Former Obama Officials May Be Indicted As Durham Report Nears Completion, Rumors Of Charges Incoming
As John Durham prepares his report on Obamagate rumors erupt that the DOJ is preparing criminal charges which could even include Joe Biden.Democrats must be sweating over this news and I'm sure Trump and his team are prepared to launch their campaign messaging as soon as the news drops.This could dramatically shift the tides of the 2020 election#Democrats#Trump#Republicans
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
For just under a year, there's been an ongoing criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russiagate Mueller probe.
We want to know why it is that we spent years and millions of dollars investigating the Trump administration for their supposed collusion with Russia to win the 2016 election, only to turn up no evidence.
The investigation is led by John Durham, and it may be very bad news for Obama administration officials.
You see, this initially started as an administrative review.
Just, hey, just look into this and maybe we did something wrong.
But then something changed.
It became a criminal inquiry, giving lead investigator John Durham the ability to subpoena people and potentially file criminal charges.
We're now hearing from reporter John Solomon that based on some internal activities at the DOJ, indictments may be coming soon, and John Durham himself has said that he may complete his investigation by the end of summer.
We're also hearing that the Senate will begin their Obama-era probes as well, potentially having hearings this month.
Now, this may sound familiar because it kind of overlaps, or basically is, Obamagate.
Evidence was released not too long ago that actually implicated Barack Obama himself.
But I gotta be reasonable here.
This story is so incredibly complicated, it's very difficult for even me to explain to people how serious this is.
And I gotta admit, that kinda scares me.
It means that there could be real wrongdoing, but because the story is so complicated, introducing this to a regular person could be near impossible.
But I can simplify to the best of my abilities.
In one instance, there's potentially evidence implicating Joe Biden himself.
Suggesting that he recommended using the Logan Act against Michael Flynn, a Trump administration official.
Let me just simplify this.
The accusation, and based on some of the evidence, is that the past administration under Obama was trying to sabotage Donald Trump.
So what happens if this investigation gets released at the end of summer?
As John Durham says, the American people deserve to hear this story.
Will that lead to criminal indictments against potentially Biden or other Obama administration officials?
Maybe not.
That could be reaching.
But it could, at the very least, make them look inept or malicious.
Right now, they're saying that Joe Biden's up in the polls in the double digits.
They say that the congressional Democrats are leading and could potentially take the House and the Senate.
They say Joe Biden's fundraising is rivaling that of Donald Trump's.
And they all say in the media that Trump is losing and he knows it.
But what if Trump is just lying in wait for his secret weapon?
Let's be honest.
OK, first of all, I think the criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia probe makes sense.
Why did we waste all this money?
It jammed up Trump's administration.
It was nonsense.
I mean, there are legitimate reasons to argue why it made sense.
But for the most part, we're learning that it was nothing but lies.
Just lie after lie after lie.
So perhaps we really do need this investigation, but to be fair...
It's gonna help Donald Trump if it makes him look bad.
Now, everybody may be getting their hopes up.
We haven't seen anything concrete yet, just some circumstantial evidence which leads people to believe that the Obama admin is... is... well, they're guilty.
But as far as I'm concerned, they're innocent until proven guilty, so let's see what John Durham reveals, and let's see where this brings us.
But keep in mind, like I said, the Senate probes are going to begin this month, so they say.
This could be further reaching than we realize.
But hey, don't take it from me.
Let's take it from these various news sources, starting with the Daily Mail.
Now, before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash doneit if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, seriously, subscribe to my channel.
I can't believe that I have to say it.
But if you do like my videos, subscribing really does help.
And most people, seriously, most, more than half, who watch my content regularly aren't actually subscribed.
So if you want to support the channel, just subscribe and hit that like button.
But let's read the news.
What does John Durham have to say?
And will this be a serious criminal case?
Prosecutor John Durham reveals the report into spying on Trump's campaign will be released by the end of summer and says the American people deserve to hear this story.
The review, which became a criminal investigation last fall, has been derided by Democrats as simply a scheme to damage Trump's Democratic rivals before the November election.
You know what the problem with that is?
Couldn't you argue the Russiagate investigation itself Was nothing but a scheme to hurt Donald Trump and to jam up his administration?
I could argue the same thing.
To be fair, I'll tell you this.
Y'all got your years and millions of dollars dumped into this investigation?
Then I will not complain if John Durham is going to investigate how that started.
It's only fair, isn't it?
They say Department of Justice spokeswoman Carrie Kupec said the report was not the goal of the criminal investigation, but that it will be pivotal to the restoration of that one-tiered system of justice.
There is a story to be told there.
The American people deserve resolution, and frankly, justice deserves resolution, Kupec stated on behalf of Durham.
Attorney General William Barr said last month that he believed there would be developments in the Durham investigation before the end of the summer.
There are no guarantees in life, but we certainly hope to see one by the end of the summer.
I think it's important.
Kupec stressed that she was hopeful a report would emerge sooner rather than later in an effort to prevent the Durham's work, the Durham, from being potentially buried by a Democrat win should Trump lose in November.
And other Republicans have expressed this concern.
Last month, Attorney General William Barr said Durham is pressing ahead as hard as he can with the investigation.
He said, I expect that we will have some developments hopefully before the end of
summer. Barr said that the coronavirus pandemic delayed the probe, but that progress has been made.
Even after the election, the investigation is likely to continue. What happens after the
election may depend on who wins, Barr says. I gotta admit, that's one of the scariest
prospects I've ever heard. What if it's true, based on the circumstantial evidence,
that Joe Biden did engage in wrongdoing, and then Joe Biden wins and gets rid of it all.
Hey, sounds familiar, doesn't it?
They say Donald Trump was colluding with Russia.
If he wins and he buries it.
Well, you had your special investigation.
They did it for years.
They found nothing.
Nothing.
You want to argue obstruction of justice?
Okay, sure.
But the Russiagate investigation, as far as I can tell, was bunk.
Now there's going to be conspiracies all around.
And I'll tell you the scariest thing out of all of this is that no one's going to trust the results of this election, no matter what.
If Joe Biden wins, they're going to say they're cheating.
Joe Biden's going to, he's going to bury the investigation.
And he probably will.
But they accused Trump of doing the same thing.
They say Trump's cheating.
He used Bill Barr to bury the investigation.
So, what comes next?
I don't know.
I really don't.
But we do have this story, so let's press on at least with this one.
DOJ activity indicates John Durham preparing indictments, John Solomon reports.
The Washington Examiner says, activity within the Justice Department indicates U.S.
Attorney John Durham is working to bring the first indictments as part of a criminal investigation into the Russia inquiry, according to investigative journalist John Solomon.
They say Solomon, a controversial reporter who similarly reported criminal investigative activity related to Durham's efforts months ago, told Fox Business host Lou Dobbs on Tuesday that people are frustrated by the weight, asserting there already is overwhelming evidence in the public record that crimes were committed during the Russia investigation.
Now, I have to say, I actually agree with that, based on substantive and legitimate reporting from numerous outlets.
Notably, that evidence emerged, not beyond a reasonable doubt, right?
That's why you have indictments.
They can go to court.
But enough evidence emerged, as far as I can tell, to potentially bring indictments.
Now, I know, look, I'm not a lawyer.
But you had this big meeting with James Comey, with Joe Biden, with Barack Obama, where they were talking about going after Michael Flynn, even though they knew he didn't do anything wrong.
So why did they go after Michael Flynn if he did not do anything wrong?
You see, I tell you, man, this story is ridiculously confusing and complicated for a regular person.
You may be saying, I don't know anything about Michael Flynn, Tim.
I know, man.
I'll try and break it down for you as simply as I can.
Michael Flynn was to be the National Security Advisor for Trump.
He basically was.
And as the administration was preparing to come into the White House, he was talking with a Russian ambassador.
It appeared to be on the level, they said.
So how could they go after him and indict him?
The Logan Act, allegedly, Joe Biden asserted, which they tried to use.
Instead, Michael Flynn agreed to plea to lying to the FBI while he was in some informal meeting where he mentioned something in passing.
Ultimately, it's reported that the FBI threatened Flynn's son that if he didn't just plead to this, they'd go after his kid.
So he agreed to it.
Now, of course, on the other side, they say there's a lot of questions to be raised about wrongdoing from Michael Flynn.
For now, it's just, I gotta say, it's very, very, very complicated.
And what I can tell you is, From these notes that were released, it looks like they were digging for a crime instead of targeting someone who committed a crime.
That's what it looks like.
So you can make all the other arguments in the world you want.
You can say, maybe Michael Flynn did something wrong.
Then why would they need to recommend the Logan Act, which has never been used before?
I understand this may be really, really confusing, but let's read a little bit more, and we'll talk about John Solomon.
They say, this is what John Solomon said, my sources tell me there's a lot of activity I'm seeing.
Personally, activity behind the scenes of the Justice Department, Solomon said on Tuesday, adding that Durham's team is trying to bring those first indictments and I would look for a time around Labor Day to see the first sort of action by the Justice Department.
Solomon insisted that he is seeing a lot of activity consistent with building prosecutions and preparing for criminal plea bargains.
But also acknowledged that none of this may lead to anything.
That doesn't mean it'll happen, Solomon said.
Until someone signs and until they bring them before the grand jury, you never know if it's gonna happen.
Please take that for all it's worth.
This could be a big nothing burger, and I will tell you this based on my understanding of politics and my expectations, nothing is gonna happen!
I think it is wishful thinking that somehow someone in the Obama administration is criminally indicted, but hey man, I don't know.
Even John Solomon is saying maybe nothing could happen.
They're just going through these motions, and who knows?
And I'll be fair to mention, Solomon himself has been criticized for being wrong, and he's done some interviews where the interviewee said things that turned out to not be true, but he's been heavily criticized and attacked by the mainstream media.
Whether or not that strikes at his credibility, I'm not going to say, because of course if John Solomon did uncover evidence that made the Democrats look bad, of course the media is going to go after him, so we'll see how that plays out.
But I do want to point out that Durham's investigation is a criminal probe, not just reported by Fox News, but also reported by the New York Times, who took a very interesting framing of the story.
If it is a criminal probe, then criminal charges are possible.
If they are going to be wrapping up this investigation, or at least a report by the end of the summer, if they issue a public report, then it stands to reason there could be indictments.
And again, Senate Republicans are going to be launching a probe, which I'll get to in just a second.
Justice Department is said to open criminal inquiry into its own Russia investigation.
The move is likely to open the Attorney General to accusations that he is trying to deliver a political victory to President Trump.
Well, why didn't they say that about the Russia investigation?
Launching an investigation into Donald Trump could be seen as a political ploy, blah blah, no.
It was like, Trump accused!
And then we have those famous videos.
I don't know if you've ever seen it, where you get every single news anchor going, the beginning of the end for Trump.
The walls are closing in.
Could this be it for Trump?
The walls were closing in at the beginning of the end.
We get it.
Bombshell, bombshell, bombshell.
And it turned out to be nothing burger.
That's why I say this may be nothing burger.
It could be.
The murmurings are just designed to bolster Trump.
You know why?
Here's what they're saying.
Devin Nunes.
John Durham's Russia investigation in danger of getting buried.
That's right.
If Joe Biden wins, he may bury the investigation and then you'll never know about the crimes they committed.
You gotta get out and vote to protect this.
Because like they said, the Durham investigation may continue even after the election.
But not if Joe Biden wins.
He'll bury it.
Now, if Joe Biden really did commit a crime, yeah, of course he's gonna bury it.
Why wouldn't he?
So maybe we'll get a report, and then maybe they'll dangle criminal prosecutions, but only if Donald Trump wins.
Now they won't say it overtly, they'll say, we expect there may be criminal charges, the investigation is ongoing.
And then many people might be like, we have to support Trump if that's the case.
To be fair, that may literally be the case, and here's evidence.
From the New York Post, Joe Biden may have personally raised idea to investigate Michael Flynn.
They say may have because it's coming from someone else's notes.
But this does implicate Joe Biden.
Check it out.
Former Vice President Joe Biden appears to have personally raised the idea of investigating Michael Flynn for potentially having violated the obscure Logan Act during his phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to newly filed court papers Wednesday.
The previously sealed document also says that former President Barack Obama told top members of his administration that the right people should investigate Flynn.
But then, FBI Director James Comey acknowledged during the meeting, which also involved Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and possibly National Security Advisor Susan Rice, that Flynn's conversations with Kislyak, quote, appeared legit, according to the Washington, D.C.
federal court filing by Flynn's defense lawyers.
The revelations are contained in handwritten notes prepared by disgraced ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok that Flynn's lawyers called stunning and exculpatory evidence in the government's since-abandoned case against Trump's former National Security Advisor.
Let me slow down a second.
First and foremost, This is from Flynn's defense filing, but it includes legit notes from Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who wanted to go after Flynn.
He wrote this down.
Maybe he wrote down gibberish nonsense.
Maybe he's secretly been a double agent for Donald Trump and he is framing the Obama administration.
I really doubt it.
The most likely scenario?
Peter Strzok took notes at the meeting and unfortunately for them, it implicates Joe Biden.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say a partially blacked out copy of Strzok's notes is attached to the filing and includes a mention that appears to say VP Logan Act.
According to Strzok's notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the idea of the Logan Act, defense lawyers Jesse Binnall and Sidney Powell wrote.
That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn.
And it is true.
That Joe Biden sought the unmasking of Michael Flynn's name.
Again, complicated, you know, jargon.
The general idea is Joe Biden wanted to know who was engaging in phone calls with certain individuals and he received the name of Michael Flynn.
So, more evidence to suggest that Joe Biden had a real reason to suggest a way to go after Michael Flynn.
Now, you can argue That Joe Biden legitimately thought Michael Flynn was doing something wrong and needed a pretext to go after Flynn.
But should that be what the government does?
Make up pretext?
Just use the Logan Act!
We know, based on the unmasking, that he was, you know, talking to this guy, so we'll use that as grounds for investigating because we think he did something wrong.
No, I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
To me, it sounds like they had no real justification to go after Flynn and decided, we'll make one up!
That's what it sounds like.
But listen, right now Trump is in office and John Durham is not one of his long-standing allies.
Supposedly, Durham is like a legit dude who's been in the, you know, who's been a part of the DOJ, I suppose, for a long time.
And he's supposed to be trustworthy, a non-partisan actor.
I mean, for that matter, the smears they levy against Bill Barr, too, just, it doesn't fly with me.
Bill Barr was the AG a long time ago.
He was brought back out of retirement.
If he wasn't corrupt then, why would he be corrupt now?
I think that would be absurd.
So, Bill Barr seems like a rather reasoned fella, and I mostly trust him.
I don't know him personally, but he seems to be on the level.
Durham is doing this investigation.
We'll see what plays out.
Here's what they say.
The Logan Act.
That became the admitted pretext to investigate Flynn.
The revelation contradicts Biden's claim of total ignorance regarding the Flynn probe when he was vice president, which he was asked about in an interview with George Stephanopoulos.
He said, I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn.
You see, this all sort of points in one direction that they were doing something wrong.
Biden later claimed he misunderstood the question, adding, I was aware that there was, that they asked for an
investigation, but that's all I know about it.
And I don't think anything else, anything else. I mean, you were in the meeting with Comey and Obama
and apparently you made some statements about the Logan Act or said something.
What do you mean you didn't know? The first question he was asked,
oh, I don't know anything about that.
When Stephanopoulos pressed him and said you were in the meeting, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right, that's right, yeah, sure.
But I don't know anything else.
I don't buy it.
I really don't.
But again, it doesn't mean we're gonna actually see some criminal charges against Biden or anybody else.
I think that's wishful thinking.
You know, a lot of people have speculated that even if there's evidence of wrongdoing, they'll just throw some low-level FBI people under the bus, and Obama and Biden, nothing bad will happen.
But we'll see.
Because not just Durham.
Senate GOP set to ramp up Obama-era probes.
This breaking news from just the other day.
The Hill reporting.
Senate Republicans are preparing to ramp up their Obama-era probes, pushing the controversial investigations back into the spotlight as the 2020 elections heat up.
The efforts have sparked high-profile tensions with Senate Democrats and public rebukes from former Vice President Joe Biden's orbit.
They view the efforts as an attempt to meddle in the 2020 elections, where Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Cry me a river.
You are screaming Russia at Trump in his face non-stop.
Before and after he got elected.
So spare me.
We think they're just trying to meddle.
Oh, pot meet kettle.
I don't care.
Investigate.
So be it.
You made the rules.
You made the bed.
You lie in it.
They say with Senate coming back to Washington on Monday and the number of legislative days quickly dwindling, Republicans are preparing to step up their efforts.
In July, we will be having some public hearings.
There's a lot to be done between now and September, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said during a social media Q&A, adding that he would investigate the investigators.
I don't believe it!
I don't trust Lindsey Graham.
I do not view him as particularly effective.
And I don't think he cares.
He's defended Joe Biden on more than one occasion.
This is just a political, it's political theater, man.
Oh, we're gonna, we're gonna investigate.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, you're not gonna do anything.
I really doubt they will because they haven't.
Why is it that we spent years of this?
And where are we now?
Maybe Durham will, you know, reveal something important.
Maybe.
Republicans, for the most part, I'm gonna say it seem to be worthless.
Not like the Democrats are good!
Okay, they're all bad as far as I'm concerned.
As a handful of Republicans that I like, you know, Rand Paul's cool, Dan Crenshaw's alright, Matt Gaetz is pretty cool.
And you got the Democrats have Tulsi Gabbard, she's alright.
Notice I'm praising them because they tend to be the anti-war ones, except for Dan Crenshaw.
I disagree with him on that one.
But anyway, let's read.
Graham specifically singled out former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, saying he wants her to testify about a January 5th, 2017 White House meeting, which has been an area of interest for Republicans.
At the meeting, then-President Obama and then-FBI Director James Comey discussed sharing national security information related to Russia with incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Yates did not respond to a request for comment about whether Graham or his staff had reached out about testifying.
Asked if they had reached out to Yates or her representatives, a spokesman for Graham sidestepped the question, saying, stay tuned.
Meanwhile, Senator Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told The Hill that he wants to release an interim report on an investigation linked to Biden's son, Hunter Biden, by the time the Senate leaves for a four-week break on August 7th.
His staff is already drafting parts of the report.
We've got a very detailed timeline.
I've told staff I certainly want to get something out before the August recess.
As incomplete as it is, Johnson told The Hill.
At some point in time, we've got to say, okay, here's what we've got, here's the remaining questions that need to be answered.
The two chairmen as well as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley are months into wide-ranging investigations that touch on some of the biggest grievances President Trump and conservative allies have, including the origins of the Russia investigation, the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Hunter Biden.
Staff on the Finance and on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees are scheduled to start holding closed-door transcribed interviews with Senate Department officials next week, two Senate aides told The Hill.
Interviews are scheduled with some, but not all, of the four officials requested to testify in an April 30 letter from the two Republican chairmen.
At the time, they requested sit-downs with Ambassador Bridget Brink, Ambassador Jeffrey Pyatt, George Kent and Elizabeth Zentos asked about other
interviews. A State Department spokesman said, as a general matter, we do not comment on correspondence
with Congress. There's a lot that's going to happen. This could result in a major swing
in favor of Donald Trump.
Now look, I gotta be honest, man.
It is a powerful political play for Republicans, Trump or otherwise.
All of this stuff is going to drop just before an election.
I think it's fair to criticize this and say, I don't like the idea of them coming out in 2015 and accusing Trump of working with Russia and then spending years to go after him.
This is dangerous for our country.
But I also have to be fair and say, What if it's true that they engaged in serious and overt wrongdoing?
We can't just ignore it.
It needs to be investigated, and the timeframe is the timeframe.
These are challenging times, man.
You know, we talk about this idea of civil war, and a lot of people have mentioned it.
A lot of people get mad when I bring it up.
Hey, it is what it is.
You've got the Democrats and the Republicans accusing each other of doing the exact same things.
Both view each other as overtly corrupt and criminal.
Both sides know that they're right.
So what happens if this investigation reveals wrongdoing on the part of the Democrats?
Then you're going to see a bunch of low-level Democrats, street-level individuals, screaming, Trump is cheating, Bill Barr is lying, Durham is lying.
This is Trump trying to steal the election.
If it comes out that there's nothing, then I think nothing would really happen.
But the scary thing is, at the highest level in politics, the former administration and the current administration seem to be at odds, accusing each other of extreme wrongdoing.
Well, Obama lost that battle.
Turns out there was no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.
Now we have Trump, not necessarily Trump, but the Durham investigation from Bill Barr going after Democrats.
They're all saying the exact same thing that Republicans were saying about them.
So it seems like a double standard.
You don't get to demand that you investigate Trump and accuse him of all this stuff.
And then when they say, OK, our turn now to figure out why you did it, then go, no, no, no, help, help.
I'm being repressed.
Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Let's see what these investigations reveal.
And at any rate, this may lead to a massive swing in favor of Donald Trump.
We'll see.
Stick around.
The next segment is coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
For the past 50 days, far leftists in Antifa have been attacking federal buildings in Portland.
And as most of you know, local law enforcement has seemingly backed off.
And if you've been following my content, then you'll also know that residents of Portland Will not return indictments in many of these instances.
I covered this before.
59 people who had been arrested for rioting were not indicted, nine of whom were on felony charges and the grand jury said we won't indict.
One person actually bragged about committing arson and was caught at the scene and the local courts, the local grand jury, the residents of Portland said no.
We will not return an indictment.
We're facing something truly weird.
I don't know what you'd call what's currently happening in Portland, Oregon.
It's not a protest, and it's not a riot.
You know why I say it's not a riot?
Take a look at this story.
If this can happen here in Portland, it can happen anywhere.
Oregon AG sues the feds.
That's right.
The mayor of Portland is blaming federal law enforcement, who have been besieged for just over 50 days now.
Last night was day 50, I believe.
What are they supposed to do?
Think about it.
The federal courthouse in these federal buildings are the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The federal government works with state governments.
There are certain areas of local jurisdictions that are under the jurisdiction of the feds because federal government enforces federal law.
Now the feds don't necessarily have jurisdiction in local areas to varying degrees.
But what's the federal government supposed to do if for 50 days far leftists are attacking their buildings?
Do they just let the buildings burn down?
Do they just let these far left riders do whatever they want?
Now I've certainly made my arguments about optics and the weaponization of this, but the left is certainly weaponizing it.
We are entering now a very, very strange space where Mayor Ted Wheeler is attacking the federal officers trying to defend federal jurisdiction, where the AG is suing the feds.
No one is stopping Antifa and the far left on day 50 as they literally throw explosives into these buildings.
They've tried burning them down.
There's one video where a far leftist pulls a hammer back and waits outside the door to ambush a federal officer.
Yet as soon as these officers make any moves to try and detain, arrest, or stop these people, even to question them, the media lights up.
Nancy Pelosi lights up and everyone then goes after Trump.
So tell me, what do you call it when you have 50 days of sustained violence from the far left against a federal building with the legal support of the local governments?
I'm going to leave that one to you.
We'll talk about it in a minute.
I've got some historical references that we can talk about.
Let me show you this story, and I'm going to show you some of the tactics of Antifa.
I really want to point out one of the things they've been doing.
Antifa does this all the time.
Antifa on the far left.
They wear press badges.
And they wear medic badges.
So when you see a video where federal law enforcement are arresting somebody, and they've got like a red cross on their person, people go, they're arresting medics, man!
What are they doing?
It's like, yes, slapping duct tape on your arms does not make you, all of a sudden, exempt from these laws.
So often there are medics.
Often there are press.
But these people use that to manipulate.
Someone will put on a press badge, throw a brick, and then the video comes out of them arresting the journalists.
I'll leave it to you to decide what you want to call it.
Let's read this story.
And I want to show you how the state government is actually supporting the riots.
The State Attorney General announced a federal lawsuit late Friday against the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Marshal Service, the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Protection Service, and their agents alleging they have engaged in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregonians by seizing and detaining them without probable cause.
I'm gonna tell you right now, this suit seems to be totally bunk.
We have so much video evidence.
Just follow Andy Ngo on Twitter.
This dude's just posting all these videos.
You can see them throwing bricks, smoke bombs, explosives, swinging hammers and weapons.
Sorry, man.
Apparently a preacher, a counter-protester, got brutally beaten again.
Showing up and saying, you know, I'm not gonna back down.
So they're lying.
The government is supporting.
They are covering for and lying.
We have some history on what happens when governments do this, and it's called something.
I'll pull up the historical references for you that are similar, not identical, and we'll talk about what's going on.
Let's read.
The AG said, The lawsuit will be followed by a motion for a temporary restraining order regarding the forcible detainment of an Oregon resident, Mark Pettibone.
If granted, the TRO would immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians.
Rosenblum's actions come in response to two disturbing incidents that occurred this week.
Both involved federal authorities overstepping their powers and injuring or threatening peaceful protesters on the streets of downtown Portland.
Do you know what will happen if they win?
Federal law enforcement will have no choice but to back down.
The state is trying to ensure that the federal law enforcement officers cannot protect these buildings.
Think about what that means.
It means Antifa shows up once again, throws explosives, and the feds have their hands tied.
They are supporting the attack on the federal government.
The state of Oregon is defending and supporting the attack on federal buildings.
Tell me what that is.
Comment below.
We'll talk about it in a second.
I want to give you the news, then I've got some historical references.
We'll go over.
The lawsuit comes after two incidents this week.
The first took place on July 12, 2020, when a peaceful protester, when a violent rioter, was standing near the Mark O. Hatfield courthouse.
The protester was hit in the head with an impact weapon and suffered severe injuries.
Now, that's not cool.
I'm not okay with that.
But I've seen some of these videos, and if it was the case where this law enforcement officer aimed for the dude, the dude was holding a speaker above his head and just standing there.
If it's the case that they were aiming for him, well, I mean, that's horrifying.
However, when you're in a conflict zone, no matter what it is you're doing, you run the risk of getting hit.
So while we can be horrified, at a certain point we draw the line and say, listen buddy, I am sad to hear that you were injured in this way.
I really am.
I don't like war.
I don't like conflict.
I want peace.
I want these things to die down.
No violence.
But you do not get sympathy from me when you go out with all of these violent riots on night... I think this... What is this?
The 12th?
So that was... That was night 44 of ongoing riots where you were on the side of the... I'm sorry.
They're not riots.
They're something else.
Insurgency.
When you're on the side of the insurgents and then you get hit.
Yes.
These things happen.
And I'm sorry, I can't have much sympathy for you.
I've gone out and covered real conflict.
And I've seen journalists get peppered with buckshot and birdshot.
And I'm like, man, I hope you're alright.
You knew what you were getting into.
Every single person who enters a conflict, you know what you're signing up for when you go out there.
You want to join the rioters?
Even in a peaceful capacity, I understand.
You were holding up a speaker.
Well, it is a bummer this person was severely injured, but what do you want me to do?
You go and stand alongside people throwing bricks and molotovs and explosives, you might get hit, man!
The second occurred July 16, 2020, also in downtown Portland, when an unmarked minivan with undercover federal agents— Undercover?
Undercover!
Have you seen the video?
They're overtly wearing police gear!
They're not undercover!
They got DHS patches and police patches!
That is the— Could you imagine— I'm sorry.
This one's too good.
With undercover federal agents wearing generic green military fatigues forcibly detained Pettibone, who was walking on a sidewalk.
Pettibone was later held at the federal courthouse and eventually was let go.
That's it.
Let's play your undercover game.
I'd like for you to imagine this scenario.
A drug dealer.
Part of a criminal enterprise to sell illicit goods on the streets of Portland.
All of a sudden, the new recruit shows up wearing full tactical police gear with a police badge and a DHS badge on his chest with a gun and a mask.
And he walks up and he's like, yo, I'm here to join your gang.
And the guy goes, you a cop?
Nah, I'm not a cop.
All right, you're cool, man.
What?
Undercover?
You walk around wearing police gear, wearing a police badge that says DHS on it.
That's the opposite of undercover.
That's overcover.
You're literally saying, you know what?
They're doing this.
It's propaganda.
Here's the important point.
The state is supporting the attack on the federal government.
Let me say it for you 50 million times.
I want you to tell me what you think that is.
Quote, I share the concerns of our state and local leaders and our Oregon U.S.
Senators and certain congressional representatives that the current escalation of fear and violence in downtown Portland is being driven by federal law enforcement tactics that are entirely unnecessary and out of character with the Oregon Way.
These tactics must stop.
Alan Rosenblum, Oregon's Attorney General, said in a statement.
She continued, They not only make it impossible for people to assert their First Amendment rights to protest peacefully.
Okay.
I'm sorry, man.
I can't read this.
We know they're not protesting peacefully.
I've got videos!
YouTube, of course, doesn't want me to show you these videos, but I can show you some stuff.
Now we've also got the mayor.
Portland mayor demands Trump remove his quote personal army of federal agents from the city after they clashed with protesters following 50 straight nights of unrest in the streets.
Now it is fair to say that the federal government is constrained in how they deal with enforcing laws in states.
But this is jurisdiction that belongs to the federal government and they can operate in these places.
That's it.
Period.
Now, I think they're personally being set up by the far left for attacks like this, but I think that's a whole other question, because right now what we're seeing is the federal government, with every right that they have, and they do, to enforce the laws as it pertains to their jurisdiction.
I know.
I was literally arrested for skateboarding once downtown Chicago because the sidewalk was owned by the feds.
Seriously.
Case got thrown out, because skateboarding is not a crime.
Well, I guess trespassing is, but I was riding my skateboard on the sidewalk.
If you show up, and you go onto the property of a federal building, the federal officers, the federal law enforcement agencies, have jurisdiction.
And they can go out and arrest you.
The state, I'm sorry, you have to, we have federal law enforcement, I mean look, During the Obama administration, DEA agents would raid state legal dispensaries in California, and it was a big controversy.
Why were the feds going into state terror?
Because they can.
Because this is how the government works.
The federal government has jurisdiction over certain matters, especially as it pertains to some of these people crossing state lines.
Many of them we've seen, because of the photos posted by Andy Ngo, came from Seattle, Washington.
You cross that state line, the feds have jurisdiction over all of it.
Now I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer and tell you exactly how they should be operating, but I can tell you this, man.
Antifa...
uses these tactics in order to appear weaker and, like, they need to be called peaceful protesters.
They need to make sure that their attacks are blunted and not overt, otherwise the national press will pick it up and they'll have no choice.
So Antifa purposefully tries using tactics like blunt objects, fireworks, that way they can say, it was a firecracker, dude!
They're not throwing explosives!
But they're commercial-grade mortar, you know, the mortar shells.
When I cover the violence in Berkeley, and they were throwing mortar shells, like the brown balls, the commercial-grade explosives, at people.
When I would say they were throwing explosives, people would say they were throwing firecrackers, dude, calm down.
And I'm like, that's not a firecracker, dude, that might as well be a bomb.
It's an explosion, it injures people.
And M-80s.
Check this out.
This is a post from Andy Ngo.
He says, in a press conference today, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler blames Donald Trump and DHSGov for the Antifa riots in Portland.
A reporter then points out the riots were already happening for five straight weeks before DHS came in.
Mic drop.
This is the proof.
This is all the proof we need.
Now let me lay out for you what's really happening.
This is some kind of mark and reprisal style privateer attacks on the federal government.
It's the only way I can describe it.
You can call it insurgency.
You can call it maybe civil war.
I don't know.
But I will tell you this, if these kind of tactics and the states defending the violence escalates, history will look back on this as part of it.
I know a lot of people almost immediately rolled their eyes saying, Civil War, blah blah blah.
Let me tell you something about history, alright?
There's something called Letters of Mark.
I don't know if you're familiar with this, but the general idea was that you would find a private ship, and this is a lot of what people think piracy is.
So, piracy was when a random ship would, you know, rush up to you and then, you know, attack you and steal your stuff.
But a lot of it was actually sanctioned by the governments.
So say, you know, England would issue a letter of marque, Britain, the British Empire, would issue a letter of marque and reprisal to a private ship who could then claim to be a random private pirate, attack a French ship, and then France would be like, we were attacked by British sailors!
Oh no, heavens, it wasn't us!
We don't sanction this!
Oh, those criminals, I say!
And that's basically the gist of it.
Keeping that in mind, we have to understand that looking back at history isn't always going to show us a perfect example of what's happening today.
So I'm going to bring you now to the simple definition of civil war.
Wikipedia says, a civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polymology, is a war between organized groups within the same state or country.
The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or region to achieve independence for a region or to change governmental policies.
They say a civil war is a high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized, and large-scale.
Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties, blah blah blah.
So, maybe it's not fair to call this civil war.
Maybe it's some kind of civil unrest or conflict.
I don't know for sure.
But Chris Hayes of MSNBC says, All right.
Let's lay this out, baby.
Biden's governor and one of its senators join me tonight to tell us about Donald Trump's
paramilitary invasion of their state.
All right.
Let's lay this out, baby.
First of all, it's not paramilitary.
Paramilitary is typically like private, unofficial.
No.
Federal law enforcement agents have full jurisdiction in Oregon pertaining to certain matters.
Notably, if violent attacks keep occurring on a courthouse or federal building, that is their jurisdiction, they can defend it.
So think about what's really happening right now.
Is Antifa and the far left organized and regular?
No, they're not.
But that could only be because times change and tactics change in the information age.
You see, a couple hundred years ago, when you had civil conflict, the person who escaped with the word to spread was the one who could declare what had really happened.
History was written by the victors.
Well, Times are different.
We're in the age of social media where anyone can just share videos of what's happening immediately.
This is why we see things like... Not like this.
Let me see if I can find it.
Here we go.
This person says Antifa doesn't exist.
They have flags.
Check this person out.
You can see on their helmet a P and an R. What they've done is they've put press on their helmet, but they're flying a flag of Antifa.
Now, Antifa isn't, of course, a top-down, organized, nationwide or international group.
It's a loose-knit ideology of cells.
So in Portland, yes, there is literally a Portland-branded cell.
They operate in such a way to avoid being detected.
Why?
We're in the information age.
I'd be willing to bet if we didn't have cell phone technology, if we didn't have this video technology or the internet, this would just be a civil war because the only tactics the far left would have would be to literally start attacking the federal courthouse.
They're being supported and defended from resources within the state from the state government.
So think about what we have now.
People, far leftists, for 50 days, 50, I want you to think about that for a second, with explosives and weapons, and I kid you not, swords and body armor, are attacking federal officers, attacking federal buildings.
The state is protecting and defending them.
So what do you call it when a state uses legal resources, financial resources, to protect a group that is then attacking the police?
Sounds to me like it's similar to Mark and Reprisal.
Oh, these people are just violent rioters!
Oh, I mean, heavens!
We're trying to stop them!
No, they're not.
They're defending them.
The ACLU is defending them.
They are literally protecting these people with legal resource as they attack the feds.
What would happen?
If Portland used their actual law enforcement, no one would support them.
People in this country would freak out and say, why are you directing Portland police to go after federal law enforcement protecting a building?
What they need to do is control and manipulate the flow of information, which means this is not sanctioned by Portland.
Portland says, you know, we are all these violent rioters, you know.
They're actually saying peaceful protesters.
Wait a minute.
Peaceful protesters?
Well, we've seen the videos.
Peaceful protesters don't bring, what is this, three katanas?
And explosives.
Why then would the government call them peaceful?
Oh, it's because they're lying.
Lying to defend them.
Not too dissimilar to the letters of Mark of days long since past, when a privateer would scuttle a merchant vessel from France and then say, it was but a private vessel!
We'll certainly hang the pirate if we catch them!
No, it was all a big game.
So they could avoid responsibility but engage in overt warfare.
So now I want you to tell me what you think it is when a state uses their resources and their authority to lie to the public, peaceful protesters, to legally defend violent attacks on federal law enforcement and federal buildings.
What I believe is that they want it to happen.
Now this could be the lowest of low tier in terms of what a civil conflict could be, but I think it's fair to point out that if the far left for 50 days have been violently attacking with explosive bottles, rocks, hammers, if they're attacking the federal building trying to burn it down, they've been trying to burn it down.
When in reality, law enforcement is going after these people specifically because they are engaging in acts of insurgency against federal jurisdiction.
And now they're being supported by the state.
I believe this is more like guerrilla tactics of the information age.
Back in the day, you had, you know, the armies would march towards each other with their guns and, ready, aim, fire!
Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!
And they'd march on the battlefield.
Then guerrilla tactics started to emerge.
You know why?
Because people realized it was more important to win.
All of a sudden you had people hiding in the trees and the group would, you know, the soldiers would march up and then they would all take them out because they just wanted to win and survive.
It didn't matter what honor, you know, about honor.
It wasn't necessarily just about honor.
It was about just an evolution of tactics.
This is information age guerrilla warfare.
It's not so much about ambushing the police.
It's about ambushing the minds of regular people.
They can't just march right into the federal building and say, ready, aim.
They can't use standard guerrilla warfare tactics where they like line up outside the buildings and start firing at federal law enforcement because then they would be perceived as the bad guys.
So they use information age guerrilla warfare, wearing press badges, medic badges, and then feigning the victim.
And then the government supports them by claiming peaceful protesters are being abducted.
You then see Chris Hayes call it an invasion by the federal government.
And that's where we come now to the very, very interesting discussion about civil war.
Invasion.
You see, in the Civil War, my understanding, I'm not a war buff or anything, was that after several states seceded from the Union, Union forces remained at Fort Sumter, and I believe this was in South Carolina, and they said, get out.
You are illegally invading our space.
And the Union said, no.
And war broke out.
And from there it escalated.
I believe it was Fort Sumter, I could be wrong about that, but the general idea is, the Union soldiers said, we're not leaving, because we have a right to be here, you're not seceding.
You now have leftists calling what the feds are doing on their own courthouse, in their own jurisdiction, an invasion.
It sounds like they're talking like the old south.
You're invading our territory?
So what is it then?
I ask you, if you disagree with me, when the state itself lies and engages in these guerrilla information tactics to manipulate the public into thinking they're being invaded, when they go on MSNBC with Chris Hayes and he says, we're being invaded, does Oregon want to secede from the Union then?
Do you not want the federal government to have jurisdiction in these areas?
Then by all means, file those papers and we'll see if we can get two-thirds of the states to ratify.
The reality is, this is escalating beyond just a protest and a riot.
It is something entirely different.
You tell me what you think it is.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
This morning, a 15th-century Gothic church started on fire.
The organ inside the church was completely destroyed, and according to one individual on Twitter, it is one of the last, if not the last, pre-French Revolution organs.
See, this is occurring in Nantes, France, and we've heard repeatedly over the past year that churches across France were being desecrated, burned, and destroyed.
A lot of people have conspiracy theories, I guess you can call it, as to who's starting these fires and why they're starting.
Of course, we often hear from the press that the fires are just accidents.
Well, I'm not so sure.
You see, here, an arson probe is being launched because three fires were started.
It would seem that this arson in France was intentional.
In the United States, we heard a story of a man crashing a vehicle into the foyer of a church and then trying to set it on fire with people inside.
On an Alaskan Airlines flight, a man got up and threatened to kill every passenger unless they accepted that Jesus Christ was a black man.
We've seen statues of Jesus Christ beheaded, statues of the Virgin Mary destroyed, and it's not just about religion.
See, I'm not a religious person.
I did grow up Catholic for a brief period and then ultimately just non-theistic, I would say.
But I am greatly concerned about the destruction of our culture and our history.
Statues are being torn down across the U.S., violent riots are erupting, and they're tearing down things as nonsensical as elk statues in Portland.
That, to me, is what I see from all of this.
Now look, I understand there's going to be a lot of religious people who are affected on a deeply personal and faith-based level when they see that someone tried to burn down a 15th century gothic church.
For me, I look at it as very important bits of history.
You see, everything we have, everything we know, We're standing on the shoulders of giants.
Now we can look back in time, and for someone like me who's rather, I don't necessarily want to say agnostic, but non-theistic, I don't look at these churches and think that they represent the great scientific values of today.
But I do look back at these churches, I should say, I do look at these churches now and recognize the advancements in architecture, for instance, just the general cultural developments that lifted us up to be better, to build a better world.
You see, a lot of people might not know this, But our current legal system, English common law, the presumption of innocence, is actually rooted in the Bible, I believe, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The general idea is you can't condemn an innocent person.
It lends itself to Blackstone's formulation.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer, which ultimately leads us to the Fifth Amendment, the right to due process, the right to remain silent, and the presumption of innocence.
So while I may not be religious, I understand the importance of these symbols and what they represent.
Be it a statue, be it a church.
You see, I'm no fan of the Confederate statues, but even those, I believe, deserve to be carefully placed in museums so we can recognize what came before us, the things we've narrowly missed, the horrifying routes we may have gone down, and how we've actually come to do better.
You see, it would seem that, you know, the good guys tend to win.
I'll tell you what's worrying me with these stories, and then I'll read through it and we'll talk about what's going on.
It's not just this one church, but churches across Europe are apparently being burned down.
Churches in the U.S.
are now being attacked, following high-profile activists, notably Sean King, saying, tear down the statues of Jesus.
Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington.
I can talk about these statues being torn down over and over and over again.
But people really don't understand ideas, philosophies.
They don't just exist.
Someone thought them up.
They developed these ideas.
We need them, and we can forget them, and that's dangerous.
These revolutionaries who would tear down statues and destroy our history.
The ISIS members in the Middle East who are destroying ancient historical sites.
They're doing it because they don't want you to know that these people crafted ideas.
They've created systems and from those systems we have created better and better ideas.
We've refined them and approved upon them.
If they can go back to the source and cut off the root, then they can truly erase the
ideas of freedom, liberty, the presumption of innocence.
And more than that, it's about our culture.
You see, a lot of people really don't realize this, man.
That even in the U.S., for people who are not religious, so much of our understanding of the world is rooted in Christianity and Judaism.
And they would seek to destroy it so they can change our perception of the world.
At the same time, we are seeing other Eastern powers, notably China, start gaining power and they're rising.
And this is where it gets really scary.
It's Thucydides' trap, which I mentioned over and over again, that when a rising power is on the verge of displacing the dominant power, war breaks out.
It's not just about our economies, it's about our culture, it's about our history, it's about our legacies, about the things that made us who we are being destroyed at a time when a rival economic power is rising up.
But enough of that, let's actually read and I'll give you the news and we'll talk about what's going on here.
And I've got some other news pertaining to these churches as well as violence erupting over statues, but let's talk about Nantes.
The Daily Mail says, Arson probe launched over Inferno at Nantes Cathedral after blaze was sparked near Oregon inside a 1434 Gothic church.
They say police have launched an arson investigation after an inferno broke out at Nantes Cathedral this morning, which took 104 firefighters to control.
Smoke was seen billowing out of the 15th century structure in France as emergency services desperately tried to extinguish the inferno, which is believed to have started at the cathedral's organ.
Prosecutor Pierre Senes said three fires had been started at the site and authorities were treating the incident as a criminal act.
He gave no other details.
Here's a photo of the fire at the cathedral.
The blaze comes just over a year after a major fire at the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, which destroyed its roof and main spire.
Local fire chief Laurent Ferlet told reporters 104 firemen were still at the site to ensure the blaze was completely under control.
The fire had broken out behind the Grand Organ, which was completely destroyed, he said.
Stained glass windows at the front of the cathedral were blown out.
However, the damage was not as bad as initially feared.
It is part of our history, a part of our heritage, Nanta's mayor Johanna Rolin said.
We all have these images in mind, the story in our hearts, but at this stage, the situation
does not seem to be comparable to that of 1972.
French Prime Minister Jean Castex, Castey, however you pronounce it, and French Interior
Minister Gérald Darmanin will be among officials who go to Nanta Saturday afternoon in reaction
I want to show you a photo of inside.
Peter Anthony says the last major pre-revolution organ constructed in France is now completely destroyed.
This breaks my heart, man.
History.
Everything that led up to where we are today and all its imperfections are the things that survive, that remind us of what things used to be like, that give you proof that it really happened!
Destroyed!
I often think about my past and you wonder, did it really happen?
Have you ever had this philosophical, you know, thought process where you wonder, how do we know what reality really is?
How do we know that we really exist?
We do, because we have evidence to prove it.
You know, there are a lot of sci-fi films and movies where a person has memories, but it turns out they're a clone.
It never really happened.
I was watching a show recently where it was a sci-fi show.
A guy clones his wife and then his new clone of his wife doesn't realize she's a clone.
She refuses to believe it!
And he says, check your scar.
Because a clone wouldn't have a scar.
And lo and behold, she didn't.
Proving that her memories were false.
This is the importance of physical evidence of our history.
When someone says, we did this, this happened, this existed, we can look to the paintings, we can look to the buildings and the structures and the stories left behind.
And while they can be corrupted over time, this is the importance of statues, of history, of monuments.
It gives proof that we actually existed in this way.
If they destroy all of these statues, if they destroy these organs, these churches, and someone comes to you and says, this is what happened, how would you know it really happened?
You take a look at what's going on with the 1619 Project.
They say, the United States was founded as a slaveocracy, the real foundation of this country, 1619, when the first slaves were brought to the U.S.
Well, that's just not true.
I mean, the colonies were all sovereign colonies, and technically sovereign to themselves after the Revolution.
Some didn't necessarily want to join.
I was reading once that maybe Quebec would have joined because they were part of the British Empire as well.
Ultimately, they didn't.
But we know that things happened.
We know what really happened in our history, so long as we preserve that history.
But they would seek to rewrite it.
The challenge is that we have proof.
We have statues.
We have documents.
We have letters.
We have books.
We have writings.
We have evidence the Founding Fathers created this nation on a specific date, and we know what they really thought about slavery.
Many did not like it, and a couple didn't even have slaves.
Not perfect.
Absolutely not.
But we know, to the best of our understanding, we probably get a lot wrong because history is very imperfect, but we keep this evidence to try and preserve our understanding of what, why, and how it happened.
Now they're destroying that.
They're destroying our history.
And for whatever reason, churches across Europe are being desecrated.
One of the responses to this Twitter thread about the destruction of this organ is, why would someone want to burn down a church?
It's an attack.
I know that a lot of people seem to have a theory as to who's really burning these buildings down.
I don't know.
I'll tell you this, though.
Sean King, a leftist activist, said tear down statues of Jesus.
And then someone literally tore down a statue of Jesus and beheaded the statue.
A man got on a plane and threatened passengers saying that he would kill all of them unless they accepted that Jesus Christ was black.
I can't tell you who actually is doing it.
We'll wait for the investigation to figure it out.
But I wouldn't be surprised if it is far-left groups that want a cultural revolution because they're trying to destroy our history.
Catholic churches burned, vandalized.
Over a weekend, as police investigate where's the outrage, Florida and California churches set on fire as authorities question if it is connected to recent protests.
You know what, man?
I don't know for sure.
I don't know what it's connected to, but I do know that, you know, there's attempts to topple statues in Chicago.
We have the story from the Chicago Tribune.
Attempt to topple Christopher Columbus statue in Chicago's Grant Park prompts standoff with police, arrests, and rebuke of mayor.
There are groups that would want to destroy our history.
In Philadelphia, A bunch of men showed up to defend the statue of Christopher Columbus.
I believe it was mostly, like, Italian groups.
Because Christopher Columbus is, you know, a symbol of Italian history, I guess.
And, uh, he's an icon to the, you know, the Italian community.
And many of these people showed up with masks and bats, some with guns.
And they staved off the far left.
They won.
And then the city said, we're taking it down anyway.
Because, oh, the potential for violence is too much.
We'll just remove it.
The city of Columbus, Ohio, literally named for Christopher Columbus, took down their giant Columbus statue because it was offensive.
I'm sorry, man.
You know, a lot of people don't want to hear it, but it really sounds like the revolution is winning, baby.
Come on.
Burning down churches, attacking churches, tearing down statues of Jesus Christ.
I remember when we started hearing about these statues being torn down, and I said, we'll probably see some violence.
Sure enough, in certain areas we did.
Like I mentioned in Philly, these guys showed up and said, don't you dare.
In New Mexico, some dude showed up, they chased him, attacked him, and then he ended up firing on a guy and critically injuring him.
I don't know exactly, I don't know where, what the latest development in that story is.
I believe that man was released, I'm not entirely sure.
But people have started to try and defend some of it.
But I was worried if they started tearing down Jesus and Mary, you would see a reaction like no other.
I guess I was wrong.
I guess I was wrong.
There are some photos going around where you can see some, like, armed dudes defending a statue of Jesus on the cross outside of a church saying, you know, Catholic men will defend this.
But maybe there really aren't Christians left in this country.
Now, hear me out.
I understand a lot of our values are based in Christianity.
Whether you're Christian or not, it's true.
The idea of sin, for instance.
I was thinking about this.
Like, even though many people are not Christian, they understand these concepts.
They understand a lot of concepts in Christianity that you might not find if you went to say, you know, Tibet or China, Taiwan, Japan.
You might explain these basic principles to people and they might be like, oh, I don't understand those concepts.
Because it is part of our culture and our heritage, even if we are not religious.
I mean, look at the fact that we celebrate Christmas.
Or that we celebrate Hanukkah.
Now, of course, Many other people celebrate other holidays.
But Christmas, for the longest time, was an important part of our culture.
We have Christmas specials.
The Star Wars Christmas special.
These are parts of our history, whether or not we agree or believe in the religions.
It's all starting to go away.
I know a lot of people say they are Christian.
There was a Pew Research study, I think it was from last year, that found 65% of this country identifies as Christian.
And that number's actually been going down.
I think it was, you know, a decade or two before, it was something like 90%.
It was a lot more people.
Now not so much.
Now around 65%.
Again, I'm not overly religious, but when I see that they desecrated a statue of Jesus, and there's no rioting, there's no protest, there's no overt outrage, Then maybe there aren't really Christians left.
You know, I guess I should clarify that in the sense that could you imagine, you know, the amount of rage you get when certain historical religious figures have their picture drawn?
The rage you see from that.
Or what about the attacks in New York?
Literal physical assault on the Jewish community.
No riots.
There was a lot of outrage.
There was protesting.
No riots.
I wonder to what degree someone would need to be devout to actually get up and say, this has gone too far.
You're attacking what I believe in my faith, my eternity.
Nobody does.
And I think about the people who keep saying that they won't stand up for fear of their children.
I'm like, wow.
Is there nothing more important than the future for your children?
You refuse today to stand up.
Why?
So that your children can bow and live subjugated?
It makes no sense to me.
But that's why I'm saying amen.
Sounds like the revolution is winning.
We're on day 50 of the riots in Portland.
They are now weaponizing the images of the federal officers trying to defend the courthouse against Trump and the DHS.
And the polls and everything are saying Trump is losing.
And I know a lot of people are saying the polls are probably wrong because they lie, and that may be.
But regardless, what we're seeing in the streets with these rioters getting away with it, What we're seeing with the rampant destruction of churches and religious symbols, whether it was arson or something else, the culture is being erased.
I wonder why.
Maybe it is, some people believe, to prevent Thucydides' trap, to prevent a war with China, to destroy the cultural icons of Europe and the United States so that people feel detached and don't really care when all this is destroyed.
Maybe that's why so many people, you know, don't stand up and won't defend themselves.
Could it be that there are many people, like, could it be that the culture war was lost a long time ago?
You know, I saw that story, and I brought it up, that in the federal government, there's documents about anti-whiteness, anti-racism, and all these things.
How white culture is racist, the Smithsonian puts that up.
These documents, from 1990.
So I wonder, If we actually saw the demise of our culture a long time ago, but as these different groups who held these ideologies spread throughout the government, through our schools, and into our industries like Hollywood, they didn't come out until they had critical mass and then...
Now they've announced it, and now it's too late to actually stop it.
Maybe?
Maybe not.
I don't know.
We're now seeing some people in media actually start calling out the woke far left.
New York Mag's Jonathan Chait wrote that these, you know, anti-racism trainers are just peddling in white supremacy.
Maybe the only reason it's becoming prominent is because the Democratic Party desperately needs it so they can defeat Trump.
But the destruction of the churches in Europe, or at least this arson now, has nothing to do with the U.S.
election.
I don't know what it is.
But we are, whether it's intentional or not, whether you think it's a conspiracy, I don't think we should even bother talking about, you know, I don't see a reason to entertain, you know, these ideas, because a lot of people have these ideas.
I'm going to tell you one thing.
You can figure out who's starting it, fine, but what I'm talking about is something different.
I'm talking about our history, our heritage, and our culture all being destroyed.
Of course, look man.
I have a family history that is broken.
It's not the same as a traditional American history because of my mom's family, my mom's side, having fled Korea for a lot of reasons.
My worldview is particularly different, but America is mostly what I know, and it's the Great Melting Pot.
There's a lot of institutions for freedom, liberty, that allow people to succeed, and I've learned that firsthand.
It's being erased.
What's being put in its place?
Intersectionalism?
Some kind of weird communist, far-left, socialist ideas, policies?
The Democratic Party seems to just say whatever they need to say to get elected.
It seems like they ultimately don't really care what's going on.
Most people in this country are passive and not paying attention.
And then you can see the media playing their games to just try and go after Trump for no reason.
And the dominoes are set up.
It doesn't need to be intentional.
We have become culturally fractured and weak.
We have no unifying idea we wake up to and cheer for.
It used to be the American flag, I suppose.
But now you have people desecrating it, burning it, kneeling before it, whatever.
And whether, you know, protesting that matters or not, I'll put it this way.
When Colin Kaepernick kneeled for the national anthem, a lot of people got mad saying he was disrespecting the flag.
Well, he certainly won that argument, and now everybody's kneeling.
Almost everybody.
To me, it didn't matter so much that he kneeled for the flag.
What mattered is that...
We could see within our own culture a fracturing.
Support for the flag, for, you know, the boys in blue, for the military, all of these ideas are waning on the decline.
And on the rise, a chaotic destructive force cancel culture, the destruction of monuments and statues, the insults to our history, the lies, the deception, the revisionism, Yeah, it's all falling apart.
We don't actually know what the truth is anymore.
And I'll tell you what, this is probably why China is so authoritarian when it comes to the internet.
They don't want a fractured culture, they want a unified culture.
And they want everyone to do as they're told, which is why they're cracking down on Hong Kong hard and they don't like free speech.
They don't want anybody to challenge their history, and they won't.
Because they will come and they will lock you up.
In the US, however, a combination of our liberties and the internet has resulted in a fractured view of what we really are, should be, and have always been.
And now with the New York Times being essentially infiltrated by this cult of intersectionalism, they're literally rewriting history before our eyes.
As statues get ripped from their base, people like Frederick Douglass, his statue was torn down and thrown by a river.
We don't know who did it, but I think we can make assumptions.
And churches being destroyed.
And when those churches are destroyed, nobody stands up to defend them.
I say nobody, obviously some people do.
Nobody in our society.
So I'm gonna tell you right now, man.
This may be the last stand for what America is.
But if somebody gets brutalized by the police, and we end up with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people protesting, and every major city government changing street names and painting murals, you can see where our culture has already gone to.
And when a church like this famous, you know, 15th century church is... Someone starts three fires and destroys it, and no one gets up and yells about it, there's no strong culture behind these ideas.
When people tore down a statue of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and nobody stood up and screamed about it... Look, I know people did.
I'm speaking relatively.
We didn't see widespread riots or anger.
We didn't see much of anything.
We know where our culture is.
We finally did see a large Blue Lives Matter and, you know, defend the police protests emerging around the US.
Not just one, but many.
And the media didn't cover it.
And that's one of the big issues.
If you can't see it, it's not there, I suppose.
So does the silent majority matter?
I would say sure, but We'll see how they vote.
And if no one knows they exist, they may just vote for who they think is going to be the winner, I guess.
I don't know.
Churches being destroyed.
Statues being destroyed.
Our history is being erased before our very eyes.
The New York Times' historical revisionism.
This is the track we're on.
Will it be reversed?
I have no idea.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at timcast.net.
So stick around, thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Well, I gotta give it to Mike Cernovich.
He was completely correct when he tweeted about this, for those that aren't familiar.
James Harden, star player of, I believe it's the Houston Rockets, was wearing a blue Lives Matter or thin blue line mask, basically supporting the police, you know, considering now we're in this black Lives Matter era.
It was widely assumed that it must be a mistake, or maybe it was a principled stand for something he believed in.
Well, Mike Cernovich tweeted, Something about it being funny when they realize what they just posted and invariably apologize for it because it will prove they don't support the police.
I didn't believe it.
I mean, I kinda did.
But I thought, no, come on, they can't come out after all this and be like, oops!
Except they did, and he was right.
And here's the story.
James Harden wears thin blue line mask and reaction is swift.
And they're going with the, not the overt apology, they're going with the, oh, I had no idea that I was supporting police.
How did we get to this point?
Where you literally can't support the police anymore.
I mean, legitimate question.
I remember seeing all the old TV shows about officer friendly.
The cops would come in the diner and they get free food or whatever.
Now you wear a simple mask that says you support the police and they come for you and they come swift.
It's not just this one story.
I bring you to Google.
I Google-searched the phrase, thin blue line, not James Harden.
And what do I get?
James Harden, James Harden, James Harden, James Harden, James Harden, James Harden.
Wow!
Look at all these stories!
The Examiner, Stereogum, The Blaze, New York Post, SFGate, Washington Post, Yahoo Sports, For The Win, KPRC Houston, NBC News.
Wow!
If you wear something for Black Lives Matter, for the most part, they'll say, good, and that's about it.
But you wear something supporting the police, and they will come for you, man, because you are not allowed to support the police in this country, I'll tell you what.
Well, I believe that police reform is a fine thing to request.
I personally support the police.
I know, that puts me in this weird position, right?
Even though I've personally been the victim of, you know, I've been falsely arrested on more than one occasion, I've had bad run-ins with cops, I still recognize the importance of the police department and why we generally support them, even though we tend to have negative interactions when we get tickets or whatever.
I, for the most part, do support the police.
And that separates you from the rest of, I guess, mainstream society.
Is that where you want to be?
Does that represent all of America?
I don't know if I could believe that.
I think most Americans support the police.
I think the polling shows it.
So how insane is it that a mainstream, high-profile sporting organization is going to be like, oops, we didn't know!
It's fine!
You say, we support the police.
Just because you say, you know, blue lives matter doesn't mean you don't think black lives matter.
Isn't that the argument they use?
They say, black lives matter doesn't mean that all lives don't matter.
Okay, well then blue lives matter doesn't mean that black lives don't matter.
They can both exist.
I think black lives matter is a fine thing to say, I agree.
100% they do, you're right.
Let me know where you need help to fight for justice and I will be there fighting for justice just as long as you aren't violently attacking people and trying to impose Marxism or some other weird thing.
And if you think blue lives matter and you want to make sure there's support for the police, I gotcha, I completely agree.
And if you want to come out and say all lives matter, I'll say, I hear ya, hear, hear, all lives do matter.
Why do each and every one of these things have to be viewed as a negative to everybody else?
I understand the overt organization of Black Lives Matter and what they do with their money, no, no, no, but I get it.
When it comes to the general phrase, I got no problem saying Black Lives Matter.
I agree with it.
Like the general concept.
Now you want to talk about the organization, we got a whole other story going on.
And if you want to come out and say Blue Lives Matter, absolutely.
We definitely need cops.
We need them to feel safe and secure.
And we need to make sure that we hold people accountable no matter who they are, and that includes police.
That's why I'm fine with reform.
But let's read a little bit of this.
They say the Houston Rockets posted a photo to its social media accounts Thursday of star player James Harden wearing a thin blue line mask.
And the reaction was swift.
Well, here's the photo.
And I talked about it.
I was like, so what?
Who cares?
You can wear a mask.
Whatever, man.
The thin blue line flags a sign of support for law enforcement and that has, amid Black Lives Matter protests, come to signal opposition.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Why?
Why does Blue Lives Matter have to oppose Black Lives Matter?
It doesn't have to.
But that's what they will claim.
All right, fine, whatever.
The phrase can be traced back to an 1854 British battle formation, a thin red line, during the Crimean War, according to the Marshall Project.
Matthew Cherry, a black filmmaker, an Academy Award winner, was among those to respond to the team's tweet.
Cherry tweeted a gif of Michael Jordan looking perplexed.
Is this really news, NBC?
I'm talking about it for the cultural reasons, because NBC News talks about it, to be fair, but feel free to criticize me.
This is a dumb story.
Singer Trey Songz, who is also black, weighed in too.
Tweeting an image of a raccoon, saying, this certified clown ass.
I'll say it for everybody who is scared, F outta here.
Hardin said Friday that he was not trying to make a political statement, and he was unaware of what the mask represented.
I felt like it was just something to cover my whole face and my beard, he said, adding that face coverings he has worn previously have not.
Hardin told reporters that, as he said Thursday, he was in the process of finding a way to show his support for the Black Lives Matter movement, whether it was with his jersey name or by other means.
Hardin, who... They keep doing this, too.
What a world we live in.
Hardin, who is black, thank you for letting me know the racial... the race of every single person you've quoted in this story, NBC News, had earlier Thursday praised protests spurred by the death of George Floyd, calling them amazing.
I think the world saw it, Hardin told reporters.
You know, how so many people could come together so close.
Obviously, it was for a tragic reason, but you know, the marching and everything that we're standing for is very powerful.
Where'd the guy get the mask from?
Come on.
Did somebody order the thin blue line mask off the internet?
Show up and be like, here's a mask, James.
Why don't you wear this one?
Or did James choose it at a store?
It's an American flag with a blue line, I guess.
I don't know, whatever.
Think about how you're supposed to just know what all these symbols mean.
Anyway.
Unlike some other NBA stars such as LeBron James and Stephen Curry, Harden, the league's scoring leader, has not been notably vocal about political or social justice issues, which leads me to believe the dude probably agreed with Blue Lives Matter and just wasn't saying anything.
And now that they've come for him, he's found his out.
Oh, I don't know, man.
You know, whatever.
That's actually, I gotta admit, that's the right way to do it, if you were to ask me.
Apologizing, not a good way.
But if you really wanna just skirt any responsibility for standing up for yourself and you wanna just keep your head down and drop to your knees without looking like you're dropping to your knees, you just feign ignorance!
You gotta admit, it's the clean way out, right?
Because if he fell down and said, please, please, I'm so sorry I wore the mask like that.
Remember that one guy who wore the OAN shirt?
That coach?
And then he apologized?
What a loser.
He doesn't want to come out looking like a, you know... If you don't want to come out looking like a loser, you don't have to apologize directly.
You just say, oh, is that what that means?
Oh, I support the protest.
I had no idea.
Yeah.
And that's it.
Wow, I had no idea.
Just, there you go.
Case closed.
I guess it works.
Rapper Young Thug, a friend of Hardin's, tweeted that the NBA player did not know the connotations carried by the thin blue line.
Just so you know, James Harden is my brada.
By the way, he don't have internet, so he obviously don't know what's right or wrong if he posts something that's against us.
Some others on social media seem to see Hardin's wearing the mask as a sign of support for the police, and posted their gratitude with hashtags like BlueLivesMatter, AllLivesMatter.
The photo was liked more than 14,000 times on Twitter, where Hardin's name was trending Friday morning, and more than 85,000 times on Instagram.
Wow!
I am impressed.
Absolutely, man.
That you get all the snooze cause some dude just wore a mask.
Is that it?
Yeah.
Any of you gonna speak up now about Hong Kong?
I'll be waiting.
NBA halts personalizing of apparel following Free Hong Kong controversy.
They shut the whole thing down.
The controversy was that you could buy a custom jersey, but they wouldn't let you type Free Hong Kong.
And a lot of people wondered what that meant.
I'll tell you what it means.
It means that there is a strict and specific ideology.
You cannot criticize China.
Nah, you'll get banned.
You'll get shadow banned.
You'll get nuked.
You can't buy a jersey criticizing China, but you can support Black Lives Matter.
Why?
It's clear to me that our cultural institutions are being dominated by one ideology over the other.
In one ideology, you have people in this country who support law enforcement, support our troops,
support the government, support freedom, support the founding fathers, and are critical of
the atrocities of China as they load Uighur Muslims into concentration camps, as they
suppress the rights of the citizens of Hong Kong.
The other side doesn't seem to care at all.
The other side doesn't care.
They just don't want you to support your law enforcement.
Let me tell you, law enforcement is important for a cohesive, structured society.
The fact that the police can literally come and say, that is against the law, we're going to arrest you because we want to protect other people and, you know, protect the rights of people.
Sometimes the police do bad.
And we can criticize them for this.
But to say you can't support the police at all, like they're doing now, is insane.
To ban you from saying free Hong Kong is insane.
And I'll tell you what we get now.
Because they were forced to bend over backwards to allow you to say free Hong Kong, they shut the whole thing down.
And there it is.
You cannot criticize China, especially the NBA.
Why'd they want that sweet, sweet one, baby?
That big ol' country got 1.4 billion people and that's cash?
That's cash in the bank.
So you can't criticize Hong Kong and you can't support your police.
Is that the world we're gonna leave for our kids?
Apparently so.
I probably should have started with this.
What a ridiculous time to be alive, man.
It's about time we start speaking up about what China is doing.
And it's about time we start calling out the people who would tell us we can't support our law enforcement.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
I can only assume at this point Democrats are either completely, completely inept or seriously malicious.
But of course, there have been many stories to lead us to believe one or the other.
This one takes the cake.
You see, Joe Biden reveals he is now receiving intelligence briefing and says Russia, China and others are engaged in activities to delegitimize our electoral process.
Heavens me.
Russia and China?
Perhaps teaming up, I don't know.
But Russia, China, the narrative, it's been it's been pushed for some time.
They're saying that come November, Bill Barr will claim China's interfering and that they'll use that as justification to, you know, freeze some states electoral vote count, which ultimately will then allow Donald Trump to win because it'll go to the House.
A big confusing, circuitous narrative they're pushing.
But let me tell you who is working to delegitimize our electoral process.
Why?
It's none other than the Democrats and Joe Biden.
Because we can see the story from NBC News.
States reject tens of thousands of mail ballots in this year's primaries, setting off alarm bells for November.
Great.
Well, who's been demanding mail-in voting and who's been fighting it?
Why the Democrats have been demanding mail-in voting and the Republicans have been fighting it.
So please spare me the complete and utter nonsense, Joe Biden, when you try to claim it's going to be Russia or China.
To be fair, Donald Trump also accused China.
Hey, we're in agreement!
No one's gonna believe the result of the election and everyone's to blame.
We're done.
I don't know what the point of having an election is at this point.
Hear me out.
Donald Trump has said that foreign countries will counterfeit mail-in ballots and it'll be the biggest scandal of our times.
Well, then why would anyone on the right believe the election is going to be legitimate no matter who wins?
Joe Biden reveals, according to intelligence he's received, Russia and China are engaged in activities to delegitimize our electoral process.
Well, then why would I believe if Trump or Biden won?
And the Democrats are pushing mail-in voting.
So, of course, the left is going to claim If they don't win or if Trump questions it, he's cheating.
And then, of course, the right's going to claim if Biden wins, then Biden's cheating.
Congratulations.
What do we do?
Where do we go from here?
It's not just that these things are happening.
According to Just the News, they say, nearly 30% of U.S.
voters not confident November election will be accurately counted with correct winner.
It's perhaps not surprising, but chilling nonetheless, that a quarter of the nation's voters lack confidence that the votes will be accurately counted and the correct winner of the presidential election declared, according to Scott Rasmussen.
There you go.
30% right now thinks the whole system's broke.
But what about these other issues?
What if you asked people, do you think that Russia or China will interfere and skew the election results?
You get a decent amount saying yes.
Do we have confidence in this system?
Are we going to go vote November and both Trump and Biden win?
Maybe?
And then what?
What do we do?
Right now in Oregon, the state of Oregon is defending the 50th day of far-left riots insurgency against a federal courthouse.
They've pulled back their police, they're letting them cause all the damage, and they're attacking the feds.
You literally have the state going up against the federal government.
So what happens then when we see that no one's going to trust the election?
I don't know, man.
But let's read what Just the News has to say.
It's perhaps not surprising but chilling nonetheless that a quarter of the nation's
voters lack confidence that votes will be accurately counted.
This year's trend fits with one seen in recent years.
According to a Washington Post report in 2016, Americans have become much less confident that we count votes accurately.
Between 2000 and 2006, during the Bush presidency, Republicans were very confident in the nationwide vote count.
After the 2008 election, GOP confidence declined steadily.
Democrats, meanwhile, moved in the opposite direction.
Lower confidence compared to Republicans from 2000-2006.
Then, an increase during the Obama years.
Yeah, well, when you win, people tend to think, it must be correct if my side won.
Rasmussen also noted that the concern is found in all segments of the population.
However, 71% of white voters have at least some confidence in the process, while just 54% of black voters feel the same, as do 64% of Hispanic voters.
Just the news daily poll respondents were asked, thinking ahead to the presidential election, how confident are you that the votes will be accurately counted and that the correct winner will be declared?
They responded as below.
30% were very, 38% were somewhat both confident, 20% were not very confident, 7% not confident at all, and 5% were not sure.
The national survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted July 9th through 11th.
Okay, so we understand.
And there it is, man.
The ballots are being rejected.
Mail-in ballots don't work.
This is probably the fifth or sixth video I've done talking about the corruption of the mail-in voting system.
And you know what my friends tell me when I mention this stuff?
They say, oh no, you're not going to go into this.
You know, mail-in voting has been going on forever.
So you get some of the news, but you still got to do your due diligence.
NBC News says, New Yorker Sasha Aiken, 43, has no idea if his vote counted.
It took weeks for his absentee ballot to arrive, appearing in his mailbox just three days before
the election on June 23.
It came with two sets of instructions in very fine print.
Neither set, Aiken said, told him to sign the envelope or had complete information about
his options for returning the ballot.
He saw the city's board of elections account tweet confirming he could drop it off at his
local polling location.
Come election day, however, the Brooklyn poll worker to whom he handed his ballot seemed
unsure.
I walked away with very little confidence that my vote was going to be counted.
He said in an interview, and I don't know if I'm ever going to find out if my vote was counted because I handed it to someone who didn't seem to know what to do with it.
I'm not confident my vote will be counted.
I don't even know how to vote.
I was thinking about this.
My understanding is that there's more registered Democrats than registered Republicans nationwide.
In order to get a mail-in ballot, you have to apply for it.
And if you're not registered to a party, in some places, you don't get one unless you apply for it.
Does that mean more Democrats will get mail-in ballots than Republicans?
Let me tell you this.
What happens if the mail-in vote just doesn't work literally at all?
What happens if come November 4th, they're like, We have no results.
Nevada's at 4% reported and New York is at 17%.
We can't tell you who won the election or who the president will be.
What happens if there's video emerging of someone intentionally destroying thousands of ballots?
How hard would that be?
Let's say someone fakes it.
Let's say they have a big ol' box, and they film mail-in ballots, and then they torch it, and they laugh.
And you don't know who did it, you don't know where it came from, the video goes viral.
Will anyone trust the result of the election?
Nope.
If Trump wins, and that video emerges, they'll say Trump cheated.
If Biden wins, and that video emerges, they'll say Biden cheated.
And maybe this is the final play in the total destruction of this country.
I don't know, man.
Maybe it's all just very hyperbolic, but I tell you this, man.
I see all these stories.
What do you do when both Biden and Trump claim China is going to cheat?
What do you do?
Who do I trust?
The winner or the loser?
I have no idea.
They're going to come out and say it, right?
Maybe come November, it's a normal election, and everybody votes, and they're all like, the winner is Joe Biden, and nobody cares.
Do you really believe that'll happen?
Because I honestly don't.
If 30% of people already feel like their votes aren't going to be... 30% are not confident that they're accurately going to count the winner, then what do you think's going to happen come November?
That's one of the reasons why I'm getting out of Dodge.
I seem to recall being on the Joe Rogan podcast where we talked about how Twitter was fueling this political division and gleefully just destroying the bonds of this country because they ban only one side and then they allow the insurrectionists to, you know, be propped up.
Maybe that's what Jack Dorsey's plan was all along.
But I seem to recall at the end of that episode talking about building a van.
I said, I'm getting a van.
I'm going to take that van.
I'm going to GTFO and this hits the fan.
And people laughed.
They thought it was a joke.
Some thought it was funny.
Some thought I was being crazy.
Come on, man.
We talk about civil war all the time, but can't you see all the ingredients being thrown in the pot?
I don't know exactly what you can expect, but I take a look over at Portland, and what do I see there?
Propagandistic physical warfare.
You allow insurrectionist groups, insurgents, to attack the feds, then blame the feds to create propaganda from the violence you start.
It's twofold.
You get physical damage on the feds, and you get to blame them as the oppressors.
Clever.
I'm not saying it's intentional.
I don't know.
I'm just saying that's literally what's happening.
That these far-left insurrectionist insurgents are damaging the courthouse and the feds can't do anything about it.
But the state's protecting them.
That's one ingredient.
You've got street-level violence.
You've got massive political division.
The assumption that both sides are evil.
Both sides are corrupt.
Both sides are cheating.
And both sides saying China's gonna cheat.
Both sides saying we don't have confidence in this.
Then what?
November 4th.
Then what?
I hope this is just a whole lot of exaggeration and nonsense.
And in the end, it's all just normal.
It's an election year.
It's just an election year with social media, so everybody acted a fool.
And then it turns out Trump wins, and then everything goes back to normal.
I'd like to believe that.
But I believe it's... But I believe it's too hard to believe.
I really do think things will get crazy.
So you know what I've done?
I got a van.
But here's the way I put it.
You're never gonna see me build a bunker and fill it with beans.
But I will buy some extra beans.
I got a van because the van's fun.
I'm moving out of Jersey because Phil Murphy has proven he's incapable of dealing with a crisis.
Not because of any potential crisis.
I'm literally experiencing a horrific New Jersey catastrophe because the governor is terrible at his job.
So I'm leaving.
It just so happens to be that these things will benefit me in the event that all hell breaks loose come November, and who knows what, man?
Who knows?
I don't know what to expect, you tell me.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Horrible vandals desecrating the mural of Black Lives Matter.
One of these women was wearing an All Lives Matter shirt.
You know, I am outraged that these people would show up with paint and put paint on a street because that is vandalism.
Well, not this guy.
I mean the guy in Portland who's standing in front of all the ACAB graffiti as the 50th night of riots ensues and they graffiti up the federal building.
Well, they're peaceful protesters.
I mean, come on, you don't really believe... They're peaceful protesters.
Did you hear me?
They're peaceful protesters, say the police, say the media, say the governor, say the senators, says the mayor.
And of course, these people in New York are vicious and violent vandals for splashing paint over the Black Lives Matter mural.
Welcome to the Double Standard.
Most of you have been here already.
If you haven't, I welcome you to a world in which there is no fair and balanced law.
We are not equal under the law.
Certain ideologies are more equal than others.
Woman wearing an All Lives Matter shirt is one of three people arrested after paint is thrown on the Black Lives Matter mural outside Trump Tower for the second time this week.
They say three people were arrested after the paint was thrown, and yeah, second instance, I believe.
I have this guy, too.
Now, this guy did red paint, and I don't know why red.
Maybe it didn't matter at all, but he splashed red paint.
I'm gonna tell you, actually.
I think this is fake.
In my opinion.
I don't know.
I don't know if they caught the guy or not.
They've posted photos of him.
You know, they got videos of the guy.
I don't know who he is.
But the reason I think it's fake is because in this video, they're just conveniently filming and then pan right up to the guy throwing paint and it feels like it was staged.
I don't know if it really was.
Maybe it wasn't.
I have no evidence.
I'm just saying that's how I personally feel about things.
But as far as I know, two people have vandalized the Black Lives Matter mural.
And do you expect me to be mad about it?
No, in fact, you know what I'll do?
I'll actually, I would much prefer, I'm not saying I'm literally going to do it, to start a GoFundMe for the people who are arrested over it.
You know why?
I don't actually agree with them vandalizing the Black Lives Matter mural.
I believe it's a non-violent form of protest.
It's civil disobedience.
They've been arrested for it.
I don't agree with it.
What I think the appropriate action is, is what Judicial Watch did.
Judicial Watch sued the DC government, the city, to allow them to paint their own mural in the street.
That makes sense.
You shouldn't make a public speech forum because then it has to be one for everybody else.
So this was approved.
I get it.
I don't agree with it.
But it was approved.
So how about you go to the city and you get approved as well?
The bigger issue here that I see is the double standard.
Most of you already understand it exists.
50 nights of violent rioting, explosives, and what do they say in the press?
Peaceful protesters.
One person splashes paint in what is clear non-violent civil disobedience.
Vandals.
Mandels.
She's wearing a cape, apparently.
So, apparently, she's a member of the LGBT community, I guess.
That's what people are alleging.
And they say here, another woman is pictured pouring more blue paint.
Now, this woman's wearing a blue hat.
This is interesting.
What does it say?
It says, LGBT for Trump, I believe.
The woman is in a rainbow cape.
It's spotted putting her painted hand in the prints in the mural.
Interesting.
They say one of the suspects told WNBC that the sign should say All Lives Matter.
They were joined by a team of 10 people in a coordinated effort to deface the mural that has drawn criticism from the White House and praise from the protesters around the country.
You know, somebody made a really interesting point.
I saw somebody mentioned this to me.
The fact that they would put the Black Lives Matter mural in front of Trump Tower instead of, say, a police department or one police plaza should tell you all you need to know about what their true intentions are.
They don't care about the police.
They're sending a message to Trump.
They don't like Trump.
You know, I wonder what the point is of all of this.
For me, I read the news, I watch the news every day, and I really do get tired of it.
You know why?
It's not going to convince me.
I know what's happening, I can see what they're doing.
Everything they pull off, every arrest, every fake news story, makes me that much angrier for what they are doing.
The real question is, are you paying attention to the news?
Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't.
They read one story, they assume it's true, they don't do any digging.
How do you dig people out of this hole, man?
The other day, Donald Trump was doing an interview with Christopher Wallace, and in this interview he talked about Biden wanting to defund the police.
Wallace of Fox News said, Sir, no sir, he does not, because Wallace is a moron who doesn't actually do his job.
Fox News, yeah, hey, let's criticize him, huh?
He is apparently a moron who doesn't actually do any research, because Joe Biden does in fact want to defund the police.
And I mean that in the literal definition of the word, not the colloquial understanding, which varies depending on which movement you're a part of.
Some say, it means literally abolish.
The Brookings Institute says it means to reallocate or redirect funding.
When Joe Biden was asked if he would be in favor of redirecting funding, he said, yes, absolutely.
And there you go.
And in the Bernie Sanders Biden pact, they talked about redirecting and reallocating funds.
There you go.
Imprecise language.
So the media pumps out fake news.
They call these people vandals.
They call the violence rioters, peaceful protesters.
And then the average person doesn't pay attention is just looped into this nonsensical nightmare world where they think Donald Trump is literally Hitler.
An unidentified 64-year-old woman also was given a summons for illegally posting flyers during the vandalism.
Posting flyers?
The latest arrests come after another man was caught on surveillance video pouring red paint on the same mural Monday.
I don't know if the guy was arrested though.
Meanwhile, New York authorities are seeking the public's help in identifying that man.
The NYPD released footage of the vandal pouring the red paint and shared that he is also wanted for criminal mischief.
Ooh, mischief.
Video shows the man at approximately 12.03pm pulling the paint out of his bag as he approaches the mural on 5th Avenue.
He can then be seen pouring the paint on various letters of the mural before heading off in an unknown direction.
The suspect appears to be a white man who could be in his mid-twenties or early thirties.
Police described the vandal as being medium build and said that he was last seen wearing a black t-shirt.
I don't care about any of that.
So the workers came out to clean up the blue paint, I guess, and then paint over to fix the mural.
Here's the other guy who was splashing red paint.
This makes me wonder.
How many people are willing to get out and risk jail time to... to engage in non-violent civil disobedience?
That's really what they're doing.
They're not hurting anybody by splashing paint on the ground.
The same is true for the graffiti on the federal building, for sure, don't get me wrong.
But when you combine, you know, the throwing of explosives, it becomes a violent riot.
How many people are willing to do this?
Truth be told, I don't know.
But it makes me wonder about the so-called silent majority.
If there are now two instances where people have shown up to deface this mural, perhaps there are more people who are secretly prepared to vote for Trump and the Republicans than anyone realizes.
Maybe people are sick and tired of this message.
And if you follow my content, then you've heard me talk about it.
We have now, I believe, three polls showing that most people in this country view all lives matter favorably.
The phrase.
And a plurality, but less than the majority of this country, believes that Black Lives Matter, they view it positively.
So if most people really do view All Lives Matter positively, why don't we just say that?
Why don't we do Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, and Blue Lives Matter together?
And then you can ask a question about what each one of them means.
Why do they have to be at odds with each other?
They don't.
You can say, this one specifically references the fight to end police brutality targeting minority communities.
All Lives Matter references generally that we should all be, you know, All Lives Matter basically means that we are not separated by race and we need to come together.
I think, shouldn't Black Lives Matter agree with the phrase?
They mean different things, don't they?
Blue Lives Matter means we should respect law enforcement and support them, and that's fine too.
Let me ask you something.
If the Black Lives Matter people are so upset about, say, Blue Lives Matter, doesn't that prove they hate cops?
Can't you say Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter?
Shouldn't the issue be bad cops?
Ah, that's right.
As we can see over in Portland, they believe that all cops are bad.
Now, The B doesn't stand for bad, but this is a family-friendly channel to an extent, so I'll avoid telling what the word really means, but it does start with a B, A, and then an S instead of a D, and it goes on from there.
Then a T. You know what the word is.
They literally do view every single cop as being bad.
And there it is.
There's no secret.
That's why Blue Lives Matter is offensive.
You come to me and say, Black Lives Matter, I'll say, you are absolutely right.
You come to me and say, Blue Lives Matter, I'll say, yep, yep, preach, I get it.
100% agree.
Because it's true.
If Black Lives Matter is about dealing with police brutality, well then, we want to hold cops accountable.
Because we don't think all of them are bad, right?
Just the bad cops we gotta weed out and hold accountable.
And we gotta prop up community policing.
That's what you want, right?
Some kind of alternative preventative system that's reimagining policing.
But certainly, if that were true, all cops can't be bad, right?
Think about what happens when you send out, you know, I've talked about the Civil Guard.
They're people who mostly can only issue citations.
They can't make arrests.
They might have a baton.
They might have nothing.
And they're kind of first responders for non-violent issues.
You call and say, you know, someone's blocking my driveway.
You don't send out a cop with a gun.
You send out a guy, you know, who just comes and issues a citation or calls a tow truck and confirms it and bears witness, works for the city.
Think about what happens, though, if they show up and they can't actually handle something.
Think about what happens if all cops are bad, then why would I assume these people would be good?
Just because they're not carrying a weapon with them doesn't mean they're gonna be good.
They might give you fake citations and say, I don't care, I'm writing you a ticket anyway.
And therein lies the broken double standard.
I don't know, man.
I could rant about it all day and night, but sometimes it feels like there's a tidal wave coming, and we've built a tiny thin wooden fence.
You know, look, I don't get that many views on my channel relative to a lot of other people.
Across all of my channels, you know, I'm doing fairly well.
It's like 77 million views in the past month.
That's huge.
It'll probably go down a little bit for sure, but it's like double most other political commentary channels.
More so than the Young Turks, but I think the Young Turks entire network probably gets more, but, you know, I don't know.
But even with all these views, I still look at how big the mainstream media is and how they get way more traffic and they write fake news all day every day.
How am I supposed to convince people that the news is, they're being lied to, it's a double standard, when I am but one person fighting off a tidal wave?
I don't think, I don't know if it works sometimes, sometimes I get a bit pessimistic.
But I'll keep doing it.
And hopefully, I guess, if you guys share the video and you spread the word, hopefully it is having an impact.
Obviously it's having an impact.
I mean, 77 million views ain't nothing.
That's big.
It's not CNN, though.
Let's be real.
CNN on YouTube is getting like 200 or 300 million views per month.
So hey, I guess I'm doing alright, though.
Maybe this will be the start of a bigger movement.
Maybe we can start pushing back against the tide.
And maybe with enough people, we can defeat the tidal wave.
