S5154 - Australia Deploys Military To Enforce COVID Lockdown, Biden Calls For National Vaccine Mandate
Australia Deploys Military To Enforce COVID Lockdown, Biden Calls For National Vaccine Mandate. Democrats are going long on mask mandates and the CDC is issuing escalating warnings about the Delta Variant.
Some reporting indicates a potential lockdown in the coming two weeks as democrats states are on board with heavier restrictions, though this is not confirmed.
Some residents in Australia are calling this martial law but an official U.S. government definition says martial law is when a military commander assumes control and has authority to create and enforce laws. For now Sydney is under what may be as close to martial law as you can get, suspension of civilian law for special enforcement by the military. Though the PM is still in control.
#Lockdowns
#MartialLaw
#COVID
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Australia has deployed the military to enforce a COVID lockdown in Sydney.
While many are saying this is martial law, there's no military commander who is assuming authority.
But, it's as close to martial law as you can get.
In our next story, two-thirds of Americans want to see a congressional hearing on Black Lives Matter riots.
Instead, we have a hearing on the January 6th riots.
Less people are actually interested in that, so why aren't we getting anything done from Republicans?
And in our last story, Dave Rubin suspended on Twitter after he correctly cited a Washington Post story.
They claimed it was misinformation.
How do we reconcile this when the information in the news media changes so quickly?
Before we get started, if you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
And if you really like the show, please share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
It's getting dark, really fast.
Australia sends their military to enforce COVID lockdowns in Sydney.
Not quite martial law, but what's happening is the suspension of civilian law for special law to be enforced by the military, which fits the definition of martial law, though there is no military commander assuming control and the ability to create and enforce law.
So it is not legally on the books, martial law, but it gets pretty close, only by technicality, I suppose.
And the question is, for many people, will we face mandatory vaccination?
And will we face lockdowns in the United States?
And I think the answer is a resounding yes.
Jack Posobiec tweeted that according to a source in the White House, there is chatter that within the next couple of weeks, there will be lockdowns.
At least the blue states seem to be in line.
We'll go over his tweet.
Now, it's not a confirmation.
Perhaps White House scuttlebutt.
Perhaps coloring of the water, meaning the information may not be true.
I don't know for sure.
What I do know is that Joe Biden has not ruled it out.
Joe Biden has not ruled out whether or not the DOJ can force people to take the vaccine, period.
He was asked and he said he didn't know.
Now, there is some pushback from the White House saying that they don't want to go this route and they're trying to avoid this.
And, yeah, maybe, or maybe they're trying to avoid a panic.
You know, we knew things were bad in Australia, but sending in the military to enforce their lockdowns, and why?
Well, they said that some people felt the rules didn't apply to them.
Sure, but couldn't the police get involved?
Or perhaps it was the police who were the ones saying they wouldn't enforce this, which brings me back to the U.S.
There have been numerous sheriff's departments who have said they're not going to enforce this stuff.
With the Delta variant spreading, with the big tech censorship and the sporadic news, different stories popping up in and out that seem to contradict each other, it really does seem like we are headed for some kind of major crisis, which will likely take the form of lockdowns and some kind of authoritarian rule.
And we're also staring on the face of the eviction crisis, which is looming in just about one day.
That's right.
The moratorium on evictions will be ending, and this will result in millions of people getting the boot.
New York apparently has a plan.
They're going to pay the landlords.
And now Nancy Pelosi has come out saying, we need an emergency extension of the moratorium on evictions.
There's also been calls to extend the COVID unemployment benefits.
While they're talking about locking down this country and forcing people to get vaccines and locking down restaurants, Nevada's been locked down, D.C.
has reintroduced, I'm sorry, Nevada has reintroduced mask mandates, D.C.
is reintroducing mask mandates, California, of course.
While all that is happening, the southern border is completely porous and about 1.2 million people have already crossed the border and been arrested this year alone.
They're locking down the country in a variety of ways.
Not as bad yet, but it could be serious in two weeks.
Meanwhile, they're opening up, figuratively, the southern border.
You know, I was talking to some friends and I said, this is the erosion and the collapse.
You know, call it whatever you want.
But if you have people bringing in non-citizens, not testing them for COVID, many of them have COVID.
We're seeing Border Patrol agents get COVID.
They're being ferried and shipped around the U.S.
In fact, one whistleblower says the Biden admin was actually trafficking children.
Yet at the same time, they're enforcing extreme laws on regular people.
It's a narco-tyranny.
I don't know what else to say.
You know, there are some questions and concerns about what's happening to this planet, for sure.
But I wonder if there's actually any evidence to justify the extremism that we're seeing.
And we've seen throughout history the attempts by authoritarians to seize control, and it seems like authoritarians have certainly seized control this time.
Only they're typically wrong.
I don't know who's right.
I can only tell you it's gonna get... well, I would assume it's gonna get worse.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member to help support our fierce and independent journalism.
And you'll get an ad-free experience and access to the members-only podcasts from TimCast IRL.
These occur after the show.
And you're really helping us expand our operation.
We'll see how long that lasts.
You know, Dave Rubin just got suspended on Twitter for 12 hours.
I can only imagine they're coming for us.
Big tech censorship, I mean.
And we'll do the best we can while we can.
Let's read the news and see exactly what's going on.
But before we do, hit the like button, subscribe to this channel, and share the show with your friends.
From TimCast.com, Australia sends their military to enforce coronavirus lockdowns in Sydney.
The Australian military will now be working with local police to enforce coronavirus lockdowns and restrictions in Sydney, including knocking on residents' doors to make sure they are complying.
On Monday, approximately 300 soldiers will begin patrolling the city of Six Million, which is under strict lockdown orders until August 28th.
NPR reports that the military's help is needed to enforce the restrictions because a small minority of people thought, quote, the rules didn't apply to them.
New South Wales Police Minister David Elliott told Australia's Channel 9, quote, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has come in for heavy criticism in recent weeks over the slow pace of vaccinations in Australia, where about 14% have been fully dosed, one of the poorest records among any member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the report explains.
Will, a resident in Bankstown, told The Guardian that the military deployment was just a continuation of the heavy-handed approach to enforcement in the region.
Quote, It's a sign of a continuation of the militarized and policed response to this entire outbreak.
It continues the way Western Sydney is policed, the way movement and recreation is policed, but at the same time it amplifies it and marginalizes people, it just makes it worse.
Quote, Their deployment is such a statement about the nature of the problem, and the problem is us, the people who live in Western Sydney.
They're saying the problem isn't the vaccine rollout or their failure to support people.
The problem is our compliance.
The resident described the troop rollout as an invasion and said that he believes that it will increase skepticism among those who are not vaccinated.
I can't think of anything that will lend more credence to conspiracy theories than this.
The concerned resident added.
I can't think of anything.
They've been talking about martial law for so long and now it's confirmed.
I always say this.
You're gonna hear me say it 50 million times on the podcast.
Please don't get medical advice from news articles or from me.
I can talk about news.
My opinions are not professional expert medical opinions.
You need doctors for that.
Whether you like your doctor or not, find one you trust.
The U.S.
government describes martial law as the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule, and is usually invoked in time of war, rebellion, or natural disaster.
Though what is happening in Sydney sounds very similar to what one would expect to see under martial law, and the general description it is not, unless a military commander takes over authority to make and enforce laws.
At least that's according to the U.S.
government.
I'm sure there are some interpretations of martial law as just the military being called in to enforce the law.
I'm sure some people will call this martial law an argument over definitions, which I don't think are particularly relevant.
But for the sake of clarifying and making sure everybody knows what's happening, we'll just say Australia has deployed its military to enforce COVID lockdowns.
Morrison has responded to outrage over the heavy-handed lockdowns by urging people to get vaccinated if they want their freedom back.
Quote, if you get vaccinated, there will be special rules that apply to you.
Why?
Because if you're vaccinated, you present less of a public health risk.
You are less likely to get the virus.
You are less likely to transmit it.
The prime minister told reporters on Friday, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, only that information, I believe.
is being contradicted by the Washington Post right now.
Now, I'll have more information on that specifically in the next portion of the podcast.
For those who are watching my videos, that was actually on my other YouTube channel.
But Dave Rubin talks a bit about this, and I believe that may not be correct.
Go read the Washington Post.
Here's an article from the U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
Martial law in times of civil disorder.
Annotation.
Martial law involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked in a time of war, rebellion, or natural disaster.
Suffice it to say, Civilians are still in control in Sydney.
It is not a military commander who has come in and assumed control.
So this is not, at least according to this article from the Department of Justice, it is not necessarily government-defined martial law.
They write, when martial law is in effect, the military commander of an area or country has unlimited authority to make and enforce laws.
Martial law is justified when civilian authority has ceased to function, is completely absent, or has become ineffective.
Further, martial law suspends all existing laws as well as civil authority and the ordinary administration of justice.
In the U.S., martial law may be declared by proclamation of the president or a state governor, but such a formal proclamation is not necessary.
Although the U.S.
Constitution makes no specific provision for the imposition of martial law, nearly every state has a constitutional provision authorizing the government to impose martial law.
The power of martial law, once held to be nearly absolute, has limitations.
For example, civilians may not be tried by military tribunals as long as civilian courts are functional.
Nonetheless, within the bounds of court decisions, a military commander's authority under martial law is virtually unlimited.
Martial law has been declared nine times since World War II, and in five instances was designed to counter resistance to federal desegregation decrees in the South.
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.
Although a climate of mutual aid has always existed between the military and civilian law enforcement and should
continue to exist Department of defense personnel are limited and what they
can do to enforce civil law Military personnel cannot be used in surveillance or undercover operations, and they may not be used as informants, investigators, or interrogators.
Unless the investigation is a joint military-civilian operation in which the military has an interest in the case's outcome.
Now, this is an article from 1989.
It is fairly out of date.
And again, as I stated, it's just one thing we pulled up from .gov, giving us an idea of what martial law is.
I think we are close to whatever martial law is here in the United States, but we'll see.
Jack Posobiec tweets.
White House chatter is that lockdowns for Delta variant all but a done deal.
Virtually all blue states are cooperating with White House and the CDC.
They're aiming for late second week of August per White House official.
So we will see.
It is not confirmed.
It is White House chatter.
For all we know, things change.
Jack does have sources in the White House and has had many of his stories turn out to be accurate.
But we'll see.
From Yahoo News, Publishing the National Review, Biden Admin Not Ruling Out Further Lockdowns If Scientists Recommend Them.
I hope you're paying attention.
Because at the very least, you can figure out what you need to do to keep your family safe for the time being when whatever's happening happens.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Karen Jean-Pierre on Thursday would not rule out further lockdowns to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 if scientists recommended such action.
During a press briefing, Fox News' Peter Ducey noted that President Biden had previously promised that no further lockdowns would be implemented.
However, Ducey asked why Americans should trust Biden, given that he had made a similar promise regarding masks, which the CDC began recommending again this week in areas of high or substantial spread, even for vaccinated people.
Well, because we listen to the scientists, Jean-Pierre said.
We listen to the experts.
This is a public health situation.
This is not about politics at all.
This is about saving lives.
And this is what the president is all about.
He wants to make sure we are saving lives.
The deputy press secretary argued that data on the virus from the past six months shows that Biden has saved lives.
Now we're at a point where we have to double down and make it very, very clear to people that we can't let the pandemic win, Jean-Pierre said.
We have to continue to fight.
Ducey then asked if the administration would support additional shutdowns, if scientists recommended lockdowns and school closures.
Well, like I said, we listened to the CDC and the experts and their guidance.
The CDC is a body that is very well respected.
So the answer is yes, perhaps.
They would, if recommended.
And like we saw with masks, masks are coming back.
D.C., for instance, mandatory mask mandate.
Nevada, California, likely many other places.
From TimCast.com, Biden says, I don't know yet about mandatory vaccines for the whole country.
President Joe Biden added to the growing confusion surrounding vaccine mandates during a press briefing from the White House Thursday, telling reporters, I don't know that yet, when asked about a federal requirement to receive the injection.
Quote, Why not push for a vaccine mandate in the states, private companies, and schools?
Do you want to see those entities pass vaccine mandates?
Asked one reporter.
I'd like to see them continue to move in that direction.
I asked the Justice Department to determine whether they're able to do that legally, and they can.
Local communities can do that.
Local businesses can do that.
It's still a question whether the federal government can mandate the whole country.
I don't know that yet.
Well, he's not saying no, it won't happen.
He's saying he just doesn't know yet, and he wants to move in that direction.
So please pay attention.
We do have a Bill of Rights, but it's only as strong as those willing to stand up for it.
Biden's comments come hours after he instructed states to offer $100 incentives to all people receiving the vaccine.
Quote, No task is more urgent than turning the tide on the pandemic, and there is no better tool than vaccination, the Treasury Department said in a statement.
Treasury stands ready to give technical assistance to state and local governments so that they may use the funds effectively to support increased vaccination in their communities, and Treasury will partner with the Department of Health and Human Services throughout this effort, it said.
Okay, so this is the point I was making earlier about what was said in Australia.
as chickenpox or Ebola.
And infected, vaccinated people transmitted as easily as unvaccinated, CDC document claims,
as agency says data that led to mass U-turn will be released today.
OK, so this is the point I was making earlier about what was said in Australia.
Let me show you the story.
Morrison said, if you get vaccinated, there will be special rules for you.
Why?
This is a quote, by the way.
Because if you're vaccinated, you present less of a public health risk.
You are less likely to get the virus.
You are less likely to transmit it.
Now from the CDC.
Delta variant is as infectious as chicken pox or Ebola, and infected vaccinated people transmit it as easily as unvaccinated.
The Prime Minister, I believe that was the Prime Minister right in Australia, Morrison, he is incorrect.
I don't know what to tell you, my friends.
I've got two news sources, right?
That's a quote from the Prime Minister.
That's not TimCast.com making that up.
That is a quote from the Prime Minister.
This story's been covered by the BBC, by NPR.
And we have the story from the Daily Mail, as well as similar statements made by the Washington Post.
So I can't tell you what to or what not to believe.
I don't know if we can.
You know, I think we're facing information overload.
The internet has become static and it's hard to navigate.
That's why I think talking to a doctor is the best thing for you.
Again, people will say, but their doctor doesn't know.
Then you need a better doctor.
I'll say that 50 billion times.
Sorry, I understand it's a bit repetitive, but it's genuinely an important point to be made, as the media seems to be 100% broken.
The Daily Mail reports health officials in the U.S.
will on Friday explain the science behind their U-turn on face masks, as Republicans expressed skepticism over the decision, which appears to have stemmed from research into a July 4th outbreak.
The CDC on Tuesday announced that they were updating their previous guidance to now recommend that vaccinated people wear face masks once more, when indoors and in parts of the country with substantial COVID-19 transmission.
They did not explain their reason for the shift in policy.
In fact, I believe it was even the Washington Post said, what's the data, what's the science, for there was none.
This has sparked fevered debate and merely said it was due to new data on the highly contagious Delta variant.
On May 13th, the American public was told they no longer needed to wear masks indoors if vaccinated.
An internal federal health document obtained by the Washington Post claimed, The Delta variant was as infectious as chickenpox or Ebola, with each infected person passing the virus to 8 or 9 others, on average.
That infectivity is known as RO.
The original lineage was about as transmissible as the common cold, with each infected person passing it to about 2 others, on average.
CDC Dr. Rochelle Walensky has previously noted the rarity of viruses with such high R-values, telling CNN.
When you think about diseases that have an RO of 8 or 9, there aren't that many.
Officials, the document stated, must acknowledge the war has changed.
The source of the data was unclear, but it appeared to have been provided to the Post and the New York Times at the same time, suggesting the possibility of a coordinated leak.
Walensky, director of the CDC, said that the new data, to be published on Friday, showed that vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant carry tremendous amounts of the virus in the nose and throat.
Walensky told the New York Times that the data suggests that even fully immunized people can be unwilling vectors for the virus, a change from the previously held belief that vaccinated people were unlikely to increase the spread of COVID-19.
Wellensky privately briefed members of Congress on Thursday, drawing on much of the material in the slide presentation obtained by the Washington Post.
Quote, I think people need to understand that we're not crying wolf here.
This is serious, she told CNN.
One of the slides states that there's a higher risk among older age groups for hospitalization and death relative to younger people regardless of vaccination status.
Really?
I'm sorry, man.
This brings up a whole lot of questions that I can't answer.
And I don't even know if I'm allowed to read the news this way, because the new information that's coming out, it's updated, and YouTube's rules aren't.
I don't know what to tell you guys.
It's becoming impossible for me to figure out what is the latest information and what is happening and what's true, and boy, I'm trying my best, and boy, work is tough.
But this is getting crazy.
I mean, that statement right there flies in the face of everything the left has been saying and yelling at me about, and what I accept to be the case.
One of the slides states, there is a higher risk among older age groups for hospitalization and death relative to younger people regardless of vaccination status.
I don't understand what I'm supposed to say about that.
Am I supposed to say that this is fake news, YouTube?
Let's just do that.
Let's just say, I don't know.
I don't know if any of this is true.
I'm just reading the news.
How about that?
What am I supposed to say?
Another estimates that there are 35,000 symptomatic infections per week among 162 million vaccinated Americans.
The document outlines communication challenges fueled by cases in vaccinated people, including concerns from local health departments about whether coronavirus vaccines remain effective and a public-convinced vaccines no longer work, booster doses needed.
Are they now saying that we're going to need boosters?
The CDC was criticized this week for updating the mask guidance without detailing the science behind it.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Washington Post that their move violated scientific norms.
You don't, when you're a public health official, want to be saying, trust us, we know we can't tell you how.
The scientific norm suggests that when you make a statement based on science, you show the science.
And the second mistake is they do not appear to be candid about the extent to which breakthroughs are yielding hospitalizations.
We have some tweets from Kevin McCarthy.
Democrats are basing their new mask mandate on 100 person study from India. It didn't pass peer
review and uses vaccines that aren't approved in America.
This is the science they're using to try and control Americans. He says total hypocrisy when
President Biden tweeted about masks on May 13th.
Drew Hamill says, unfortunately, we can't verify this audio because of poor quality,
but I can confirm that Speaker Pelosi believes that saying a mask requirement
is not a decision based on science is moronic.
Frank Thorpe tweeted, Pelosi on the backlash to mask mandates, quote, that's the purview of the Capitol physician.
Nothing to say except we honor it.
McCarthy questions it.
Pelosi says he's such a moron.
We don't know if that's true, I suppose.
Here we go, my friends.
Broadway.
New York.
You will need proof of vaccination and masks.
Proof of vaccination and masks.
And masks, okay?
We're not just going back to masks.
We're going vaccine mandate and mask mandate.
Bill de Blasio said he wanted to go in this direction.
He was offering cash for jabs.
You know, a hundred bucks, I think it was.
He was saying that the voluntary phase is over.
Get away from the cities, man.
I'll say it time and time again.
I'm out here in the middle of nowhere, and I just say get away from the cities.
From the Daily Mail.
Federal vaccine mandate, vaccine passports to go abroad, $100 bribes, and mandatory shots for the military.
Biden's draconian master plan to end American tragedy of COVID.
They say, President Joe Biden is launching a tough new approach on the COVID pandemic.
He will require federal government's 2 million workers to show proof of vaccination or submit to weekly testing.
I will stress that again.
If they're now reporting, the Washington Post and the CDC, that whether you're vaccinated or not, you can transmit the Delta variant, they need to be testing everyone, and only testing unvaccinated seems to make no sense.
He wants the military to add COVID to other vaccines mandated for forces, called for incentives and mandates.
He will reimburse businesses who provide leave for shots.
White House is embracing new face mask guidelines from CDC.
Biden also showing his frustration with those who refuse to get vaccinated.
Delta variant causing COVID cases to spike around the country.
Some critics say Biden should not have been so quick to lift face mask rules.
Jack Posobiec tweeted, I'm sorry, Marjorie Taylor Greene, followed by a quote from Jack Posobiec.
MTG says, according to a Democratic staff source, at least two Pelosi staffers tested positive for COVID this week and have been told to keep coming to work this week and remain working in Speaker's office.
Jack Posobiec says White House official just confirmed this.
Also hearing more staffers than just Pelosi all had contact with Texas delegation.
It seems there's a good ol' dose of rules for thee but not for me.
Pelosi staffers reportedly have COVID but are told to keep coming in and keep working while everyone's told to wear a mask.
Well, you could argue that the mask mandate makes sense if you were telling people who were testing positive for COVID not to show up.
If Nancy Pelosi is telling these people to actually come to work, then what's the point of Biden or anybody else saying you need negative COVID tests?
Certainly the politicians are ignoring that, if that story is true.
The next major crisis is the eviction crisis, and I think this story shows that the lockdown is coming.
Another lockdown, this time probably for longer.
House Democrats scrambling to set up vote on eviction ban extension from the Hill.
House Democratic leaders are scrambling to tee up a Friday vote on a bill that would extend a federal eviction ban through the end of the year with just two days before it expires.
The House Rules Committee on Friday morning debated a bill from Rep.
Maxine Waters to continue the CDC's eviction moratorium, which is set to lapse Sunday without congressional action.
Waters, the chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced an emergency measure on Thursday evening to extend the ban through December 31st.
The Rules Panel, which sets terms of floor debate for House legislation, is expected to advance the bill at some point on Friday, just a day after President Biden urged Congress to extend the evasion ban.
Quote, I quite frankly wish he had asked us sooner, said Rep Jim McGovern, Chairman of the Rules Panel, during a Friday morning hearing.
It's my hope we can move quickly to get this bill through the House, McGovern added.
Every hour is of the essence.
Biden's request, issued two days before the House was set to break for the August recess, kicked off a rush to avert a potential eviction cliff.
Speaker Pelosi pleaded with her caucus in letters sent late Thursday night, calling an extension a moral imperative.
We, in Congress, have the opportunity and the responsibility to respect the dignity of those who have suffered so much in terms of their health, financial security, and well-being.
Even so, it is unclear if Waters' bill has enough Democratic support to pass the House with what will likely be unanimous Republican opposition.
If the legislation makes it through, it would then need support from at least 10 Republican senators and all 50 members of the Democratic caucus to avoid a GOP filibuster in the Senate.
Republicans have excoriated the Biden administration and House Democrats for waiting until the last moment to rush through an emergency extension despite knowing for more than a month about the impending deadline.
This was a known and preventable disaster, and to call it an emergency now is absolutely patently absurd, said Rep.
Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee.
The CDC renewed the moratorium on June 24th through the end of July for what it said would be the last time.
The Supreme Court also warned the administration on June 29th that further extensions of the CDC order must be approved by Congress, arguing the agency did not have the authority to issue the ban.
Think about this.
This is the government instructing private entities and businesses that they cannot charge money for the services rendered.
Now, there's a lot of things to be said about potential homelessness.
There's a lot of things to be said about the landlords who also are eating this.
And they're not all ultra-wealthy people.
It may be a three-flat where someone bought a building and they rent out two floors.
It is to say, I think it is important to highlight this because the extension suggests we are not going to be getting out of this anytime soon.
If there was a belief that we were going to pull out of the crisis and the tailspin, They would certainly be easing these rules, the unemployment payments, and trying to get us back to normal.
Instead, they're seeking to extend the moratorium until December, December 31st.
There's also been conversations about extending the unemployment payments, which is to suggest they think we will have economic restrictions moving forward.
There are millions of job openings, and there's a labor shortage at the same time.
The problem is being caused by these lockdowns, which don't seem to be working.
But I can't tell you about anything else, because the news is all extremely contradictory.
What I can say is that homeless camps have been popping up everywhere, from the Daily Mail.
DC homeless encampment in the shadow of Watergate stays for now, authorities say, despite furious locals' complaints about drugs, harassment, human excrement, and weapons.
We were talking to somebody on the Tim Castaro podcast who said they went to L.A.
Think about him and Jack.
And that normally, you know, Skid Row is where all the homeless people are.
And they saw all these homeless tents and said, well, were we on Skid Row?
And then someone from L.A.
responded, bro, Skid Row is the entire city now.
Homeless camps are everywhere.
We have Portland.
Portland bans homeless camps in forest areas amid wildfires.
Portland stressed that the rule was to prevent fires from starting in the city.
And then we have this from ABC9.
Outreach groups bring relief to people and pets in homeless camps across Kansas City.
It's happening everywhere.
Perhaps we do need a moratorium on evictions.
Congress will have to approve that, and they have about a day to get it through.
In New York, I'm being told that they're going to be paying the landlords to keep the system churning.
But where does this leave us?
Regardless of what you think can, will, or is happening, The economy is in serious trouble.
Inflation is getting bad.
John Schnatter, Papa John's former chairman, told us that he knows people running pizza places where they gotta pay 35 bucks an hour to people to make the pizzas.
You think a year lockdown was bad for the economy?
What do you think is going to happen if we do it again, this time with an exponential return?
One year of lockdown was bad enough.
A little bit longer.
And now what?
We're entering another one?
In Australia, they've decided to bring out the military.
Because they said some people don't think the rules apply to them.
You know, Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
They don't have the same rights we do in the United States, so maybe we won't see that here.
If the military were to be deployed, it would be extremely serious.
Now, we did see deployments during the pandemic to distribute the vaccine, but for enforcement?
Posse comitatus!
Off the top of my head, my understanding is the military can't be used to enforce civilian law.
But what happens if we see the invocation of National Security Presidential Directive 51?
Do you know what that is?
Signed in by George W. Bush, it states the president can essentially create a new constitutional government with a national continuity coordinator.
Now, just because George W. Bush signed this doesn't mean it can be done.
It's never been tested legally, and many argue that it's probably not even legal.
Right now, Joe Biden, as Trump did, as Obama did, could claim Directive 51 because of a massive loss of life, giving them martial law authorities, reshaping this country as we know it.
Will they invoke Directive 51?
I'd be interested to see if they do.
I almost don't want to think so, but it's one way to have an end run around the Constitution, around the Bill of Rights.
Directive 51 states, and I'll paraphrase, that if there is a major catastrophe triggering a major loss of life anywhere, the government can effectively be rolled over into a new constitutional government with one coordinator for all three branches of government.
It would create a supreme seat of power for the president who decides to wield it.
I warned that Trump could have done it.
Many people said it wasn't possible.
There have been similar directives and there's even an update, so maybe it won't.
Maybe it can't happen.
Maybe my information's out to date.
Suffice it to say, there are numerous ways the federal government can just seize power and say, we are going to be enforcing things.
And to be honest, there are certain circumstances where they probably need to.
I mean, if we were getting attacked by a foreign adversary, Then there would be serious martial law.
Only because of the luxury and comfort and wealth of this nation have we lived so truly free.
Even for those that are libertarian, it's important to recognize that there have been times of war where Certain rights get suspended because the fate of our nation hangs in the balance, notably with the U.S.
Civil War back in the 1860s.
Abraham Lincoln did a lot of really awful things, but we look back on him with veneration and reverence for a great president.
So I don't know what to tell you.
Trust is out the window.
And if you don't trust, then you'll never accept any of these measures.
Australia's doing it.
I don't know.
Maybe it won't happen here.
We'll see.
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.
I don't need to tell you that there were massive riots throughout the past year.
Actually, a little bit longer than a year ago now.
Things were intense.
My, how time flies.
Isn't that crazy?
But last year, we saw some of the worst riots this country has ever seen.
And whenever I talk about how bad the riots were, I always want to cite Michael Tracy, a journalist who actually did the groundwork, went to small towns you've probably never heard of, And found that even in these places, not big cities, the rioting was so bad that people were putting signs on their windows saying, please don't hurt us.
We support Black Lives Matter and things like that.
Well, what did we get from our lawmakers?
Feckless and spineless Republicans did nothing.
Democrats actively supported and defended the riots, and the media called them peaceful protests, which was not true.
Then comes January 6th.
We now have a hearing.
Crying police officers.
And I'll be the first to say, as I often am, yeah, that was really horrible what happened on January 6th.
I mean, we all know it, okay?
Do I really need to say it every single time?
But I guess, just for the sake of clarity, this is not about defending bad behavior from anybody.
It's about asking for a standard.
Well, we're getting our congressional hearing into January 6th.
Okay, sure, fine, whatever.
In fact, Steve Bannon supported it, or supports it now.
He came on TimCast.io and said he's in favor of a January 6th commission.
He wants to know exactly what happened, why the police didn't respond, why weren't they able to shut the doors, who were these cops taking selfies with people.
You know what?
Bannon makes a really, really good point.
We absolutely should get to the bottom of January 6th.
Seriously.
There were police taking selfies with people?
I wanna see them play the video of the doors being opened.
But instead, what happens is, they get these two, I guess, I don't even, what's the point of calling them Republicans?
Kinzinger and Cheney.
And they're basically Democrats.
Not like the Republicans do anything, to be completely honest.
Unless you got like Rand Paul or somebody on...
But here we go.
Two-thirds of voters want congressional investigation of deadly Black Lives Matter riots.
We do.
Of course we do.
I want to know what happened.
I want to know the damages.
I want to know who was affected.
I want to know why it was allowed to persist.
And I want to know why Kamala Harris was soliciting donations, fundraising, for some of these criminals Could you imagine if Lauren Boebert put out a fundraiser just after the riot saying, let's help all these guys?
Now, to be completely honest...
I wouldn't be surprised if, as of right now, there was a fundraiser for many of the people on January 6th because they're experiencing horrific conditions.
And right now you have, recently the Republicans went to the D.C.
Correctional Building and they locked the doors.
Republicans weren't allowed in.
I certainly think those people from January 6th absolutely should be punished.
I said it before.
I said it to the Daily Beast when they, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, to the Southern Poverty Law Center when they asked me about it.
I said, the people who are rioting there?
Lock them up.
You commit these crimes.
I have long said this is not the way forward.
And a lot of people want to just emotionally react, saying like, no, it's what we have.
No.
Violence does not work.
When Black Lives Matter does it, they're protected.
Because Republicans don't do anything.
Stop voting for them.
Man, could everybody just vote, like, libertarian or something?
Um, I don't know.
Whatever.
I don't want to vote for these people.
And then I get everyone saying, like, but Tim, if you don't vote Republican, then the Democrats will win.
And I'm like, dude, so would I vote for the system imploding or the system imploding?
What's the point?
You vote for a Democrat, they burn it to the ground.
You vote for Republican, they kick the can down the road.
What is the point?
We got to actively pursue some solutions here.
Building culture, Finding some politicians who will do better.
Now, look, to be fair, I guess the Republican Party is the vehicle for the anti-establishment, so you get people like Rand Paul, you get, you know, people like, uh, well, you know, Rand Paul, Thomas Massey, they're really great examples.
Sure.
But if people like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy and Liz Cheney and Kinzinger, if these are the people that are just going to get elected, then why should I bother with the Republicans?
No congressional hearing on this.
So what's the point?
In the end, we get the same thing.
Let's read this story and see what these people want.
From TimCast.com, as House Democrats have created a committee to investigate the January 6th Capitol protest, It was a riot.
A majority of voters would also like to see a congressional investigation into the deadly 2020 Black Lives Matter riots.
I think they're both riots, and I think it's fair to say that.
We're going to be hiring a fact-checker and a frame-checker.
This is the great thing.
So a fact-checker says, was it a protest?
Well, you could argue it was a protest.
That's a fact.
Was it a riot?
You could argue it was a riot.
That's a fact.
Both are true, right?
Well, I think a frame-checker We're trying to find someone who's fairly moderate, who's going to look at this and say, like, like, my perspective.
Certainly there was a protest at the Capitol.
It escalated into a riot.
I'm not going to sit here and be like, if Black Lives Matter throws a brick one time, it's a riot, but these guys at the Capitol is not a riot.
So a frame checker would go here, and then basically submit, hey, we're gonna make these changes in framing, and then put a note saying, we, like, I want to be very specific, like, editor's note, we changed the word protest to riot, here's why we did it, and have, like, this full thing, we have a crazy plan.
I want to have, like, a citation list, like Wikipedia, we got, we want to do a bunch of crazy stuff, but anyway, let me read.
According to a national telephone and online survey conducted by the National Police Association and Rasmussen Reports, found that 66% of likely voters in the U.S.
think Congress should open an investigation into the BLM riots, during which more than 2,000 police officers suffered injuries in the line of duty.
Just 21% of the likely voters indicated that they don't think Congress should investigate last year's riots, and 13% were not sure.
Reisman reports that the survey found strong voter support for law enforcement on issues ranging from display of the
thin blue line flag to prosecution to prosecute to prosecution of so-called
quality of life crimes Additionally support for an investigation into the Black
Lives Matter riots far surpassed support for speaker Nancy Pelosi's select committee
Investing in a select committee investigation of what happened at the Capitol on January 6 just 49% support her
efforts While 42% said they did not and I think that's just
partisan, but you guys Bannon made a really really good point
There should be a commission.
Let's figure out what the police were doing.
Why was there no National Guard?
How did these people breach the barrier?
And of the people who stormed the barrier, I have no sympathy for them.
I have sympathy for the people who didn't know what was going on, had the cops opened the door and were welcomed in.
Perhaps a commission could get to the bottom of this.
I mean, look, the story from a lot of these police in this commission are absurd.
Just really, really over the top, and they're like tearing up, and I'm like, okay, man, but sure, have your commission.
I don't know.
At first, I was very much opposed to it, like it's a waste of time.
It's just partisan pandering BS.
And then Steve Bannon made the argument, and it was a good argument, and I said, yeah, I shouldn't be so quick to react, I suppose.
We should investigate this, as we should with Black Lives Matter.
Quote, According to a study of 68 cities by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, in the summer of 2020, there were at least 574 protests that involved acts of violence, including assaults on police officers looting and arson.
We'll call those riots.
Rasmussen noted, The number of voters who want Congress to investigate last year's violent protests is higher than 49%, the 49%, who say they support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Select Committee investigation of the January 6th Capitol riot.
42% say they don't support the January 6th investigation.
Shockingly, support for an investigation into the violent riots was supported by a majority of every racial group and even a majority of Democrats and Independents.
Majorities of every racial group and political affiliation support a congressional investigation of last year's violent protests.
67% of whites, 64% of black voters, 66% of Hispanics, and 62% of other minorities think Congress should investigate the 2020 riots in U.S.
cities.
75% of Republicans, 60% of Democrats, and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party say Congress should investigate last year's violent protests.
The NPA said in a statement that the riots have directly led to the rise in crime taking place in cities across the nation because not allowing police to stop them signaled that crime is now allowed.
Quote, when the major, when the mayors of cities in which violent riots took place in 2020 refused to let police immediately stop the crimes taking place, it sent a message to violent criminals across the nation that crimes will be allowed and criminals won't be touched.
The NPA said in a statement about the results.
For the last year, violent crimes have increased nationally, and the lack of support from politicians has resulted in the number of police officers declining into a short-staffing recruitment and retention crisis.
They go on to say, the survey of 996 U.S.
likely voters was conducted July 16th through 18th by the National Police Association and Rasmussen Reports.
The margin of sampling error is plus and minus three percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence.
Fieldwork for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinions Research.
We want to make sure you have all that good context, so you know exactly who we're talking about, and there's no accusations of lies and manipulation.
But of course, they'll say Rasmussen is biased.
They're the worst.
I guess.
What do you really do with polls?
Now, I don't think this is the kind of poll where it's like, you know, you want someone to win an election.
I think this one's kind of obvious.
Who wouldn't want an investigation into criminal riots?
I mean, you get regular people's businesses ransacked.
Now, herein lies the big problem.
My friends, I would like to transport you to the great city of San Francisco, the epitome of woke oligarchy, where you have massive multinational billion-dollar corporations with their penthouses in the Bay Area, and then you have poop, human poop, all over the streets.
And you have a woke district attorney, Chesa Bowden.
There was a viral video.
He was filling a garbage bag full of items from a Walgreens.
You may have seen it.
Woke San Francisco DHS abodant defends shoplifter in infamous Walgreens video and says he was desperate, then blames the drugstore's security guard amid city robbery explosion.
Do you know what shrinkage is?
Like how these stores operate?
So when you have a store, and there's shoplifting, they put the cost of shoplifting into the products.
Now, in San Francisco, they're just shutting down their stores.
They're reducing the hours.
So I think it's like Target, they're like, we're gonna close at 6pm now, because if we stay open later, we'll get too much shoplifting.
The shoplifting is so severe, they can't put those losses into the cost of other products, the prices would go up too much.
And you can blame woke district attorneys who are defending people.
And it's worse than that.
It's worse than that.
Not only does Chessa Bowden defend the shoplifter, he actively defends drug dealers.
In an article from the Marina Times, they mentioned that at a virtual town hall held July 25th, 2020, San Francisco D.H.
Chessa Bowden told a stunned audience that prosecuting drug cases came at a too steep a price for dealers.
He goes on to mention that, you know, a significant percentage of people selling drugs in San Francisco, perhaps as many as half, are from Honduras.
And many of them have been trafficked here.
We need to be mindful of the impact our interventions have.
Some of them have family members in Honduras who have been or will be harmed if they don't continue to pay off the traffickers who bought them.
Oh!
It makes so much sense!
They're selling drugs because their family members are being held hostage.
And we must keep allowing them to sell the drugs, otherwise their family members will get hurt.
He actually tells that story.
A young man from Honduras, who he personally represented when he was a public defender, was accused of selling drugs and was guilty.
And he said it's because he had to pay the traffickers, otherwise they'll come for his father.
He says, if the man's father was killed because he cooperated in another state, why was he in San Francisco years later?
Oh, that's a question, yes.
He says, years before I met him, when he cooperated with federal authorities in a different state, his father in Honduras was killed in retaliation.
Bowden offered no details.
For example, if the man's father was killed because he cooperated in another state, why was he in San Francisco years later still selling drugs?
Instead, he used the anecdote to highlight why he believes drug dealers shouldn't be sent to prisons or deported.
These are not idle threats, and we do not have the power to protect people in Honduras from these trafficking organizations.
My friends, this is July 25th, 2020.
Only 396 views.
This is why we don't know about these things.
And that's why we need real journalism.
So the Marina Times, I'm not familiar with their reporting.
I saw the story, so I did a fact check.
I pulled up the video right here.
You can see reimagining public safety, a virtual town hall with San Francisco DHS Abodin, 396 views, and in the transcript, that quote is legitimate.
We need to also recognize a significant percentage of people selling drugs.
In San Francisco, perhaps as many as half are here from Honduras.
He said it.
He actually said it.
This is a man who said, if we stop drug dealers on our streets, it could hurt their families overseas.
How do we figure that out?
How do we track or prove that?
And why are we suffering in our communities because of what these people are bringing here?
Do we just open the borders, shut the country down, and say, free for all everybody?
It's the purge!
Sell and do whatever you want?
It's insane.
There are a lot of people who have committed crimes because they had some circumstance that they were desperate to overcome.
How many people, how many stories have been somebody like, my kids are hungry?
There's a really sad story where a guy, he went and robbed a bank of a dollar.
And then he went and he demanded a dollar and then he went and sat down.
And then when the police came and arrested him, he said, it's because he had cancer and that when he's in prison, he'll get health care and he won't get it outside of prison.
So he was like, it's either this or I die.
It's like, wow.
That's a messed up story.
Which is why I often talk about universal healthcare.
Some kind of basic level protections.
Because come on, man.
We can't function as a society in that capacity.
But there are many criminals.
Do we say to this guy, we are not sending you to prison because you're just... No, you committed a crime.
You get locked up.
There are a lot of people who have committed crimes, like I mentioned, because their kids are hungry.
It's like, dude, you can't do this.
Now, I can sympathize and empathize, like, man, what are you supposed to do?
No, I mean, seriously, think about this.
Let's say you've got two kids.
You lose your job, and they're hungry.
Are you gonna just let them go hungry, or are you gonna do whatever you have to do to help them?
This is why I like social programs and I like charity.
I think we need to figure out how to help people who are struggling, but I also think we need to recognize we can't help everybody.
And so we have this impossible conundrum.
Do we leave people to suffer?
That's going to lead to crime, I suppose.
Then we lock this guy up in jail.
And then what?
His kids go hungry, and we pay even more money to keep him off the streets.
That's not... That's not... It doesn't work.
Seriously.
No, I certainly don't think the solution is to apologize for a guy filling a garbage bag full of stuff on a bike inside of a Walgreens.
No, we say it's wrong, it's illegal, and you have to stop, because we're not going to allow you to destabilize the country and the economy in our stores simply because you are desperate.
But I also think we need to better figure out our policing system, our jailing system.
I'm not a fan of cash bail.
I think cash bail is wrong.
I've said that a million times.
And I think that we would probably be better served not paying like 30 grand a year on jailing people.
But then what do we do?
You certainly don't just pay criminals.
That's actually been proposed before.
It's like, dude, that's equally stupid in the other direction.
They're like, why don't we pay them not to commit crimes?
Because then they'll just take the money and commit more crimes.
Obviously, there are some people who commit crimes out of desperation, but not everybody does that, and most people probably don't.
Chessa Bowden.
He's been the DA since 2019.
Daily Mail reports.
On June 14th, the man was filmed stealing a garbage bag full of items from Walgreens.
The viral video was used as evidence of a crime wave in San Francisco.
Since 2014, thefts below $950 have been prosecuted as misdemeanors.
Bowden spoke to The New Yorker in an interview published on Thursday.
He said his response to the video was to ask whether the perpetrator was drug-addicted, mentally ill, desperate, and what was driving this behavior.
He asked whether Walgreens deliberately accounted for losses from theft.
The suspect, John Lugo Romero, 40, was arrested on June 19th and remains in jail.
He previously robbed the same store May 29th, May 30th, May 31st, and June 1st.
He was previously stopped by police and Walgreen declined to prosecute.
This is a guy who came there four days in a row stealing stuff.
And Jessup Bowden's like, but this poor man, he's so desperate.
Yo, there are food banks.
Yo, there are shelters.
There are food programs.
There are activists.
There's no excuse for committing these crimes.
I'm sorry, like I said, some people might be like, what am I going to do?
My kids are hungry.
It's not an excuse for committing the crimes.
It's also not an excuse for us to be like, lock him up, because then why am I paying 30 grand in taxpayer dollars to lock a guy up because he's committing crimes out of desperation?
So I can see what he's trying to say.
The problem is when you get people of low perspicacity, we'll put it that way, they just make the assumptions that every single person doing this is desperate.
We can lock him up and we can figure out alternative means of prevention.
I do not think just jailing people solves anything.
It's rudimentary.
It's like trying to drive a nail with a rock.
I mean, yeah, it could work.
But then the rock could break.
Get a hammer.
We made hammers.
Hammers work.
Or get a nail gun.
There are better ways to do this.
So I'm 100% about prison reform, police reform, and I certainly think one of the problems is you get people who are midwits.
It's a good way to put it.
These are people who, you know, I'll describe it this way, in this circumstance, smart enough to recognize it's stupid for us to spend like 30 grand jailing somebody when they're not violent offenders, But it's also stupid to say, oh, these poor people, let's just let them go or give them money not to commit crimes.
If you're a midwit, you'll recognize a problem and then offer up a midwit solution.
Now, do I have an answer?
I don't.
And that's because I'm not going to pretend to be smart enough to be able to formulate how we solve for this problem.
The reality may be we have no choice but to spend 30 grand to lock up somebody who is going to cost a society 12 grand.
Like, how much money would we lose from the theft and from, you know, from the prosecution?
There's a challenge, however.
If we said, we will not prosecute thefts below $950, it's not worth it, then people start stealing and there you go.
So, it's not about whether you think the one theft is worth it.
It's about whether or not it leads to more.
So let's go back to the original point.
A man says, I'm desperate, and he steals food for his children.
We say, we're not going to arrest him because he's desperate.
Then someone else who isn't desperate says, sweet, goes in and steals stuff and gets away with it.
Then someone else says, hey, free for all, goes in and steals stuff, gets away with it.
So, that's why we have to say to people, you broke the law.
You will be punished.
Like, we're not going to allow this.
Otherwise, we open the door for everybody, and we can't stop the floodgates once they're open.
And that's exactly what happened in San Francisco.
So, anyway, why I bring this up.
I probably should have explained the segue, initially.
The point is, the left is unwilling unable to actually deal with these crimes in this crisis.
They don't want to, they won't, or they support the criminals.
Or they like the chaos it sows.
So take a look at what's going on with the Black Lives Matter riots.
You take a look at this crime wave and there's the obvious correlation.
Democrats are soft on crime and actively support it.
They supported Black Lives Matter, they support the shoplifters, and they're sympathetic to the criminals selling drugs on our streets because of some vague and nebulous story about a father that they don't know was in a different country thousands of miles away.
You know what, man?
Rubes.
That's the easiest way to put it.
A criminal comes up and says, oh geez, I was just stealing because, you know, my kids are sick.
And they go, aww, okay, you're free to go.
Bro, not every person is doing it because of that, and they're probably lying to you.
They're criminals.
Sometimes it's true, and it does happen, like I said.
So we gotta figure out a way to deal with this cheaply and more effectively.
I don't have all the answers.
I really don't.
I mean, I've talked a bit about things we can do.
Work programs.
I think locking people up is dumb.
You know, we should probably sentence people to, like, community work or something.
And there are... I've heard there's great success in work, you know, like, work-to-live kind of programs where... Like, I'll put it this way.
I was reading stories about how you can take offenders and by putting them in, like, having them go camping.
No joke!
Like, setting up an open air prison, and I mean that, I don't know if that's like the right phrase, but, uh, it's, it's, you walk around, you do your thing, and then you're told, like, here's how we, we grow the food, here's how we go fishing, and you give them jobs.
Active roles in a community.
I've read that that has tremendous success.
At the very least, it would be substantially cheaper.
It would be, honestly, more humane for the individuals.
They'd have open air, they'd have fresh air, they could choose their daily routines.
They're separated from society, so their violent crimes aren't going to impact anybody else.
Conflict that arises, obviously, would be dealt with by security guards.
But still, like, you commit a violent crime, then you go to this, like...
I think that's what they do in Norway, to be honest.
They, like, the most violent offenders are sent to, like, this enclosed island where it's like, you are free to live as you see fit.
We've separated you, and now you've got to figure it out.
And they found tremendous success in that giving these people these responsibilities and making them responsible mostly for their own safety, security, and food and water.
Results in people Reforming I'm not saying that's that's that's a true fact or like I'm not saying that I know that to be 100% true or That it's a guaranteed thing that we should like that will work and we should do it.
I'm saying think about our prison system It's not reforming people.
It's not helping them So we could probably save a lot of money.
And that's just right off the top of my head.
You know what I mean?
Imagine if we had smart people who actually thought about solutions to these problems instead of just defending criminals.
Well, I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
They got him.
Ladies and gentlemen, they got him.
Twitter got Dave Rubin.
They suspended him.
I think it was for what, like 12 hours?
I'm not sure.
But let's pour one out for the hum— I'm not gonna pour out my coffee.
This is why Dave created Locals, because the cliffs are eroding, my friends.
Long story short, Dave tweeted an opinion about the current news pertaining to the vaccine, and Twitter suspended him for it.
And this is one of the problems we have cited in the past week or so over at TimCast IRL and here at TimCast on YouTube.
And the problem is that the information changes so rapidly They can ban you for whatever, and claim it was misinformation.
No one knows what's real or true anymore.
And so Dave tweets factual information, criticizing what's going on, and they say that's misinformation.
Take it down.
Well, the internet has noticed.
But let me explain the cliffs eroding, my friends.
How many of you believe Dave Rubin would never be suspended?
I mean, a lot of people did.
I hear it all the time.
People saying, Tim's never gonna get suspended.
He's a shill.
Because often, what do I say?
Go to TimCast.com, become a member to help support our fierce and independent journalism, because sooner or later, they're going to ban me, ban my channels, and then y'all won't be able to find my content unless we do something else.
Now, Dave built Locals.
He created a space where people can come and have an easy way to put up their content.
And I gotta admit, it's expensive to do it on your own, but I'm too fierce and independent.
Well, I wanted to hire a crew and I wanted to build a company, so we had to do our own thing.
But this is why we both have done similar things.
You know, Dave's created a platform for many other people who probably don't have the means or the interest in building out their own website and company.
And I've created an isolated space, or somewhat, where we can be safe from this kind of censorship.
It's coming.
Let me explain the cliffs eroding, what that means.
We're standing atop this island.
And on every cliff, it's a sheer drop, 20 feet, into the water.
The waves are crashing into the sides of this island, and bit by bit, the island is eroding.
The cliffs are collapsing.
And at first, it was the far right.
People on the far right were standing on the edge, and the cliffs eroded, and they fell in, and they were gone.
Now it's conservatives.
And already we see what they're trying to do.
They're going after Steven Crowder.
But those cliffs are eroding as well.
Now Crowder hasn't completely fallen off.
They've given him two strikes already.
Maybe he'll be able to pull himself back up.
But now it's Dave Rubin.
And the funny thing is Daily Mail calls Dave a conservative commentator.
I guess.
I don't really know what that means anymore anyway.
But sure, everything's really weird and crazy.
This shows us something worrisome, I suppose.
The cliff's eroding is the perfect example because those that survive the erosion are the ones that move further left.
If you're on the right and your cliff is crumbling, you are crawling leftwards to avoid the cliff falling with you on it.
So what does that mean?
Well, there was an article in the New York Times I covered yesterday on my main channel where they were arguing for citizens having the right to vote.
I'm sorry, non-citizens having the right to vote.
And they said that by allowing non-citizens the right to vote, what would happen is that Democrats would likely win many more elections, and it would force the Republicans to move left and start catering to a more diverse group.
As if the idea of being responsible for yourself is, oh wait, yeah, they literally believe a bunch of racist things about white people being the only ones who want to work.
Sorry, that's just not true.
But you see what's happening?
With the cliffs eroding, with this, it's a shot across the bow.
How long until someone else gets banned?
And Dave didn't break any rules.
The media has become so insane that no one knows what's happening.
I've got articles that contradict each other.
And I don't know which one will be the one to get me banned, so how about this, YouTube?
I'll show them both!
And I'll say, whichever one is right is what YouTube says it is.
How about that?
But sooner or later, the axe is coming down.
It's coming for all of us.
Here we go.
Quote, everything he said was 100% accurate.
Twitter is slammed for locking the account of conservative commentator Dave Rubin after he tweeted COVID vaccines weren't working as promised and suggested booster shots were on the horizon.
Now, I've got some articles.
I think what they're getting Dave for is when he claimed the vaccines weren't working as promised.
There's an article from the Washington Post and it tells us that there's contradictory articles.
There's two.
One says the viral load from people with vaccines is not significant and there's another one that says it is.
I think that's what Dave was citing.
I don't know if that's true.
How about this, YouTube?
If you think it was wrong, let me just say the mainstream media's article about this, the Washington Post, is fake news!
And, uh, this is why I just say, talk to your doctor.
And there's a really simple reason why I say it literally every video.
I get, I know guys, I get comments that are like, Tim, Tim, stop saying it!
You say it too much!
That's the most important thing to stress.
Just, the media is completely fractured and broken.
I understand that doctors are people too, and they're susceptible to the same false information, but just find a good doctor you know has done the research.
It's that simple.
You need to have people you trust to keep you safe.
Do you trust a police officer?
I tend to, but there's a lot of people who don't trust doctors and do trust cops and, you know, people choose where to put their trust, so you guys gotta figure this out on your own and do what you can to be safe.
But let's read.
The Daily Mail says, Twitter has come under fire for locking the account of Dave Rubin.
Rubin, whose new book is released today.
Really convenient, isn't that?
Tweeted Thursday evening that society should take a pause amid the vaccine rollout.
Quote, they want a federal vaccine mandate for vaccines that are clearly not working
as promised just weeks ago, he wrote. People are getting and transmitting COVID despite vacs.
Plus now they're prepping us for booster shots. A sane society would take a pause.
We do not live in a sane society. I really don't know how to respond to that other than to say
that Twitter says Dave Rubin is incorrect. I don't know what is true and correct, because
the news is contradictory. So let me just say talk to your doctor about what's right for you,
because I have no idea what to say.
I have no— I— Look, my honest opinion, though, like, I'll be completely honest with you, is I typically don't have much to say, and that's why people call me a milk-toast fence-sitter, and that's why I'm like, ah, talk to your doctor.
I'm not going to give you plumbing advice.
I'm not going to give you carpentry advice.
I can give you advice on building a skate park, but you're still going to need a construction crew with that kind of expertise to get the job done.
As for Dave's opinions, he's certainly entitled to them, right?
Twitter temporarily locked Rubin's account, determining the post violated its policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.
He was informed by the social media giant his account access would be fully restored in 12 hours if he removed the tweet he did, but said it was against his better judgment.
The incident comes just weeks after Donald Trump launched a class-action lawsuit against Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai of Google, claiming he's the victim of censorship by the tech giants.
Will Chamberlain, of course.
You guys know Will.
He said that, in response to this, Dave Rubin should be able to walk into a court and get an injunction and get his account reinstated immediately.
I agree.
These companies are not private venues.
They are where public discourse is happening.
So we can't have this, especially when Dave is citing mainstream news articles, which are wrong, YouTube.
The articles are wrong, I guess, and only your doctor is right.
Your doctor is substantially more likely to be right.
Let's be real.
Rubin and other conservative commentators hit out at Twitter over Thursday's action, slamming the power of big tech and questioning what aspects of his original post were misleading or potentially harmful.
The creator and host of the political talk show The Rubin Report told Fox News his comments were all factual and accused Twitter of lying with its claims he violated policy.
Every single thing that I said in that tweet was true.
This is a complete continuation of silencing any sort of dissent.
Anyone that questions the narrative is in a lot of trouble when it comes to big tech, and we better fight it because we're running out of time.
Okay, Dave.
Sue Twitter.
I'm not joking.
If they made a false statement of fact, and you can prove that there was either actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth, file the suit and...
There you go.
Now, I guess one of the biggest challenges with defamation is proving damages.
Dave Rubin's book just came out.
They took away his ability to promote it for 12 hours.
Calculate the sales, Dave!
How many sales per hour are you getting now?
You can't actually know on launch day how many you would have gotten, but let's say you sell a thousand books in the first hour.
Hey, that's 12 hours they took away from you.
There's your damages.
File for discovery.
See what they were saying about you and have said about you in the past.
On Thursday, Joe Biden announced a series of new measures to try and boost vaccination rates, as infections continue to rise, driven by the spread of the more contagious Delta variant.
Yes, yes, yes.
We'll talk about that probably in my other segment, which on the podcast you may have already listened to.
But I want to show you Dave's response specifically to focus on the censorship of what's happening.
Dave tweeted, hello there!
Twitter let me out of the gulag just in time to announce my new book, which is now available for pre-order.
I'll sign a book plate for every copy sold today.
Get your copy, submit your receipt.
Now, I'm assuming, I think they were saying that his book was available for pre-order yesterday.
If that's true, Dave, you've got real damages.
You're promoting this.
You've got 207 retweets.
I'm sure you're selling books.
How much pre-order sales did you lose because you lose that momentum?
Might not be easy to calculate, and it might be substantial.
Dave said, Twitter forced me to delete the tweet to get my account back.
Here are the headlines from USA Today, WAPO, and CNN confirming what I said in the tweet.
The assault on truth by big tech and the government is much of what the book is about.
I'll be updating the intro accordingly.
So here's an article from USA Today.
An American tragedy.
Biden offers incentives, mandates to get 90 million holdouts to vaccinate COVID-19 updates.
The next article is from CNN.
Pfizer data suggests third dose of COVID-19 vaccine strongly boosts protection against Delta variant.
The idea of a booster has been around for a little while now.
I've talked about it on Chimcast IRL.
There was even a CNBC article that actually told people to mix and match.
Please just talk to a doctor.
That's the craziest thing to me.
Hey, there are literally people that go and get a bunch.
There was a meme, this viral video, where a dude is pretending that he's doing a sketch where he gets the vaccine, and the doctor's like, you're all good, and then he's like, now I have all five Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and what's the last one?
I can't remember.
Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, whatever.
Anyway, he says that he gets them all, and the doctor's like, that's not really a good thing.
And then he's like, no, I have the power.
And then he punches the doctor.
It's all a joke, but he's making the joke that getting all the vaccines gave him superpowers or something.
And I'm just like, bro, the joke was that the doctor was saying, don't do that.
Now you've got articles telling people to do that.
Dave's not wrong about the booster thing.
They have been talking about boosters for some time.
And then we have this from the Washington Post.
They say, vaccinated people who became infected with Delta shed just as much virus as those who are not vaccinated.
So that is not the vaccine causing it.
It's that people still get COVID even with the vaccine.
Of course, they've long said the vaccine will prevent the severity of the illness, it will reduce hospitalization rates and death rates, and active cases have been dropping.
Well, all right then.
But now they're discovering, so they say in Washington Post, that even if you get the vaccine, you could still be shedding the virus, to which I responded the other day in response to what Bill de Blasio was saying.
Either get a negative COVID test once a week or get the vaccine.
I'm like, Shouldn't the people with the vaccines be the ones getting the negative COVID tests because you can't tell if they have COVID because it's more likely to be asymptomatic or less severe?
And the people who are not vaccinated are more likely to be showing?
At any rate, if you're going to test people, shouldn't you have to test everyone?
Because there's no point only testing one group when everyone can spread the virus?
Policy makes no sense, all right?
Well, let's do some science.
Here we go, from Click Orlando.
Here's what viral load means when it comes to COVID-19.
So let's break down why they're claiming Dave Rubin is a liar, or he's spreading misinformation.
And I think you'll find something interesting in how the media is all twisted and broken, and it doesn't make sense.
Let me just preface this before we read the science.
The science.
Fauci could come out and be like, everybody needs to wear two masks because of the droplets, and then a news article will pop up saying, wear two masks because of the droplets.
Then the next day, Fauci could come out and say, I was mistaken, don't wear two masks.
But that article's still there, and it's from the same day, right?
July 28th, story comes out, Fauci says, wear a mask.
July 29th, Fauci comes out and says, no, wear two masks.
The stories are basically back-to-back, so a regular person could see the story and think it's new, the newest information, get into an argument with somebody.
Fauci says wear one mask.
What are you talking about?
You just said wear two masks.
No, we didn't.
The article's from today.
It says wear one mask.
Well, this article's from today.
It says wear two.
What are we talking about?
You're lying.
People lose it.
I'm going to show you this.
Here's what viral load means.
First, let's get some understanding.
They say, as researchers continue to study COVID-19, the Delta variant, health officials continue to talk about the viral load.
Seminole County Medical Director Todd Hustie helped explain what that means.
It's something that we started talking about with HIV, was viral load, and you'd see how much virus somebody had in them.
It's sort of a measure of how much activity does the virus have right now, so how much virus is in us.
Essentially, the Delta variant carries about a thousand times more virus than previous variants, according to Husty.
We have studies.
that have now shown that even on the first swab on somebody with a Delta variant, you're seeing almost a 1,000-fold increase in the amount of virus," said Dr. Cameron Webb, a senior policy advisor for the White House COVID-19 response team.
With the Delta variant increasingly making its way across the country, Husty said he wasn't surprised to see this new surge of COVID-19 patients at hospitals across Central Florida.
Okay, so they're seeing an increase, right?
Here's a story from the conversation from July 15th.
Can viral shedding after the COVID vaccine infect others?
That's a big no.
Really?
This is a NewsGuard-certified website with 100 out of 100.
They say, Fears of viral shedding and other concerns after COVID vaccine has led some businesses to ban vaccinated customers from the premises, believing vaccination poses a health risk to others.
We've seen this in Australia, in northern New South Wales, town of Mullumbimby, and on the Gold Coast in Queensland.
We've also seen this internationally.
In the US, a teacher warned her students not to hug their vaccinated parents for the same reason.
This story is from July 15th, 2021.
See, what they're talking about is people think the vaccine is causing shedding.
It's not the vaccine causing it, or at least I should say numerous reports and experts have said it's not the vaccine causing this.
But I think now we're starting to understand exactly what is happening.
People who get the vaccine still can get sick, still can transmit COVID, in which case people are falsely assuming the vaccine did it because they believe the vaccine prevents infection.
Which brings me to, I believe, this is the Washington Post.
There we go.
The Washington Post.
Couldn't tell which tab it was.
The war has changed.
Internal CDC document urges new messaging warns Delta infections likely more severe.
This story is from yesterday at 8 58 p.m.
So it's not even been up for 12 hours.
Oh, it's been up for a little bit more than 12 hours.
The Delta variant of the coronavirus appears to cause more severe illness than earlier variants and spreads as easily as chickenpox according to an internal federal health document that argues officials must acknowledge the war has changed.
The document is an internal CDC document presentation shared with the CDC and obtained by the Washington Post.
It captures the struggle of the nation's top public health agency to persuade the public to embrace vaccination and prevention measures, including mask-wearing, as cases surge across the U.S.
and new research suggests vaccinated people can spread the virus.
The document strikes an urgent note, revealing the agency knows it must revamp its public messaging to emphasize vaccination as the best defense against a variant so contagious that it acts almost like a different, novel virus, leaping from target to target more swiftly than Ebola or the common cold, they say.
It cites a combination of recently obtained, still unpublished data from outbreak investigations and outside studies showing that vaccinated individuals infected with Delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated.
Vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant, with Delta, have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant.
Two weeks ago, the story was framed quite differently.
The vaccines don't cause viral shedding.
The virus can shed it.
Viral shedding means like if you're sick and you cough, you're coughing virus.
So here's what happens.
Someone sees this story.
It's from two weeks ago.
Now, sure, you probably want to get a more updated story.
And they're gonna go ahead and assume that these later stories may or may not be real.
Because they don't know which one is the truth.
This one's from two weeks ago.
It's not talking about Delta variant.
It's talking about whether the vaccine can cause this stuff.
But it says, can viral shedding after the COVID vaccine infect others?
That's a big yes.
The Washington Post is saying it right now.
Not because the vaccine causes it, because you can still be sick.
So, can viral shedding after the COVID vaccine infect others?
Let's rephrase this.
Can you catch Delta if you're vaccinated and then infect others?
The answer is yes.
The title is easily going to throw people for a loop.
But let's wind it back to this story.
The story from July 28th that says they have 1,000 times more virus than previous variants.
And now let's bring it back to the Washington Post.
Vaccinated people infected with Delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant.
Well, so there you go.
Yes, there are substantially more virus in people who have Delta, and whether you're vaccinated or not, apparently you have the same viral load.
Cue up and rewind back to Dave Rubin.
What did he say?
Well, when you look at these stories that we're saying, If you've got the vaccine, it will not cause shedding.
The assumption from everybody was that the vaccine, for the most part, was preventing COVID.
But now we're learning that with the Delta variant, people who are vaccinated still have similar viral loads.
They may experience less severe illness, that's the expert's assessment, and are less likely to get sick and die, which is good, but they can still infect others.
So yeah, they're saying booster shots.
They're starting to say, I mean, the big pharma especially is saying boosters.
Like I mentioned, I think it was CNBC saying, you know, mix and match.
And ultimately I just say, you know man, take this information, go to your doctor.
Here's what you should really, really do.
Take a couple of these articles.
Ones that might confuse you because they're contradictory.
Bring it to the doctor.
No, seriously.
This is like maybe the easiest way to deal with this.
If you are seeing a story, and you don't know if it's true because you don't know if it's the latest information, find someone you trust.
You know what, man?
It's the weirdest thing to me.
My doctor growing up was a trusted family... I don't want to say family friend, but my family knew him and trusted him.
They talked to him all the time.
It's not like they hung out or anything, but he had like a nickname my family used, and we'd go to the doctor and he's like, how you guys been doing?
How's the job?
How's the family?
We were friends.
It was a few blocks away from our house.
I couldn't imagine not trusting somebody who's looking out for the betterment of my family.
Maybe you've got some doctor you don't like.
You've got to find someone you trust.
You've got to find someone you trust.
You know, show the article to the doctor and ask them what they think about it.
And they will give you a better assessment than some whack job on the internet.
I don't understand.
There really are people that will read comments online and then use that as medical advice.
Look, man, Dave Rubin didn't tell anybody to do anything.
He just said, like, we were told no masks, right?
Dave's not wrong, right?
They said, you know, if you get the vaccine, now they're saying you don't have to wear a mask.
But now, it's changed, and Fauci came out before, and he said, we're gonna revise our position on this, and now the CDC is saying, okay, vaccinated people should wear masks.
DC is saying you gotta wear masks, in which case, we're not getting what we expected.
Well, here you go, baby.
We'll all get banned, we'll all get suspended, and then you know what I'm gonna do?
I'm just gonna farm.
I'm gonna go off to the middle of nowhere and just chop wood and work, grow some food, learn how to hunt, and just get away from all this insanity, man.
It's getting harder and harder to know what's real anymore.
Because the information keeps changing.
And then they'll ban anybody who challenges the establishment narrative, but we don't even know what the establishment narrative is!
