S567 - Trump Interview DELETED By Facebook, Company Says Trump's Voice Is NOT Allowed In ANY Capacity
Trump Interview DELETED By Facebook, Company Says Trump's Voice Is NOT Allowed In ANY Capacity
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In our first story, Laura Trump conducted an interview with former President Donald Trump, and Facebook and Instagram have deleted this interview, saying the voice of the president is not allowed on their platforms.
While YouTube and other platforms still allow people to interview those who have been banned, Facebook has upped the censorship to an extreme degree.
Donald Trump's wildly popular.
He received about 74.2 million votes in the 2020 election, though he didn't win.
People still want to hear what he has to say, and Facebook's censorship has gone to a rather extreme degree.
Our next story.
In the Chauvin trial in Minneapolis, a leftist was caught by the judge taking photos.
This could potentially risk exposing the jury, who are already worried that if their information is revealed, they could face threats.
The people of Minneapolis are terrified about what will happen in this trial, because it may seem inevitable that new riots erupt.
In our last story, AOC claims there's no migrant crisis on the border.
During the Donald Trump era, she was seen at a fence, crying over what was going on.
But now, under Joe Biden, even with conditions getting worse, she says, there is no migrant crisis.
Instead, focusing on language, she says, is racist.
Before we get started, if you really like this show, please consider giving us a good review.
Give us five stars, leave a great comment, because it really, really does help.
But now, let's get into that first story.
Many of you may have heard the news that YouTube has issued a community guideline strike to
He did his live show on his website earlier this morning.
The purge is real.
The attempts by big tech, the establishment, and corporate powers to create a monoculture is very real.
Don't believe me?
Well, I've got some evidence for you.
So this is the kind of story that you should share with people to let them know a few simple arguments.
More votes than any sitting president in the history of this country.
He didn't win.
Joe Biden got more.
A lot of people did not like Donald Trump, that's true.
But of those 74.2 million people, I would imagine they liked what Trump had to say.
Now, that being the case, Facebook and Instagram have removed an interview with Donald Trump with his daughter-in-law where he signaled he will run for president in 2024.
Said Biden didn't know where the hell he was when he fell down the stairs.
They removed it.
They said, the voice of the former president is not allowed.
Now, we don't say former president.
We say President Trump.
We say President Obama.
President Trump, 45th President of the United States, a very important and prominent historical figure, is not allowed to speak.
These platforms will remove him.
Now I will say part of it is Trump's fault.
He absolutely could have joined any of these other platforms and they would have massively grown.
It would have displaced big tech, but he didn't do it.
So it's partly his fault because we're all responsible for ourselves.
But you can clearly see the manipulation.
It was not that long ago.
Right Side Broadcasting Network.
They simply filmed Donald Trump giving a speech.
It was removed by YouTube and they received a strike.
Facebook and Instagram have said that they will not allow Donald Trump to speak.
74.2 million people.
Listen, we talk sometimes on this show on the IRL podcast about Second Civil War and what that really means.
And these leftists, they try to use the most insane interpretation of what that really means.
Now, some people have simply said, every four years we go through some kind of civil war.
It's been that way for some time, going back to the actual civil war in this country.
And maybe that's a fair way to put it.
But what happens when it starts getting more and more extreme, crazier and crazier?
At what point do we actually say this is a cold civil war or psychological civil war, information war?
I did not originate the idea.
There was a Princeton professor, there were many mainstream news sources, but I will tell you this.
When 74.2 million people are not allowed to hear from the man they voted for, We got very serious problems.
We're also learning something else really interesting.
YouTube is testing removing the dislike button.
Now you may be thinking, what does this have to do with Donald Trump and with what's going on?
Well, when Donald Trump speaks, he's overwhelmingly getting thumbs up.
When Steven Crowder does his show, overwhelmingly, thumbs up.
On my channels, 99.9% of the time, thumbs up.
But, you know, look, I have some lefty opinions and sometimes I'll get like 90% or 85%.
Sometimes it'll be a bit lower because I talk about what I feel like talking about.
Not everybody likes it.
But YouTube is not a liberal space, which means when Joe Biden does his speeches, not only does he get no viewership relative to Trump or Me, I guess.
He gets thumbs down into oblivion.
Now, some people have speculated that it was because of the Biden administration YouTube was planning on doing this.
I don't know that that's true.
There's certainly no proof that it's true.
However, it is true according to PolitiFact that YouTube has removed dislikes from Joe Biden videos in the past, claiming it was illegitimate.
Really, could it be that Joe Biden has the has the ears of the uninitiated and low information voters, people who don't watch videos, people who don't watch the news and just flow with the tides?
I think the removal of Donald Trump's interview is terrifying.
Look, I understand everyone's like, you know, Steven Crowder's getting banned.
Really, really bad stuff.
Because Crowder is not Milo.
He is not Alex Jones.
And they shouldn't have been banned either, by the way.
There's some arguments we had about Milo putting up, you know, that he was a BuzzFeed reporter or something like that.
But in terms of opinions and being trolls, you give a right to do it.
I think many of these platforms are made awful by awful people.
I'm not specifically referring to anybody, you know, I'm not referring to anybody in particular.
I'm just saying, you know, Twitter and Facebook and YouTube have their share of really nasty people who say nasty things and make things generally awful.
But if people want to hear from a former president, this is unprecedented levels of censorship.
Let's read this story from the Daily Mail.
They say, Facebook and Instagram have removed Donald Trump's interview with his daughter-in-law, Laura, In another sign of the left-leaning Silicon Valley giant canceling the former president and censoring any mention of him, the social media giant sent an email to Laura saying video had been blocked because he is still banned from the platforms and the clip featured President Trump speaking and the voice of Donald Trump.
Are you not allowed to interview people anymore?
Even I was allowed to have Alex Jones on my podcast.
Allowed.
Isn't that a funny way to phrase it?
I spoke with Google.
And I was like, we're gonna have Alex Jones on the show.
And they said, that's okay.
That's absolutely allowed.
He just can't have his own channel.
I said, okay.
Alright, there you go.
They still took the video down and gave us a warning.
You do it again, we're gonna give you a strike.
I immediately said, come back on the show.
Because I'm not gonna stand up for that censorship.
Facebook and Instagram won't even let someone interview Donald Trump.
He didn't make the video.
Laura did.
They say the clip was taken down after Trump tore into social media and the mainstream media for suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story before he launched into a diatribe of President Biden's green agenda, which was more liberal and more radical than Bernie Sanders ever had in mind.
No, that's not correct.
Trump is wrong.
Bernie Sanders is absolutely radical, but I get the point he's trying to make, and he's trying to speak in harsh hyperbolic rhetoric.
He doesn't like Joe Biden.
They say he also railed against cancel culture and the woke mob's obliteration of U.S.
culture, particularly on social media.
Now, these things I agree with Trump on.
My friends, we are not dealing with, oh no, it's just a community guidelines violation.
You can't say a certain name on any social media.
They will remove the post outright.
It's creepy.
You can't give certain political opinions.
The president, former president, isn't allowed to speak.
These big companies are working in tandem with each other, with a political party, to subvert our democratic institutions.
The Hunter Biden laptop story.
It's true.
The New York Times said it was true.
And it's shocking to me that they admit it.
Why not just maintain the lie and ignore it?
No, they can't do it.
For some reason, before the election, Twitter suppressed the sharing of a story, even in private messages.
Facebook said they were reducing its visibility.
It was from a mainstream publication, the New York Post.
Not allowed.
After the election, the New York Times came out and said, oh, that stuff?
It's all true.
But the election had already happened.
This is happening.
They're doing this.
I believe if the Hunter Biden laptop story was not suppressed, Trump would have won.
He would have gotten over the edge.
He would have gotten a boost.
But keeping people ignorant is how the Democrats win.
And I know a lot of people don't want to hear it, and a lot of people are saying, oh, here he comes, he's biased, he loves the Republicans.
I hate the Republicans.
The Republican Party.
I think they're trash.
I think they don't do anything.
I think there's a small handful of people that are alright.
I think there are some Democrats that are alright, but for the most part, you got a decent amount of Republicans I think are okay, namely like Rand Paul.
He's a libertarian.
This is what they do.
They want low-information voters.
They want 16-year-olds to vote.
They want everybody to just vote.
And that's, to a certain degree, okay.
We want people to vote.
We want people to participate.
But the Democrats particularly exploit the ignorant to gain power.
I'd love it if everyone voted.
Every single person.
You want to lower the voting age to 16?
Actually, I'm okay with that.
They should have the right to own guns and enter into contracts and all that stuff.
But if you want to do that, I'm fine.
As long as these people are being properly informed of their rights and responsibilities.
The Democrats aren't doing that.
They're dropping letters in mailboxes.
There you go, you can vote by mail.
And what this means is that people who normally don't care and don't want to be involved just are pressured into being involved in something they don't know or care about.
I don't think that's good for us.
It's eroding everything.
And these big tech companies are seemingly doing everything in their power to make sure that we can't hear these ideas.
This is scary stuff, man.
They say it was the 74-year-old's first on-screen interview since losing to Biden in the general election and leaving D.C.
under the cloud of the Capitol Hill riots.
During the 18-minute interview, Trump talked about how Joe Biden didn't know where the hell he was when he fell down the stairs on Air Force One, and how boring Twitter had become without him.
He was asked whether his supporters could hope he will run for president again.
He replied, You do have hope that I can tell you.
You do have hope.
We love our country, this country.
We all owe a lot to our country, but now we have to help our country.
Trump also criticized the situation at the border, pointing to the fact that many crossing the Rio Grande have explicitly stated that Biden was the reason they made the journey north.
Look at our borders.
Look what's happening, Trump said.
We have the best southern border that we've ever had and in one day, everybody come up.
And what's going on now is something compared to what's going to take place during the summer.
Trump also criticized the situation at the border, pointing to the fact that many crossing the Rio Grande had explicitly stated that Biden was the reason they made the journey.
I think they, uh, accidentally repeated that over the Daily Mail.
Let me show you this.
Let me show you what's going on at the administrative level, at the functional level of YouTube.
Likes and dislikes matter, my friends.
So if you like this podcast, if you like my show, please smash that like button.
No joke.
I should probably say it more often because it really does have an impact.
YouTube is testing hiding dislike counts to stop targeted campaigns against creators and protect their well-being.
Okay, they're not going to get rid of the dislike button.
They're just going to get rid of the number so you don't know if people dislike it.
Now, admittedly, I'm not entirely opposed to this.
I think there's actually a good reason to do this, and I think they should get rid of the like counter as well.
There's no reason for people to see those numbers, and perhaps they should get rid of the view counter as well.
There's no reason to have that publicly displayed.
I suppose people like it, triggers a dopamine release when they look at that number.
We can keep all that stuff on the back end.
But why are they doing this?
Well, some people believe they're going to hide the dislike button because it's making people realize that Joe Biden, among those who are active on social media and watch the news, is not popular.
Among low-information voters, Biden's the most popular president in history.
But these people are not engaged in civics, for the most part.
And that's scary.
It could actually be a bit simple that many of the people who vote for Biden are those who would, say, watch MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.
And so they don't interact with the news, they just absorb it.
Whereas those who liked Donald Trump were those who interacted with news and commented on things and posted on things.
Not all of those people are conservatives.
There are many progressives who have very large channels and get decent interaction and a good thumbs up.
But it's interesting.
There's a poll that shows liberals get 95% of their news from liberal sources and only 5% from conservative sources.
Moderates get 60% of their news, 66% from liberal sources and 33% from conservative sources.
And conservatives get 33% of their news from liberal sources but 66% from conservative sources.
It's possible that the narratives they follow shape their worldview.
However, most importantly, conservatives do watch liberal news.
Conservatives do watch what Joe Biden has to say.
But even the people who voted for Joe Biden don't watch what he has to say.
So when he gets a very low view count, and all the conservatives are like, I don't like what he's saying.
Well, it's bad for Biden.
It's bad for the White House.
Breaks confidence.
So YouTube, interestingly, announced they're going to do this.
Now, some people, like I said, there was some rumor going around that Joe Biden was involved in this process.
I don't know if that's true, and honestly, I gotta say, I don't think it is.
I think that's misinformation.
I really doubt.
Joe Biden's, like, calling up, or his administration's calling up YouTube, like, these dislikes on our channel, you know, we gotta get rid of them.
And so YouTube makes this move.
However, YouTube has removed dislikes from Joe Biden videos in the past.
Don't take my word for it.
From PolitiFact, did YouTube remove dislikes from a video posted by Biden White House?
January 20th, they say.
Or that's a photo.
This is from January 25th.
Hours after President Joe Biden was sworn into office January 20th, Press Secretary Jen Psaki gave the administration's first White House media briefing.
A video of the briefing was posted on the official White House YouTube channel.
As social media users scrutinized the video, some started circulating claims on Facebook suggesting that YouTube was suppressing the negative feedback to it.
One post showed a Gateway Pundit headline that said, YouTube caught red-handed removing dislikes from Biden White House page.
Anything to fool the proletariat.
The post was flagged as part of Facebook's effort to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed.
The post is accompanied by images purporting to be screenshots of the briefing video.
One image, which appeared to have been taken from a phone at 3.11pm, showed the video had been disliked 10,000 times, using YouTube's comment icons.
The second, which appeared to have been taken at 7.31pm, was nearly identical, but showed the video had been disliked only 3,100 times.
The Gateway Pundit article said, This is more evidence of how the tech giants do anything they can to assist their ideological allies while they censor and delete conservative content and voices.
The claim, bolstered by screenshots, quickly picked up steam on other right-wing blogs.
So did YouTube remove thousands of dislikes from a video posted by the Biden administration?
It's possible, but the posts on Facebook are missing one important context about how YouTube handles likes and dislikes on its videos.
And they don't offer any evidence that YouTube did so improperly or for political reasons.
Yes, PolitiFact, that's called an opinion.
You see how that works?
YouTube told PolitiFact that it has systems in place to ensure that engagements with videos, such as likes and dislikes, are authentic, so that analytics information it provides is reliable.
Those systems worked as designed to remove spam engagement on the video, according to YouTube.
The de-spamming process starts when a video is uploaded and continues to run to ensure metrics remain accurate.
In 2019, The Verge reported that YouTube considered removing the dislike button from its videos entirely in an effort to stop so-called dislike mobs.
YouTube's verified account on Twitter also addressed the issue, saying,
YouTube regularly removes any spam likes or dislikes from your videos.
It may take up to 48 hours for the numbers to be updated.
Another said, we always validate the activities and legitimacy of accounts added on your likes and dislikes
report.
This is to make sure that our site metrics are free of spam.
Okay, let's be reasonable people here.
Maybe it really was spam.
I mean, Joe Biden wasn't getting that many views anyway, so who are these people disliking it?
Maybe YouTube says these are fake dislikes from bots and they removed them.
Okay, they removed them from a Joe Biden video.
These instances that we see may be only highlighted because Joe Biden is higher profile and the White House is higher profile than most other channels.
But you don't often hear stories about this getting fact-checked.
It could just be out of sight, out of mind.
Or it could be that YouTube has stated they have a policy on maintaining the legitimacy and confidence in the presidency and the government.
And these mass dislikes don't help that.
Let me show you a story from Media Post.
Former Google software engineer claims YouTube erasing dislikes for Biden video.
A Google software engineer, Zach Voorhees, former senior software engineer at Google and YouTube, now self-proclaimed whistleblower, has started his own investigation into disappearing dislikes for a Joe Biden video.
The videos were uploaded to this we-all-know.
Voorhees' post on Twitter set off a firestorm of followers on several platforms, including Gab, where TexasVet posted similar images of the number.
So this is what they were talking about in PolitiFact.
PolitiFact outright says, if your time is short, YouTube may have removed spam dislikes from a video posted by the White House after President Joe Biden took office.
So is it possible that once again YouTube is taking action specifically for the Biden administration?
I'm not saying at their behest.
I'm saying they went in to the Biden video and removed dislikes.
Could it be that there are people who are staging some kind of digital false flag?
And, uh, and disliking the video to make it look like there's a spam campaign or something?
Listen.
I'm not going to get too conspiratorial.
The simple solution is that people on YouTube don't like Joe Biden, and they give videos from Biden in the White House thumbs down.
It's not just now this is happening.
They do it all the time.
So I will say, I don't trust YouTube when they tell me what they're doing or why they're doing it.
I don't see why all of us on the left chooses to.
When we see these stories where it's like, Steven Crowder didn't violate the rules on hate speech, and the left freaks out saying, but he clearly was engaging in hate speech!
So you don't trust YouTube?
And then when they tell you what they're doing, you say, ah, but this one's true.
I don't trust YouTube when they take down Crowder.
I don't trust YouTube when they claim they're spam dislikes.
All I know is they did remove them.
They say they do.
So what now?
Look, I don't know if there's anyone intentionally doing it.
I do think there are people in Silicon Valley and Google who are extremely biased.
I have been invited to their Critical Race Theory meetings.
I have been in, like, three or four different meetings at Google about Critical Race Theory, and I wonder what the deal was where they thought for some reason for years that I was some, like, woke leftist.
Or maybe they didn't.
Maybe they just wanted to hear what I had to say, I suppose.
I literally was in, like, private closed-door meetings about social justice issues and giving them my thoughts.
Numerous occasions over the past several years.
Not so much in the past several years, but several years before the past several years.
So, like, 2015, 2016, I had been to Google offices many times.
I used to go to the New York office rather frequently.
I don't know what they're doing.
I do know they have a bias, and I do know that there is a cult sweeping across the landscape in this country, to the point where a former president with 74.2 million votes can't even post to social media to express his views and what he thinks.
What's going to happen to these 74 million people?
They won't just cease to exist.
Perhaps these people in these big tech companies and news media and corporate press and corporations believe, out of sight out of mind, if you just remove the dissenters, eventually people will only focus on certain ideas.
And maybe that's true.
But if that is the case, they're certainly going about it way too fast.
Getting rid of Trump Right after he leaves office with 74.2 million people scratching their heads is going to make the fissures in this country worse.
It's not going to make these people wake up one day and be like, I'm gonna go listen to Rachel Maddow now.
It's only going to get worse.
Removing Steven Crowder will only make things worse.
When they ban these conservatives, and I mean it for Crowder, and he goes to other platforms, people will find a way to access these platforms.
YouTube will lose mass viewership.
And I'll tell you one thing, I know for a fact, if Crowder gets nuked off YouTube, a lot of people are going to leave the platform like they did with Patreon, and it's going to negatively impact everyone else, including myself.
YouTube surely must know that, but they are pushing as hard and as fast as possible, and I don't know why.
Maybe it's because they don't plan for this?
Maybe because they don't know or they don't care?
But I tell you this right now.
The idea that a former president can't speak to the country is horrifying.
I mean, Biden, I'm sorry, Obama went around doing speeches, writing his book, doing his thing.
He posted to social media, he still does.
And they say, oh, but Trump is dangerous.
You know what's dangerous?
Telling 74.2 million people that their voices don't matter.
That's dangerous.
This all freaks me out, man.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The trial for Derek Chauvin is currently underway in Minneapolis, and the residents of this city are waiting in fear, knowing that if the proper outcome the activists want is not obtained, there will be mass riots.
And many fear no matter what happens, there's going to be mass riots because the activists wanted more serious charges for the officer involved in the death of George Floyd.
But now we're hearing straight from the activists themselves, notably Chelsea Handler, who said, why should there even be trials?
We all watched the video, sparking a major backlash.
There should be trials.
We have a Fifth Amendment.
Just because you see something on video doesn't provide you all of the context.
And many are starting to recognize, including other left-wing organizations like The Nation, that The acquittal of Derek Chauvin is currently underway, in which the residents of Minneapolis are right to fear there will be mass riots.
After Chauvin is acquitted, assuming he is, we will see the other cases fall apart.
Because the other officers being charged, their cases are predicated upon whether or not Derek Chauvin did something wrong.
And if he didn't, how will the other officers actually be charged?
Well, now what we're seeing is an attempt by many leftists and even establishment media, at least in my opinion, in some aspects, to expose the jurors, which could potentially corrupt this trial.
And unfortunately for the residents of Minneapolis, that would just result, likely, in a mistrial, not a conviction or an acquittal, which would delay the process, ignite more riots, cause massive damage for the people who live there, resolve nothing.
A woman was reprimanded by the judge in this case because she was taking photos and she posts to Twitter smirking and laughing and posting a critical race theory style talking point suggesting she is very much on the side of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter activists in this case regardless of what is true.
Now I'll tell you this for me.
I'm on anybody's side.
I'm on the side of the truth.
If these officers did something wrong, I want them held accountable.
But going in and taking photos inside this building and the officer, I'm sorry, the judge took her phone and questioned her about what she was doing and why she was even there.
That could corrupt the trial.
Now we have a couple different news publications, including the New York Times, revealing as much as they can about the jurors, potentially exposing them.
And I gotta say, I think it is very likely.
We know for a fact the jurors have expressed in this trial that if their information gets out, they fear retaliation against themselves and their families.
And it's this fear that will pressure them into making what the activists would deem the proper decision in this case.
I don't think there is going to be a peaceful resolution to whatever happens in this trial, even if Derek Chauvin is convicted on all counts, including murder.
Then it's very likely they'll say, well, it's not enough.
And they will riot anyway.
I mean, we see this with sporting events.
People riot when their team wins.
They riot when their team loses.
The people will find some reason to claim it's just not enough.
And in the end, the left will do everything in their power just to get a tribal political victory, regardless of who is truly at fault in this matter.
Now, we're getting new information out of this trial.
The clerk at the store, who apparently received this counterfeit $20 bill, says that George Floyd looked like he was on drugs, which is the crux of the defense's argument, that George Floyd died from drugs, not from Chauvin's actions.
We're gonna break this down and we'll go through the latest information.
But it really does seem that the left doesn't want a trial, and they will do everything they can, or at least as much as they can, to make sure the trial falls apart.
But before we get started, make sure you go over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast.
We have a bunch of really great conversations with our guests.
We have Cassandra Fairbanks, Jeremy Hambly.
We have full podcast episodes with people like James O'Keefe, you can only get if you're a member.
We set this up because The Purge is real.
They're coming after many channels and it's very likely in the near future that my channels get axed as well.
And some people say that's not true, but it already happened to me on Facebook, which many of you probably know.
So if you want to support this show, all of my shows, and the company as we expand, become a member at TimCast.com.
You will get these exclusive episodes.
We've also got more content on the way.
We're talking about doing shows and movies and a whole bunch of other stuff too.
So, please become a member.
And don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's read what's going on.
We have this story from Newsweek.
Chelsea Handler sparks backlash for suggesting trials be skipped when there is no evidence.
Now I want to highlight this first because that's the gist of the story.
A lot of people are mad about what she said.
But it shows that many of these tribal leftists, these activists, don't actually care about the truth, figuring out what the truth is, trying to understand the context, trying to understand the charges.
They just want a victory.
They don't care how they get it.
They don't care about due process.
They just want to say they won.
Own the cons.
That's all it is, apparently.
And now I'll show you what's going on with the courts.
And we'll come back to the Chelsea Handler thing.
Take a look at this from the Washington Post.
10.22 p.m.
Judge reprimands witness's PR person for taking photos.
The second day of former police officer Derek Chauvin's murder trial ended Tuesday night on a strange note, with Judge Peter A. Cahill calling on a woman who identified herself as a public relations person working with witness Darnella Frazier and managing the media for her to the stand.
Cahill reprimanded the woman for taking pictures with her cell phone during the trial and asked her to delete them, to which the woman apologized repeatedly, claiming she did not know she was not allowed to do so.
The incident was a sign of the tight control around the high-profile murder case that has brought national and international media attention.
So we've seen it.
Chelsea Handler doesn't want a trial.
How can you stop a trial?
I don't know, maybe freak out the jurors, publish their private information, maybe their photographs, and then allow the internet to do the rest?
Because apparently that's what's actually happening.
Many people are angry because the New York Times and Yahoo have published private details.
Okay, I'm sorry, I'm not private.
Public information that was collected during the trial And this will allow people to use these lists and sort through all of the data from the city to find out who these people are.
And I gotta say, some of this information is awfully specific now.
The jurors have expressed that they're worried about their information getting out.
But let's read, let's go through this.
Check this out.
Business owners fear, repeat, of unrest and destruction during Derek Chauvin trial.
We just have to deal with whatever comes.
The people here know what is at stake.
And what do you get instead of an honest media?
Well first, from myfox8, prospective jurors in Derek Chauvin trial exhibit fear, anxiety, and strong opinions.
Now this is a fair point, they say.
One was anxious, worried about high emotions surrounding the case.
One worried his family might be targeted.
And one was delighted to receive her jury summons, even after learning she might wind up on the panel considering whether to convict a former police officer in George Floyd's death.
All of this is connected.
The people who fear the riots.
It's exactly why the jurors are worried about their information getting out.
One juror said, specifically, I'm terrified about what will happen if people find out who I am.
Because the activists know.
Well, they don't have to go to the person's house and make demands of them.
It's implied.
And the implication is all that matters.
If this person's information gets out, you will have all of the spineless corporate media, you will have spineless corporations, businesses saying, we can't associate with you.
You'll have people saying at a job, you know, maybe it's a wicker basket company and they'll say, ah, yes, you would like a job here doing PR or management.
Look, we know you were just doing your jury duty, but we really don't want to risk being associated with you because the activists will riot.
They will burn things down and the police will do nothing to stop it.
The jurors know this, which is why it is so insane to me that a woman tried taking photos during the trial that the New York Times and Yahoo have published as much information as possible to the jurors as they can.
Take a look at this from the New York Times.
Who are the jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial?
The jurors bring to the table a range of views about race and policing, some forged by lifelong experience and some formed after the death of George Floyd.
I'm not going to read you everything that's in this article, because I recognize the issue of publicizing private details about some of these people.
But, for the sake of helping you understand, I will give you some of the information because, first and foremost, it's been published by the New York Times.
I'm not going to pretend like me ignoring this does anything to change the fact that the Grey Lady, the paper of record, has already maximized pushing out this information.
And I want to be fair and reasonable.
It's information they collected from the trial that people gave up.
I still think it's important to try and restrict people on the internet tracking down who the jurors are, and you probably can based on the information they gave out.
So that is the reality of the situation.
Now I'm not trying to say the New York Times is purposefully trying to get people to do anything untoward or dox these people, but I certainly think it's irresponsible to create essentially a dossier And the New York Times didn't necessarily do that.
But Yahoo did.
And this is not just Yahoo, it's USA Today for Yahoo.
Here are the jurors who will decide whether Derek Chauvin is guilty of murder in George Floyd's death.
And they actually... I'm going to show you just one snippet.
Chemist, white man in his 20s.
That's all I'm going to point out.
I'm not going to read through this, but I'll read some of the other stuff from the New York Times.
The reason is...
With that information, you can easily deduce who these people are.
And worse still, we know what happens when people are given limited information and then become obsessed and claim they know who the person really is!
Then they harass innocent people.
We don't need these stories.
We don't need a direct, like, titled story from the New York Times or USA Today saying, who are the jurors?
Here's all their information.
I understand they did give this information out at the trial, so ultimately, it was the officers of the court It was the attorneys and the individuals who gave us information up, and the New York Times and the press aggregated it.
I will absolutely say the court should have been much more secure in giving out how much information they actually let out, and the jurors probably did not realize this.
So I'm not going to put it on the jurors.
I'm going to put it on the trial for publicizing all of this information.
I mean, the trial is being live-streamed.
Perhaps it's a good thing, but I think many on the left just want the trial to stop.
Here's what the New Yorker says.
They say a white intensive care nurse who said if she saw someone on the street who needed help she would feel obligated to step in, a black grandmother who said she had no personal experience with police or the criminal justice system, a white widow who rides a motorcycle in her spare time, and said she believes that all lives matter.
A black man who works in banking and said he was eager to serve on the jury of the most historic case of my lifetime.
These are some of the jurors appointed to weigh the evidence in the case of Derek Chauvin, the white former police officer who was accused of murdering George Floyd.
The jury is a demographic mix, three black men, one black woman, and two women who identified themselves as multiracial.
There are two white men and four white women.
They are urban and suburban, ranging in age from their 20s to their 60s.
The two alternates are white women.
The jurors bring to the table a range of views about Mr. Chauvin, Mr. Floyd, race, and policing.
Some forged by lifelong experience, and some formed after the video of Mr. Floyd dying under Mr. Chauvin's knee.
And what they say is a major, which started a new civil rights movement.
Okay, I will stress this again as we go to the next story.
This is information they all gave out in the trial, and I'm not necessarily going to fault anyone for talking about this.
I just think there is clear evidence to suggest the left is not here.
You know, the woman taking photos, Chelsea Handler, there is a clear motive towards Exposing the jurors.
And we already saw something really nefarious in the past few weeks.
Or at least in my opinion, nefarious.
The city of Minneapolis issued a massive, record-breaking settlement to the family of George Floyd.
Upwards of 20 to 30 million dollars.
And many said that this had already corrupted the trial.
Two jurors had to be dismissed.
Now why would the city go and do this?
It's almost like They want the trial to be prejudiced.
Now, the prosecution in the Chauvin case said they could not control what the city did.
But boy, when you see these statements, when you see these actions, when you see what the media is doing, and we know which direction they lean politically, it really does feel like efforts to just corrupt the trial.
Corrupting the trial won't result in Chauvin getting off scot-free.
It will result in riots.
I mean, the nation is already saying it.
Look at this.
20 days ago, okay?
This is almost three weeks ago.
The acquittal of Derek Chauvin has already begun.
The jury selection process, which started this week, shows how the cop who killed George Floyd can and likely will win.
Chauvin will likely win on the merits because it's true, according to the medical examiner's report, that George Floyd did have drugs in his system.
And unfortunately for those on the left who haven't been paying attention, the truth is George Floyd appeared high when he handed over fake $20 bill.
Did I say Chauvin before?
George Floyd.
They say that George Floyd had drugs in his system.
George Floyd appeared high when he handed over fake $20 bill and had difficulty forming words, worker testifies, as court is shown never-before-seen footage moments before he died.
This is from the trial.
It's why trials are so important to get to the facts.
Now, you want to argue manslaughter.
Maybe Chauvin did not act properly with George Floyd.
They knew each other, apparently, or at least worked in the same place, so it's a very strange case.
But when you have a witness, the clerk at the store saying, it looked like the man was on drugs, he was trouble-forming words, There was drugs found in his system.
This was well before the police were called.
And already the left is trying to make it seem like the system is at fault here.
Maybe the system is at fault, to a certain degree.
But not like a cop decided to just, he just wanted to kill somebody.
Here's what The Nation says.
Derek Chauvin is the Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd.
Now, that's... that's maybe not true.
The trial stands for this reason.
To determine, to a jury, what really happened.
Now, I suppose it's fair to say the medical examiner said that it was a combination of factors, so you could say that Chauvin is responsible to a certain degree.
We're gonna have to wait for the results of this trial, but they say I don't have to say allegedly killed, because I saw it.
Floyd was alive, and then 8 minutes and 46 seconds later, he was not.
And the only intervening event that happened was Chauvin's knee on his neck.
Actually, that's not true.
And the nation could be subject to libel laws, depending on the outcome of this trial.
If evidence is presented contrary to that fact, and they already did present it, The nation could be held responsible for defaming Chauvin.
Because it is true now, even with witness testimony.
Floyd appeared to be on drugs.
They say Chauvin's trial started this week.
And soon a jury, comprised mainly of white people, of this we can be almost certain, will tell us whether they think killing a black man should be a crime.
In a reasonable world, this trial would be perfunctory.
In a reasonable world, there wouldn't even be a trial.
And there it is again.
I am telling you, this is what they want.
No due process.
No Fifth Amendment.
I'm sorry, you call me biased.
You say that I'm right-wing for standing up for our rights, for the civil rights of minority communities, for trans people, for the LGBTQ community, for mixed-race people, and all these people.
The Constitution applies to them as well.
They have a right to free speech, a right to bear arms, a right to have no one living in their homes, a right to be free from a reasonable search and seizure, a right to a trial by jury, These rights stand for everyone.
And I stand up for that Constitution, because it applies to everyone.
And through these words that were written, the U.S.
has expanded civil rights.
And the nation, a left-wing publication says, there wouldn't even be a trial in a reasonable world.
We put the Nazis on trial.
Nuremberg.
There are trials for everyone to display the crimes they did and prove beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone what they did.
It's not just some vapid celebrity.
It's The Nation, a prominent left-wing publication, saying there would not be a trial.
So forgive me if you think it a little biased when I say a woman trying to take photos during a trial and the media publishing information about the jurors.
Forgive me if I believe it's an attempt to expose the jurors and cause some chaos or corruption in this trial.
It's my opinion.
My opinion could very well be wrong.
That's why it's an opinion.
You look at the facts for yourself.
It's all I can really say.
They go on.
They say there wouldn't even be a trial.
Chauvin would have accepted some kind of plea deal.
That's what most people do when they're caught on camera killing someone.
Maybe, as the defense has already pointed out, in Minneapolis, the police are trained to do what they did.
And if you have a problem with the system, and I do, the system must be changed.
But the individual can't, you can't claim murder when they're told to do it by a public institution.
To me this is insane.
They say we don't live in a reasonable world, we live in a white one.
Chauvin is white, and he's a cop, and his victim was black.
In most situations, that's all you need to get away with murder.
This is the big lie from the left.
This belief that There are thousands, or a thousand plus, innocent and unarmed black individuals killed by police.
They genuinely believe this, because the media keeps making these exaggerated claims, but it's not true.
I've done numerous stories breaking down, well, yes, every single one of these unarmed black individuals who loses their life to a police officer is a tragedy, and we must find some kind of resolution to these matters.
It is not in the thousands.
It is not some recurring theme of great consequence.
It doesn't actually happen all that much.
I believe the number given by the Washington Post was 9 or 13 in 2019.
I believe others said if you want to broaden your criteria, it could be as high as 27.
Each and every one of these deaths is wrong.
I absolutely believe that.
And I absolutely believe there must be accountability.
That doesn't mean it was murder.
It could mean the system is broken.
But when you focus on one guy, and you ignore the greater problems, maybe you don't actually solve that problem.
Now don't get me wrong.
These leftists absolutely want to change the system.
That I understand.
And they should.
Because I think we should change it.
I saw a thread earlier.
There was a bunch of videos.
It was about cash bond.
It made me sick to my stomach.
There's one video where a man, he was, I think he crashed a car or something to that effect.
It was a, I believe it was a misdemeanor charge because his license had been suspended.
And the judge said that bond has been lowered to $1,000.
The man says, I don't have that.
I don't have a mother or a father.
I have no one else.
And I need to go to my children's custody hearing.
I'm trying to get my family back together.
And the judge says, I've already lowered your bond to $1,000.
There's nothing more I will do.
Have a nice day, sir.
Knowing this man has no capability to pay that bond, remanding him to custody Some people, when they're charged with misdemeanors and they're innocent, spend months in jail waiting their trial.
They lose their jobs, they lose their homes.
I have a problem with this.
We are innocent until proven guilty.
We have a right to a speedy trial and I've seen the stories and I've heard them.
Innocent people suffering.
My friends, I have heard it over and over again from people who say, yeah, but I've seen these stories of an offender.
Who commits a crime, they go to jail, or they go to court, and the court says, cashless bond, you're free to go, and they go and commit a crime right away.
It's true.
It is.
But you know what?
Freedom trumps security.
It is better that ten innocent... I'm sorry.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
And Benjamin Franklin said, That it is that 100 guilty persons should escape so that one innocent person shall not suffer is a statement that has long been accepted, I'm paraphrasing here, but it's long been accepted as morally right.
It's Blackstone's formulation.
I understand there are problems with our system, and I absolutely believe they need to be reformed.
The system needs to be reformed.
With the left on that issue, I absolutely agree.
But claiming that because you've seen one video, it justifies not having a trial is the opposite of justice.
That's exactly what they're doing here.
To me, it's sickening.
I'm going to say, Chauvin's attorneys will likely argue that something else killed Floyd during the nearly nine minutes Chauvin was suffocating him.
Well, he didn't.
He wasn't suffocated.
I mean, my understanding is that... I could be wrong about that, actually.
I think the medical examination said it was a combination of a heart condition, drugs, and the restraint.
But I don't believe it was specifically suffocation.
Now, the family's medical examiner, I believe, said it was asphyxiation.
Look, George Floyd had done some bad things in his life.
That's what they report.
But he also had a video, I remember reporting on this, where he was telling young people to stay away from this stuff, to do better, to be better, and it broke my heart to see this guy.
I am very much on the libertarian side of the political spectrum, and I leaned left.
Ideologically, I'm pretty far left on the libertarian spectrum.
But that means, I believe, George Floyd, if he wants to ingest a substance, it's entirely his business, so long as it's not like driving or something like that.
I believe, you know, look, New York just announced they were decriminalizing a certain amount of pot.
Absolutely write in my book.
Do it.
People have a right to chill and mind their own business.
I would love to live in a world where transgendered individuals are armed to the teeth and buying their pot with Bitcoin.
I am very much on the libertarian side of things.
If George Floyd wanted to, you know, put something in his body, it's his choice.
Now, the issue at hand is the counterfeit $20 bill.
The clerk in this case apparently said on trial that he was gonna get in trouble if he tried, you know, turning in counterfeit money, because they'd say, hey, you were supposed to mark these bills, you're supposed to check them.
And so he went to George Floyd.
Apparently, he wanted to tell the guy, like, just come back and pay.
Give me a different bill.
We'll swap it or something.
But the store was adamant.
Called the cops.
That happened.
Now, whether or not George Floyd did anything wrong, we won't know, because that's not what this trial is about.
But, apparently, on the video, the defense has shown, you can see something white on the tongue of George Floyd.
And you can see from the toxicology report, he had drugs in his system.
It's not easy.
None of this is easy.
But the reason why we have trials is to get to the truth at hand.
To try and figure out and prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I guess for the left, they want an ideological victory.
They don't want a trial.
They just want their tribe to win.
That's what they do.
Whether it violates the rules of the court or otherwise.
They don't care about what really happened.
Should a Chauvin go to prison, in my opinion, based on everything I've seen, No.
No, I don't.
However, if you want to argue manslaughter, that may be the case.
It is a fact that the training materials for the Minneapolis PD show the exact thing that Chauvin did.
Now, was he negligent in sitting on George Floyd for 8 minutes and 46 seconds?
That may be the case.
I leave it to the jury.
They're going to hear more than I will.
I suppose we can watch the livestream and see a lot of this evidence, but they'll get to examine it and argue it, debate it.
Maybe Chauvin is responsible because he knew there were risks and he did nothing.
In fact, one of the witnesses apparently said they were yelling to him that he was engaging in a dangerous blood choke and that he needed to stop.
Maybe the Minneapolis Police Department is improperly training their officers.
I strongly believe that may be the case.
In which case, the likely, the responsible outcome is a historic settlement, which they did.
Not during a trial, mind you.
They shouldn't have done that.
And a lawsuit forcing these rules to change.
That's not what's happening, though.
They want the police officers involved to go to prison.
Okay, well, you know what?
If they did something wrong and the evidence proves it, then good.
They should go to prison.
I just have not seen it so far from the evidence.
We'll see how these things play out.
I'd like to show you something.
You see how I mentioned early on the crux of this is the woman who took a photo during the trial.
Let me show you this person's Twitter account.
This individual says, that look when you've been scapegoated by a Hennepin County Sheriff.
Microaggressions are real.
Connect the dots.
Someone then says, I've only been to a court building for traffic-related situations.
Even I know picture-taking isn't allowed.
I knew that before I started driving, you are taking advantage of the judge's grace.
I would have barred you from the premises for the duration of the trial.
And she said, I'm not from here, white boy.
It very much sounds, in my opinion, like this individual knows that she could be exposing the jurors whose identities are being protected, causing problems.
Now, I don't know what her intention was, I just know that the judge reprimanded her for this, and I have my personal opinions about whether or not she was doing something nefarious, and in my personal opinion, as the point of this video, I believe she was, and the judge should have barred her.
This judge is naive, unfortunately.
He seems like a good guy, to be completely honest.
He really does.
I think he's doing a pretty good job, actually, and I respect him, but he does seem naive in not understanding how serious the culture war is and what may happen.
This individual may not have been able to take photos, but someone in the court need only describe the appearance of the jurors.
Nay.
With the information published by Yahoo and the New York Times, essentially creating this dossier, I know it's publicly available information.
I want to stress that point.
I'm not saying these journalists dug up anyone's private details.
But with the collection, the aggregation of that information presented in a clean format, they've certainly made it easier.
And now you need only take one of these individuals, maybe this woman, sit her down with one of these activists who uses his information to pull up names and addresses, and she can say, that's the person, that's the person I saw in the courtroom.
There it is.
Confirmation.
Listen.
From the information published on these news outlets, I guarantee you, I could find out who these people are in minutes.
Minutes.
Maybe several minutes, maybe a few hours.
A few of them I'd probably find immediately.
A photo of a woman from the Minneapolis area riding a motorcycle of the appropriate age, based on the sound of her voice, the things she said about herself and her beliefs.
You can easily break these things down.
It's only a matter of time before the hive mind on the internet does so.
And that worries me.
Because we've heard it.
The nation doesn't want a trial.
Chelsea Handler says there shouldn't be a trial.
Someone already tried taking photos.
I think we're looking at a potential mistrial in the long run.
I don't know though.
I really don't.
Look, I can't predict what's going to happen.
I don't know what's going to happen.
I don't know if George Floyd, uh, you know, I don't know if Derek Chauvin will be found, you know, guilty of murdering George Floyd.
I don't.
What I know is very likely is that no matter what happens, I think there's going to be, I think there's going to be very serious violence and rioting likely across this country.
To me, it's absolutely crazy.
When I think back to the past year, it's almost like several different timelines crashing through each other.
We're in the midst of a pandemic.
You can't go outside.
You gotta wear a mask.
While at the same time, there's the biggest protests we've seen in decades or in this or the past several generations.
How do we have tens of thousands of people marching in the street during a pandemic where no one can go outside?
It just made no sense, did it?
It's like two distinct, divergent realities existing at the same time.
It's the cognitive dissonance of whatever it is these people believe.
My opinion.
I kind of feel like Chauvin will be acquitted.
I really do.
Even if he is found guilty of manslaughter, the other charges could absolutely be dropped.
We have this story for our music today, an opinion piece from Jonathan Turley.
Turley, of course, as you know, is a constitutional scholar.
I believe he's a constitutional scholar.
They say, George Floyd death.
If Derek Chauvin is acquitted, the three other cases could collapse.
Yes, right.
That's absolutely right.
And if that happens, it won't matter if it's Chauvin.
If any one of these police officers is acquitted, they will riot.
And what will be done about it, in my opinion?
Nothing.
I'm saying in my opinion a lot for a reason.
I hope you understand why.
If people go out and riot, as they have been over the past year, and still are in many places, the police won't do anything.
The police may stop them, the police may make some arrests, fine.
Prosecutors won't do anything about it.
These people will be cut loose, and they'll continue until they get tired.
That's the state of this country right now.
So I'm hoping for a peaceful resolution.
I just don't think we're gonna get it.
And as you can see, many on the left don't think we will either.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL where we will discuss many of these issues live and you can comment during the show and we will read many of your comments, as many as we can.
So make sure you check that out at 8 p.m.
and we will see you all then.
There is a crisis at the southern border.
We are seeing a major spike in the amount of illegal immigrants that are trying to cross the border, that are being encountered by Customs and Border Protection, and it's happening earlier than we expected.
As many Democrats tried to point out, this is a seasonal thing.
You know, in the winter months, it's cooler, it's easier to travel through these areas.
We see a major surge in the amount of illegal immigrants coming across the border.
What they're not telling you, however, is that it's happening several months sooner than it normally does.
When you look back at the previous years, and this is data I pulled up from CNN, you can see that it was like, you know, end of April.
Now it's happening February.
Why?
Well, according to some reporters, I believe it was NBC and ABC, the illegal immigrants are outright saying Joe Biden's giving us the opportunity to do it.
That's a problem.
Biden's denied this, but I'm sorry.
He's the president.
This is his problem.
And his rhetoric and his policies absolutely, in the words of the illegal immigrants, it's encouraging them to come.
Well, my friends, Ocasio-Cortez is in the news because of what's happening with one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
And I'm sorry, look, I really don't care to talk about AOC, you know, because it just gives her more attention.
But I'm sorry, man.
This is depressing to me.
AOC says calling border crisis a surge pushes white supremacy.
It's just like nails on a chalkboard.
Like the dumbest person in the room affecting policy.
And I look at this and I'm like, wait, hold on.
AOC does this Instagram thing.
She's got millions of followers.
And she's like, there's no crisis at the border.
You're lying.
Like, outright lying.
Check this out.
ABC's Jonathan Karl rejects Brian Stelter's claim Biden's border crisis is a right-wing narrative.
It's not.
There is a border crisis.
A six-month-old was rescued after being thrown into the Rio Grande.
AOC is one of the worst possible people ever to enter government.
One of the worst.
Because she doesn't care about these kids.
She just uses them as a prop for her stupid performative Instagram trash.
I think it's a crisis if a six-month-old is thrown in a river, AOC.
I think it's a crisis when you have a massive spike in the amount of people coming across, risking their lives to come to this beautiful country because they long for that American dream.
That's a crisis because they're risking their lives.
Don't want them to die.
I want to make sure when they come here, they actually get the American dream.
That's why we have border control.
Human traffickers are abusing people.
People are losing their lives.
Criminal cartels are transporting drugs.
Surprisingly, also, avocados, I guess, which is true, but, you know, sure, whatever.
And AOC decides to claim there's no crisis.
Okay.
When Donald Trump was president, AOC showed up to this fence, and she pretended to cry.
I swear, I'll say, in my opinion, The photos she put up was like her fake crying.
She is a sociopath.
That's what I see in her.
I have no problem.
I have no problem saying Joe Biden is gonna rock in a hard place with these child migrant detention centers.
I don't like Joe Biden, but I understand why these children are being detained because we don't know who their parents are.
Many of them are unaccompanied, and I'm not going to fault him and his administration for having to do it.
Donald Trump the same way, even Obama.
What I will fault is the, look, the duplicitous scumbags like AOC, who all of a sudden now there's no crisis.
There was a crisis under Trump, but not now.
And I actually defended this woman.
You see, James O'Keefe posted photos from these child detention centers, and he was like, hey, AOC, where are you at?
And I was like, well, to be fair, AOC did criticize the Biden administration.
Now she's just saying there's no crisis at all.
She would have these children die.
You know what I want to tell you, my friends?
I'm going to say it.
I have infinitely more respect for illegal immigrants who climb mountains, who traverse vast swaths of desert, who ride on the top of freight trains, who risk life and limb because they want that American dream so bad.
Now, I don't respect the breaking of the law, but that desire That dream, that vision of America, I understand it.
And they know it is worth dying for.
That, to me, is incredible.
Nearly brings a tear to my eye.
All of these people from these countries are like, if I could only be in America.
And then you get people like AOC who are like, it's white supremacy to use the word surge.
What's up with these uppity, well-to-do progressives who are like, America is a racist slavocracy.
We have the worst healthcare.
They're lying.
And you know what, man?
They want to let all of these illegal immigrants come into the country.
I want to let all the immigrants in the country, too.
I genuinely do.
But the process that we have in place is to make sure they don't end up being trafficked.
It's to make sure they don't end up being used as surf labor by massive multinational corporations that don't want to pay benefits.
It's to make sure that when they enter the United States, they actually get the American dream and don't have to live as second-class citizens being manipulated by a bunch of these corporations and by activists like AOC.
So it's tough.
We can't just have everyone just show up, because if we truly want to maintain the American Dream, there needs to be some kind of structure in place.
I would love it for all of these people who truly believe in America to find that American Dream.
So, my respect to them for willing to sacrifice life and limb, which so many progressives are not as they complain about this country.
So perhaps, Perhaps, maybe, we can come to an agreement.
The people who hate America and think it's absolutely racist and evil, why don't we have you go to Mexico and Guatemala and Honduras, and you can help the people there, and you can help make that country better, and then while, you know, you're away, we'll have the illegal immigrants who truly believe in America become brought in the process correctly, legally, and then, you know, we can make sure we maintain that proper system.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I'm just... I really am fed up with this idea from these progressives, how much they hate this country.
And they really do.
I'm not saying that all liberals hate this country.
That's not true.
There are many liberals who are Second Amendment people, who just didn't like Donald Trump.
Many of them are fairly moderate.
I consider myself to be a moderate, left-leaning, liberal-type individual.
There's a lot of people who just don't pay attention and don't care, and that's the big problem.
And they get taken advantage of by grifters and con artists, sociopaths, and scammers like AOC, who say stupid garbled nonsense.
Let's actually read the story.
The New York Post reports, Rep AOC has finally addressed the border crisis, but only to accuse anyone of using the term surge of pushing a white supremacist philosophy.
It's mind-numbing that people fall for this stuff.
Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly been accused of ducking the dangerously overcrowded migrant detention centers, despite saying they were akin to concentration camps under the previous administration.
She initially appeared outraged when asked during an Instagram Live Ask Me Anything session why she was not addressing the border crisis and the kids in cages like you used to.
Asking after a pause, are you for real?
It's not a border crisis.
It's an imperialism crisis.
It's a climate crisis.
It's a trade crisis.
And also, it's a carceral crisis, she said, without directly addressing the kids in cages' allegations itself.
But people don't want to have that conversation.
They want to say, but what about the surge?
Well, first of all, gut check.
Stop.
Anyone who's using the term surge around you consciously is trying to invoke a militaristic frame.
It breaks my heart that there are people who are dumb enough to fall for this kind of garbled nonsense.
Surge does not mean anything other than a large amount flowing through something.
That's it.
Look up the definition.
And she goes, these are not- it is not a surge.
These are not insurgents.
These are children.
Remember that really awful video where she was in, it was a Congress session, they were questioning the head of, I think it was CBP, or DHS, I'm not sure.
And she's like, with all due respect, these are not illegal immigrants.
They are legal asylees.
They've broken no law.
And the guy's like, subchecks, you know, 2A code, you know, U.S.
code 1930, crossing the border without proper blah blah blah as a criminal offense.
And he just like set it straight up.
AOC, her whole shtick is that she throws red meat of meaningless garbled nonsense to activists who are tribalists and don't care about the truth.
And you know what?
This is a problem.
What she's doing is a problem.
I don't care to talk about her stupid social media nonsense, but when you've got millions of followers and they believe this trash, Look at this, a child's shoe at the Rio Grande.
She says, and that's the problem because it's not a surge.
These are children and they are not insurgents and we are not being invaded.
Which, by the way, is a white supremacist philosophy.
The idea that, okay, I get it.
I get it.
You're a hypocrite and a liar.
And under Trump, you said, kids in cages.
Under Trump, I said, Donald Trump, I get it.
He inherited these from Obama, but what's he gonna do with these kids?
They're gonna be trafficked.
Now under Joe Biden, you won't even talk about it.
Why?
Because she just wants to be a tribalist.
She doesn't care about you.
She doesn't care about these kids.
She cares about the social media followers and rallying the tribe.
That's it.
The leftist tribe, those who don't care for policy, just want to own the cons!
That's it.
We are right, always, no matter what, even when we contradict ourselves.
Joe Biden is right to have these facilities to hold these young people while we try and figure out what to do with them, where they should go, who their parents are.
It's not an easy task.
And so...
As much as I don't like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, I get it.
Now Kamala Harris is awful because she was actually protesting Donald Trump's facilities.
Now here she is, part of the administration that's running them.
Spare me.
Brian Stelter.
Another duplicitous, manipulative liar.
Tried claiming it's a right-wing talking point.
Okay.
ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl pushed back Sunday against an assertion by CNN's left-wing media guru Brian Stelter that President Biden's border crisis is a manufactured right-wing narrative.
Stelter accused conservative media outlets on the latest edition of Reliable Sources of pressuring Biden to visit the southern border amid the surge of migrants trying to get into the U.S.
That is how right-wing narratives trickle into the rest of the press, and they divert attention, Stelter told his panelists.
The guests, Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte, both agreed Republicans are setting the agenda on immigration, and they decide that there's a border crisis.
Heaven forbid, CNN itself literally reported that we are seeing a major spike in unaccompanied minors coming to the border much, much sooner, predicting it may be the worst we've seen in 20 years.
Also, Reuters backs that up.
What are we supposed to do when we have politicians like AOC that don't believe news is real?
Or when Brian Stelter is more interested in telling us what Fox News said instead of telling us what's actually happening?
Brian Stelter, one of the worst people on TV, I swear to God.
He just runs the Fox News Review Show.
That's what he does.
His job is to watch Fox News and then tell you what Fox News said.
Then he comes out and says everything they say is wrong.
And if he actually watched ABC, for instance, maybe he wouldn't have been blindsided by Carl, who says.
Moments later, Carl was welcomed onto the program to discuss what he thought about the questions that were asked at Biden's first press conference.
As Stelter noted, the questioners included Carl's colleague, ABC News White House correspondent Cecilia Vega, who grilled the president on the migrant crisis.
But I thought it was the right wing narrative that was driving this, quote.
Watching from home.
I would have liked to have seen, you know, more questions, certainly questions on COVID, but there were good questions asked.
You pointed to Cecilia Vega.
I think that's incredibly valuable.
That is not right-wing talking points.
Cecilia had just been at the border.
She had just talked to migrants who have come over, including some of that point-blank That they had come because they thought they would have better treatment now that Joe Biden was president.
That's a legitimate question to put to the president, and I thought his answer was one of the more interesting moments in the press conference.
Stelter quickly moved on to a different subject.
If Brian Stelter had any iota of honesty in his body, he'd point out CNN themselves filmed the segment where they watched a human trafficker smuggling people over the border.
And it was so shocking that prospect.org and many leftists accused CNN of staging the video or at least knowing it was staged and colluding with the far right and CBP or something to that effect.
But Brian Stelter's job is just to go, Fox News says these things and now I have to tell you that Fox News is bad.
Is that it?
Do people really watch this guy?
Talk about a fall from grace, Brian.
Remember when you used to report on the media and now all you and Oliver Darcy do is watch Fox News and then complain about Fox News?
Bravo, good sir.
You don't talk about anything substantive anymore.
That's the reality of politics and the media these days.
Well, good on Jonathan Karl for pointing this out and pushing back because it's reality.
I just don't understand, I gotta be honest.
How you could be following someone like Ocasio-Cortez or Brian Stelter and hear contradictory statements over and over again?
Does the cognitive dissonance at some point not shatter your brain and wake you up from the matrix?
Hey, wait a minute!
AOC said it was a crisis under Trump.
Now she's saying it's not a crisis, even though the numbers are getting worse.
Right now, the peak in illegal immigrants that we've seen, according to data pulled I showed from CNN in a previous segment, is not nearly as high as it was in May of 2019.
But, it is quickly becoming the second highest we've seen, and because the surge is happening months earlier than normal, it is predicted it will be the worst we've seen in 20 years.
These are people who are risking their lives who could die.
These are people.
These are human traffickers.
This is from valleycentral.com.
News guard certified.
Okay?
Six-month-old rescued after being thrown into Rio Grande, Texas.
DPS says they posted a photo of it.
On March 16th, the Texas Department of Public Safety, South Texas Special Operations Group, helped U.S.
Border Patrol rescue a six-month-old girl from the Rio Grande River.
Texas DPS Lieutenant Christopher Olivares told KVEO that the mother and child had been waiting in Mexico since December to cross into the U.S.
The mother paid smugglers $3,500 to cross the Rio Grande into the U.S.
The mom was assaulted by the smugglers in Mexico, which resulted in a broken leg.
The family of two crossed the river in rafts along with 67 adults and 150 children.
While crossing the river, the six-month-old baby was thrown out of the raft.
The child was safe and is now with her mother in the U.S.
Border Patrol custody.
These Border Patrol agents are heroes.
Not every single person is a hero.
Not every single person I can vouch for.
But these guys who saw this six-month-old baby and saved her life and brought the child back to her mother?
Heroes.
AOC is one of the most... It's the banality of evil.
They don't care about you.
They don't care about solving these problems.
They don't care about being honest.
They care about power.
That's what she wants.
Power.
More followers.
She wants to grow and expand her influence.
She doesn't care about anything.
It makes me sick to my stomach that she is in government and represents people in New York.
But you know what?
These people just don't care, don't pay attention, and they just vote for the D. Here's what I think.
Take the party symbols off the ballots.
No D, no R. You gotta know who you're voting for.
Still, AOC is a celebrity, so she'd probably win anyway.
But I just look at this and it's just absolutely insane and disgusting.
She has been criticized very heavily for not coming out and talking about this.
Where were you?
You went to that fence during Trump and you cried.
Where are you now?
Complaining that the language is racist and there's not actually a crisis.
Think about all of these people.
I'm really angry, man.
Children are dying.
It bothers me.
People are risking their lives.
As I stated, infinitely more respect for these people who are willing to risk everything.
Everything!
Life and limb.
Cartels, drugs, all of that nasty stuff because they believe in America.
They believe in this country because they know just how amazing it is.
Again, I don't respect the illegal immigration.
I don't respect the crime.
But I respect that feeling deep in their hearts that they know what is true.
America is great.
And you look at someone like AOC.
She would deny these people.
She would deny the crisis.
She did.
And this means to her millions of followers who are now being told, there's no crisis at all!
More people will die.
More children will die.
We need resources at the southern border.
We need heroes like these CBP officers who saved the six-month-old baby.
Six-month-old baby thrown out of the raft.
We need more heroes like them, who know what the job entails, who know that these people like AOC will smear them, will lie about them, will call them evil and white supremacists, but they're still willing to do the job that needs to be done and save lives.
Instead, we get high-profile, duplicitous manipulators who want to suck the power from the working class for themselves so they can gain status, get re-elected, and then, when we're truly at our worst and in desperate need, she will come out and say, there's no crisis.
Ignore what they're saying at the border.
The same is true for Brian Stelter of CNN.
There's no crisis.
It's a right-wing talking point.
A right-wing talking point.
Children are dying, and Brian Stalter just says it's a right-wing talking point, even ignoring his own network and the things they've reported.
Surge.
Insurgent.
This is what we get, huh?
We got problems, my friends, and I don't have all the solutions.
We want to balance the freedom of the individual with some kind of structure that makes this system work.
We have questions about whether or not people should have skin in the game when they vote.
It's a very difficult question.
A lot of people like that idea, service guarantees citizenship, which we've seen from Starship Troopers.
I'm not so sure that's the right idea.
I get the idea.
I'm not necessarily a fan, but the idea was basically you would serve in some way.
Not necessarily the military, but you would serve the community for two years, and that guaranteed you the right to vote.
There was a difference between civilians and citizens.
Full citizens could vote.
Maybe then, we wouldn't have people like AOC.
Maybe if there were some skin in the game and some requirement, then you wouldn't have people just walking in and blindly saying, oh, AOC, I guess.
And then it would also stop people who are manipulating and lying to a certain degree.
Imagine if people did have some kind of aptitude test, or like not even a... I'm not talking about something like a very difficult thing.
I'm talking about a basic, you have to come in, fill out a form, and then come back later, just some speed bump.
This idea that everyone and anyone should vote.
is a manipulation.
They want to claim that you oppose people's rights.
No.
Rights come with responsibilities as well.
And what was that famous saying?
With great power comes great responsibility.
Spiderman.
Voting is incredibly important.
It's also incredibly powerful and it can also be incredibly dangerous if you vote in despots and fascists and authoritarians and communists because they will lie, cheat, and steal to gain power.
So we need to make sure that people understand what their vote means.
I want everybody to vote.
I really do.
Everyone.
I think each individual has the right to have their voice heard.
I think the issue, though, is that Democrats are doing everything in their power to make it so that people are sleeping on their couch, not paying attention to what's going on in the world, and a ballot just drops in their lap, and they sign it, and they throw it in a mailbox, and they walk away, having no idea what's happening around them.
At the very least, have people get up and go to the polling station.
No, not even that.
And Democrats will continue to exploit low-information voters.
And AOC is the perfect example of it.
She is a master of manipulation.
It's not a migrant crisis.
It's an imperialism crisis.
Don't mind what's happening to this six-month-old baby being thrown in a river.
And I always say that as, like, the caveat of, like, this is not just me not liking the Democrats.
I don't like the Republican Party either, and I don't know if I'll ever vote.
I voted Republican for, like, the first time in my life, a down ticket, with Donald Trump and these other Republicans.
I'm not a fan of them either.
I'm just... I don't know, I'm fed up.
And I know a lot of other people are as well.
Go watch Man of the Year with Robin Williams, it's amazing.
Robin Williams is supposed to be this, like, Jon Stewart type figure, and one of his talking points is complaining about 4 million illegal immigrants crossing the border.
And I'm like, this is a liberal TV show host in 2006 complaining about illegal immigration?
Yeah, only a couple years later, we saw the likes of Schumer and Bernie talking about the need for a border barrier.
Donald Trump offered that up, and they called him racist for it.