Trump May Be SECRETLY Winning And Democrats Are Scared, Forecast Predicts 91% Chance For Trump
While nearly every metric has Trump on track to LOSE in November Democrats are getting worried that Trump is secretly winning and will actually win.A forecast model with a near perfect accuracy predicts Trump will win in November. The Norpoth model gives Trump a 91% chance of winning even with all the negative polls.Perhaps the culture war is not being considered, maybe a Libertarian rush or far left rout will stop Trump.But perhaps the polls are wrong and Trump's zealous base will turn the tide in the end for not just him but also the Republicans.#Democrats#Trump#Republicans
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
By nearly every single metric published by the mainstream media, Donald Trump is losing and losing bad.
They say that he's down double digits in the polls, that Joe Biden is winning his hidden basement campaign, raising more money than Donald Trump.
And these things are true.
And in fact, they even say that Donald Trump himself has admitted it.
He's losing.
Now, this is the pessimistic view of what's happening with the election, and it is not a complete view.
It may actually be that Donald Trump is once again secretly winning.
You see, the media has this problem with playing a game of telephone where they keep regurgitating the same talking points to each other and rewriting it, creating a self-fulfilling narrative where they're all convinced they must be correct because everyone else is saying the same thing.
Democrats, surprisingly, are smarter than this.
Many of them are starting to get worried because they think the polls are unreliable.
In fact, some outlets have actually written that the pollsters are unable to really get at Trump's true base.
Non-college educated white voters.
They can't track them.
So there's many reasons to believe that Donald Trump is losing.
But it may just be that all of the analysts and pundits are looking at this game of telephone and saying, here's why Donald Trump is losing.
And then someone else sees that article and says, wow, Trump is definitely going to lose if that's the case.
They're all seeing this negative news, convincing themselves Trump will lose.
So let's do this.
In the face of all the negative polls, I want to show you the inversion to this.
Democrats are getting increasingly worried that Trump is actually winning.
We have this forecast model.
Trump has a 91% chance to win.
Some new data to back this up.
And I'm going to show you that, dare I say, according to one forecast model which correctly predicted Trump's win in 2016, the professor behind this is doubling down, saying, No, Donald Trump's gonna win.
And of course, like I said, the Democrats recognize this.
Ignore the mainstream media.
Or I should put it this way.
Follow them, see what they say, and then get the other side of things from me.
Put it together and make your own determination.
But let me just remind you, no matter who you are, who you're voting for or against, if you think you've won this, You will be sorely mistaken.
Let's check out the first story.
This is actually from a few days, about a week ago.
Professor, Trump has a 91% chance to win.
Now, 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.
I got a P.O.
box if you want to send stuff, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
I'm competing with the big mainstream media players with massive marketing budgets that I do not have.
And of course, almost every mainstream outlet is saying Trump is losing.
Even Fox News is showing him doing poorly in the polls.
This is a counter to that message.
If you're someone who hates Trump, well then perhaps you should show people that the media is putting blinders on you.
And they're not showing you that people are actually saying Trump's going to win this.
And if you're a Trump supporter, perhaps this is what you'd like to hear.
But regardless, if you'd like to support my channel, help me grow my channel, then share it.
Otherwise, hit that subscribe button for more videos just like this every day at 4pm.
Hit the like button.
Let's read the news.
The Washington Times reports, Let us pause for a moment and consider the primary model, a political forecasting method which predicts the ultimate outcome of White House races on voting patterns from presidential primaries.
The model has a laudable track record, established in 1996 by Stony Brook University political science professor Helmut Norpoth.
The primary model correctly picked the victors in multiple presidential elections, including the last one.
Take that one to the bank, man.
Everybody said Trump was gonna lose.
They gave him like a 13% chance to win on election day, 2016, over the New York Times.
Guess who won?
Sure, a 13% chance to win still means you got, you know, slightly less than 1 in 10 chance to win.
But this guy said, nah, Trump is gonna win, and he was right.
On March 7th, 2016, it predicted then-candidate Donald Trump had an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton.
Will the president also vanquish Joe Biden?
The primary model gives Trump a 91% chance of winning in November.
This model has picked the winner in all but two elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced, including, of course, Trump's victory in 2016.
As for polls showing Trump trailing Joe Biden right now, remember 2016?
Polls and poll-based forecasts all handed Clinton a certain victory, but this is not the only failure, he continues.
As historical exercise, the model also forecast past bouts.
The terrain of presidential contests is littered with nominees who saw a poll lead in the spring turn to dust in the fall.
The list?
This list is long and discouraging for early frontrunners beginning with Thomas Dewey in 1948.
It spans such notables as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, George H.W.
Bush, John Kerry, to cite the most spectacular cases.
In case you missed it, Trump has established a task force for building and rebuilding monuments to American heroes.
Oh, so this is, I'm sorry, this is a different story now.
Let's move on because the professor has doubled down.
And while the model has only failed to predict two elections going back to 1912, I think it's important to point out he's giving Trump a better chance of winning than last time.
In 2016, he predicted an 87% chance, inverting what we saw from Clinton.
Today, 91% chance.
And I tell you this, he is doubling down.
Now, I don't necessarily need to read you again what he's saying, but this is the latest breaking news.
The professor is saying it's going to happen.
Here's what they say.
say. Norpoff's model examines the results of presidential primaries as the strongest indicator
as to the outcomes in the general election, not the polls that dominate the political discussion.
According to Norpoff, Biden is in a much weaker position than Trump because of his poor showing
in the first two primary races before making the stunning comeback in the South Carolina primary
and carrying the following races. Biden came in fourth place in Iowa with just 15.8 percent of
the vote and came in fifth place in New Hampshire with just eight point
Norpoth stressed that enthusiasm is key.
Everybody knows Trump has the enthusiasm and the gap is staggering.
I think it's a record-breaking gap, like 14 points.
The terrain of presidential contests is littered with nominees who saw a poll lead in the spring turn to dust in the fall.
That we've already heard.
So let's move on to the new hard data.
This from Just the News.
Trump topped Biden in 2020 primary vote turnout in key swing states like Florida and Ohio.
And there it is.
There's a lot to consider here.
I'm going to break this down for you, but let's go just off of the surface layer of the NorPoF forecast model.
Swing states show that Trump has way more turnout, but get this, he didn't even need it!
That's where things get really crazy.
If the model predicts the victor based on how many primary votes they get, it's been accurate except for two.
It stands to reason that people coming out to support their primary candidate, well, it supports who's gonna win, right?
Trump's the candidate.
He doesn't need the primary vote.
So, sure, that's true for most incumbent races.
Stands to reason the model is going to be accurate.
Let's read a little bit here and then I want to show you where there's some good news for Trump in new Pew research and some bad news.
And then we'll get to the Democrats kind of freaking out because I think they know what's coming.
Just the news says, citing the strong turnout for Trump in the primaries, his campaign sees an enthusiasm and base intensity gap favorable for the president.
As the Democratic Party has been locked in fierce internecine battle Dating back to at least the 2016 presidential race.
In Pennsylvania, Trump earned 934,524 votes this year compared to 914,909 for Biden, according to the Associated Press.
for votes this year compared to 914,909 for Biden, according to the Associated Press.
In Ohio, Biden earned 623,000 compared to 682,000 for Trump.
In the supposed blue wall states of Wisconsin, Biden with 581 compared to 616 for Trump.
And they mentioned that Bernie Sanders earned 293.
Now here's what's interesting.
Norputh knows that the Democrats have more voters than the Republicans.
When he looks back at all of these elections, he takes into consideration the primary vote for, you know, whichever party is not the incumbent party choosing their nominee.
We can look at the fact that if you combined all Democratic voters, that would beat the total amount of votes Trump has.
But it doesn't matter.
Because people also don't even have to come out to vote for Trump.
With enthusiasm this large, stands to reason, a lot of people are coming out for Trump, and the polls are likely wrong.
And again, the Democrats know it.
Take a look at this data from Pew real quick before we get into the Democratic operative panic attack.
They say Trump voters far more likely to see their vote as for their candidate.
Trump and Biden supporters differ substantially on whether they view their vote as more of an expression of support for their preferred candidate or against his opponent.
Among registered voters who say they would vote for Donald Trump, a large majority, 76%, say that their choice of Trump is more a vote for Trump, while just 24% say their choice is more a vote against Biden.
Biden supporters, by contrast, are far more likely than Trump supporters to see their vote as a vote against the opponent.
67% say their choice is a vote against Trump, while only about half as many say it is more of a vote for Biden.
In my opinion, I believe this shows Trump has a really good chance to win.
Now, I don't want to discount all of the negative press, because if you think you got in the bag, that's a mistake.
You need to be on the defensive on this one.
However, think about this.
Can the Democrats really win just by being angry?
There's an old joke.
It goes something like, I can run faster scared than you can mad.
And the idea is that like, you know, I'll give you a punch in the shoulder and then run.
Scared, you're gonna punch me back and you're just mad.
That's the joke.
Think about this.
If Trump supporters are truly concerned that they will lose, they will run faster than they've ever run.
With the destruction of statues, the escalation of violence across this country, the morality policing, dare I say there's going to be a lot of Americans who are probably running scared.
And I don't mean that as to be disrespectful.
I mean to say that there is a fire lit under them where they know the stakes are real.
Now, what about Biden voters?
I would imagine a decent amount of them are running scared, too, thinking Trump is, you know, the Antichrist or some ridiculous nonsense.
But most of them are just mad.
I talk about this quite a bit.
They are angry and they are running mad.
But guess what?
There are a lot of people who don't like Trump who aren't scared or mad.
Will they show up in the same numbers as the regular voters who are scared of the far left?
I think it stands to reason that even if you were at even numbers of, you know, 50% of one side was angry and 50% was scared, Trump voters would win because they will run faster.
They'll be more determined based on the fact that they're scared that they're going to lose something if Trump doesn't win.
And I think they will.
Now the Democrats, they seem to be firing everything they have in a desperate bid to win.
But I've got two stories now going back two weeks.
They know it.
Take a look at this first story from ABC News with the ever-hilarious headline, the note, bad polls for Trump worry, dot, dot, dot.
Democrats, ignore the polls, register to vote, Biden tweeted.
ABC says President Donald Trump doesn't like and says he doesn't believe the polls these days.
Neither do Democrats.
Spreadsheets worth of new polling confirm perceptions that Trump is more vulnerable than ever, in part due to his handling of COVID.
It leaves former Vice President Joe Biden positioned for potential landslide territory, sparking debates over whether Democrats should try to win reach states and focus down the ballot.
In fact, One story that just came out says Democrats are urging Biden to go campaign in Texas.
Hey, why not?
It's worth it.
You're doing so well, right?
Nah, the Democrats don't want to risk it.
The latest entry is a New York Times-Siena poll that has Biden up 14 points nationally
over Trump, with Biden winning among both men and women and swimming across virtually
all income and age groups.
The poll's state-level numbers out Thursday morning show Biden dominating across the six
most critical battlegrounds.
His lead is in the double digits in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and between six
and nine points in Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina.
Now, let's go back to that primary forecast model.
The enthusiasm isn't there.
So even though these polls are showing people think Biden should win, or they claim they'll vote for Biden, no enthusiasm.
So while the polls maybe make Trump look bad or in a weakened position, I think the Democrats realize those hard primary numbers Those are the real numbers.
House Democrat warns about inaccurate polls.
Trump voters fundamentally undercounted.
And they're coming for you.
See, I think Trump is counting on this.
Of course, Trump says that they're betting on the silent majority rising up.
I don't think it's necessarily even the silent majority.
I think it might be almost like a guerrilla tactic.
Inadvertent, of course.
There are a lot of Trump supporters who are scared of cancel culture.
They won't answer polls accurately.
I guarantee you this.
Now, I'm going to double down on my position here based on some recent conversations I've had with individuals across this country.
You see, a lot of people like to claim when the pollsters call saying, who are you going to vote for?
They go, I'll vote for Biden.
But I'm thinking, look, you're in the privacy of your own home, they call you.
Why would you do that?
You're not worried about getting canceled, right?
Oh, they are.
Man, I've had some conversations with people who have, they whisper, even on the phone, like, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm going to vote this way.
You know, nobody can know.
They're terrified that if anyone gets any whiff that they would support the Republicans, they will lose.
Everything.
Literally.
Their companies, their jobs, their families would be targeted.
And so, man, even in private, this is the crazy thing.
There are some people who won't even admit to their own families that they really want to vote this way because they're scared.
In one viral post, someone mentioned that they've had family members refuse to talk to them when they brought this up.
So yeah, many people are scared to say it.
That's one reason to suggest the Trump vote is undercounted.
But they go on, let's see what this House Democrat has to say.
Democratic Rep.
Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan, a first-term member who represents a district Trump won by roughly 7 points in 2016, said that polls showing the president trailing Joe Biden are inaccurate.
I don't believe it, Slotkin told Politico when asked about recent polls showing Biden performing well in key swing states.
The former CIA analyst said there are too many variables in play for a poll to accurately reflect what will happen.
Listen, if anyone tells me they can accurately predict what major events are coming in the remainder of 2020, I'll give them $1,000.
If anyone tells you they can, are you joking?
I can.
I predicted that they were going to show up to the house of the St.
Louis couple It doesn't mean I was right.
I can tell you I can do it.
Do I get a thousand dollars?
I think you need to rephrase that claim.
I mean, here's a quote.
I mean, this has been the year of black swans.
I don't for one minute think this presidential race is safe in anyone's column.
I've been literally begging people to ignore the polls.
They are a snapshot in time.
And if 2020 has taught us anything, it's that we have no idea what's coming next.
Perhaps the negative news and polls are one of Trump's greatest assets.
Certainly, you may be saying that's impossible, Tim.
You're just carrying water for Trump.
He's losing.
Let me tell you, man, the zealotry of the Trump core base.
You know what they say on Twitter when they attack Trump supporters?
They say they're a cult.
Take that to its logical conclusion.
Would a cult want you to know what their true motivations are?
No, they don't.
That's what cults do.
They lie.
Would a cult vote for anyone but Trump under any circumstances?
No, if the cult was about Trump.
So I warn you now, no matter what you think you're hearing, no matter what happens, Trump's base ain't going anywhere.
And now, all Trump really needs to do is convince a very tiny fraction of the rest of the population that he's the better choice.
And I got news!
He's actually pulling it off.
I'm not kidding.
Take a look at this morning consult poll.
Voters are less likely to view Biden as moderate than they were earlier this year.
Now, mind you, Trump is viewed on a scale of 1 to apparently 7, which is 1 being very liberal and 7 being very conservative.
Trump is rated a 5.7.
being very conservative.
Trump is rated a 5.7.
He has inched over .1 from 5.6 to 5.7.
Now, the ideal candidate is considered moderate at around 4.2.
But Joe Biden has jumped 4.4, a much bigger jump than Trump.
Currently, a bigger jump than Trump.
Currently, Joe Biden is considered closer to the ideal candidate than Trump is, but Joe Biden is moving far left faster than Trump is moving to the right.
If Trump already has a diehard base that will not abandon him, And Trump can successfully convince more moderates that Joe Biden is moving too far left, and Trump will win.
Now, they've claimed that Trump has been trying to convince the public that Joe Biden is far left, and they ain't buying it, they say.
Nah, the polls show that America just doesn't believe Trump.
Except for this one.
Now, keep in mind, okay, the point, what I'm doing here is I'm showing you the opposing side of the mainstream narrative.
By most metrics, Trump is losing.
That's what they say.
I, however, think you can't ignore this data.
It is a key asset that the Democrats are lulled into a false sense of security.
For Trump, if the Democrats think they got it in the bag and Biden can't lose and everything's in their favor, come election day, they're going to sit down, turn on the TV, eat popcorn and say, eh, we won, right?
Apparently that's what happened in 2016.
Even if these Democratic operatives learned their lesson from 2016, it doesn't guarantee the regular voter is going to care.
Now, let's take a look at this.
I would consider myself to probably be, personally, around a 4 or so as a moderate, slightly leaning left of moderate.
What we can see here is that between 1 and 7, the ideal candidate is slightly more conservative than liberal.
So right now, you have Trump... Actually, I'm sorry, is this... If 4.2 is the appropriate number, then Trump is barely, barely trailing Joe Biden on this chart, with Joe Biden now forming the unity platform with Bernie Sanders.
Stands to reason, in the next iteration of this poll, Joe Biden may actually move further left.
Trump may be succeeding.
Now there's apparently some big announcement Trump made about DACA, a path to citizenship.
Now they say that there's not going to be amnesty in this.
I don't know exactly what the executive order will entail.
But this announcement certainly made Trump look a little less conservative.
Trump is trying to move closer to that middle ground to win over these voters.
It may actually work.
Here's why I think it's important to ignore everything.
And I mean it.
Ignore everything.
When you go out and vote, you vote for what you think is right.
If you don't like Trump, if you like Trump, I'm not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't vote for.
You go out and you do what you think is right, but do not trust the media.
You know why?
Well, Slotkin said it right.
She doesn't trust it.
And she's right not to.
From Politico.
On June 15th, we're thinking landslide.
Beyond DC, GOP officials see Trump on a glide path to re-election.
Conventional indicators suggest the president's bid for a second term is in jeopardy, but state and local GOP officials see a different election unfolding.
And then, just about a couple weeks later, from Politico, Trump admits it.
He's losing.
Amid a mountain of bad polling and stark warnings from allies, the president has acknowledged his re-election woes to allies.
Which is it?
Now I think it's fair to say maybe in two weeks he went from being optimist to being pessimistic.
Many of us did.
I know I did.
I was saying a couple months ago Trump's gonna landslide and nothing will stop him and then the riots and COVID and the economy and I was like oh now it's looking kind of bad.
But here's why you cannot trust the media on this one.
Politico said on June 27th Trump said Trump admits he's losing.
But a day later, on June 28th, The Hill reports Trump predicts big win in November, pointing to silent majority.
Well, there you go.
So which is it?
The reason why I bring up this story in the end is to point out.
We had a little forecast sandwich for you in this segment.
In the beginning, I point out, as most of us know, Trump ain't doing too well in the polls.
He's down.
And Biden actually raised more money than Trump.
Maybe it's all an illusion because Trump's base is more likely to be voting for, you know, they're voting for a combination of reasons.
One, they love the guy, but many people who might vote for him are going to vote scared.
And again, I'm not saying that to be disrespectful.
I'm saying there's a big difference between you screaming about how you hate Trump and being scared that those people who are screaming are going to come burn down your business.
I'll tell you this, man.
There are a lot of things that I'm mad about.
They do not get me to vote.
I was mad about a lot having to do with Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The warmongering.
The disregard for the advice of our General saying she was going to start a war with Russia.
I did not go out and vote!
I'll tell you what, I am fully planning on voting in this election, and it's because now I am scared.
Not of any individual necessarily, but of this dramatic and rapid endorsement of racial segregation and identitarianism from the left.
I'm seeing people I've known for years calling for, like, there's white progressives calling for white racial identity groups.
That worries me.
The Libertarian Party, their candidate, Joe Jorgensen, just tweeted out that we must be anti-racist, not realizing what anti-racist is as an ideology.
It's a direct call to action.
I don't care.
Like, a lot of people think there's, like, secret meanings.
Look, what it means is, be active.
I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty details of anti-racism.
But there's a big difference between saying, don't tread on me, and we must tread.
And that's literally what the Libertarian Party said.
So yes, all of these things instill in me a fear for what comes next.
And there's natural reasons for me to be afraid, because you know I've talked about it quite a bit, especially on the podcast.
I come from a family that only exists equally under the law in this country.
Because if you don't know, it's kind of a meme that I bring it up, that I'm a second-generation mixed-race individual.
Of course, it's a joke, it's a meme, because I bring it up so often, but I'll tell you why I do, and I hope you understand why I'm motivated to go out and vote.
I talked about this on the TimCast IRL podcast the other day.
If I was actually born in Korea, where my grandparents are from, I'm sorry, one of my grandparents and their ancestors, I would not be a full citizen.
In fact, in most countries, I wouldn't be a full citizen, except in America I am.
In California, they're moving to repeal Prop 2. I'm sorry, they're moving to yes, it's I believe
it's called the affirmative action amendment repeal Prop 209, which literally strikes
anti discrimination law from their constitution in California. That scares me.
You don't have to agree with me.
You don't have to even understand why it might, but I'm telling you this, that when it comes to what the woke far-left is doing, at a certain point people wake up seeing these white progressive leftists calling for the formation of white identitarian groups, and that is going to get people scared.
I don't know if it's enough to defeat Trump.
Maybe it will be.
But when we look at all of the data, I don't think it accurately reflects what's really going to happen.
So, Slotkin is right.
Do not take this for granted, Democrats.
But maybe they will.
And that will be Trump's greatest asset.
So let me just leave you with one final thought.
If you are a Trump supporter, you should be happy when people say Trump is not favored to win in November.
And you should be happy that Democrats are laughing, thinking they will.
When it comes time to vote, those overconfident and angry Democrats will be sitting in their apartments in Brooklyn, laughing with their buddies, drinking their kombucha or whatever, laughing about how Trump couldn't possibly win.
And Trump supporters will be worried that they are the last line of defense to guarantee Trump's victory.
They may think, if Trump is really down this much, it may come down to a single vote and that vote will be me.
Whereas the other side will be overconfident.
That's why Slotkin is warning them and that's why Democrats are getting worried.
The polls are putting them in a position where they will be overconfident.
Now, of course, I'm sure some Trump supporters are going to be commenting saying, Tim, stop!
Stop telling them!
Stop telling them!
It'll help them!
I'm not here to tell you what you should or shouldn't do or who you should vote for.
I'm here to tell you what I think is happening.
And that's what I think is happening.
I think discourse in this country has been lit aflame.
That balance has shifted.
The left has gone off the rails and free speech is in serious danger.
And at this point we need hard Section 230 reform.
And the only way that happens is if Republicans sweep in every capacity.
I am not a fan of the Republican manifesto and platform for the most part.
The Democrats, however, are adopting a fringe, non-theistic religion, which really does scare me.
That'll be my motivation to vote.
I have not overtly committed to who I will be voting for, but I'll tell you, man, every day it's looking closer and closer like it's going to be Republicans and Trump for a few reasons.
Joe Biden is now forming the Unity Party with Bernie Sanders, and they're adopting a lot of this intersectionalism.
The Libertarian Party, which was considered by many to be a refuge for a lot of people like me, Just tweet it out in support of intersectionalism.
I will never go near that.
Sorry.
Which leaves me with only one choice.
And all it may really do, in the end, is buy time.
But I tell you this, a lot will change from now until November, so I have not committed to any individual, I'm not gonna come out, and I will never be happy about who I have to vote for.
Keep that in mind.
When it comes time to vote, I'll probably begrudgingly put that stamp, press that button, pull that lever, and then complain about it a lot.
But I'll leave it there.
I think there's good reason to suggest that Trump is actually winning, and when you watch the mainstream media constantly being negative, you might lose hope.
But trust me when I point out the Democrats are worried, too.
No one knows what'll happen.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastnews, and I will see you all then.
In what I can only imagine is step one.
The police have raided the home of the McCloskeys.
These are the people who were defending their home in St.
Louis when a bunch of Black Lives Matter protesters entered a private community seeking to protest the mayor.
The McCloskeys said that they were threatened.
I believe them.
They said that they were told they were going to, you know, shoot them, kill them, burn their house down, burn their dog.
And the property the McCloskeys live on is like an old, renovated, Gilded Age mansion or something.
So when the protesters showed up and entered the property through a gate, which had a big old sign saying, you know, private property, no trespassing, they brandished their weapons.
Now, some people have argued, you know, the left obviously is saying, oh, no, they're attacking peaceful protesters.
It's a crime.
They're going to be arrested.
Well, I believe they will likely face some kind of criminal prosecution.
The last story we heard, I believe, is that the prosecutors are looking at some kind of fourth-degree assault charge, and they're exploring whether or not to actually charge this couple.
Amid this search warrant, the police seized the AR-15 owned by Mark McCloskey, the man who's holding the rifle.
Now, I think it's fair to say they were holding their weapons wrong, and there's some criticism to go around.
The woman, I believe her name is Patricia, was actually pointing the gun at people.
But there's another side of this.
You see, there have been ongoing riots for the past month plus.
I think we're now on like week seven of the Portland riots.
There have been ongoing occupational protests from D.C.
to New York, Seattle, Portland.
Obviously, Seattle and Portland kind of fizzled out.
We all know about the Chazz.
But there has been a lot of death, okay?
A lot of people have died, have lost their lives.
So for me personally, while I think you can criticize the McCloskeys, I think we are going to see more action taken against them.
And listen, what have we seen?
You dance on a federal highway in Seattle, no charges.
Then when some guy makes some, what appears to be a stupid mistake, drives his vehicle down the highway, and hits one of these people, he goes to prison.
Well, this story in Seattle, which I'm sure most of you are aware of, the guy's being held, the driver, his name is DeWitt Colletti.
He's being held on a $1.2 million bond for what appears to be an accident, and he's received vehicular homicide charges.
That's what he's being charged with.
It's a manslaughter charge.
Clearly, it wasn't intentional.
When are the police, the law enforcement, the authorities going to start arresting these people?
So let me tell you.
After they brandished their weapon, I predicted a couple of things.
First of all, the protesters would come back.
And they did.
And this time, when they did come back, the McCloskeys had private security.
Well, there you go.
And their windows were boarded up.
Now it's gone one step further.
They no longer have their weapons.
So now, the police, the press, and to an extent me, I guess, you can criticize me, have broadcasted, now to the world, that the McCloskeys are unarmed.
Though they will still probably have private security, I wouldn't be surprised if more of these far leftists try to take advantage of this and then head to their house.
There's more here, though.
You see, I live in the Philadelphia area, and when it comes to these ongoing riots, which have not stopped, one thing the media loves to do is claim that Antifa does not exist.
It's not a real thing.
And I thought, to explain, to break down why this family probably thinks they needed weapons, and came out with them, I want to show you a couple stories.
The same newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, claims that, you know, it's all misunderstood, and we'll get a comment from Antifa to really explain it, and you know, all of these groups are hearing this noise, it's a boogeyman, Antifa's not a thing, and then they literally have someone claiming to be an Antifa leader, And I can pull up an article where they literally wrote about Antifa threatening to burn down a theater for hosting an event with what Antifa describes as controversial speakers.
Of course, Antifa is lying.
These are just authoritarian wingnuts who are violent.
But it's funny to me, because we can have this story about the McCloskeys.
We can have all the stories of death over the past month.
We now have another story, posted by Andy Ngo, of some far-leftist Antifa guy trying to breach a federal courthouse, and when the federal officer, agents or whatever, stop him, he bashes the Fed in the head and gets arrested.
This hasn't stopped.
It's ongoing.
Yet you have all of these media outlets refusing to do any research to understand why it is a family may want to have a weapon on them or may go onto their lawn when hundreds of people come on their property.
Let's read the story from the Daily Mail and then I'll show you the rest.
Police raid house of gun-toting St.
Louis lawyer and confiscate the AR-15 brandished during a confrontation with Black Lives Matter protesters.
Police executed a search warrant and seized the rifle.
On Friday, authorities searched the home of lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who made headlines on June 28th when a video went viral showing them waving firearms at protesters who had massed outside their home.
The search turned up the AR-15 that had been held by Mark McCloskey, while a handgun brandished by Patricia McCloskey was already in possession of her attorney.
You can see they have the photos here.
We complied with the search warrant.
They took my AR, Mark McCloskey confirmed, to the Todd Starnes radio show.
I'm absolutely surprised by this.
No charges have been filed against the couple.
The pair's attorney, Joel Schwartz, intends to meet with St.
Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner's office next week, the Washington Examiner reports.
The McCloskeys have said that they were in fear of the protesters and were protecting their home when they were seen pointing firearms at the crowd.
I believe it was only the woman.
The man was holding a rifle rather improperly, though.
It was shocking.
The gate came in.
Seemingly everybody in the world came forward.
I think the estimate is 300 to 500 people, Mark McCloskey told Fox News on Tuesday.
They came right toward us.
We were preparing to have dinner on the porch, and we were literally 70 feet from the gate.
By the time we got our guns, by the time I got my gun, the crowd was probably 30 or 40 feet from us.
We thought it was the end.
People were screaming everything.
Asked what the protesters were shouting at them, Patricia McCloskey added, that they were going to kill us, they were going to come in there, that they were going to burn the house down, that they were going to be living in our house after I was dead, she said.
Listen, I believe it.
I have heard some of the most insane and vile things.
This is mob mentality.
When they're in a crowd, they don't think they can be held accountable, so they just start screaming.
And I've heard them yell similar things to this.
I mean, on their own, they yell things like this at me.
If I go to one of these protests, you'll hear them start yelling, and they escalate.
The more people yell, the crazier things get.
Considering everything we've seen from the far left, I believe it.
She said they pointed to different rooms in the house and said that's going to be my bedroom before threatening to kill their dog when it barked.
Mark McCloskey said he started trying to arrange private security for the house when the couple received a tip saying the protesters were planning to come back to get us and burn the house.
We had been told that the city police had been ordered to stand down.
We had been told there was going to be no official help.
Our neighborhood association put out a flyer saying if people broke in, they were just going to let them.
So we started trying to hire private security, and entity after entity said they did not want to get involved.
Ooh, isn't that getting spicy?
Here you go.
Not only Will you have no police?
They will take your guns away from you when you defend yourself.
And the private security will say, we do not want to be involved in this kind of controversy.
And there you go.
What will you be left with?
A mob marching around, destroying property, threatening you, and the only thing you can do is get on your knees and beg.
Beg them.
You can't defend yourself, you'll be arrested.
They'll take your guns away.
And the private security can't help you.
Welcome to 2020.
I can only imagine that things will get worse as the violence escalates, and it is in many parts of the country.
Now, listen.
It comes and goes in waves.
It's very likely that these big waves from June are starting to die down, and they are, but the next time they spark up, people are going to be demanding that escalation.
And I think we're going to start to see some pretty crazy stuff on Election Day, I tell you what, man.
I don't know.
Election day is probably the wrong way to put it.
It's probably election month and we will see what happens.
But look, Roger Stone got his sentence commuted.
Trump, I think, waited till the 11th hour and he made his move.
But I think it's possible we could see some DOJ moves against some political factions on the left before election day.
It's hard to know for sure exactly what will happen.
But I do believe that this level of violence will continue to escalate because, well, it is.
They said that the situation became so bad, the couple started hiding their valuables and were told by one security firm of former Special Forces members to walk away and abandon the house.
Instead, the couple stayed put and said the second protest was loud but not violent.
And what happens if at three in the morning someone shows up?
One person, that's all it takes.
Unfortunately, I would say that security firm is correct.
In terms of safety, if you came to me and said, based on my experience, what would be the best thing to do in terms of safety, I would say leave now.
In terms of principle and standing up for yourself and defending what's yours, then I can understand why you would stay and take the risk.
But if we were purely operating on a how can we remain safe, those people, the McCloskeys, should have left a long time ago.
That night, after the protest, they should have packed up and gotten out of there.
They can hire private security who can occupy the house.
But on principle, I understand why they would stay, because I've got to admit, I wouldn't leave either.
What I'm saying is, the security firm is 100% correct.
But let's move on from here.
So, I want to point out, I have made these predictions.
The first thing I said was that I believe they're going to be arrested.
Well, actually, the first thing I said was, you know, that they're gonna... Well, no, yeah, yeah, they're gonna be arrested.
The protesters were gonna come back, and they likely will be charged or arrested for some reason.
When they came out and claimed they supported Black Lives Matter, a lot of people got... Well, a lot of people were upset that they would bend the knee in this way.
Well, they're doing everything in their power to try and survive.
I guess, since then, they've come out and been more critical.
But I tweeted, the goal of these two people was to make sure they had absolutely no friends when the state brings criminal charges against them.
What I mean by that...
As you can see from the Daily Wire, a couple who pulled guns on protesters support Black Lives Matter, a lawyer says.
It seemed like they were trying to pander to the crowd in hopes they would go away, like that would work.
And so now they've soured, at least to many conservatives and, you know, people who have normally supported them, they've soured that relationship.
I think for the most part, you're still going to find a lot of people supporting them, especially because they've kind of walked away from those statements, though they still kind of maintain that.
Do you want anyone to support you?
The Black Lives Matter movement will never support you.
They don't care about you.
You're rich people in a big fancy mansion and you have guns and you're waving them around.
They're going to use you as a symbol to make themselves look like the victim so they can gain more power.
Coming out and supporting them just makes sure that no one else likes you.
But the point I'm bringing up...
I believe this will happen.
I believe.
I could be wrong, 100%.
But I said the protesters would come back.
They did.
Now we're seeing the state come and execute a search warrant, taking their guns away.
Why would they do that?
There's a lot of reasons.
But I think the next step is going to be criminal charges.
And listen, look.
It's not like I'm looking into a crystal ball.
I've got the globe here.
I'm talking about a story that came out that said they were already looking at charging this couple.
So I believe it is very likely.
Think about everything we've seen so far.
You have no right to defend yourself.
This is what they keep saying over and over and over again.
One of the first responses is, charged with what?
And I think they have a lot more friends than a few days ago.
They're just not on the left.
You see, these people have... Look, I don't blame this guy.
They don't follow the news like I do.
What friends?
So maybe there are a lot of people on the right who didn't know they overtly supported the Black Lives Matter movement following this incident.
Charged with what?
That was the other story.
Fourth degree assault, I believe, was what was floated.
I don't know exactly, I don't know every single charge, but it was something like that.
There's also threats of, you know, brandishing a firearm, which may be a felony, things like that.
These have been brought up.
There is an article talking about how they're seeking to, you know, try and find charges against the family.
Don't be surprised when it happens.
And they're gonna wait a little bit.
Then they're gonna go in.
So now they've executed the search warrant.
They gotta do the paperwork.
They gotta move forward.
They're gonna say, oh, we got the gun.
Oh, now we know, you know, what they were doing with it.
And we've decided this was a crime.
And then they will be prosecuted.
Well, here's what happens in Portland.
Federal officers reporting subject was breaking down a door of the federal court after the hammer, creating a hole.
Officers came out and one was deliberately struck in the head and shoulder with the hammer.
An arrest was made, pepper spray and CS gas deployed.
I'm first showing you this to make two points.
The first point is that the McCloskeys have every reason to fear that they would be killed by these people.
Oh yes, you might say, but Black Lives Matter is not the same as Antifa and these protests were peaceful.
Shut up.
I'm sorry.
I don't buy it.
How many times have they said the riots were peaceful?
When MSNBC was standing in front of a burning police department and said, it's a peaceful protest.
Or that really funny headline from the BBC that says, you know, 27 police officers injured in peaceful, mostly peaceful protest.
Okay.
If a bunch of peaceful people are going around screaming and making threats, and then enter private property, it is no longer a peaceful protest.
Especially when they start making threats.
Or especially when throughout the past month, many people have been killed.
At this point, we have a serious problem.
You have an overt ideology with a top-down hierarchical structure called Black Lives Matter.
They accept funds, millions of dollars, and they have protests.
Within these protests, there is violence.
So let's play a game.
Antifa, they say, doesn't exist.
There is no- oh, so that's Portland.
Antifa doesn't exist.
Antifa rumors and hoaxes have stoked real fear in Philadelphia neighborhoods.
You're gonna love this one.
How about we just stop saying Antifa and start saying Black Lives Matter?
They have a hierarchy, they have leaders, they have organizers, they have funding sources, and they're funded and supported by many, many people.
Now, I think You can support the general idea.
We saw Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party try this the other day and boy did that fail because she went full authoritarian.
But I think I have no problem if on the surface your cause is ending police brutality.
I agree with that.
The problem is the far left has shifted tactics.
They've decided to use the mainstream brand to shield themselves, operate within Black Lives Matter, and thus we end up with protesters waving those signs as they destroy property and threaten people.
So maybe we no longer need to say Antifa.
Maybe the issue is now they've changed their name, they've adopted a hierarchical structure, and when this violence ensues, the people who came to McCloskey's property threatening to kill them Well, that was a Black Lives Matter protest, right?
The people in Portland, who were trying to break into the federal courthouse, some of them were waving signs that said, Black Lives Matter.
So at a certain point, when they're no longer brandishing the Antifa flag, maybe it is correct to say, you're right.
It's not Antifa.
Antifa is just a loose ideology, a catch-all term for various organizations, and it identifies their connection, the overlap, what unifies them.
Maybe now we just say Black Lives Matter.
And I mean it.
Because McCloskey's that group, right?
Well, let's be real though, right?
Check out this story from the Inquirer.
I love this.
Antifa rumors and hoaxes have stoked real fear in Philadelphia neighborhoods and what they show you is people guarding a statue of Christopher Columbus and they're wearing masks and many are armed.
The reason why I'm showing you this is because this is from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
And I also have another story from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
South Jersey Theater cancels event about race relations amid threats from anti-fascist protesters.
That's right.
Self-avowed Antifa threatened to burn down the theater.
And that was my event.
We moved it to a casino across the river, and everything went swimmingly.
You see, the event wasn't about race relations.
This is the game the media plays.
The far left will tell the media, here's what it really is, and they'll say, okay, that's what it is.
The event was about basically cultural libertarianism, and bringing people together from different political factions to talk about different ideas.
And not a single person was a racist, white supremacist, or anything like that.
But that's the lie they use to shut down liberalism.
What I mean by that is freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the right of self-governance.
That's what the event was.
Our headline speaker was the ever-famous Daryl Davis, prominent for de-radicalizing Klan members.
And he got a standing ovation.
Of course he did, because people don't like racism.
Daryl Davis is a legend, mind you.
But they still wanted to burn the theater down.
And the funny thing is, one of the guys who was helping organize these protests, which resulted in threats to burn down the theater, gave a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer for their next story, where he's an executive director of a self-avowed Antifa organization.
His words!
And they still try and claim it doesn't exist.
I love it.
Here's what they say.
Over the last month, South Philadelphia resident Andre DeFrancesco felt that he had plenty of reason to be fearful.
It was constant, the stream of memes, photos, and posts pinging his phone via Facebook, Instagram, and text messages.
The images, he said, that showed proof of an Antifa plot included a screenshot from Antifa US, an account that was removed from Twitter in early June after it was exposed as a fake account run by white nationalists.
There was also hyper-local content.
A photo of a pickup truck, parked in Philadelphia, filled with broken cinder blocks.
Possibly Antifa munitions.
There was a screenshot from a South Philadelphia Facebook page that Antifa supposedly called for 20,000 more of their membership to descend on Philly.
There were even what appeared to be joke posts, or were they?
Threatening Antifa attacks on Christopher Columbus statue at Marconi Plaza.
But the far left did show up.
And they defended it.
So maybe it wasn't fake.
They say, although Trump has proposed labeling Antifa a terror group, a nationally organized Antifa network, as imagined in Twitter pranks, does not exist.
And most people know this.
Yet fears about Antifa spread online through earnest warnings, hoaxes, and even jokes have resonated widely.
And they have spilled over from social media into communities around the country already roiled by civil unrest, including South Philadelphia and Fishtown.
And on July 4th in Gettysburg, they go on to mention that hundreds of people showed up.
They say in each case residents tense from weeks of civil unrest organized to fight threats that scarcely materialized, sometimes with serious and violent consequences.
Because apparently they didn't look at their own archives about a theater being, you know, about Antifa threatening to burn down a theater.
Or like, I don't know, the fact that Portland is still undergoing mass violence and everyone can watch the videos.
We know Antifa is real, DeFrancisco said, who responded by showing up to help protect the South Philadelphia Columbus statue in June.
We don't want to have to keep dealing with these political plots that cause us danger.
In Fishtown, they brought concerned citizens, some bearing baseball bats, to the Philadelphia Police 26th District in early June.
There was word going around on social media that Antifa was coming to Fishtown with the intention of destruction, Captain William Fisher said.
On June 22nd, the Facebook page Taking Our South Philadelphia Streets Back posted two photos of shopping carts containing broken cinder blocks.
The post, which did not explicitly mention Antifa, was shared nearly 500 times.
Looks like they're getting the blocks ready for tomorrow's protest, one commenter said.
And last weekend, after a fake Facebook post promoting an Antifa-led American flag burning in Gettysburg spread widely, hundreds of people reportedly arrived with weapons ready to oppose them.
To Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, all of this shows the need to question what people mean when they say Antifa.
Now that is a good point, yes.
And to recognize the meaning is being constructed in real time.
Alright, let's play a game, Miss Kathleen.
The first thing to ask is, what is Antifa?
Easy.
Antifa is an ideology stemming back from the Communist Party of Germany.
They used to get into violent street battles with their political rivals, typically the fascists.
But they also wanted to suppress speech because they were authoritarian communists.
Today, Antifa, in the modern sense, is an ideology, an umbrella ideology, that links several independent organizations which fly the banner of Antifa, have the flag, the tattoos, represent a very, very similar ideology, typically authoritarian communists, and engage in violence against their political opponents in, I would argue, Relatively large amounts, large numbers in terms of like the frequency.
Now there's no official executive director of a national organization coordinating any of this because they know the tactics they must employ to protect themselves from federal law enforcement.
So they operate as independent cells with membership, with leaders, with funding, organizational infrastructure.
And when it comes to regional events, they will call on other cells to join them.
And the leaders, there are leaders, there are high-profile individuals, keep their distance from specific individuals who engage in violence to protect what they do.
It is the next generation of internal warfare, civil unrest.
These are all outlined in their tactics.
They say specifically, there shall be no discernible leader, otherwise the feds will arrest them.
So the leaders do exist.
Which is really funny.
Let's keep playing this game.
How would I find Antifa?
Now that's gonna require you knowing certain people.
Floating around in certain areas.
But perhaps you can go to the base in New York City, a physical building with big anarchist signs, an avowed Antifa organizing center, and just talk to them.
That's how you can find them.
Perhaps you can use a Google search and go hang out with Rose City Antifa.
Which, yes, has their own shirts and have done interviews in group, all wearing their sweaters with their sunglasses on.
Can I go to a building?
Like I just said, yes you can.
Is there a membership list?
Yes, there is, particularly for the individual cells.
Do people carry a card?
No, but many of them fly a flag and have tattoos.
When you use the word Antifa, you're creating the sense that it actually does exist.
And it does.
Normalize in the language of Antifa, without knowing what the reference is.
It is becoming a devil term on the right, a term that is used to encapsulate everything you're afraid of.
Can you make an enemy out of thin air?
Well, it's not thin air, but I will point out that there is some truth in that statement.
Many people just refer to any black bloc far leftist as antifa.
It's become a colloquial term for violent far leftists, but it's because the overwhelming majority of them are authoritarian communists.
So I will point out When I was in Portland a couple, a year or so ago, a year and a half, maybe two years ago, some of the Black Bloc Antifa types told me that they really did like my work and that legitimately they were there to oppose anyone who was actually a white supremacist.
I've actually spoken with some over Antifa who have said they're tired of the violence or that they respect the nuance of discussion, but Like, I talked to a guy in California who said that they're going to a line and show up with all these Antifa things even though they know that Antifa crosses the line because they fear that the alternative is worse.
I disagree.
But at least I've had those conversations.
Here's where it gets fun.
A contraction of anti-fascist.
Antifa is often described as a loosely organized far-left movement.
Daryl Lamont Jenkins, executive director of a self-identified Antifa organization, One People's Project in New Jersey, said it's really an ideology.
Alright.
That's what I wanted to get you.
That's what I wanted to bring you.
And then I'm done.
So you have a guy.
Antifa is strong in Philadelphia, he said.
You have a guy who is the executive director of a self-identified organization.
Let me throw it back to you, Ms.
Kathleen, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
What is Antifa?
Well, at the very least, it's this one people's project.
How would you find it?
Ask Daryl.
Can you go to a building?
Yes, apparently you can.
Is there a membership list?
Well, they got an executive director.
Does he carry a card?
I imagine he might.
So what more do you want to say?
What more needs to be said?
They exist.
Now, how about this?
How about your own headline?
Threats from anti-fascist protesters.
It wasn't an event on race relations.
That is ridiculous.
We had conversations about libertarianism versus liberalism and, like, conversations about feminism.
It was a wide-ranging conversation among mostly liberal and libertarian individuals, some conservatives, and the headline speaker was Guy famous for deradicalizing white supremacists.
And Antifa said they would burn the theater down, and then the theater broke our contract and told us to shove it.
It was an 11th hour play by the far left to shut down liberal conversation.
So please, spare me the lies and the BS.
We know what it is.
Now, the sad reality, when the state comes to take the guns away from the people defending themselves, when the media lies and says it's not real, the threats against you aren't real, and then Bill de Blasio himself overtly violates the law by saying we're banning public gatherings except for Black Lives Matter, y'all got a problem on your hands, you see this?
The ideology, this religion, is spreading.
It is dominant.
They have allies in media who would lie and pretend they don't exist.
They're allowed, by the government, to special access.
They can paint their slogans in the street, they can march in the street, and ain't nobody gonna stop them.
And when they show up to your house threatening you, if you try to defend yourself, even by just holding the weapon, the police will come.
What should a person do at this point?
I don't know.
Speak up is the best you can do for now.
Section 230 reform will always be my big bet, but I'm not positive that it's going to change anything.
I think it's the best bet, but I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
In a viral video, a woman is seen drawing a pistol and pointing it at a woman who's filming.
You learn that this woman is black and that her family is calling this other woman racist.
The video went viral and the press maligned the woman.
Her name is Jillian Wurstenberg and her husband because they made it seem like she was just drawing a weapon in one of these Karen incidents.
Although this one was particularly more egregious because she had actually drawn a weapon.
But then, people started to actually watch the full video.
The media is still maligning this family.
But in the full video, you can see that they were not the aggressors.
They tried to leave.
This woman, Jillian, who pulled the gun, was trying to leave, and the family wasn't having it.
For those that aren't familiar, these are a couple stills from the infamous video.
Jillian has now spoken out, saying that she feared for her life.
Woman charged with assault for pulling a gun on a black family during Chipotle parking lot argument claims she was the victim of ethnic intimidation and thought she was going to die.
In an interview, she explains what happened from her point of view because, well, we've all seen the video and heard from the family.
But in this instance, for one, it seems like a bad hair day.
Like, this should not have escalated to this point.
Everybody needed to back off and calm down.
However, as much as you might say there are certain things everyone could have done better, it's hard to know exactly what you would do in a situation like this, and we now know, based on the full video, that this woman, Jillian, was not the aggressor.
Should she have pulled out her weapon?
I'm sure it's easy to say sitting in your room, watching a video on the internet, you would know exactly what she should or shouldn't have done.
But considering the wave of violence, the protests, the riots, and the death, I can't say I'm surprised that she actually did fear for herself, particularly with what happened in Provo, Utah, where someone ran up to a car and shot into it.
Now look, man, you can have a big argument about whether it was the right thing or wrong thing to do, but I'll tell you this.
You are not allowed to defend yourself at this point.
At least that's what we're starting to learn from many of these stories.
And I've got another story for you.
You see, just the other day, there was a protest, which, you know, I don't want to say it was a riot, but it was a heated protest with some scuffles between Black Lives Matter activists and the Detroit police.
So you see a man had been shot and killed by the police and the protesters were holding up signs once again saying Black Lives Matter and blaming the police for this.
The police in Detroit immediately released a video in which, first of all, they failed to secure, to detain this individual.
So as they're arresting his friend, the other guy just reaches into his pocket, pulls out a gun, and nearly point-blank fires at a cop.
Now the cop is lucky to have been, they call it a miracle, the guy missed.
But he was within a few feet.
They then returned fire, killing this guy.
The protesters tried playing it up, you know, once again.
Without evidence, they made assumptions, and it turns out this guy actually was trying to kill these cops.
The reason I highlight this is that we have many stories like this, where the protesters don't care about the circumstances of what led up to this incident.
They claim that in Georgia, for instance, Rayshard Brooks was just sleeping in his car, and these evil cops killed him.
The DA lies about it.
When in reality, the dude stole a taser and fired at the cops, who then returned fire.
The story in Detroit is way worse.
There's actually a video of the guy drawing the weapon and this cop is lucky to be alive.
Now it's sad when anyone dies, man.
But you gotta understand what people like this woman Jillian will be thinking when this is a reality.
Now look, you can argue that an argument over someone bumping into it at Chipotle is not, you know, does not warrant pulling out a weapon.
But I think the problem is we're all so We're so tightly wound, we're getting to a dangerous position here.
Who gets to determine whether or not you really did feel scared or didn't?
Or what level of reasonable fear is appropriate?
This is where things get tough.
Do you have a right to defend yourself if you're fearing for your life?
Yes.
Well, then we see sometimes people really shouldn't have feared for their lives, but claim to have, and then how do you determine whether or not they did?
They have a right to bear arms.
This was in Michigan.
She has a right to carry that weapon.
I believe her husband was carrying concealed.
And you had these people who refused to let them go, who were screaming at them and yelling at them.
And then when they finally tried to leave, the mother went behind the car and hit the vehicle several times.
And that triggered this woman, Jillian, to jump out with her weapon.
Now, she's speaking up.
I want to show you a bit of what she said, and then I want to show you what happened in Detroit.
And then I want to show you something called the Karen Act, which basically makes it a crime to call 911 for, like, racially discriminatory reasons.
The problem there, and sort of the full wraparound for what this segment is about, if you fear for your life, the courts will say, I do not believe you.
If you call 9-1-1 and say, I have a legitimate concern and call 9-1-1, the courts will say, I do not believe you.
And therein lies the big problem.
Everything we're seeing in terms of law enforcement is slowly falling on the side of defending the ideology.
And it's important to distinguish between, you know, why I say ideology.
These far-left activists who are protesting all over the place, they're mostly white people.
So the thing I point out all the time is, considering the fact that you can see that there are progressive white people and conservative black people, and there are famous photos now emerging.
There's one where you have a black man holding a confederate flag and a white man holding a Black Lives Matter sign.
Race isn't really the issue here.
It's ideology.
And I think it's actually as horrible as many of these riots have become and this incident.
We don't want these things to happen.
At least the one thing we're learning is...
Well, all of these incidents kind of debunk the racism, because you have Kanye West.
Well, he took off the MAGA hat, but you know what?
He was wearing the MAGA hat.
He's conservative.
You have people like Candace Owens.
But you have people of opposing political factions of all different races.
So, you know what?
I say this somewhat as a joke, but at least amid all the conflict, we've learned to, like, I don't know, like truly respect one another?
Well, no, not really, but it's a broken vision of people of all different backgrounds holding hands and singing together in their disdain for each other's ideology.
But hey, at least we're unified.
At least, I don't know, you get the point, right?
Okay, let's read the story.
The Daily Mail says, A white woman who was charged after she was filmed pulling a gun on an unarmed black woman and her daughters broke down in tears during a televised interview in which she describes how she feared for her life after the family blocked her from getting into her car and then started banging on it when she was inside.
Jillian Wustenberg, I said Wurstenberg, it's Wustenberg, 32, and her husband, Eric.
Have been charged with felonious assault stemming from the July 1st confrontation in Michigan.
But they say they are victims of ethnic intimidation at the hands of T'Kellya Hill and her family.
Cell phone video captured the confrontation outside a Chipotle restaurant in Orion Township,
about 40 miles northwest of Detroit. Jillian Wustenberg can be heard outside her vehicle
shouting, get the F away, get away, while pointing a handgun.
Now I want to point out, for those of you that saw the initial video or saw my
response to it, I want to point out something very important. For one, Jillian's finger is off
of the trigger.
That's proper trigger discipline, meaning it reduces the likelihood of an accidental discharge.
Now it may seem in the video that she's pointing it at the woman, but she's actually pointing it down.
The woman was filming by holding her phone at her waist and pointing it slightly upward, so it does look like the gun's pointing Directly at her, it's actually, she's got the handgun aimed down and slightly to the side.
I'm not saying that, you know, that was safe or whatever.
I'm just pointing out, she wasn't, like, waving it in the face like we saw the woman in St.
Louis was actually, like, walking towards with the firearm.
This was a little bit different.
It was a little bit different.
So we can see that these are apparently their mug shots.
They say Jillian Wustenberg told Detroit television station WXYZ on Thursday that she was fearful when the Hill family members blocked her from getting into her vehicle and then banged on the back of it.
That literally did happen.
Within moments, a second or two, I had multiple people within two feet of me, and I just remembered thinking, I'm not going home tonight.
She was asked what she meant to do with the video.
Shows her loading a round into the chamber of her handgun and pointing it at the Hill family.
That meant I'm about to die and I don't want to die, Wurstenberg said.
We have seen a lot of violent videos.
We have also crime stats that show... I would say, statistically, this probably would have just been an altercation.
The problem that I'm trying to bring up here, and we'll move on now to the protests in Detroit.
How do you determine what is a reasonable fear?
If somebody, like Antifa, right?
I would say their fears are completely unreasonable, okay?
But someone might disagree with me as to what is reasonable or isn't, and that's like the heart of the culture war.
I'd argue, if you think words are violence, then she feared for her life, right?
If we use the perspective of the left in this circumstance, Gillian Wurstenberg was blocked from getting a car, that was a physical action.
She was threatened, they said, we're going to beat your white A.
And then finally when her husband helped her get in the car, they banged on the back of it.
And now she might be thinking, we're gonna get blocked in, this is gonna escalate.
And she got out and she told them to get away.
Now Jillian had her gun drawn.
You can argue it was not appropriate or whatever, but I can't tell you what was going through her mind or what would be determined to be reasonable.
Maybe a jury will.
But she was backing away, slowly.
And the one with the phone kept getting close to her.
When you have stories like this, this is Detroit, mind you.
Take a look at this.
Crowd gathers at scene where a man was shot and killed by police on Detroit's west side.
Jillian Wustenberg, the incident happened about 40 miles northwest, I think they said, of Detroit.
This protest happened in Detroit.
Now I can't show you the videos.
Detroit police are forced to release body cam footage of fatal shooting of Hakeem Littleton to show he was armed and fired at them after protests erupted following his death.
Confirmed.
Not only do the police maintain, yes, he fired first, the video is now public.
I might be able to show you just a still.
It doesn't actually show anything graphic.
Just shows someone being arrested.
But here's the man here.
That's Hakeem.
And then he reached in his pocket, pulled out a weapon, and he fired at the cops who are lucky to have survived.
Now, sitting in your house, in your room, wherever you may live, you don't know what Detroit is like.
You can only go by the descriptions.
Now, this is Detroit's west side, so it seems to be much closer.
Yes, it was Detroit police.
This is Detroit proper.
Imagine you're Jillian Wustenberg.
You live in Detroit.
These are the stories you are hearing about.
A guy was standing there and then all of a sudden pulled out a gun.
Now you're surrounded by people threatening you.
They block you from getting in your car.
When you get in, they start banging on your car.
It's easy to say, based on where I live, that would be unreasonable.
Is that unreasonable based on what's going on in Detroit with riots and with people literally drawing weapons on cops?
I'll tell you what, man.
If it were Chicago, I know Chicago.
And if somebody surrounded me, was threatening me, and then started banging on my car, well, you can't... I don't think you're allowed to open carry in Chicago.
I'm not sure.
You might be able to.
They got complicated gun laws going over there.
But I would absolutely be in fear for my life.
So herein lies the big problem.
Right now, I live in a very safe suburb.
It is not one of these, you know, I don't know.
It's not like the best neighborhood in the world.
It's like, I don't know, lower middle class.
But it's a safe suburb.
You know, it's a small town I live in.
I do not expect anything like that to ever become that bad.
If I was surrounded by people and they were yelling at me, I'd be like, get out of here, and I would not expect anything to happen.
If I was back home in Chicago, I'd be like, no way, dude.
This is about to go bad and bad fast.
They call it Chirac for a reason.
You know what really, really got on my nerves growing up in Chicago?
I could not stand road rage.
I have zero tolerance today for road rage.
I know people who grew up in the nice suburbs, and I'll be driving with them, and then someone will cut us off, and they will flip out and start cussing and swearing and flicking off the driver, and they'll look at him and go, eh.
And I have zero tolerance for this.
You know why?
Because you know what happens on the South Side when you do that to somebody and you challenge their honor?
Yeah, they get out with a gun.
And I've had... I've had bad road rage experiences, man.
There was a store on the south side where... This is what I was told.
I don't know how true this was because I had friends telling me this.
Apparently, there was a party going on a few miles from us on the south side.
Like, you know, because it was a big area where we all, you know, like our circle of friends expanded around a few mile radius.
Maybe like within five miles of the southwest side.
And apparently, somebody parked a car in a certain area of Chicago on the south side, and someone walked up to the window and knocked on it, because they were... I guess the idea was like, yo, you're parking in front of my house.
Apparently they were going to a party, so they just parked where they wanted.
Well, the dude sitting in the passenger seat...
That's Chicago.
You don't know what it's like in Detroit.
You don't.
him to f off. He's like, get out of here, get out of here.
And the guy's like, what are you doing? He's like, I don't get out of here. You know,
don't knock on my window.
So the guy just went, pulled out a gun and went pop, pop.
That's Chicago. What do you, you don't know what it's like in Detroit. You don't. We got
a video right now of a dude shooting at cops. Now you might argue this family, this
mother and her daughter were not a threat.
Fine.
But is it reasonable to assume that there is a 1% chance?
And what this woman Jillian did, I guess they're charging her.
We'll see if the court upholds it as legal.
Tell you what, man, as far as I know, Detroit's got bad crime.
Maybe not.
I don't know.
That's my understanding, okay?
All I can really say is, I think you're gonna find a lot of these progressive, upper-middle class, you know, activists going like, I can't believe it!
And you're gonna have all of these suburbanite, you know, progressives, in their mind, in their experience, in their world, it was not warranted.
I'll tell you this, man.
In my mind, where I come from, you got people who illegally have guns, and they will pull their shirt up as soon as you walk near their car.
Let me tell you something.
In Chicago, if you're in a parking lot of, say, like a burger joint or something on the south side, and somebody starts cussing you out, saying, yo, yo, what the guy would do, standing next to his car, is he would just pull his shirt up to show the gun, and that would be the end of it.
Mostly.
Sometimes the other guy pulls out his gun, too.
But the point is, based on my experience, if I had people surrounding me and yelling at me, I would argue for a Chicago-level incident, that was a bit restrained.
Personally, I probably wouldn't have done what Jillian did.
But you don't know what it's like where she comes from.
You don't know what she was thinking.
And therein lies the big challenge.
The same is true for St.
Louis.
We now have national-level politics, and many of these high-profile leftist activists are suburbanite progressives with college degrees who have never experienced real hardship.
That's why they're entitled whiny babies.
And they're thinking, like, I have never had anything like that happen to me.
That woman is racist!
You know what I would really, really enjoy?
You know, what would make me feel good?
That's a better way to put it.
I would absolutely love, please, any one of these progressives, anyone, I will pay your rent for a year to live in some of these neighborhoods, areas where I grew up.
And I'm not saying it's because it's going to be dangerous.
This is not an issue about them, like, getting hurt.
None of that.
I'm saying they might finally understand what it's like to truly live in a poor area with real conflict, poverty, and crime.
I think they'll be fine.
I know some people who have lost their lives, you know, growing up, but this is a normal part of basically anywhere, you know, because you can have bad things happen in the suburbs for sure.
But they just don't get what it's like.
They don't.
And now they want their ideology and their national level politics and laws over areas they truly do not understand.
These people who live in the nicest of areas.
I would just love if you just lived where I lived growing up.
Granted, that area has been... They decimated the housing projects.
They just literally razed all the buildings and replaced it with grass.
I'm not kidding.
We did a segment on this on the IRL podcast.
I couldn't believe it.
Just ten years ago, they just wiped it all out.
I guess that's one way to get rid of the crime.
But I'll tell you what, man.
Where my friends grew up, you know, because it's really interesting how streets become borders for gangs and for, you know, just cliques and just general friends or, you know, like a lot of the immigrants who would come to certain areas would live in what they would call, say, like Ukrainian village or Little Italy and things like that.
It's really interesting how that works.
And so you could cross one street and the crime is up like 15, 20 percent, some ridiculous number.
Or people come up to you and threaten you.
Well, let's move on from this, because you get the point on that.
I want to show you now the CAREN Act.
San Francisco officials propose CAREN Act, C-A-R-E-N, making racially biased 911 calls illegal.
You may remember Miss Amy Cooper, the white woman.
She's facing charges for calling police on a black man birdwatching in Central Park.
Well, I gotta tell you what.
It does.
I would argue she should not have called 9-1-1.
And you could interpret a crime here, okay?
I say interpret because I don't want to play legal expert.
I know people are going to be like, actually, Tim, you were wrong.
I'm going to tell you this.
The dude was telling her she can't have her dog there.
She couldn't have her dog there.
They got into an argument.
But then she called 9-1-1 going, help, help, I'm being attacked or whatever.
And it's like, all right, well, there you go.
And she told the guy that she was gonna let him know that it was like a blackmail or whatever.
Yeah, she should have done it.
Now, I can understand why she was threatened, because the guy was trying to coax her dog away from her.
But then for her to call 911 and make it this big thing, it's like, dude, you're in Central Park, man.
This dude, I think his name is Chris Cooper.
I'm sorry, New York has really, really low crime.
Central Park is really, really nice.
This dude had like binoculars and glasses and he was actually pulling a Karen 2.
Excuse me, you can't have your dog here.
I don't think she was being threatened.
So they're charging her with a crime.
I do think so much of this is silly.
And there used to be, you know, there was a time when you'd get into a fight and punch someone in the face, and the cops would come in and be like, everybody go home, I'm not arresting anybody, shut up.
Today, it's like everything is litigious, the cops will get sued for not doing their job, so the cops are just like, we're gonna arrest everybody, whatever.
Still, not always.
But this is where people just kind of go over the top.
The point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point, the cops can show up and be like, can you all just shut up?
This is a non-incident.
It shouldn't be news.
But this brings into the next point about self-defense and what is determined to be reasonable.
This woman is frantic.
Were her fears legitimate?
The real question with her 911 call is, did she really feel like she was being threatened when this guy was trying to coax her dog away?
That's not for me to decide because I can't read her mind.
And if she did feel threatened, then why should she be charged for calling 911?
Therein lies the big problem.
You see, New York is catering to the ideology.
In which case, they're gonna say, I don't believe you!
Well, that's dangerous precedent, and it's hard to know when people are exploiting it.
If in, this is in San Francisco, mind you, you genuinely feel threatened, how many people are now going to say, I feel threatened and I'm scared, but I'm worried I will get arrested if I call 911?
It's a serious challenge.
So, filing a false police report should be a crime, regardless of the crime.
But you need to be able to prove it.
One of the big problems I think we have is that when people do file false charges, bear false witness, they are not held accountable.
And this includes police officers.
The issue to me is not creating a Karen Act for racially biased 911 calls.
Like, that's ridiculous to me.
Well, let's read it, okay?
Let's see.
They say the Karen Act, caution against racially exploitative non-emergencies, was introduced on Tuesday in San Francisco's Board of Supervisors.
What does it do?
Using 9-1-1 as a tool for your prejudice towards marginalized communities is unjust and wrong.
Just, uh, okay, so we get it.
It's rather vague, okay?
They say the bill could impact millions of Californians from becoming targets of hate and prevent the weaponization of our law enforcement against communities of color.
Racist false reports put people in danger and waste resources.
They do.
But are we just swinging the pendulum in the wrong direction?
Don't we already criminalize the improper use of 9-1-1 calls?
And what happens now?
You have many of these videos.
Where, it's actually funny to me, there was one where a woman walks up to a guy who's painting Black Lives Matter on his stoop or whatever.
And she says, it's not your, you know, is this your property?
You can't be doing this.
And the guy was Filipino and he argues with her.
And the husband, they were both like, we know who lives here and you can't be doing this.
As it turns out, the guy painting actually lived there.
So, here's the first problem I have.
When someone comes up to you and gives you the business, your first reaction doesn't need to be to pull out your phone and start filming them and give them the business back.
I would just say, if I was, say, painting something in my yard or whatever and someone came up to me and said, do you live here, you can't be doing this, I'd say, actually do live here?
Are we done?
Okay, have a nice day.
It's called just being mature.
But in many of these circumstances, the first reaction is, I'm gonna pick up my phone and film you and getcha!
And that's what it is.
And now we have seen a ton of fake Karening incidents, where people try to trigger some kind of Karening.
And there was one that I saw that went moderately viral, where they pull up, there's a building
with Black Lives Matter signs on it.
The building owners or rentees or whatever show up, and they're confused and they pull the signs down.
And then these two people start filming them saying, you're racist, why are you pulling this down?
There's one video where like some women are washing graffiti off a building.
And then someone says they're racist for doing so.
And in these videos, the people are just like, What? I'm...
I'm sorry?
Like, they have no idea what's going on.
The funny thing about that Black Lives Matter on the building being torn down, the sign, is that they're like, why are you tearing the sign down?
And the guy just goes, oh, this is my building.
And they're like, yeah, but why are you tearing the sign down?
And he goes, I'm just, I'm taking the sign off my building.
Like, he really doesn't understand the cult-like mentality these people have.
They expect him to know everything he knows from Twitter, and the dude clearly didn't.
So what happens now?
When they're getting harassed and they call 911, are they gonna be like, well, that was racially motivated?
It'll happen in some instances.
I'm not convinced this will actually stop anything, because if you really want to prosecute someone for doing this, you can just do it.
So anyway, look.
Here's the main point.
With all of these things, they're trying to read your mind.
They're going to say, we know what you were thinking, we know you were lying, we know how you really felt, we know why you did it.
Sure, when it comes to court, they will try to assert motive, and they will try to argue as to what the motive was.
They'll have to do this in this case.
When it comes to this woman, Jillian, however, you draw a fine line between an actual altercation, someone being threatened, and whether or not they have a right to defend themselves.
So, I guess you get the point.
Let me just wrap it up one final time.
Please consider this, an important point that very few people have made.
When it comes to any of these situations, you need to take into consideration where they are.
For the woman Amy Cooper in New York, one of the safest cities in the country, yes it is, there's a lot of crime but not per capita.
Central Park, of all places, very safe.
She did not need to freak out the way she did.
I do not believe she did.
Although I do think the whole incident was stupid.
Jillian, however, in Detroit.
40 miles outside of Detroit.
Hey, maybe they do have bad crime there.
I don't know if it's the same as Detroit.
I don't know.
I don't know exactly where this Orion is, but 40 miles north-west of Detroit.
Could that be anywhere near Flint?
I mean, this area doesn't have a good reputation, so maybe she was freaking out, and your bias against her is because you don't get where she's from.
There we go.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at TimCast.net.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
Google is interfering in our election, and they're going to interfere more, giving a major swing from Trump to Joe Biden.
This claim is not coming from a hardcore Republican Trump zealot waving a big ol' MAGA flag, firing two full-auto machine guns.
It's coming from a Clinton supporter.
Dr. Robert Epstein, who's talked about this in the past, about how in the 2016 election he believed Google did shift a very large number of votes from Trump to Clinton, and he's saying it's going to happen again.
And he's saying, well, look, you're not going to be surprised by what he's saying.
That's the first thing he's saying.
From Breitbart, Dr. Robert Epstein, Google will shift 10% of voters to make Trump a blip in history.
They say, Dr. Robert Epstein, the senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, appeared on Breitbart News Daily alongside host and Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow to discuss how Silicon Valley companies manipulate algorithms to suppress content.
Discussing Google's efforts to suppress conservative content, Marlow states,
none of this is going to come as a surprise to this audience, but I don't think a lot of people,
by and large, understand exactly how much they can manipulate you. Google can, with just a slight
tweak to search results or search suggestions of their algorithm, ever.
Everyone knows by the Breitbart leak of the Google TGIF meeting in 2016, right after the election, they said they wanted populism to be a blip in history.
They wanted to basically use their power to make sure populism doesn't have long-term effects.
What does that mean?
Since then, Breitbart's reach has wildly diminished.
Within Google, this cannot be a coincidence.
I'm pretty sure Veritas confirmed it wasn't.
I could be wrong about that.
Dr. Epstein replied, I doubt that it's a coincidence because it's so easy for them to suppress content of any sort.
I published a big article on this in 2016 called The New Censorship.
I focused on 9 of Google's blacklists.
This is without ever seeing one, and without the company admitting they had such things.
But last year, Zach Voorhees left the company, quit the company, and took with him 950 pages of documents and of video.
And two of those documents were Google blacklists.
Yes, I think that was Veritas.
I don't know if they give them credit.
Quote, people don't understand how big this threat is.
You mentioned that leak, that video that you exposed, which is quite astonishing.
One of the things that was said there by one of their top executives is, we're going to use every... Oh, actually, that may have been Breitbart.
Sorry if I'm not giving credit to Breitbart.
One of the things that was said by one of their top executives is, quote, we're going to use every means at our disposal, all of Google's power to make sure Trump isn't reelected.
So if they're using every single means at their disposal, then they're using all of the techniques that I've discovered and probably more that I haven't discovered yet.
That's enough to shift roughly 10% of the voting population of the U.S.
with no one knowing they're being manipulated and no paper trail For authorities to trace.
Welcome to the new world!
Google, Facebook, Twitter, the big tech companies know what they have, they know they can control you if they truly want to, and even the CEO of Reddit said, we can probably skew an election if we wanted to, not that we would.
This is why I've been saying over and over, Section 230 reform is so important, but alas, it is just not enough.
Perhaps it will buy us more time, and we can rebalance the conversation.
Unfortunately, that would mean the Republicans and Trump must sweep.
And not only that, you're also crossing your fingers they'll actually enact 230 reform, and maybe they won't.
Earlier today, when I woke up, I noticed a tweet on my timeline.
Now listen, my Twitter, who I follow, the followers, the people I follow, it is a specifically curated list of news organizations and journalists.
Many left, many right, some centrist, some rather boring, some kind of inactive.
Well today I noticed, again, for like the 18th time in the past several months, there was a name I didn't recognize.
When I first noticed these things on Twitter, I felt like it was maybe someone changed their name or image and it recognized them.
And sure enough, I clicked the little blue check verified individual, and I have no idea who this person is or what they're sharing.
So I unfollow them.
I went over to Social Blade.
Social Blade is an analytics website that tracks basically every social media site.
And I went to the metrics for my Twitter account, and sure enough, Every few days, my account follows someone new.
And it also unfollows some people.
I have no idea who these people are or aren't, and I have no idea what they're doing to curate who I follow.
I believe it's very likely, maybe an accident, maybe not.
But how many times have you heard from people, they unsubscribed me from you?
Or on Twitter, they unfollowed me from you?
Yeah, I noticed something really interesting today when it recommended Dr. Peter Boghossian to me, who I have been citing over and over again for the past month, who I certainly intentionally followed on Twitter, and discovered recently, for some reason, I didn't.
And for some reason, I was following someone I did not know.
So I looked at SocialBlade, and sure enough, there it is.
I don't know what's going on.
Can't prove anything.
All I can say is, I know I didn't follow that person, and I know I didn't unfollow that person.
Another person I recently discovered that I was unfollowed from is Ron Coleman, who I believe, I don't want to get his title wrong, but he is a pro-Trump lawyer, and very well versed on a lot of legal issues.
That's why I follow him.
Sure enough, on Twitter, I was no longer following him, and some legal issue came up, And I searched for him to see if he had a take on it, because he is a lawyer who handles these issues.
And sure enough, I wasn't following him.
I was like, oh, that's weird.
I would have expected I follow a few lawyers for their legal takes on certain things.
Wasn't following him.
I think most of us have experienced something like this.
I can't tell you what it is or why or what's going on, but I think a lot of people will take it to a conspiratorial place.
Quite nefarious.
You know, we don't assume that it was an accident.
These are the kinds of things that Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and any other platform could do to manipulate the game come November.
And I believe it is happening.
I believe it will happen.
To what extent, I don't know.
But as they mentioned in this Breitbart interview with Dr. Epstein, Epstein has already testified.
That Google can shift these votes.
We've already seen the videos of Google saying they will do this, and sure enough, YouTube is making moves.
They're banning people, Twitter is banning people, and dare I say, simply by having this conversation on this platform, which is YouTube, I run the risk of being banned.
So, you know what?
I don't know what to tell you about that.
What am I supposed to do, right?
You can go to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you want to support my work, but maybe it's coming.
I want to explain something to you with this segment.
You probably don't even realize how much they have already radicalized you.
We brought this up in the IRL podcast, I brought it up again, the Don Lemon segment from 2013, where he said Bill O'Reilly didn't go far enough.
These social media platforms, we've watched them ban and remove people.
Those conversations have been removed.
You now don't even realize the conversations have stopped.
They know what they are doing.
That's why they ban them, and they tell us that's why they ban them.
They say, discussions of this subject are not allowed.
You're banned.
Stefan Molyneux.
Again, I always preface this, I did not watch the guy's content.
I do not, you know, I'm saying this specifically because I know people are gonna be like, if I say I think what his content was, I don't know.
I don't know what the guy is.
I know that people have accused him of talking about certain things, but the point is, he was hosting conversations, and they banned him for it.
And that's why.
You may find his conversations to be abhorrent, Or you think his opinions are bad or his facts are wrong?
Fine.
The conversation that he was having no longer exists.
I run the risk of getting banned for simply saying that as well.
Think about how this will translate.
Facebook is considering banning political ads.
Twitter has as well.
If people are voting for Trump or against Trump, and not for Biden, but against Trump, then it doesn't matter if Joe Biden has ads or not.
Banning political ads will only impact Donald Trump.
And this is what we get.
We're watching this happen.
We know it's happening.
We know the manipulation is happening.
And dare I say, there's other ways I think they're going to cheat.
The reason why I'm doing this segment is partly to show you what Robert Epstein has said, Dr. Epstein has said, that they're going to swing 10% of the vote.
But as sort of an addendum on my main channel segment from timcast.net, I put up at four.
I often do this.
If you haven't seen it, I basically point out that there's a lot of reasons to suggest Trump is secretly winning.
Now I'm going to be a little bit more pessimistic.
Even if Trump really does have the polls, the media is lying, which I think they are, what's to stop them from just cheating?
Propping up certain stories, pushing down certain stories.
It's hard to know exactly what's going to happen.
But I don't want to be completely pessimistic.
While I think there is a major net negative with what these big tech companies are doing, Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire are like the biggest publishers on Facebook.
So it's not like conservatives are down and out.
It's not like moderates and the politically homeless are down and out.
Although I do think it's funny that there's like a big umbrella of conservative, moderate, and center-left individual, and then you've got leftists.
But the content still reaches certain areas.
As they pointed out, there's a blacklist.
Google has it.
We've seen it.
Project Veritas has released this information.
I just want to tell you right now that you need to pay attention to who you're following, what you watch, because the algorithms will manipulate your point of view.
They'll change who you're following for better or for worse.
I think YouTube likes me.
I do.
I really think they do.
I think they want to use me as what they would view as acceptable conservative.
I'm not particularly conservative.
But I tell you this, man.
The analogies can go... We can describe it any way we want.
But if they ban everyone who's conservative, and I, who's center-left, am the only person left, then I become the furthest right person in the Overton window.
That's what they're doing.
You don't realize it now, but even if Trump wins, there's no guaranteeing that we can stop whatever it is these companies do.
We need Section 230 reform.
We probably need to break up big tech.
Then China may fill that void, though.
So we'll see how things play out, but I just want to stress the seriousness of this story.
Dr. Robert Epstein, Google's going to make this shift, so Trump loses.
Keep that in mind and pay attention.
But my next story coming up, TikTok, huh?
Let's see what's going on with TikTok as people start to panic because they may get banned.
And good, good riddance.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
TikTok, the Chinese spying app that may actually get banned in the United States because it's basically a Chinese spying app.
Now, there is a parent company, I think it's based in the Bahamas, and they're like, no, no, not us, but please, spare me the games.
This is what everybody is saying in the political space.
They're concerned because there have been numerous stories about TikTok spying on people.
What if I were to tell you You'd probably say, but Tim, that is quite absurd.
Why would there be a bipartisan effort to assist in this app, which we believe to be spying on behalf of China?
Could it be that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are both trash?
Now, these are former GOP and Democratic congressional staffers, so here's what I think.
I think Trump wasn't supposed to win.
I think the establishment had their establishment players.
Trump somehow managed to win the primary and then the election.
And for two years, when Republicans controlled everything, they did nothing!
And then the establishment Republicans started to bow out and disappear.
Because, perhaps, the swamp was drained, at least a little bit.
Not perfectly.
Trump is really bad at picking them, I'll tell you what.
He's picked some really dumb people, like John Bolton.
Talk about... I'm sorry, man.
You guys, maybe you like Trump, maybe you don't.
But for those of you who don't like him, you'll probably agree that bringing on John Bolton was one of the stupidest things he could have done.
And there's a lot of stupid people Trump's brought in.
Because they still have establishment control of the populace we're trying to make their way in.
Well, let's read this story and see what's going on.
And I'll tell you right now.
For all these TikTok people are like, no, don't ban my platform!
Well, you know what, man?
I have no sympathy.
It sucks to see your livelihood, your following evaporate, but you're being manipulated by China.
At least that's my opinion on things.
The Daily Caller says, TikTok has hired several Democratic and Republican operatives to lobby the U.S.
government amid concerns that the social media platform represents a national security threat.
And it does, man.
It was spying or otherwise.
The company hired several operatives recently to lobby on TikTok's behalf, including Michael Hacker, who worked as a senior advisor to Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, CNBC reported on Friday.
TikTok hired two executives from the Internet Association as well, according to the report.
TikTok also hired Freddie Barnes, a former longtime staffer for Republican Rep Kevin McCarthy of California, according to Barnes' LinkedIn page.
Derek Dockery, a former congressional press assistant to former GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan, has joined Barnes as one of the company's lobbyists on governmental affairs.
Barnes and Dockery's LinkedIn pages indicate they were hired in June.
News of the hiring spree came on the heels of reports that the Trump administration is considering the possibility of banning the social media platform over concerns the video app shares users' data to Beijing.
Senator Josh Hawley and other lawmakers have scrutinized TikTok's parent company, ByteDance.
The Missouri Republican warned in a March press statement that ByteDance includes Chinese Communist Party members in leadership, adding that TikTok has admitted that it has sent user data to China.
Politicians from both parties have criticized the app.
Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York has asked the U.S.
intelligence community to assess TikTok's national security risks in October, saying that such apps could be used to spy on U.S.
citizens or become targets of foreign influence campaigns.
TikTok promised to stop accessing users' content on iOS devices in June, The Telegraph reported.
After a new feature in iOS indicated the company had not stopped collecting data despite pledging to end the practice in 2019, users had noticed that TikTok had been scanning content on the clipboard while the app was in background mode, according to The Telegraph.
TikTok reportedly provided people in Congress with communication, reassuring them that TikTok is not beholden to China.
Sagar and Jetty, co-host of The Hills Rising with Crystal and Cigar, tweeted a memo Friday that was purportedly sent to congressional aides.
Sources are now sharing with me TikTok government affairs email sent to Hill staffers, put together by former staffers of Dems, including Jim Clyburn, and former ours, including Kevin McCarthy.
Today, they promise them they're not beholden to the Chinese government.
Sure, okay.
I don't trust the company.
I don't.
And maybe they're not beholden to China.
Are they helping China?
Do they have allegiances, actually, to this country?
company's new chief executive, Mayer's new position with the company was announced in
May.
Sure, okay, I don't trust the company.
I don't.
And maybe they're not beholden to China.
Are they helping China?
Do they have allegiances actually to this country?
My question is, next, does Twitter or Facebook?
Does Google?
Come on, how many times has Google offered up doing some dumb project for China?
All the time, and they get backlash for it.
Sorry man, I don't think any of these tech companies care about us.
And given the opportunity, they would gladly cater to China.
I think we're in trouble.
My friends, listen.
China is a massive economy, and they will pay because they can pay in creepy ways.
They're an authoritarian nation, they can do whatever they want, and they have resources.
So what happens?
When Google is faced with, say, antitrust or Section 230 reform, and China says to Google, Abandon the states.
Move your company here and we will empower you.
We will give you whatever you want, resources or otherwise.
Now you can keep your platform in the United States under U.S.
law.
The U.S.
government can't shut you down.
But stop catering to the U.S.
Constitution.
They already basically have.
Google, Facebook, and other platforms are looking at a country of 1.4 billion people.
That's a tremendous amount of resources.
They can live very, very well with that access.
Now, they don't want to give away the access they have in the United States and the influence they have.
But why care about what the U.S.
government does?
What would happen if the U.S.
government said, we are going to break you up, Google?
And Google went, do it!
Our new headquarters is Beijing.
And we will run all these companies legally, and there's nothing you can do to stop us.
Perhaps.
Perhaps it's too late.
You think about what happened with the NBA.
You remember this?
I can't remember who it was.
I don't want to smirch the wrong name.
But you have these basketball players being like, yo, don't badmouth China!
Because maybe China's already too powerful.
Maybe they've already got their tendrils in a bunch of different companies.
And they know who butters their bread.
So Google has all these opportunities with China.
You see the professors doing it.
These university professors taking money from this program through China.
Maybe it's too late.
Maybe TikTok is irrelevant.
This is what we're hearing, right?
TikTok.
A quote.
It would be like losing a little bit of me.
TikTok users respond to potential US ban.
Gen Z and millennial users have found community on the app, particularly during the last few isolating months, and for some of them, it's their livelihood.
Yeah.
Yeah, they're addicted.
And I see these stories, right?
Here's another one.
This is from a tweet from Taylor Lorenz.
She says, TikTok stars are rallying to save TikTok.
This video has 8 million views and thousands of duets and reposts.
Half a million people have commented on this video alone to save TikTok.
I wrote about how TikTok influencers and young people are handling the potential ban here.
Sorry, man.
I don't care.
If they're going to harm our country, get young people addicted, and put them in a position where they're like, no, I'd rather have followers than care about the security of my nation, we got serious problems.
Maybe we're headed towards a, you know, global one world government under Chinese authoritarian rule.
Maybe that's a little bit extreme, but I think on a long enough scale, that seems to be the outcome of everything that's happening.
Maybe Trump is just buying us time.
But when I see videos like this, does this dude have any idea why they're talking about banning TikTok?
Because they're spying on American citizens.
China already spies on us.
They've already hacked our private data.
And now they're doing it.
And we got young people just agreeing to it.
Do you know what happens in 10 or 20 years if this carries on?
Well, unfortunately for us, our parents, the generations before us, had no discipline.
Sorry, it's true.
I mean, they had discipline, but it gradually faded.
And now we have a generation of young people who don't care about the country they live in, or for the most part, the world at all.
They want their clicks.
They want their followers.
They want their TikTok.
Even if it means really, really bad things for the rest of us.
China has community.
They're authoritarian, but they do have a goal to empower themselves and take over.
Perhaps all of this will be... I guess here's the good news.
Perhaps because so many of our young people are now desperately begging for this Chinese app, perhaps we'll avoid Thucydides' trap and there won't be a grand World War III with China.
That's a big fear.
But perhaps the risk is even greater.
We'll lose civil liberties.
We'll lose the right to speak.
We'll lose the right to freedom of movement.
And these things are already being eroded in front of us.
I don't want to pretend like everything about TikTok is this grand Chinese conspiracy.
I get it.
There are people who are going to work for them, but they're not beholden to us, and they don't take our security seriously.
Even after they claimed they were going to stop the spying, they were still doing it.
Why should I trust that they'll do the right thing?
Look, I don't trust the government for the most part, but I trust the U.S.
government more than I trust the Chinese government.
So if U.S.
government officials, deep, you know, intelligence agents, deep state, ooh, say they're going to do something, within reason, I'm more willing to trust them than I would anyone from China.
But considering the level of turmoil, that's why I mentioned the deep state, how much can we really trust our own government?
And that's where things get a little murky.
Is TikTok really that bad?
I don't know.
We've got a lot of politicians saying perhaps we should not be using it and it should be banned.
Maybe the goal is to make sure that the U.S.
maintains social media dominance with, you know, Facebook, with Twitter.
Twitter's not really that big though, you know, Instagram or otherwise.
Maybe they don't want foreign countries to have competition.
Or maybe it really is a threat to us and we're gonna lose control.
I honestly don't know, but I'll wrap it up with this.
I have no sympathy for the people saying they care more about their followers than our national security.
That being said, If this app becomes as powerful as any of the other, you know, big platforms, and Americans are using it, if they can manipulate social media to swing an election, imagine what a Chinese social media company would do.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Many of you are probably familiar with what happened in Provo, Utah.
It's one of the most shocking, egregious acts of violence in the ongoing Black Lives Matter riots, protests, whatever else you want to call them.
To clarify, a lot of what happens are riots.
Like in Provo, that was a riot.
They say protests are, sorry man, we'll call it a riot.
But there are some protests where people just march around, but the line is really getting blurred.
In Provo, a dude ran up to a car and literally just shot the driver.
Well, the latest update here, the organizer of that protest has been arrested, accused of rioting, making threats.
And here's my favorite part, KSL.com, I love ya!
You've given us such a great... meme, or whatever.
Organizer of protest, accused of rioting.
Hmm, how about organizer of riot, accused of rioting?
You see what they do?
It's a protest.
The dude got arrested for rioting there, somebody got shot.
You don't call it a protest, man.
Well, here's the news.
One of the organizers of a protest in Provo that resulted in a motorist being shot was arrested Thursday.
John Earl Sullivan, 25, of Sandy was booked into the Utah County Jail for investigation of rioting, making a threat of violence and criminal mischief.
On June 29th, a group calling itself Back the Blue planned to drive around the Provo Police Department and honk their horns to show support for law enforcement.
Another group planned a counter-protest at the same time and place, on Facebook.
Its event page was originally titled, End Police Brutality, but was later changed to, Marching for Racial Equality.
The Facebook pages listed the event's hosts as the group's insurgents, Solidarity for Justice, Salt Lake Equal Rights Movement, and the Salt Lake Anti-Fascist Coalition.
Ah!
Overt Antifa!
How about that?
Sullivan is part of the insurgents' USA group, according to a police affidavit.
Protestors traveled through downtown Provo.
The protestors did not obtain a permit for the event.
You know somebody got shot?
Okay, let's try this again.
Rioters traveled through downtown Provo.
The rioters did not obtain a permit for the event.
John Sullivan, an Insurgents USA, had social media postings promoting other rioters to join them.
I'm not going to say protest anymore.
Between 80 and 100 people were part of the riot.
The riot traveled on the roadways blocking motorists who have the right-of-way.
John Sullivan blocked vehicles from freely moving lawfully.
During the course of the riot, two handguns were brandished and two shots fired toward a motorist traveling to Home Depot.
Vehicles were damaged by rioters, as well as John Sullivan, the affidavit states.
As a riot organizer, John Sullivan is heard and seen as he is promoting rioters to block roadways, keeping motorists from traveling lawfully and freely.
Sullivan was also captured on video threatening to beat a woman in an SUV, according to the affidavit, and then kicking her door, leaving a dent.
Sullivan was seen with Jesse Taggart, the man charged with shooting the motorist throughout the riot.
As a riot organizer, John Sullivan is heard talking about seeing the shooting, looking at the gun, and seeing smoke coming from it.
John did not condemn the attempted murder, nor attempt to stop it, nor aid in its investigation to the police.
Watch someone shoot someone else, attacked vehicles, and they keep saying, protest her.
I am deeply offended.
As somebody who was a non-profit director for- for working for- in fundraising for many different non-profits, Who has engaged in many a protest, where we would go out and wave little flags saying, you know, save the environment, that's a protest.
Blocking a roadway?
Yeah, that's a protest.
Kicking vehicles, threatening people, shooting people, that's a riot.
Now look, There's a fine line.
The fine line is when you engage in aggression against other people.
But how can you end this by saying the dude witnessed the murder and didn't stop it?
I'm sorry, the attempted murder.
And then you're gonna be like, but it's still a protest.
Nah, sorry man.
I guess they're just trying to say that they were there because they were angry at the government.
It's a riot, dude.
Okay?
Now look, because of all of this widespread violence, 150 Minneapolis police officers seek duty disability for PTSD following protests.
He said the past two months have pushed many officers to their breaking point.
I believe it.
Look, I'm sure there's some officers who are like, ooh, now's my chance.
I'll file for disability and maybe get some time off or something.
I think most of these cops are reeling, and this is exactly what the far left wanted.
And it's why they would shoot a driver.
Because they know the chaos is good for them.
Police are demoralized, and many of them now are developing PTSD because of the extreme nature of what was going on.
Did you see the video of the police running full speed out of the police department?
Oh, the activists, the far left, and the extremists loved it.
I say activists because there are a lot of people who are just, well, maybe they're all extremists.
An activist, in my opinion, works for reform.
These people were literally burning down a police station.
Several of the people involved have been arrested for burning the department down.
But video emerged showing a car, a vehicle, I believe it was an SUV, ramming through the back gate of the police department, and then all the cops just running for it.
I wonder how many of those cops ran home, took off their uniforms or whatever.
I wonder how many of them had vehicles nearby that were vandalized or destroyed.
I wonder how many of them watched their department be burned down and no longer feel safe in their own police precincts.
Here's the story from Fox News.
They say more than 150 police officers have filed for disability claims, with many claiming post-traumatic stress disorder for their departures following weeks of soaring crime and unrest because of the death of George Floyd.
The claims come as the city experiences an increase in crime, and elected leaders attempt to dismantle the police department.
Talk about insane.
Well, crime is going up, our officers have PTSD, and we're dismantling the police department.
Everything is great here in Minneapolis.
Man, if you live there, I feel bad for you.
I really do.
And I hope you can get out.
Attorney Ron Moiser didn't mention the death of George Floyd and the unrest that followed as the cause of the surge in disability requests, but said the past two months have pushed many officers to their breaking point.
I'm seeing PTSD symptoms of officers with highly diminished capacity to live and socialize, extraordinary rates of divorce and alcohol dependency just to cope.
It is an emotional crisis that cannot and should not continue.
Mayor Jacob Frey issued a statement saying that COVID-19 and unrest following Floyd's death tested the community and officers in profound ways.
He said cities need resources to reflect the realities on the ground.
In the meantime, I am committed to supporting those officers committed to carrying out their oath to serve and protect the people of Minneapolis during a challenging time for our city.
Muser said many of his clients were present when Third Precinct was abandoned and rioters closed in on the building during a chaotic night of unrest that ended with the police station set ablaze.
Thank you, Fox.
Now, you see, Fox has no problem saying rioter.
He said some officers wrote text messages to their loved ones over fear they wouldn't make it out of the station alive.
Others counted their ammunition in case they needed to shoot themselves rather than be beaten to death, he said.
They were left alone in the third precinct without support from city leaders, Muser said.
Officers worked 12-hour-plus shifts for days upon days without relief or clear leadership.
Minneapolis Police Spokesman John Elder declined to comment to Fox News on the number of disability claims filed by police personnel.
City officials did not immediately respond to comment.
Muser said, he's been approached by officers to file for disability claims through the state's Public Employment Retirement Association, or PERA.
Around 75 officers have left the force or turned in paperwork with the intention of leaving.
Not the biggest numbers.
I would have expected it would have been way more.
But, guess what can you say?
People need jobs.
Some officers seeking disability are veterans of the department with 16 to 23, I'm assuming they mean years of experience.
The department currently has 850 officers.
The city said it has received 17 PTSD workers compensation claims in the last month.
for para-duty disability.
Officers are not obligated to notify the department that an application was submitted.
The department has 850 officers.
75 have quit, have left, or are on the verge of leaving.
Almost 10% of the Minneapolis Police Department is out.
And they're already voting to disband it anyway.
So y'all are gonna be out of a job.
I guess the best thing you can do is take what you can get, huh?
File for PTSD.
Use your sick days, use those vacation days, because I believe they've already voted to completely disband the Minneapolis Police Department twice now, like reaffirmed or whatever, and you're gonna be left without.
So this is why I'm surprised more people aren't quitting.
So what was the total number we had here?
150.
Almost 20% of the officers are filing for disability over PTSD.
Almost 10% are outright quitting.
And they're gonna vote to dissolve the whole department anyway.
Crime is skyrocketing.
Gee, who could have seen that coming?
You look at this guy who got arrested in Provo.
And you look at the news outlets, they call it a protest, protest, protest.
We literally see people attacking vehicles, shooting at them.
And we see in the media they demonize those who would defend themselves.
They execute a search warrant on the family in St.
Louis, the couple, for having guns.
They arrest the man and the woman who defended themselves in a parking lot.
They charge the officer in the Rayshard Brooks incident with felony murder.
The police officers here get thrown under the bus and they have their department dissolved.
So yeah, I'm surprised there are any left.
If it were me...
I understand maybe they have families, but if it were me, the moment they voted to disband the department, I'd be like, buh-bye!
I'm out.
I'd be gone.
With all that unrest unfolding, burning down a police precinct, I'd get in my car and I would leave.
But again, I don't got a family, so it is what it is.
I guess we'll only, uh... We'll only hope violence settles down, alright?
