S5135 - Democrats Have Come Out AGAINST The 4th of July And The American Flag, The U.S. Is Being TORN Apart
Democrats Have Come Out AGAINST The 4th of July And The American Flag, The U.S. Is Being TORN Apart. A new story from the New York Times shows the overwhelming majority of Democrats do not feel the American flag represents their party.
Democrats Maxine Waters and Cori bush recently criticized the U.S. and the 4th of July over the history of slavery.
Republicans increasingly embrace the flag and America
While more and more democrats and activists jump on the anti-america bandwagon there are many who seek to deny the shift is happening
BLM rioters have attacked residences over American flags and even at a pride event in NYC a street vendor was attacked over the flag
#Democrats
#BLMRiots
#Republicans
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
More and more Democrats are coming out against Independence Day and the American flag.
In one story from the New York Times, they mention that Democrats don't feel the flag represents their party anymore.
This country is dangerously divided.
In our next story, Antifa shows up and attacks protesters angry that a biological male exposed himself to children in a spa.
Well, the spa says they can't discriminate on the basis of identity, and this is a very strange hill for the left to die on, but it seems they will.
In our last story, San Francisco faces a mass exodus as nearly half of all residents say they are preparing to leave as crime skyrockets and the quality of life diminishes.
If you like this podcast, please give us a good review and leave five stars.
And if you really like the podcast, please share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
This story is actually one of the more difficult to report on, because there are many people
who consider themselves to be Democrats, who like the 4th of July, who like the American
flag, and won't believe the subject matter in this video.
They'll simply see the thumbnail and say, that's not true.
Democrats like the flag and like the 4th of July.
And that's because the issue is There are different factions among Republican voters and Democrat voters and among people who consider themselves to be supporters of the Democrats or the Republicans or outright politicians within these parties.
Now, of course, there are Democrats that are like voting Democrats who are active and pay attention.
genuinely hate the American flag, or hold a general disdain for it, do not like the 4th of July, and there are local-level politicians that will shut down 4th of July events, take down the American flag, hold Juneteenth events, put up the Pride flag, and there are prominent Democratic members of Congress who have come out smearing the 4th of July and making these tired arguments about white men, etc.
Then, of course, you have the default liberals.
Maybe people who passively watch the news online don't pay attention to the plethora of content that I produce and see a headline that says Democrats don't like the flag and they say, Tim Pool is lying!
Well, certainly, there are many Democrats who do support the flag.
But in one poll, only 34% of people who identify as Democrats said they recognize that flag as of their party or related to their party.
So no, the Democrats are increasingly holding some kind of anger towards the flag or disparaging it.
And we're even seeing, as has been noted numerous times, embassies for the United States flying the Black Lives Matter flag.
If half the country or so is divided among those who like the flag and those who mostly don't, Well, something bad is happening.
I mean, we're headed for dark times.
We have a variety of stories.
We have Maxine Waters.
We have Cori Bush coming out, speaking out against the 4th of July, because they don't know enough about history.
And that's why it's so important we make sure schools are teaching American history, so they can understand the nuances of, say, why the Founding Fathers said all men are created equal, but then held slaves.
Because, as it turns out, many of the Founding Fathers actually did oppose slavery, but let's just say They were, in a sense, morally weak, but also beholden to the realities of the political power they were trying to possess, and the difficulties in actually securing independence for the United States.
There was actually an early draft which said, from Thomas Jefferson, that slavery was essentially an evil on humanity, but of course there are many serious political reasons as to why it never came about, but Abraham Lincoln noted that it was the founding fathers who planted the seeds to eventually end slavery, and a bloody war was fought.
So let me tell you something.
As someone who comes from a family who fought long and hard for civil rights and who suffered under identitarian law, America is amazing.
The 4th of July represents a new kind of country where people from all over the world can live together peacefully.
And it was long and hard fought, but we did it.
There's still a lot of fighting to do.
But these Democrats want to disparage the idea of America.
For what?
What other country is there that's doing half as much as America has done?
No, I respect the flag.
And I think we need to have people in this country understand the value of it.
And I do respect those who would question the flag or even burn the flag, assuming it's their own.
Now, I don't agree with it, but I agree with their right to do it.
And I agree with the internal discussions.
But let's take a look at the Democrats who are increasingly opposed to these flags.
The New York Times ran an article saying that the flag has become a divisive symbol in this country.
And a bunch of conservatives got mad and were slamming the New York Times saying, no way, America has the flag.
No, hold on.
The New York Times is right.
Increasingly, we are seeing more and more Democrats from the lowest level voter to the highest level politician disparaging the flag and this country and what it represents while claiming it's the Republicans who are a threat to democracy.
Now look, if the Democrats, the Black Lives Matter activists, and Antifa want something else, that's fine.
Just admit it and stop pretending that the Democratic Party is for this country when they oppose its founding institutions.
Now we can criticize the Founding Fathers, but what they're doing is something else.
It's absolutely anti-America.
You don't have to love this country if you live here, but you also need to recognize we do face serious global threats, and there's an important discussion that has to be had about what this means moving forward, especially as more and more communications end up on the global stage, our social media communications.
Well, let's start with Maxine Waters and see what she said, and then I want to talk to you about, yes, regular, run-of-the-mill Democrats who do not like the flag, or at least what it represents.
And of course, they blame Trump.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member and you will get access to exclusive members-only segments from the TimCast IRL podcast.
Now, right now I can't scroll down because one of the reasons we set up this site is to have conversations that YouTube does not allow.
We have those on our website.
You can actually go and check out these videos if you're a member, but we're going to be adding more and more content.
So, when you're a member, expect to get more value for your membership as time goes on.
Because we're going to be building out culture.
We're also producing articles.
We're hiring journalists.
We're going to do real boots-on-the-ground journalism.
We're going to hire people to go and cover these rallies, and that's with your support.
But don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to this channel.
But most importantly, share this video.
I know it may be hard for a lot of people who view themselves as Democrats to accept this, but I think this information is important.
They may not want to hear it.
And many probably will reject even listening to any of the arguments, but I think it's very important that they do.
So, you can try to share this, ask them to watch it.
They may be too biased to want to hear the fact that, yes, Democrats increasingly oppose the flag, and or I say more so the 4th of July, but the flag is in there.
The New York Times said so.
That these people, these Democratic voters, do not recognize the flag as a symbol that represents them.
And there are many prominent activists in the Democratic Party who are saying the same thing.
The flag never, you know, meant anything to me.
It never represented me.
But it did.
It always did.
And then you had that Olympic hammer thrower.
Who refused to give respect to the national anthem, saying it doesn't represent me, even though prior to this, a few years ago, she's seen holding up the American flag.
There's an ideology sweeping across this U.S.
that despises this country, even though the U.S.
is one of the only countries on the planet that actually expands civil rights outside of your identity.
Of course, Europe does in many ways as well, but most of the world, the laws are based on race.
That's horrifying.
Here's the first story from the Daily Caller.
Only white men.
Maxine Waters goes on anti-American rant on July 4th.
You can call it a rant, it was a tweet, but they say, In one tweet, Waters attacked the Declaration of Independence and questioned its words and meaning, saying, July 4th.
And so the Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal.
Equal to what?
What men?
Only white men?
Isn't it something that they wrote?
Isn't it something that they wrote this in 1776, when African Americans were enslaved?
They weren't thinking about us then, but were thinking about us now.
But we are thinking about us now.
Waters also appeared to suggest America is a racist country.
She mentioned voter reform laws, and she brought up the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, and Tamir Rice.
She said, further, the Declaration of Independence says we hold these truths to be self-evident, yet 17 states have enacted voter suppression laws.
Supreme Court gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice.
Need I say more?
There are certainly a lot of problems in this country, but I find it truly remarkable that you have these people who only focus on the negatives as a way to disparage all of the progress and everything we've accomplished.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act.
My family, before this, I'm sorry, even after this, it wasn't until 1967, Loving v. Virginia, that my family was actually safe to show their love.
Interracial marriage was illegal.
I know that.
I know the United States has a bad history.
And I know we won.
Why?
The Founding Fathers created a framework for all their moral ills.
But with this moral framework of classical liberalism and the three branches of government, we asked the hard questions and we won.
In the long run, we did.
Now, I think the problem for the professional activist class is that they can't accept that they won or that they're winning.
When Amazon.com and Walmart are flying your flag and putting up your slogans, admit it!
The powerful cultural institutions are on your side.
You've won!
Now, there are still fights to be had, but they're going to keep pretending like it's never going to be enough, or that it's always going to be a racist country.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax deductible donations.
So go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet and greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Quote, When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this.
The freedom they're referring to is for white people.
This land is stolen land, and black people still aren't free.
Some people spoke out about the anti-America sentiment in the tweets of U.S.
Reps actor Dean Cain.
Actor Dean Cain called such tweets divisive and said they do nothing to help Americans.
That's literally what he said.
Support this person at your own peril, Kane tweeted.
Dangerous, divisive rhetoric that does nothing to help the USA or its citizens.
Now, of course, I can already hear people saying, Tim, this is but two Democratic politicians.
Yeah, but come on.
Federal-level members of Congress disparaging our own country.
It's not... Well, look, I think criticism is fair to a certain degree.
But this, I think, is missing tons of context.
What did July 4th mean?
It meant a lot.
And the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were sacrificing everything, knowing they would likely lose the war.
And with their names on these documents, when the war was over, Everything, even their families, would be taken from them.
One signer's wife was kidnapped by the British to be used in a prisoner exchange.
Many lost their homes or had their homes occupied in certain cities.
They knew what they were signing on to this.
They were signing away everything they had by making this declaration under the belief that you need the consent of the governed.
And an early draft included a passage from Thomas Jefferson complaining about slavery.
Of course, you can call Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite.
He had slaves.
And on his deathbed, he did not free them.
Absolutely criticize that.
But you know what I will say?
For all his moral failings, he planted a seed.
And we latched onto that to create one of the most tolerant countries in the existence of humanity.
The left talks so much about multiculturalism.
That's right.
In all of these different cities, all our big cities, we have different cultural areas.
I grew up in Chicago.
We have Chinatown.
Okay, most people understand Chinatown.
We also have Little Italy.
We have Ukrainian Village.
We have areas.
We have Polish neighborhoods.
The area I grew up in was mostly mixed, but it was very much a Polish neighborhood.
And all of these places, they get along just fine.
It's not perfect.
New York has weird drug dealer conflicts between Jewish drug dealers and black drug dealers.
No joke!
Actually, I don't know where they're at now.
I've left New York a long time ago.
But certainly there are weird conflicts that happen.
But for the most part, we all kind of get along.
Because this country's great.
Because the seeds planted by the Founding Fathers demanded a change.
And this idea of classical liberalism I think is amazing.
The rights of the individual, the pursuit of happiness, and that's where we're at.
But let's talk now about regular Democrats.
Because I can already hear people saying, okay, but Tim, prove to me that there are regular people, run-of-the-mill Democrats, who don't like the American flag or the 4th of July.
From the New York Times, a 4th of July symbol of unity that may no longer unite.
In a Long Island town, neighbors now make assumptions, true and sometimes false, about people who conspicuously display American flags.
Well, here's a guy, a farmer.
He's got a big ol' American flag on the side of his truck.
Check this out.
The American flag flies in paint on the side of Peter Traber Jr.' 's potato truck, a local landmark parked permanently on County Route 48.
Doing little more, he thought, than drawing attention to his family farm, until he tried to sell his produce.
At a local green market, where he sells things like wild bergamot, honey, and sunflowers, he had trouble striking a deal until he said he let his liberal leaning slip out in a conversation with a customer.
She said, Oh, Wu, you know, I wasn't so sure about you.
I thought you were some flag-waving something or other.
Mr. Treeber, 32, recalled them and sang, and sighting his potato truck display.
That's why she was apprehensive of interacting with me.
He paused.
It was a little sad to me.
It shows the dichotomy of the country that a flag can mean that.
That I had to think, do I need to reconsider having that out there?
It's an actual quote from a human being in this country, who said, maybe I should get rid of the American flag?
Yes.
Thirteen stripes, a dusting of stars.
The American flag has had infinite meanings over the 244 years since the country began flying one.
Raised at Iwo Jima, it was a symbol of victory.
Lit on fire, it became a searing image of the protest against the Vietnam War.
Ribboned around the Twin Towers on commemorative September 11th lapel pins, it is a reminder of the threats against a delicate democracy.
Politicians of both parties have long sought to wrap themselves in the flag, but something may be changing.
Today, flying the flag from the back of a pickup truck or over a lawn is increasingly seen as a clue, albeit an imperfect one, to a person's political affiliation in a deeply divided nation.
Conservatives have long pointed this out.
It's strange to me that people are acting like this is not true.
The New York Post reporting, New York Times sparks July 4th outrage by claiming American flag alienating to some.
It is.
Senator Tom Cotton slams New York Times for suggesting the American flag is divisive.
It is.
Accept it.
Long throughout the culture war, we have pointed out that putting an American flag in your name on Twitter suggested that you were not on the left.
It was typically only conservatives that would do this, Trump supporters, and that flying an American flag from your home was a surreptitious way of saying you do not support the establishment's leftist agenda.
And we have a more serious story from the New York Times of protesters who went to a man's home and, for flying the American flag, threatened to burn it to the ground.
And the New York Times reported that as well.
Reporting.
This is back September 21st.
Some protests against police brutality take a more confrontational approach.
A more confrontational approach.
That's one way to say it.
Terrence Moses was watching protesters against police brutality march down his quiet residential street one recent evening, when some in the group of a few hundred suddenly stopped and started yelling.
Mr. Moses was initially not sure what the protesters were upset about.
But as he got closer, he saw it.
His neighbors had an American flag on display.
Quote.
It went from a peaceful march, calling out the names, to all of a sudden, bang.
How dare you fly the American flag, said Mr. Moses, who is black and runs a non-profit group in the Portland area.
They said, take it down.
They wouldn't leave.
They said they're going to come back and burn the house down.
Mr. Moses and others blocked the demonstrators and told them to leave.
We don't go around terrorizing folks to try and force them to do something they don't want to do, said Mr. Moses, whose non-profit group provides support for local homeless people.
I'm a veteran.
I'm for these liberties.
These were Black Lives Matter protesters with no opposition threatening a man with burning down his home unless he removed the American flag.
Tell me Black Lives Matter is not supported by the Democratic Party.
Tell me that the Black Lives Matter protesters are not Democratic voters and I will find you a liar.
These people vote for Joe Biden.
Even the more extreme elements and pro-Antifa YouTubers came out and said, you have to vote for Joe Biden.
Now, many of them may not consider themselves to be Democrats in a certain sense, but there are varying degrees of what makes someone a Republican or a Democrat.
Now, in a certain respect, you could call me Republican.
Why?
I voted Republican in 2020.
And that could be a fair point to be made.
However, I'm actually more of a libertarian, as evidenced by the podcast episode I did with Charlie Kirk and Will Chamberlain, two conservatives, who said to me, eh, your argument's more a libertarian one.
Yeah, we're conservatives.
And I said, fair point.
That's true.
I am a fairly moderate centrist type libertarian, a little left-leaning.
But yeah, very libertarian.
And the conservatives are not so libertarian.
So there may be an overlap.
You could then point to many of these people and say they're not Democrats, they're leftists.
But they still vote Democrat.
So very much so.
I have no problem saying I supported Donald Trump in 2020.
I have since said I don't know if Donald Trump should run in 2024.
Maybe Ron DeSantis should.
Because it'll pull out some of the fangs from the media, to put it mildly.
But I'm not entirely sure.
A lot of people think Trump should run.
And I think Trump could probably win in 2024.
I don't know.
We'll see how it plays out.
There's a lot to be seen.
That being said, a lot of Libertarians did support Donald Trump.
Maybe didn't vote for him.
A lot of them voted for him but didn't support him.
They voted for him because they didn't like what the Democrats had to offer.
I liked a lot of Donald Trump's agenda.
Absolutely.
And I think the Democrats are really bad.
And I think this kind of thing is really bad.
So let's put it mildly.
There are many, as we see in this story from the New York Times, run-of-the-mill Democrats, liberals, who didn't want to buy a potato because the guy had the American flag.
Now, they might argue, no, we do like the American flag.
We don't like how Trump supporters fly it and have used it.
It doesn't matter whether they fly it and use it.
What matters is that you won't.
I got a Gadsden flag flying in my garage.
The Gadsden flag.
Don't tread on me, the snake.
It represents libertarianism or classical liberalism.
Leave me alone.
You do you, I do me.
Don't aggress upon me and I won't aggress upon you, but I do have the right to defend myself if you tread on me.
I will bite you.
That's what it means.
It doesn't mean anything else.
It's not a white supremacist symbol.
It's not even necessarily an overtly pro-America symbol, though it kind of is in some respects.
It's one of the original flags representing the cause of independence in the revolution.
But some people who fly that flag have pretty awful ideologies.
I fly it because of what it actually means.
I don't care that there are awful people that also fly it.
If the Democrats don't want to fly the American flag, yes, they are increasingly becoming opposed to the flag itself, simply because some other people like to use it as well.
To me, that's absurd.
They go into mention at the New York Times, supporters of former President Trump have embraced the flag so fervently at his rallies across conservative media, and even during the January 6th assault on the Capitol, sure, that many liberals like Mr. Traber worry that the left has all but ceded the national emblem to the right.
This is the New York Times saying this.
Liberals Are worried the left has ceded the national emblem to the right.
Well, they're not nationalists.
They don't care for this country.
In fact, they hate it.
They speak out against it.
Now, you may be saying, no, no, no, no, I still reject this, Tim.
It's one article about one guy.
Okay, they even go on to mention the 4th of July.
But let me come back to this.
From Fox News, I know you may be saying, Fox News, we don't like it.
NYT MSNBC's Mara Gay, disturbing to see dozens of American flags on trucks in Long Island.
New York Times board member, there needs to be a conversation about whiteness.
Maybe at this point, you're going to say to me, no, I reject this.
If you are a Democrat, and you are adamant that Democrats don't hate the flag, what do you say to all of these Democrats who are disturbed by, critical of, or outright disparage the American flag?
What do you say of all the Black Lives Matter activists who burn the flag?
Do you agree with, what was her name, Gwen Barry?
The Olympic athlete who said, the anthem doesn't represent me?
If you do, why stand by the flag?
If you think this country was founded by bigots and racists, and you defend these activists, well they don't stand by the flag, why would you?
Just admit to yourself you don't like these things.
It shouldn't be so hard, let it go.
The reality is most people won't let it go because they don't want to accept it.
But eventually your kids will grow up in a country where they hate it.
They hate this country, and many are and do.
And therein lies a very serious problem.
Back in the New York Times they say, what was once a unifying symbol, there is a star for each state, is now alienating the some.
And it has made the celebration of the 4th of July, of patriotic bunting and cakes with blueberries and strawberries arranged to Old Glory into another cleft in a country that seems no longer quite so indivisible under a flag threatening to fray.
What's that?
Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Yeah, we said it.
We said it over and over again.
And the left came out and said you never really meaned it.
You never really meant it.
You were just saying that because you wanted people to believe in empowering themselves.
Perhaps that's true.
Perhaps we can say the same of many of the leftists today.
They don't actually believe in opposing racism.
In fact, they make the problem worse.
When you look at the Founding Fathers, they didn't make the cause of us being emboldened by the crown worse.
They fought for independence and won that independence.
But what of the Founding Fathers?
What of them?
Why, over at History.com, a very important lesson that must be taught to all of our children.
Why Thomas Jefferson's anti-slavery passage was removed from the Declaration of Independence.
The Founding Fathers were fighting for freedom, just not for everyone.
That's technically the truth.
I mean, it's the truth.
They were fighting for freedom.
Many of the Founding Fathers did want freedom for everyone.
But they were far from perfect.
Yeah.
Slavery is an evil on this planet.
And we realized that thanks to the philosophical writings of even the Founding Fathers and the people who came before them.
It's an awful thing.
It didn't just exist in the United States, it existed everywhere.
And in fact, today, it still exists.
And it is evil.
Individuals have a right to be free and should not be held captive and forced into any... I mean, you can thank the Democrats, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, for what they did in Libya, which reignited the North African slave trade, which is horrifying.
And, you know, I don't know what I'll say about that, but let's take a look at what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it.
History.com says, With its soaring rhetoric about all men being created equal, the Declaration of Independence gave powerful voice to the values behind the American Revolution.
Critics, however, saw a glaring contradiction.
Many of the colonists who sought freedom from British tyranny themselves bought and sold human beings.
By underpinning America's nascent economy with the brutal institution of chattel slavery, they deprived roughly one-fifth of the population of their own inalienable right to liberty.
What isn't widely known, however, is that Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in an early version of the Declaration, drafted a 168-word passage that condemned slavery as one of the many evils foisted upon the colonies by the British Crown.
The passage was cut from the final wording.
Now many will tell you that the reason it was is because Thomas Jefferson knew that in order to secure independence, he needed as many colonies as possible to agree.
And if he put that in the Declaration, Georgia and South Carolina would have said no.
In fact, many of the southern states probably would have said no.
And thus, it'd be over.
And it's also true the Founding Fathers, many of them, thought they wouldn't win anyway, but they needed as much support as possible.
If it wasn't for the French intervention on behalf of the colonists, we probably would not have won independence.
So it's unfortunate.
For political reasons, slavery was allowed to persist.
It would have been tremendous if in 1776 slavery was officially ended.
In fact, Britain ended up abolishing slavery earlier than the U.S.
did.
And not even through war.
Many speculate that should we never have gained independence, the British Empire would have abolished slavery in the colonies.
In fact, I think that's unfair, actually.
I think it's possible that should we never have gained independence, Britain would have retained slavery because they would have gotten their civil war or fight.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
The crown may have then intervened in the 1830s to stop slavery in the southern, you know, British colonies, or the political pressure from the southern British colonies may have forced the crown to say, we'll hold off on abolishing slavery.
We don't know for sure.
But let's read.
They say, While Jefferson is credited with infusing the Declaration with enlightenment-derived ideals of freedom and equality, the nation's founding document as its moral mission statement would remain forever silent on the issue of slavery, that a mission would create a legacy of exclusion for people of African descent that engendered centuries of struggle over basic human and civil rights.
I actually think the founding documents planted the seeds by which we were able to achieve these civil rights.
Here's what the deleted passage said.
said, quote, he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred
rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him,
captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable
And many died in transportation, and many then suffered into slavery.
Thomas Jefferson called out the king, saying, you are trading in humans!
Amazing.
He went on to call it piratical warfare.
Exciting those very people to rise in arms among us and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
It's a shame that the southern colonies Wanted slavery and were willing to fight to keep it.
Disgusting.
It's a shame that Thomas Jefferson held slaves himself even after saying something so bold.
A bit hypocritical to say the least.
Absolutely.
It's a shame that in order to fight for independence we needed to align ourselves with that evil.
Disgusting.
And it's a shame that it didn't end sooner.
It's a shame all across the board.
But the reality is Nobody's perfect.
To hyper-focus on these issues and claim that there's no good to come of everything that happened is absurd.
No, I look at July 4th and I say, tremendous.
To call out the king in such a way.
It's too bad this wasn't included in the declaration.
They go into mention.
The passage refers to a 1775 proclamation by Britain's Lord Dunmore, which offered freedom to any enslaved person in the colonies who volunteered to serve in the British Army against the Patriots' revolt.
The proclamation inspired thousands of enslaved people to seek liberty behind British lines during the Revolutionary War.
You know what?
We can criticize our past.
Absolutely.
And then we can move forward recognizing the foundations that have been laid.
It's what we do.
We get rid of the bad, we keep the good.
That's what we're supposed to do.
Those who would throw away enlightenment ideals...
Well, they probably just seek to enslave people once again.
Because it's this country, as it stands now, that's gotten rid of that.
But you know what?
Perhaps when the crown said, anyone who fights against independence will be free, the colonists should have said, how about we all just free you now and you fight to maintain that freedom?
They could have done that too.
They didn't.
Because they weren't perfect.
But I can certainly respect the attempts.
There's an old story I heard about.
Where a teacher asked his students, this is recent, asked his students, how many of them, how many students think they would have opposed slavery back in the 1800s?
And every single one of them raised their hand.
The teacher then said, name one cause today that you support that is unpopular and that you would be hated for supporting.
And then everyone was like, oh, I don't know.
That's the reality.
Back then, it was the institutional mainstream norm, even in the world, even in the UK, to support this.
Even speaking out against it was... was bold.
Very few people had the guts to call it out and stand on principle.
Something so widely unpopular.
So there you go.
The Founding Fathers?
Not perfect.
Some of them did well.
Many of them risked everything for independence, and from that the seeds of liberty were planted.
Now I don't know what would have happened, right?
The Slavery Abolition Act in the United Kingdom of 1834.
They say, In British history, Act of Parliament that abolished slavery in most British colonies freeing more than 800,000 enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and South Africa, as well as a small number in Canada, it received royal assent on August 28, 1833, and took effect on August 1, 1834.
It may have very well been that should we not have gained independence, Freedom would have come to the colonies for those enslaved much, much sooner.
I think it's a fair point.
But I don't think it argues against the seeds of liberty, the founding documents, and the fact that we are a much safer and freer place than the UK is right now.
People in the UK have no free speech.
They have no right to defend themselves.
And because of the things the Crown did, the Founding Fathers made a Bill of Rights that I am eternally grateful for.
The Fourth Amendment, amazing.
The Fifth Amendment, even better.
The first, second, excellent.
The third, we don't really care about the third, but it is pretty good to not have soldiers using our houses, I guess.
But the right to speak up.
None of these activists would have the right to speak up were it not for the Founding Fathers.
For if we remained part of the British Empire, what would we see today?
Canada?
Oh, I know, the left says, but Canada's great, they have universal healthcare, and activists aren't allowed to speak out.
They pretend like they are, but they're not.
They'll arrest you, they'll lock you up, they do it in the UK, they did it to Count Dankula over a stupid joke.
Comedian in the UK tells a joke, they lock him up.
George Carlin.
The seven words you can't say on TV, you got arrested for it.
Where was the free speech then?
Well, ultimately, he won.
Thank you, Bill of Rights.
I don't think people understand how important this stuff is, so I will continue to celebrate the 4th of July.
I will grill some burgers and light off fireworks.
But a lot of people will just forget.
We need to make sure our kids understand why it's so important that we won independence.
We need to make sure our kids understand the critiques we have of the Founding Fathers.
And we need to make sure the nihilists and the cynics don't take the faults of the past to claim today is evil, because it is not.
There are evils.
There are problems.
We will continue to fight against them.
We will remember the good and remain optimistic and look on the bright side.
What problem can we solve today?
We've solved many already.
If we keep looking ahead, we can continue to solve more.
And it doesn't matter who you are or what you are.
The future is yours so long as you fight to obtain it.
And you can accomplish anything.
It's true.
Don't let these people tell you you are oppressed and can never succeed, because those are the people who are trying to enslave you mentally, to think your only chance of success is through them.
It's not true.
On your own, you can do great things.
As the saying goes, something I'll paraphrase, let it never be said that a small group of people cannot accomplish change, because it is the only thing that ever have.
It's a small, determined group of people.
It's the only thing that's ever changed.
What is that?
I can't remember who said that quote.
I should probably look it up.
But you get the point.
Right now, the left of today will tell you, you can't accomplish.
You're oppressed.
Oh no, you're this, that, or otherwise.
And everyone hates you.
No, you can do great things.
We're not all free to always just say whatever we want.
We know that freedom of speech has consequences.
And we know that there are certain things that people don't tolerate.
And we keep some of those bad opinions to ourselves, I suppose.
There are a lot of people who want to tell you you'll never succeed and you must live under the boot.
Don't do it.
The Founding Fathers showed us that we can say no to the powers that be, to the establishment and the system, and stand up for ourselves, for all their moral failings.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Over this past weekend, we heard a story about protesters clashing in Los Angeles.
The Hill.com reports, protesters clash in LA over transgender woman disrobing in spa.
You see, this story, this headline, may be factually incorrect for a variety of reasons.
First, I'll call out the framing.
Protesters clashing?
I mean, sure, that's technically the truth, the best kind of the truth.
But in reality, it sounds more like some protesters were beaten by Antifa for saying they didn't want their daughters to see naked males.
Now, this all stems from a video that went viral where a woman goes up to the counter at a spa saying that there was a man naked in the women's side.
And apparently the people who were working the counter said we can't discriminate on the basis of someone's gender identity.
What I find fascinating about this is that the activists immediately assumed it was a trans woman.
We do not know that.
Well, I mean, maybe someone does somewhere, but I've dug into this a little bit, as much as I could.
And the story just seems to be that a woman complained, we don't know about who or what happened, but that there was a biological male walking around naked in front of little girls and she was upset about it.
The left and the activists in Antifa immediately said, trans rights, transphobes gotta leave.
We're now learning that, aside from this clash and this incident, another woman came forward saying that a male with a beard and, you know, male private parts did the same thing at the spa when she was there.
And therein lies the big ethical conundrum we have in this story.
First, We have Antifa on the left, willing to die on the hill of biological males should be allowed to walk around in the buff in front of little girls.
I think you let them die on that hill, by all means, you embrace that.
The culture war ends overnight.
So I'll tell you this.
There's probably a lot of people who don't believe the story.
There's probably a lot of people saying that these are just transphobes.
Okay.
I'm going to show you the news, I'm going to show you what's being said, I'm going to show you, to the best of my abilities, the videos of people being attacked, and share this video with your friends and family who don't believe it.
This is what it's all about.
Ask your friends and family, is this the hill that you will die on?
It's a figure of speech used a bit too much, perhaps, but is this where you're willing to say, we will draw the line?
Because I've got to tell you, man.
I don't think there is... I'll put it this way.
You go to any city in this country and ask any person, any father or mother or brother about their sisters being exposed to bearded males in the buff in their private spas.
And they're going to be like, no way.
In fact, I think that the reaction would be particularly distinct and emotive from the average person when you say, should there be naked males around little girls?
They're going to be like, are you nuts?
But for some reason, the left is actually engaging pretty heavily over this to the point where some prominent feminists refuse to condemn what they don't even know about.
Check it out.
Let me read you this story, okay?
I'm gonna read you this story, and the important point is, we don't know if this was a trans woman.
The Hill reports, tensions rose Saturday between protesters and counter-protesters in LA over a spa incident involving a transgender woman.
Last week, a cisgender woman complained to staff at We Spa in Koreatown, After a transgender woman disrobed in a designated women's section of the spa.
Quote, it's okay for a man to go into the women's section, show his junk around other, she says a different word, around the other women, young little girls, underage, your spa, we spa condones that?
A female patron asked the staff in a video that went viral on Twitter.
He is not female.
A staff member responded that the facility could not discriminate against the woman based on her gender identity, sparking further outrage among some customers.
Another female patron was shown in the video demanding her money back and vowing not to return to the spa.
Demonstrators flocked to We Spa, some to protest against the spa and others to defend the transgender woman's rights.
Listen.
Okay, here's how it works.
I've warned about this over the past several years, that these anti-discrimination laws, they mean it.
And there's something fascinating that conservatives need to recognize, and that's social enforcement.
We'll get into that in a second.
You cannot discriminate on the basis of biological sex.
That is in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I'm pretty sure it says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
That means you cannot have gender-segregated bathrooms.
Now, ultimately, the issue is social enforcement.
When this law was passed, nobody believed it would be the end of gender segregation, that men and women had different bathrooms for obvious reasons.
But think about it for two seconds.
This was the end of racial segregation.
There were distinct bathrooms for people who were white and people who were not white.
They said, we're going to pass this law that bans discrimination.
That includes between, uh, you can't discriminate on the basis of gender, I think national origin, sex, religion, etc.
Okay, so that instantly ended the segregated bathrooms, the segregated restaurants and things like that, right?
How is it that we retained gender segregation when the law says biological sex?
It was because socially, no one, not anybody in the black community or the white community or the activist community were like, yeah, we should totally put men and women in the same space.
But the law is the law.
You see what happens now?
It's coming to roost some five or so decades later.
Because the law is clear.
A biological male, regardless of identity, could walk in and say, you can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
Now, perhaps there would be some lawsuits involved.
Perhaps there is some precedent I'm not aware about.
But as far as I can tell, based on the language of the law, it doesn't matter if the person's trans or not.
They say gender identity.
You can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity.
And I'm like, that's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
If you provide a public accommodation, then you provide it to everybody.
This is where things get really, really interesting in this debate.
The argument from the courts has been That if a university has a women's-only program that discriminates against men, violating the Civil Rights Act, I think that one's Title VII, or that one might be Title IX because it's universities, it's fine so long as they offer up an equal program for the men.
Think about that logic for two seconds.
Separate.
But equal.
It doesn't work, does it?
Back in the day, that was the argument about racial segregation, and we said that was wrong.
I mean, I personally think racial segregation is wrong.
However, I think there are very distinct differences between men and women that women probably want safe spaces, or biological females want safe spaces, but you see where this legal argument brings us.
If you cannot have two distinct spaces for different races, then the argument that... So the argument is basically, as long as everyone gets access to a bathroom, it's fair.
Well, they said, no, that's not true.
Everyone should be able to use the same facilities.
Now we're having that argument over biological sex.
It is the exact same argument and following the exact same law.
But there are differences here.
The issue is, in my opinion, Anti-discrimination laws need to be specific based on the characteristics by which we are weighing the law.
So when it comes to race, I don't think race is an important factor at all in determining whether or not people should be allowed to use certain bathrooms.
I think ending race segregation is a good thing.
In fact, I like the fact that we're trying to get, you know, people to understand each other's cultures and then make this great American melting pot sounds fantastic.
But, when it comes to female versus male, there's something interesting, which brings into a whole nother argument in the racial component about women on average are shorter than men, women on average are less aggressive, more agreeable, they tend to have less muscle mass, they have different shaped bodies, and so because of these things we've said, okay, well that we're not going to get rid of, right?
Well, here you go.
Your anti-discrimination laws are here.
Now, there's that argument, right?
Like I mentioned, colleges say you can't discriminate on the basis of sex unless you offer free equal spaces.
So these spas have a men's room and a women's room, and what they're basically saying is, you can't go in the women's room, but we have a men's locker room just for you.
You see where the argument hits that wall?
Now it's all going to come down to this and whether or not the left is willing to stand by this.
Whether or not the left will say that a biological male should be allowed to walk around naked around biological females.
I think there's a fair point on the left that the moral outrage over this is not... is similar in many ways to the moral outrage over ending racial segregation.
And they like to say that, oh, you know, commentators like Tim Poole would have been pro-segregation, blah blah.
It's ridiculous and absurd and not true because I come from a mixed family.
But I digress.
I ultimately believe there... I should say this.
I believe there is a strong possibility that the right loses this one.
Absolutely.
However, I say strong possibility, not the strong probability.
I think a strong possibility could be a couple percentage points.
Ultimately, I think there is overwhelmingly The overwhelming majority of people would never stand for this because men are protective of their sisters, their mothers, their daughters, and their sisters, mothers, and daughters also agree and don't want biological males around them in this capacity.
They're going to say exchanges broke out between the two groups?
Sure.
With some escalating to punches.
In one video, a woman is standing by herself, seemingly confused.
She's like, just looking exasperated.
I don't understand why this is a problem.
We don't want, you know, males in the female space.
And they're screening at her.
Transphobe, go home.
If this is what the left wants, by all means.
But I tell you this, man.
If people on the right, or not even on the right, because there are people who aren't left or right, who are going to look at this and be like, yo, these people are crazy.
Yeah, well, if you don't stand up and say, we don't want this, you'll get it.
Because the law is already clear.
They're protesting the spa.
The spa can't do anything.
It's the law.
I remember I warned about this back in 2018.
I made a bunch of videos about this.
I said, these laws in New York, for instance, say that gender identity is defined as self-expression, and you can't discriminate based on how someone dresses, or the name they use, or how they express themselves.
A guy could walk into a Starbucks, apply for a job, and show up the next day in a full fursuit and say his real name is Vulciferon, Herald of the Winter Mists, and you are legally obligated to use his name, allow him to dress that way.
Now, as I mentioned before, I talked to a lawyer about this.
I've called human rights lawyers investigating this story, and I said, what would happen if someone said their gender identity was Mystical Fox, and their name was Vulciferon, Herald of the Winter Mists, and they applied for a job and got it, but then were later told they couldn't dress that way?
The lawyer said it wouldn't pass the laugh test.
Okay, the laugh test as he describes it is, you sue, you go into court, and the judge looks at you and says, you're trying to do what?
And you get laughed out of the courtroom.
And I said, okay, okay.
It wouldn't pass the laugh test.
This is interesting in my opinion.
Interesting.
So I asked these lawyers this.
They said, we have judges for a reason.
They can interpret the law and try to see if it makes sense and is being applied fairly and rationally.
And someone trying to exploit the system with some ridiculous outfit would never get past it.
I said, what if that's their actual gender identity?
The law doesn't define gender identity as either male or female.
It says, your self-expression.
So how would the court have the authority to laugh at someone based on what they personally think is absurd?
He's like, well, that's what judges do.
And I suppose they'll vote for other judges.
And I said, OK, so let's think about this for two seconds.
You get a conservative judge in New York.
A trans woman shows up.
With a beard, very broad shoulders, wearing a dress, and says, I am a strong woman and I should not be discriminated against based on being a woman.
Does the judge have the right to laugh that person out of court when the law was designed to protect them?
And it was a more than one lawyer who said, well, in that instance, it's different.
It's different.
It's different?
If the judge finds something to be absurd, what gives the judge the right to decide what is or isn't absurd?
Well, the judges do.
They judge.
I said, okay.
So it stands to reason that the real issue is social enforcement, not the law.
The law isn't relevant here.
It is a little bit, but think about it.
Someone could have made the argument that you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, and they have a right to use these bathrooms.
Oh, but they say, but we provide equal access to men in the same public accommodation.
And then you say, yeah, and you provided same access to black people that you provided to white people, but that was deemed unconstitutional.
What's the difference here if the law says X in both regards?
Like, how do you say that the Civil Rights Act protects against this discrimination, and so we're not going to allow segregation?
It also protects against this discrimination, But we're not going to end segregation in terms of biological sex.
Ultimately, the cows come home, right?
And here we are.
And it seems reasonable that the end result of this will either be a revolt among regular people who don't want to stand for this, or people unwilling to stand up because Antifa will beat them.
Count Dankula says, Antifa really be out there attacking people for saying that it's not okay to show your genitals to children.
It's a funny tweet, I retweeted it.
It's like, that's crazy Antifa, that's crazy!
But let's think about that for two seconds.
See where we're at.
There are male locker rooms, where males walk around in the buff, and children and underage people are in there and can see naked dudes.
There's a joke people mention about the old guy walking around with his, you know, balls hanging out.
And there could be underage kids in there, but they're guys.
Okay.
Antifa says it shouldn't matter what the kids are seeing.
And it seems like the other side is saying they should only be seeing their own... genitals, I suppose.
I don't know how this plays out.
I do think that this is very different from the racial component, because you can make the argument about we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race, because race is not the end-all-be-all of biological determinism or whatever, the point being that people of all different races can share values, are either male or female, and you know, so the racial component was dumb, so getting it based on race was stupid.
For biological females, though, they do tend to be smaller, they do tend to have less muscle mass, and that's a serious component to this.
The concern is that men are the overwhelming majority of sex crimes, and it's mostly against women.
Now, most violent crimes are male-on-male, but when it comes to assaults and harassment, it's male-on-female, and that's probably one of the reasons we separate these spaces.
Feminists don't care for that argument anymore.
They quite literally do not.
And I'll show you.
We have this tweet from Lori Penny.
Prominent feminist.
And it's actually a long thread.
A long, long thread between her and some other feminists who are arguing over trans issues.
And you have gender critical feminists who say that trans women should not be granted the same spaces as biological females because there are clashes.
In one tweet, Lori Penny said, Today I learned that the modern anti-trans movement is
convinced that males rape females because of their biology.
This is the same boys will be boys logic that has been used to excuse violence for centuries.
Biology as destiny is the logic of rape culture.
Now that is fascinating.
My response was, why have so many male feminists turned out to be abusers?
What about the feminist space either attracts them or encourages the behavior?
If Lori Penny does believe that biology doesn't play a role in this at all, Then what about the feminist space is attracting the abusers or encouraging abusive behavior?
Because it's certainly not their biology, right?
Something the feminists do is making the male feminists abusers, and it's not biology.
Therefore, it's a social construct of some sort.
They're attracting it?
No idea.
Well, there's a simple reason.
I mean, there's a simple explanation.
Males are different from females.
Males have different hormones than females.
Males have different biological driving factors.
I guess you can call that biological determinism, but I mean, it's just true.
It's not absolute.
Some males tend to be weaker than some females.
Gender, as they say, is bimodal, meaning there's a great overlap somewhere in the middle.
But the overwhelming majority of individuals will have, like males, prenatal testosterone, more fast twitch muscles, narrower hips, broader shoulders, more muscle mass.
Twice as much collagen in the skin.
These things are reality.
You can pretend it's not true, but it is true.
Objective reality exists.
In which case, Lori Penny believes that males aren't attacking females because of their biology.
She genuinely believes that men are taught to do this, I guess.
No, I think there's a reason why when you look at animals, the males behave differently from the females without social constructs.
I think there's a reason why you can look to the lobster and their hierarchy going back thousands of, or millions of years.
The noble lobster has hierarchy, right?
The point is, biology is real.
It's not absolute, but it is real.
In which case, there are people who want to have safe spaces for biological females.
In the UK, there's a story I covered a few years ago.
They started introducing unisex locker rooms.
They found that assaults on women went up something like 80 or so percent.
What was the argument from these feminists as to why that was happening?
Why was it constantly that men were attacking females?
Why did that number go up when this changed?
It's simple.
Access.
That's it.
I think this is where you're going to start exchanging rooms.
I could be wrong.
It's been a long time since I covered this story, but the general idea is there are many males who are abusers.
There are many females who are also abusers, but there tend to be more abusive males.
Violent crime tends to be committed by biological males.
That's a fact.
Yes, biological females can commit violent crimes and do, and in great numbers, but it's overwhelmingly biological males who do it.
So what happens is you have males who are abusers, and they're then given opportunity.
When you segregated the men's room from the women's room, and the males from the females, the abusive males did not have opportunity or access.
Now that they've combined the spaces, because of many of these laws, this is what happens.
Now the real ramifications of this in places like New York, the gender identity discrimination bills and things like that, We're not big open bathrooms that everyone uses.
It was individual stalls.
I actually think that's a good idea and a great development.
I mean, think about it.
It used to be that you'd go in the men's room, and still is in many places, and you've got two stalls, and a urinal, and a sink.
And you walk in with a bunch of other people, and you can hear them farting, and you're like, oh man, it's uncomfortable, because I'm trying to take a whiz, and you know, it's like, oh geez.
Now what do you get?
You walk in, you get a private room, you lock the door behind you, and you sit back and say, privacy.
It's beautiful.
I know most people don't care, but whatever.
I think it's improved the experience of the public restroom, sure.
Although there are problems with that as well, because if you look at Starbucks, their restrooms were trashed with needles and stuff like that because people now had a private space to do illicit things.
But the idea was that in many places you just have men and women using any bathroom.
Now that's happened in some places where they're building new buildings and doing just big unisex showers and bathrooms.
But in many places it's just anybody can do whatever they want.
So now we have this issue.
There are many people who are saying trans women would not exploit the law to go and abuse girls or whatever.
I don't think people are concerned about trans women doing that.
Like, legitimate trans people.
I mean, look, Blaire White is fantastic.
Runs a great channel, has lots of fans, principled.
I really don't think Blaire White is a threat to anybody.
That's just... Blaire's great.
But there are some predators who are male who will lie.
See how that works?
Now, of course, the left says, they're not going to undergo treatment in order to lie.
It's like, okay, they don't have to.
That's the issue.
In this story, transgender woman with a beard and male parts got in a hot tub with her daughter, Six, at LA Spa more than a year before the weekend clashes over child exposure incident in female steam room.
I think, uh, I'm sure back during the civil rights era, there were many conservative types, Democrats mostly, who were outraged at the thought of ending racial segregation, saying they shouldn't have to share these spaces or whatever.
And now there are many people who are outraged over this.
I don't know how history will reflect on everybody, but I certainly feel the need to keep, you know, children safe.
What do you do?
Well, you can protest, I suppose.
You can speak up.
You can share videos like this and ask people if they're really okay with that.
And as we saw in the video, it seems like the answer is they are.
As the woman was complaining that there was a man with male parts, a man walks up to her and says, but was it a trans woman?
But what are you?
Are you?
And then she said, no, no, it wasn't.
This is the issue.
If somebody is black, and they went into the wrong segregated space, people would say outright, this person's not supposed to be there.
There was no question over whether or not the person was actually white, but looked the wrong race.
So there's a difference here.
Granted, I know, race segregation was stupid and horrible.
In this instance, this could literally just be a predator.
Walking in the women's room and exposing himself.
And the immediate response on the left and the patrons is, but it could be a trans woman.
Okay.
If that's the case and you err on the side of, well, maybe it's a trans woman so we don't intervene, then yes, the conservatives are right when they say that you are giving a pass to abusers and creepos.
I don't know what you do about it.
Stand up, speak out, say no and reject this and protest and let the left die on this hill.
But I'll tell you this, you might be shocked by this, but if you don't stand up and speak out, the left will keep getting in their way.
Let me know how you feel when your daughter is, you know, in her school locker room and you know, 40 year old male walks in and let me know how you feel about that future for your child.
Because if you're unwilling to speak up and say you don't like that, That's the future your child will get.
That's just the truth.
I'm not saying this to disparage you or drag you for being scared.
Just understand the reality of what you will leave for your children if you're afraid to stand up and speak up for what you believe in.
That goes for everybody, even on the left.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
channel. Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
The second largest exodus was San Francisco.
Now, I can't speak to exactly why people are fleeing from Baltimore, but it may have something to do with the loss of, like, 700 officers, or I should say a shortage of, like, 700 police officers.
Crime is absolutely on the rise, and regular people, well, if they're not gonna live in a big city, it's certainly not gonna be Baltimore.
But for the sake of the data that we have, we need to talk about San Francisco.
Because the crime has gotten so bad, people are fleeing.
And when asked why people are leaving, or more importantly, I actually have data showing that when asked about what's going on in San Francisco, many people in San Francisco now, who haven't even left, are saying they are considering leaving due to escalating crime.
From that, we could extrapolate the likely reason many people are fleeing San Francisco is that it is being run into the ground by lunatics.
This guy, Chesa Bowden, he's facing a recall effort.
He is the child of Weather Underground extremists, and one of these progressive DAs who gets in and says, we're going to let all the people go, do whatever they want.
It's very Joker-esque, isn't it?
We release all the prisoners and let them run rampant through the streets.
That's what it sounds like they're doing.
They're letting people go, often people we know to be guilty of crimes.
Now, in many circumstances it's hard because we want to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty, but come on, you got videos of this dude filling up a trash bag at a, what was it, a CVS, and then with a bike in the store riding out.
I mean, come on!
You gotta stop those people, right?
I love it.
Well, the mainstream media, which is, in many ways, run by the left, puts out this narrative where they're like, actually, it's not true, that crime, that shoplifting is on the rise.
We all saw the video of the garbage bag, but is shoplifting really getting bad?
No, and they say shoplifting is going down.
Amazing.
They then mention that, like, prosecutions or something for these are going down as well, and it's like, maybe the reason on paper it looks like it's going down is because people stopped calling the police about it because the police stopped enforcing it.
Which brings me to the bigger point of this whole piece.
Wow.
In San Francisco, Target is closing at 6 p.m.
That's crazy.
You get out of work, it's like 5 o'clock, you're driving home, and you're like, I gotta hit Target before they close, but they close at 6 now.
Why do they close at 6?
The shoplifting has gotten bad, and they know it.
Walgreens shutting down.
The shoplifting has gotten too bad, and they know it.
There's human crap all over the streets, and the media's like, actually, shoplifting's not that bad.
It's actually down.
Sure.
Then Target and Walgreens are like, we're gonna give up money!
We don't want- No, please, spare me.
These large retail corporations want to make money, and they're making their decisions based on whether or not they will make or lose money.
Shoplifting is getting bad in these places.
I don't know how you survive a death spiral like this.
You may know about the Detroit death spiral.
In Detroit, there is really high cost of living in terms of like water bill.
That's a good place to start.
It's high.
Why?
Let's say you have a water infrastructure that costs a million dollars per month to run.
So that means for every, you know, million people, they spend a buck.
So let's say you got a million people living in the city, a million dollars a month, a dollar for everybody.
Half a million people leave, now it's $2 for everybody.
You see how this goes?
250,000 people leave, now it's $4 per person.
It's actually way more than that.
What happens is, once the jobs leave Detroit, people leave, stores close.
With less access to amenities, a lower standard of living, people start leaving, saying, even if I have money, why would I want to live here?
As those people leave, Property tax revenue goes down.
It is a death spiral.
And the more people leave, the faster the city dies.
Same thing happens with shopping malls.
Now, for a place like Detroit, they lost the auto industry.
Because of that, well, they face this death spiral.
But it's possible to reverse this if you only bring in more jobs and find a source of revenue.
The problem for San Francisco is the death spiral is caused by ideological extremists.
Who are like, we got people taking dumps in the street instead of actually citing them or solving the problem through some actual discussion or dialogue with the city, we're gonna create the poop patrol to go around just hosing it off the streets.
So the problem never gets solved, they shuffle it into the street, and then probably into the ocean.
Into the bay, maybe.
They don't solve the problems.
They keep electing more of the same lunatics who keep just crashing the city worse and worse into the ground.
From KPIXCBSSFB poll, San Francisco residents consider relocating as crime worsens, quality of life in decline.
This is an extreme death spiral.
For one of the most prominent cities, I'll tell you this, property values will tank, investments will burn up, and the power of Silicon Valley will be dispersed, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Let the oligarchs run their city into the mud.
CBS says, as San Francisco tries to bounce back from the devastating impact of COVID-19, crime and homelessness now rank among the highest levels of concerns among local residents, many who are contemplating relocating, according to a new poll.
Well, as we've already seen, the second largest exodus in the country over the past year was from San Francisco.
The poll was released by the SF Chamber of Commerce and based on feedback from more than 500 residents who are registered to vote.
It found that more than 40% said they plan to move out of the city in the next few years.
40% of San Francisco residents polled!
Okay, we're extrapolating data here.
That's how these surveys work.
But they said of registered voters, how many people aren't even registered to vote?
Half?
A little bit less?
Could this number be way higher?
Lindsey Stevens just finished moving out over the weekend.
Quote, there's nothing worse than seeing such a beautiful place in such disarray.
And I really thought I was going to be sad when the movers loaded up the last container on Saturday.
And I've never been more relieved.
After more than 12 years in SF, Stevens recently sold her place and moved to the Palm Springs area.
I honestly think in the last three years, we've seen a massive decline in the quality of life.
And that was only enhanced over COVID.
The homelessness has been a severe problem.
People are not feeling safe walking their dog.
The number of break-ins seems to be constantly on the rise.
Feelings are reflected in the results of the Chamber's poll.
80% of residents say crime has worsened in recent years.
70% feel the quality of life has declined.
88% says homelessness has worsened.
And they are all correct.
76 also believe that an increasing number of police officers in high-crime neighborhoods should be a high priority.
Increasing!
76% said, more cops, please.
I'm sorry.
We're on the defund the police train.
So, no.
You voted in Chesa Bowdoin.
You get what you deserve.
You get what you asked for.
Now let me just tell you something.
If there's a dude and he's like sitting on a bridge and he's fishing, minding his own business.
And along comes a guy with a crazy hat and he's like, if you elect me commissioner of this bridge, I will destroy it completely while you all stand upon it.
And then all these people are like, I want to vote for him.
Then he destroys the bridge.
That guy who was fishing and minding his own business, where was he to stand up and pay attention to the destruction of his community?
He wasn't there.
While I sympathize for him losing and everyone's falling into that, a bunch of people just run to the shore saying, oh no, the bridge is being destroyed.
We better run away.
Y'all voted for this.
You want me to feel bad for you?
Now there be yet a small group on one side saying, stop, stop, don't give this guy the powers, he'll destroy the bridge.
I sympathize with them.
If you're somebody who lives in SF, who has fought the good fight, who voted for the right people and said no to this insanity, then you have my respect.
And you have my empathy and my sympathy, you know?
But there are too many people in these places.
Perhaps now you need to recognize they're going to light that bridge on fire and it's going to collapse where it stands with everybody on it and you need to get off before that happens.
Quote, I think safety is a huge concern even two years ago when I initially moved back to the city.
I never viewed certain neighborhoods as necessarily unsafe, said Ming-Ku Lee of San Francisco.
The 24-year-old resident became a victim himself this past Friday.
He said he was headed to Happy Hour on 3rd Street near Oracle Park with his friends when he was racially and physically attacked by a homeless man.
He said a slur or two forcibly pushed me over slash tripped me.
I really really startled by the incident said Lee.
San Francisco?
A hate crime?
Oh, that can't be.
San Francisco is where all the good and noble oligarchs live, where they want to make us all love each other because hate speech is wrong.
You see that photo of Mark Zuckerberg on the wave ride or whatever it's called?
It's the board where you pump.
I don't know what they're called.
And he's waving the American flag.
Oh, spare me, dude.
You are lighting this country on fire in more ways than one.
An overwhelming 82% of those polled said they'd like to see more caseworkers on the streets to help people with mental illnesses.
Nearly 75% supported more temporary shelter for homeless people.
Earlier this month, Mayor London Breed announced a $1 billion investment to help fix the problem over the next two years.
It would include funding housing and mental health services.
Check this out.
Target Walgreens make drastic changes due to increase in San Francisco thefts.
According to the California Retailers Association, three cities in our state are among the top ten when it comes to organized retail crime.
LA, SF, Sacramento.
Bravo, California!
And bravo to all of you in California who voted to burn the place to the ground, and then have the gall to flee to somewhere else like Austin, and then you'll vote to burn that place to the ground, too.
Just gonna keep happening.
Already we are seeing the negative impact it is having in San Francisco with stores permanently shutting down or closing early.
It has become one of the most pressing issues in our city today.
Target has now acknowledged that SF is the only city in America where they have decided to close some stores early because of the escalating retail crime.
For more than a month, we've been experiencing a significant and alarming rise in theft and security incidents at our San Francisco stores, similar to reports from other retailers in the area.
Target is the only store in San Francisco to make changes because of the continuous shoplifting.
After 10 p.m., the 7-Eleven on Drum Street in the Financial District only does business through a metal door.
But first, you have to ring the bell to let them know you're outside.
This window was installed like two to three months ago because it was not safe.
Sometimes they would break that glass of the door, explained manager Bobby Singh.
Look at this, we have the video I mentioned earlier where there's a guy rides his bike in a CVS and just starts shoveling stuff into a garbage bag, hops on a bike in the store and leaves, and their security guy, who's like TS4 security, just grabs the bag and then films.
What are they gonna do?
Cops won't respond.
Why should any of these people get involved?
Walgreens has already closed several stores for the same reason and security guards like Kevin Greathouse are told not to physically engage with those shoplifting.
Quote.
It's going to be lawsuits.
Obviously, we don't want ourselves or anybody else to get injured while we're out here attempting to make these apprehensions and leave it to law enforcement.
Law enforcement, of course, won't respond because in San Francisco, I think in California, it's anything less than, what is it, like $900?
Not a... what is it?
It's not a crime?
I forgot what it was.
I think it's like a misdemeanor and the cops just don't even respond to it.
So people will go in, steal expensive phones, and the cops just say, oh, whatever.
He carries with him a handgun, a taser, and pepper spray.
But thankfully, he's never had to use them.
On the other hand, he says people shoplifting have, at times, threatened him with a knife.
I don't have any intention of getting stabbed for $60 worth of stuff, he added.
Grains of sand.
Do they ever make a heap?
You know, there's a video of me in Boston.
I got invited on to Tucker Carlson a few years ago because of this video, where an Antifa guy starts swinging at me.
But he's like trying to get me to flinch, I guess.
And I just stand there, unmoving.
And I'm like, what are you doing?
And he's like swatting at me, trying to get me to leave, and I won't move.
I see a lot of these videos where Antifa get in people's faces and the people start walking backwards.
I understand some of these people may actually hit you, so you know what I did?
I tightened up my abs.
I prepared to get hit.
That's all I can say.
Here's the way I view it.
It's only $60.
I'm not gonna get stabbed over that.
Yeah, I get it.
I wouldn't get stabbed over that either.
I mean, it's $60 worth of stuff and it ain't my stuff, right?
Think about what happens though.
Eventually, the dam breaks.
There may be a point in time where someone trying to steal something would get beaten.
I'm not advocating for that.
I'm saying, yeah, that would happen.
They'd grab you, they'd throw you down, they'd beat you.
In fact, in Chicago, when I was growing up, they still would.
They would grab you and they would just beat you up.
I mean, that's Chicago, I guess.
Think about what happens if you're a shoplifter and you're like, if I get caught, I get shot.
Not gonna do it.
Think about what happens if you live in West Virginia and you decide to break into someone's home.
People in West Virginia love their guns.
So you are very likely to die.
Now, death isn't a deterrent for some people, especially those who are desperate.
But in many places like New Jersey or San Francisco or whatever, they say there's a lot of break-ins.
Well, you're not legally allowed to defend your home.
So why would you?
You can't.
So they know they can break into whatever they want.
When it comes to these shoplifting incidents, it is that they have set the standard.
Because no one is willing to risk their neck for anybody else.
Especially for $60 worth of stuff.
The criminals know, I can just take whatever I want, man.
Doesn't matter.
They're not going to intervene for any amount of money.
There you go.
People can't defend themselves.
People can't use physical force to restrain someone stealing from their stores.
So you tell people that if they intervene they could be civilly liable.
They won't.
You tell the criminals, you're a criminal anyway.
What do you care if you get sued or arrested?
You're taking that risk.
There you go.
Regular people refuse to intervene.
Security guards refuse to intervene.
Everyone over time slowly realizes that no one will intervene and you can do whatever you want.
The New York Times had an article, it was hilarious, where this columnist moves to SF and he noticed when he was in the store buying stuff, people would walk in and just take stuff and walk out.
And he was like, is that normal?
Like, is paying optional?
And the cashier shrugs.
Why would anyone pay?
Eventually you get to the point where here's what happens.
A regular Joe walks in and he's like, I would like to buy this bottle of unsweetened iced tea.
It's delicious.
And then he sees everyone else just taking stuff.
And then he thinks to himself, why am I the sucker?
Why am I the sucker paying for this when no one else has to?
And he goes, whatever, and he walks out with it.
And then no one does anything.
And once the regular person just doesn't care anymore, why would anyone else?
It's interesting because L.A.
operates on the honor system for their trains.
Or at least when I lived there.
The turnstiles, you just walk right through them.
You only need a ticket if the cops show up.
So a lot of people, there's a few things.
Poor people won't buy their ticket, and then eventually, they'll get out of the train and the cops will be there asking to see people's tickets, and if they don't have one, They get a physical citation.
But I know a bunch of people who would say, in California, or I should say I've talked to people in California a long time ago, who would say things like, if you have one of the tap cards, where you tap it and it charges you, you just walk past.
And the cops might be like, where's your ticket?
And you'd be like, oh, here's my tap card.
And then if you tap it, and it doesn't show that you used it, you can be like, I don't know, it must be an error.
So what happens is, People will fill up their tap card with like 30 bucks, and you're supposed to tap the thing and then walk through, but you can walk through without doing that.
It then records that you did pay, right?
People would just get out, they would see that there's like 50 bucks on it, and they'd be like, it must have not tapped or read when I walked through.
And the cops will be like, yeah, he's got money, it's fine.
People eventually just abuse the honor system.
They say, I don't care.
A lot of people don't.
But it's like a grand experiment they're doing in California, and it seems to not be working out all that well.
Letting people do whatever they want and just lie, cheat, steal, and loot stores will eventually result in people just saying, that's the acceptable, that's the norm.
Then why will these stores operate?
And thus bringeth the death spiral.
Here's what happens in SF.
You get some lunatic like Chessa Bowden facing a recall effort in San Francisco.
They say the first effort was organized, you know, March 4th.
Recall organizers have until August 11th to submit at least 51,000 signatures.
They say a second recall effort was started on April 28th by another group.
They have until October 25th, so we'll see what happens.
You get lunatics like this who are ideologically driven.
They let criminals go.
They stop prosecuting certain crimes.
They defend the left.
They defend the extremists.
And then, people start looting stores.
No one can stop them.
The stores eventually start shutting down.
Now, people who live in SF say, I need to go get a prescription, or I need to go to the store.
Oh, the store's closed.
What if you work until 5.30?
I mean, it's not unusual.
Say you're 9 to 5.
You're out the door a little bit after 5.
You make it home, it's 5.30, and you're like, can I make it to Target?
No, they're closing at 6.
So what do you do?
Take off work?
Okay, now you tell your boss, in order for me to get to Target, I gotta go to Walgreens for my prescriptions, and I gotta go to Target to pick up, you know, whatever, some juice to take my medicine, or I need to get food and to go grocery shopping.
And now they say, do it on your day off, and you say, I can't.
They've shut down all the stores around me and they're only open until 6 now, so I need to go now.
It's just going to create pressure.
It's not absolute.
Some people say, fine, I'll go on my day off, I guess.
But it'll create pressure where it's more and more of an inconvenience.
I was reading one story about an elderly man who needed medicine and he had to walk now several miles or a couple miles to go to the Walgreens because the one by him shut down due to shoplifting.
The inconvenience becomes severe.
The store is shut down.
The amenities are gone.
So now you don't got a cafe anymore.
You don't got a Walgreens because the Walgreens stops.
Now less people come to the area.
So the Starbucks revenue drops because less people are just coming to the area.
You might be like, I'm going to Target.
Oh, there's a Starbucks across the street.
So they lose money.
Eventually Starbucks says there's no point in being here.
So they shut down.
Now you're in a neighborhood with no businesses and you're like, I don't want to live here.
Too bad.
Now the property value tanks.
Now nobody wants to live there at all, and that's what we're seeing.
You see how massive that number was in the poll?
What are we talking about, 40%?
40% said they plan to move out of the city in the next few years.
If that's true, we're talking millions of people fleeing SF.
If they leave, tax revenue will plummet.
The city's death spiral will become much, much more severe.
And where do these people go?
Austin?
Colorado?
And they'll vote in the same trash that destroyed their city in the first place.
Like a plague swooping across the country, voting in lunatics who will burn everything down.
And they'll justify why Chesa Bowden is the right person for the job.
You destroyed the city.
It was your vote.
And now you want to bring that somewhere else?
Tell you this, if you want to get out of these cities, just went in Rome.
That's what you do.
You move to Austin.
Austin's pretty liberal.
You move to Texas.
You say, okay, Texas, you do your thing because you got, you got it going well here.
They don't get it.
They vote for these grifters, sycophants, psychopaths who will say whatever and do whatever it takes.
And this is what you get.
You end up with crime-ridden cities that eventually collapse, and they will gut the value of the system and then flee, and the city can't recover.
