that, I think a lot of people don't realize what they're holding and what it means.
And I think it's funny, man.
I've seen stupid people, like, point weapons at people laughing, thinking it's hilarious.
It's not.
You never do this.
You have to understand the rules.
The Ten Commandments, the Four Principal Rules.
Okay, you gotta understand what you gotta do and don't take my word for it.
Because I'm a first-time gun owner.
But I'll tell you what I've been doing.
I've been reading up online.
I've been very, very careful.
I've got safes.
I've got things, you know, set up securely.
And I am right now looking at ranges and lessons and things like that to know what I have to do and to be, you know, trained to the best of my abilities to handle something that can seriously cause, you know, loss of life.
It's all about defense, okay?
We're here to protect ourselves in the face of our police officers being put under threat.
That's what it's all about.
Hopefully, that's what it is for most people, that you want to keep your loved ones safe and you want to be more reliant on yourself.
