S548 - Ebay Just NUKED Dr. Seuss Books As OFFENSIVE, RSBN Gets Nuked By Youtube As Censorship Escalates
Ebay Just NUKED Dr. Seuss Books As OFFENSIVE, RSBN Gets Nuked By Youtube As Censorship Escalates. While it may be silly to complain about Dr. Seuss Enterprises canceling some books, it is extremely concerning when Ebay bans the private sale of those books from third parties.The latest act of censorship is beyond anything we have seen in a while. Silicon Valley Democrats and leftists are defending removing certain books from society even among private individuals.But the censorship goes beyond just Dr. Seuss fans, many of whom are not even conservative.Censorship of conservatives is reaching news media and even the Supreme court as a documentary on Clarence Thomas was also banned from Amazon.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is March 4th, 2021, and our first story, Dr. Seuss.
I know many of you maybe think the story is a bit silly, that the company behind Dr. Seuss' books has decided to stop publishing six books for racist imagery.
The story is actually getting a bit more...
Nefarious, eBay is now removing the private selling of these books, deeming it to be offensive content.
It's one thing if a company doesn't want to print books, it's another thing when big tech platforms stop individuals from private transactions over their opinion of what is offensive.
But it's not just about this.
I mean, sure, Dr. Seuss news may be a little silly, but we are seeing censorship escalate.
A documentary on Clarence Thomas was removed from Amazon for no reason.
Raw news footage from journalists is being purged from YouTube.
And one channel, the Right Side Broadcasting Network, even got suspended for simply showing Trump's speech.
Censorship is absolutely out of hand.
Our next story has to do with Joe Biden, who offered in a live session to answer questions from Democrats, but then the camera feed cut off while some journalists are saying, no, no, he still did answer those questions.
They said, you're just basically not allowed to see them, leaving many people wondering when Joe Biden will actually have a press conference.
It's nearly unprecedented.
It's been 43 days and he has not spoken to the press.
You'd have to go back to Jimmy Carter.
To find a president who did not give an address to a joint session of Congress.
It's been quite some time, and while it's not unprecedented, many people are concerned.
Our last story, Antifa.
Many are having their charges dropped related to riots that took place all throughout last year.
31 of 90 cases involving some felony charges have been quietly dismissed and dismissed with prejudice.
One expert says this is extremely rare, leaving many people wondering, is this a political action?
Are they dropping these charges now that Joe Biden has taken office and they're protecting Antifa?
Well, let's jump in to the first story.
When they announced that six Dr. Seuss books would be taken out of publication, my response was fairly tepid and lightly critical.
Look, you can still buy the books, right?
They're not gonna print them anymore, but there's tons of these books everywhere.
They're probably digitized already.
You can still get them.
They're not going out and, like, actively burning these books, or say, like, banning people from even buying them, right?
Now they are.
eBay is actually taking down listings for Dr. Seuss books.
That are not offensive.
Now, there are certainly some images in some books that some people could probably be offended by.
And the Washington Post asks Fox News a very simple question.
If you think these books are appropriate, why won't you show the images on TV?
It's actually a fair question.
But I believe one of these books is actually just talking about why you shouldn't be racist.
Why you should not judge people based on how they look.
These are being removed.
It's one thing to say we will no longer publish a book.
Sure, but they're still publishing Mein Kampf and books from Louis Farrakhan, and you can still buy those as well.
And I think I know why that is the case.
I think it's because those individuals, as abhorrent as they are and how villainous they are, they still advocate for racial identitarianism, which the left supports wholeheartedly.
And that's the big picture with all the Dr. Seuss stuff.
Now, let's be real.
The left is treating the Dr. Seuss thing like it's just totally dumb, and Republicans are overreacting over this.
I kind of agree.
Kind of, though.
I definitely think it's strange to see so many conservative outlets screaming about the Dr. Seuss books, but now that we're seeing eBay actually remove listings because it's offensive content, well, for me, that's the line.
Perhaps for conservatives, the line was a bit further back.
For me, I think we're crossing the line.
It's not just about Dr. Seuss, however.
It is a wave of censorship across the internet.
The purge is real.
A documentary on Justice Clarence Thomas has been removed from Amazon.
Right Side Broadcasting Network had their Trump speech removed from YouTube.
One journalist has been suspended for simply uploading raw footage.
My friends, the censorship is real, and it is worse than we have ever seen.
And you want to criticize the overreaction towards Dr. Seuss?
Fine, but eBay taking down the private selling of these books?
Insane.
Absolutely insane.
I predict it will only get worse.
Some of these books from Dr. Seuss were being sold for upwards of $20,000.
People were having... well, people were making a killing off of saying, okay, if you want the banned book.
Before, I didn't call it a banned book.
I said they're just not publishing it anymore, and there's a lot of things we don't publish anymore.
But I'll say it again.
You can still buy Mein Kampf and books from people like Farrakhan and other psychotic, villainous individuals.
Their books are all readily available.
One funny thing that happened a long time ago was when Jordan Peterson's book came out, 12 Rules for Life, there was one bookstore, I believe it was in New Zealand, may have been Australia, where they banned the selling of Jordan Peterson's self-help book, but you could still buy, you could still buy Mein Kampf.
Why?
It's a good question.
Let's read the story and see what's going on.
Before we do, this time, I absolutely mean it, go to TimCast.com and become a member.
You'll get access to exclusive members-only content from the TimCast IRL podcast.
We have full episode, full podcast episodes talking with people like James O'Keefe and Sidney Watson.
I'm not kidding when I say The Purge is real.
It is very reasonable to suspect it is only a matter of time before my channel gets nuked.
You know why?
Because I am challenging the narrative.
I'm not screaming about they're coming after Dr. Seuss in the same way as Fox News.
I'm talking about, in general, the bigger picture that's happening.
And I've had a lot of people ask me.
They understand why certain conservative channels are allowed to exist.
They tow that conservative, inc.
narrative.
The counter-narrative, it's very obvious.
But what I do, they say, a disaffected liberal trying to speak to moderate individuals?
That's more dangerous for the left than just being conservative.
Conservatives are the easy villain.
They can say, see, that's why the villain is bad.
But what about someone like Tim Pool who talks about the social justice narrative of shows like Static Shock being a good thing, but now they're going in the wrong direction?
Someone who says, all of these great civil rights, you know, triumphs are good and should be maintained.
There's a difference between me and, say, a run-of-the-mill conservative, so I think there is a very real risk that they will ban my channel at some point.
And I get people saying, no, no, no, Tim, you're not gonna get purged, you're overreacting, and I'm like, dude, my Facebook page was already shut down!
They'll still allow me to post because they can't ban me because I didn't say anything that broke their rules.
But they stripped the ability of my page to do anything.
Effectively shadowbanned out of the monetization program.
It could happen.
And we are fully preparing for this.
That's why I've set up TimCast.com.
But hey, we're not just saying give money.
We have people who work for our company.
We're planning on doing more.
I know this is a long plug for TempGas.com, but it's part of the bigger theme that's happening with the censorship.
Again, let's talk about how not publishing some Dr. Seuss books is not the craziest thing in the world.
When they announced that out of, I think, 61, there would be six that would not be reprinted, listen.
I hear that and I say, are there images in there where we've decided they're not good depictions?
There was one guy who has this Twitter thread, he's a black man, he writes for The Root, and he said, you need only, like, here's what he said.
When he as a child opened up that Dr. Seuss book, the only depiction of a black person he saw was a caricature, a racist caricature.
And that means something very different to him.
I get that.
I absolutely do.
I think representation is extremely important when you have people of all different backgrounds I know firsthand.
But this idea that private sellers can't trade this now, that's where things get absolutely crazy.
That's why when they said, we're not going to publish this, I was like, the books are still there, buy them.
There are a lot of things that are considered inappropriate that people own because they're collectible.
The stop banning the private sale, that's where it's really crazy.
Not that long ago, there's a card game called Magic the Gathering.
You may be familiar with it, maybe not, but don't worry, I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of a card game.
This card is about... it's fantasy.
It's almost like Dungeons & Dragons.
The company that owns it banned art and certain cards because they deemed them racist.
Now, the cards weren't racist.
It makes no sense.
There maybe was one card where people were like, I don't know, that looks kind of suspect.
The craziest thing about it, though, was that private companies refused to sell them second-hand.
It's a collectible card game.
It's like a baseball card, and then you're like, well, I understand the company that makes the cards won't sell them anymore, but then you go to, like, a pawn shop, and the guy's like, no, we're not selling that.
That's where it gets weird.
You should still be able to buy the stuff, right, if you want it?
Not because you support the imagery, but because of what it means for history.
This is creepy.
You can't make this stuff up.
Outrage as eBay removes listings for cancelled Dr. Seuss books because they glorify violence but allows copies of Mein Kampf and Louis Farrakhan's books to be sold from the Daily Mail.
They say eBay on Thursday started removing listings for the six Dr. Seuss books that are no longer going to be produced.
They emailed people who had listed the books saying that the post violated their offensive materials policy.
The company has not released any kind of statement about it, nor have they responded to inquiries.
Now that they are being accused of censorship, virtue signaling, and big tech book burning by angry internet users, who are demanding to know why they can't sell items they own, just because Silicon Valley no longer thinks they're appropriate.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced two days ago that it would no longer reprint six books which contained racist imagery.
The books are, quote, and to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street, if I ran the zoo,
McElligot's Pool, On Beyond Zebra, Scrambled Eggs Super, and The Cat's Quizzer.
It came after a school district removed them from its curriculum.
President Joe Biden snubbed Dr. Seuss in his remarks about Read Across America Day in a certified sign that they had been cancelled.
People then started buying up the suddenly limited edition books on Amazon and other sites.
Some then posted them on eBay for exorbitant prices to turn a profit and cash in on the row.
One person who had their listing taken down bought a copy of, quote, and to think I saw it on Mulberry Street, on Amazon for $33.
He then attracted bids on eBay for $100.
The seller, who went by the name Chad, posted on Twitter when eBay emailed him to tell him they'd removed the post.
This listing was removed.
Offensive policy.
They said, hello Chizad1982.
We had to remove your listing because it didn't follow our offensive material policy.
Listings that promote or glorify hatred, violence, or discrimination aren't allowed.
What activity didn't follow the policy?
Dr. Seuss Enterprises has stopped publication of this book due to its negative portrayal of some ethnicities.
As a courtesy, we have ended your item and refunded your selling fees.
And as long as you do not relist the item, there will be no negative impact to your account.
Please review our offensive materials policy prohibits this item.
Uh, for more information.
Here's another one.
They say, hello CL th- uh, the username.
It's just a bunch of numbers.
We had to remove your listing because it violated our offensive materials policy.
They go on to say the exact same thing.
One person tweeted, you can't make this up.
eBay is blocking my listing for Dr. Seuss's The Cat's Quizzer, citing it as offensive material, yet anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan's books are okay.
You can also buy Mein Kampf on eBay for exorbitant prices.
Yeah, well, people basically went off saying, wow, it's insane, how is this happening?
Some of these books are being listed on Amazon for hundreds of dollars.
Check this out from the Washington Examiner.
Soon to disappear, Dr. Seuss books now selling for as high as $20,000 on eBay.
from the Washington Examiner, they say, in light of newfound censorship of the children's authors,
some are flocking to eBay, and many purchasers are willing to dole out thousands of dollars to get
their hands on what may be the last copies of some of Dr.
Seuss's famous books. $20,000.
It's crazy. What do you think the response from the left has been? Well, over on Twitter,
Matthew Gertz tweets, I count 85 mentions of Seuss on Fox News today as of 4pm. This was from March
2nd. Via closed caption. Matthew Gertz tweets, I count 85 mentions of Seuss on Fox News today as of
They've covered his purported cancellation every hour since 4am, saying his name an average of 7 times an hour.
He says, I've got 139 mentions of Seuss on Fox News between 4am yesterday and midnight.
The author's purported cancellation was mentioned on all but three hours of network's programming.
He goes on to say, the coverage stressed across both news and opinion.
Here's Brett Baier, theoretically Fox's top newsman, introducing one such segment with, the cancel culture going after Dr. Seuss.
He goes on to say, here's Tucker Carlson claiming that the people in charge are canceling Seuss to eliminate a very specific kind of mid-century American culture, a culture that championed meritocracy and colorblindness and the superiority of individual achievement.
And perhaps, perhaps Tucker Carlson is a little bombastic in saying that.
I'll just say this, whatever the reason, The Purge is real.
And I will stress before moving on, My friends, it is not about them saying they won't publish Dr. Seuss books.
There are many books that are no longer published.
Usually what we see with, like, Looney Tunes and Mickey Mouse, they say, well, this was from a different time when this was made, and we now deem it to be offensive, but for the sake of preserving history, we're gonna show it.
I believe there are some Looney Tunes cartoons where they say, when this was made, this was considered socially okay.
They say to remove this content would be to deny this history, which is not okay.
I agree.
That is the appropriate response.
I do think it's silly, however, that, you know, Disney came out and said the Muppets were racist now.
Okay, jeez, calm down.
The Bugs Bunny thing where he was doing, like, offensive caricatures, I get why we don't want to republish that today.
But if you want to seek it out to watch it, to get rid of it would be akin to denying it happened.
And we want people to understand why and why it's offensive to us today.
Look, it's not cut and dry.
I do think it's fair to cancel some things.
I am not staunchly on the right saying don't ban anything.
No, I think there comes a time when we look back and say, you know, maybe that was like not okay.
You know what I mean?
There are certain things we don't say anymore.
There are certain jokes we don't make anymore.
And it's because we respect each other.
But there's a difference.
You can still buy this art.
I went down.
I was in Florida, I think.
And I went to a bed-and-breakfast.
Well, no, it wasn't really a bed-and-breakfast.
It was kind of a bed-and-breakfast.
It looked like one, like it had the bedrooms, but you couldn't actually stay there.
They had all of these really old racist advertisements everywhere.
Some of the most racist, you know, imagery you could imagine.
But there were people of all races eating there.
They weren't showing this art to glorify it.
They were just showing that this art existed.
To ban art would be insane, in my opinion.
And if someone took offense to the art, you'd simply say, we're not showing it to you because we like it.
It's just a relic of that time.
And we need to understand it.
And they were like plaques with like writing explaining what the art was and why it was made.
And it was trying to give people a glimpse of what things used to be like.
I think that's very important.
But now they're getting rid of statues.
They're getting rid of books.
They're getting rid of culture.
And they're trying to suppress your ability to learn what's going on in the world.
Before we move into all the news stuff, let me show you this from Newsbusters.
Big tech platforms allow Farrakhan to spread vaccine conspiracies.
I mean, that's the gist of the story.
Why?
This guy has been banned before.
I don't think he should be banned.
He should not.
He should be allowed to say what he wants to say in the public space.
But it's interesting that his books are allowed.
His videos are allowed.
Not Dr. Seuss.
Not right-side broadcasting network.
Take a look at this.
Ford Fisher, a journalist.
Absolutely unbelievable, he tweets.
Team YouTube has now deleted three raw videos and suspended my account for raw footage I took on the day of Biden's inauguration of religious extremist protesters being confronted by both left, leftist and pro-Trump activists.
We will fight back.
I wonder, what about this video?
Got it removed.
Could it be that Trump supporters were pushing back on the extremists as well as the leftists?
I'd like you to imagine this right now.
Why what Ford is saying is so alarming and why you need to pay attention to this.
Covington.
What would happen if those that, myself for instance, who showed the footage from the Covington Catholic incident in DC, what if YouTube deleted that video?
And the only narrative you got was from Washington Post, CNN, New York Times, where they claimed this bigoted Trump supporter got in the face of this poor Native American veteran man.
It was a lie, by the way.
What if they took down my footage?
Not my footage, but my video, talking about it and showing the footage.
That's what they're doing right now with Ford Fisher.
He says, this is a backup of the 8-minute video Team YouTube suspended me for.
The only reference is one guy who yelled that I'm not going to read what he says because of the risk.
He yelled something about election fraud.
The second video Team YouTube erroneously took down was a speech I filmed at the December Million Maga March.
This documentary footage was licensed by the BBC, had a story about it in Rolling Stone, and was used in the impeachment hearing itself.
The third video they removed was documentary video of an anti-lockdown rally filmed by Marani Ray.
Want to see this footage still?
No worries.
The copy I licensed out of this news is still very much online.
The obvious difference is who posted it.
He says, the folks at Team YouTube sent this email to go with three takedowns and account suspension.
They banned misleading content that alleges widespread fraud.
My content isn't misleading, nor does it allege.
It just shows what happened.
The strike was possibly based on a pre-strike permanent warning I got simply for livestreaming the Capitol from 9am to 10am on January 6th.
The message is loud and clear.
If you are an independent journalist or producer, They will remove you.
Do you understand what's happening?
They are trying to homogenize American political discourse.
They don't want you, a regular person, be able to have a voice.
They long for the era of Walter Cronkite, when there were only a few networks and a few anchors who could all tell you the exact same thing and you would believe it.
The cathedral.
The broadcast tower.
The ivory tower.
But with the advent of the internet, we now have a voice.
And there are certain people they do not want to be able to speak.
Which is why I firmly believe it is only a matter of time before they nuke my channels as well.
Maybe they'll even try and get rid of my own private website.
But that's why we're building it.
TimCast.com.
Look at this.
I'm just some guy.
I don't work for any of these networks.
I've had companies try to sign me before.
I worked for a Disney company.
I left.
I went independent.
The independent voice is the threat to them.
They can't allow it.
Take a look at this.
Right Side Broadcasting Network tweeted.
They say, no, RSBN has been suspended from YouTube for two weeks because of the Trump CPAC speech, which violated their guidelines on election misinformation.
The video is approaching 4 million views.
They have also removed it from their platform.
You can criticize Donald Trump.
You can criticize what he has said.
But for a news outlet to be unable to broadcast a speech from a former president, Insane.
It's absolutely insane.
I mentioned this.
I tweeted about this.
I said, it's kind of strange how social media banned a press conference from doctors talking about certain medications, yet they promote a computer software businessman giving medical advice.
If there was a consistency to this, I might say I could find the logic to it or understand it.
But Bill Gates is not a doctor, yet he's allowed to say all of this stuff.
And they say, oh, well, it's because he's following mainstream science.
What?
No, he isn't.
He's giving his opinion on things.
He's not citing studies.
But there's a mainstream narrative.
Certain things are allowed.
The censorship is getting bad.
Worse than I have ever seen.
I'll stress one more time just to wrap up the Dr. Su stuff.
It's not the ceasing of the publication.
It's the limiting private sellers.
It's taking down Ford Fishers.
Just raw footage of newsworthy events.
Can't have that.
Sorry.
You gotta sell to an agency.
Don't put that on YouTube.
It's right side broadcasting showing a speech from a president and not commenting at all saying, nope, you have to.
What they want you to do is they want you to put a disclaimer flashing on the screen.
It's not true.
Trump's lying or something like that.
Shouldn't people be allowed to just hear what the, what president Trump has to say?
I guess we're supposed to say, we're supposed to call him still president because he retains the title, I suppose.
No.
Joe Biden is the president.
There's not going to be some grand inauguration for a new republic or anything like that.
All these weird theories aren't happening.
That's fair and fine to say.
But shouldn't people be allowed to have a conversation about it to explain to people why this stuff is happening?
Here's one of the scariest things I've seen yet.
Amazon pulls Justice Clarence Thomas documentary as censorship of conservative content continues.
There's no excuse, my friends.
It's worse than it has ever been.
It is worse and worse every single day, in every single way.
We knew that when Joe Biden got elected, this is what was going to happen.
And there are a lot of people who just don't care.
They're willing to sell out our right to know our own history.
And I'm not talking about... I'm talking just about Clarence Thomas.
It's a documentary on a guy who's currently sitting in the Supreme Court of Justice.
Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it.
I wonder if that's the point.
So let me mention.
Why are they banning Dr. Seuss books from being sold?
Well, I understand seizing publication.
You don't want to print caricatures of certain racial minorities.
But shouldn't people still be allowed to see those things to understand why they're offensive?
When you get rid of those images, people will forget.
Or young people will grow up not seeing them and not understanding we don't want these things.
They then allow you to buy books from really offensive and racist individuals.
People like Farrakhan, for instance.
Why?
He's a racial identitarian.
They want racial identitarianism.
Recently I did a segment about the Sacramento Unified School District where they were calling, they were actually calling for white racial awakening.
So, what does that mean?
They have to get rid of the things that would say no.
How long until they try and cancel Dr. King?
Martin Luther King Jr.' 's famous speech, I long for, you know, he longed for a future where his children would be judged
By the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
But that flies in the face of racial identitarianism and racial affinity groups.
I'm sorry, I think the outcome of all of this will be white supremacists.
White supremacy.
I genuinely believe that's what they're doing.
They'll tell you, no, it's actually about ending racism, but it's not true.
They're calling for more discrimination.
They're calling for more authoritarianism.
They're erasing the past.
Think about this for a second.
Abraham Lincoln cancelled.
There's a statue of him in Boston where it's a freed slave rising with Abraham Lincoln right there beside him.
It was removed.
They said it was racist.
Interesting.
My understanding is that... I heard someone say this, I don't know if it's true, that Frederick Douglass, an amazing man, abolitionist, said he hoped one day the statue would be updated with a freed slave standing proudly beside Abraham Lincoln.
They determined that this statue, which was paid for by the descendants, I believe, of former slaves, and I believe some former slaves themselves, it was paid for or advocated for by them.
They said it was racist to show this.
To show someone breaking their shackles and rising above alongside the man who ended slavery.
They removed that statue.
People will forget.
I wonder what the true goal is when they tell white people to have a white racial awakening about their shared history.
To be... It's crazy.
I saw this tweet from Robbie Suave.
He said, DC has become the most paranoid city on earth.
People walk outside wearing two layers of masks, while thousands of armed troops and barbed wire fences guard against a non-existent threat.
You wouldn't want these people in charge of anything, yet they run the whole country.
We do the Timcast IRL podcast with our recurring friend Luke Werdkowski, currently on vacation.
One of his shirts is a Venn diagram showing all of the different dystopian novels.
And then right in the middle, you are here.
Because it's it.
We got a little bit of Brave New World.
We got some book burning.
Fahrenheit 451.
We got some 1984.
We got some Atlas shrugged.
People fleeing.
It's amazing!
It's almost like all of these different writers could see the problems lying before us.
And it wasn't any one extreme.
It was a little bit of all of them.
Coming to be.
Now we can take a look at what Joe Biden is doing.
The Democrats' reactions to him.
The things he's calling for.
He's pushing for critical race theory.
These ideas will only get worse.
I like this article.
Washington Post says, The one simple tell that reveals Fox News' Seuss obsession for what it is.
If the images at issue are so innocuous, why not show them?
Washington Post, will you update now that eBay is banning the books and say, Okay, maybe that goes a little too far.
I don't think so.
I think it's because they're all for it.
It really feels like there has been a civil war and that we lost.
By we I don't mean conservatives.
I'm not a conservative.
I'm fairly liberal and fairly left on many issues.
Particularly social justice.
Agreeing with the seizing of publication of certain books that are racist or offensive.
But we as in those who understand the importance of individualism and freedom.
And that's what Tucker Carl was saying and he got criticized for it.
Tucker was talking about how they seek to get rid of this era of individualism and meritocracy to push the collective, and maybe that's the real issue here.
As they try to create a monoculture, they must get rid of anything that lies outside of the establishment narrative.
I gotta be honest.
I'm actually fairly optimistic in all of this.
Don't get me wrong.
These things are all really bad and they're getting worse.
And meritocracy is important.
The left will tell you meritocracy is not a real thing.
That's not true.
They're lying.
They just don't want you to realize your true power.
That you can fight, that you can train, that you can struggle, that you can figure it out and succeed.
That you can be the great inventor, the great author, the abolitionist.
You can be that activist where people build a statue in your honor.
You can be a great general or a president.
They don't want you to realize that.
And you take a look at the lockdown, and everything that's coming around us is, you won't own anything, and you will be happy.
Sound familiar?
The Great Reset.
If they don't want you to succeed, if they want to tell you meritocracy is a myth, if they want to get rid of any art or conversation around the idea that you can be a strong individual, then they want to transfer more wealth to the upper class than we've ever seen in history.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, man.
It can just be the way the dominoes are falling.
Some people will call it a conspiracy, but I won't go there.
I think it's stupid.
I think conspiracies are dumb.
I'll just put it this way.
For whatever reason that we have the lockdowns, COVID, fine.
It's resulting in the largest transfer of wealth from the working class to the elites.
The law's in place around traveling.
You need $2,000 if you would like to travel, because you gotta buy that hotel.
Guess who can still travel easily?
Rich people.
Guess who can't?
Poor people.
When they destroy businesses, what's left?
Poor people are out of work, desperate, and struggling, and they ask the government for help.
They take away books that preach individuality, and what will we be left with?
Tucker doesn't need to go as far as to say it's intentional.
We can just see what will come of this if we simply do the arithmetic.
A world in which there is an elite class, party members as it were, perhaps, and The proletariat, I suppose.
Is that really it?
The bourgeoisie and the proletariat?
This divide is getting worse, and the bridge to class elevation is being destroyed.
But perhaps on purpose.
The elites will stay rich, and the poor people will lose all abilities to sustain themselves.
They will tell you to sacrifice everything in the name of saving the planet, but then they will buy beachfront property and fly on private jets.
The idea of government for, by, and of the people has been destroyed.
I'm sorry.
I'm not going to sit here and say it is happening.
I think it did happen.
And we're watching it with Joe Biden.
But I'm optimistic.
I said that.
You know why?
For all the things they're doing, I think, for one, they're going crazy with it.
But I also think it shows how desperate they've become.
I think it was Michael Malice who said, if they were winning, the propaganda would not be necessary.
Yeah.
Interesting.
They could only ban so many people so quickly.
They're ramping up the censorship, but it's causing a massive backlash.
And they can't ban everyone without creating a massive Streisand effect.
In which case, maybe it's not all bad.
And though we're watching the dominoes fall, and it seems like it's gonna get really bad, the night is always darkest before the dawn.
And maybe, though we see the dystopian nightmare in front of us, behind it, it may lead to freedom.
I don't know for sure.
All I know is that if we do not remain focused, if we stop fighting this censorship, then we do lose.
So we have to keep pushing back, talking about what matters, and rejecting this notion, this censorship.
We must build culture.
We must make our own movies, our own comics, and say no to this machine.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
It is a live show.
We will take your live questions and comments.
Check it out, and we will see you all then at 8 p.m.
In Donald Trump, we got a guy who could not shut up for his own good.
He would just tweet everything.
And you know what?
A lot of people really liked that about him, that he would just say it.
Probably the most notable moment, in my opinion, one of his best tweets ever.
Was when Elizabeth Warren was trying to be like AOC and she's live streaming herself, and it's just really cringe, and she's like, I'm gonna go get me a beer.
And you're like, dude, we know you're not cool, don't get a beer.
And she's drinking it, and her husband walks over and puts his arm around her and like smacks her on the butt.
And it was like a weird political moment, super cringe for a presidential candidate.
And then she said, I'm glad you're here to her husband.
Then Trump tweets out, what do you mean you're glad he's there?
He lives there.
He's supposed to be there.
And for the president of the United States to tweet something like that is just absolutely hilarious.
The man has no filter.
He blurts out, we're in Syria.
It's great.
We're taking the oil.
It's like, wow, we're selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.
Jeez.
Talk about a president with no filter.
Well, Joe Biden doesn't need a filter because Joe Biden sometimes can't form complete sentences.
But let me tell you about how weird things are right now.
See, we have the inverse with Joe Biden.
Whereas Donald Trump was uncontrollable and would say all this crazy stuff, Joe Biden Is completely controlled.
We talked about this yesterday in the Tim Cast IRL podcast, but it's so significant.
I think I absolutely have to do a segment on it because there's more to this than just Joe Biden's live feed being cut off.
That's the story.
Joe Biden was doing a live session talking to Democrat caucus members, and he says, I'll take questions.
Right.
And then they turned his camera off and then they ended the stream.
I ask you this.
Who has the authority to shut off a presidential address to members of Congress?
Now, it wasn't a State of the Union.
It wasn't a statement to the people of America or a joint session of Congress.
It was Joe Biden talking to members of Congress, and someone turned his camera off.
We had Jack Murphy on the podcast, and he was like, Manchurian candidate, and like half in jest.
Yeah, who's the real, who's really running this?
Because it's not Joe Biden.
I'm sorry.
He's the president, sure, but what?
What does that mean?
He can't even speak without someone turning his camera off.
Let me tell you where we're at right now, and then I'll show you the video of this.
So we saw a while ago, Democrats are asking Biden to relinquish sole power over nuclear launch.
Do you know how scary this is?
So Joe Biden is essentially... someone's telling him what to do.
They're taking his camera away.
They're not letting him speak.
Now they're saying, give us the launch codes.
This is a scary day for America, my friends.
The day when the president is so weak and pathetic that they would... that it's possible they could hand over the nuclear launch powers to someone else.
Now, it's not like these aren't, you know, random people doing this.
These are Democrats.
But still, there's a reason why the president has the sole power to launch nukes.
Mutually assured destruction is what everyone is hoping keeps us safe from nuclear annihilation.
That if China or India or any of these countries with nukes launches them, then any other country slams the button and fires back, so nobody wants to be the one to do it.
Effectively, a global Mexican standoff, keeping everybody locked down.
But with Joe Biden being not all with it, would he actually be able to launch the nukes, to actually do anything like that?
I don't want the nukes to get launched, mind you.
But I understand the reason why the chief executive, the commander-in-chief, has the sole ability to do this.
Maybe the Democrats are right, though.
Joe Biden should not be the only one with the powers to launch a nuke, because he just ain't with it.
Now we have something actually like, by the way.
Bipartisan senators introduce bill to strip Biden of war powers.
Senators Tim Kaine and Todd Young are looking to ditch the two-decade-old authorization of use of military force, and they've got support on both sides of the aisle.
Okay, that I kind of like!
They want to get rid of the 1992 and 2002 AUMF.
I think, no, I think 2003.
Which means we ain't gonna have those, we should not have troops in the Middle East.
We won't have the authorization to do it.
The bigger picture here, Joe Biden giving this talk, I want to play this video for you, just listen to this.
unidentified
Thank you, thank you.
And I'm happy to take questions if that's what I'm supposed to do, Nance, whatever you want me to do.
In response to the various tweets about Joe Biden's camera being turned off, tons of people on Twitter are saying, I don't believe this is real.
I didn't believe it was real either.
I still don't believe it's real.
So I put this disclaimer, maybe I'm being punked.
Maybe it's all a big scam, but it's not.
Joe Biden's live feed is cut off at the end of virtual meeting of House Democrats after he says he's happy to take questions as he faces mounting pressure to hold his first full press conference after 43 days in office.
Joe Biden has not had a State of the Union Address.
This has not happened by this time since 1977.
Okay.
For my lifetime, it's never happened.
For your lifetime, presumably, it's never happened.
For those that are in their 50s, I suppose, you're like, oh yeah, I remember Carter.
Carter didn't give his first joint address to the joint session of Congress until April 18th, I believe.
The Carter Library says, I think, I think it's the Carter Library, house.gov, says it was April 20th.
Now a lot of people have said, there were no State of the Union addresses in many years.
In many years.
We went back, Jack and I, we looked through all of the dates, and while they're not always called a State of the Union, they're up on, by this point, by March 4th, the only time this hasn't, the last time this happened was Jimmy Carter.
That means Donald Trump in his first year in February, I think it was February 28, 2017, gave a joint statement to the Joint Session of Congress.
And so maybe not a State of the Union, but that's, you know, an address to the Joint Sessions.
We saw that with Obama, with Bush, with Clinton, with Bush Sr., with Reagan, with, uh, and then Carter, I believe.
But Carter is where it stopped.
So, not unprecedented, just out of the ordinary for my lifetime.
We have not seen Joe Biden speak, and some people are saying, well, it's because you know he can't.
The left instinctively said, it's because Donald Trump tried to stage an insurrection, and it disrupted everything, and it's like, whatever, man.
Maybe.
It's fair to say maybe there's security concerns.
Today they're saying that it's March 4th.
They're worried a militia will come to D.C.
and it's just not going to happen.
That's so dumb.
You know what?
I shouldn't speak because I was wrong about what was going to happen on the 6th.
I said it was going to be a rally.
Nothing was going to happen.
And that was it.
You know?
So maybe today something does happen, I just really, really doubt it.
They say Biden is yet to hold a press conference in the six weeks since taking office.
Obama held one 20 days after he was inaugurated, and Trump after 27.
On Wednesday, he said he was open to taking questions from House Democrats.
As soon as he said he was ready for a Q&A, the White House feed was cut.
Jen Psaki said, We look forward to holding a full, formal press conference.
I think the real issue is obvious.
Joe Biden ain't all with it.
The Democrats want to take away his ability to launch nukes, solely, his sole ability to do it, because I think they're worried that with a feeble, old, mentally declining man, America is at very serious risk.
Think about this.
They hated Trump so much, they were willing to put a puppet candidate, a fake candidate into the office.
Joe Biden does not have the capacity to be President of the United States.
And you can argue Trump is bombastic and erratic and crazy and all that whatever, but at least the man was functional.
Trump's spry, as I often say.
Joe Biden, he ain't all with it.
I want to show you this.
USA Today says, the claim, dozens of House Democrats are calling on President Joe Biden to relinquish his sole control over launching a nuclear attack.
They say, people are pointing to a letter that a group of Democrats in the House of Representatives sent the president this week to question whether members of Biden's own party trust him with the power over U.S.
nuclear codes.
First reported by Politico, and signed by more than 30 House Democrats, urges Biden to consider alternatives to vesting one person with the authority to launch a
nuclear attack.
They'll probably give that power to Kamala Harris, I'd imagine.
Fox News host Sean Hannity teased a segment about the letter asking in a tweet,
do the Democrats trust Biden? Clearly not.
BizPak Review, which bills itself as a political news website.
Yeah, okay, they're always trying to smear everybody.
Unfiltered by liberal bias.
Provides great, okay.
The senior managing editor of BizPak Review said in an email that the outlet stands behind its story and that I am sure you will find the facts of our story 100% accurate.
President Biden's mental state has been a prominent and open discussion for the last few years.
We have made no medical claims, nor have we linked the letter in the story to any specific claims, she said.
The letter from Democrats requested 31 signatories, raising concerns about a system that concentrates the power to launch a nuclear attack with one individual and to offer alternatives.
It's very obvious, in my opinion, Joe Biden is not building confidence among his own party.
USA Today says Biden's mental state.
BizPak Review connected Democrats sending the letter to Biden's mental state, saying that it came as concerns increased about the president's mental status.
Its headline reads, House Dems Urge Biden to Give Up Sole Control of Nuclear Codes as Mental Status Concerns Brew.
That is, that's true.
House Democrats did urge him to give up control, and we are in a period where people are concerned about Joe Biden's mental status.
They may not be Democrats who are concerned, but the concerns are there.
You may not like the context by which BizPakReview is framing things, and we could talk about framing, but it's not false.
They did the exact same thing with Donald Trump, and you expect me to be angry that a conservative site is doing this?
the report linked the two, though saying that the writer segued into several paragraphs describing,
again, how outside observers continue to show concern over the president's mental status.
They did the exact same thing with Donald Trump, and you expect me to be angry that a conservative
site is doing this? Please. The reporter speculated that the letter could be linked
to a decline in mental acuity, she wrote in an email to USA Today.
The post on the website pointed to observations from Hannity and Grant Stinchfield, a host of the conservative outlet Newsmax.
The president's mental state was a topic of discussion in mostly conservative media circles for months ahead of the 2020 elections, while left-leaning outlets mostly avoided the subject, according to the post.
That's a fact.
Trump supporters claim during the campaign that Biden was suffering from dementia, but fact checks debunked those claims.
Remember when they kept claiming Trump was suffering from dementia?
Fact checks can't debunk someone's opinion!
This is what I love about the media.
Someone can say, in my opinion, non-medical expert, that guy yelling trunananashabadapressureinbadacathcare shows signs of a decline in mental ability.
How many people have gone up on stage and yelled trunananashabadapressureinbadacathcare?
And people say, oh but he has a stutter, he has a speech impediment.
Shut up!
Come on.
That's ridiculous.
Joe Biden is in dozens of videos, hundreds of videos, hours upon hours of footage, going back 47 plus years with his time in office.
And you're going to try and claim now all of a sudden it's just he's got a speech impediment.
He didn't have a speech impediment when he was going up and screaming at Clarence Thomas.
All right.
Spare me your psychotic lies.
No, we can say fine.
We can say he has a speech impediment.
Sure, fine.
That doesn't explain his camera feed getting cut off.
It doesn't explain why all of this stuff around Joe Biden, like Kamala Harris, for instance, taking phone calls on his behalf with foreign leaders.
It doesn't explain those things.
I guess, theoretically, you could say he can't talk with foreign leaders because of his speech impediment, because he might say, turn it on a shop at a pressure.
Sure, fine.
So there's something at, I should say, Our president is not capable of doing the job for reasons determined by the president.
Don't look at me.
It's the president who's not doing the phone calls.
They go on to say, The National Institute of Aging notes that a medical assessment for dementia includes medical history, physical exam, and neurological tests, along with brain scans and other tests.
But no such information about those tests of Biden exists in the public record, which does not change the fact that people who want to say Trump is mentally ill have the right to express their opinions, and those who say the same about Biden have the right to do the same.
The president has also been public about a lifelong struggle with a stutter that sometimes affects his speech patterns.
I love it.
Didn't exist when he was, you know, in the VP debates.
Didn't exist in his time as vice president or in the Senate.
Sure.
Democrats who signed the letter also made no mention of Biden's mental state.
Yes, but we're allowed to have opinions.
They say our rating is missing context.
I don't care about all that.
Listen.
They want to take away his sole authority.
Kamala Harris is answering the phones for him.
And now they want to take away his war powers.
Bipartisan senators introduce bill to strip Biden of war powers.
I'm not all that mad about it.
I gotta be honest.
But who gets the war powers?
Congress?
That's the way it's supposed to be.
I don't like the idea the president can snap his fingers and bomb Syria.
The president has the ability to launch nukes.
The president has the ability to act essentially unilaterally in an emergency to defend this country.
I don't see how bombing Syria does that.
Oh, they argue, but they were firing rockets at our bases, dude.
You can't go on someone else, you can't go to like, let's say there's somebody who hates your guts.
So you ask, you basically go to their neighbor's house, kick the door in, tell them, I'm gonna be setting up, you know, in front, in your lawn.
And then when the guy next door is like, get out of here, you're harassing my guests, you say, he's attacking me.
It's like, Dude, the United States invades Iraq and Afghanistan, these countries, and the people there are attacking us.
I'm not a fan of any of it.
We should not have gone in the first place.
We were lied to by the media in order to drum up support for this incursion into the Middle East so they can set up military bases surrounding Iran.
And then they could try and figure out how to go in and crush Iran.
It has something to do with the petrodollar, I can only imagine.
The problem is Iran is a very large and powerful nation.
It is mountainous.
It is not the same as Iraq or Afghanistan.
So the idea was, guess what?
Iraq, Afghanistan.
Well, from your perspective, the other way around.
Guess what's in the middle?
Iran.
We set up a pincer attack.
We surrounded them on both sides by invading these two countries.
It was always about Iran.
John Bolton said a year ago, he's like, this time next year we'll be celebrating in Tehran!
Shut your mouth, you warmonger.
That's what it's all about.
Taking away the war powers from Biden?
I don't know, man.
I think it's kind of a good thing.
But besides that point, it's indicative of a declining mental ability in Joe Biden.
And he has handlers.
Think about how scary that is for this country that, for the first time in a long time, maybe not, maybe only Trump, but we can now see that the president is not the leader of this country.
And prominent liberals are screeching, outraged that Texas would do this.
Joe Biden is not the leader of these United States.
He is the leader of blue states, because red states aren't listening to him, and he has no ability to control what the red states do.
Now, you could say similarly to Trump, but even with with COVID, the blue states were still praising Trump when Trump was providing aid.
But we can say it's been that way for a long time.
I'm not going to single Biden out on this one.
Trump was a president for red states, not necessarily blue states.
Obama was a president more so for blue states than red states, and it's been getting worse.
Now we're at a point where Joe Biden says, we're not going to see normal until this time next year.
Texas said, now we're normal.
You don't lead us.
Your opinions are meaningless, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Joe Biden, whether it's hard authority, like the ability to send in federal troops, police, or whatever, or just charisma and confidence, he does not have it.
He doesn't have... Look, theoretically, he could send in National Guard of Texas or Florida or any one of these states, but it just wouldn't work because the federal government doesn't have the capacity to lock down every red state and force them to do anything.
There can be, you know, spot enforcement here and there, but for the most part, they just do not have the capability.
What do you think would happen if National Guard went into Texas to try to shut down businesses?
It wouldn't work.
What the president needs is confidence from a large portion of this country.
It doesn't have to be the majority.
It actually has to be more than the majority.
It can't be a simple majority.
So what happens when you have a president who can't control... The Democrats are trying to take... It was 2002.
They're trying to repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs to end the so-called forever wars.
I like it, but it also bodes poorly for us, I suppose.
The president does not represent many states in this country.
People in Republican states have been talking about secession.
Prominent political figures, pundits, and commentators have been mentioning peaceful divorce, and Joe Biden could be our James Buchanan.
I think that was the guy, right?
They say that, you know, he was the president leading up to the Civil War.
He was feckless.
He was a terrible leader, and he made everything worse.
And maybe that's it.
And then we get our Republican resurgence.
Maybe it's Donald Trump again or maybe DeSantis.
And then maybe we see an actual civil war.
Listen, I love how a lot of people are like, you're claiming civil war.
Listen, stop imagining war movies.
I'm not talking about people in uniform marching towards each other.
I'm talking about the fact that NBC News just put out an article a few days ago saying Republican talk of secession is legitimate and we must pay attention to it.
I didn't make that article up.
I did not tell Alan West to endorse a secession bill.
I did not tell John Podesta of the Democratic Party to advise the Western states to secede from the Union in the event Trump wins.
I didn't make any of that up.
So let me tell you something.
What do you think happens if Donald Trump wins again in 2024 after a weak and pathetic president who is stripped of his powers, is mocked, and has no ability to even speak to this country?
Do you think the blue states, who were already advised by Podesta to secede, are going to be like, well, you know, Trump won, so we're fine with it?
Or do you think, in 2024, Donald Trump is running, leading the pack, and he gets the biggest swing from Republican votes and somehow manages to pull off this victory?
After four years of a pathetic Biden administration, with a lack of confidence, with mass lockdowns, Trump steps in and says, I will end these lockdowns.
I will restore your economy.
And then he wins.
And he wins in huge numbers.
Hypothetically, what do you think these blue states are going to do?
After everything we saw, the first run, you think they're just going to be like, okay.
Or do you think they're going to be like, the Republicans were right, secession.
And then you get your peaceful divorce.
Right now, people in blue states are like, Texas can't leave the union.
That's not right.
What happens when all these red states have the sentiment of saying, yeah, maybe we should?
And then all these blue states are like, we want to leave now, too, because Trump is president.
The reality is, in any circumstance, Trump supporters breached the Capitol building.
Now, you can say that Trump incited it or whatever.
I don't care.
I don't think he did.
I think that's ridiculous.
I think people are just angry.
But do you think this anger and sentiment just disappears?
It doesn't.
I do not want this to happen.
That's the other thing that really annoys me.
They're like, by talking about it, Tim, you're encouraging it.
Oh, oh, oh, I wrote the article for NBC News and the New York Book Review and the Atlantic and New York Mag?
Shut up.
Look at Joe Biden.
They are stripping him of his powers.
They don't even trust him.
They're cutting his microphone off.
Do you think the American people feel that it's confidence building?
They banned Dr. Seuss- Okay, they ceased publication of Dr. Seuss books.
For the most part, I don't care all that much.
Regular people in this country are being forced to wake up to something they don't want to be involved in.
And they are going to say, we want Christmas time.
We want presents.
We want to go to the mall.
We want to drink our Frappuccinos and eat our Sbarro or whatever.
They don't want your weird, woke, critical garbage.
They don't.
Most people don't want to be involved.
I saw a post from The Berrics.
It's B-E-R-R-I-C-S.
It's one of the most prominent skateboarding media organizations in the world.
They asked, how do you feel about cancel culture?
And of course, it was fairly split, but a lot of people were just skateboarders, like not political people saying, I'm scared to say my opinion.
But that was fascinating.
When skateboarders are bringing this up, some of the most apolitical people in the world, they don't want to be involved, are now being forced into this.
I tell you this, they're going to side with freedom, and that is not the left.
So what happens in 2024?
I think it's possible if Trump runs, he wins.
You know what's going to benefit Trump this time around?
He has no Twitter.
He has no Twitter, and he won't be able to say awful things.
Now, you could argue that he won't be able to defend himself either, but I don't think that matters.
Trust in the media is at an all-time low, and it's only going to get worse.
People are going to look to Trump and say, save us.
Because of the lockdowns, because of the economy, but we'll see.
Four years is a long time.
Maybe by this time, you know, in three and a half years, everything's actually great.
And whoever is actually in charge of the, you know, the actual president, not Joe Biden.
I mean that figuratively, not literally.
Joe Biden's the president, I know this.
Whoever is actually telling Joe what he should or shouldn't be doing and advising him, maybe they've done a great job.
And Joe Biden's just sleeping.
Some people don't think that Joe Biden will be able to finish this term.
It's gonna get bad.
Because it already is bad.
And I don't know what to expect.
But it's insane to me that people are looking at Texas, Florida, Wyoming, Louisiana, where you have some Republicans saying secede.
Texas introduced a bill to allow a vote on secession.
And they're like, no, no, no, it can never happen, it can never happen.
It's like every day we get closer to it actually happening.
So what do you think is going on?
For me, I see dominoes falling over.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
I see this meme going around.
It says, name one time in history where the people who were censoring information or banning books were the good guys.
And I think it's a funny meme because apparently people just didn't Google search the U.S.
Office of Censorship during World War II.
We had posters.
Loose lips sink ships.
I'm not a fan of censorship.
I understand why during war we had this, and there's probably real philosophical and ethical questions that should be asked about this.
But make no mistake, the establishment will use tactics that are often considered a violation of our rights and liberties in order to gain power.
I have a question based on this.
Name one time the Resistance was fighting on behalf of the Establishment and they were the good guys.
Sure, I'm sure there's some philosophical argument you could make that La Résistance in France was fighting on behalf of the French Establishment and they were the good guys, but come on.
The resistance were fighting against those who were occupying their country.
They were the outliers.
They were the villains.
The resistance, the little guy, they're often not perceived as good people.
During the conflict, mind you.
Like during the American Revolution, for instance, the crown said that the American founding fathers were terrorists.
Now I bring you to Feds quietly dismiss dozens of Portland protest cases.
Some felonies.
Quietly.
KGW found 31 of 90 protest cases have been dismissed by the U.S.
Department of Justice.
Despite warnings, there would be consequences for acts of violence.
There are no consequences.
Little ones, maybe.
They got arrested at the time, they're being let go.
Some people were charged with, like, attacking a federal officer, assaulting an officer.
Quietly dismissed.
Many, dismissed with prejudice, which means you can't bring charges against them.
Again, it's amazing.
Antifa.
Anti-fascist.
Are they really the resistance?
Or are they just fighting on behalf of major multinational corporations and the corporate political establishment?
Yeah, I wonder.
A lot of progressives claim to be anti-establishment, but they're faux-progressives.
There are a lot of YouTubers who are like, we're progressive, and then when it comes down to it, they just toe the line for the Democratic establishment.
I can shout out Jimmy Dore because he's a legit progressive, and he's actually anti-establishment, challenging the Democrats and their garbage corporate agenda.
He does it all the time.
But what happens?
The progressive establishment attacks him for it.
Now I bring you to Antifa.
These people went around burning down cities, throwing bombs at the federal building.
Not an exaggeration.
Explosives.
They set fires, they tried cutting through the barricades, they were attacking the legitimacy of the federal government, and they are being cut loose.
Meanwhile, bumbling and befuddled old people, who didn't realize what was going on at the Capitol, are being charged.
Think about this.
There was a woman who entered Capitol Grounds.
I don't know if she went in the building, but she was charged with trespassing, entering an unauthorized area, a misdemeanor.
She requested she'd be allowed to go on vacation.
I don't know if the judge actually granted it.
It was a request.
The media reported that a violent insurrectionist was being granted the right to go on vacation because that was whiteness and white privilege.
You want to talk about white privilege, let's talk about the white antifa, who are literally throwing bombs at federal officers who get their charges dismissed.
Okay, I don't know if that person actually got their charges dismissed.
But some of these charges, 31 out of 90, are being dismissed, and many with prejudice.
These are the people who actively engaged in some kind of violent crime, and they're being let go.
All right, all right, let me slow down.
Innocent until proven guilty.
And it is very important to point out that some of these dismissals may be because the feds wrongly arrested people.
Yeah, come on.
It's not gonna be so cut and dry.
I've witnessed cops grabbing the wrong people.
I've witnessed cops grabbing people and then making up things later.
I actually got one guy, he was charged with obstructing a roadway.
The police totally lied about everything.
It turns out he was standing on the sidewalk and I had filmed this.
And the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive organization, used my footage to get this guy exonerated, get the charges dropped.
Cops are not perfect.
They're people.
So it may be that some of these people who got arrested were wrongly charged, and when they assessed the evidence, they said, we can't do this.
But there still lies here a serious problem.
There are videos of some of these things.
And if you go to an event, let me tell you, They say this when you're, you know, growing up in Chicago with gang stuff.
If there's a guy you are with, if you're walking down the street and he commits a crime, you will be charged as an accessory if you are with him as he does it.
So, not absolutely.
You may be like, I have no idea what he was doing.
But if you're with somebody and then you go with him to a convenience store and then he robs the convenience store, you're gonna get charged.
That's just the way things go.
Maybe you helped him, maybe you didn't.
There's serious ramifications to your involvement.
If you know that for a hundred plus days, there are a group of individuals dressed in black, throwing explosives, starting fires, smashing windows, damaging government property, and you keep showing up, and you are wearing the same thing as them, I don't understand how you actually get found innocent.
Not guilty is the correct way to put it.
I don't understand how they don't just say, dude, you were with them doing it.
That's the name of the game, though.
They say, how do you know?
Just because they were wearing all black.
And I can recognize... Yeah.
It's difficult in most protests when the left engages in a black block tactic.
Because the cops don't know who was the one who threw the brick!
They all look the same, right?
What happens when they do it for 100 days or more?
At that point, you can be like, dude, there's no way a reasonable person could not have concluded that showing up, joining this crowd, and engaging in this was going to lead to violence.
You knew exactly what you were doing at that point.
If someone says, hey, show up to the mall and wear black, and you do, you can't arrest somebody.
Oh, you were wearing black?
Yeah, well, I had no idea what was going on after 100 days.
Here's the story, they say.
Federal prosecutors have dismissed more than one-third of cases stemming from last summer's violent protests in downtown Portland.
Riots, by the way.
When rioters clashed with federal agents, KGW reviewed federal court records and found 31 of the 90 cases have been dismissed by the U.S.
Department of Justice, including a mix of misdemeanor and felony charges.
Some of the most serious charges dropped include four defendants charged with assaulting a federal officer, which is a felony.
More than half of the dropped charges were dismissed with prejudice.
which several former federal prosecutors described as extremely rare.
Dismissed with prejudice means the case can't be brought back to court.
The dismissal of protest cases runs counter to the tough talk coming from U.S.
Department of Justice last summer.
Billy Williams, then U.S.
Attorney for Oregon, vowed there would be consequences for the nightly graffiti, fires, and vandalism outside the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse.
Quote, Make no mistake, those who commit violence in the name of protest will be investigated, arrested, prosecuted, and face prison time, said Williams in a September 25, 2020 press release.
I want to point out, Dismissed with prejudice.
Extremely rare.
Who are these people?
Who is this guy John Earl Sullivan who stormed into the Capitol and was egging people on?
Who are these people that can commit these very serious crimes and then in an extremely rare circumstance get their charges dismissed with prejudice?
Not only do they say it's extremely rare, I wonder, is it extremely rare to have someone have their charges dismissed with prejudice?
How rare would it be then if a dozen plus are dismissed with prejudice.
That sounds even more rare, I'd imagine.
In a recent interview with KGW, Williams explained the cases were dismissed
in instances where prosecutors didn't believe they could prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote, each case was analyzed for the evidence that we had at the time, said Williams.
Careful decisions were made on whether or not someone should be charged based on the evidence.
I actually think it may be, very simply, the feds didn't think they could prove it.
Typically, the Feds only bring charges when they know they're going to win, easily, and that's why the prosecution rate, I'm sorry, the conviction rate is extremely high.
Careful decisions were made on whether or not someone could be charged based on the evidence.
Williams explained, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
Everything is case-specific.
you go about these cases being processed through the system,"
said Williams, who stepped down on February 28th. U.S. attorneys are traditionally asked to
resign at the start of a new administration.
Federal prosecutors rarely handle protest cases, but when Multnomah County District Attorney Mike
Schmidt passed on most protest cases saying he was reserving resources for the most serious crimes,
the Fed stepped in. Then-Attorney General William Barr reportedly instructed federal prosecutors
to aggressively pursue protesters deemed violent or destructive.
And there's the start of this.
It's not just about the feds dismissing them in the first place.
It's about the fact that the cops, the local cops, wouldn't arrest them when they did.
Well, the reason they wouldn't arrest them is because when the cops arrested these violent people, the local DA would be like, Now they're free to go right back out on the street, right back to throwing explosives.
And you know why?
In my opinion, it made Trump look bad.
In turn, though, it gave Trump an opportunity to do something.
And he didn't do it.
There were some clever things he did, which he deserved praise for.
Deputizing local state police so that the charges could be brought federally was intelligent, was very clever.
But Trump could have come in and done something a bit stronger.
Insurrection Act, National Guard.
Maybe the National Guard would have been the appropriate response.
Just have them guard the building.
Instead, federal police were brought in, and they used that against Trump to try and claim he was a dictator, and so therein lies the rock in the hard place for the president, for the former president.
What was he supposed to do?
No matter what he would have done, they would have screamed bloody murder.
And there it was.
They could keep besieging a federal building, and then they could say, this is Trump's America.
Quote, I've never made a decision in my career based upon political pressure or institutional pressure, said Williams.
By summer's end, scores of people would be arrested on various federal charges by agents guarding the federal courthouse in Portland.
The names and ages of those arrested were published by the U.S.
Department of Justice and U.S.
Homeland Security in a press release.
Additionally, photos of defendants' belongings, from helmets to gas masks to goggles, were included in court documents.
Most of the defendants, whose protest cases are still pending, have seen their trials delayed largely because of the pandemic.
Those defendants face a mix of felony and misdemeanor charges.
Three defendants cut plea deals, resulting in probation and home detention.
Two of the plea agreements required a relatively short prison sentence of 30 days.
Several people closely involved with the protest cases, who asked not to be identified, said they expect many more federal charges to be dismissed soon.
And I agree.
On January, I believe it was January 20th, 2017, during Trump's inauguration, Hundreds of Black Block Antifa types got arrested.
I was actually arrested with the main group, though I was not processed and brought to a station.
Why?
Well, I was informed three times I had been arrested and not allowed to leave.
Eventually, they just cut me loose.
Leftists don't seem to understand the definition of arrest, and actually many people don't.
They believe arrest means you get processed.
That's not true.
When you are detained, they're simply investigating and asking you some questions.
You're under arrest.
When you're under arrest, they've already made that determination and you are not free to leave.
There is a difference.
People, you need to realize this.
I had to talk to a bunch of lawyers about what was going on.
Anyway, I digress.
Several of the people got arrested.
Very early on, took plea agreements.
And, well, they pled guilty.
But a lot of people refused, and eventually all of these charges were dismissed.
Why?
They tried going after them on conspiracy, saying, they're wearing these clothes so that we can't arrest them, because then they can get away with it in the courts.
And the court simply said, if you can't prove the individual committed the crime, then you can't charge them with a conspiracy.
And they ended up winning.
Here we go again.
Laura Appelman, a law professor at Willamette University, who is not directly involved in these cases, believes federal prosecutors aren't making decisions based on politics.
Rather, she thinks they're considering resources and an already busy caseload.
Quote, the U.S.
Attorney's Office has to go through and very carefully ask, is it worth using our limited time and energy to prosecute each and every one of these federal misdemeanors?
Some of them are felonies.
The most vigorous legal fight laid out by public defenders in lengthy court filings has involved nearly a dozen Portland protesters charged with civil disorder.
Defense attorneys argue the obscure law enacted during the 1960s civil rights era is unconstitutional.
At least 11 of the dismissed federal protest cases were dropped on or after the inauguration of President Joe Biden.
With a new president and soon new U.S.
attorney in Oregon, it's unclear how these cases will be handled going forward.
Like the protests themselves, There will undoubtedly be opposing views.
Some will argue by dismissing cases.
There's no accountability.
While others will claim the Feds never should have filed protest cases in the first place.
Only in the broadest sense of the term are they protests.
Going around, smashing things, starting fires, throwing explosives, and beating people is not a protest.
It's a riot.
That's the game they play.
Some people will say, the Feds should have never filed protest cases.
Sure, fine.
No protest cases.
Riot cases, though.
Riot cases.
Check this out.
I want to read this line for you again.
At least 11 of the dismissed federal protest cases were dropped on or after the inauguration of Biden.
I wonder if that's it.
I wonder if that was it.
This attorney was like, well, I'm out.
They're not going to bring these cases forward, so dismissed.
I wonder if there was pressure.
He says there was no political pressure.
Maybe it's not political pressure.
That's an opinion.
Maybe it was someone coming in from the Biden administration saying, it's not political.
We just don't want to waste time, right?
Our resources are stretched thin.
Right now, they're saying D.C.
is on edge as QAnon followers believe Trump will become president again!
My friends, let me just say, Donald Trump is not the president.
Joe Biden is the president.
Donald Trump will not be inaugurated in a new republic or a restored republic.
It's just not going to happen.
So, maybe today, as the weather is gradually improving, it's springtime, is abound, you can go outside, go for a walk, breathe some fresh air somewhere, assuming you don't live in a city.
I live in the middle of nowhere, so I get to do it.
Maybe you can go, uh, buy some chickens.
I keep telling people, get some chickens if you live in the middle of nowhere.
They're hilarious!
It's really gonna lower your stress.
No joke.
I mean, you know the thing is about chickens?
Like a cat?
Yeah, we all like cats, right?
But cats do their thing.
The thing is funny is like, you just put chickens outside and just watch them do their thing.
It's hilarious!
They're so dumb.
Just enjoy life.
Laugh at the stupid things.
Laugh at the silly things.
That being said, I highlight this to show you the disparity.
Look, the media is going to absolutely claim everybody associated in any capacity with right-wing, unhinged theories is a dangerous, terroristic threat.
And meanwhile, we have news coming out of Portland that people who are actually arrested during 100 nights of rioting are having their charges dismissed.
So what?
That's it.
We know who works for the establishment.
We know who the establishment favors.
Kamala Harris can tweet out a link to raise money to get these people bailed out, but the little old lady or dude who's bumbling and befuddled at the Capitol, they get misdemeanor charges.
I'm not talking about those who actually broke in and stormed into the building.
I'm talking about the bewildered and befuddled people who, when the cops opened the door, they just walked in and then were taking selfies with some of these people.
They had no idea what was going on.
It's the double standard we all know exists.
But it also shows, in my opinion, how hyperpolarization is only going to get worse.
We now have Joe Biden.
We've got HR- I believe HR1 passed.
We've got changes to the election system coming in.
The Democrats control everything.
They are going to use institutional power to favor their allies and hurt their enemies.
We are not a United States right now.
Some people might say, when's the Civil War?
Where's the Civil War, Tim?
Let me tell you something.
When Democrats control the two chambers and the executive branch, you could argue the Supreme Court is feckless.
Using that word a lot, I guess.
When they can pass laws and prosecute whoever they want, do you think they're going to go after Antifa?
They're not.
They're dismissing these cases.
Are they going to go after Trump supporters?
Oh, absolutely!
We're hearing they're investigating Alex Jones and others who are down there at the Capitol, even though PBS shows the quotes from Jones saying, be peaceful, don't do this, don't fight cops, we're going to speak, we're going to be peaceful.
The Feds say they're investigating him over his influence.
And you know how it goes.
You know there's a double standard.
So I'll tell you this.
If the Democrats control the executive branch, if red states have no confidence in Joe Biden and are opening up, The Democrats are going to go after their political enemies.
Their rhetoric is getting more and more intense.
And what happens when Joe Biden's Department of Justice starts targeting prominent Trump supporters?
Which they're doing.
What happens if slash when they ramp that up?
What happens in these red states where people start resisting and saying no because they don't see Joe Biden as legitimate?
I think we're in dangerous territory.
These Antifa people, the far-left extremists and rioters, need to be held accountable for the sake of this country.
Now, to be fair, like I said, it may be simply that these people who got the charges dismissed really were just wrongly arrested.
I'm not entirely convinced, because I've seen the bias.
I have seen the lies, and I've seen the manipulation.
It's hard to know for sure.
But when you get some little old lady charged with a misdemeanor, and the media demonizes her, and these Antifa people are being given the benefit of the doubt, that's the problem in and of itself.
Why should we give anyone the benefit of the doubt?
Why does Antifa get the benefit of the doubt?
Are they going to start dismissing charges from January 6th?
I hope so.
If you keep telling people in this country, of which 74.5 million voted for Donald Trump, that they are second-class citizens, eventually they say, I have no reason to be involved in your system if I am not being represented properly.
It's exactly what happened with the American Revolution.
It didn't start in 1776.
That was the last straw.
1776, the Declaration of Independence.
That's when they were like, I kind of had enough.
We're writing this thing up.
And they probably decided to write it up, I believe, like several months, like six or eight months before that.
It was years, years and years and years of being mistreated and neglected and not properly represented.
Eventually they said, screw it.
We'll do it ourselves.
What happens now with these states who are going to be targeted by the Biden administration?
What happens when Joe Biden prints out $1.9 trillion, which negatively impacts every American and is used as a bailout slush fund for poorly managed blue states?
People will say no.
And that's the scary part.
We must make sure that all of these far-left extremists are held accountable the same as any right-wing individual when they commit a crime.
Otherwise, people are going to say, you do not represent me.
You just oppress me.
I think it's funny when the left says the right tries playing victim or whatever.
I'm like, it doesn't matter.
It literally doesn't.
I don't care if it's true or not, if Republicans or Democrats are more oppressed than the other.
It matters that people feel aggrieved and then act upon those grievances.
Will the tensions that people feel result in conflict?
You can sit here all day and night and say the Republicans are wrong and they're crazy.
Doesn't matter.
If they think they are, it will get worse.
And when they watch Antifa get cut loose from felony charges, they're going to say, I'm right.
And then you deal with it.
Me?
I'll be in the middle of nowhere saying, leave me alone.
I'm going to mind my own business.
I suppose there's more I could or should be doing, but I feel like there's no way to bridge this fractured divide.
The bridge has shattered.
Don't look at me, I don't know.
But I'll keep doing my thing.
And we should keep speaking up, at the very least, so long as we keep telling the Democrats to hold these people accountable.
And yes, the people from the Capitol will be held accountable as well.
We need to make sure that people are being properly represented.
They won't do it.
They won't stop.
Republicans' concerns, according to Echelon Insights, are social and cultural issues.
Democrats' concerns are Trump supporters.
The Democrats just won't shut up.
They keep coming.
They won't stop beating down the people on the right.
They ban them from social media.
They arrest them and charge them and they cut Antifa loose.
