Trump Just SMACKED China Across The Face, Demands China Divest From TikTok, Issues MASSIVE Sanctions
China no doubt will not take this lying down but it needed to be done.Trump won't immediately ban TikTok but is ordering the company to divest from Chinese interests. This is a compromise but if they refuse this could be the end of the chinese app in the US.Trump also issued massive sanctions on the Xinjiang paramilitary group XPCC over the horrifying treatment of Uighur Muslims.Americans agree with Trump and many see this as a decisive moment for the president which could help him win reelection in november's election.Democrats on the other hand have had 8 years of favorable treatment with China and many fear that a vote for Biden will return us to the status quo.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today, Donald Trump slapped China clear across the face in two major moves.
He has ordered China's ByteDance to sell TikTok in the US, essentially divest from one of the most popular and rising social media apps, sell it off to American interests.
Rumor is Microsoft might buy it.
Now, this is actually kind of a compromise.
Trump is saying he still may ban TikTok in the US because they've been accused of spying, stealing people's personal information in this country.
They've been caught taking certain data, and then when they've said, oh no, we fixed it, it was an accident, they got caught again.
And many people are concerned they're basically spying on U.S., mostly youths, for China.
Now, whether or not that's true, Donald Trump is taking hard action.
Although he's not banning the app, he wants them to sell it to U.S.
interests.
There's some considerations here pertaining to big tech because a lot of people were concerned that these big tech monopolies are too powerful, control too much of the public square, and now by forcing ByteDance to sell, they're just going to empower another company, notably Microsoft.
But there is other very serious action underway.
Donald Trump is sanctioning a paramilitary group in China's Xinjiang.
Over their abuses towards ethnic minorities and notably the Uyghur Muslims.
Now these are two very different stories.
But this is all about the bigger picture of Trump being strong against China.
And I have to say, I am very, personally, this is very, I'm gonna get very opinionated right now.
I'm actually really, really happy and impressed with Donald Trump's moves here.
China is a very serious threat to global security.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship.
And what they're doing in Hong Kong and to the Uyghur Muslims are absolutely horrifying and nightmarish.
While the actions that Donald Trump has taken today I think are good, very good.
The TikTok thing, I kind of say, sure, sure, whatever.
It's one app.
Obviously, a lot of young people are going to kind of freak out.
But the sanctions against the paramilitary in Xinjiang, now this, I don't know what the right action is.
All I can say is I'm glad to see the president taking hard actions against China.
For those that aren't familiar, this is graphic and horrifying, but they have concentration camps filled with Uighur Muslims.
These are human beings.
These are people.
And they are The things they're doing to them are so horrifying.
I'm going to wait and explain to you the depth of the depravity and why what Donald Trump has done here is so important.
But I absolutely must point out, foreign policy says, when it comes to China, Americans think like Trump.
Recent data suggests that most voters share the White House's hawkish approach to China.
We can talk about TikTok because I think this is going to affect Americans the most.
But we definitely need to talk about what China has been doing to the Uyghur Muslims.
We'll talk about Majid Nawaz and his hunger strike.
Donald Trump taking action here is extremely important.
These people are in concentration camps.
You need to realize how serious this is.
But I do think because TikTok is so, it's going to affect Americans more seriously.
Let's talk about this first.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, subscribe!
About half the people who watch my videos aren't actually subscribed, so if you want to make sure you are getting every video I put out, hit that subscribe button.
Hit that like button.
And if you really want to help, share this video, especially considering we're going to talk about some very, very serious issues.
I have to be very careful how I describe what's going on with China and the Uyghur Muslims, because YouTube is very Sensorious.
And I absolutely want to make sure that most people have an understanding about how serious this is and why it is very, very good that Donald Trump is doing what he's doing.
Now, I think the move with TikTok is very strategic and I'm impressed.
Banning TikTok was freaking people out.
This is a very popular app.
It is growing very, very quickly.
Young people use it.
And it's not just young leftists.
There are Trump supporters who use it as well.
People like the app.
Banning this could make people, well, it could lose a lot of money for Americans who use it for their own businesses.
Young people run their businesses through TikTok as influencers.
And it could be generally disruptive.
This way, With what Trump is doing, the app will remain.
People can still use it.
No one's got to worry.
No one's got to freak out.
And Trump is protecting us from Chinese spying.
Let's read from Bloomberg.
They say Trump to order China's ByteDance to sell TikTok in U.S.
Donald Trump plans to announce a decision ordering China's ByteDance to divest its ownership of the popular U.S.-based music video app TikTok, according to people familiar with the matter.
The U.S.
has been investigating potential national security risks due to the company's control of the app, and Trump's decision could be announced as soon as Friday.
Spokespeople for the White House and Treasury Department didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
A TikTok spokesperson couldn't be reached for comment.
Snap Inc., a TikTok competitor, gained on the report, reflecting speculation that it may benefit from any move that weakens TikTok.
Shares of the Santa Monica, California-based company were up two points.
It's Bloomberg.
What do you expect?
They care about the finance.
ByteDance bought Musical.ly Inc.
in 2017 and merged it with TikTok, creating a popular and fast-growing social media hit in the U.S., the first Chinese app to make such inroads.
As TikTok grew more popular, U.S.
officials grew more concerned about the potential for the Chinese government to use the app to gain data on U.S.
citizens.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which investigates overseas acquisition of U.S.
businesses, began a review of the purchase in the fall of 2019, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
TikTok has become a political pawn between the U.S.
and China, and elected officials have criticized the app's security and privacy practices, suggesting that user data collected through the app might be shared with the Chinese government.
Trump said earlier this month he was considering banning TikTok as a way to retaliate against China for its handling of the coronavirus.
No, no, no, no, slow down.
Banning the app like Japan is now announcing, like India has done, because they are spying on our citizens.
We are dangerously close to a very serious military conflict with China.
It is very likely that we are already engaged in hostilities with China, and that they have been the ones instigating this.
They've been stealing intellectual property.
They've been pushing into the South China Sea.
There's reports of them sinking Vietnamese fishing boats.
They are probably hacking our email accounts.
Apparently they have... I don't have the sources pulled up.
But the Chinese government has been accused, I should say, in a sense accused.
They use private hacking groups to infiltrate American companies.
Yes, hostilities are underway, and they've been underway for quite some time.
The fear is that things like this, the overt spying on American citizens, could result In a hot war.
Now, there's other issues pertaining to China's control of social media, notably how they can ban people who might say negative things about China.
I have concerns about that being on YouTube.
Like I said, I'm starting with the story about TikTok because We really need to talk about the Uyghur Muslims.
There are many impressive individuals, Majid Nawaz, you may be familiar with him, he's an intellectual dark web type personality, engaged in a hunger strike to get 100,000 signatures on a petition calling for action, something against China because of what they're doing to these people.
But it's possible I could get this video sanctioned, I could get banned, and every time I do a video talking about the atrocities that China is engaged in, guess what happens?
A bunch of weird propaganda pops up lying about who I am, what I believe, and what I think in an effort to get me banned on platforms like YouTube.
That's why I think we need to talk about TikTok.
If TikTok does become very powerful and prominent and supersedes or Takes over in the US.
Then we will be beholden to Chinese interests in terms of communication.
I do not believe that we can allow that as a free, to an extent, country.
And I believe Trump is making the right move.
This, I gotta say, I'm really impressed with this decision.
Banning TikTok would have been a bit over the top, but it may have had to have happened It looks like Trump found a solution.
Now, according to Jennifer Jacobs, senior reporter for Bloomberg, who did write, I believe she contributed to this article as well.
Yes, she did.
She says Trump, before leaving for Florida, tells me may ban TikTok, but still looking at a lot of alternatives.
Good on the president for taking a slow approach.
Look, man, nobody should want a hot war, especially with China.
There's going to be weird I'm going to avoid speculating too much into what would happen if a hot war does start.
But there are very serious security implications as to why they're making these moves.
Bloomberg closes out by saying, Trump's threat to ban TikTok came just a few weeks after reports that many TikTok users had tried to sabotage a Trump campaign rally.
I think that is irrelevant.
TikTok has been looking for ways to distance itself from its Chinese ownership, seeking to reassure the public that no data is stored on servers in China, and that the app operates independently.
ByteDance even appointed a CEO formerly of Walt Disney Co., Kevin Mayer, to run its operations in America.
This is almost 4D chess, man.
If they're coming out and saying, no, no, no, no, trust us, trust us, we're not beholden to China, then Trump goes, okay, then divest from the, you know, divest from those interests.
How about you sell to an American company?
How about that?
Prosperity for everybody, nobody gets banned?
We'll see how they respond.
But here is the hard, more militaristic news.
Look at this image.
For those that are just listening, it is a dragon in a birdcage.
I saw this story.
I'm impressed.
I'm glad action is being taken.
We are the United States of America.
We fought the Nazis and we won.
We shut them down.
We crushed them and their authoritarian ideology.
We engaged in a cold war for a very long time against the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union and we crushed them as well.
Now we are facing a very serious threat from China.
I would love it if diplomacy won out and China began to adopt more freedom-loving ideas, liberty-minded ideals, if they respected the freedom of those in Hong Kong and they stopped oppressing the Uyghur Muslims.
It does not seem like they will be willing to do that.
And in fact, many of our own corporations, notably the NBA, among others, are willing to bend the knee to China because the money is just too good.
Well, we cannot have this.
If we as Americans truly believe in opposing oppression, especially those on the left, the intersectionalists, then this should come as welcome news that action is being taken against the paramilitary in Xinjiang over their oppression of the Uighur Muslims.
Let's read this story from Axios.
They say, The Trump administration has announced it will sanction the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a paramilitary organization operating in Xinjiang, where Chinese authorities, aided by the XPCC, are perpetrating a cultural and demographic genocide against ethnic minorities.
Why it matters.
XPCC controls vast swathes of the economy in Xinjiang.
Depending on how rigorously the sanctions are enforced, they could hobble the region's economy and blunt China's plans for further economic development in the region.
The Trump administration also said it would sanction two Chinese Communist Party officials affiliated with the XPCC, according to a press release from the Department of the Treasury.
As previously stated, the United States is committed to using the full breadth of its financial powers to hold human rights abusers accountable in Xinjiang and across the world, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also announced the sanctions on Twitter, writing, We call on the world to join us in condemning the CCP's heinous abuse of the human rights of its own citizens.
The sanctions fall under the Global Magnitsky Act, implemented in 2016 to make it easier for the U.S.
government to sanction foreign government officials and entities complicit in human rights abuses.
Now, I want to read a little bit more, but I want to point out recently, Mike Pompeo traveled to Europe trying to drum up support from European allies to go up against China in some capacity to stop what they are doing.
With the oppression of the people of Hong Kong.
They're delaying the elections there now.
There have been ongoing protests and rioting.
And notably, the very serious genocide against the Uyghur Muslims.
I'll tell you man, what they're doing to these people is, is what nightmares are made of.
I'm just gonna, I'm gonna come out and say it, alright?
They're harvesting organs of human beings and reportedly selling them.
There was a report that they were selling the hair of these people as they force them to shave their heads and put them in re-education camps.
They are forcefully aborting babies and sterilizing people.
This is truly the worst humanity has to offer.
And Donald Trump has taken moves against them over these atrocities.
I hope other countries start speaking up.
And I am incredibly inspired by the likes of Majid Nawaz, who went on a hunger strike and did get signatures demanding Parliament in the UK speak up against this as well.
I hope people can set aside their differences.
I don't care what you believe.
This should be a unifying force for us as Americans.
And good on Donald Trump.
Good on his administration for taking these actions.
They say little known, little known outside of China, the XPCC, also known as the Bingtuan, meaning military unit in Chinese, is a powerful secretive organization that has dominated Xinjiang's economy and politics for decades.
It employs almost 12% of Xinjiang's total population, though very few of those employees come from the non-Han ethnic groups that comprise nearly half of the region's population.
The XPCC is involved in the production of one-third of China's cotton, and in 2014, XPCC controlled interests comprised of 17% of Xinjiang's economy.
The Xinjiang government views the XPCC as playing crucial roles in fighting terror and maintaining stability, a reference to the draconian security state that authorities have forced on Uyghurs and other Muslim groups there.
Here's what they add.
This is a huge move by the Trump administration and a major win for human rights advocates who have raised the alarm about the ex-PCC's role in running the mass internment camps.
In addition, enforcing sanctions on such a sprawling and secretive organization is an enormous undertaking.
How much these sanctions bite depends a great deal on how many resources the administration is willing to commit to uncovering violations and enforcing them.
What to watch?
The Chinese government is certain to view this as a major provocation and as a violation of their domestic sovereignty.
Retaliatory measures are likely.
Well, I'll tell you what.
100% Bravo Trump and the Trump administration.
Something needs to be done.
The American people agree.
Now, this is an article from Foreign Policy.
I don't know exactly if they're going to be talking about the Uyghurs or, you know, economic issues, but we cannot sit by and do nothing.
Let me tell you all, I am absolutely 100% anti-intervention. 100%.
But maybe 100% is the wrong way to frame it.
Maybe it's 99.9%.
I am absolutely thrilled that Donald Trump has tried to pull our troops out of Afghanistan.
We don't have that many left relative to other countries.
He's trying to move troops out of Germany.
We'll see if that really happens because Germany's not paying their NATO bills.
There are a lot of concerns I have about the money we spend sending our military to foreign locations, wasting our resources, as far as I can tell.
Now maybe there are good reasons for it.
Notably in the Middle East, there's concerns that if we do pull out, China will move in, and then they will gain a strategic foothold in this region.
It is absolutely true that China is engaging in a ton of international operations in Africa and South America, including oil exploration, and we are at major odds.
They are a serious adversary, and they are growing in power.
I don't know what the answers are to all of these problems, and I wouldn't pretend to.
I'm not in the military, nor have I seen top-secret or confidential information pertaining to this.
But I do know that we have a line, that we have to have a red line.
And I think the first thing we can do, sanctions, diplomacy, makes a lot of sense.
Force China to abandon the concentration camps.
Now, I personally would like to see the people who have perpetrated these crimes face trial.
It is very difficult to pull that off.
It would mean a literal ground invasion to actually capture some of these officials.
I don't think that's possible.
These people who've implemented these atrocities need to stand trial for their crimes as far as I'm concerned.
But if at the very least Trump's actions prevent a war and stop what China is doing, then I believe it will be one of the greatest moves as a president in the history of this country.
Preventing war and stopping atrocities, that's a win-win across the board.
Again, I'm not going to pretend to know.
I think that's silly.
You're going to hear from a lot of people who will say, here's what Trump should do.
Here's what he shouldn't do.
Of course, we're probably going to hear a lot from the left saying, oh, Trump is playing with fire.
The last thing we need is him to blah, blah, blah.
No way, man.
We've got concentration camps in China right now.
The Uyghur Muslims having their organs harvested, forced abortion.
According to the Associated Press.
So I welcome any actions that can potentially prevent war and put pressure on China to make this stop.
Now, to a certain degree, it seems that Americans agree the foreign policy reports.
Large majorities of the U.S.
public, both Democrats and Republicans, align with the Trump administration's dismal view of China, giving the embattled president a potential appealing drum to bang in an increasingly uphill reelection campaign.
Now, I will tell you what, man.
If Trump takes a hard stance and does what he has to do, you know, to prevent war and stop the concentration camps, he absolutely has my vote.
Joe Biden is not the appropriate response right now to the threat we face from China, but it's not even about us.
I know there are a lot of nationalists who support Trump.
I mean, that's one of his go-to appeals.
I am not an overt nationalist.
You may have seen I recently published my eight values test.
I'm like two-thirds more for international diplomacy.
My concern is that human beings right now are being placed in concentration camps.
That's my concern.
And that should be A concern for everybody.
But more importantly, regardless of whether you're concerned about the human rights abuses, which of course I think most people are, there's also very serious threats to our freedom, to the freedom of other countries, and I think whether you're someone who believes in international diplomacy or a more America-first approach, you can believe in both, I understand.
Depending on what you favor in terms of your perspective, we can all agree this is a very powerful move and something needs to be done because of China's egregious violations.
According to the survey, 73% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of China, up from 47% just two years ago.
The main complaints echo President Donald Trump, the nature of the two countries' economic relationship and China's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
Some 64 percent surveyed felt that China had done a bad a bad job handling the pandemic,
and 78 percent believe the Chinese government deserves at least some of the blame for the
global spread of the virus.
Meanwhile, more than two thirds of respondents said U.S.
China economic relations were in bad shape.
While Republicans are more likely to hold a negative view of China on the most on most
issues than Democrats, U.S. China economic ties particularly concern Democrats, with
73 percent saying relations are bad, 10 percentage points more than Republicans, which could
offer Trump a lifeline in must-win rust belt states hit hard by years of Chinese economic
depredation and the ongoing trade war.
So listen.
This is mostly, presumably, it's about, you know, economic issues.
It probably has a lot to do with the fact that our factories, our jobs, many of these were sent overseas to China, which hurt the Rust Belt severely.
These trade agreements that Donald Trump opposed, and so did Bernie Sanders for quite a bit.
I don't know where he's at now.
It resonated with a lot of people who knew that our middle class was being siphoned away by politicians who favored China.
Donald Trump for the past decade, probably longer, has been very critical of China, has been very critical of these free trade agreements.
It's one of the reasons he got elected.
I believe that if Joe Biden wins, he will revert everything back to the way it was.
The Obama administration wanted to enter something called the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The idea was that it would normalize the economy between the U.S.
and China.
And they claimed that this would make China more liberal and democratic.
Only problem?
The inverse was true.
They exploited our resources and they made us become more authoritarian like them.
Case in point, the NBA.
On the NBA's website, you couldn't enter Free Hong Kong as a custom jersey name because it would just give you a random error.
Now they said it was a glitch.
Once they removed the glitch, they just nuked the whole program.
Now you can't buy custom jerseys.
Maybe they'll restore it.
I'm not sure where we're at now.
But we've seen many American companies bend the knee to China.
I need you to realize what happens if we do not take a hard stand now.
With people like Joe Biden and the Obama administration's favor towards China.
To all of the crony establishment politicians who would sell us out to multinational corporations.
What was happening is that this country was becoming emboldened, empowered and no one would hold them accountable.
Even to this day, as they pump out carbon emissions, those of us that have been saying, hey, we got to protect the environment and global warming is a serious issue, we hear nothing from these international organizations about the problems we face because China won't stop pumping out the bulk, a large portion of carbon emissions.
Where are the complaints?
There's no accountability.
Why?
In my opinion, multinational billion-dollar corporations and special interests don't actually care.
They want to make money, and that's their path to making money.
They like the idea that they can get a quick buck if China's pumping out carbon emissions, if they're abusing people for cheap labor.
And that's what they're doing.
Interestingly.
We saw a hearing the other day about big tech monopolies, and some questions were asked about whether or not these big tech CEOs would pledge not to use Chinese slave labor.
And boy, were they wishy-washy.
They were asked, does China engage in stealing our intellectual property?
And what did we hear from, what did we hear from like Apple and Jeff Bezos?
Oh, I don't know anything about that.
And then, interestingly, what did we hear from Mark Zuckerberg?
Zuckerberg said, of course they're stealing our technology!
And I was impressed by that.
It's about time we put our foot down.
This is why I'm scared that we may revert back to the previous administration's policies of placating and just handing over our resources and letting China do whatever they want.
I'm not going to be thrilled about that.
I'm not thrilled at all about the potential for that future.
And so it leads me to A rather interesting predicament.
Look, after India and US, Japan looks to ban TikTok and other Chinese apps.
And that was the other day.
And now I'm hearing reports that they're actually going to do it.
So what happens if Trump loses?
I think it'll be politics as usual.
China will be re-emboldened.
They'll get all our factories back.
You know, we don't make our own medicine.
When the coronavirus hit, we didn't have the PPE we needed.
They blamed Trump, but the reality was our factories were in China, and China turned the boats around.
So we need to be stronger as a nation for our own interests, but also because America has been a beacon of hope for so many other countries.
We provide tremendous aid.
If we don't secure our own oxygen mask first, we won't be conscious to help those around us.
This brings me to that predicament I mentioned.
I've never been the biggest fan of Trump as a politician.
When it comes to his entertainment and his comedy, yeah, I think he's a funny guy, of course.
I think you're lying, or you have no sense of humor, if you reject the idea that Trump is a funny guy.
But I would prefer more of a professional statesman.
But I'll tell you what, I'll take what I can get.
And right now, Joe Biden's not the answer.
And so begrudgingly, I am leaning towards, very strongly, a vote for Donald Trump.
The reason I say not definitively is because there's a lot that's going to happen between now and November.
And there could be certainly some things that make me change my mind.
But as it stands today, Donald Trump is proving more and more on foreign policy that I think he's making the right choices.
Withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan?
I'll give him a standing ovation for that, though he was blocked by Democrats and Republicans alike, except for a small handful, eight Republicans and three Democrats.
Now these moves against TikTok and sanctioning China?
I'm happy about it.
I am.
Listen, I'm not the smartest person in the world, I would never claim to be, and I get things wrong all the time.
I'll give you my thoughts and opinions on these stories.
It could be that there's a lot I don't know about what's happening.
But to the best of my understanding, we must do something.
And it sounds like Trump is doing things that are actually a bit clever, forcing China to divest, you know, of TikTok.
Well, well, there we go.
That solves the problems.
The company doesn't get hurt.
The users don't get hurt.
And we protect ourselves from the potential Chinese spying.
But again, I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers.
I'm just glad to see that we have a president who's taken some hard sanctions against China, notably over their mistreatment, the genocide of the Uyghur Muslims.
Please, you need to let people know about what's going on there.
I have talked to my progressive friends and they said I didn't know that was happening.
They need to know.
So please consider sharing that information, whether you share this video or not.
Let people know about what they're doing.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastnews and I will see you all then.
This is going to be a very difficult story to go through for several reasons.
For one, the level of complexity, and more importantly, the fact that YouTube has insane rules and probably isn't going to be too happy that I'm going to be telling you, according to new documents in the Epstein case, Bill Clinton is being directly implicated, and it would seem that Donald Trump is actually being cleared of some accusations.
Now, many people probably not surprised by this, but thanks to the work of Mike Cernovich, And investigative reporter Julie K. Brown, we are now getting to read the actual documents.
And there's some really, I'll just call it interesting.
Again, I don't want to pretend to be able to go through all of the intricacies and complexities of this story.
I'll just read for you what we're seeing and how people feel about what's going on.
But what you need to know is that Bill Clinton has been accused many times of being a part of the Goings on at Epstein's Island, to put it mildly.
Now, Bill Clinton has denied this over and over again, but now Virginia Giuffre has said he was there and with two young girls.
And according to the documents that got released, she actually said, I believe it's not her, someone else was saying that, I don't see, I don't remember seeing Donald Trump there at all.
And if he was there, he like briefly stopped over at like some place in Florida and then left.
There's actually one point, I believe, at which Virginia says, no, Donald Trump never even flirted with her, like the press reported.
So it looks like these documents, really good news for Trump, so far, and really, really bad news for the Clintons.
And I just want to point something out, because of the complexity of this story, I know, YouTube may actually ban this, so I have to be very, I'm walking on eggshells.
Here, you get this.
But people talk about these conspiracy theories involving, you know, Bill Clinton and Epstein and all that.
And it's interesting to me that, I mean, we've had these implications over and over again, these accusations.
This is the conspiracy, okay?
Like, this is the evidence people are talking about.
Newsweek, Fox News, several other outlets are now reporting on this.
The documents have been released.
And the crazy thing is, apparently, The FBI actually had evidence of Prince Andrew's involvement, that's according to the documents as well, at least according to Virginia Giuffre's statement.
So, let's try to very carefully walk through what's going on, and I'll do my best, but you've been warned.
Again, we're on YouTube, so I'm doing the best I can.
Newsweek reports, Bill Clinton went to Epstein's Island with two young girls, Virginia Giuffre says.
In recently unsealed court documents involving Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman named Virginia Giuffre, who publicly accused Epstein of trafficking, said that she once saw former Democratic President Bill Clinton on Epstein's island with two young girls from New York.
In the questioning by lawyer Jack Scarola, Giuffre was asked, do you have any recollection of Jeffrey Epstein specifically telling you That Bill Clinton owes me favors.
Yes, I do, Giuffre answered.
It was a laugh, though.
He would laugh it off, you know.
I remember asking Jeffrey, what's Bill Clinton doing here?
On Epstein's Island.
Kind of thing.
And he laughed it off and said, well, he owes me favors.
He never told me what favors they were, Giuffre continued.
I never knew.
I didn't know if he was serious.
It was just a joke.
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors, They're all in each other's pockets.
Shortly thereafter, Scarola asked, where were the group love events?
Were they a regular occurrence on the island?
And Giuffre responded, yes.
Scarola then asked if she was ever present with Epstein and Clinton on the island.
Ghislaine, Emmy, another girl who was allegedly a regular, and there was two young girls that I could identify.
I never really knew them well anyways, it was just two girls from New York, Giffray answered, and said they were all staying on Epstein's house on the island.
Epstein had multiple ties to Clinton, and this is linking to another Newsweek story about the flight logs for Epstein.
Along with many other big-name celebrities was a repeated passenger on Epstein's private Boeing 727 plane, which was nicknamed... Okay, we're getting real careful here.
I'm gonna move on from this paragraph before this video gets banned.
In 2002, Epstein hosted Clinton, as well as actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker.
On a 2002 tour of Africa associated with the Clinton Foundation, Epstein called Clinton the world's greatest politician.
In a 2002 New York Magazine article in which President Donald Trump mentioned Epstein's predilection for girls on the younger side, Clinton praised Epstein.
In 2015, the now-defunct pop culture and news website Gawker released the flight logbooks for Epstein's Gulfstream and the Lolita Express 727.
Clinton is listed as having taken at least 11 flights on this plane.
In one flight, Clinton allegedly flew with... I'm kidding, it's a band, right?
Whatever.
An adult actress listed under massages.
In Epstein's address book on all 11 flights, he rode with Maxell and Epstein's former assistant, Sarah Kellan.
Kellan has been accused in court filings of recruiting young girls on Epstein's behalf.
On multiple flights, additional women who flew with Clinton are either listed by only their first name or as simply as female.
A 2019 statement from the Clinton Foundation claimed that Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes of Epstein, pleaded guilty to, adding, knows nothing of the crimes he pleaded guilty to, adding, Clinton took a total of four trips.
Staff, supporters, staff, supporters of the Foundation, and the Secret Service detailed traveled, uh, Okay.
supporters of the foundation and his Secret Service detail, traveled on every trip," the
statement continued. He has not spoken to Epstein and Will over a decade, and he has never been to
Little St. James Island. Okay, I'm doing my best here, bear with me, but I gotta give a shout out
to, uh, this is from Newsweek, and this was reported just the other day.
They say, Ghislaine Maxwell loses bid to block court from unsealing documents.
They say, despite Preska's order of releasing the documents Thursday, she gave Maxwell's attorney two days to seek a stay from an appeals court from allowing her court to release other documents tied to litigation from the Miami Herald and Michael Cernovich.
And there you go.
Credit where credit is due.
A lot of people in the media want to go after Mike Cernovich, particularly.
Julie K. Brown from the Miami Herald, I'm not entirely sure if they go after her in much the same way, but they try to claim all of the worst possible things about Cernovich.
Whatever you want to think about the guy, he gets credit for this.
That's a fact.
So we have this story also from Fox News.
The reason I'm showing you this is just so you know Newsweek is rather left.
Fox News, of course, is right-wing.
We've got it coming from everybody here.
Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein's private island.
Unsealed court documents suggest.
Maxwell's lawyers tried to prevent the documents from being released.
Let's take a look at some of the actual documents.
First, I want to show you this from TechnoFog.
These are just some select tweets that I've pulled up to give you some context.
This is not an exhaustive list of everything.
Technofog says, Remember that famous Prince Andrew photo with Ghislaine Maxwell and the victim?
The FBI had their own copy for years.
Even before the victim's 2011 FBI interview, the FBI knew they always knew.
Prince Andrew had been implicated in this.
He's been in quite, I'll just call it serious trouble.
And now, as much as they tried to deny it, he even tried claiming it was photoshopped.
We have this.
This is from Virginia Giuffre, May 3rd, 2016.
Question.
Where is the original photograph that has been widely circulated in the press of you with Prince Andrew?
I probably still have it, she says.
I'm not saying I have a photographic memory, but if I'd look at the back of the photo, I'd remember what it says.
I believe it was March 2001.
Question.
Did the photograph ever leave your possession?
Answer.
I gave it to the FBI.
Question.
Okay, and when did you get it back?
Uh, from Virginia.
When they took copies of it.
When was that?
2011.
When they came to interview you?
Yes.
So from 2011 until you left Colorado, it was in your personal possession?
Yes.
They had it before it would seem.
I wonder what the FBI was doing.
Now I want to point some interesting things out.
There was a federal prosecutor at the Southern District of New York who was essentially fired, forced out.
Bill Barr announced this guy was resigning.
The guy was like, no, I'm not.
And then Bill Barr was like, then we're firing you.
Get out.
Shortly after this, Ghislaine Maxwell got arrested.
This prosecutor was working there when Epstein, you know, Lost his life, we'll put it that way.
There is something happening here, to say the least.
Now, as most of you know, I prefer to deal with facts and confirmation.
I don't want to speculate as to what this may or may not mean, and I want to make sure I point this out.
These are statements from one witness so far.
I believe we have statements from another witness, I'm not entirely sure.
I'm being very, very careful and taking a very, very light approach to how I'm covering this to make sure that you can get access to this surface-level information without me getting banned and without going too deep into any potential conspiracies.
This is what's being publicly released in actual witness statements.
But you need to understand, a witness statement isn't necessarily confirmation.
It's just corroboration, okay, or circumstantial evidence.
The fact that Bill Clinton has been directly implicated by a victim is very serious, especially if we're going to play the game of believing the women.
Now, the other thing that needs to be pointed out, this is totally bipartisan.
I am seeing progressives across the board being like, lock up Bill Clinton?
We don't care!
Who cares about Bill Clinton?
However, when it comes to Donald Trump, I think the left isn't going to like what comes next.
Here we have this news snippet somebody posted on Twitter.
I'm not sure what it is or where it's from, but somebody posted this and they're referencing it specifically to a witness statement that was made.
So take it with a grain of salt.
I don't have the source on this.
Quote, she was very fake.
She turned away from me when we were introduced by Ghislaine and Jeffrey.
Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey's.
He didn't partake in adult activities with any of us, but he flirted with me.
He'd laugh and tell Jeffrey, you've got the life.
Palm Beach police say Epstein seemed utterly unfazed by the allegations against him when they began their long detailed investigation.
Now I want to show you this.
Someone tweeted, boom, there it is.
No Trump.
So this is, it's kind of hard to see, but it looks like another witness statement.
Uh, what is the basis for your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey's?
Jeffrey told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.
Question.
But you've never observed them together.
Answer.
No.
Not that I can actually remember.
I mean, not off the top of my head, no.
Question, when did Donald Trump flirt with you?
Virginia says, he didn't.
That's what's inaccurate.
Question, did you ever see Donald Trump at Jeffrey's home?
Answer, not that I can remember.
On his island?
Not that I can remember.
No, not that I can remember.
In New Mexico?
No, not that I can remember.
In New York?
Not that I can remember.
Question, all right.
If you could turn to the second page and read through those, let me know if any of those are accurate.
So this is apparently from page 1919 of 2024.
And it purports to show that Virginia could not recall a single instance of Donald Trump actually being in any of these places.
Apparently there's some other statements that I guess in Florida, Donald Trump had shown up and like hung out in the kitchen and had some food and then left and never stayed.
When it was brought up that, I think I actually might have the tweet, I'm not entirely sure.
Saw this too.
Okay, so no, this is the same thing.
There was, maybe I can, maybe it's a, here we go.
No, I don't know exactly where it is, but the general idea is that Donald Trump didn't require anything from anybody else because he was rich himself.
So when people are saying things like he would hang out with Epstein, the argument, I suppose, is that he would never stay at the place in Florida because he had his own massage parlor and spa.
That was something that was brought up.
Let me see what else I have.
Here we go.
Actually, I do have it.
Trump is cleared according to Juan Alesi.
So I'm not sure exactly where this document comes from.
Again, this is all like a bunch of documents being released.
People are on Twitter speculating.
So I want to make sure that you take this all with a grain of salt.
This should be, hopefully what I'm giving you is enough for you to maybe do a Google search and start digging into this.
The reason why I'm taking a very, very light approach, again for the 50 millionth time, is that we are dealing with very, very complicated And serious matters.
And I want to make sure I'm not making hard, definitive statements because there's too much we don't know.
And we have to follow the facts to their conclusion.
I think it's fair to say, however, we know what Epstein had been doing, that Bill Clinton has been implicated several times.
We now have Fox News and Newsweek saying, look at these witness statements.
You combine the witness statements with the flight logs.
I think it's fair to say Bill Clinton is lying.
Straight up.
So here's what was brought up.
They say, did he have massages when he was there?
Yes, a massage was like a treat for everybody.
If they want it, we call the massage and they have a massage.
Now, Mr. Trump had a home in Palm Beach, correct?
Uh-huh.
So he didn't come and stay there, did he?
No, never.
He would come for a meal.
Answer, he would come have dinner.
He never sat at the table.
He eat with me in the kitchen.
Did he ever have massages while he was there?
No, because he's got his own spa.
Well, there you go.
That's another important point.
I'm gonna carefully move forward.
And we have this.
This is the same statement.
This tweet says, even when it's there in black and white, sadly those with Trump derangement syndrome still won't realize he is out to get the traffickers like Ghislaine Maxwell and the pedos like nasty Dershowitz and Bill Clinton.
FBI had them in 2014.
Obama Comey did nothing.
So once again, there's the statement saying, uh, when did Donald Trump flirt with you?
He didn't.
That's what's inaccurate.
So we're going to skip over... I'm going to show you this.
This is one of the most difficult segments I've ever had to produce.
I've had to get rid of a ton of information.
I'll probably have to blur this.
I swear I'm going to have to blur this because otherwise YouTube could just suppress the whole thing.
Trust in media is negative five.
I'm showing you this for a reason.
But now I want to highlight this last story from July 4th.
Rose McGowan calls for arrests of Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, following Ghislaine Maxwell's FBI capture.
The British royal and former POTUS have been accused of running in Jeffrey Epstein's circle.
Notice, I mean, maybe she did mention, OK, apparently no, she didn't mention Donald Trump.
Maybe she has in the past.
I don't know.
Let me try and give you a few minutes now to break down a little bit here.
There's a lot of people on the left and the right that are absolutely hyper-focused on this, trying to figure out what's going on, and I think a lot of people are very, very focused on this.
Again, this is a very difficult segment to produce.
However, the left believes Donald Trump and Bill Barr are trying to cover this up.
The right believes it's probably the Clintons or, you know, powerful interests.
I do not believe the left is correct in their assessment in accusing Donald Trump of wrongdoing.
I don't.
I actually think, based on everything we've seen, Bill Barr and Donald Trump are actually trying to bring these people down.
The reason for it is, first I'll point out that fired Southern District of New York prosecutor, If this prosecutor was on the job when Epstein was arrested and put in jail, and then Epstein lost his life, I'll put it that way, then it stands to reason, you know, that whoever, like, the people involved should be, should be removed if they're going to be moving forward because you don't know who you can trust.
There's no reason for Bill Barr to get, so here's what the left has said.
They've said that Bill Barr was trying to get rid of this guy so they could protect themselves during the Epstein case, to stop this strong and anti-Trump, you know, anti-corruption prosecutor from revealing Trump's dark secrets.
And I don't believe it.
I really don't.
Because they had him on with Epstein.
In which case, it stands to reason more so, in my opinion, they didn't trust him.
I don't know for sure, man.
I don't know.
I don't know what else is going to come out of this, but I will say, you know, Mike Cernovich has been digging into it.
He's the one who got a lot of these documents released in the first place, along with efforts from Julie K. Brown.
There are some really strange goings-on, to say the very least.
But I believe, when you look at, there are some memes that go around about the amount of traffickers who have been arrested, and way more under Donald Trump than the previous administration.
I also want to point out that Bill Barr was the Attorney General back in 1991-93, I believe.
It seems like they're trying to clean up this really disgusting, seedy, underbelly, all that stuff.
Bill Barr was the AG before Clinton.
So, we could be looking at a circumstance where after H.W.
Bush, who I, you know, don't, I'm not saying I like the guy at all, but Barr served under him, after that administration left and the Clintons came in, then began widespread corruption.
I mean, look, we know what Bill Clinton was doing in the Oval Office.
So, when you tell me that, when you tell me he's on the flight logs, and I got a witness putting him there, I'm gonna believe it.
I am.
And so what does that mean?
I'll tell you what, man.
Being very, very careful about my choice of language, there are conspiracy theories that people have about high-profile politicians.
You have to absolutely avoid speculation and the fake posts.
They will try to taint the story, and they've done it successfully.
There have been leaked emails from Wikileaks, which are very strange.
All of a sudden, a bunch of people start spreading fake news about what these emails mean, and I tell you this definitively, fake news.
I've watched people make it up, and then all of these people who believe this stuff about Clinton and Epstein, Latch onto this fake, planted trash, and create the most insane and psychotic conspiracy theory, and that's the point.
Red herrings.
When information gets released that could lead you down the right path, of course the bad guys are gonna throw, you know, red meat, they're gonna throw out red herrings to trick you into going off the path.
That's why I'm being very, very careful with how I'm reporting this, and that's why you should too.
That's why I'm probably going to have to blur a decent portion of this video, otherwise YouTube would actually take it down, and tell you this.
These are witness statements, there are flight logs, there's corroborating evidence.
Look, I don't see how you say Bill Clinton wasn't involved at this point.
With the flight logs, with what he's already known to have done, and with now witness statements, as well as statements about Alan Dershowitz, I think that's it.
I think, you know, I don't know what else we can expect, what else we need to say.
Bill Clinton is a very, very old man at this point.
But that's what makes me question the previous administration and the administration before that.
Hillary Clinton was involved, you know, she was Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
I am glad she did not get elected, to say the least.
But let me just say this one last time.
There's a lot more I could have talked about in this video.
A lot more words I could have used.
However, as I've stated before, this is very difficult to produce.
I'm trying to be very, very careful.
I hope you understand.
And let this be a primer for you to actually do some digging yourself if you have the wherewithal and the time to start looking up these documents and reading through thousands of pages of testimony like many of these people are doing.
If I came out and read some of these pages, it's very likely this video would just be deleted, and then no one would hear anything about it.
And if I came out and started speculating hard on what this stuff meant, then the video would absolutely be deleted.
I'm very sure that I'm going to be sanctioned on YouTube for talking about it at all.
So, with that in mind, you can follow Mike Cernovich on Twitter and see what he's been talking about.
These are stories coming up from Newsweek and Fox News, so...
There you have it.
I'm sorry, man.
It's really the best I can do.
I'll have more segments coming up at 1pm, the next segment at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then, assuming this video doesn't get me nuked.
It certainly feels like everything that we saw in Portland was a lie.
The narrative about Trump's secret police, about unmarked cops, you know, pulling up and snatching up protesters, unidentified police beating, arresting.
None of it was true.
It was all weird exaggerations.
And now I think we have confirmation that the whole thing was a propagandistic tactic.
Take a look at this story from The Guardian, which is an overt lie.
Portland sees peaceful night of protests following withdrawal of federal troops.
Thursday night's protest passed off without major incident or intervention by the police in the absence of federal officers.
They didn't withdraw.
There was no absence.
They were literally still there.
So how was it that last night was peaceful following the Portland governor saying there would be a withdrawal?
It could be that Antifa and the far-left retreated, thinking they had won.
The only problem?
The night they announced the withdrawal, far-leftists still were attacking the federal courthouse, though they didn't have the large numbers.
I said yesterday the real test will be last night.
I said—well, yesterday I said tonight, which I meant last night.
Will large groups still show up and protest, even if there are no police?
And they did.
So I'm not entirely sure what the protests are focused on, necessarily.
But the one thing that wasn't there was mortars being lobbed at the building, was attacks trying to cut down the fence, fires being started.
And now, because of this, the narrative being pushed by many outlets, particularly left-wing outlets like The Guardian, is that it was all peaceful.
When there was no federal presence, the only problem there literally is.
Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told Fox News on Friday that federal troops would remain in Portland until he was assured that the Oregon governor's plan to handle the daily protests was working and said sending in the National Guard was still an option if the state did not handle the situation.
You know, I find this whole thing weird.
Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland announced that he wanted a ceasefire with federal agents.
It would seem that the riots were making Donald Trump look good.
Americans seem to like law and order.
All of a sudden, he says he wants a ceasefire.
And this is actually being noted by people on Reddit, which I find truly fascinating, saying, under what authority does he have the ability to negotiate on behalf of these far leftists?
And how is it now that the state has announced that the feds are withdrawing, even though they didn't?
Antifa doesn't show up.
The far left doesn't engage in this violence.
Pretty weird, huh?
Well, I can't tell you what it is.
I'm not going to pretend to know why it is, but I will tell you this.
They're lying when they say the feds have withdrawn, and they use weasel words to try and make the claim.
But somehow, and for some reason, the far left has stopped attacking the federal courthouse.
Weird, isn't it?
That far leftists for 39 nights were besieging this courthouse and Portland police weren't getting the job done.
The feds come in and all of a sudden the narrative emerges that Trump is sending in secret police to arrest people with unmarked federal troops and deploy them across the country, which is just not the case.
It has not happened in the past and it's not going to happen in the future.
What we are seeing is Trump sending out law enforcement, like FBI, to various cities, and we're seeing the expansion of certain police units in Chicago, for instance.
I want to read you this story, but I want to show you a few very important things.
First, The Guardian is reporting it's a withdrawal.
I don't know exactly what is going on.
It's hard to know for sure.
Because both sides are going to be claiming victory.
What I can show you is the Feds are asserting they are still there, they're literally still in the courthouse, more police are being deployed, and we have, a story from Politico, citing imposters, Feds urge lifting of court order protecting journalists amid Portland protests.
So if the feds are currently filing suit or challenging, you know, appealing in court, if they're still in the courthouse, and if state police are being deployed, why did all of a sudden the far left stop attacking the building?
That I find interesting.
But let's read what the Guardian has to say.
They say, now here's the weasel word.
The withdrawal of federal agents from frontline policing of demonstrations in downtown Portland significantly reduced tensions in the city overnight.
This is just an overt lie.
They did not withdraw.
They did not withdraw from frontline policing.
And what I've already seen from the left, as people start to point out they're still there, is they say, oh, no, no, no, no, no, they didn't withdraw.
It's from frontline policing.
They're trying to make it seem like the feds were proactively going out and attacking people.
The Feds have barricades around their building.
They weren't leaving the barricaded area until people started tearing the barricades down, cutting them, starting fires.
This is the narrative being crafted.
Whether it's because journalists are completely inept or because they're doing it on purpose, that's the narrative.
They want you to believe that as soon as the Feds withdraw, peace emerged and everyone got to sing songs and dance.
I'm curious as to how How this all stopped.
I'm not gonna pretend.
I know a lot of people are probably making some claims in the comments.
Maybe you know, but let's read.
They say protesters in support of Black Lives Matter once again rallied near the federal courthouse that became a flashpoint and the scene of nightly battles amid the swirl of tear gas after Donald Trump dispatched agents to end what he called anarchy in the city after weeks of demonstrations.
He actually called it a beehive of terrorism.
Now, to be more optimistic, what we may actually be seeing is Victory.
I mean, that's it.
The feds have been demanding that Portland get their act together, that law enforcement come out and stop Antifa.
This may be the end of the Portland skirmishes, whatever you want to call it.
Or it could be a temporary ceasefire.
But again, to stress, I don't understand how it is the far left, which are supposed to be, you know, random activists, have just stopped as soon as the government said that, you know, we've won.
Maybe, again, maybe the far left just said, oh, we won, we're going to back off.
But that doesn't explain why yesterday they were still out.
We have this video from Andy Ngo.
Violent protests continued overnight outside the Portland federal courthouse.
Rioters were more quickly repelled because they lacked the huge crowds that gave them better cover to commit acts of violence.
I'm not going to, again, for the millionth time, pretend to tell you what's going on internally with these organizations, but I can tell you, boy, did they look bad the other day when it was announced that the feds were withdrawing and then no protesters showed up.
They looked bad because the police are literally still there and they're still there to this day.
That's why I said yesterday, what happens tonight, as in last night, would be the most important.
When Democrats were facing down with Donald Trump, you know, like with the federal agents, all of a sudden it was this big issue of Trump's secret police.
But now that they've deployed Oregon State Police to the building, the far left stops.
Yeah.
And it makes them look better, I suppose, but also it's kind of confusing.
Why aren't... I thought... They say this protest was about two things, and I know, protest, but they say it was police militarization and Black Lives Matter.
If they've added more police to the fray, why then did less people show up and where's the far left targeting the building?
They stopped protesting as soon as the Democratic governor sent in state police.
You'd think that by bolstering the police force, the people who have been demanding defunding the police would be even angrier if for some reason they're not there anymore.
The Guardian says on Wednesday, Oregon's Governor Kate Brown agreed with the White House that the state police would take over responsibility for guarding the courthouse after weeks of escalating protest.
She said that Trump's troops were behaving like an occupying army in Portland and provoking unrest with heavy-handed tactics.
I don't know where this baton round thing came from.
It may be they're using them.
I've seen people say that.
protests on Thursday night passed the point as demonstrators shook the fence around the
courthouse at which in early demonstrations, the federal agents generally fired tear gas,
sun grenades and baton rounds.
I don't know where this baton round thing came from.
It may be they're using them.
I've seen people say that.
My understanding is they were using rubber bullets.
But as we've seen with the videos of Mayor Ted Wheeler, it was not about shaking the
fence, but it was about the far left lobbying mortar shells and, you know, the commercial
grade fireworks.
Now, to be fair, it could be that they just generally retreated.
That they started shaking the fence, the law enforcement refused to come out, people are getting bored, and at a certain point, people stop showing up.
That can be true.
It's also entirely fair to say, maybe it is.
When the feds come out and actually try to stop it, it's like a Chinese finger trap.
The more they tell the far left to stop getting rowdy, the more the far left will actually start instigating and engaging, looking for that fight.
It's fair to point out, man, these mortar shells the far left throw don't do anything.
Let's read a little bit more about what they say.
In the absence of confrontation, and with the state police remaining largely unseen inside the courthouse, tensions quickly eased.
Without the federal forces to draw attention, protest organizers kept the focus on Black Lives Matter and reform of the Portland police.
Some in the crowd worked to avoid trouble by stopping demonstrators from lighting fires and shooting fireworks at the courthouse, as they had done previous nights.
There it is.
As soon as they they send, oh, hold on, man. This is what this is. What's what's really
troubling me on this story. As soon as the governor sends in more police, the protesters
actually stopped Antifa from engaging in violence. Now, why didn't they do this sooner?
Alright, look, I'm not going to pretend there's like a grand conspiracy or anything.
I'm going to say it again.
I don't know.
But I'll say this.
Good on the protesters for finally stopping the violence.
How about that?
But if that's the case, let's be real about what's going on.
A mutual de-escalation.
It's a good thing.
Let's be optimistic about it.
I'm glad to hear it.
The federal law enforcement didn't have to come out because the protesters were stopping Antifa.
OK, let me read it for you again.
Some in the crowd worked to avoid trouble by stopping demonstrators from lighting fires.
It stands to reason that the only reason the feds did not come out is because the protesters have finally started policing the far left themselves.
Seems then that problem solved, right?
Now look, the Portland demonstrations are still blocking traffic.
This is a tweet from Portland police.
People are on the street blocking traffic in downtown Portland, blah, blah, blah.
And many people have complained about this.
No, no, no, no, no.
This is fine, okay?
I think what we're looking at is de-escalation.
I'm happy to hear it.
And the real story, it would seem, is that the protesters have finally started shutting Antifa down.
Maybe it's for a political victory.
I'll tell you what, that's the victory they're going for.
Because even though the Guardian acknowledges it's the people stopping the mortars and the fires, they frame it as though the withdrawal of federal troops, which is just not true.
Let me frame this properly for you.
Portland sees peaceful night of protests following protesters stopping Antifa from targeting the federal courthouse.
What we need to understand here, as this narrative progresses, and undoubtedly, they will start claiming the Feds caused this.
The Feds weren't there until the 39th night when Antifa came out, broke into the courthouse and started a fire.
That's when federal troops came in to stop them.
They've been throwing paint, they've been throwing bricks, bottles, cans of beans, they've been starting fires.
And there are videos of these people fanning flames and no one doing anything about it.
Maybe.
Here's what I think it might be, to be honest.
There are activist organizations that are absolutely in favor of the Democrats and absolutely oppose Donald Trump.
They don't care if people are targeting Trump with these tactics of fires.
I should say DHS.
Because then they post photos.
All their allies in media, as they put it, do the work for them.
But, you know, they'll put out snippets and like press releases and make false claims which become the narrative for the mainstream media.
But as soon as they claim victory, as soon as they try to claim victory, they need to make sure they look good now.
It's all part of the propagandistic warfare.
So first and foremost, what can I say?
I'm glad it's calming down.
More importantly, do not let them change the narrative.
That's what they're going to do.
Unfortunately for DHS and for the police, they are not engaging in this level of propaganda.
So now that we're seeing nothing happening, they say, a night of calm, they're going to blame the police.
That's what they've been doing the whole time, when in reality, even the Guardian acknowledges it's them.
They're the ones stopping this.
Uh, so let's, uh, they say this.
Despite the concerns of many in the crowds that the Trump administration would not fulfill the agreement to pull back the federal officers, none were seen on the streets.
Trump tweeted that the agents would remain in Portland until Brown brings the protests led by anarchists and agitators under control.
If she can't do it, the federal government will do it for her.
We will not be leaving until there is safety.
Now again, I want to be fair.
Let's, let's just put it more in a more of a neutral fashion.
Maybe these protesters, now seeing an opportunity for de-escalation, have decided to actually step in and stop Antifa.
They could have done it at any time, apparently.
They're now just deciding to do it.
It could also be that they realized, many of the activists, because they started tweeting these things out, that the riots were making Trump look good, as I stated numerous times.
We saw recently They started pushing a narrative that the agitators were actually white supremacists.
It's not proven, though they've made several claims about other protests in other cities.
They started making claims that, you know, Trump was the one instigating it.
But in reality, when people saw the violence and the unrest, they just sided with Donald Trump.
His polls started to do well.
And that's when Democratic, you know, resistance members, high-profile individuals started arguing that the people in black who are throwing explosives may as
well be wearing Trump badges.
All of a sudden, they're now stopping them. They tried the narrative first. Actually,
no, it's white supremacy. It's white supremacy. When that didn't work, all of a sudden they said,
well, these people are just supporting Trump. And you had the one guy, I don't know what his name,
Kasparov. He's a chess chess master, whatever argue that the far left wanted Trump to win
because they'll be marginalized under Joe Biden.
And I believe that's true to an extent, but the argument that the far left is doing this because they want Trump to win, I think it's a bit of a stretch.
It is fair to say many of them do, for sure, but they're mostly doing it because they're angry, naive.
Many of these people are just poor, Kind of reckless and mindless.
A lot of the people we've seen who have started the fires don't pay attention, don't care.
So I would actually argue it's that the left was trying to actually fan the flames to make Trump look bad.
And then once it backfired on them, the narrative shifted.
And now they're trying to get Antifa to stop.
And lo and behold, they had the ability to do it the whole time.
That's what I see when Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland actually says he wants a ceasefire.
Not that he can control Antifa in the sense that he's telling them what to do, but in the sense that he could have the activists actually shut him down, and the police could shut them down as well.
And that's what's happening.
Brown and Portland's mayor Ted Wheeler said the state and city police would seek to de-escalate protests rather than confront demonstrators.
Wheeler said that the city's police, state troopers, and county sheriff's office had agreed not to use tear gas except where there was a threat to life or serious injury.
The federal officers are using CS gas broadly, indiscriminately and nightly.
That is why it is escalating, and the behavior we're seeing on the streets rather than de-escalating it, and that's why this must come to an end.
Wheeler apologized for the Portland police using tear gas in late May and June to break up Black Lives Matter protests.
It should never have happened.
Earlier in the day, Portland police cleared the two parks in front of the courthouse and county jail that served as a staging ground for the protest.
Officers then sealed the parks off and marked them as closed, but that appeared strangely provocative and difficult to enforce.
When a few protesters tore down the yellow police tape and began chanting, whose park, our park, the Portland city officers quietly left the park and were not seen again for the rest of the evening.
Now, I do want to absolutely point out something I've said very, very, you know, many times.
It's something I refer to as a Chinese finger trap problem.
When you want to pull your fingers out, and in fact, it actually just makes the trap tighter.
What we may be seeing, at least in part, is that because the federal forces now have reinforcements, they don't need to come out.
And thus, there's less engagement between the far-left agitators and the federal law enforcement.
And because Portland Police have tried to avoid engaging, they are now doing something seemingly counterintuitive, which calms things down.
This is all good, in my opinion.
I hope that all of the violence stops.
The only thing I'm concerned about is the narrative, the framing that they're going to go for.
It's not necessarily the fault of federal law enforcement that they were being attacked.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
It's literally not their fault they were being attacked.
And they responded with tactics to try and disperse the crowd.
Maybe they used the wrong tactics?
I'm not entirely sure.
I'll tell you this.
The far left had breached the courthouse on more than one occasion and was setting fires.
They've injured and may have permanently injured several of these federal officers.
They've bolstered the police presence, which makes all of the police more secure.
So let me just put it this way.
What we've seen in Chicago, funding the police works.
That's just the reality.
And I said it.
They mentioned that in Chicago, one thing they did was create a, it's called like the Critical Incident Response Team.
It's a police unit specifically designed to police and secure large demonstrations.
From this and another unit, crime has gone down.
It would seem that with more police and more funding, crime goes down and perhaps you actually get peaceful protests.
The moment that Oregon deployed their state police, what happened?
things started to deescalate. That's a combination of, yes, Portland trying to avoid confrontation,
the activists telling the far left not to engage and actually stopping them.
But all in all, because the police were bolstered, felt more secure and early in the day cleared out
certain areas. So make sure people realize this when they try and play this game about Trump's
secret police.
Now, of course, they'll argue, but see, the Democrat police did the right thing.
Yeah, when they were reinforced, when there were more cops there.
These circumstances are rather complicated, to say the least.
But I believe that the narrative, of course, will always be framed as though Trump did everything wrong.
If things hold this way, okay, if the protests calm down, if we stop seeing the violent rioting, which it seems like we've got a good break, then good.
Let it stop.
Let it end.
And in the end, it may mean the end of things.
It may be the end of the violence in Portland going on now for 60 plus days.
Tonight will be another critical night.
Last night, there were large protests.
They did come out with shields.
They did block the streets.
But the protesters stopped Antifa.
And that stopped the escalation.
The bolstering of police secured the building.
And for the most part, I'll tell you this, man.
It really was the protesters deciding now was the time to stop Antifa.
Good on them!
No, I mean it, 100%.
Good on them for stopping the violence.
If you want to protest and block streets, by all means, go ahead and do it.
Just stop lobbing explosives.
Tonight, they will need to keep up the same pressure.
Because I'll tell you this, when they didn't, we can see this group of umbrellas and shields engaging with the police.
And Andy Ngo mentioned, they lacked huge crowds.
It was only when the actual peaceful demonstrators stopped the far-left extremists, did things start to die down.
Okay, complicated, nuanced, whatever, kind of a whatever rant, but I thought it was important to do the update simply because this could be the end of the violence in Portland.
Now, many people who have been getting their entertainment from watching the livestreams are maybe disappointed, but this is a good thing, man, look.
We don't want it.
We don't want the false narratives.
We don't want the fighting.
We don't want people getting injured.
Let's have everybody peacefully demonstrate and then, you know, go about their business.
I will mention one final thought, though.
I think it's funny that everything calms down when the police were bolstered.
I thought they were protesting the police militarization.
Sure, when the protesters decided not to engage and to stop the extremists with more police presence, Everything calms down.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Whatever, I'll leave it there.
Kind of just a rant.
I'll see you all in the next segment at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast or just go to timcast.net.
Thanks for hanging out.
Today I saw what may be the most disturbing thing I've seen in a long time that escapes the realm of conspiracy and breaks its way into real life in a rather horrifying way.
How would all of you like to get your COVID-19 health passport?
Why, if you would like to travel internationally now that the U.S.
passport is basically worthless, all you've got to do is one simple thing, and it's hand over your blood.
I'm not exaggerating.
Users will have their blood screened in an approved COVID pass laboratory.
Once they've confirmed that, I guess, for now, you're not COVID positive, you will get a QR code on your phone, which you can then use to scan, You wanna know why this makes no sense?
You could catch COVID at any point.
So, what are you gonna do?
You gonna go to the... every time you wanna travel?
You gotta go to a facility to get your blood drawn?
Then they'll approve you on your phone?
And then what happens if you catch COVID then?
It seemingly makes no sense, but yeah.
That's the idea from the World Economic Forum.
Users will have their blood screened in an approved COVID pass laboratory.
What a great...
I'm kidding.
This is what nightmares are made of, man.
Look, there are people who, today, probably don't care if they give up blood.
I find that a little weird, notably for the reasons I just gave, but I remember talking to an older fella About social security numbers.
And he was telling me that it's insane that we just accept that we're born with a government registry number that we have to use for everything.
There was a time, apparently, when people in this country were freaked out by the idea of having a social security number.
That the government would give everyone a number was crazy.
But you know what?
We have problems to deal with.
I mean, we have an expanding population, and it becomes harder and harder to operate.
I mean, the kind of government we operate, it is difficult at this level, and that's why we're seeing a lot of polarization and fighting.
But I'm not convinced that giving our blood would do anything.
And look, this is a World Economic Forum, man.
This is legit.
I'm using a NewsGuard-certified source.
Granted, it's not like... Look, let me read this for you, explain exactly what they're proposing you do.
They say, could this COVID-19 health passport be the future of travel and events?
Rising COVID-19 infection rates pose a threat to global tourism.
A new app acts as a health passport for travelers who are virus-free.
Using blockchain technology, it provides an encrypted record of test results.
It's creators say it could allow healthy travelers to avoid quarantine.
The app could also allow sports and entertainment venues to reopen safely, as well as the global conference and exhibition industry.
Thousands of summer holidays are now up in the air, following a series of COVID-19 flare-ups around the world, with trips canceled and travelers forced to quarantine when they return home.
In mid-July, the number of confirmed cases globally jumped by a million in just four days.
The UK imposed a 14-day isolation on holidaymakers returning from Spain after infection rates spiked there, prompting the UK's biggest tour operator to cancel all holidays to that country.
After recording its first cases since April, Vietnam closed the tourist hotspot of Da Nang and evacuated 80,000 tourists.
Now, a new health passport app promises to restore confidence to the travel industry, which has been badly hit by the pandemic.
Global tourism shrank by 97% in April, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I bring you now to your solution.
Just give a little bit of blood every time you want to do anything, I guess?
And then your app will let you in?
Which makes no sense.
CovidPass is the brainchild of one of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders, Mustafa Mokas.
It also involves other YGLs across five continents, including Muna, Abu Salman, and Peggy Liu.
CovidPass uses blockchain technology to store encrypted data from individual blood tests, allowing users to prove that they have tested negative for COVID-19.
Unlike contact tracing apps, COVIDPass will not track users' movements, individual blood tests, non-mandatory contact tracing apps have met with only limited success so far due to privacy concerns.
What?
I'm pretty sure that giving my blood is about as invasive as you could possibly get.
Germany, regarded as one of the most successful nations in rolling out a voluntary app, currently has only 16 million users out of 83 million citizens.
Experts say at least half the population needs to use a contact tracing app to make it effective in fighting the virus.
At this point, I would like to say, man, I love this constitution of ours, right?
It's so easy to force populations to do crazy things in other countries.
Now, of course, the left in this country probably would love the idea of you going and giving up some of your blood.
But at a certain point, we have to recognize the rights of the individual and our bodily autonomy.
However, they're gonna implement this kind of stuff in a very clever way.
Listen, if you wanna go on a trip, well, have you given your blood to get tested?
Now, as I stated earlier, the reason I think this makes no sense is like, what if you get sick, I don't know, like a day later?
What if you go for your test like a few days before?
When do you have to go for your test?
Do you have to go to a lab and get blood screened every time you try and travel?
That makes no sense.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say governments are faced with a variety of different testing regimes to validate the health of travelers.
This isn't enough to reassure tourists of health authority, or health authority, says Mokas.
Mokas hopes his app, which is launching in September, will become a standardized solution for airlines, airports, and border agencies, and eliminate quarantine for healthy travelers.
COVID pass could also allow hotels, cinemas, theaters, sporting and concert venues to reopen safely.
Another possible use would be to help restart the worldwide conference and exhibition industry, which has contracted by 60% at a cost of $180 billion in lost revenue and impacting 1.9 million jobs, according to the industry's global association, UFI.
COVID pass commits to mandatory carbon offsetting for each flight passenger to preserve the environmental benefits of reduced air travel during the crisis.
to mandatory carbon offsetting for each flight passenger to preserve the environmental benefits
of reduced air travel during the crisis. Okay, I tell you what, how would you like
to just get a vaccine instead?
I'm not confident.
Look at this system.
This is amazing.
They actually have like... Is this a mock-up?
Or is this real?
This is from just the other day.
You have an app.
They scan your blood.
Your app is then approved to enter.
It's a whole new passporting system based on your blood.
That's kind of crazy to me.
You know that when people were doing that ancestry stuff?
I don't know exactly how it works when they're giving up their DNA.
Apparently it was being shared with like law enforcement agencies.
Let's talk about the best solutions for this.
First of all, maybe y'all should stop allowing mass protests.
You want to reopen the conference run or whatever?
Yeah, stop the protests.
They complained, if only everybody wore a mask!
Shut up!
You guys are out protesting non-stop.
You expect me to believe that you care about this?
No, no, no.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
Me, personally?
I'm looking forward to a much simpler solution, and that's a vaccine.
Now, I know a lot of people are skeptical, and I think that's fair.
Let me tell you something.
I'm not going to be one of these people first out the door to rush in to get a vaccine.
Now, I'm a bit of a homebody.
You know, I work 16-hour days.
I have my own home office and studio.
We're expanding.
I'm not going to be traveling outside of the country in the foreseeable future.
To be honest, I'm a bit of privileged in that regard, in that I've traveled to basically every continent in the past, you know, ten years.
So, at this point, I'm gonna stay, you know, in my office, expand my business, do my thing, and I don't have the requirements for travel.
I'm not going to rush out the door and get a vaccine because I'm not confident that the vaccines... Look, I'm not going to be the first person to guinea pig trial any of these rushed out vaccines.
Because things like thamidolide have existed in the past.
Don't know what it is.
Look it up.
Apparently it was like this drug from way back when that resulted in kids having like no arms or something like that.
Mistakes happen.
And that's why we do extended testing on medications.
I will not be the first person to get a vaccine, but I do think getting a vaccine is the simple solution.
And I'll tell you what, man, I have gotten tons of vaccines because I've traveled all over the world, and I'm actually pretty good at what I do.
So I don't know, look, Whatever people have these issues with, when I travel to a bunch of countries, they make you get these inoculations because of the different diseases that exist in different parts of the world.
So there was one day where I got like four shots in one go.
And I'm fine.
As far as I can tell.
I don't know.
Maybe we'll find out something horrible later.
I have no idea.
I seem to be a strapping young male, young-ish, I don't know, whatever, I'm 34.
So I'll tell you what.
No, I'm not gonna be too enthused about giving up my blood to some company so my phone can work.
I'll tell you what.
How about you do this?
If people get vaccines, then their app can just say vaccinated.
That's all you need, right?
Nobody needs to give up their blood.
This could potentially be their big ask scenario.
How about you give up your blood on a regular basis, or we give you a shot one time?
Yeah, okay.
I'll take the vaccine when I need it.
The other thing is, I'll tell you what, man, look.
I'm not a conspiratorial kind of person.
I do not believe there's a grand conspiracy to inject people with this crazy, you know, mind control drug or other nonsense like that.
It would be the most ridiculous circumstance, the longest, you know, Longest of long shots, if they did COVID vaccination, and then all of a sudden something weird happened to millions of people.
It's just that these things, they don't happen, okay?
Sure, there's probably some likelihood, but that's why I'm saying, I'm not gonna run out the door full speed and be like, I'll be the first to try it.
I think that's, nah.
I prefer living and being healthy, so.
But.
Within a few months or a year or so, I will have no problem getting it.
Let me just wrap it up with this.
This is invasive and ridiculous in my opinion.
When I went to the doctor and got my typhoid and hepatitis shots for traveling around the world, yellow fever, I don't know what's in those needles.
I'm just trusting the doctor.
And they're putting things in my body, okay?
So if you- Look, I trust a guy I've never met before.
I walked in and he's like, Hi, I'm a doctor.
I'm like, I'll take your word for it, guy in a white coat!
Please, take that needle and jam it in my arm.
I mean, you'd think that's kind of- kind of silly, but look, for the most part, I- I am, you know, careful with my health.
And I think, for the most part, these things will be fine.
Giving up your blood is a step too far over the line, as far as I'm concerned.
That I probably wouldn't do.
I'm sure a lot of people won't care, and they'll carry on with their lives, but... You know what, man?
It's getting weird, and it's getting weirder.
So, I'll leave it there.
Got a couple more segments in just a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
Colorado to declare racism a public health crisis.
Okay, oh, sure, whatever.
I mean, it's just Colorado, right?
It's a weird, nonsensical story.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
It's a, uh, what's this?
Austin City Council declares racism a public health crisis that is killing black and brown people.
Okay, Austin, that's kind of weird too, but it's just Colorado and Austin, I mean, you know, whatever, they'll do their- wait, what?
Minneapolis declares racism a public health emergency.
Okay, it's starting to seem like this is a widespread thing, you get the joke.
Louisville may become latest city to declare racism a public health crisis.
We must have a new sense of urgency to make this declaration, Mayor Greg Fischer said.
The city has been the focus of protest after the police killing of Breonna Taylor.
Yes, the police killing of Breonna Taylor is horrific, and the police should be held accountable for what they did.
But what is this?
Declaring racism a public health crisis?
That's insane.
It makes no sense.
Welcome to our brave new world.
Let me read for you the news.
Colorado is declaring racism a public health crisis after employees inside the state's Department of Public Health and Environment put pressure on its top health officials to address the issue.
Jill Hunsaker Ryan, the executive director of the department, told the Denver Post that the stance would become formal policy within the department.
Hey, you know what?
It's at this point I'm absolutely grateful that I am a mixed race, if you didn't know, which gives me some kind of, I don't know, privilege because I'm oppressed.
So, sure.
Anyway, let's read.
The declaration aligns Colorado with the American Public Health Association, which first declared systemic racism in the U.S.
a public health crisis back at the beginning of June, shortly after the killing of George Floyd.
In making the declaration, Hunziker Ryan said that she has a couple of goals.
Increase diversity among the department's workforce, and make it easier for local organizations to serve people of color to partner with the state.
Currently, the department is nearly 78% white.
But currently, the department is nearly 78% white.
The Post says, 78%?
Why that's almost the exact proportion of white people in this country.
So it's not surprising at all.
Additionally, the APHA has declared police violence as a public health crisis.
I have warned you over and over again.
Morality government is upon us.
And you will not appreciate what it's like to live under the boot of religious zealous fanatics.
But it's coming.
They are in your public health services.
They are in the CDC.
They are demanding nationwide declarations of intersectionalism.
The religion of intersectionalism, the cult, is even within Christianity, as many churches adopt the same ideology.
It's happening, and it is spreading, and it will get worse, and it will mean a disgusting dystopia for your children.
I hope all of you who refuse to speak up are happy this is happening.
They say.
We also condemn police violence against community residents who have expressed frustration and despair over day-to-day racism.
I'll tell you what they're really doing.
It's an attack on the police as an institution.
Why?
Because the police provides us with stability.
Because the police is a very important organization to make sure our society functions.
You get rid of the police and you get chaos like we've already seen.
Oh, what's that?
In Portland, Oregon, the violence subsided for the most part.
Why?
They added more police.
The Oregon State deployed more cops and all of a sudden the protesters fell in line and made sure Antifa didn't act a fool.
I wonder why that happened.
In Chicago, they added more police, and what happened?
Crime went down.
Everywhere else, like New York, crime has spiked.
I should specify, murder has spiked.
Crime's actually down across the board, but murder is spiking.
Here's what I see happening.
These declarations of public health crises are meaningless other than to demonize police and to force these institutions to engage in morality policing.
All of the stupid psychotic behavior of Evergreen State College or whatever is now coming to a town near you.
And I will tell you this, man, the police will fall in line.
Over in South Jersey, near me, two business owners got arrested.
So what does it mean?
Smithsonian says, what racism is a public health issue means.
Epidemiologist Cheryl Barber discusses the racial inequalities that exist for COVID-19 and many other health conditions.
Let me just tell you what they're really doing.
Divide and conquer.
During Occupy Wall Street, you had unity against the elites, the establishment.
So they sprinkled in a little bit of identity politics, and then what happens?
Now, this is the issue they're pushing in front of everybody, and now everyone from rich to poor are fighting among each other.
Rich people who happen to be minorities are talking about how they're oppressed.
Meanwhile, poor people who happen to be white are the oppressors!
What's the easiest way to stop people from rising up against the elites?
Identity politics.
I'll tell you what.
Here's what the Smithsonian says.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, whether cases are flaring up, slowing to a simmer, or back on the rise in areas across the U.S., the data makes one fact apparent.
The viral disease has disproportionately sickened and killed marginalized communities.
A New York Times analysis of data from almost a thousand counties that reported racial breakdowns of COVID-19 cases and fatalities revealed that compared to white Americans, African Americans and Hispanics were three times more likely to experience and two times more likely to die from the illness.
The Navajo Nation has, per capita, more confirmed cases and deaths than any of the 50 states.
How is that racism?
Is the virus racist?
Is the virus literally going around and choosing who it's going to infect based on their race?
No.
So what are they actually talking about?
How does this have anything to do with racism?
Well, here's what they say.
Many factors, like access to health care or testing, household size, or essential worker status, likely contribute to the pandemic's outsized toll on communities of color.
But experts see a common root.
The far-reaching effects of systemic racism.
What they're really telling us is that poor people are more likely to be negatively impacted by this, and there is historical racism ties to poverty, and poverty breeds crime.
There are issues in this country.
Where we have created laws which disproportionately affected minorities.
Then we decided to change those laws, but a lot of the systems that were put in place still exist.
I know it's a contentious subject, but yes, there really is a such thing as systemic racism.
I find it kind of frustrating when a lot of people act like it doesn't exist, but the important factor is it's not nearly as insane as they're making out to be.
First of all, let me give you two literal examples.
Affirmative action and the placement of Planned Parenthood facilities.
Whether you are for or against those things, that's institutionalized racism.
Systemic means like going down to the root, the systems that were created.
So let me give you a simple example.
I talk about this all the time.
Housing in St.
Louis.
Towns were literally created because of white flight.
They created a system which disproportionately and negatively impacted minority communities.
They got rid of the laws, but the system was still in place.
Over time, the system has been healing a bit, but it may need some assistance.
Hence, Tim Pool is a social liberal.
I am not, however, a far-left progressive who thinks we need to declare public health crises over the fact that things exist.
I grew up experiencing some of the ramifications of these systems.
I've been able to succeed.
Over time, we have healed.
What they are doing is the opposite of solving the problem.
Some people don't believe that systemic racism exists, because for the most part, we are healing.
And I think that can be a problem in certain respects, but for the most part, we've done what we needed to do, and now we need time.
This It's going to make everything worse.
It's going to rewind the clock and reignite racial tensions and make everybody angry once again.
They're not solving the problems, they're exacerbating them.
They're pitting brother against brother, sister against sister, neighbor against neighbor by encouraging this kind of racial animosity.
That's why I can't stand it.
I've had conversations about systemic racism, and people often conflate systemic with institutional.
So, affirmative action is institutional racism.
It literally is.
It's assuming that one group is better than another, or that one group needs help over another based on their race.
Systemic, as I explained, does exist.
The problem I see is that the left would tell you that literally every single system is rooted in racism, therefore is racist and must be abolished.
That's false, that's incorrect, and what we need is basically what we've been doing for a long time.
Reasoned debate, calm discussion, and healing.
Guess what?
The Supreme Court just ruled recently that you can't discriminate against an employee based on their gender identity.
and their orientation.
That's called progress.
And it's done appropriately, even with the assistance of a conservative judge.
Why?
The documents laid forth by the Founding Fathers are pretty dang awesome.
So what can we do to improve things?
Over time, there will be new laws, a gradual reform, as it were, which will make things better.
This is dystopian.
What we're gonna see from this is the abolition of police, the escalation of violent crime, and ultimately the destabilization of a once great nation.
Unless we stand up for it and push back on the spread.
Now, I've been a bit pessimistic as it pertains to these issues, and a lot of people want to be, in my opinion, hopelessly optimistic, saying, we're gonna win, everything's fine.
You don't understand the depth to which our nation has been infected by this fringe, psychotic cult.
And it's spreading.
The New York Times and our major institutions, and it will get worse.
Well, there you have it.
There are real issues to talk about in this country.
There's racism.
These problems are real.
But this is not a real problem.
And abolishing the police will just be the destruction, the decimation of our country.
I don't know what else to say other than this is more evidence of the insanity.
But you know what?
I can say it once, I'll say it a million times, and I'll keep saying it.
And it's about the best I can do, so I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
According to a new survey from Rasmussen, Voters say some big city leaders and most reporters encourage violent protests.
You mean riots?
I get it, I get it.
Violent protests, sure, fine, whatever.
And they would be correct.
Many, if not most, of the blue-checky journalists from major publications lie for Support or even sometimes engage in the violent protests.
These people would be correct.
But I'm not just here to talk about some polls showing you what you already know.
What I want to show you is that if you do not, if you do not stand up and call out bad behavior, speak up for yourself and push back, It will get worse, and they will come for you and come to your home.
I want to read this, but I also want to show you this.
This is a tweet from Scotty McGuire, Oregon.
Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioters enter into Springfield residential area, threatening homeowners.
Rioters enter into neighborhood only to be met with residents and police.
The Democrat-Marxist ground campaign clashed with police and residents.
Sure, a bit hyperbolic there, but it's true.
Protesters clash with police, others at March in Springfield.
Now you may be saying, Tim, I don't know anything about Springfield.
Why should I care?
I'll show you.
Springfield, Oregon has a total population of 59,000.
The estimate as of 2019 is 63,230.
That is not a very large amount of people for a city.
It's actually a bit small.
Most of the protests have occurred in major cities with millions of people.
They're going to come to the suburbs.
They're going to come to the small towns.
The journalists are celebrating this.
And the silent majority remains silent.
So I'll tell you what, man.
We've got evidence to suggest the silent majority is real.
The Cato Institute survey showing 62% of people are scared to speak up.
Well, if you don't find some courage and speak up in the face of the threats against you and your job, your family, your livelihood, they will come to your town.
I said this over and over again.
Eventually, as they're going door to door, they will find your door, and they won't spare you no matter what you say.
The riots have come to a small town, and it's being supported by city leaders and the media.
Rasmussen reports.
Voters think big city leaders in places like Portland and Seattle, where violent protests have gone on for weeks, are bringing the violence on themselves, with most reporters cheering on the protesters.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of likely U.S.
voters believe political leaders in some major cities like Portland and Seattle are encouraging violent protests by limiting the police response.
31% disagree.
A sizable 19% are not sure.
Republicans are much more likely than Democrats, and voters not affiliated with either major party, to think these political leaders are making it worse for themselves and their cities.
55% of all voters believe most reporters identify with the protesters in violent protest situations.
Just 5% say most reporters identify more with the police.
33% feel most generally try to be impartial.
Fifty-five percent of people think that the reporters identify with the protesters.
And guess what?
They're right.
I'll tell you what, though.
It's actually probably closer to these proportions.
Fifty-five percent of journalists probably do support.
And so let me clarify.
They're talking about the people who believe it.
But no, no, let me say this.
In my opinion, I would say just over half of the reporters are sympathetic and would join in.
5% are probably willing to discuss what the police believe and be on their side.
And 33% feel that most are trying to be impartial.
I believe those are fair numbers.
I really do.
The only issue is that most of the prominent mainstream and high-profile journalists fall more into that first bracket, supporting the riots and the protests and lying on their behalf.
And unfortunately, it's true, most people won't give you the perspective of the police, though the Associated Press did recently do it, which was very important.
They're going to say it's a survey of a thousand likely voters conducted July 29th to 30th by Rasmussen.
The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three points, blah blah blah.
Separate surveying finds that 51% of voters believe government policies and practices encourage violent crime in some cities and states more than others.
54% of black people think most police departments are too aggressive in dealing with violent protests, a view shared by just 26% of white people and 23% of other minority voters.
The younger voter, the younger the voter, the more likely they are to believe that most police departments respond too aggressively to violent protests.
That's the most important point as I move on now to what happened in Oregon.
You know why?
Most young people get their news from social media.
Most young people believe that, you know, the police are bad.
I shouldn't say most, but more likely to be, you know, the younger the voter, the more likely they are to believe this.
That means when the younger generation gets older, they will abolish the police, and you know what will happen?
U.S.
adversaries will sweep in and crush this country when we no longer have a strong military, a strong defense, and maybe that's what these people want when they lie.
They hate this country, they lie about this country, and it seems like they do want it to collapse.
And maybe that's why they'll come to your home.
This is from the Register Guard, which says, racial justice protesters marched through parts
of Springfield's Thurston neighborhood without incident for about a half an hour Wednesday
night before they found themselves met with a wall of police behind barricades blocking
their progress. Actually, I can't play the video for you because this is YouTube.
But let me just assure you it wasn't without incident.
In this clip right here, people are screaming at homeowners, insulting them, getting very aggressive.
It was not peaceful.
They say, without incident.
I ask you, how do you define incident?
They say, several Springfield officers also were injured in... Hold on.
Another half hour passed with taunts, chants, and threats of arrest before police moved into the crowd to take protesters into custody, grappling with them and wrestling some to the ground.
Five people, including a prominent black unity protest leader, were arrested during that skirmish, with police and some others injured.
A counter-protester also was arrested for assaulting a protester.
Several Springfield officers also were injured in the fight, according to a police spokesman.
Before the march left Jesse Main Memorial Park around 8 p.m.
on the eastern fringe of Springfield, some who'd come claiming their goal was to protest Thurston from riots in Antifa had tense conversations with some of the Black Unity protesters here, but those conversations were nonviolent.
Okay, you get the point.
I'm not going to prattle on about all the nitty-gritty internals of this small town.
I just want you to realize that these protests aren't dying down.
They've been going on for months.
There's been some, some calming down.
But for the most part, even when we see in Portland a ceasefire, they send in more police, the protests stopped acting a fool, we see these people go into other places.
I want to issue kind of an addendum, maybe close to a correction.
In an earlier segment I did today, I talked about the ceasefire in Portland.
And I said, you know, look, the protesters were telling Antifa to stop and stopping them from throwing firebombs.
And the Oregon police were in the courthouse with the federal officers.
They didn't come out when protesters were attacking the fence, though things didn't escalate beyond that with mortars and explosives.
It seems like in that regard, the Feds are winning because they got bolstered police forces and the protesters are finally stopping Antifa.
It could be much more simple than that.
The violent factions went somewhere else.
I think that might be the reality.
Though there were less violent clashes in Portland, there were violent clashes in Springfield, Oregon, which is not too far away, it's my understanding.
Actually, I can pull it up here on the Wikipedia, they show the map.
It looks like it may be just south of Portland, so perhaps what really happened is that the violent factions and antifa types that were throwing firebombs got a call to go to a suburban or small-town neighborhood and march through, get away from the police and the feds.
Maybe the goal was to create propaganda for Portland, like, oh no, look, we won the fight and now everything's calming down, and then go and terrorize small towns.
Look, man, I've mentioned it several times that, you know, when the riots were in full swing, I heard the helicopters near my house and I'm in the suburbs.
They crossed the bridge out of Philly.
In Chicago, they did the same thing.
I don't know what's going to happen November.
Nobody does.
And it may be, as many people believe, that Trump will lose.
Maybe these people who are seeing these protests in their neighborhood will beg for law enforcement and say, you know, Trump is the only option.
There could also be an inverse response.
It's hard to know exactly what will happen.
What could happen is that these people think, under Donald Trump, it's been chaos and he's failed at COVID.
I know a lot of people probably don't want to hear it, but it is a strong possibility.
They'll say, you know what?
Let's try something different.
Trump didn't work.
Personally, that's not my opinion.
I don't believe it.
I cannot believe that Sleepy Joe would be the appropriate person to deal with the chaos.
When Trump sent out law enforcement in Portland, his approval rating went up.
And that's probably why they panicked and pulled out and started saying, stop, stop, stop, stop!
Because people like the law and order.
And if that's the case, there's no way, in my opinion, they come out swinging for Joe Biden.
Because while Joe Biden has called for the arrest of these people, you think that guy sleeping in his wheelchair in the corner, you know, in the sun, snoring, is going to be there to protect you when they come to your house?
Do you think Joe Biden is the guy calling out the reporters and the politicians who are encouraging the violence?
No, he's one of them.
He's one of them.
But I guess we'll see how things play out like usual.
Anyway, I thought the poll was interesting, so I decided to highlight it, and most of you probably agree.
