Civil War 2.0 Is Upon Us, Far Left Breaches Federal Court, Democrats REJECT Federal Jurisdiction
Democrats at the state level, the local level, and even the federal level are rejecting DHS and Federal Jurisdiction and demanding that Trump remove Federal Law Enforcement from their own courthouses.Senator Tom Cotton went as far as to say the far left insurrectionists are the same as the confederates who tried to seize Fort Sumter at the start of the first Civil War.When states challenge the feds jurisdiction and try to forcefully remove them what do you call it?#Democrats#FarLeft#CivilWar
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past several months, we have seen riots across this country, I'm sure you've noticed.
But they evolved well beyond just some outrage over a man losing his life, and became something totally different.
Now we're seeing in Chicago, in Salt Lake City, in Atlanta, in D.C., in Seattle, in Portland, violent uprisings where people try to destroy statues, or most notably in Portland, try to breach a federal courthouse, where apparently they've done so.
According to Robert Evans, a reporter for Bellingcat, he says, Tonight, the citizens of
Portland, a mix of moms and dads and black block and activists of all stripes, tore open the doors
of a federal courthouse and then beat back the agents inside. To put it simply, far left
insurrectionists, extremists, rioters, whatever you want to call them, actually breached a federal
courthouse and attacked federal law enforcement. Where are the local police to stop this?
Well, they've stood down.
At what point do we call this a civil war?
You have the Attorney General of Oregon suing the federal government.
You have Nancy Pelosi attacking, on Twitter, the federal law enforcement who have just been attacked inside their own courthouse.
And now we have a GOP lawmaker comparing the insurrectionists to those who started the civil war.
Comparing what happened in Portland to The attack on Fort Sumter in South Carolina, which literally started the first Civil War.
Now, a lot of people are very reluctant to say Civil War.
Because, I think the reason is, if all of this dies down, everyone will say, of course it wasn't a Civil War, it was some kind of uprising.
But if this escalates into a full-on hot war with, say, live ammo, then of course this is part of the Civil War.
So, well, it's hard to determine what's happening when you're living in the history, but I assure you, if this escalates 50 years from now, they will say this was well into the Civil War, and perhaps going back even further than the beginning of the George Floyd riots.
I want to walk you through some of the history of what's been going on with the discussion of the Civil War.
I know a lot of people might roll their eyes, but I implore you to take this seriously.
The conversations around a Cold Civil War, a Second Civil War, and now a Hot Civil War have been going on for years, I know, because I've been highlighting these articles and talking about them when experts emerge.
A Princeton professor, for instance, last year saying we're in a Cold Civil War.
There was a financier from Russia who a couple years ago said that the United States is experiencing a second civil war.
And now, quite literally, you have 54 days of an attack on a federal building.
Now, of course, they're not using live ammo.
Yet, photos are emerging showing federal law enforcement brandishing what appears to be weapons that fire live ammunition.
And many people have started to speculate as to what happens next.
The weapons being used by the far left are in fact lethal, but they're just not that powerful.
They're using commercial-grade fireworks and other blunt objects.
Federal law enforcement may at some point be forced to defend themselves, and perhaps that's when people will say, there was our shot heard round the world.
We're not there yet, okay?
But the rhetoric certainly is.
And so now what I see is a GOP lawmaker saying that side are the insurrectionists.
I see a Democratic lawmaker saying Trump's federal officers are stormtroopers.
And now Donald Trump has entertained the possibility of sending more federal agents to various federal buildings to protect them throughout the United States.
Notably in Chicago, where apparently 150 federal agents will be deployed from this.
The New York Times has published an op-ed asking, can we call it fascism?
Yet basically saying it is.
When the highest level rhetoric is split down the middle from our lawmakers, it stands to reason it's here, man.
Or at the very least, the dominoes are falling over and I don't see any way to stop it.
But let's start breaking down the news.
I want to show you this first story.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give.
The best thing you can do is actually subscribe to this channel because most people don't do that.
About half.
If you really do like my content and want to make sure you get more and you think I do a good job, please consider hitting that subscribe button.
Hit that like button.
Let's read the first story.
One of the more alarming bits of news that has come out of all of this so far, in my opinion, is a statement from Tom Cotton.
And I mean this with no disrespect.
Just the rhetoric has reached the level where he's now saying what's happening in Portland is basically like the attack on Fort Sumter.
GOP lawmaker compares protesters to insurrectionists who started civil war.
Now, The Hill, who's reporting this, I think is wrong to say protesters because they're using very dangerous explosives and they're attacking federal law enforcement.
Let's read.
Senator Tom Cotton, Republican from Arkansas, doubled down on his call for federal law enforcement officials to be sent to U.S.
cities amid protests over racial inequality as he compared the demonstrators to the insurrectionists who started the Civil War and seceded from the United States.
The federal government cannot allow anarchists and insurrectionists to destroy federal courthouses, federal buildings, or other federal property.
These insurrectionists in the streets of Portland are little different from the insurrectionists who seceded from the Union in 1861 in South Carolina and tried to take over Fort Sumter.
Cotton said Tuesday on Fox & Friends, referring to protests in Oregon.
Just like President Lincoln wouldn't stand for that, the federal government today cannot stand for the vandalism, the firebombing, or any attacks on federal property.
It is right to send federal law enforcement in to defend federal property and federal facilities.
A couple years ago, I had read an article about the likelihood of a second civil war in the United States.
I believe it may have been the Atlantic or New York mag or something.
They'd interviewed several national security experts and concluded that their opinions on whether or not a second civil war would occur was ranging from like 30 to 90 percent, but the average was still really high, like in the high 30s, like a 35 percent chance it happens.
At the time when I talked about this, many people Mocked me.
Mostly not really.
A lot of people think I'm kind of lukewarm in my opinions.
But a lot of people keep telling me this.
Oh my... Tim, stop saying civil war.
It's not happening.
It won't happen.
Maybe this doesn't escalate.
I don't know.
But I've told you over the past several years that this would happen.
Something like this would happen.
And I don't think it's a profound prediction to say if someone comes out and cheers for extremist violence in the media, they'll do more of it.
And in response, people will beg for federal law enforcement, which they're doing, and Trump is responding.
I said that if Antifa keeps doing what they do, it will result in Trump sending out federal law enforcement and emboldening the right.
And we are seeing that escalation.
But I would like to now explain to you that you are a frog boiling in a pot.
You get the reference?
The reference is that you don't realize the water around you is getting hotter and hotter until it's too late and you've been boiled alive.
And the best example is whether or not this is an embellishment from Robert Evans.
The fact is that in Portland we are seeing moms, dads, regular people not in Black Block joining the ranks, thousands of people trying to breach a courthouse.
Moms and dads and BlackBlock and activists of all stripes tore open the doors of a federal courthouse and beat back the agents inside.
A few years ago, when I first started talking about the possibility of a civil war, there weren't moms in the street joining Antifa.
It was far-leftists and right-wing groups fighting each other.
It was Trump supporters being attacked by the far-left, black-clad young people.
Now what do we see?
The supposed moms are on video right now trying to break the door down.
They're being tear gassed and they're standing in between the federal law enforcement agents and the extremists who have been besieging this building for months.
There it is.
Regular citizens have joined the ranks of the extremists.
And that's what this reporter from Bellingcat said.
That when you engage liberals right, they might actually join you in wanting to take a sledgehammer to tear down federal courthouse doors.
Where do you think we go from here?
Do you think that these people, these regular moms, if they are actually regular moms, whatever, citizens of Portland, just stop caring?
It's possible they walk away.
But with the federal law enforcement engaging them, nobody wants to back down, then escalation seems likely.
Now, I've shown you what the GOP lawmaker Tom Cotton said.
What about Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House?
Unidentified stormtroopers, unmarked cars, kidnapping protesters, and causing severe injuries in response to graffiti.
These are not the actions of a democratic republic.
DHS-Gov's actions in Portland undermine its mission.
Trump and his stormtroopers must be stopped.
First Amendment speech should never be met with one-sided violence from federal agents acting as Trump's secret police, especially when unidentified.
This is disgraceful behavior.
We would expect from a banana republic, not the government of the United States.
You may have seen this, I've talked about this before, but I want to bring it all together in context.
The Speaker of the House, who I believe is third in line for the presidency, is lying to you, saying that it's First Amendment activities and it's just graffiti.
The first thing I showed you was a reporter from Bellingcat saying they tore down the doors of a federal courthouse and attacked the agents inside.
Certainly, it's not what Nancy Pelosi is saying it is.
Now, it may not be the invasion of Fort Sumter, either.
The fact is, a Senator and the Speaker of the House, a Democrat, GOP and Democrat, are at odds, choosing which side is the good guy or the bad guy.
It may end here, I don't know, but my personal opinion is escalation.
You see, this goes back longer than just what's happening right now.
It's been brooding, brewing for a long time.
In America, talk turns to something not spoken of for 150 years, civil war.
The Washington Post, March 2nd, 2019.
They say, At a moment when the country has never seemed angrier, two political commentators from opposite sides of the divide concurred recently on one point that was nearly unthinkable.
The country is on the verge of a civil war.
That was over one year ago.
Is it possible that in that one year we've actually entered a hot civil war?
Could Portland, the breaching of the doors of the federal courthouse, be the shot heard round the world?
I'm not entirely convinced.
But there are photographs of federal law enforcement brandishing their sidearms.
If we reach that point, and it's possible, that could be the shot heard around the world.
They say, first came U.S.
Attorney Joseph DiGenova, a Fox News regular and ally to Trump.
We are in a civil war, he said.
The suggestion that there's ever going to be civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future is over.
It's going to be total war.
The next day, Nicole Wallace, a former Republican operative turned MSNBC contributor, agreed, but she said it was Trump, although she placed the blame squarely on the president.
That's what they say.
And this is from August 4th, as we now move forward through the last year.
Princeton professor, we are in a cold civil war, specifically referencing illegal immigration.
Now we have Newsweek.
This is from September 30th, 2019.
Trump's civil war quote.
Is it actually grounds for impeachment, says Harvard law professor. If the Democrats are
successful in removing the president from office, which they will never be, it will cause a civil
war like fracture in this nation from which our country will never heal. Trump tweeted on Sunday
night. Maybe he was right. Maybe he was wrong. I'm not sure.
But we can see this from lawfare.
October 2nd. Now moving another month up 2019.
Armed militias are taking Trump's civil war tweets seriously.
Based on what I've read, I believe the answer, I believe this is 100% correct.
And we've seen the boogaloo boys, whatever you want to call them, people who believe a second civil war is imminent.
Perhaps when the far left We're able to breach a federal courthouse and beat back federal agents.
And the Portland police were nowhere in sight.
And the state of Oregon is lending state resources in defense of these individuals.
And local residents have joined in the destruction of a federal courthouse.
Maybe it's become a hot civil war.
Or maybe we are just about to cross that line.
I can't tell you for sure.
But I can show you some of the rhetoric we've seen so far.
In a speech, Mike Pence said this, You know, it's not so much whether America will be more conservative or more liberal, more Republican or Democrat, more red or blue.
It's whether America remains America.
It's whether we will leave to our children and our grandchildren a country grounded in our highest ideals of freedom, free markets, and the unalienable right of life and liberty, or whether we will leave to our children and grandchildren a country that is fundamentally transformed into something else.
What is that something else?
Well, Newsweek published this op-ed today.
America is fast becoming a woke theocracy.
Yes.
Maybe that's what this is really about.
Woke insurrectionists, far-left revolutionary types, they literally call it an uprising, they've never been shy about it, are emboldened.
Their numbers are growing.
For whatever reason.
They don't all agree with the same woke theocracy.
But as more and more corporations and more and more government agencies bend the knee to intersectionalism, perhaps the result will be woke theocracy.
Maybe that's what Mike Pence was saying.
We will get.
I wonder, man.
When we hear this rhetoric that the election is about more than Democrat or Republican, it's about whether or not we will still have a country or something like it, I believe it.
I believe it because I've heard from Donald Trump and from Joe Biden, both have said that foreign influence will interfere in the election.
Mail-in voting is devolved into chaos.
Votes are not being counted properly.
And the rise of the woke far left and the lies from people like Pelosi and other Democrats and the media leads me to believe there is nothing that can be done.
I want to show you something.
I talked about this in my earlier segment, you may have seen it, but for the main segment in context, I must show people.
The edge of all-out war, reports Bellingcat.
On July 4th, Portland's 39th consecutive night of protests, more than a thousand people assembled in front of the Justice Center and federal courthouses downtown.
They began launching dozens of commercial-grade fireworks into the concrete facades of both buildings, prompting a response from the police and federal agents inside both buildings.
What followed resembled nothing so much as a medieval siege.
He then says, the whole situation prompted the first major federal response to Portland's nightly protests.
That was it.
After 39 consecutive nights of what he says are protests.
I think when you lob commercial-grade fireworks at a building, and you can see here's a brief image of some of the explosion, it's um, it's not a protest.
But what he does show is that it wasn't started by the federal agents.
This is the far left.
And that's why I lay the blame with the far left.
You see, in Portland, quote, I am Antifa.
Sarah Iannarone forces runoff in bid to become Portland's mayor.
That's it.
I am Antifa, she tweeted.
will decide in November whether to elect an Antifa mayor, even after Trump vowed to declare
Antifa a domestic terror organization. That's it. I am Antifa, she tweeted. I stand proudly beside
the good people of the city organizing in countless ways every day to oppose hate in
its myriad of forms. Well, there you have it. The people in the streets of Portland are lobbying
commercial grade fireworks at the at the federal facility.
According to the same reporter, breached the doors and attacked federal agents.
And now, come November, the new potential mayor says, I am Antifa, and the president said that he was going to declare Antifa a domestic terror organization.
So maybe it's not a civil war now.
I don't know.
As far as I can tell, as I stated earlier, in 50 years, of course they'll say this was part of the Civil War, assuming the escalation continues.
If tomorrow for some reason everything stopped, I don't know why it would, I don't see evidence to believe it would, or to suggest it would, then of course they would say there was no Civil War, it never happened.
But this is more than enough to say it is, at least as far as I'm concerned, historically, or future historically, assuming we get worse.
For the mayor of Portland to say, I am Antifa.
For the president to say Antifa are terrorists.
For Pelosi to say federal law enforcement are stormtroopers.
For Tom Cotton, a senator for the Republican Party, to say that these are like to liken this group like the insurrectionists of the Confederacy who attacked Fort Sumter.
It sounds like from the highest levels all the way down, it's primed.
The mayor of Portland says she stands beside these individuals who have been laying siege to the federal courthouse.
What happens when she becomes a government official in Portland?
You can go ahead and just make whatever assumption you want.
That's fine.
I'm going to tell you right now, the president is going to label them terrorist groups.
What happens when a terrorist gets elected to mayor of Portland?
Are they going to stop attacking the federal buildings?
I don't think so.
The reason I highlighted the Bellingcat story about the explosives is so that you know, okay, this reporter is on the ground telling us what's happening, and they're sympathetic, but you can take that as close to our understanding of what's really going on as possible.
I'm not down there, so maybe it's not correct, but Bellingcat is not some random leftist activist.
They're a well-known security and conflict reporting group.
What they're telling us is that the media has been lying to us the whole time.
In fact, this reporter even brings it up when many people tried pushing the narrative that the police burned down their own union building or set a fire inside of it.
He said no.
It was a deliberate and intelligently acted out activist action to burn the Portland Police Association.
It generated a ton of attention for their cause.
It worked.
They're telling us straight up, they are doing this.
So when you see peaceful protestor in the media, when you see Nancy Pelosi say, graffiti, they're lying to you.
Why?
Perhaps they want power?
Perhaps they think this group will win?
Perhaps they think when that happens they'll be spared?
I don't know.
I don't see that as being the case.
I do know that Trump will deploy more federal agents around the country.
Donald Trump orders 150 federal agents into Chicago, despite City's Mayor Lori Lightfoot rejecting unconstitutional conduct and mounting outcry over secret police tactics in Portland.
There's the escalation.
Trump is going to do what people wanted him to do.
But I think it goes beyond this.
I think Donald Trump will take a rather Lincoln-esque approach.
He doesn't care what the states will end up saying.
He's going to send in the federal law enforcement and say the federal courthouses will not be assaulted.
They will be defended.
So what is he going to do with these federal agents?
They're going to be protecting, my understanding, federal property.
Courthouses or otherwise.
They're not going to be patrolling the streets.
That's a lie.
In Portland, when they're walking through the streets, it's because they're clearing out the attacks on the federal courthouse.
It was an offensive maneuver, one of the very few they actually engaged in, considering we're on day 54, night 54 of riots, and the federal action didn't begin until after July 4th.
Rather incredible, I would add.
Well, here's the New York Times.
Trump's occupation of American cities has begun.
Protesters are being snatched from the streets without warrants.
Can we call it fascism yet?
How do we end up with two overt factions?
Well, I'm seeing high-profile individuals I know claim that Trump's secret police are snatching people off the streets.
It's a half-truth.
The DHS is detaining people briefly, about an hour and a half, to question them.
They apparently were read their Miranda rights, though some people are saying they're not being read their rights, and they don't need to be read their rights.
These people have no idea what they're talking about.
But when the New York Times runs an op-ed saying that Trump's, you know, police are snatching up people without warrants, can we call it fascism yet?
This will rile up many people who don't read the news, who will then blindly support the lies from the media and from people like Pelosi.
I'm not saying the policies of the Republicans are good.
I'm saying that, and I'm not even agreeing with Tom Cotton when he says it's like Fort Sumter.
It may be a bit over the top, I don't know.
But I will tell you this.
The riots are happening.
The far left is emboldened.
They've been calling it uprising, insurrection, revolution.
They have been saying it.
They're not shy.
They're not hiding it.
The left is lying.
They're saying it's just Trump.
He's doing all of it.
I wonder why?
I can't tell you, man.
But I can tell you one of the responses to Tom Cotton has been ridicule.
That's how they keep everyone in line in this way.
When Tom Cotton says, they're just like the Confederate insurrectionists, Civil War 2.0, writes the Daily Beast.
These insurrectionists in the streets of Portland are little different from the insurrectionists who tried to take over Fort Sumter.
What do we hear?
Well, according to Daily Beast, mockery.
Three, breaking Senator Tom Cotton advocates building statues, renaming military bases
to honor Portland protesters.
Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman joked, that's what it is.
So when he says this, your media won't tell you, your institution of journalism won't tell you what's really going on.
The New York Times will say, it's fascism, it's Trump's fault.
They won't tell you why Tom Cotton is saying it's like the attack on Fort Sumter.
They'll make jokes that if he likes the Confederates so much then surely he'll want Antifa statues too.
And then regular liberals in this country who don't watch the news, who don't watch videos like this, will simply say, ha ha ha, it's all a big joke, it's not really happening, but Orange Man is bad.
Well, the New York Times told us, right?
The New York Times said, Trump's occupying American cities.
Never mind, the feds have the right to occupy their own buildings, and the federal government literally is our federal government.
What's the goal of all of this?
Let me wrap it up very, very neatly for you.
Civil war.
Two words a lot of people reject.
When the mainstream media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, when people like Nancy Pelosi mock the idea that the federal government has a right to their jurisdiction across this country, and they call federal law enforcement protecting their own buildings occupation, do you know what the narrative they're pushing out is?
That the federal government doesn't have a right to be on their own federal jurisdiction?
They are telling you the feds do not have jurisdiction in the states.
What does that sound like?
Many states going up against the federal government?
You know, I didn't think civil war would become something like this.
I thought it would be random.
You know, the way I described it a couple years ago was that you'll see insurgency in various cities.
Well, of course, that's literally what's happening now in Portland.
I guess I called that one.
But I didn't think we were actually going to see states literally claim that the feds had no jurisdiction anymore like we did in the first civil war.
But that's what this message is.
Portland, their Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against Trump.
It will not stop here, at least in my opinion.
It may.
I'm not going to pretend like I have all the answers.
I could be wrong.
But in my view, many more states will follow suit in various ways.
You know, I can just tell you, man.
Chicago mayor warns Trump against using secret federal agents.
Secret?
They're DHS police.
It's CBP.
It's Federal Protective Services.
It's the marshals.
They wear the patches.
They're allowed to be in these buildings protecting them.
What's next?
We'll have Illinois and Oregon both say the federal government has no right to be here.
Oregon has already filed suit.
I hope you all realize that in the first American Civil War, the South didn't just snap their fingers and say, we've all decided to secede from the Union at the exact same time.
It was actually, it was actually, uh, timed differently.
I believe initially it was seven states.
I'm not entirely sure.
I'll have to brush up on my history.
But my understanding is the initial secession was about seven states.
And then many other states started to break away.
In fact, Virginia split in half.
So it's not going to be so simple.
There's been talk about Eastern Oregon breaking off and joining Greater Idaho, they call it, or the state of Jefferson.
Yeah, we could be that, we could be close to this.
Right now, Oregon is suing the federal government saying, get your agents out of here.
And they're saying no, Trump is saying no, he'll send more.
Chicago is now saying we don't want them here either, but they have jurisdiction there.
So what happens next?
Well, I'll show you an image.
It's probably gonna get me in trouble on YouTube, but we'll roll with it anyway.
I'll show you this.
What appears to be a U.S.
Marshal holding a sidearm, pointing it in the direction of the protesters, on the steps of the federal courthouse, and many people are asking, is that live ammunition?
Maybe.
Yeah.
Well, I don't know.
I guess we'll see.
I guess we'll see how this plays out.
But like I explained to you, right now, we are seeing states argue that the feds have no right to be in those states.
That's just not true.
And that's how the first Civil War basically started.
So what are we in now?
You tell me.
I'll see you all at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you there.
Last night, Tucker Carlson announced that the New York Times was working on a story that would reveal where he lived.
He had recently sold his house because the far left had been harassing him.
They actually showed up to his house on several occasions, and they started sending him death threats in the mail.
For obvious reasons, I suppose he decided to move, which makes a lot of sense.
So I don't know if he's still living in D.C.
or if he's moved somewhere else, but the New York Times is denying this.
And I don't believe them.
You see, we're in some kind of, well, we're in a culture war, that's for sure.
An information war.
And there is physical violence happening throughout the country, in various cities, notably in Portland.
But things are getting, I don't know, wild out there.
So when I heard that Tucker Carlson was accused in the New York Times of trying to dox him, I said, Yup.
What else is new?
You know why?
Because the New York Times just did something like this, what, a couple weeks ago?
Because CNN threatened to dox some random dude on Reddit.
And because other news outlets have published the private information of people who have no business being in public view.
They do it all the time.
You know why?
Well, as Tucker says, to hurt us, to injure my wife.
Perhaps you could argue that Tucker's being a little hyperbolic.
They're not trying to injure your wife, right?
No, I think the New York Times is trying to chill, to scare.
And it's not just what the New York Times is doing.
They're coming for Tucker.
That's the easiest way to put it.
You know why?
Let me show you why they're coming for Tucker Carlson.
Most of you already know this.
Tucker Carlson tonight draws record 4.3 million viewers in second quarter amid all-time highs for Fox News Channel.
Hannity as well.
And guess what?
They're both named in some kind of misconduct lawsuit from a former Fox employee that apparently doesn't even accuse them of doing anything wrong.
Tucker and Hannity are shattering records.
In quarter one, Hannity had the highest rated cable news show in history.
And in quarter two, it was Tucker Carlson.
Both of these individuals are pro-Trump, and they have the largest audiences in cable TV history.
So, are they trying to hurt Tucker Carlson?
In a sense, yes.
I don't really believe they're trying to physically hurt him.
But I do believe they want him to fear physical violence.
I think they want him to know he won't be safe, and they want him to shut up.
He said something basically similar.
The real goal, in my opinion, is, with the smears and the attacks, to discredit him.
To make it so that if anyone ever points out, well, I saw on Tucker the other day, or do you watch Tucker?
They are poisoning the well.
That's the goal.
They want to make sure that people don't watch his show.
Certainly, if you heard this is the highest rated show in history, you might want to watch it, right?
And what if you're talking to a friend and you're like, dude, you really got to see Tucker, watch what he talks about.
They'll go, wait a minute.
That guy, didn't he just lie about the New York Times and was like... Because the New York Times said that's not happening.
He was lying, right?
Didn't he just get accused of misconduct for engaging in suggestive behavior and forced a woman, blah blah blah.
You see what they're doing?
I'll start slow.
This is it.
Tucker is too powerful.
They've been trying to get Tucker off the air for a long time.
They've gone after all his sponsors.
And then when his main sponsor is the MyPillowGuy, what do they do?
They mock and belittle the show, saying he's just propped up by the MyPillowGuy.
They're trying to strip resources away from anybody who will challenge their weirdo far-left BS.
Let me read for you some stories.
I'm gonna show you the proof.
I got proof that they're actually, they'll dox people.
There was a guy from Slate Star Codex.
They were going to publish his name.
He shut down his entire blog.
Why?
It was critical thinking.
It was people posting about, you know, it was criticism of social justice, I suppose.
I don't know the entirety of what Slate Star Codex was publishing, but I know that was some of it.
The New York Times said, we're going to publish your name.
The dude deleted everything.
I think that's a bit, I don't know, pathetic.
Stand by what you believe in, don't hide.
But, you know, that's just me.
Let me read you a bit of what Tucker said.
RealClearPolitics posts a bit of the transcript.
Tucker said, Last week, the New York Times began working on a story
about where my family and I live.
As a matter of journalism, there is no conceivable justification for a story like that.
The paper is not alleging we've done anything wrong, and we haven't.
We pay our taxes, we like our neighbors.
We've never had a dispute with anyone.
So why is the New York Times doing a story on the location of my family's house?
Well, you know why.
To hurt us. To injure my wife and kids.
So that I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them.
Editors there know exactly what will happen to my family when it does run.
I called them today, and I told them, but they didn't care.
They hate my politics.
They want this show off the air.
If one of my children gets hurt because of a story they wrote, they won't consider it collateral damage.
They know it's the whole point of the exercise, to inflict pain on our family, to terrorize us, to control what we say.
This is the kind of people that they are.
Tucker is not wrong.
Tucker is 100% correct.
This is the kind of people they are.
We recently saw the resignation of Barry Weiss from the New York Times because of bullying and harassment within the company.
We saw an editor be forced out of his job simply for doing his job and publishing an op-ed by a conservative, by Senator Tom Cotton.
That was an egregious offense.
And they all started screaming that, you're making it unsafe for minority people at the New York Times, which is just absolutely absurd because someone wrote an op-ed.
Take a look now.
What I'm showing you here is Slate Star Codex.
This is a very, very popular blog.
It talked about a lot of things.
I don't know too much about it.
I do know that they were critical of intersectionalism.
And then all of a sudden, they decide to publish this guy's name.
Slate Star Codex says, The New York Times is threatening my safety by revealing my real name, so I am deleting the blog.
And he says, last week I talked to the New York Times technology reporter who was planning to write a story on Slate Star Codex.
He told me it would be mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation.
It probably would have been a very nice article.
Unfortunately, he told me that he discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article.
Dox me.
Scott Alexander is my real first and middle name, but I've tried to keep my last name secret.
I haven't always done great at this, but I've done better than have it get printed in the New York Times.
I have a lot of reasons for staying pseudonymous.
First, I'm a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are kind of obsessive about preventing their patients from knowing anything about who they are outside of work.
So on and so forth.
The point is, it would damage his career if his patients learned that he was taking part in this blog.
You'll learn their opinions.
They might not trust you anymore.
Think about it.
If you're dealing with, you know, therapy for somebody, and they hate Trump, and they find out you like Trump, well, then you've got a problem, right?
Or the inverse.
If you hate Trump and they like Trump, you've got a problem.
They're not going to talk to you.
That's why psychiatrists are like, you know, we don't want to reveal too much information.
But it's not just about the New York Times.
Check this out.
What CNN's threat to dox a Redditor tells us about the state of journalism.
News organizations have become obsessed with fighting Donald Trump rather than covering him.
Oh, yeah.
Tucker Carlson is going to secure a large swath of votes for the president.
I'd imagine that my show would do something similar, but I'm not as overt as Tucker Carlson.
I mean, I don't know if he comes out, I don't think he comes out and just straight up says, you know, vote for Trump or anything like that, but he's way more conservative than I am.
Of course, anyone who is literally resisting the intersectionalist mainstream orthodoxy is a threat.
You're getting an opportunity to learn.
I saw an interesting post earlier on Facebook, and it was the same old thing you hear about the, you know, 1776, Independence Day, the Declaration of Independence.
Why did it apply to everybody?
You know why the Declaration of Independence didn't apply to everybody?
Because they didn't know.
For real.
Someone actually replied that, saying they didn't know.
That all they knew was this, you know, this was the knowledge they had.
And then this person said, well, why didn't they think harder about it?
We did think harder about it.
And over time, we realized what those words really meant.
But it was an ideological revolution.
It was planting the seeds of liberty that has since been watered a great deal.
Well, now there are people who seek to chop it down and take away our liberty.
But more importantly, they target Tucker Carlson, they target these Redditors, they target wrong thinkers, they target SlateStar Codex, because the idea is what persists.
But you need to stop the ideas from spreading.
They know it, and we know it too.
You know, people have referred to intersectionalism as a mind virus.
That it's something that's making people go crazy.
That's what other people have said.
It's an ideology that spreads like any other ideology.
Many of us in America operate under the ideology that's called liberalism.
I know it's almost immediately triggering to a lot of people who are like, but liberals are... I'm not talking about American colloquial liberal.
I'm talking about literally classical liberalism.
The ideas that were brought forth, you know, with It was like a hundred years or so, or longer, before the Revolutionary War.
But the ideas of liberalism led to the idea of the consent of the governed.
And that's all you really need to understand.
I'm not saying people are liberals.
I'm saying we believe that we have a right to individual liberty, life, pursuit of happiness, and that the government should be for us and by us.
That's what it's really all about.
They want to get rid of that.
The intersectionalists want to create a new dominant ideology where everyone is segmented based on their identities and everyone bends the knee to the authority.
It's an authoritarian ideology, but the problem is we have tasted liberty and we will not give it up.
We understand the power of the individual and it's made this country very, very strong.
It's made everybody in this country very, very wealthy.
Well, if you want to have an authoritarian revolution, and people know that liberty exists, you must snuff it out.
And thus, they'll come for Tucker Carlson, and oh boy, is the war a-ragin'.
Tucker Carlson claimed the New York Times planned to expose his address, then his fans doxed the reporter.
You see how they played the game?
They knew what they were doing.
Now apparently, the New York Times has said that they are not planning on revealing the address of Tucker Carlson.
The interesting thing is, I don't believe Tucker Carlson said that.
He said, where my family lives.
And that's the point.
The New York Times can lay the groundwork so the far left can swoop in and do everything else.
Far left journalists know, well they're not going to be able to call up Antifun, be like, we found the town he lives in.
And they also can't publish his address.
But they can sprinkle a little bit of seeds and then kick the paper out to literally everybody on the planet.
And then, of course, the far left will find out where he lives.
Anybody could do this investigation and try to dox, you know, Tucker Carlson.
That's a fact.
There's no reason to put it in the pages of the New York Times.
That's something totally different.
I don't see why it's newsworthy to talk about where he lives or where most people live.
And Tucker pointed that out.
Here's what's amazing, though.
Now they're trying to flip it on him, right?
When he did this segment and he said, they're coming for my family, they're now blaming his fans for going after the reporter, claiming that the New York Times is never going to reveal his information.
Oh, that's weasel words.
They're playing word games.
They knew what they were going to do, and they were going to do it.
But now apparently there is going to be, there is a lawsuit against Tucker Carlson as well.
And the accusation is that Tucker Carlson is making this fake claim because he's trying to divert from the actual assault scandal that is rippling through the New York Times.
As far as I can tell, it's not true.
We've got this story here from the Examiner.
The harassment claim against Tucker Carlson doesn't even allege harassment from the Washington Examiner.
And I will point out how kind of funny it is that we have a trigger warning on the lawsuit.
I'm like, is that for the judge?
Well, let me show you how the media plays defense.
Brian Stelter wrote the New York Times response, while we do not confirm what may or may publish in future editions, the Times has not and does not plan to expose any residents of Tucker Carlson, which Carlson was aware of before tonight's broadcast.
The usual caveat applies here.
Wait to read the story in question, then judge the decision-making.
Now, this is Brian Stelter's CNN newsletter.
You see what he said?
Tucker, sit down and shut up.
If they publish the information of your family, then you're allowed to complain about it.
But don't you dare try and preempt them and call them out for it.
Sorry man, if I heard that you were going to publish the location of my home, I'd speak up.
Now the New York Times is coming out and saying it's not true.
Well, first we got weasel words to deal with.
Expose any residence.
I don't believe Tucker said that.
I said, where my family... He said, where my family lives.
It's different, right?
These are the games they play with semantics to make it seem like they've caught him in a lie to manipulate you.
What Tucker is saying, not quite literally, is that they will release information about the location of his home.
We don't know the degree to which they will reveal it.
They could simply reveal the name of the town.
And CNN loves dancing on this.
They say Carlson, who spends much of the year on an island in Maine, said the NYT is working on a story about his decision to
sell his DC home. He said there's no conceivable justification for the story. I'm mostly
surprised to hear about the story because, well, Carlson's residences are not a secret. Carlson put up
the photo of a freelance reporter in Maine who he said is writing the story for the New York
Times. He accused the paper of trying to inflict pain on our family and terrorize us and control
what we say. All the usual extremist talk by Carlson. He called out New York Times media editor
Jim Waldof by name. You know, it's funny. Brian Stelter tweeted earlier that Donald Trump's
decision to wear a mask. Well, Brian Stelter tweeted out Donald Trump's decision to wear a mask
comes on failing poll numbers, a source familiar with the president's thinking says.
I spoke with a source familiar with Brian Stelter's thinking and he said that every night he cries about his lack of journalistic ethics but takes that sweet CNN cash to dry his tears and he falls asleep very soundly because the money was worth it.
A source familiar with Brian Stelter's thinking tells me.
Does that make sense?
That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.
What we have here is CNN trying to say that because Tucker Carlson tried to defend himself, he was in the wrong.
Not true.
Now that the New York Times has come out and said we're not doing it, I can actually give you another... I can make another assumption.
If you trust Tucker Carlson, that they're going to reveal this information, it stands to reason that him calling it out worked.
That he went on a show and said they're trying to reveal private information about my family, so the New York Times was forced to back down.
Unfortunately for him, it may protect him physically, but now they can feign ignorance and say, we were never going to do that!
Tucker's exaggerating!
Oh, a harumph!
Harumph, I say!
Well, it's all on the heels of whatever this claim against Tucker Carlson is.
They say, We can reserve judgment on the harassment claims that spilled out Monday night against several current and former men of Fox News, but let's quickly look at the accusation lobbed at Tucker Carlson and decide now that it would be shocking to find a single person takes it seriously.
I was wondering just a couple weeks ago how long it would be before Carlson got me too-ed.
Here's the answer.
Kathy Ara Aro, whom I've seen on TV before but whose credentials I know nothing about, though her Twitter bio says she hosts a podcast, says in a new lawsuit that she was harassed by multiple men at Fox News, including primetime hosts Carlson and Sean Hannity.
Aro was not an employee at Fox and was not under contract, but her lawsuit asserts that she basically functioned as one, given that she was frequently booked as a guest.
How's that for a new definition of employee?
The suit alleges, according to CNBC, that after December 2018 appearance on Carlson's show while in New York, Carlson made sexual advances towards Aro.
Following the show, Mr. Carlson, hardly making any effort to hide his intentions, began telling Ms.
Aro that he would be alone in New York City that night, and specifically said he would be staying alone in his hotel room without any wife or kids, the suit said, according to CNBC.
Without question, Mr. Carlson was probing to see whether Miss Oro was interested in a relationship.
Miss Oro awkwardly sidestepped Mr. Carlson's advances and declined to spend the night at his hotel.
He didn't... he didn't invite her.
She didn't say he invited her.
You see this weird... you see how they do?
That's it.
That's the harassment.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
I have to do this.
I have to assert harassment by Tucker Carlson against me.
Only three times in 2019.
It's not appeared once in 2020.
That's it.
That's the harassment.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
I have to do this.
I have to assert harassment by Tucker Carlson against me.
You see, I had appeared in a show, I believe one time and another episode.
He said something about me.
He said, I think Tim Pool is a leftist, but an honest one.
an honest one.
Good for him.
Good for me?
What is that supposed to mean?
And all of a sudden, Tucker won't invite me on his show anymore?
I'm being harassed!
How stupid.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Carlson, according to Aro's own account, said nothing about sex, but in her mind, she believed he was inviting her to his room, or perhaps not even that, he was probing to see if she was interested in a relationship, all while not even mentioning one.
And the consequence of the alleged encounter with Carlson is that her invitations to appear on his show on a network she was never employed by dried up.
Why won't Tucker have me on his show anymore?
I've only been on one time!
I've been on Fox several times, but it's not fair.
I'm clearly being harassed by Tucker.
He called me a leftist!
I don't know if I'm a leftist.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Whatever.
I understand that in this scenario, Auro may be upset that she no longer had a platform to hock her podcast and build up a recognition.
But where did the harassment come in?
There's no claim that Carlson touched her.
He didn't even talk about sex, according to her own account.
There wasn't even an explicit invite to spend time with him.
And that's assuming her vision aversion is true.
And not only that, harassment is repeated.
Tucker would have to do something like, hey, I got an empty hotel, you know what I'm saying?
And then when she was like, no, I don't, and I'm not interested.
And then the next day he goes, hey, that hotel's still there.
And then she would say, stop asking me about your hotel room.
And then if he said, no, I want you in my hotel, you are being harassed.
You can't just have someone walk up to you and be like, hey, I'm gonna be at the, you know, the Waldorf.
I'm standing up there by myself because my family's out of town.
I don't know if you wanted to grab a drink or something.
And when they say no, I'll be like, no problemo.
This is the problem with these harassment claims.
Let me tell you.
What would happen if this was a dude?
What would happen if it were me?
And I'm on Fox News, and I'm sitting there going like, Tucker, here's the thing about Antifa.
Actually, they're a far left group.
And then afterwards, Tucker goes, so I'm actually staying in New York for the night.
You know, family and everybody's down in DC, so I'm just going to be chilling.
I don't know if you want to hang out, grab a drink or whatever.
Maybe hit the bar and we'll talk politics or something.
I'd be like, yeah, sounds great.
I do it all the time with people.
We have business meetings.
We talk politics.
I sit down and I talk with people.
We grab a bite to eat.
It's what normal human beings do.
Why would I assume?
Am I gonna come out then and be like, Tucker was making advances on me because he wanted to grab a drink.
You know, this is the big problem that we face right now if we can't get over this stuff.
I've talked about it before when it pertains to harassment in the workplace.
Let me give you a scenario because I love this concept and people need to hear it.
If a man walks into Tucker Carlson's office, and he's wearing a new suit with a new haircut, and he's looking a little slim, he looks like he's been working out, and Tucker goes, whoa, man, you're looking good.
Have you been working out?
That's a killer outfit.
And he walks over, pats him on the shoulder, and says, welcome back to the studio.
You've been gone for a bit.
You're looking great, man.
Nobody would care.
Now, You get it.
Imagine if it was a woman who walked in and Tucker got up and went, whoa, looking great.
That's an amazing outfit.
Walked over, patted the woman on the shoulder and said, have you been working out?
Tucker, they're coming for you, but you knew this.
It's not just going to be about your address.
They're going to try and do everything they can.
They're already targeting his staff.
I don't know if you've heard the controversy over one of his writers posting stupid things on the internet, whatever, I don't know.
They're going to do everything in their power to shut him down, but more importantly, if all they get away with is poisoning the well, they will be happy about it.
Make sure that if anyone ever says, you should watch Tucker, they go, oh, that weird harasser guy?
No way!
That's the story.
They're tainting, they're tainting the legacy, they're tainting the image, they are poisoning the well, because they don't want you to watch Tucker Carlson.
Why?
There's a reason why he has the highest rated cable news show in history!
Yup.
They're coming for him.
You know, and everybody else too.
Anybody who dare oppose their stupid fringe cult, but I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Don't believe the propaganda.
The videos popping up of smiling moms standing, linking arms, saying no to Trump's stormtroopers.
The videos are easy to find, easy enough.
You can just go out and pull them up.
Unfortunately, I can only show you certain things here on YouTube, but a lot of videos are on YouTube and Twitter, and you need to watch them, and you need to share them.
I've talked a lot about civil war, and a lot of people, we argue about what it really means.
Are we really in a civil war?
Is that even possible?
It would require so much more than we're seeing now.
And I know a lot of people have already rolled their eyes as soon as I said it.
Yesterday, we had the 54th, perhaps, night of insurrection in Portland.
I can't call it a riot.
You know why?
According to a reporter from Bellingcat, who was on the ground posting videos, at some point, the far-left insurrectionist extremists, whatever you want to call them, actually breached federal courthouse property, breaking the door in and attacking federal agents.
You want to get into an argument about peaceful protesters and the federal agents coming out into the streets?
Fine.
You want to tell me that we have reporting from Bellingcat saying that these people breached the doors, entering federal jurisdiction, and attacked federal agents?
We got a whole other ballgame on our hands.
So I ask you now, as we're going to be talking about the extremism and the dramatic escalation of the previous night, you tell me what you want to call it when the state is suing the federal government in support of these extremists, when moms and dads come out and join in the chaos.
And yes, there's video of this.
You can just pull it up on Google and Twitter.
What do you call it?
When there's no police stopping these violent groups that have been besieging a federal courthouse now for, what, two months?
Over a couple of months?
And are throwing explosives, commercial-grade fireworks, even before the feds came out and made arrests.
Even before they arrested anybody with their, you know, rented vehicles.
That they were attacking this federal court.
Tell me what you call it when the state is defending and providing resources to sue the federal government's law enforcement, clearing the way for fanatics to break into the federal courthouse and attack federal officers.
What do you call it?
I don't know.
Does everybody in Portland agree?
No.
I don't know.
But I'll tell you, the media has claimed that it's not really all that bad in Portland.
Right-wing media is making it out to be more extreme.
In response to some of these attempts by the media to pretend like everything happening in Portland is just a peaceful protest.
In fact, some far-left sympathizers have straight-up said, no it isn't.
We take credit for what we've done.
One reporter said the actions of starting a fire in the Portland Police Association building was a clever and deliberate act and one of the greatest victories for the activists.
That's coming from one of the reporters on scene.
But the mainstream press will tell you nothing is happening.
Don't listen to the right-wing media, they say.
I'm going to show you the BBC, who says, here's a bunch of photos and videos of the ongoing violence.
It's hard to know what's true.
I'm not down there.
So I'll defer to Bellingcat.
They got a reporter down there who, in my opinion, seems rather sympathetic to the extremists.
And sure, he's allowed to.
But he's taking credit for this stuff.
He's praising it.
In fact, he is straight up saying they breached the courthouse.
He calls the holes that the federal agents fire out of murder holes.
And that's kind of a crazy thing to me that The federal officers have barricaded themselves in a building.
They're refusing to abandon it.
And the far left has actually breached this building.
Sounds to me like insurrection civil war.
Because the state is essentially sponsoring this.
I called this, in a previous segment, a de facto letter of marque.
It's a reference to... They used to, you know, privateers.
Private ships that would attack the enemies of the crown.
It was a very common thing in the colonial era.
Whatever.
I don't know.
I'm not gonna pretend to be a historian.
But the general idea I'm trying to convey is that the Portland police have literally said they are not engaging the riots.
When the feds came out and started making arrests, the AG of Oregon filed a lawsuit against the federal government to stop them.
The feds retreated back into their building, where the far left returned, this time with support from the state and the police standing down, and I tell you this, breached the courthouse.
I've seen a lot of people ask, why don't the feds just leave?
I made this argument before.
My opinion was the feds should stay off the streets and let Portland have, you know, what they voted for.
The citizens of Portland often refuse to return indictments against these people.
When you see the moms and dads coming out and joining the extremists, it looks like
regular civilians in Portland are attacking federal officers and laying siege to a federal
courthouse trying to burn it down.
And I kid you not, according to Bellingcat reporter Robert Evans, at some point, the
protesters, quote, tore open the doors of a federal courthouse and then beat back the
agents inside.
Throughout the night, Evans shared a series of tweets and videos about the incidents that
occurred during the protest, including how people reportedly forced federal agents back
inside their courthouse.
Evans tweeted that the crowd is now throwing bottles at their hands as they try to shoot through, quote, murder slits in a wooden structure built around the courthouse to protect it.
Bellingcat has written up this really long outline of what's happened and how we've gotten to this point.
And although this reporter, Robert Evans, seems sympathetic to the far left, He doesn't pull his punches.
He says straight up that this was a medieval siege on the building with commercial-grade explosives.
Some people are saying that gassing the moms backfired and now thousands of people have shown up.
Sure, call it whatever you want, but it's just general escalation.
If the far left keeps attacking the courthouse and the federal officers defend themselves and try to make arrests and that resulted in escalation, what would you expect when the state is supporting the insurrection?
Civil war, perhaps?
Here's what I think.
The feds have the option to just leave like they're demanding.
At first, they said, stay off the streets.
That's what the mayor said.
Stay off our streets.
Stay inside your courthouse.
Okay, the feds were in the courthouse.
What happened?
They broke inside.
Now, what can they do?
State support of the insurrectionists would, and now with their demands, so the state is supporting them, as I said.
They're now demanding the feds leave entirely.
Just get out.
What happens next?
If the federal officers leave the courthouse and it is ransacked and taken over by extremists, including regular citizens, Civil war?
What do you want to call it?
Insurrection?
I don't know.
Fanatic outburst?
I don't know.
I'll tell you this, and I want to stress this point as I now go through what's going on here with some tweets.
When the state begins to support this, check it out.
Portland Police do not engage crowds during the night.
They straight up say Portland Police were not present during any of the activity described.
Portland Police did not engage with any of the crowds and did not deploy any CS gas.
This is from July 20th, and I believe they're referencing the incidents of the night of the 19th, so a couple days ago.
I highlighted this in a previous segment, but I want to show you this to point out the Portland Police are standing down.
The fanatics, including regular old civilians who have teamed up with them and are laying siege to this building, have been given a clear path to attack the feds.
The state is suing in support of this group against the feds.
Politicians from Oregon are supporting these people, calling them peaceful protesters, and the craziest thing is Nancy Pelosi, as well, has condemned the executive branch's actions in defending the federal courthouse, calling these people stormtroopers.
And she has an interest in taking the White House.
Well, she's a Democrat, but she's also, I believe, third in line.
Let me show you some of what's happened.
And I want to show you how this isn't the fault of the Feds.
You can consider sharing this if you think this information is important.
I do think it's fair to point out I'm not on the ground, and I defer to people like Robert Evans.
And all of my opinions are based upon his reporting and other reporters on the ground.
So, while many people are sharing photos and videos of moms singing songs and clapping their hands, calling it peaceful and blaming the federal officers, I defer to Bellingcat.
And let me show you.
Here's a tweet.
He says, Robert Evans, I am hearing conspiracy theories that the Portland Police lit their own union building on fire.
This is untrue.
I was there.
The burning of the PPA was a deliberate and very intelligent, intelligently executed action by disciplined activists, according to a reporter on the ground.
He said the burning of the Portland Police Association building was a well-coordinated and executed action.
with minimal casualties by protesters. The PPA is trending nationwide. This might be the single
biggest win of any action in action in the Portland uprising so far. He calls it an uprising. Well,
I think he calls it an uprising because he's got a favorable view. I don't care for the
federal government, the protesters in this regard.
I just think the facts are the facts.
The feds are being besieged now and I'm going to show you what Robert Evans himself has said and defer to him.
He said early this morning, Tonight the citizens of Portland, a mix of moms and dads and black bloc and activists, tore open the doors of a federal courthouse and then beat back the agents inside.
Quote, quelled.
That's what he said.
Moms and dads and black bloc and activists of all stripes tore open the doors of a federal courthouse and beat the agents inside.
Here's another photo, he says, Monday on Portland, where you can eat ribs, light bonfires and repeatedly assault a federal courthouse.
I'll take his word for it.
He's there.
We can see there's no federal officers in these photos or videos, but these people are attacking the barricades trying to break them down.
In one video we posted, they actually pop open one of these slits.
It's like a hole prop set up in the barricade that police can look through and fire less lethal rounds through.
Well, they can fire anything they want through it.
Robert Evans tweeted, one of Portland's lessons for the left is that sometimes if you meet liberals in the right way, they wind up wanting to break down the doors of a federal building with sledgehammers.
Do you want to call a civil war yet?
Can we?
I hope you're ready.
I hope you've taken precautions to protect yourself and your family.
Because we're hearing amid all of this, I did a segment earlier, Tucker Carlson is concerned and he said the New York Times is planning to release information on where he lives.
Why?
Probably get him hurt, I suppose.
Now, of course, we're seeing the far left and the media deny this.
But take it from a guy on the ground, who's posting videos from on the ground, who's written this.
Bellingcat has, this is Robert Evans, he's written up a very long post explaining how we got to this point.
In my personal opinion, I think he's biased, but I do believe he is being 100% honest.
My opinion may clash with his.
My choice of words may clash with his.
But I think he's doing a great job, to be completely honest.
He's not hiding what they're doing.
Look at this.
He says it was a deliberate and very intelligently executed action by disciplined activists.
Call them what you want.
I would call them insurrectionists, fanatics, something else.
But he is telling us straight up, no, they did this, they knew what they were doing, they knew why they were doing it.
He said, they have teamed up with liberals, moms and dads, to tear down, to break down, what does he say?
I want to make sure I get it right again.
Tonight, they tore open the doors of federal courthouse and beat back the agents inside.
He is straight up telling us.
Now it may be propaganda because of his bias.
Call it whatever you want.
But as long as we know what's going on, that they're actually doing this, I'll respect his work.
Here's what he writes about July 4th.
This is very important context for what's happening in Portland.
Again, if you'd like to share this because you think people need to know, I personally find this stuff important.
On July 4th, Portland's 39th consecutive night of protests, more than a thousand people assembled in front of the Justice Center and Federal Courthouse downtown.
They began launching dozens of commercial-grade fireworks into the concrete facades of both buildings, prompting a response from the police and federal agents inside both buildings.
Let's stop.
The Feds were inside, not engaging, not instigating, not starting anything.
They started lobbing commercial-grade, dozens of commercial-grade fireworks at the buildings.
Thus, the Feds responded.
What followed resembled nothing so much as a medieval siege.
The windows of both government buildings had been covered in plywood weeks ago, after the first riots.
Officers inside fired out through murder holes cut in the plywood, pumping rubber bullets, pepper balls, and foam rounds into the crowd, while the Crown formed phalanxes of shields, shield-bearers to protect the men and women, launching fireworks back in response.
Federal agents dumped tear gas into the street, but Portland's frontline activists had long since lost their fear of gas.
The feds and the police were eventually forced to sally out with batons to drive the crowd back.
Boom!
There it is.
The feds did not come out and instigate.
The far left has repeatedly tried to lay siege, his words, not mine, to this building with commercial-grade fireworks.
A man who is on the ground and who has said, here's what they're doing, it's deliberate, it's intelligent.
You can call him a liar, you can call him whatever you want, he seems rather sympathetic.
He says, I reported on the fighting in Mosul back in 2017.
And what happened that night in the streets of Portland was, of course, not nearly as brutal or dangerous as actual combat.
Yet it was about as close as you can get without using live ammunition.
At times, dozens of flashbangs and fireworks would detonate within feet of us over the course of a few minutes.
He's saying, it's as close as you can get without live ammunition.
So I'll ask you now, how close are we?
To whatever you'd want to call it.
Some people say insurrection, perhaps.
But state resources are defending these groups.
State resources are targeting the federal government.
And Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are using this against Trump.
The federal agents did not instigate.
The federal agents are being attacked inside their building.
The state is supporting these individuals.
The police have backed down.
And executive, I'm sorry, federal level politicians are targeting the executive branch.
In an effort to gain power of the government.
I'm sick of having a semantic argument over this.
We have, very clearly, two different factions, well-resourced, fighting over control of the government.
Though we're waiting for an election that both sides say will be fake.
Both sides will say mail-in voting is broken, or that China is influencing the election.
They've already done it.
The reports have come out in the New York Times saying straight up, we can't count these votes.
California, 100,000 votes not counted.
65,000 votes disqualified because of a failure of the Postal Service.
And now we're hearing in New York City they still can't certify the result of a mail-in election.
What do you think is going on?
When the state is supporting this, With legal resources, Nancy Pelosi uses it to try and take power in the federal government.
Call it whatever you want.
It's as close as you can get to Mosul without using live ammunition?
This guy must be off his rocker, right?
He's showing us videos and photos of it happening.
A guy who's actually reported there, and who as far as I can tell has been completely honest about what's going on.
Look what he said.
The whole situation prompted the first major federal response to Portland's nightly protests.
It started in the media, with CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan going on Fox News to denounce local activists as criminals.
Listen.
When you turn on the media and they say what I say.
Insurrectionists, fanatics, criminals.
You see the language we choose to use.
Why?
Because they're the ones instigating this.
Look at the language Bellingcat chooses to use or other members of the media.
Peaceful protests, activists.
That language is the dividing line of whose side you're on.
So when I see photos and videos from people I know and they're claiming that Trump's stormtroopers are attacking, it is fake news.
Take it from this guy.
And there's other reporters calling it out.
But look, whether or not you choose to believe what you want to believe, this guy is saying straight up, the first major federal response.
It started with Fox News calling them criminals.
Yeah, I would call them criminals.
The Portland Police have stood down.
Now what's interesting about this post is that it started with Portland Police actually trying to stop the riots.
They eventually gave up.
Portland Police have stood down and are allowing this group to attack a federal courthouse and actually breach its doors.
Civil War.
It could stop.
You know?
Do I think it will?
I don't.
Because the rhetoric is getting insane and the violence has been escalating.
Portland...
This ongoing battle, what I'm going to call it, for 54 nights, CNN would tell you to go back to sleep.
Calm down.
There's nothing happening.
There is no war.
There is no... What was it?
I'm watching Avatar because it just came out on Netflix.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se, if you get the reference.
The light flickering saying, calm yourself.
Nothing's happening.
The streets of Portland are safe and fine.
There's no siege.
But it's because they're attacking the federal courthouse to boot the feds from Portland.
If the state of Oregon doesn't recognize the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government, what do you call it?
Up to you, I suppose.
He says, I take some issue with this.
Here's the quote.
These are not protesters.
These are criminals who got together and actually brought weapons.
They brought shields.
They brought frozen water bottles, rocks, lasers, weapons with the intent to destroy a federal building and harm law enforcement officers.
Evan says, I take some issue with this because there was never any real chance of either the federal courthouse or the Justice Center being seriously damaged by fireworks.
Both buildings are, at this stage in the protest, essentially fortresses.
Before federal agents opened fire, activists in the park actually seemed much more interested in shooting fireworks at the Justice Center to provide a show for their friends incarcerated inside.
Fair point, I think.
I don't think these fireworks are actually going to cause significant damage to the outside of the building.
But what do they do?
The fireworks will cause damage, and the buildings are barricaded.
But what do they do?
Sit back?
They've breached the courthouse now.
So I don't know, if he wrote this yesterday, and now they've breached the courthouse, what would you say?
Perhaps the reason they started firing at the insurrectionists, whatever you want to call them, fanatics, was because, not necessarily because of the commercial-grade fireworks, but because they were trying to breach the courthouse.
There's videos posted by Evans himself and by Andy Ngo and many others going back quite a ways where they're trying to break the barricades down.
And there's actually a video of them tearing the wood off of the barricades protecting the glass.
There's a video of a man with a fire extinguisher trying to bash the glass.
And Evans himself notes this right here.
You see, they claimed it was a pipe bomb, but what Evan says is that he talked to some of the activists, and they said it was actually more likely to be used for breaking windows.
Here's what he says.
You may notice that this bomb has no hole for a fuse.
When I showed this to activists on the street, most of them suggested this was probably a device for breaking windows.
That seems very likely now that we have the charging document from that weekend.
The man with the machete is Andrew Faulkner.
He is charged with assaulting a federal officer by shining a laser pointer in their face.
Neither he nor any other Portland protester have faced any charges related to the possession of a pipe bomb.
The narrative emerging was that this was some kind of pipe bomb.
What he says specifically is that he believes it's very likely and activists have told him it was a device for breaking windows.
Perhaps the federal agents have started firing at the protesters because they were attempting to breach the courthouse, which apparently now he says they've done.
So I'll tell you this.
The Democrats want to win.
The media wants the Democrats to win.
Tucker Carlson is going to be, you know, potentially be, you know, partially doxxed.
They're accusing him now of misconduct and harassment, a lawsuit.
Every stop is being pulled out because we are in some kind of fourth generational civil war and it's escalating very quickly into a hot war.
And it's happening in Portland.
I hope you've taken precautions to protect yourself.
I know a lot of people are fleeing big cities.
But when you literally have the government of Oregon supporting the insurrectionists with state resources to sue the feds, to stop them from defending themselves, and then citizens, civilians, not even in Black Bloc, join the fray to breach a courthouse and attack federal agents.
If the federal agents leave, as many have suggested they do, because they're not wanted there, the federal courthouse will fall in two seconds.
I absolutely believe that would be the case.
That's why I don't think it's necessary for that to happen, for us to consider this civil war.
Now, I covered the start of the Euromaidan thing in Ukraine.
It was the end of 2013 into 2014, and a large protest erupted in what's called Maidan in Kiev, Ukraine.
When I was there, it was a protest, and the police were fighting with a lot of these people.
Eventually, I believe the president, I'm not sure if it was the prime minister, I think it was the president of Ukraine, was ousted and fled.
They started calling it a civil war, because in the east of Ukraine, separatists started taking territory and fighting back.
The last time I was there a few years ago, I was told that no one uses that phrase anymore and they just call it like a separatist movement.
A violent separatist movement because, for the most part, they've quelled the civil war.
In the beginning, many people were calling it a civil war because the Eastern Ukraine was siding with Russia, basically, and fighting against different territories.
But as these individuals started losing ground, it became a separatist movement.
Call it whatever you want.
But it's not just Oregon, and that's the issue.
We have now seen the emergence of state sponsorship.
I know it's loose, and you could argue I'm being a little hyperbolic.
When the Feds came out to arrest these people attacking the courthouse, the state is challenging their jurisdiction.
So we're in the court territory.
Nancy Pelosi took the side of the far-left insurgents.
Insurgency, whatever.
And now, the Democrats are trying to take control of the government.
Through the electoral process, of course.
But I don't think November is going to be a peaceful transition of power, especially with this going on.
This has been going on for 54, I believe, 54 nights.
It's not going to stop.
We saw riots in Seattle.
We've seen a state of emergency declared in Utah and in Georgia in the past couple of weeks.
Trump is sending more federal agents to other places.
Dare I say, to quell the escalation of violence?
Meanwhile, Democratic politicians are attacking him, saying it's wrong.
The federal government is deploying federal agents to stop insurrection across the country.
Call it whatever you want.
I'll see you all at 4 p.m.
over at timcast.net.
Thanks for hanging out.
Donald Trump has signed an executive order preventing illegal immigrants from being counted in redrawing of voting districts.
Fox News says it comes as part of an ongoing push by the Trump administration to make sure that illegal immigrants are not included in the census.
And let's start counting down until the lawsuits begin.
However, I believe this is coming off of Donald Trump's failed DACA, which he tried to repeal DACA and he lost.
As Trump has said, the Supreme Court ruling actually gave him some pretty broad new powers, or argued that he's always had them in the first place.
We'll see how this plays out.
This is a very important story, by the way.
For those that aren't familiar with how the census works, if there is somebody in a state who is not a citizen, they can still be counted as a resident because the census doesn't ask if you are a citizen.
We then draw congressional districts based on illegal immigrants.
Uh, I, if this goes through, California is gonna lose, I can only imagine, some seats.
Not, maybe, I don't believe that they're gonna lose a lot, because it's been a while since I've gone through the data, but you understand that many of these jurisdictions and big urban centers have a lot of people who are not citizens, depending on which estimates you use, and with this executive order, Some congressional seats, some electoral votes may actually slip away.
We'll see.
But let's read the story because there's a really interesting argument about why Trump has the power to do this.
They say...
President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order to prevent illegal immigrants from being counted for the purposes of redrawing congressional districts after the 2020 census, reheating a fiery debate from last year on if illegal immigrants should be counted in the census.
There used to be a time when you could proudly declare, I am a citizen of the U.S.
But now the radical left is trying to erase the existence of this concept and conceal the number of illegal aliens in our country, Trump said in a statement, accompanying the apportionment memorandum on ensuring American citizens receive proper representation in Congress.
This is all part of a broader left-wing effort to erode the rights of American citizens, and I will not stand for it.
The order says that for the purposes of reapportionment, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status, to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch.
Census counts are used to determine the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives, the number of electors in the Electoral College, and hundreds of billions of dollars of federal spending.
However, it is not clear how the administration would determine who was in the country illegally, since the census currently does not either include a citizenship question or the additional questions about legal immigration status.
Quote, today's action to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base reflects a better understanding of the Constitution and is consistent with the principles of our representative democracy, Trump said.
My administration will not support giving congressional representation to aliens who enter or remain in the country unlawfully because doing so would create perverse incentives and undermine our system of government.
Just as we do not give political power to people who are here temporarily, we should not give political power to people who should not be here at all.
The Order, giving justification, says the Constitution does not specifically define which persons must be included in the apportionment base.
And there's a really, really interesting argument in all of this.
And that argument is basically the advancement of transportation technology.
Notably, airplanes.
I mean, and cars.
Motorcycles, I guess.
The idea is basically this.
Let me read, and I'll break it down for you.
They don't bring up transportation, but I will, but they say, Although the Constitution requires the persons in each state excluding Indians not taxed to be enumerated in the census, that requirement has never been understood to include in the apportionment base every individual physically present within a state's boundaries at the time of the census.
Instead, the term persons in each state has been interpreted to mean that only the inhabitants of each state should be included.
I completely agree.
Determining which person should be considered inhabitants for the purpose of apportionment
requires the exercise of judgment."
I completely agree.
Let's say 200 years ago, we are doing the census and I'm in New York and someone says,
howdy, you're in New York, I'd like to take you down for the census.
Congratulations, the number has been tracked.
Now, horses existed, you could still travel quite a distance, but planes kinda change things, and now you run the risk of being in the same place multiple times when the census is being taken, so I guess there's an argument that if you're in a state, you're not a resident or an inhabitant, simply because you're there, No one's gonna write down, my neighbor, you know, my brother from California is visiting New York, I'm gonna include him in the census, right?
I guess arguably you could, and this may have happened in the past, but more importantly, We need a better defined, you know, inhabitant for the census beyond just legal citizen or otherwise.
I think it's an important distinction.
Because I'm sure someone might be temporarily staying with you for a month or so and you might be like, oh yeah, this person's living here right now.
And now what?
You're gonna get... Let me make this argument.
Let's say you have more buildings in New York than you do in Wyoming.
Someone might argue my, you know, seven family members are all visiting so I'm gonna put them down as residents because there's, you know, there's more room here than the likelihood that the census is skewed In favor, disproportionately favoring larger cities because of more space and a higher likelihood there's guests, there's a potential that the numbers get skewed in general.
So that's just something I thought of.
I'm not saying it's a part of Trump's actual argument.
He's, but he's making this argument that defining what an inhabitant is requires judgment.
And that's the point I'm trying to make.
They say, the order cites estimates that one state, apparently referring to California, has more than 2.2 illegal immigrants, 6% of its population.
It argues that as a result, including illegal immigration in the population for apportionment could result in the allocation of two or three more congressional seats than if they were not included.
It comes as part of an ongoing push by the Trump administration to make sure that illegal immigrants are not included in the census.
The order will likely be subjected to a legal challenge from immigrant activist groups and others.
The Supreme Court last year blocked a citizenship question from being included in the census and sent the question back to the lower courts after concluding Trump administration's reasoning for including such a question was insufficient.
It had been opposed from Democrats and immigrant groups on the basis that it could discourage immigrants from responding.
I do believe we have a problem if we are going to be giving taxpayer funds to people who are potentially not paying taxes.
I understand the whole argument about illegal immigrants do pay taxes.
I'm sure many of them do.
But what about those who don't?
If it's one person getting a cut of our community funds, we have serious problems.
If it's one person who is being given disproportionate electoral college weight, we have a problem.
And that brings me now to the electoral college and the absurdities of the Democrats and the leftist argument.
They say the Electoral College is bad.
Okay.
You want to get rid of the Electoral College.
Sure.
I have a feeling that the Electoral College greatly benefits the left because Non-citizens are counted in the census, meaning electoral votes go to places, 6% perhaps, giving one or two extra votes to California.
Well, that's not fair, is it?
So maybe Trump is right, and maybe the Electoral College is still an important thing, even if it's not being, you know, handled properly.
They say Trump later signed an executive order to get an accurate count of citizens and non-citizens present in the country.
Attorney General Bill Barr said at the same time that the information collected via the executive order could be useful in determining the makeup of the Electoral College and Congressional apportionment.
That information will be used for countless purposes.
For example, there is a current dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included for apportionment purposes.
We'll be studying the issue, bar said.
Of course, the left is going to challenge this, but I defer back to something I brought up in my main channel segment.
Something said by Mike Pence.
That this election will not just be about whether or not you're liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat.
It's whether America remains America.
That's a really good point.
So long as there are far leftists who want open borders and believe that anybody should be able to come here and just get access to everything, there really is the risk of this country not existing.
I guess it'll exist in name only.
But it makes me wonder about this looming second civil war.
We have the Republicans and Democrats once again.
The Republicans won the last civil war.
Perhaps they'll win this one.
But if the Democrats win this civil war, something will fundamentally change.
We will have overt open borders.
We will have this new idea that people who aren't actually citizens are citizens, and there's no requirement to be a citizen.
Anyone can simply come here and just be a citizen.
And that will be the end of the Union.
States won't matter.
Borders won't matter.
There won't be a United States.
So Trump is seeking to preserve this Union, perhaps, and he may have to send federal law enforcement into various jurisdictions to defend federal jurisdiction.
So I wonder.
I didn't include this in the main channel segment because it is a bit different and a little, you know, it's not super related to the idea of civil war.
But it is related to the idea that America will not remain America if Democrats take control of the federal government.
I just believe that to be a fact.
I know it's weird because a lot of people have said the same thing over the past several decades as it pertains to these elections, like, this is the one, this is the end, you know, will there be an America?
People thought with Obama it was the end of the world.
South Park made fun of it.
But I wasn't compelled to vote in any of these elections.
I didn't care.
You weren't going to convince me that this really was, you know, life or death.
Now, not so much.
Now, with everything I've seen, I have friends who are lighting up and saying that they're going to go vote for Trump.
The leftists don't want to believe it, but it's true.
People I met at Black Lives Matter protests, for instance, telling me they're voting for Trump.
It may not mean Trump is going to win.
I don't know.
But I do believe, based on the rapid ideological shift of the far left, we are facing a vote as to whether or not America will be America.
Stick around.
I got two more segments coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Red Bull has fired two executives who are trying to increase diversity, they say, at the company after some map got leaked that had some offensive names on it.
Apparently, the Trump-supporting Austrian Red Bull boss fired top U.S.
executive team for leaking internal documents showing some employees are furious.
The company's failure to address Black Lives Matter.
I believe the Trump-loving boss of Red Bull understands the phrase, get woke, go broke.
And he thought to himself, I would very much like not to get broke, so I'll fire these people.
Well, we have an update on the story.
I'll give you the quick bullet points from the Daily Mail.
They say, North American Chief Executive Stephen Kozak and North American President and Chief Marketing Officer Amy Taylor were let go.
Both Kozak and Taylor are said to have pushed for more diversity and inclusion.
A third executive head of global culture marketing, Florian Kloss, has also left the energy drink brand after she allegedly approved a racist slide shown in a meeting.
We reject racism in every form.
We always have, we always will, says Red Bull.
Red Bull's global boss, Dietrich Mateschitz, is a Trump admirer who has spoken out against political correctness.
Well, that's the gist of the story, but we have some more updates.
Red Bull execs outline plans to increase diversity efforts a month before being fired.
Here's the slide deck.
Now, the image they're showing is an image of the guy.
But this is interesting to me.
In the United States, there's a reason why it's very difficult to weed out the intersectionalists.
It's because retaliation is not legal.
So if someone says they want intersectionalism, and you say, no, I will fire you, they say, help, help, I'm being repressed, and they contact the EEOC, and then all of a sudden you're being sued because it is illegal to retaliate.
You see, the idea is, now that they're spreading a religion, they say, we're just trying to end discrimination.
And so he retaliated against us.
Well, I guess the Red Bull is Austrian, so they probably said, shove it.
Here's the news.
A month before being fired, July 13th, former Red Bull North American CEO Stefan Kozak and President and CMO Amy Taylor announced ambitious plans to increase black representation at the company, its marketing and community outreach.
Multiple employees saw their firing as an act of retaliation by Red Bull corporate leadership in Austria.
Who the employees believe were less interested in the project and unhappy about the leaks of an employee letter urging more public support for Black Lives Matter, and an offensive slide from a corporate event in February.
You see?
They got fired.
At least their boss is willing to stand up for this.
But I think the rest of you need to as well.
Look, if somebody comes around and they start preaching some weird culty gospel at your energy drink company, you need to put a stop on it fast.
Stop it before it gets worse.
Red Bull makes a caffeine-laced soda.
Okay, I know, I'm being a bit of a jerk.
It's an energy drink, fine.
Got some B vitamins in it.
Why should they be putting out political messages, bro?
It's like a joke I made on the podcast before.
It's like, you work in a sock factory.
Why are you putting out public messages about racism?
That makes no sense.
You make socks, dude.
They make Red Bull.
Firing them was the right move.
The company should not be getting political.
It's bad for the brand.
Asked for comment for this article, a Red Bull spokesman said, as colleagues, when we have things to say to each other, we speak to each other directly.
We trust that you will appreciate this.
Shortly after the story went live, the June 17th video presentation outlined the project was deleted from Vimeo.
In the video, Kozek said he wished Red Bull had been more vocal in its support of Black Lives Matter.
Tangible change is the only thing that counts regarding corporate leadership in Austria, he said.
While we may not always like everything that is being decided, we work very closely with our global counterparts.
Why is it that this weird religion is infecting all these different corporate brands?
What does it have to do with selling soda or selling pizza?
Literally nothing.
How creepy would it be?
Think about any other ideology.
You go to a Chuck E. Cheese's, and you sit down and you're like, I'll have a pizza, my kids are gonna play with the whack-a-mole.
And they go, yes, yes, but first, we're going to pray to our lord, Lorgothan, the dragon lord of the west.
You'd be like, uh, what?
I'm not interested in that.
Pray, or else.
Or no food for you.
You'd be like, okay, I guess?
Or you'd get up and leave.
It'd be very weird, wouldn't it, if they asked you to preach for some ideology that has nothing to do with the pizza restaurant you've gone to.
That's what they're doing.
He also said Red Bull had already emerged from the storm of COVID, gaining market share over chief rival Monster with U.S.
sales down by only 2.1% in the first half of 2020.
I don't care about their sales.
The company hired a consulting firm to help with internal conversations about diversity.
Taylor said in the presentation that Red Bull had remained respectively quiet on social media regarding Black Lives Matter while working on the diversity project.
She said the company would grow black representation in its staff, marketing, and work with social justice organizations like Chance the Rapper's Chicago charity, Social Works, and New Orleans-based Overcome Racism.
She also said Red Bull recently hired consulting firm, Rewire, to facilitate conversations about diversity.
Look, man, I don't know why they're all doing this.
I find it all very strange.
The weirdest thing I've encountered was when I worked for Fusion, an ABC News company.
All of a sudden, one day, they were just like, we want to talk about gender!
And I was like, No one has any idea what you're talking about.
Oh man, I love this story.
There was apparently some marketing meeting where they were supposed to be pitching to brands how they were going to convince people to buy their product, and the guy literally goes, gender.
And people were like, what?
We're gonna talk about gender.
And people were like, What?
We're trying to tell people we're gonna sell pizza.
What is this weird critical theory stuff you're injecting into the brand?
Well, guess what?
That company spent like 300 million dollars and flushed it out on the toilet.
Get woke, go broke.
Not always, of course, it can be done right.
But in this instance, I think Red Bull wasn't willing to take the chance.
Taylor also announced the launch of a program that would match employee donations to nonprofits and employee resource groups that would foster inclusivity.
These are all just buzzwords for a non-theistic religion, mind you.
Our goal is not to drive representation through quotas and percentages, she said.
They say Red Bull also dissolved its cultural marketing teams.
We must be actively anti-racist.
Rewire's founder did not respond to a request for comment on the firm's planned collaboration with Red Bull.
They say Red Bull also dissolved its cultural marketing teams.
Whoa!
Not just the executives.
They got rid of the marketing teams.
Check this out.
The executives' firings, along with layoffs in cultural marketing, have thrown into question the future of the diversity program.
The company dissolved its cultural marketing divisions in the U.S., whose activities included sponsoring black-focused cultural events and elsewhere, according to an email viewed by Business Insider.
While we are starting a new chapter at Red Bull North America, what has not changed is your resilience, drive, and commitment to the brand.
Read an email sent to Red Bull's distribution team by VP of Finance.
The employee who shared the email called it tone deaf for not mentioning the events blah blah blah.
Get rid of all of them, man.
that could either accept new roles or received exit packages, but that no new jobs have been announced.
Get rid of all of them, men. When you start getting a religious sect, joining your company
and hiring other religious members of their sect, you gotta get rid of them. The goal of the company
should be to function properly.
Merit.
But if their goal is spreading their religion, they will extract your resources and wear your withered husk like a skin suit, praising their religion until there's nothing left and you're broke.
That's what they're trying to do.
They're trying to indoctrinate people.
A Red Bull employee who worked on the BLM project called Taylor a beacon of light on matters of diversity, and said her sudden departure has staff concerned about whether leadership will make additional restructuring moves.
Another employee said Red Bull achieved much of its success in the U.S.
by sponsoring events like hip-hop shows and B-boy dance competitions, and that by firing Kozik and Taylor, Red Bull got rid of the only people to even acknowledge that there might have been a problem with diversity.
What problem with diversity?
You sell soda pop, dude.
I don't know what these people are expecting.
I got the message loud and clear, the person said.
They go on to say there's more stories, you know, if you want to follow what's been going on with Red Bull.
More than 300 Red Bull employees signed a letter expressing concern about the company's response to Black Lives Matter.
Fire all of them.
Fire all of them, man.
It's the only thing you can do.
You've seen what happened with Gillette.
They got woke.
They got broke.
And they may have gotten broke for other reasons because people are, you know, jumping over to Dollar Shave Club and Harry's and stuff like that.
But I think it's fair to say that these are tone-deaf, divisive, and destructive marketing plans.
That when they get into your company, they make people hate each other.
It's not going to help you.
Look, if you want to sell popcorn, you know what you do?
You say to someone, guess what?
This popcorn's the best!
And they'll go, wow, the best, huh?
I'm telling you, it's the best.
And guess what?
They might buy it.
You maybe want to do a different cultural style.
Maybe you want to target specific demographics, so you make commercials targeting their demographic.
Hey man, they talk about hip-hop, right?
Okay, so you do this.
I got popcorn.
Play some hip-hop music.
Yo, you like hip-hop music?
Here's popcorn to eat with your hip-hop music.
Guess what?
You target the demographics and you mention why the product is worth buying.
There's a bunch of other weird techniques in marketing.
But you know what you don't do?
You don't walk up to a bunch of people who are like wearing suits and say, here's hip-hop popcorn.
They're gonna be like, not for me.
So when you inject diversity and inclusion initiatives into your soda pop, do you think you're gonna do better or worse?
Worse.
I'll tell you this.
Because you're making a divisive political stand.
The old joke is that when asked about why Michael Jordan didn't get involved in politics, he said, you know, because Republicans buy sneakers too.
I don't know if he actually said it, apparently he said something like that, but that's a good point.
Look man, if I make shoes, there's no reason for me to embrace a political and religious movement, because then I'll sell less shoes.
Apparently, the Red Bull CEO figured that one out.
And so, well, he's protected his company.
But I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Mark Cuban and Ted Cruz in a Twitter flame war!
And I'm rather disappointed.
Disappointed in Mark Cuban.
Well, Ted Cruz asked Mark Cuban if he would say something like, free Hong Kong.
And then, Mark Cuban responded with something about, like, I'll criticize America and our problems, I don't get involved in domestic political issues in foreign countries.
And my response was very simple.
Uh, dude, there's a genocide going on in China right now.
I get it.
You raised the question about civil liberties in Hong Kong, Mr. Cruz, to Mark Cuban.
And Mark Cuban was saying, eh, it's a political domestic issue, I'm not gonna get involved.
I still don't agree with that.
But how about the genocide?
How about the Uyghur Muslim genocide?
Here's my fear.
My fear is that in this country we have political interests, people like Mark Cuban.
And I don't know what kind of donations Mark Cuban makes.
I don't know what kind of companies he owns.
I don't know if he does business dealings in China.
I'm not saying that.
I am saying that there are a lot of powerful financial interests that are too scared to speak up about what's going on in China out of a fear of losing money.
Because they have a fear of losing money, they then start putting their money into politicians who will support favorable laws for China.
In which case, the genocide happening in China, the suppression of the civil rights of the residents of Hong Kong, will only get worse.
And powerful financial interests, dare I say capitalists, We'll allow it to happen and actually encourage it.
Let's read a little bit of this story from the Washington Post.
They say two of Texas's most prominent figures sparred Monday over Twitter, jabbing at each
other over topics including protests during the national anthem, the Black Lives Matter movement,
coronavirus and the NBA's relationship with China. By the end, at least for the time being,
Ted Cruz was reiterating his assertion that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was loath to criticize
China while declining to answer Cuban's question about why the senator seems reticent to criticize
President Trump.
The issue of the NBA in China first created a politically charged discussion in October after Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey posted and deleted a tweet that supported protesters in Hong Kong.
And then the NBA dropped to its knees and cried, begging China for that sweet, sweet won.
We want money!
unidentified
We don't want to criticize the genocide and the suppression of civil rights!
You know, recently, there was a custom jersey program over at the NBA store, and you couldn't type in Free Hong Kong.
And after people complained, they said, oops, it was a glitch, you restored it, and then ultimately went, we're going to get rid of the whole thing.
And there you go.
Now you can't have any custom jerseys.
So listen, to your question, Mr. Cuban, about criticizing Donald Trump.
Ooh, boy.
Let's criticize Donald Trump.
How about he's a loudmouth braggart, lewd and lascivious old man, and I detest his behavior and his character.
I think he's funny, he's an entertainer, I think he knows how to make people laugh.
Personally, I understand why people want to support him.
And when it comes to policies, there are many policies I've disagreed with.
Notably, Trump ordered a commando raid in his very early presidency, which resulted
in the death of a young American girl.
Donald Trump has been ordering drone strikes in the Middle East, and Donald Trump fired
59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria.
With that being said, I still have to lay praise on his efforts to remove our troops
from Afghanistan now, and he's taken a much stronger stance on ending the war and calling
out China.
So I can criticize the president.
I have no problem.
I've never been a big fan of the guy.
I mean, look, like I said, he's an entertainer.
He's a funny guy.
But as president, I didn't vote for him.
I'm considering voting for him now because of the insanity that's sweeping this nation.
Insanity that I see coming from people like Mark Cuban.
You see, Mark Cuban is not woke far left.
He's not one of these intersectionalist lunatics.
But he's also almost defending China.
I'm not going to get involved in their domestic disputes.
You know what, man, for all the things I said about Trump, and I mean it, for all the things I can criticize him over with his bad moral character, I had one guy say to me that, you know, he made the economy work, it's great, but man, he wouldn't invite Trump to dinner because Trump's a lowlife.
I think I understand that a lot of people have good reason to criticize Trump.
With that being said, Donald Trump is challenging China.
I will take what I can get.
Donald Trump is calling out, you know, the war in the Middle East and trying to bring our troops back.
Hey, man, I will take it.
But feel free, Mr. Cuban, by all means, to hate Donald Trump, to criticize him.
This is America.
I'm totally for it.
But please speak up about China.
We need you on this one.
We need every single billionaire on this one.
We need Tim Cook.
We need Bezos.
We need you.
China is suppressing the civil rights of the people of Hong Kong.
That, I think, is a very serious problem and an affront to what we believe in as Americans.
Now, Within reason, I am not in favor of intervention.
You know, so when it comes to Hong Kong, I think some of the solutions we have are opening up our doors to the residents of Hong Kong to be refugees, to come willingly as immigrants to the United States to enjoy these civil rights that's being taken away from them.
And we'll try and figure out the best way to help them.
And I also believe the same is true for many of the people in the Middle East who have reaped the rewards of the horrifying war.
I mean this sarcastically.
The people whose lives have been devastated, I'm very pro-refugee.
I've done a documentary about it.
I believe it all has to be very orderly and well regulated, to put it mildly.
Now when it comes to China and the genocide of the Uighur Muslims, I don't think there's anything that can be said.
It's not a left or right issue.
It has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
So now, with your statement to Ted Cruz about criticizing the President, I would simply say this.
Mr. Cuban, I would ask you to speak up about the Uyghur Muslim genocide.
Just say, It's bad.
Look up the story from the Associated Press.
They're harvesting organs.
They're forcefully sterilizing people.
Speak up about it.
It has nothing to do with Trump.
You can hate Trump all you want.
I would ask you this.
Do you think Joe Biden is going to be the guy who challenges China and shuts this down?
I don't think so.
I think it's fair to ask Ted Cruz why he won't criticize the president.
I think it's fair to ask anyone that.
And with that being said, I will ask you, why won't you call out the Uyghur Muslim genocide?
Maybe he has, and I didn't know this.
So if that's the case, I would apologize, and I would ask that you continue to speak up.
If you're not speaking up, I would ask that you do so.
I would also ask that you use your influence to maybe make some NBA jerseys that says something like, you know, end the Uyghur genocide, end the concentration camps, and call out China's active role in, well, these human rights violations, these atrocities.
Cruises back and forth with Cuban began if the Mavericks owner sent a dismissive tweet Sunday to a Dallas area radio host who said that he would be out on the team's return to play unless Cuban helped avert player protest on the National Anthem.
Cuban followed that up with another tweet in which he claimed the National Anthem police in this country are out of control.
Cruz then shared an image of Cuban's first tweet, while telling his followers, really?
NBA is telling everyone who stands with the flag, who honors our cops and our veterans, to pee off?
In Texas, no less?
Good luck with that.
Nah, look, I'm not thrilled about the criticism for Cuban and the flag and all that stuff.
This is really about American politics.
And if Cruz wants to get into a fight with Mark Cuban over the anthem, whatever, man.
My thing has always been this.
If the NBA wants to play two national anthems or whatever, if they want to start playing these games and kneeling, I'm not gonna go.
If you want to block me from buying a free Hong Kong jersey, I'm not gonna buy your jerseys.
But I gotta be honest, I don't go to NBA games anyway.
They're not gonna lose a whole lot.
But I'd be willing to bet a lot of the fans of the NBA are not politically left.
They're probably not political at all and probably don't know or care about what this is and probably don't want to be a part of it.
That's your choice.
But as the conversation drifted over to China, I would now bring up my greatest fear.
Lobbying, campaign finance, powerful individuals making donations to politicians who won't speak up.
Look, man, I've been doing pretty well for myself.
You know, with my businesses, everything's been running really, really well.
And I've made some donations to politicians.
Mostly Democrats, to be honest.
Though recently I made a donation to a Republican because he was challenging the far left, speaking up against the insanity that's sweeping this country.
And I think it's important.
I think it's important to help out politicians who are going to do the right thing.
But I think about the amount I've been able to donate, which has been fairly substantial.
And I think about the amount the average person is able to donate, which is not substantial.
Mark Cuban can set up a super PAC.
He can go well beyond my individual contributions to, I think, like five politicians.
He can dump hundreds of millions of dollars like Michael Bloomberg did, and it probably won't matter all that much to him.
Bloomberg dumped what, like hundreds of millions of dollars?
Imagine if Bloomberg, instead of running, teamed up with the likes of Mark Cuban and created a massive influence campaign to end the genocide in China.
They'd get it done.
You see, it goes both ways.
China could theoretically seize the assets of these billionaires who have factories in China.
However, these billionaires could also say, if you want the continued success that we bring, then you will stop this.
Otherwise, we will all pull our financial interests out of your country and it will devastate you.
That's the power of these billionaires.
Instead, what do they do?
They lobby against Trump.
They lobby in favor of politicians, people like Joe Biden, who will probably buddy up with China.
Joe Biden has actually said that China's not all that bad.
They're good people, huh?
Donald Trump has called him out.
I'm sorry, man.
I'm not saying this about the people of China.
I'm saying this about the Chinese government that needs to be called out.
Because they are overseeing a genocide.
So look, man.
Petty squabbles with Mark Cuban, I don't care.
Telling someone to say blah blah blah, I don't care.
Call out China does kind of feel like a cheap shot because you're talking about the National Anthem and then you try and get him on something you know it's hard for him to talk about.
But you know what?
Cruz is right.
China needs to talk about it.
I think Mark Cuban needs to speak up.
I think it's the duty of every American to call out the atrocities happening in China, period.
I think it's important that we share as many stories on this as we can.
And a special shout out to Majid Nawaz, who recently underwent a hunger strike to generate 100,000 signatures for a petition to get the UK Parliament to address the atrocities.
We need Mark Cuban.
So you want to argue, you want to talk about politics in this country, it's fine.
But right now I feel like, for the most part, a lot of this is stamp collecting.
Within reason.
You know, what I am worried about is if... When I say stamp collecting, I mean, like, a hobby.
It's not super important.
No offense to stamp collectors.
But what I think is, if Biden wins, China's going to keep doing this and no one will stop him.
Because they've been doing this for decades.
So you get the point.
I'll see y'all tomorrow on this channel at 10 a.m.
