National Guard To Deploy Over US Freedom Truckers, Democrats SUPPORT Trudeau BRUTAL Purge Of Protest
National Guard To Deploy Over US Freedom Truckers, Democrats SUPPORT Trudeau BRUTAL Purge Of Protest. A new poll shows 65% of Democrats favor Trudeau freezing bank accounts and arresting peaceful protesters.
As the U.S. Freedom convoy is set to being Democrats in DC have called in the National guard and put up security fencing around the capitol.
Although the Ottawa protest was in a different country the fact that Democrats favor brutal authoritarianism shows how in the US things could get bad. Many have been calling for national divorce fearing if we dont split there will be a civil war
#Democrats
#FreedomConvoy
#Trudeau
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The National Guard will be deploying to Washington, D.C.
over the U.S.
Freedom Convoy trucker protest.
In a new poll, Democrats overwhelmingly support Trudeau's use of war powers to brutally purge the Ottawa protest and freeze bank accounts.
Dark days ahead, indeed.
In our next story, the man involved in the shooting that left one antifa dead has been identified as a Nazi furry.
Sounds weird, but let's take a look.
And in our last story, Kyle Rittenhouse has announced he will be suing many, many people, launching a new project to go after those who lied about him.
And good for him, I hope he wins.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Recently, the Daily Wire published a poll conducted by the Trafalgar Group showing that
65% of Democrat likely voters favor, support what Trudeau has done to the Freedom Convoys.
And what has he done?
Well, frozen people's bank accounts, even single mothers who donated a mere $50 weeks ago when the protest was just truckers driving down the road.
People have been trampled by horses.
They've been beaten.
One of the organizers is being denied bail on a mischief charge.
Meanwhile, in other circumstances, we see violent rioters being let go.
It's alarming when Trudeau and the Canadian government use emergency war powers to freeze the assets of political dissidents who are engaged in peaceful protest.
And even more alarming in the U.S.
when Democrat-likely voters respond to a poll by saying, we approve of those actions.
Why?
Because it is likely something will be coming here in a similar fashion.
The U.S.
convoy is going to be leaving from California in a few days, I believe, and heading to D.C.
just in time for the State of the Union Address from Joe Biden.
In this tweet that I am showing on the screen from Jesse Kelly, he says, We need a national divorce.
We are the couple with no shared values living together.
It's already ugly, and it only gets uglier from here.
Let's get together, agree that it's not working, and find a way to divide up the assets and liabilities, the only peaceful path forward.
It's scary because Jesse Kelly's not wrong, but I don't completely agree.
When I say he's not wrong, it's because, well, he's giving his opinion on national divorce, but he's correct.
That we are individuals with no shared values, no shared worldview, no shared facts.
The left, the establishment, they believe nonsense.
They believe absolute nonsense.
Of course, they'll tell you I'm the one who's wrong.
They'll say you're the liar and the far right The Trayvon Martin story turned out to have been mostly not true.
The story was that when he fought, this is the emergence of Black Lives Matter, he was holding George Zimmerman on the ground and doing what's called the ground pound.
George Zimmerman was not a white man, he's Hispanic.
The story of Michael Brown, hands up, don't shoot, that was a lie.
It turns out, according to Obama's own Justice Department, he was actually charging forward and trying to take the gun from a cop.
There are many of these stories.
George Floyd, turns out the initial reports that we got were mostly not true.
Jacob Blake, the story that we got, mostly not true.
And yes, even the Ahmaud Arbery story.
As much as these far leftists don't want to hear it, it turns out the media narratives were all not true.
Kyle Rittenhouse almost lost his life.
I don't mean dying, I mean prison.
He was almost placed in prison for the rest of his life.
Over lies.
Because he was defending his community.
He was defending himself, namely.
But he was trying to just provide medical support and security during violent riots from far-left extremists.
Now maybe you agree with those extremists.
I certainly don't.
Which brings us to this position we're in.
Freedom protesters engaging in peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience and Democrat voters, according to this poll, overwhelmingly support the use of authoritarian, extreme wartime powers.
Now I'll tell you why this is so worrying to me.
Right now Vladimir Putin is ordering 10,000 Russian military into the eastern region of Ukraine after saying that he formally recognizes the independence of eastern states.
I really don't care all that much about an internal conflict in Ukraine.
They're neighbors with Russia.
I don't see why the U.S.
is flying or sending troops to Eastern Europe.
The 82nd Airborne, I believe, was deployed, at least that's what someone said.
Fact-check me on that one.
Over what?
Ukraine?
What if Russia sent troops into Saskatchewan or into Ontario and said, the protesters are requesting support?
Or I should say, what if Russian troops were staging in, you know, just outside, I don't know, it's not a perfect analogy because there's many more countries in Eastern Europe, but the point is, the U.S.
has very serious concerns with its own border, and then we have our own direct neighbor, Joe Biden, working with Trudeau, this authoritarian push, yet our troops are going to Eastern Europe.
Well, I'll tell you why I'm concerned with the national divorce line.
Because there is a real prospect of regional war bubbling up into some greater conflict.
Now we hear World War III all the time.
It's talked about every time there's a regional conflict.
But if we do have a national divorce, then there's going to be some kind of World War III, or China just sweeps in and takes over whatever they want.
Let's start with the news.
And that news is D.C.
deploying the request from the establishment for the deployment of National Guard.
And panic over what's going to happen with the Freedom Convoy.
And then we'll get into how Democrat voters feel about all of this.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member if you want to support this video, the work I do.
And I mean it with the utmost sincerity.
We really do need your support if we're going to expand.
Every day we have activists trying to destroy our business by lying and manipulating because we are in some kind of cold civil war.
They're coming after us.
They absolutely are.
But the good thing about it is that we have a resilient system that we've set up, and because you sign up as members, it's extremely difficult, nigh impossible, for them to take us down.
But they're trying.
They absolutely are.
Membership is how we keep this boat afloat, and your membership is greatly appreciated if you like the work we do.
You'll get access to exclusive members-only segments on the TimCast IRL Podcast, and most importantly, outside of any of that, you as a member, just know that every day, that 30 cents or 20 cents or whatever it is you're giving per day to be a member, it's like 10 bucks a month, is making sure our journalists can keep working, and they won't be able to stop us from reporting the truth and cutting through the BS.
That being said, let's get into the big stories here from Fox News.
D.C.
prepares for possible U.S.
Freedom Convoy.
Officials request National Guard troops.
Tow trucks have been spotted near Washington, D.C.' 's National Mall.
Fox News reports as a so-called Freedom Convoy that can converge on Ottawa and Canada last month was broken up by police over the weekend.
D.C.
appears to be preparing for thousands of truckers who plan to descend on the U.S.
Capitol in coming days.
State and local law enforcement have called in support from the National Guard in anticipation of the massive convoy in the D.C.
area between late February and late March, a government source told Fox News on Tuesday.
The truckers have requested a permit from the National Park Service to allow 1,000 to 3,000 to gather in the nation's capital, according to the source.
National Guard troops will reportedly deploy beginning Tuesday and remain in place until the end of March.
Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said in a statement that the police department has received a request for assistance from the U.S.
Capitol Police and D.C.
Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.
Quote, Those agencies have asked for National Guard personnel to provide support at traffic control points in and around the district to help the USCP and DC government address potential challenges stemming from possible disruptions at key traffic arteries, Kirby said.
No decisions have been made yet to approve these requests.
Two tow trucks were spotted early Tuesday parked along DC's National Mall at 7th and D and at 12th and C Street Southwest.
The owner of the towing company told Fox News via phone that the city of D.C.
hired them for public work that could last up to 10 days.
The owner said they were specifically hired ahead of the trucking protest, and they've been instructed to clear any vehicles that illegally block the D.C.
streets.
He said they have no idea when the truckers might arrive.
Now, in D.C., there are a couple bridges that allow entrance from the neighboring states into D.C.
And there's fear that if the truckers block these bridges, they will cripple the D.C.
area.
I'm not a big fan of extreme disruption.
I'm a fan of non-violent civil disobedience.
If you want to block a street, I also think that if you do, you get arrested for obstructing a roadway, you get a slap on the wrist, and you carry on.
So hopefully things remain calm and peaceful.
The truckers can make their point.
It looks like, based on this permit, it's not even going to be like what happened in Ottawa.
And I think that could be a good thing.
I think driving across the country, getting to D.C., having a permit, staging a rally, maybe a little bit of nonviolence of disobedience can help spread the word and send a message to these politicos that we the people, we don't support the mandates, we don't support Joe Biden's failures, and we're going to get that message across.
Here's how it works.
You do something like this.
The press picks it up.
You do something like this.
The police often overreact.
It is a PR win.
That's what happened in Ottawa.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America 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.
But the scary thing is, it won't matter at this point necessarily.
Typically, a PR win is good when you have a cohesive society.
But when Democrat voters overwhelmingly support extremist actions and emergency powers, I don't know if your message will actually accomplish anything.
Because who are you trying to convince?
The people who already agree with you?
I think we're well past the army-building phase of the culture war, and we're now in the active finger-pointing phase.
Propaganda, I think, is mostly becoming meaningless, and that's a scary thought.
Because after that, things go hot.
Now before I get into what's happening with the polls and Democrats, I want to show you what else is happening in D.C.
Capitol fence going up ahead of Biden's State of the Union as truckers plan D.C.
protests.
So they're locking down.
The National Guard is reportedly going to be deployed.
Fencing is going up.
D.C.
police will not tolerate what we saw in Ottawa.
I believe that if the truckers do obstruct roadways, they'll be arrested immediately.
Their trucks will be towed immediately.
I don't think it'll be the same as what we saw in Ottawa with a few weeks of extended protest and obstruction.
With that being said, the panic is real.
And the scary thing is, it's actually happening.
The panic and the fear isn't just in D.C.
We have this story from Fox Baltimore.
Maryland State Police monitoring cross-country trucker protests headed to D.C.
next week.
Because, of course, around D.C.
is Virginia and Maryland.
And that means with bridges and with the state borders surrounding the federal district of Columbia, There's going to be multi-agency monitoring of this.
Everybody needs to stay peaceful.
Everybody has, you know, they have their right to peaceful protest.
Non-violent civil disobedience is a bit different because often it borders on the illegal and then crosses into it, but I think, and I'll say it before I'll say it again, whether you're Antifa or Black Lives Matter or Freedom Convoy truckers, if it's non-violent civil disobedience, I support it.
Not support it outright like your message, I support being non-violent and saying we have issues we want addressed.
Redress of grievances is in the First Amendment.
But I also think you get your slap on the wrist to rest.
So let it be said, you know, I don't think people should just have the ability to disrupt everyone's lives indefinitely.
But I believe they have... I believe we give certain leeway to disruption.
Now, here's where I'm mostly worried about what we're seeing.
This poll really freaks me out, man.
Because I don't know what the answers are, and maybe Jesse Kelly is right.
I don't want him to be right.
I don't.
I mean, he's right about the issues, but do we need a national divorce?
I do not believe there is any circumstance where the states break up and it ends peacefully.
Impossible.
Because even if the U.S.
breaks apart and the two factions, two parent factions agree, okay, we're going to divide up assets and resources, then China comes in.
Majority of Democrats back Trudeau's crackdown, freezing bank accounts of truckers.
This is insane.
Even Vosch, a socialist YouTuber, spoke out against this.
Stephen Marsh, who wrote the book The Next Civil War, who said he favors the multicultural democracy and not the Constitutional Republic of the United States, also called this martial law.
But I warn you now.
This poll, at the very least, maybe it's not accurate.
I hope it's not.
Majority of Democrats back what Trudeau has done.
Overt fascism.
And I'm going to outright say it.
It is, in every sense of the word, fascistic.
Now, if you want to argue the nitty-gritty of what fascism is academically, okay, fine.
What I'm saying is, in the colloquial sense of the power of the absolute authority of the state, plus the lucrative merger of corporate powers with state powers, you're looking at it, baby.
You are looking at it.
You can call it communism, whatever.
I don't think it matters what we call it.
It's here.
The Daily Wire reports, a new poll from Trafalgar Group and Convention of States Action shows that 55% of likely general election voters disapprove of Trudeau's handling of the protesters.
35% approve of Trudeau's heavy-handed tactics, and 10% said they were unaware of what was happening north of the border.
Now hold on there a minute.
55% of likely election voters disapprove.
It's good news.
It shows that the sane and rational individual, and for the most part, anti-authoritarians, are in the majority.
However, when you isolate Democrats, aside from Democrats, the only other demographic areas identified in the poll that cut in Trudeau's favor are ages 65 and older.
I'm sorry, let me read.
Democrats overwhelmingly favored Trudeau's response, with 65% approval to 17% disapproval.
Republican responses were weighted even more heavily against Trudeau, with 87% of likely GOP voters disapproving to only 8% approving.
Respondents who said they did not belong to either one of the two main parties cut against Trudeau.
74% of independent voters said they did not approve.
So there's the divide here.
Independents and Republicans in stark opposition to Trudeau.
Democrats overwhelmingly favoring it.
It's good news in a sense, but the Democrats are the largest political faction, the largest political party.
So, they're at 65%.
This means, when you add them all together, 45% of this country favors the emergency powers and the extreme and brutal purge and beatdown of these individuals in Canada.
So maybe, Maybe we're not going to be able to handle this.
I don't know.
You know, seeing what's going on.
Let me show you.
Fox News.
Canadian protesters' truck seized.
Bank accounts frozen over connection to Freedom Convoy.
Derek Brower said he doesn't know where his truck is or what happened to it.
I'll tell you what's really scary.
There's this photo.
It's an aerial shot.
And it shows a farm, maybe about 100 kilometers from Ottawa.
There's a bunch of trucks there.
And people are posting saying that the Freedom Convoy insurrectionists are staging for a resurgence.
And I look at this and I'm like, or maybe it's just a parking lot.
Or maybe it's a bunch of trucks that are in disrepair.
I don't know.
But isn't it crazy?
The freakout.
That truckers are parked not too far away.
Maybe they're the ones who didn't go to the city.
Maybe they're part of the convoy, and they said, we're not gonna go into the city.
You don't know.
That's how insane things are getting.
Take a look at this.
Derek Brower, Canadian truck driver who attended the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, said his bank accounts had been frozen and his truck was seized.
On America's Newsroom Monday, Brower said his personal account, his trucking account, and a third unrelated business account were all frozen over the weekend.
He also doesn't know where his truck is or what happened to it.
It comes after nearly 200 protesters were arrested.
Almost 100 vehicles were towed.
Quote, since then, I haven't heard anything from the government, Brower told Bill Hemmer.
Robert Dorian, a civil engineer, civil engineering technician in Canada, said on Fox & Friends that police were extremely rough.
We only wanted the mandates to be lifted because they go against our constitutional rights.
And this evolved into something different that the government seems to have already planned.
He believes Trudeau invoked the emergency measure because police were unable to provoke protesters to violence.
He said the government's move to freeze protesters' assets is very dangerous.
Any government being able to freeze assets as they wish, if you're not doing things they want, in my opinion, is far from being democratic and is not what Canada stands for.
Brower said he doesn't know what's going to happen with his accounts.
Basically, the bank, they shut it down.
And I haven't been contacted by anybody.
Brower said he doesn't know what will come of the Freedom Convoy protest, but he doesn't believe it's over.
It seems like many of them are gearing up for even more.
Take a look at this from TimCast.com.
Ottawa mayor wants to sell truck seized from Freedom Convoy protest, claims emergency act gives him the authority.
These people are insane and evil!
The establishment lies.
Democrat voters blindly march in lockstep with the lies.
I don't know how we rectify this.
All of these stories we've heard over the past 10 years from Black Lives Matter and Antifa, lies.
And then what they do is, they use terror tactics to force companies to try and cut off your revenue streams, to try and shut you down, because they are evil, evil people.
They want civil war.
They do.
During Occupy Wall Street, many of these extremists said, from the ashes of the old, we will build anew.
They want the conflict because it destroys the Constitution, our founding documents, rips the country in half, and gives an opportunity to the extremists to replace this country with something evil.
They're evil.
And I don't mean like, well, they are evil, but it is their possessive evil.
You're talking to Larry Sharpe, Libertarian candidate for governor last night on Tim Castellaw, and he said, you know, the peasants, the Russian peasants, they had years of this, you know, horrible living.
So they said, well, the communists can't be worse, can they?
Little did they know how wrong they were.
These evil individuals, they want power.
They see people like Elon Musk and Bezos, and they say, I want that power.
They don't want to earn it, they want to take it.
I guess you can say, in their mind, they believe might is right, which is very fascistic, so in their minds, it is earning it.
If they can seize it, it's theirs, because in their mind, they believe might, according to their ideology, makes right.
Scary, isn't it?
Take a look at this.
Speaking to the government-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over the weekend, Watson initially claimed that he believed selling the trucks would help recoup some of the costs to the city.
I have asked our solicitor and our city manager how we can keep the tow trucks and the campers and the vans and everything else that we've confiscated and sell those pieces of equipment to help recoup some of the costs that our taxpayers are absorbing.
So that's one of the provisions of the Emergency Act.
And we have been a beneficiary of the Emergency Act.
Watson later admitted he does not want to return the trucks because he does not think the protesters deserve to have them back.
I want to see them sold.
I don't want them returned to these people who've been causing such frustration and angst in our community.
You can't come to Ottawa anymore and shut down our city for four weeks.
It's really amazing how these politicians think they can destroy your life.
But when you disrupt their lives, they will brutally stomp down on your neck with their boot.
Things are getting crazy up there, man.
There were rumors circulating for a while that the banks were freaking out.
Potential Canadian bank run, or that the banks would freeze your assets and expand these powers, which they seem to be doing, and that it would rock confidence in these institutions, so you better get your money out.
Let me show you this from TikTok.
Over on TikTok, Henry Timmons posts a clip from Jordan Peterson.
In this clip, Jordan Peterson says that he was advised by a military source to get his money out of the banks because it is worse than you realize.
I don't know if I believe it.
I mean, I believe that Jordan Peterson was told this.
I believe this gentleman who told him it believes it.
But is it really that bad the system will collapse?
I'm not entirely convinced, to be completely honest.
I'm not entirely convinced.
I believe it is bad.
I don't think the system will collapse outright.
I don't think it will just one day just fall apart.
But maybe.
As they describe, gradually then suddenly, right?
Slowly then suddenly, or gradually then suddenly.
It's entirely possible that the system is strained to such a degree, and we all have an optimism bias and a normalcy bias as such, We won't see it coming.
Take a look at this story from Timcast.
Liberal Canadian MP asserted during a floor speech that honk honk is an acronym for a statement in support of Nazis.
I'll just put it that way.
The HH as it were.
It's absolutely insane where we are.
But when you see something like this, perhaps then you start to realize, maybe Jesse Kelly is right, and I hope he's not.
I feel that if this country splits, here's what'll happen.
He says we need a national divorce, divide up our assets peacefully.
He's correct about that last part.
If we have a national divorce without first negotiating assets, civil war will happen.
But I gotta say, Even if we do, you know, divide up assets and liabilities, they will still be fighting.
California relies on the Colorado River for their water.
What happens when California fractures between red and blue?
What happens when states split apart from states, and then what happens?
States split apart from themselves.
In the first Civil War, Virginia, capital of the Confederacy, Richmond, I believe, West Virginia says, we out.
West Virginia split off from Virginia because they did not want to leave the Union and they did not want to support slavery.
It's a little bit more complicated than all that, but I'm trying to simplify it.
If we have a peaceful divorce, who's to say that Illinois stays Illinois?
Southern Illinois is as red as they come.
It's only Chicago that's blue.
Same is true for most states.
Most of the people live in New York City, in New York, right?
So why would upstate New York support New York City?
Or I should say most people live in the cities.
I believe it's not most people in New York City.
Why would the red areas agree to live under the boot of these blue areas?
They won't.
See, this is why civil war breaks out.
In the past, you had... The South was very rural.
And so the South was mostly in agreement with itself.
Some people have pointed out, and I think it's fair to say, that the South was fighting to defend their homes.
Unfortunately, that meant upholding the institution of slavery.
And there you go.
Whether intentionally or not.
I think it's fair to say that Confederate soldiers weren't going out there cheering on the idea of slavery.
They were just saying, I'm fighting in a war for my, you know, my homeland or my state or whatever.
But I think it's obvious that was actively supporting slavery.
So here's why I bring that up.
These people were like, this state is my home.
In most civil wars, you have rural areas that are more traditional or conservative and urban areas that are more progressive.
You can take a look at the early 1900s, Spain.
You had traditionalist fascist areas and urban progressive communist areas.
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 So what would happen in the U.S.
in the event of a national divorce?
Well, blue cities will immediately decree psychotic authoritarianism, like we've already seen.
They support what Trudeau is doing.
Hammer. Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts. It's America
They call him, what do they call him, a proto-fascist libertarian.
I thought it was hilarious because it really does describe him.
He doesn't like authority, but he's also willing to kill jaywalkers because they disturb the peace.
He's not a good dude.
It's weird.
It's a weird show.
John Cena does a great job.
But it's really interesting to me to watch a show like that and see that they made the democratic establishment out to be the bad guys.
Just coming out and saying that they're smarter than you, they know better than you, they should be controlling your life.
And that's what happens with people like Trudeau.
People like Joe Biden.
Not people like Donald Trump.
When the cities were burning, Donald Trump did not call in the National Guard.
But D.C.
is now calling in the National Guard over truckers.
Y'all need to wake up if you're not paying attention.
I think most of you are.
Let me stress that point.
Donald Trump did not call in the military over the riots.
Billions of dollars in damage.
D.C.
is... They didn't bring in the National Guard on January 6th when Trump actually requested it.
Truckers?
Here they come.
After Joe Biden's inauguration?
Here they come.
Black Lives Matter Antifa?
Sorry.
To be fair, in Ferguson, the National Guard did get deployed under Obama.
But now, what are we seeing?
They'll put the boot on your neck.
So I hope conservatives are waking up to what's happening.
This is why I've been saying abolish the police.
Cops in Canada, and that's Canada, that's not the US, are gloating and laughing.
They literally were laughing at the horse trampling an elderly woman.
What did she do?
Just some little old lady coming out to protest.
Meanwhile in Portland, armed Antifa extremists engage in a shootout with a local homeowner, and now Antifa is waging a disinformation campaign, purposefully trying to obfuscate what really happened.
They tampered with evidence, they manipulated the crime scene, because they're evil.
Suppose some people will argue evil is subjective, but here I don't, I don't think it is.
I think it's clear that they seek to impose their will upon you by force.
And I think that's evil.
Selfishness.
The desire to steal and seize and destroy.
It's evil.
Dark days ahead, man.
Maybe we can pull out of this.
But as I've been saying for the past several years, I think civil war is inevitable.
It scares me to see that Democrats support what Trudeau is doing.
How do you even talk to these people when they say, I don't care about what's right.
I don't care about what's true.
What are you supposed to do?
These people don't care about what's right.
They don't care about what's true.
They don't care about you.
They just want to feel power.
Man.
That's it.
That's why they march around with guns, shutting down streets.
That's why they kill people, and they've killed so many in the past couple of years.
Oath keepers haven't done that, but they'll lie, cheat, and steal, and they'll smear.
They'll lock you up in solitary.
These truckers, I hope they realize what's gonna happen.
They will lock you up and put you in as an insurrectionist.
So be careful.
I hope we can pull through these dark days, but I'm just not confident.
I will add, though, in the end, I don't think it's the end of the world.
I think whatever happens here may be bad, but the night is always darkest before the dawn.
I think after this period of strife, I believe it will come to a great conflict, and then I believe afterwards we'll prosper.
We will.
Maybe it will be a great national divorce, some fighting, but ultimately we split.
We'll see.
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'll see you all then.
We have new information pertaining to the shootout in Portland between a homeowner and Antifa that resulted in one Antifa extremist losing their life, several other being injured, as well as this man who confronted them being critically injured.
It's being reported now that this man is known as Benjamin Jeffrey Smith.
Antifa says that he is a furry.
That is, an individual who dresses up in a fursona, like a persona, a cartoon animal-type costume.
I don't really know how to describe what furries are, other than they're people who wear these costumes.
Maybe there's some way they describe it, I don't know.
They're saying, Antifa is saying that this guy is a furry, and they're going on to say that furries have very serious Nazi problems, and thus, it all makes sense now.
Okay.
The media is also saying this guy is an accused mass shooter.
I'm just gonna, uh, Pause and say, I think maybe Antifa is lying.
I think maybe the media shouldn't run with their version of events, because of course, they lie.
These are violent extremists.
Their organizations, I say organizations because they're cells of Antifa across the country, they've actively engaged in violence, destruction, and murder.
Notably when Aaron Danielson was shot twice in the chest at near point-blank range in Portland walking down the street minding his own business.
And now, of course, controlling the narrative is the most important thing they can do.
Now truth be told, some of the information coming out about this guy, it seems legitimate.
This guy, according to some messages that are put out, did not like Antifa, did not like the far left, but I don't know if that's surprising at all based on the information we got.
For those that don't know the story, this guy Reportedly, went up to Antifa and said, stay away from my neighborhood, you're violent terrorists, and if you come near my home, I'll shoot you, something to that effect.
I don't know if I believe that version of events, because it came directly from Antifa, and this guy's critically injured, so we don't know exactly.
I won't just blindly trust, oh, but five Antifa said this, yet they're all liars.
They cleaned up the evidence.
Let me tell you something, right there, right there, full stop!
You can say whatever you want about this guy, you can say all the bad things in the world, and I'll say, look man, shootings are bad, okay?
We don't want anyone losing their lives.
This was a bad, bad thing that happened.
Y'all should do whatever you can to avoid a fight.
As it goes, any fight you can avoid is a fight you've won.
But, when Antifa cleared evidence from the shootout, Police believe they were picking up casings and trying to cover up what had happened.
That right there says to me, I think Antifa started it.
I genuinely think that.
So, here's what I imagine probably happened.
And this is all speculative.
You can't trust Antifa and we have no other statements.
I'm willing to bet this guy, and I'll go through this, we'll show you some of the stuff that they're saying about him.
I believe he probably came up and saw Antifa and said, get out of my neighborhood.
They had guns confirmed by the fact that this guy was shot and they bragged about taking a chunk out of him.
They were armed.
I don't know how many people.
Someone reportedly turned in a rifle to the cops.
How much do you want to bet that this guy confronted them and said, get out, had a gun, and Antifa pointed their gun at him, just like they did to the people driving their cars in Portland?
Or how about in Provo, Utah, where they shot a driver?
How much you want to bet this guy said, you're not playing that game with me, and when they raised their weapon, he fired on them?
See, this is the real challenge with political conflict or any kind of conflict.
And I think people need to understand that with great power comes great responsibility, as Uncle Ben told us.
If you're armed with a gun, you need to understand, okay?
If someone else has a gun, you're both in this very serious moment where if any of you makes a move, the other could perceive it as a threat and take action to stop you.
That being said, I do not imagine a scenario that the Antifa is trying to play this off like, but we were just peaceful and unarmed individuals marching down the street.
They actually tried claiming they were unarmed.
This guy got shot!
How are you unarmed if this guy got shot?
Liars.
Liars.
They're liars.
No, how much you wanna bet this guy just said, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore.
Antifa smashed up storefront windows, pulled merchandise out, burned in the middle of the street a year and a half or so ago.
People have been killed, and this guy said, enough!
Now, he was wrong.
It's a challenging position.
It's a challenging position.
In that scenario, I'm imagining, because I don't really know what happened.
We don't want people shooting each other.
And there is a certain reality to if this guy just stayed defensive and didn't confront them, and again, this is all based on the reporting we've had so far and it could be wrong, then maybe no one would have lost their lives.
But you know what?
There are no easy answers here.
First and foremost, Trust me when I say we all want to avoid violence.
You do not want to experience this stuff, man.
I mean, I'm sure there are some people that might be a bit more sadistic or just enraged and don't care anymore.
I think any regular, you know, individual in this country, any just normal average person, you will not want to experience this stuff.
You don't want to understand what this is all about.
You don't want to see it.
And I'm sure the people who have seen real conflict know you don't.
But the challenge here is, what are locals supposed to do?
When Antifa is shutting down streets, as they admit they were doing, they're armed with rifles, as is their right, but the combination of illegal activity and the use of guns to threaten the public is going to result in members of the public saying, enough.
Of course.
Now what they're trying to do, the media is coming out, they're calling him an accused mass shooter.
Why isn't the Antifa person the accused mass shooter?
Antifa has shot people before.
This guy hasn't, as far as we know.
All we know about this guy is he's a furry!
Have furries gone on mass shooting sprees?
Is that the... Get out of here, okay?
That has nothing to do with this.
Antifa marching through the streets, armed, shutting down traffic and threatening people.
We have videos of them doing it.
Why would I give the benefit of the doubt to Antifa?
I wouldn't.
But I'll tell you this.
This is why either you don't confront people, but you know what?
I gotta say this, too.
We don't even know this guy confronted them.
We don't.
Now, police are saying there was some kind of confrontation before the shooting started.
Makes sense, right?
But what I mean to say is, for all we know, this guy was chilling by his car in the street, smoking a cigarette, and he had his piece on him.
And Antifa comes marching by, and they start yelling at him, and he's like, hey, back off, man.
We don't know exactly how all of this went down.
We do know Antifa are liars.
Let me show you what we got here.
Heavy.com says, Benjamin Jeffrey Smith, self-described anti-social machinist with a trail of disturbing social media posts, was named as the Portland, Oregon man who was under suspicion in the mass shooting of five people that left a Black Lives Matter protester dead.
You see how they lie about this?
They lie.
This is Antifa.
Okay, they're far-left extremists.
They're far-left extremists.
That is a fact.
They are not in line with mainstream public opinion.
They are on the far left.
This guy, they're saying he's a mass shooter.
So if a group of people are shutting down streets, committing crimes, they are armed and threatening you, a mass shooter typically refers to someone who goes and just targets random people.
This is political conflict.
You see how they're framing it this way to make it seem like Black Lives Matter was victimized by an extremist?
They have to do it.
They have to.
Because they're the bad guys.
Now, I'm not saying this guy's a good guy.
I don't know exactly what went down.
And I think you want to avoid these conflicts.
I'll say it a million times.
But look at how they're already framing it to make it seem like this guy, outright, is the bad guy.
When the initial reporting we got, you see there's a propaganda war.
Initial reporting was local homeowner defending home.
They say, Smith has not been named as a suspect by authorities.
He was named by Oregon Live, which reported that witnesses have identified him as the shooter.
He is described by a member of the furry community as a local furry who goes by the name Polly Bun.
He is also known as Ben Smith and was also shot, leaving him critically wounded.
The newspaper reported police have released few details of what they described as a chaotic scene.
Smith's roommate told opd.org, He talked about wanting to go shoot commies and Antifa all the friggin' time.
He was just a sad, angry dude.
He talked about wanting to do this for a while.
He was angry at the mask mandates.
He was angry at the liberals.
He worked at Peninsula Ironworks.
On Reddit, Ben Smith, writing as Polybun, wrote, I'm not that into crowds, I'm not the artistic sort, and I'm fairly antisocial.
I'm a machinist by trade, build electronic gadgets and hot rods for fun.
Screenshots emerged of posts under his handle on Telegram and other accounts.
For now.
We don't know if these accounts are true, if it's real.
We don't know if this guy actually is Polybun.
It's just what someone's saying.
For all we know, it's just a lie, and I wouldn't be surprised.
Here's what I fear.
We have no confirmation on any of this stuff.
We just have people coming out and saying, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, it's true.
So, while I think there's a good chance, you know, this guy held these sentiments, don't get me wrong.
We gotta be careful of the possibility that Antifa, known extremists who lie for political purposes, are doing this, are lying on purpose to skew the story early on before more information can come out.
Because maybe it turns out this isn't the guy.
Maybe it's not Ben Smith.
This guy, they're saying, oh, but the other guy had a beard.
That's what they were saying.
This guy doesn't, here's a photo of him, he's got no beard.
The guy who came out had a beard.
How do we know it's the same guy?
Might not have been.
They might have just identified this guy because they can make, you know, this homeowner look as bad as possible so that what'll happen now is you'll have activists coming out saying, Black Lives Matter protesters were shot and killed.
And we all remember Kyle Rittenhouse.
We all remember what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse defending himself and how they lied about it.
You give them a chance, they lie about it.
You know, look, you want to avoid these conflicts, but I tell you this, man, if something's coming to your town, get cameras.
If it wasn't for the cameras in Kenosha, Kyle Reynolds would probably be in prison for life.
But there were witnesses, and there were cameras, and he was able to show people what happened.
How much you wanna bet this is a similar circumstance?
I'm willing to think so.
We typically don't get stories like this.
You know, when the story comes out about some kind of shooting, like we saw in Kenosha, two people lose their lives, turns out Kyle Reynolds was defending himself and running away.
But they lied and said he was hunting them down.
He crossed state lines.
Think about how insane and psychotic the lies were about Kyle.
He crossed state lines with a gun to go hunt down black protesters.
Not true at all.
But that's what they kept saying over and over again.
I'm willing to bet, based on all that, this guy might have been chilling by his car, smoking a cigarette, saw Antifa walking by, said nothing, they started screaming at him, so he started screaming back, they had their rifles on him, pointed at him, and he probably pulled out his gun and fired on him or something like that.
He could have maybe even been running away.
You know what, I'll tell you this, before I believe anything they're saying, I'd be more inclined to believe that he was fleeing Antifa as they were trying to shoot him in the back.
I would be more inclined to believe that over their story because they've lied about everything.
Michael Brown was a lie.
Trayvon Martin was a lie.
Ahmaud Arbery was a lie.
They're all lies all the time.
What did they say?
George Zimmerman, you know, just went up and shot Trayvon.
Turns out Trayvon was on top of him and pummeling him on the ground.
Michael Brown, hands up, don't shoot.
Turns out he was actually attacking a cop.
Ahmaud Arbery, they said, was just jogging.
Just jogging.
Turns out, according to the prosecution in the case, he was actually a felony burglary suspect.
I'm not saying any of that justifies these people losing their lives.
I'm saying I'm tired of being lied to.
Want me to believe this garbage?
According to anti-fascist researchers, oh, I'll trust them, confirmed Polly Bunn with his roommate, Smith made anti-Semitic comments and praised Kyle Rittenhouse, the Kenosha teen acquitted in the shootings of three people at riots in Kenosha.
Interesting.
He praised a kid who was defending himself?
So look, I don't know about what this is all about, and I will stress it for the millionth time, please avoid these fights.
Avoid these conflicts.
I can say that a million times, but you know, it's going to keep happening.
It's going to escalate from here.
The far left is going to come out and they're going to claim, oh no, the far right is attacking us.
They're going to lie.
They're going to cheat.
They're going to steal like they do.
Regular people are going to say the police won't do anything about it.
These people are marching around armed with rifles, shutting down traffic and committing crimes.
Yo, you're allowed to keep and bear arms.
I'm a two-way absolutist.
I think people have a right to keep and bear nuclear arms.
Hey, Constitution says it.
Now, what I mean to say, to clarify, is that I think the Constitution protects your right to do so.
Whether or not people actually should, I'm not entirely convinced.
I certainly think there can be certain limits on individuals owning powerful weapons.
But I still think, for the most part, I'm fairly absolute on Second Amendment.
Why?
Military contractors can own these weapons.
Major, massive military corporations have fighter jets and missiles and all that stuff.
Who else makes it?
Contractors.
Privately owned.
And if a private company can own it, that means you can too.
Seriously.
You just need permits and stuff for, like, cruise missiles or something if you want to build it, I guess.
So, make sure you file your proper paperwork, but I'm fairly absolute.
The right to keep a bear arm shall not be infringed.
So if you're marching down the street and you got a rifle, you got a right to do it.
The problem arises when you're committing crimes and doing the same thing.
I believe non-violent civil disobedience should be allowed and should be tolerated within reason.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
Kennedy said that.
So if you're marching down the street, chanting, yeah, you're allowed to do it.
If you're marching down the street chanting, and you're armed, I also think that is a tolerable line.
You gotta be careful, though.
You get very close to committing a crime with a weapon, and now you're not engaged in non-violent civil disobedience.
Now you're getting in dangerous territory.
But, now hold on there a minute.
I think you should be allowed to march through the streets, blocking traffic, which is a petty offense, and you should be allowed to keep and bear arms Second Amendment.
It's tolerable.
What I don't tolerate is if you're going to seize portions of a city, you're going to block roadways and bar the public, you've now crossed the line, if you're doing that and You're pointing weapons at people.
You see, it's one thing if you're armed, because you're allowed to be.
It's one thing if you're engaging in non-violent civil disobedience, because, well, you're not really allowed to be, but we want to tolerate some dissent, right?
We don't want violent revolution.
But here's the issue.
When we do tolerate you blocking streets and committing crimes, we say, fine, okay?
Be on your way, we'll let you protest.
Because we want to tolerate a certain degree of non-violent civil disobedience.
When you bring guns into it, and are on video, pointing the guns at people in their vehicles and threatening them and beating them, your organization, you as activists and your group, are now engaged in low-tier terrorism.
That's not non-violent civil disobedience.
If you're going to block traffic to make a point, I get it.
If you're going to block traffic and be bearing arms, you better make sure you keep your hands up when they come to arrest you.
If you're gonna block traffic with a rifle, you're gonna point it at local residents and threaten them?
Okay, now you're committing very serious crimes, you should go to prison.
That's it.
I mean, maybe not prison, maybe jail, maybe six months or something like that.
If you actually use the weapon, okay, now we're talking about serious offenses.
So, what I want to see is these people arrested and criminally charged.
The people who got shot here have already reported they have been arrested in the ER.
Good.
Thank you, police, for arresting these people.
It's the right thing to do.
Yeah.
If you're not armed, and the guy next to you is, and you're helping block traffic, and these people have a history of pointing weapons at others, you're aiding and abetting.
You have crossed that line.
We tolerate non-violent civil disobedience.
We don't tolerate you blocking traffic and pointing guns at people.
And if you're not the one pointing the gun, but you're with someone who is, you're committing a crime.
You see, here's what I say.
We were talking about this on the IRL podcast.
Ian said nuclear weapons aren't defensive, so, you know, they shouldn't be allowed.
And I said, all weapons are defensive.
You can use a weapon for offense, and then you've committed a crime.
If you walk around with a gun, it's fine.
If you're now pointing that weapon at someone and threatening them, well, now you've crossed the line.
You are putting... In some states, that is overt assault.
We put the line there because someone needs a reasonable ability to defend themselves if someone is pointing a weapon in their direction.
That is a very serious threat upon your life.
So they go on to say, They start ragging on Andy Ngo.
Claiming Andy is lying and spreading hate, inciting this guy.
Turns out, the guy they've identified as the shooter, subscribed to Andy Ngo's YouTube channel.
And they try and act like that's evidence of something.
They're saying Andy Ngo incited this man.
They're lying.
And I don't care.
You know what?
I just gotta say this.
The scariest part of all of this?
We're done.
We're done.
There is no meeting these people and shaking hands.
The only thing we can hope for is peaceful separation.
I'm not sure it's possible, but that's the best thing we can do.
There is no circumstance where I can go to someone who lies, lies about everything to steal power, psychotic individuals who are violent and want to bring death and destruction upon other people because they hate you.
There's nothing I can do to compromise these people.
When we had Stephen Marchand, he's the guy who wrote The Next Civil War.
I think he hit the nail on the head on a lot of issues, but I don't think he understands the ground level.
And he even said that.
I've been referencing him quite a bit because he makes a lot of really great points.
But I want to stress that point when he said to me, you know, don't you think you're engaged in a reciprocal, you know, radicalization or whatever?
And I was like, of course, of course.
We're all being pushed into a situation where we're unwilling to compromise.
But I certainly think there's degrees.
I'm where I've always been, except for 2A.
You know, I was more towards the gun control, but a constitutional argument convinced me.
And I think people should have a right to keep and bear arms, and if you don't like it, change the Constitution.
Otherwise, we don't have a country if you don't have a Constitution.
It's just meaningless garbage.
Well, that's how things operate in cities.
They don't care for the Constitution.
Police will do whatever they want, arrest whoever they want.
You know, he said, when will you realize, like, your country's being torn apart and you guys need to figure this out and come together?
And I told him, you know, he's a Canadian, you like your socialized healthcare?
Okay, we abolish that, we go full private, we'll have peace.
And he said, point taken.
I know I've stated that in several segments already, but I think it bears repeating for people who haven't heard it.
And just for those that have, The average person, I think, watches like 10 of my segments per month, and I have like 150.
So, not everybody hears, you know, these things, these points, so I don't want to miss the context.
So, forgive me if you've heard it before, but I think it's an important point.
If Antifa comes to you and says, just abolish private business and we'll have peace, I say no.
If Antifa comes to me and says, just allow us to segregate people based on race, I say no.
I will not negotiate with you.
And then what happens when they march around with guns in my neighborhood?
I say, you are psychotic, evil, and deranged people.
Now they may say the same thing of you.
But I would say this, you and I, most of you, we're baseline.
We are the regular people who have believed these similar ideals for a long time.
We're not the radicals trying to change and overhaul the system to build a new system of socialism.
We're not trying to dramatically alter the world.
We're trying to slowly change it for the better.
So if most people are sitting in a position and believe certain things, well, that's baseline.
If you as an extremist think you're right, and you want to use violent tactics and illegal activities to enforce it, you are the bad guy.
I'm a fairly revolutionary individual, to be completely honest.
The only problem is violent revolutionaries.
I would say I'm on the border of reformer and revolutionary in terms of my opinions.
I think we have a lot of problems in this country.
We need complete overhaul.
I think private prisons have to go, or if we do have private prisons, they have to be completely transparent.
The public has to be able to see them.
The problem with private prisons, then, is in profit motive incentive for getting more criminals, so I think the system is completely broken.
Federal Reserve is trash, the printing of money, I think we have been gutted.
So I would favor a very serious, near-revolutionary overhaul of our system.
A constitutional system, however.
So I would say mostly reformer because I don't want violence.
Revolution is typically violent.
But on the border of, you know, we need some very serious change in this country.
But I believe in doing it through persuasion and peaceful means and non-violent means, and I think it's been working.
I think people who are engaged, like the Freedom Convoy, and now the U.S.
Convoy set to leave L.A.
to go to D.C., it works.
And throughout our history, there's been violent confrontation, and typically it reaches a certain threshold where we simmer things back down, or we allow things to, you know, reduce the boil.
It works.
Nonviolent civil disobedience works.
Protesting and obstruction works.
What Antifa does, doesn't work.
It's dangerous.
It's going to cause very serious problems.
So, this is where we're at right now, my friends.
You want to tell me that we're not headed towards civil war when this is the news that's coming out?
I just think you're wrong.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Kyle Rittenhouse, appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight, announced he intends to sue many prominent individuals, politicians, athletes, media personalities.
I would assume within that there will be direct lawsuits against news organizations, and this is due to the fact that, as we all know, they lied about him, they defamed him, they smeared him, and even after He was acquitted on all charges, found to be not guilty, acting in self-defense.
Still, many call him a murderer.
Specifically, Kyle Rittenhouse calls out Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, who says even after he was acquitted, Cenk still calls him a murderer.
I believe he said Cenk.
I think he also pointed to Whoopi Goldberg.
Now, in response to this, Hasan Piker, who I believe is the nephew of Jen Cougar and one of the most prominent political streamers on the internet, posted a tweet insulting Kyle Rittenhouse.
And it's really fascinating how you can see that we are a very divided nation.
There are people in this country of good moral standing, of principle, and there are people in this country of bad moral standing, or I should say, power-hungry.
My view of Hasan, right?
Actually, let me pull up his tweet.
And go through the news, and we'll talk about Times v. Sullivan, these lawsuits.
In response to the announcement from Kyle Rittenhouse, Hasan tweets, Kyle Rottenhouse is whiny, dripless, lame, and effing annoying.
Perfect spokesperson for the people merging with their couches who watch Fox News every night.
That's fascinating, an amazing view.
I don't watch Fox News, me personally.
I just read the news.
And you see, for me, I view good moral standing as being honest, Respecting people as individuals.
I don't believe Hasan feels that way.
I understand he's probably emotional because this guy says, you know, Grittenhouse is like, yeah, I'm gonna sue your uncle.
And I'm sure, you know, he loves his family.
He loves his uncle.
But, um, look, when Alex Jones, you know, he's getting sued over the Sandy Hook thing.
My public and direct response was, dude, you can't defame people.
You should not be allowed to say things about people that are not true, but within reason, okay?
So here's my point.
Now, I don't think Alex Jones should be sued for hundreds of millions of dollars or tens of millions or whatever.
I mean, they're going after him for basically everything, and I think it's a political tactic, but I don't care if you're on the left or the right.
If you're the mainstream media, you should not be defaming people, and there needs to be recourse for those you have libeled or defamed.
Libel, of course, is written.
Defamation can be, I think, libel or slander, and slander is spoken.
So, when it comes to Alex Jones, you know, he went on his show, he made a bunch of statements of fact about the families, you know, the specific families that were dealing with tragedy, and they sued him for it.
And I think, you know, I even told this to him, you know, we were in Austin and I was like, I was like, Alex, I get they're going after you.
I think it's excessive and all that for sure, but...
You said things about them.
Like, I'm not gonna cut someone a free pass.
If I'm mad the New York Times won't stop defaming Veritas, and of course it bothers me, I'm gonna hold everyone to the same standard.
But I think the solution is simple.
We need to overhaul Times v. Sullivan, and then there's another precedent, another case, it's something v. Butts or whatever, I mean it really is.
So Times v. Sullivan was a lawsuit that set the precedent That if you're a public official, these news organizations were effectively protected by the First Amendment, and you have to prove they know they're lying or acted recklessly.
There was a subsequent court case a few years later that said it extends beyond public officials and also encompasses public figures, which makes everything just insane and messy.
Because what is a public figure?
Now we're like, well, you know, when it came to Nick Sandman, you know, he's on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, And the Native American guy comes up.
They said he was an involuntary public figure.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You don't lose your rights by virtue of being famous.
That is an absurd standard.
But, as it pertains to Alex Jones, as it pertains to the New York Times, or even TimCast.com, should we get something wrong, there should still be legal recourse.
Yes, it's quite simple.
If I say something, And I'm like, you know, so-and-so, person A, is a lion tamer.
And it turns out he's an ostrich tamer or something.
And it causes damage for his career, and he says, you've defamed me, I take issue with this.
Obviously, it's not really defamation to say someone has the wrong job, but you get my point.
If I say, you know, someone punched a goat, and then they'd be like, no I didn't, and now I can't get a job on the farm.
I think the solution is simple.
The court should instruct the publication to front page a retraction and apology about the individual.
It's that simple.
Think about it.
Often when companies do retractions, the fake news on the front page, the correction is on page 16, section D. It's really simple.
You know, if you defame someone and it's found to be actual malice, meaning you know you're lying or acting recklessly, you're liable for the damages.
We'll just say that.
If you get something wrong, and the court says, you know, you're being sued by person B, because person A said something, they're both public figures, whatever, I don't think that matters, and it turns out it was a mistake.
You know, like, let's say TimCast.com does a story, and we make a mistake, and we say, so-and-so punched a goat, and it turns out it was someone else who did it, and we mixed up the names, and we made a big mistake.
We go to the court, and we say, Your Honor, We're sorry it's come to this point.
We've made a mistake.
And then the court should be like, okay, you know, front page, featured, apology, retraction.
The best you can do, right?
You could argue that, you know, for us at TimCast.com, we make an honest mistake.
We want to correct it.
But let's say you get a situation where the New York Times writes a story about James O'Keefe and they lie.
And they have.
And then James O'Keefe contacts them and says, you guys defamed me, you lied.
They say, you know what, you're right, we're sorry about that, we're going to issue a correction.
James says, yes, but I want that correction front and center so everyone knows.
They say, no, we're not going to do that, we're going to put it on page 16.
That's when James would sue.
In the court, New York Times would be like, your honor, look, we told them we'd apologize and retract.
And the judge would be like, in a prominent fashion, no, your honor, we said page 16.
Okay.
Then the court sides with the plaintiff, defendant, you will run a front page story that you got this wrong to make sure everybody knows.
I think that's fair.
For mistakes.
And again, you intend to defame someone, to hurt them, now you gotta pay.
Let's read this story from TimCast.com, and then I want to talk to you about where we're at with this defamation lawsuit, because we also have this story about Sarah Palin.
The New York Times wrote an editorial, I believe it was the New York Times, saying that Sarah Palin incited someone to try to assassinate a politician.
And when she sued, they said, nope, you can't do it.
This is insane!
Times v. Sullivan and the subsequent cases are allowing the media to lie, and it is the principal reason that this country is on the verge of civil war.
I know, I know.
People don't like hearing it.
It's a reality.
If the New York Times can lie about James O'Keefe and generate hatred because they want to make money, it is ripping this country apart.
Kyle Rittenhouse.
He says, me and my team have decided to launch the Media Accountability Project as a tool to help fundraise and hold the media accountable for the lies they said and deal with them in court.
Here's what I think.
I think Kyle is gonna win, and he's gonna win fast.
So here's what you should do, Kyle.
It should be like a seed investment round.
You tell everybody, you put in 50 bucks, okay?
And then what we'll do is everybody pools their money, We file these lawsuits.
I don't know if this is legal, by the way, but here's my thought.
Everybody, you know, we file all the lawsuits, and then, after a year, we assess how much money was spent, or how much money was raised, versus how much money was won, and then, I'll put it this way, if Kyle raises $1 million, and you gave him $100, Then Kyle wins his lawsuits earning $10 million.
That's a tenfold increase.
They should pay out that donor $1,000.
So basically, it's like an investment.
I will give my money to your legal team for these lawsuits in exchange for an equal percentage of the return after the damages.
I don't know if you can do that, but that's my idea.
See, because I look at this and I'm like, well, hold on, look.
Kyle wants to fundraise to file these lawsuits?
I get it.
He needs money to file these lawsuits.
But then what happens afterwards when he wins, you know, a billion dollars?
I don't know if he might not win a billion dollars.
But, you know, does he just fundraise, keep all the money?
Maybe, maybe we do it like an investment, because we all think you're going to win.
It's a good bet, right?
Or maybe the reality is you've got to pay the lawyers and Kyle wins what he wins.
I think Kyle deserves every penny, to be completely honest.
I can't imagine going through what he went through.
Having your neighborhood, your town, be destroyed.
Having the media lie about you, call you a racist, claim you killed and hunted down black people, all of it not true.
And then even after you're found to not be guilty, that in a court of law they're like, not guilty on all counts, it was self-defense.
These people still come out and lie about you.
The verdict did not stop many in the media from continuing to brand him a murderer.
Quote, I don't want to see anybody else deal with what I went through, so I want to hold them accountable for what they did to me.
Because I don't see anybody have to go through, I don't want to see anybody go through what I went through.
When asked if he'll be suing media outlets, right now let's name some of the people who are currently on the list.
He says, well right now, We're looking at quite a few politicians, celebrities, athletes.
Whoopi Goldberg's on the list.
She called me a murderer after I was acquitted by a jury of my peers.
She went on to still say that.
Rittenhouse pointed out that Cenk Uygur called him a murderer before the trial and continues to do so.
Here's the problem.
Let's talk about the problem we have right here.
So we have this Wikipedia entry.
This is Times v. Sullivan. A landmark decision in 1964 ruling that freedom of speech protections
in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials
to sue for defamation. Specifically, it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public
official or person running for office, not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation,
publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party, they must also prove the statement
was made with actual malice, meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly
disregarded whether or not it was true.
Now, I want to pause for a second.
We often say, Times v. Sullivan should be overturned.
It's actually Curtis Publishing Co.
v. Butts that should be overturned.
They say, In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has extended the decision's higher legal standard for defamation to all public figures, beginning with the 1967 case Curtis Publishing Co.
v. Butts.
These decisions have made it extremely difficult for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit in the U.S.
I do not believe it is constitutional that simply because people know who you are, you lose your rights.
Because this is this is the arena.
This is the challenge.
When we're having political debates, and you're someone who is well known, why should someone be allowed to lie about you?
Why should the New York Times be able to lie about James O'Keefe?
He's just a dude who does some stuff.
It makes no sense.
If you're a plumber, and you run a big company, and it's, let's say this, let's say you have a plumbing firm, and you operate out of the Chicago tri-state, Indiana, Chicago, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Milwaukee, I was gonna say Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and how do we determine whether you're a public figure?
They'll say, well, look, he's got these, it's a big company, people know who he is, how many people?
How many people know who he is?
And they come out and they say, well, he does commercials.
His company does commercials?
Okay, you now lose your rights, you can't sue for defamation.
Why?
How does that make sense?
This, I believe, needs to be overturned.
Time V. Sullivan, I actually think is fine.
If you're a public official, you are working for the government, the government doesn't get protections, you do.
But what about someone who's a public figure?
You see, what they're going to try to do to Kyle Rittenhouse is they're going to argue he is a public figure.
Therefore, one, he's never going to get passed a motion to dismiss, but they're going to argue that, you know, he's got to prove actual malice.
Well, we thought he was a murderer.
I didn't know about the verdict.
I don't know.
The other issue is calling someone a murderer is probably an opinion.
You could say, and I think it shouldn't be, But it's interesting how we're at this point where the Supreme Court, many courts, are upholding the subjectivity of language.
I reject this and I resent this.
I understand there's some arguments where it makes sense, fine.
But whether or not someone is a murderer is a statement of fact.
Of course, in the courts, it's an opinion.
Someone might say, Your Honor, he killed a chicken!
He murdered the chicken!
He's a murderer!
Okay.
Well, there you go.
It's an opinion.
Here's one.
I'll give you one.
Is Reza Aslan a cannibal?
I'd say it's a statement of fact that Reza Aslan is a cannibal.
Why?
For those that aren't familiar, Reza Aslan hosted a CNN show where he ate human brain.
I believe that if you eat human flesh or any part of a human, you're a cannibal.
Or, you have cannibalized... How do you describe this, right?
Because, here's the issue.
Does he routinely eat human?
No.
He ate human one time.
So I call him a cannibal, right?
Well, what about a murderer?
What if you kill someone one time?
Do we say, he's not a murderer?
It was just one time you killed a person.
No, you'd say he's a murderer.
I don't mean like intentionally go out and kill someone.
We'd say, no, this person intentionally killed someone.
You're a murderer.
You never stop being a murderer.
But I've had this argument.
People say, but Rezla isn't someone who goes out seeking to eat humans.
You know, when you say someone's a cannibal, you're implying they like hunt human.
They sit around eating them.
I'm like, no, I'm not.
Cannibal is someone who eats humans.
Reza Aslan ate human.
Cannibal.
What would you call him?
A guy who ate human one time?
So I think we need to get something straightforward with these lawsuits.
It needs to be that there is a clear understanding of language.
And if someone says you're a murderer, that is to imply you intentionally killed someone.
Otherwise, you're being defamed.
The issue is, what is?
What is a word widely used to mean?
The issue is then.
I could say, in my opinion, a murderer is someone who steps on a bug.
And then I could be like, you know, Cenk Uygur is a murderer.
Because he's killed a bug one time.
I mean, that's absurd, right?
If I say so-and-so is a murderer, the implication is that they killed another human being intentionally.
Or like, you know, with malice in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense.
Curtis Publishing.
1967 was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protections against defamation brought by private individuals.
The case involved a libel lawsuit filed by former Georgia Bulldogs football coach Wally Butz against the Saturday Evening Post.
The lawsuit arose from an article in the magazine which alleged that Butts and the Alabama head coach, Bear Bryant, had conspired to fix games.
The Butts suit was consolidated with another case, Associated Press v. Walker, and both cases were decided in one opinion.
In finding for Butts but against Walker, the Supreme Court gave some indication of when a public figure could sue for libel, in a plurality opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan II.
Supreme Court held that news organizations were protected from liability when they print allegations about public officials.
However, the Supreme Court decided that news organizations are still liable to public figures.
So they're saying, in times of Sullivan, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Butts, and the Saturday Evening Post was ordered to pay $3.06 million to Butts and Damage, which was later reduced in appeal to $460,000.
The settlement was seen as a contributing factor to the demise of the Saturday Evening Post, blah, blah, blah.
Ultimately, in their decision, What we end up learning is they extend the Times v. Sullivan to public officials.
I'm sorry, to public figures.
And therein lies the big problem.
Because it brings us here.
Sarah Palin's attorney said they're fighting an uphill battle in her lawsuit against the New York Times.
Well, the New York Times threw, I'm sorry, the courts threw out her lawsuit.
The former Alaska governor is suing the paper over a 2017 editorial that she argues defamed her by falsely claiming she incited the 2011 mass shooting that seriously injured rep Gabby Giffords.
I'm gonna tell you guys a story.
There was this research piece that was put out.
It was called like the Alternative Influencer Network or something in like 2018.
And it was fabricated.
It was fabricated.
This woman who wrote it Drew lines from people like, connect the dots, crime web conspiracy nonsense.
And she said, this is a web of all the people who have interacted with each other.
The only problem was that it connected me to Stefan Molyneux.
I believe.
It's been a long time, so fact check me.
Connected, it said Tim Pool and there was a line going to Stefan Molyneux.
I'm like, I've never done anything with the guy.
Never collaborated.
I had never even met the guy.
She claimed I did.
False statement of fact.
Connected Chris Raygun to Richard Spencer.
I'm like, that's the most ridiculous thing ever.
They tried claiming after, oh, no, no, no, they're not really connected.
It's just the line goes behind the dots.
And it's like, are you serious?
I called the lawyer.
I was like, what do you think?
I don't want to give too much attention to this, right?
But it's being used widely by a bunch of media outlets.
And it's a lie.
It's fabricated statements of fact.
And they said, you'll lose.
You will never get passed a motion to dismiss.
And I said, but this is an obvious and clear-cut false statement effect.
Too bad.
Have a nice day.
You won't win, it'll cost you too much money, you'll never succeed.
And I was just like, wow.
I had a lot of arguments with lawyers, because I was like, I want something done about this.
Now I understand.
Sometimes you don't want to give them attention.
And therein lies the problem as well.
The issue now is that we live in a world where you can go to Wikipedia, look up Project Veritas, the whole thing is a lie.
Someone needs to sue Wikipedia.
James, if you are listening, sue Wikipedia.
Oh, I know.
You've got two pitfalls there.
Section 230, which protects a website from user-generated content, and the actual malice standard.
Now, you could sue David Mack, you could sue BuzzFeed News, they're the individuals, but On Twitter, Hassan tweets about Kyle Rottenhaus.
You cannot sue Twitter.
I mean, you can try.
You'll get dismissed right away.
Why?
Section 230.
Twitter says, we're not Hassan.
He published this on the platform.
He's responsible for it.
Now, what if this tweet from Hassan the Sun actually didn't say Hassan the Hun?
Hassan the Hun.
It said, from Twitter, Kyle Rottenhaus is whiny, dripless.
Okay, well, that's something different.
That's a statement from Twitter, right?
Wikipedia does just this.
Take a look here.
In Times v. Sullivan, you can see that it says, from Wikipedia.
It doesn't say from Hassan.
It doesn't say from Kyle.
It doesn't say from anybody.
It says from Wikipedia.
Let's do this.
Project Veritas.
When you pull it up, it's a far-right activist group, produces deceptively edited videos, undercover operations, secret recordings, disinformation, conspiracy theories.
First of all, those are all opinions, but it's from Wikipedia.
It's not from any user.
It's from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has published this under their byline.
I don't believe Section 230 applies.
And then you have the question of reckless disregard.
I think you can very easily argue this.
Your Honor, If a news publication puts an article under their byline, and the standard by which they publish the article is they allow anyone, anywhere to write it, I would argue that's reckless.
Right?
Because any old random person getting to publish under Wikipedia's byline, which is one of the biggest websites in the world, is certainly reckless.
Does Wikipedia not have any on-staff fact-checkers to verify these claims?
They don't?
Well, now you've got Wikipedia saying it's from them, and you've got recklessness.
Now, of course, still might get thrown out, but you get the point.
I think that we've got to start filing the lawsuits.
Now, Kyle Reynolds is doing it, good for him.
I hope he wins.
And I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, and I hope things change.
I hope Project Veritas wins their lawsuit against the New York Times, and we can get an overhaul of Times v. Sullivan or something.
We'll see how that plays out.
Good work, Kyle.
Sorry for everything you've gone through, but, you know, I hope you win.
