Officer Tatum on Police Reform, Facebook’s Oversight Board on Trump Fate, CIA Recruiting Goes Woke

Former Tucson Officer Brandon Tatum joins Watching the Watchers for a few quick questions. Mark Zuckerberg’s team of Oversight social media hall monitors set to decide Trump’s fate on Facebook. CIA releases recruiting video that generates over 2 million views and goes viral. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Former Police Officer Brandon Tatum joins the show for a brief discussion on justice reform.​

• CIA releases a new recruiting video emphasizing a new message for recruiting.​

• What is critical race theory and why does it matter? An essay from James Lindsay at NewDiscourses.com​

• Facebook’s Oversight Board to decide whether Trump can go back on the platform​

• An overview of Zuckerberg’s oversight board and the process they go through regarding reinstatement on their platform.​

• Who is on Facebook’s board? We review some of the names.​

• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

NEW! EXISTENCE SYSTEMS ONLINE COURSE!​

• www.robertgruler.com/existence-systems​

Connect with us:​

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​

• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​

• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​

• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​

• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​

• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

Don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB​

Other tips? Send to tips@rrlawaz.com or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.​

#WatchingtheWatchers #Facebook #OfficerTatum #WokeCIA #CIA #Wokeism #Zuckerberg #Trump #Censorship #OversightBoard #Orwell #FreeSpeech #1A

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. Actually, we don't really kind of a slow news day. Wasn't it not a whole lot of interesting things happening on around the world, especially in the criminal justice system, but have no fear because fortunately we scheduled an interview with a guest. Somebody I'm very excited to talk to his name is officer Tatum, Brandon Tatum, former police officer. I believe out of Tucson, Arizona, which is just about two hours South of us. It's going to be coming on the show. We don't have a lot of time with him. I know many of you have been sort of asking, Hey, you guys should have a stream together. You guys should get together and talk about some of these things because he is an officer, a former police officer. I am a practicing criminal defense attorney. And so people think that if we sort of, you know, put two people like that together, that we're going to be scratching each other's eyeballs out or something to that effect. And that's just really not how this stuff works. Right. I have a whole law firm here in Scottsdale, Arizona. I personally have worked with many, many officers, hundreds of officers over my time in court and my team does it on a regular basis. And even though it might seem sort of interesting to flesh out the dynamic here, like you see in the movies, you know, it's like the police officers come into court and they hate the defense lawyers and the defense attorneys hate all of the cops and just sort of this dynamic that exists. It's not really how it works. I mean, practically speaking, uh, you know, most police officers I think are pretty reasonable people. Most defense attorneys I think are pretty reasonable people. And all they're trying to do is do a good job in their careers, you know, improve society in their small way and contribute to a bigger solution. And so that's largely how I've practiced and that that's my experience. That's how it's been with most other officers out there. They just want to do a good job and they're upstanding people. So officer Caden's going to come on the show and, you know, hopefully we don't, uh, you know, gouge each other's eyeballs out, but I don't think that it will. I think that we have a lot more in common than many people might otherwise think. Uh, even though we are sort of on opposite sides of this line, I still think that we both want positive change. We want more people alive. We want more justice, not less. And so we're going to have a brief conversation. We only have about 15 minutes with officer Tatum, uh, but we are excited that he's going to be here because he is a former officer. And I've got some questions for him. Uh, speaking of that, if you have questions for him, the, the place to send those over to us is on locals.com. So our community is called watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to head on over there, that's where you can ask questions throughout the stream. So we've got, uh, officer Tatum coming up here in about five minutes. Then we're going to change gears soon as we're done having a, uh, a little talk with him, we're going to talk about some other things that are going on in the world, not necessarily related to criminal law, but of course we are beyond that. We're bigger than that on this channel, we're talking about all of the institutions of power, all of the little levers of power that are sort of functioning in our society that impact us and our freedom and our ability to go out and do certain things. We got to hold those people to account. So we're going to do that here. Uh, today we're talking about two other stories. We've got the CIA now has a new recruiting video that is being spread around very interesting, uh, because it says almost nothing about what the CIA does in terms of, you know, uh, international security and protecting America's interests abroad. It has a lot to do with sort of, uh, identity politics, which is very interesting because we're hearing a lot about this, a lot about critical race theory. And so I wanted to share an article with you today that I picked up over from a new website called new discourses.com guy by the name of James Lindsey wrote this article. And so I want to go through that. We want to flush out what critical race theory looks like. And then I want to play you this video from the CIA, because it's, it's, it's interesting, you know, and I'm not really sure where I sort of set on this issue quite yet. Uh, you know, I'm really, I sort of liked the idea that people are embracing who they are embracing their identity and proud of their heritage and all of that stuff. But at the same time, it feels like we may be flipping the hierarchy of our society up on its head. You know, we sort of are used to this hierarchy of competence. Uh, if you want to harken back to, you know, Jordan Peterson and the lobsters in his first book, it's this concept that society structures itself around competence, right? Same with, with plumbers, you know, a good plumber is going to be higher up the hierarchy than a bad plumber has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but it does have to do with the skillset and the value that he provides to the world. And so, you know, all of this is sort of a very, very mixed co-mingling of all sorts of different issues, but the point is CIA is now involved. So the CIS is sort of, uh, recruiting people who are of this particular mindset, which is why I think it's important that we learn a little bit more about it. And then of course, we have to talk about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook because they have, you know, I didn't even know this Facebook has, what's called an oversight board, like an oversight board. So they're going to be doing some overseeing very soon as we all know, Donald Trump has gotten thrown off of not only Facebook, but everything else. I mean, basically just, you know, uh, eliminated off of the internet. And so Facebook has this oversight board that they are going to be, uh, apparently they've already met, had a decision, but on Wednesday, they're going to be announcing to the world whether or not president Donald Trump can get back on the internet. And so this is, uh, just a whole mess of, of, uh, convoluted issues. And I think it really helps to elucidate who the true people with power in this country are. So we're going to get into that story. We want to learn a little bit more about the board itself. So in particular, who's on it, who makes up this board, right? These are people who are now getting to dictate whether or not a former president of this country can get on the internet and communicate with his supporters, which happen to be Facebook users, which are also us citizens. So it's sort of this, this balancing of power between, well, is Donald Trump dangerous? Is he going to wreck America? Is he going to, you know, lead another quote insurrection or whatever, or is this just a good platform for him to communicate with his 80 million plus followers? So very interesting lot of, a lot, lot of stuff to get into there, but before we do still got a few more minutes until officer Tatum, uh, should be here in about three minutes, wanted to give you a quick update. So I had a locals.com creators call today with a lot of people over there on that platform. And I know we broadcast on multiple different areas on YouTube and Facebook and Twitch and Periscope. And, uh, you know, I'm, I'm always Hocking this locals community because we've been sort of, uh, we've pushed on the edges on at least YouTube, right? They, they, they demonetized us. They really didn't tell us why we reapplied back on March 5th. They told us, they'd give us an answer in 30 days. That should have been April 5th and here we're almost at Mayfair. And so this sort of just keeps going on and on and on. Uh, we've reapplied cleaned up the heck out of the channel.

Speaker 2: 7:37

You have no more, any, you know, not no blitz, no even little blue

Speaker 1: 7:41

Images on our content, uh, on our, on our platform. And YouTube is still just kind of, you know, kind of, uh, keeping the light switch off. So that's fine. That's all good. We're going to work on building up more content, more value on a different platform where I think it is more of a long-term play where we're going to be able to sort of, you know, build some bricks, put some stakes in the ground and hang there for a while. So on this creator call today, a lot of awesome people Viva was on there. Robert Barnes was on there. Scott Adams was on there. Dave Rubin was on there. A lot of other people, uh, many people that you heard of, probably some other people that you follow that I am just leaving out of the call, but a lot of powerhouses, a lot of people with some very, very, you know, big communities, a lot of strong thought leadership there, and people who are highly motivated, like, let me tell you just that. If there's anything that I observed, it was that they were motivated and they are going to be sinking a lot of time into this platform. So on locals, I gave a quick video update on what's happening there, what's happening specifically with that platform. And so I'd invite you to go check that out. They have some new things that are rolling out. They're also going to be rolling out live streaming very soon, which will be great. So nothing's going to change here. As far as this show goes, we're still going to be broadcasting every day, watching the Watchers shall go on. Nothing can knock us off Keester here, but, uh, the point is we may be able to add some more stuff. So I would encourage you to go and check us out@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. You can see sort of a very rough draft of my second studio that I'm building out right now, uh, so that I can start creating some more content and it's not good. I know it's I know it's rough. Lighting's bad. I look terrible. I got the ring lights in my eyes, the whole thing, but it's a rough draft. And so we're going to constantly continue to improve that. And I'm excited to join you as we go through that. So we still got about a minute or so until officer Tatum should be here and I'm looking forward to speaking with him. You know, there was a, a story that I talk about in my book. I don't have a copy here right now, but it is about one of the greatest gifts that, uh, uh, that I ever got in my life was actually from a police officer. And so, you know, like I said, some people think that you're supposed to be at each other's throats with this stuff. Uh, but, but it's not. And this is, this involves a situation. Many of you know that back in 2016, I lost my younger brother to suicide. And when I, when I raced over there, my first instinct was to rush into the house, right. Rushing into his little apartment building, where he was living. And I was on my way up the stairs essentially. And a police officer stopped me, pulled me aside, said, Hey, listen, I know what's your brother in there. I know you want to see him. I know you feel like you have to go up there, but you don't. And I sort of argued with him a little bit. I said, Hey, I need to do this. You know, my mom found him, I have to go up there and just, you know, be a part of this for some reason, you know, I wasn't really thinking I was sort of in shock and he stopped me, said, he said, listen, you're not thinking straight, I've been here. And I know that you do not need to go up in that room. I didn't, I didn't go up there. And, you know, I sort of lived with a little bit of shame about that for some time, sort of like maybe I was too weak. Maybe I should have just muscled it up and gone in there and found my brother, my mom did after all. And maybe I'm not tough enough to go in there. Uh, but you know, I'm really sort of grateful that I didn't, in retrospect, my mom, what she saw, she went through a lot, a lot, a lot of work to sort of undo some of that trauma. It was a very emotional thing to obviously find your son in that position. And so, um, you know, EMDR therapy and a lot of things to unring that bell. And fortunately, I didn't have to do that. You know, I didn't that that officer stopped me from doing that and I would have absolutely gone into that room. So it was something that I am forever grateful for and I will never forget it. So, uh, I was looking forward to speaking with officer Tatum. It's about 12 after. Let me ping Ms. Faith and see if he is maybe running late or if she's got any updates for us and see if he'll be here. Otherwise we'll just go ahead and have to reschedule and just bump on into the next segment. So officer Tatum, for those of you who do not know this gentleman, he is, he's got a very big YouTube channel he's over at. I think the officer Tatum on YouTube 1.6 million subscribers. So he may have gotten busy. He may have gotten, you know, sort of, uh, held up at a different, uh, interview or something like that. No problem at all. So it's, it's, uh, he was on Fox news, I think over the weekend and people are asking him, you know, about his opinion and in particular, what my questions were, were going to be around. We're going to keep talking about it, give him a few minutes to show up, if not, that's fine. But one of the things that I really wanted to sort of dial in on, you know, he's in, he's a police officer. If you go over to his channel, you're going to see a lot of the same stuff that we talk about here. In fact, maybe some, many of you are actually subscribed to his channel and you sort of follow along on both lines of content. So officer Tatum, you know, as you can imagine, if I am a criminal defense lawyer, I am going to be sort of spring-loaded to find fault with the officers, right? And it's not even about that. I sort of side with the victims, the people who are at the receiving end of an encounter with law enforcement, I sort of default to them because that's where I start. I say, okay, well, look, we have a constitution. We all have privileges. We all have certain freedoms. Anytime an agent of the government is, is extending into our freedoms is infringing upon our livelihood and our, and, and some of the fundamental concepts that we have flushed out in our constitution. That's a problem. So I say, well, you know, if there's any, if there's any incident that happens, we're going to start by starting at the default that the, that the person is innocent because that's what our law says. It's the presumption of innocence. They do nothing wrong. The government has the burden of production to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So that's just the baseline right now. I start on that side. I'm a criminal defense attorney. So it's only natural. That that would be my starting point. On the flip side, you have officer Tatum, you've got somebody like this. Who's a, a, I think he was a, a police officer for six years. And I don't want to, uh, you know, tell you what I know about him in case he does show up here. Then I want him to introduce himself so that you can meet him because he's very articulate, man. And he's somebody who has a lot of experience, you know, he's, he's actually, I think, six years in Tucson police and he knows the ins and outs of how they, they do their business with law enforcement. I don't, I, I know what I think I know about it. I've read a lot of books. I've, I've interviewed a lot of officers. I've done a lot of what are called CLS, continuing legal education courses. So I know how it works interfacing with law enforcement, but I've never been on the other side. I have never been an officer officer Tatum has, which is why I was excited to have him come and sort of explain his perspective on this. And so, you know, if you, if you go to his channel and you open my channel and you sort of compare them side to side, you're going to see the same names. You're going to see a Mon Arbery, you're going to see George Floyd. You're going to see Brianna Taylor. You're going to see Ray shard Brooks. You're going to see Kim Potter, Dante. Right. All of them. Right. They're all sort of on there. He sort of a generally speaking siding with the police. I'm sort of on the other side of that. And so my questions were not even specifically about any one of those particular cases, because without any question of a doubt, we could have taken a deep dive in there. We could have picked any one of those cases apart. And he could have given me his perspective and I could have given him my perspective and maybe we could have agreed to disagree and walk away without much, you know, much, much really disagreement at all. But there are sort of my bigger question for him is about the culture. It's about law enforcement and what he is seeing, what he is seeing from officers on the other side of the aisle. What is their perspective on this whole thing? And really, is there anything to even talk about really? Okay, is, is this much ado about nothing, right? Because right now what we're seeing, we see a lot of media hyperventilating. Now, listen, I, you know, where I stand on this issue, but I just want to know from law enforcement, from a police perspective, are they feeling like this is a legitimate criticism? A lot of the things that you're hearing in the media, whether it's defund the police or justice reform or the George Floyd bill or whatever, there's a lot going on there, but what does law enforcement think about this? Do they think that this is even a ripe issue? Is there anything even worth talking about, are they open to any sort of modifications or is the criminal justice system pretty much good? Right? This is all just a bunch of media hyperventilating about stuff that happens on a routine basis, happens all the time across this country. But if it happens with one particular demographic and one particular, a police officer in one particular location, and the media happens to capture it well, then they, you know, they sort of blow it up into something that it may or may not be. And this is not me just spitballing here. This is exactly what happened with the McCaya Bryant case. Remember that one? I mean, the media was already spring loaded, ready to go and blame this officer. We even have LeBron James and many other people, you know, not, not just sportspeople, but also Valerie Jarrett from the Obama administration, somebody who runs the Obama foundation, they were all just ready to go, Hey, this is just a knife fight. Let them Duke it out. Right. This is something that is normal and we should just let it happen. And they were ready to hang that other officer for no good reason. So the question is, how much of that is actually going on? Is that, is that a common thing? Are we seeing more of that or is that an abnormality and really, there's not a underlying problem. So it's a good question. I thought it would be a good question. I want to know what the officers are going to do now that we're seeing this pendulum swing one way. All right, one second. Um, they're telling me that they have a little bit of an invite on a little bit of a hiccup with the invite link. Let me send this over to Ms. Faith, and we're going to see if we can get the officer Tatum on the line. So Ms. Faith is sending that back over to him and, um, this link has permanence. All right. So we're going to get that sent over to him, see if he'll be able to hop on here and we can get into it. So I would, I would encourage you. We've got some people in the chat saying the officer let's, let's take a look at some chat. We've got, Jay Mann says at Rubin, I'll stay here for you. We have Renee says the officer Tatum, AKA Brandon Tatum is the best. Yeah. What it, so the Legion of reason says, what does anyone mean by reform? What would that look like? I have no idea, nor does anyone tossing that word around police are always reforming SLPs. Yeah. It's a very good question there. And, uh, that comes from the Legion of reason. And that's what I kind of want to understand. So I have my idea of what reform should be, and I've talked a lot about it and I've thrown a lot of ideas, sort of at the board, kind of the shotgun approach, right? I can come up with a ton of ideas. You're qualified immunity, mandatory body cams, national registries limitations on police unions. The list goes on and on and on. And so I can sort of spitball with those ideas because they sound good to me. I'm a defense lawyer though, right? I'm not a police officer. I don't know how they might think about some of these solutions. And then the question really is do they think that these are even necessary? You know, for before you start dumping in a bunch of solutions, it's pretty important that you flush out what the problem is before you just start acting on the problem. You want to make sure you know, what it is. Otherwise the solutions may not apply to the problem. So for police reform, I want to know what did the police say about it? Do they think that any reform is even necessary? Is this a worthy conversation to be having? Or like I said, is this all a bunch, a much, much ado about nothing. All right. We got Dave Brown in the house says be Tatum. And you would be great partners have to represent logical thinking here in Arizona and Countrywide. I think he might actually be from Arizona. I think the last that we heard, uh, or last I heard him, he, he said that he was a police officer in Tucson, which as I mentioned is not far away from here. We have bet. Kali Garcia says I've been in criminal justice, zoom sessions. I've heard a couple of people talking about bringing in elements of Sharia law. Okay. That's interesting. All right. Hey, so we got here, we got, it looks like we just heard the button and it looks like the officer Tatum is in the house and ready. So let me bring him on, make sure he's good to go there. He is officer, how are you, sir? I'm doing well. How are you doing brother? Do a real good. Thanks. Thanks so much for taking some time and hopping on here. I, um, I wanted to just, first of all, ask you, if you don't mind to just, you know, give us a little bit of background on who you are as the officer Tatum, because, uh, I was sort of watching a lot of your content over this past weekend. I think you might be from Tucson actually.

Speaker 3: 20:02

Yeah, well, I was born and raised in Texas. Um, I was, uh, you know, my whole family live in Texas Fort worth, Texas. Um, I played football college. I mean, high school football. I was an all American football player, which led me to play college football. So I played at the university of Arizona, which is in Tucson. And so, uh, I played there for a while. Um, I entered the 2010 NFL draft. I didn't get drafted like I'd hoped. Um, I ended up becoming a police officer in Tucson for six and a half years where I was a SWAT operator. I was a field training officer, public information officer. I did a bunch of stuff on the police department and because of, you know, my political stance in certain things, I think God led me into the, what I'm doing now, you know, with the social media stuff. And that's kind of how I got to this point just real quick.

Speaker 1: 20:46

Yeah. And, and I appreciate, and, and you've done an amazing job and, you know, one of the things before you hopped on here that I was talking to the audience about was sort of this dynamic that exists between officers and defense lawyers. I'm a criminal defense lawyer practicing today. And so sometimes people think that, you know, we go into the courtroom together and we're at each other's throats, or we want to sort of gouge each other's eyeballs out. And that, that just hasn't been my experience. Right. You know, and I wanted to ask you about that, you know, have you, have you had a similar experience dealing with, with defense lawyers in court?

Speaker 3: 21:16

No, I haven't had a lot of experience with defense lawyers. You know, it's a, it's a running theme that, uh, you know, police officers are against defense attorneys and the defense attorneys, uh, try to get you caught up in something, you know, I've done defense attorney, uh, what they call it, uh, interviews with defense attorneys, pretrial interviews. Um, but I've never been in trial. Most of the cases that I've done, I mean a person, they, they do a plea deal and we never have to show up in court. So I understand the sentiment and, and kind of like the rumors of this kind of defiant relationship, however, I've never experienced any, uh, negative relationship with defense attorneys.

Speaker 1: 21:50

Yeah. And that's largely been my experience, you know, there's, there's been every now and then you get an officer that really doesn't like defense lawyers and the feelings probably mutual going both ways, but, but largely, you know, we're, we're all I think, trying to work towards the same thing, which is more justice, you know, and, and we've got different perspectives on how to get there, but we're still excited or, or, you know, really our life mission is about, about getting there. And so I wanted to ask you a little bit more about your, your work. So as you said, you know, you sort of transitioned into this social media commentating, you know, you've got a huge presence all over the place. And on my channel on our audience, we've been focusing a lot on criminal justice in particular talking a lot about the same things that you talk about with Marbury and George Floyd and Brianna Taylor. And, uh, you know, now we've got Dante, right. And Kim Potter, and, you know, the list goes on and on, and you talk about all of these, these types of cases, but I just was hoping that maybe you could give us a, you know, an overview, you know, what is sort of, what's inspiring you to get out there and speak on behalf of officers. And what is your general position on the justice system? You know, we're talking a lot about it. Do you think that this is something that needs reform? What's your, what's your sort of position on the state of affairs in, you know, police justice world?

Speaker 3: 23:02

I see your first question. You know, my passion comes from being a police officer. I mean, physically, um, being there on a job, you know, seeing the day-to-day grind that we do being there, you know, writing the case reports, going in and doing, uh, you know, pretrial interviews and different things like that. And I just feel like the public have no idea what police officers go through and what they actually do. And the reason why I feel so strongly about that is because before I became a police officer, I had no idea what cops actually had to do, what they could and couldn't do what rights they had, you know, what rights the citizen has against the police, how they're trained. I mean, all of these things are something that, that I learned when I became a police officer, being the stress of the job, some of the stuff that we see that most people will never dream of seeing it in real life, the fear factor, the, the, you know, life being in danger on a day-to-day basis, you know, having to pull your gun on people, having to deescalate under pressure, you know, it's just been it's, it's crazy. So my passion is to give police officers a voice. And when it comes to the criminal justice system, you know, I think the criminal justice system is flawed, but I think it functions properly. It functions, functions reasonably. And in many cases, I think that the criminal justice system led off too many criminals, more so than it, than it put them behind bars for a significant amount of time. So I think that it does need improvement. It's not perfect. You know, they're not going to always get it right. You're talking about the jury of your peers. You know, people are crazy. You know, some of these people would probably shouldn't even be on a jury pool. They have no idea about any concept of society. They know nothing about laws. It's the first time they've ever probably read a law out loud. And, and so it's definitely has some kinks in it, but I think that it's this, the sentiment that the criminal justice system is just flawed towards black people. And it's in my personal experience, it's just, haven't been the case. And you see that played out with some of these police shootings that I often talk about. And I tell you right off the bat that that's justified that they're not going to go to jail. And 99.9% of the time I'm right. Because it follows the use of force continuum, the use of force policies and law. And it's pretty easy, but the public seem to not be able to understand it.

Speaker 1: 25:08

Yeah. And, and this is why I was so excited to have you on is because I, what I propose solutions, I am thinking from a defense attorney's perspective, you know, I think, well, you know, this is ridiculous. Cops shouldn't be allowed to do this. This is so offensive. This is egregious to the constitution, blah, blah, blah. But you know, when I come, when I come up with a plan on how we're going to fix this, like you said, I've never been an officer, right. I've never been on the other side and see how it feels to walk a day in your shoes. And so I wanted to sort of ask you about, you know, I, you know, I don't know if you want to get into any specifics on any of this stuff, but, you know, the George Floyd bill is sort of something that last week president Biden was out there talking about, you know, in his speech to Congress, he talked for an hour, but he gave us like three minutes on justice reform. And it was mostly a story with very little specifics other than he likes George Floyd's bill. And so if they run with that, you know, from a police officer's perspective, what's your take on that. And, and what, you know, I'm not sure that it's fair to ask you to speak for all other officers, but certainly you can give us sort of a consensus.

Speaker 3: 26:03

I gave you a consensus opinion about people that I know. I know a lot of police officers, they talked to me on message me all the time. Um, you know, first I think it's ridiculous to even name any bill after a person who was a lifelong criminal that unfortunately died at the hands of a police officer on one given occasion, you know, this guys shouldn't be kind of like the idea of criminal justice reform. Um, however, not only is the name in and of itself seemed to be problematic in my personal opinion and the opinion of many people that I know also the reform has nothing to do with what happened to George Floyd. You know, they don't teach an officer to put his knee on the back of the neck of somebody while they're begging for them live their lives and watching them that's that nobody teaches that that's not in any protocol. That's why he went to jail. And that's why he ended up inevitably getting charged because the, you know, they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was culpable. You know? So when you look at it, you say, you know what, reformer you're talking about, defunding the police. That's not going to help somebody like George Floyd, you know, stay alive because they're not going to get adequate training. They're not going to get quality police officers. If you defund them, then you know, they, they go down the list of, uh, systemic racism in a police department like criminal, you know, George Flores case had nothing to do with race. I mean, the officer was, would have done that to anybody and, you know, based on the information that I have, so this is all political fluff from my perspective. I think if they really want to do criminal justice reform or police reform, they should probably talk to police officers and see what they think, you know, a level of reform should be instead of talking to activists.

Speaker 1: 27:37

Yeah. And I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, I think that, that you are, you know, that side is, is a critical, crucial component to the conversation and it feels like they're sort of being left out, you know, on, on the other end of a, you know, hung out to dry, so to speak, but what, what would an acceptable solution look like to officers or, or let me put it in another way, you sort of explained, you mentioned the word defund, the police, and, you know, there's this pendulum that sort of feels like it's swinging that direction. You know, the country sort of does this back in the nineties, eighties and nineties, we had this, you know, crime wave. We had Joe Biden with all the crime bills. And so it was sort of, you know, the country was up sort of, uh, concerned about burgeoning crime. Well, the pendulum feels like it's swinging the other way a little bit, like maybe this defund, the police movement has some, some momentum. What do officers do about that? Do they, you know, do they leave certain departments? Do they move to different professions? What's the response. If this is continuing to be successful?

Speaker 3: 28:30

Well, this is definitely a morale killer. I have, I have never heard of an officer in this era that have said positive things about being a police officer. I mean, most police officers are ready to get out of there. Some of my friends have retired this year. Um, they can't wait to get away from policing. You know, it's not fun anymore. It's not, you know, you put on the badge and you're honorably saving people's lives. And you know, you become the silent hero is never that anymore. If you're white and you accidentally kill a black man, or you kill a black man justifiably, or he killed you, you know, you, you you're wrong in every form of fashion and there's no accountability to the, to the criminal, you know, so it really hurts morale. And so when, when morale is damaged where the police officers do, they don't proactively police. They're not going out there and putting their neck on the line to try to go so far as the foreign criminals who are having committed crimes yet, you know, going out, searching for people who are wanted, you know, riding by certain blocks where they know criminal activity happens, drug dealers is going on. They're not doing that. They're, they're hanging to the precinct. They're riding around the ducking off waiting for the call to come out, you know, the car for service. So that's, that's going to be detrimental to the, to the community because police are not feeling like they're supported and feeling like they're excited to be at work. I mean, you gotta think, even in the greatest era of policing, it's not an easy job. And it is taxing. Especially if you work the midnight shift, you know, you work a 12 hour shifts. Um, almost every night when you count, when you leave the house, you gotta go to the briefing. Then when you leave, you never leave on time. You know? And, and people need you all day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I mean, call to call, to call, to call. Nobody calls you when they're having a good day and their birthday party is going well, they call you when they're at the worst moment. So that grief, that pain, the struggle, the, you know, the animosity, all of that stuff pours on you every single day. And it's, it's a toll. And then, you know, you have to write case reports. You have to deal with defense attorneys. You have to, you know, you have the constitution, you have people's rights that you, that you need to know whether or not you're violating them or not. You know, you have split-second decisions of, do I shoot this guy, do a natural, does God do I live or do I die? And that's when policing is great, man, when you add this other stuff on top of it, it, it, it, it's going to end up in a really, really bad situation for law enforcement.

Speaker 1: 30:42

I can't imagine how it doesn't because I was watching the McCaya Bryan Case. And you know, that officer, in my opinion, that was one of the cleanest shoots, the cleanest actions that I've seen. You know, this was sort of like the epitome of being a police officer. You get called to a scene. It's madness. It's chaos. You walk up, you do run up there. You try to save somebody's life. Oh my gosh, somebody is being stabbed. You shoot them, you saved their life. And the whole world says that you're a piece of garbage. LeBron, James says, we're coming after you next I'm going. What? Like, like, you know, you want to sort of Revere those officers who are able to, to, to perform at their highest level. And when you don't appreciate that, I'm not sure why, you know why they would stick around anymore.

Speaker 3: 31:22

Yeah. I mean, it's crazy. Like, you know, that guy could have been eating donuts right before that call with his guard down. And all of a sudden he got a snap it into gear and he got to kill a 16 year old. You know what I'm saying? And I don't, I don't necessarily think his motive was the killer is the shooter. So, you know, to, uh, eliminate her as a threat. Unfortunately, she, she, she succumbed to her injuries, but I mean, you gotta be on it, man. You never think when you go to work as a police officer, that's no police officer. You never think when you go to work today, I'm gonna kill somebody today. I'm gonna actually kill a 16 year old girl. Who's trying to stab another six year old girl. You just don't think that people would go that far, but you gotta be ready. And this officer was ready. He jumped out of the car and right away, people are fighting in front of him. You know, the craziest thing ever. And it probably the biggest shock is that people are stabbing each other in front of me. This guy kicks the girl in the head. We're standing right here. What is happening? He sees the knife and he's on point. He didn't shoot the person. He wasn't supposed to shoot. He didn't miss. He hit the target that, that eliminated the threat of killing another person. And if he wasn't white and she wasn't black, he would be getting, uh, a commendation from the police department. And we would never hear this story. The unfortunate part is that they always join these racial components. And I'll tell you this, they drew the component without even watching the body-worn camera. They'd never saw it. It wasn't even out yet. And they were already saying they had no business killing that girl and people in the community, some of them were saying, you know, this was unjustified. She was executed. And you know, if it's too, if it's too juicy, you need to wait a little bit to let the facts come out. And lo and behold it was justified.

Speaker 1: 33:03

Yeah. So what do you think, you know, we've got like a minute left or a couple of minutes. What, what, what do you think is, you know, the next step or the next solution, you know, what do we, what are we talking about? Is it about having more conversations? Is it about, you know, focused on local reforms? Is it about a national registry or accountability, transparency sort of, you know, from your perspective, a law enforcement perspective, right?

Speaker 3: 33:24

Where should we be going? Yeah, we should definitely leave the federal government out of it. You know, they, they, they cannot one size fit all every police agency in each individual state, in each individual County and municipality. There's no way there's too many cultures going on. There's too many different protocols on policing and each state needs to be policed the way the people want them to be policed. There are some States that want to legalize everything. They shouldn't be there. Policing shouldn't have to be as hard as in Texas and in Arizona, if that's not what the state wants. So the state has rights. So enforce what they want to enforce. Some States don't want body-worn cameras, some States do. And I feel like that each state has the right to do that. So let's give the power back to the States and let's look at this, not from a, I hate the police. We want to defund the police. They're all racist, white people. We need to look at it from the sense of saying, let's look at the police department. Let's bring people in the community and police together to have a reasonable conversation, not the naysayers and all of the, you know, Monday morning quarterbacks, the people who actually in the community, people will actually want to understand policing and have the commanders and people who actually do this for a living, have a conversation about what do our, what does our community need? And that's where I think the best solution moving forward is not these big time talkers. That's on TV trying to, you know, raise hustle, but the people who actually live in these communities, having these conversations

Speaker 1: 34:43

Beautiful. And I think that's a beautiful way to end that I couldn't agree with you more. And I think that's kind of what we're trying to do here. Right? You're on one side, I'm traditionally on the other side, I think that we're both, you know, more in alignment about, you know, the role of government and sort of our rights and responsibilities as citizens. But, you know, we, we, we both do want to work towards something that improves everything for everybody. It's just about how do we get there? And if you have a bunch of people, you know, sort of, you know, hucksters out there, making a bunch of things, turning things into something that they're not, it's really difficult to have that conversation. So I appreciate the work that you're doing. Can we send people to one of your projects or, or over to your channel? I've already plugged your channel, uh, before we got on here, I know, I know, I know you don't need any more subscribers, but we'll send them over your direction.

Speaker 3: 35:24

We can always use more subscribers. So the officer Tatum, uh, the arts of tatum.com is actually where you can find every single thing that I do. My store, my book, everything is on V also tatum.com. And if you put the officer Tatum into YouTube, you'll see, and brother, I would love to have you on, on my YouTube channel so we can have a conversation. It is beautiful to see a police officer and an attorney talk about these things, because there's things that I don't know about being an, being an attorney. You know, I'm not an attorney. I just know what we try to do to not get caught up by a defense attorney. But now sometimes we find ourselves in a position where we need to be defended, and then we become best friends. So, you know, I would love to have you on my channel. You know what, let's just, let's set it up.

Speaker 1: 36:05

Sure. I'd love to do that. I really appreciate the work that you're doing. I think we need more perspectives, more ideas, more conversation. And from people who can just sort of like, let's get down to brass tacks here, you know, we don't need to make this into something that it's not talk about real solutions. And so, you know, officer Brandon Tatum, I really appreciate you coming on the show. My friend have a great evening and then we'll connect offline and, and hopefully,

Speaker 3: 36:25

Hopefully we can speak again. Yeah, man, God bless you, brother. I'll see you next time.

Speaker 1: 36:28

You too. All right. My friends that was the officer Brandon Tatum. So he joined us here and I thought that was a nice conversation. And I actually think that he's doing good work. As I mentioned, I think that this is an important topic that we need to have more conversations about. And then maybe we'll see some real improvement. One of the biggest things that drives me bananas about this whole criminal justice reform topic is the idea that we've had the same elected officials, the same politicians, the same people who are in power for the last 30 years. Who've created the very system that we're all unhappy with. They're telling us that they have the solution now to fix that. And I just doubt it because they've been working on it for the last 30 years and they haven't done anything. They've got nothing to show for it. So that was the officer Tatum, everybody. Uh, and, uh, let's see, we got some

Speaker 3: 37:19

Questions that came in. So let me take a quick look

Speaker 1: 37:21

At some of those, uh, we've got LT 13 says, ask them about no-knock warrants and why that was the problem with Brianna Taylor that they did knock. So obviously we couldn't get into that. Right? We had, we had about 15 minutes, obviously he's busy, so we have a tight schedule. Um, but yes, this was sort of an introductory interview. Hopefully the, the, the, the, you know, hopefully this turns into something where we can have more of these conversations. Obviously. I think that they would be very interesting, a, a former officer and a defense lawyer working together, cats and dogs under one roof. Oh, it's Bedlam. But as you can see, we can make it pretty easy, pretty, you know, pretty amicable. So we'll see if we can do more of that, but to your question, ask them about no knock warrants and why that was the problem with Briana Taylor that they did knock. Okay. So I think I see what you're saying, that they knocked that alerted Kenneth Walker, who was the boyfriend inside, who shot and then, and then the police shot. So, you know, I think, I think it's a causation question. Uh, we got norovirus, so, so I, so I've totally botched this everybody's everybody on all of these locals questions are wanting me to ask Brandon Tatum a question, but we have 15 minutes. So, uh, so I asked him my questions. Now I'm going to answer your questions for officer Tatum, question for Tatum. Do you think that actual defunding of the police can actually happen with the assumption? Where are we at? What did I just do? All right. So I think, I think faith just belated. All right. So, all right. So we're going to change gears now because my questions just disappeared. So we are going to change gears. Now, do you want to ask a question on this segment, then you can do that@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, because now we're going to get back into the regular progression of the show. We're going to get better at this interview thing. Right. I, uh, got to figure it out. Okay. So Ms. Face, I don't answer any questions. All right. So, all right, so we're going to change gears. Now, we're going to talk about the woke CIA woke ism. It is a new term in the United States. You may not even know what it is, but you've probably heard a lot about it. You know, when you go on to Twitter and you see people with all those different things in their bio lines about pronouns and all these different things, like I, uh, I identify as a meat Popsicle today. All right, well, so that's kind of what we're talking about is this concept called critical race theory. CRT. You've heard about this in the news and the headlines, and it's an interesting concept that now even the CIA of our country is getting involved in. And so what I want to do is I want to show you this new recruiting video from the CIA that involves a Latino woman who is very nice, and she's giving us her story, but it's a little bit interesting, not one of the videos that you would expect to be coming from a government entity that is responsible for international security and, or wiping out some of the toughest, most heinous criminals throughout the world. We have a video like this, so I'm going to play it for you. But before we do, we want to do a little bit of a heavy lifting. We got to learn about what we're talking about, what is critical race theory. Now, I'm going to go through an article from a guy named James Lindsey. I want to explain to you who he is. And I also want to just give you a disclaimer on this thing, right? This is, uh, an approach toward this concept from the right. This is from people on the right sort of side of the aisle who oppose this concept. You think that this is all kind of bizarre, bizarre, right? That we're even going down this road and that it's not actually productive. So just caveat, right? A little bit of a warning there. This is coming from the right. If you want to look at something that's a little bit more fair and balanced, this is not it. This is, this is a criticism, but it is a summation. So just clearing that up. All right. So here it is new discourses. This, I want to show you, what's called the[inaudible] race theory. And we're going to go through this quickly, because right now this is a two page overview. So it is not a lot of material, which is why I picked this. And this was written just a few days ago by a guy named James Lindsey. You can see him down here. And I want to show you a little bit of background on who this guy is very interesting fellow. You probably have heard about him without hearing about him. So I want to introduce you to him, James Lindsey, in 2017, they published a hoax paper titled content warning, the conceptual penis as a social construct. Okay. So you're going the conceptual penis as a social construct. You're going all right. That sounds like a joke, right? Well kind of in writing the paper, Lindsay and others intended to imitate the style of what's called post-structuralist dye, cursive gender theory. Okay. Which is actually a thing because you can click it on Wikipedia and go over there. The paper argued that the penis should be seen not as an anatomical organ, but as a social construct, isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. What does that even mean? All right. So the paper says, well, the penis is not actually, you know, an organ. It is not in an anatomical organ. It is a social construct that is isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. That sounds like something you'd hear in college right after the paper, this paper. So they drafted this thing after it was rejected by Norma, they later submitted it to cogent social sciences, an open access journal that has been criticized as a pay to publish operation, where it was accepted for publication. So they write this hoax paper. That's a total joke. And this, this organization accepts it. Then in August, 2017, Lindsay and others, they wrote 20 hoax papers, which they then submitted to peer review journals using several SU pseudonyms, as well as the name, Richard Baldwin, a friend of Bo Hawkson and a professor at Florida's Gulf state college. The project ended early after one of the papers published in the feminist geography journal, which is a thing there's a feminist geography journal that exists it's called gender place and culture. It was criticized on social media and then questioned in its authenticity on the campus reforms. So they submitted 20 papers and they got, it sounds like many of them got accepted. The trio subsequently revealed the full scope of their work in a YouTube video created and released by a documentary filmmaker, Mike Naina, which was accompanied by the investigation by the wall street journal. By the time of this rebel revelation, seven of their 20 papers had been accepted. Seven were still under review. And six had been rejected. One paper accepted by a feminist social work journal. Ophelia was a rewrite of Adolf Hitler's mind comp in feminist language. Okay. So it's this, guy's just, just making a mockery of the whole thing. Tom Whipple of the times wrote that academic reviewers had praised the hoax studies of Lindsey as quote a rich and exciting contribution to the study of the intersection between masculinity and a finality. Somebody else wrote excellent and very timely. And somebody else wrote important dialogue for social workers and feminist scholars talking about the social construct, isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity of the male genitalia. And so views Lindsay has been named critical social justice has named critical social justice, which he describes as his preferred name for the contemporary justice movement as his ideological enemy, and is a critic of wokeness, which he analogizes to religious belief column is Cathy young described Lindsey as an author with an antiwar following in 2020. He announced the intention to vote for Trump setting illiberalism on the left as the reason. So very interesting guy, pretty hilarious that they did this and that everybody just accepted it just, okay, well, uh, we're going to talk about performative toxic, toxic masculinity in the version of male genitalia. And somebody said, uh, just a very exciting, exciting work, very important to the contributions of feminist scholars out there. Outstanding. So he is very anti woke. He is somebody who is really sort of, uh, uh, opposed to wokeness. And I want to explain what this is. So in his article, as I mentioned, it's titled a two page overview of what's called critical race theory, and I want to go through it. So he gives us a couple of quotes, starts off by saying, unlike traditional approaches to civil rights, which favor incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory calls into question, the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principles of constitutional law. What does that even mean? There is a lot there and we could spend probably a whole show on packing that, but let's do it quickly. You can see here's what it says. This comes from a book called critical race theory and introduction written by Richard Delgado and Jean Stephan. ESIC, uh, this introduction posted back in 2001. So they're saying right in normal society, when we're talking about civil rights, we have this thing called incrementalism where we just sort of, you know, move the ball forward slowly, but surely back in the 17 hundreds, we form a country country. We've got, you know, equal rights except for a huge demographic of this country called the slaves and others. And it was not a good, not a good situation for, for those people on the outs, right, but slowly but surely over time, over years, civil rights expanded and slowly, but surely people started sort of being brought into the fold. Civil war happens. We get rid of slavery, women get a women's suffrage, the right to vote, and the list goes on, right? We have a, you know, a gay marriage is now acceptable, uh, approved by the Supreme court, incremental improvements as time goes on. But what they're saying here is that this critical race theory is sort of meant to upend all of that, including things like the principles of constitutional law, including things like the liberal order and enlightenment rationalism. So a lot of what we have in this country stems from the enlightenment era, right? The 1,716 hundreds after a lot of these philosophers, you know, were sort of in existence, they influence a lot of our founding fathers who drafted the constitution and created America. So they're saying, well, that's all sort of based out of this old way of thinking where it's incremental improvements. We don't want any of that incrementalism. We want to get rid of the entire order and recreate it. Critical race theory and theorists, highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely rights. Okay. They don't really want those to exist. And again, this comes from critical race theory in introduction back in 2001. So let's go into the article. It says your critical race. There is described critical race theory as a movement, which is a strange theory for a, uh, which is a strange theory of society designed to reinvent the relationships between race, racism, and power in society. So to do this, they begin with the assumption that race is socially constructed and that racism is systemic. Okay. We've heard a lot of these words. Society has created the concept of race and because society creates the concept of race, it is systemic and racism is a sort of intertwined interwoven into everything that we do. This means that they view racial categories as social and political fictions that have been imposed by white people, on other people of color, especially blacks and at the system upon which all of society operates on. Every level, unjustly produces racist outcomes that favor whites and minority races that adhere to quote whiteness. Okay, we're seeing a lot of this, right. We saw, I think two weeks ago, there was a bill that was passing its way through Congress that didn't actually pass. And I think largely it was because every single democratic, uh, person in Congress voted against it, every Republican voted in favor of it. What was the issue? It was about stopping discrimination for Asian American students in higher education. Well, what do you think about that? I mean, is that white privilege? If you're an Asian person you're doing well in society? Well, you're not white, but what they're saying is, well, you might have whiteness, okay. Because you're living in a society with all of these social, uh, socially constructed, racist, systemic, you know, uh, components, every which way you turn following at the expense of the colored people, uh, of people of color, excuse me, especially Latinos. And even more especially blacks because racism is a property of the system, which includes everything from policy to behavioral norms, to manners of speech, to what we consider true racism persists. Even if no individual or institution acts in a racist way or holds any racist beliefs. So in other words, you can be racist because you live in a racist society. Even if you are not racist, it is the way society operates. That is racist as can be determined by the fact that there are statistical differences in average outcomes, by racial category. And so we've talked about this a lot. Remember how the word changes a little bit from equality to equity, it's difference between equality of opportunity. We all start at the same level versus equality or equity in the outcome. Meaning we all get the same thing at the end of the day, no matter where we started, you can work your off work hard, hard, hard, hard, create a ton of value for society. Well, you've got a little bit more than the next person. And what we want to do is make sure that our society is equitable. We're going to equal those things out. And so this person over here who doesn't really contribute much of anything, just kind of, you know, knows that they're going to be taken care of because they have abdicated all of their responsibilities and our government and society is more than happy to take those things up less. They lose a prospective voter. So they have this person just handing all of their life over to somebody else and the government is happy to take it. All right, let's continue on with this article. Critical race theory proceed upon a number of dubious assumptions. And by means of a variety of questionable methods, including racism is ordinary critical. Race theory holds that racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society. The question is not, did racism take place, but rather how did racism manifest in this situation? So we go from asking ourselves, was that racist to now racism is just there. Everything that we do, we sit down for dinner. Well, this was a racist dinner. Well, nothing happened yet. It doesn't matter. I'm in a restaurant, which is clearly something that, uh, exists in America and America, as we know, was founded by white people. Therefore every single thing has a little stain of racism built into it. Thus racism is relevant to all interactions and everything else that happens according to critical race theory. And it is everyone's duty to investigate, expose and disrupt the racism. Once it is identified. And we saw this over this past weekend with the jeopardy guide, did you see that story? There was a guy on jeopardy. I think he won three different, uh, events, three different championships. And he held up a symbol on his, uh, uh, his shirt to sort of articulate three. Like I won three. And uh, somebody said that was a racist symbol racist. And it turned into this huge thing and it was happening all over the weekend. This guy had to sort of issue an apology and the whole thing was a problem it's because everything is racist and everybody has to root it out at every single turn. This is why everything you say or do or think or move or touch or smell suddenly now has a racial connotation to it. And we've seen that here, right on this channel. We've talked about it a lot. Every single criticism of everything has a racial component under this theory. And it's actually written down somewhere. The eminence of racism as a corollary to the above. Racism is racism is a belief to be eminent in society, which means it's hidden just below the surface and everywhere. Always according to critical race theory, therefore all acts of racism are not to be understood as isolated incidents by individuals or institutions, but as specific manifestations of the persistence of pervasive system that defines society. We also have interest convergence. What is this critical race theory holds that dominant racial groups like whites will not help more oppressed racial groups like blacks in particular, unless it is also in their own self-interest to do so. Therefore racism does not go away, but it's just reproduced in new ways. Usually ways that hide it more successfully and require more work to identify the future through critical race theory, therefore racism doesn't get better. And in a sense, it gets worse over time because it gets harder to identify and call out. So we bought duty to call it out. You've got a, you've got an affirmative obligation to do it. You have to stand up anytime you see anything that even remotely crosses the line, you've got an obligation to go

Speaker 4: 53:34

And get rid of it. When we're seeing

Speaker 1: 53:36

More of that, right? Everywhere you turn, you're seeing it. Jeopardy guy and others. Once again, this article is from James Lindsay over@newdiscourses.com. We got two more pages, very short synopsis. Then I want to show you the CIA video. So go check out James Lindsey, give his website a follow or a bookmark, give him a follow over on Twitter. What else is inherent in critical race theory? We have motivated ignorance. What does this dominant racial groups like? The whites are positioned as benefiting from the system of racism. Critical race theory assumes pervades everything. And therefore they have little to no motivation to challenge or to change it. Instead they have motivation to intentionally ignore racism, which is willful ignorance to maintain it. And then to rationalize it as justified say by claiming success is the result of merit refusal to interrogate one's own quote white complicity

Speaker 4: 54:28

In the racist system

Speaker 1: 54:30

Is often treated as a character flaw like white fragility, which is the name of a book by the way, and a feature of white privilege. This trait together with the above gives racism a permanence, according to critical race theory. And it's also a shield against any criticism. You actually can't say anything about this. And I've actually tried this on club a few times where I get into clubhouse and I sort of get into the room and I try to ask some questions and it doesn't go well. But the point is, you know, every time you try to sort of push back on this, they say, no, well, no, that's just your white complicity. That's your white fragility. That is your white privilege. You are just being ignorant. You're not willing to ask yourself the hard question. Isn't it true that you live in a racist society, you racist white person, you go, well, actually I don't think so because I wake up every day and I don't like think that way. And they say, yes, you do. You don't even know that you think that way, but you do. And I say no, but I, I mean, I, but I, but I don't. I say that's your white privilege. That's your white complicity and you're weak. And who the heck are you? You're not even going to take a look at yourself. You're disgusting. This is willful ignorance.

Speaker 4: 55:36

You are the worst.

Speaker 1: 55:39

I know, I know structural determinism, critical race theory also holds that the systems of oppression in society determine one's outcome in life. How would you like to live under this theory? When you just wake up and you just wake up every morning, you wake up and you go out into the world and you say, well, the system of oppression is going to define my life today. Everything is about the system. Everything is about what that person said to me or what that business did or what that waiter said or what that guy did. And on the, on the road that day, or that article that whatever Tucker Carlson said is my life is contingent upon all of those different things. I have no freewill. I have no ability for self-determination. I cannot self-actualize in any way, shape or form, because everything I do is a direct result of society and how society acts upon me. You imagine living your life that way, what a mess. And it's just contrary to all things that we know that are useful for human beings in terms of self-actualization, it's about thinking beyond your borders, it's about sort of pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone. It's saying, Hey, society exists this way. And I don't like it, and I'm not going to play by those rules. I'm going to step outside of that here. According to this, you know, sort of a summation of this concept, everything is based on society, all of your current situation, your current status in life, as a result of what society did to you, because you have no personal

Speaker 4: 57:03

Autonomy. Article

Speaker 1: 57:05

Says, therefore, people of color, especially blacks are positioned by the allegedly white supremacist system to be kept down. And it is the deterministic power of those power structures rather than individual traits like character or merit that determine success or failure in life, which is just a sad, I mean, it's just sad. I don't believe that is accurate at all. And there are entire demographics in our country that are

Speaker 4: 57:29

Being taught. This you're just a victim of whatever, whatever your current circumstances are.

Speaker 1: 57:35

Okay. I was born in a whole different set of circumstances than what I'm in currently.

Speaker 4: 57:39

And that is due to a lot of other things. If I would have been

Speaker 1: 57:44

Born and said, well, it's just, this is just the lot I got in life. I guess I'm just an alcoholic. I guess I'm just a kid with a dead brother. Oh, well, what was me? Everything is somebody else's fault. I have no ability to do anything useful with myself because I am

Speaker 4: 57:58

Subject to the system. Ridiculous. It's not true. Look around what else does

Speaker 1: 58:04

This say? Authentic racial experiences,

Speaker 4: 58:08

Critical racism

Speaker 1: 58:08

Theory also holds that systemic racism creates identifiable racial experiences for members of all racial

Speaker 4: 58:15

Groups for their critical race

Speaker 1: 58:17

Theory is the only social theory in existence that properly understands how one's racial social position with respect to these power dynamics can be rightfully understood. Members of each racial category have authentic racial experience

Speaker 4: 58:28

Is unique voice of color.

Speaker 1: 58:32

Uh, the critical race theory holds that critically conscious woke or critical race theorist members of minority racial groups possess a unique voice of color that speaks to the lived experience of systemic oppression by race. This is another tool for asserting critical race. Theorists cannot be doubted in their declarations of their experience as a member of a particular race. And of course, identity politics. Critical race theory is unabashedly involved in identity politics in the sense of creating special interest groups and political coalitions out of racial identity groups. This tends to take the form of a small number of critical race theory, activists speaking for certain racial communities using the points above as justification. We've also seen this around our society a lot, and this is something I've commented about on the show regularly saying, Hey, you know, at some point it may come down to it where both of these little factions or several these factions are duking it out with one another, because there's only so much room. You know, the pie is only so much so big. The democratic party only has so much money and votes and ability to sort of,

Speaker 4: 59:33

You know, take on the business of all these various

Speaker 1: 59:38

Multitude of different groups that exist in our society. And so if you've got, you know, LGBTQ plus and you know, other, other alphabet letters, other permutations, all these different groups, because it starts to, you know, to segment down right. When we've seen this, I posted some stuff on locals about new pronouns and things. I don't even understand. It's like a foreign language to me because it's all whatever,

Speaker 4: 1:00:01

But all right, so

Speaker 1: 1:00:03

Now you have to have a democratic party. That's representative of 200,000 different individual niche groups that all have these little permutations that make them special relative to the other groups. How do you deal with all that?

Speaker 4: 1:00:13

Well, they got to cobble it together. They got to have this coalition smashed them in. And then at some point, yeah,

Speaker 1: 1:00:19

If one of those groups says, wow, but we are in disagreement with that, right? We do not agree with that because that opinion might help that group, but it directly hurts our group. You're going to have some fractionation

Speaker 4: 1:00:29

Happening there. Last, last

Speaker 1: 1:00:31

Clip from this article, before we get to the video, it says impact over intent, critical race theory holds that if a critically conscious member of a minoritized racial group has experienced racism in some word or deed, then the correct explanation for what happened is racist. It can not be questioned. This empowers hypersensitivity and victimhood seeking anti liberalism asks can be read in the quotes at the top of the page. Critical race theory holds that the philosopher, the philosophy of liberalism is in fact, a racist system because it creates conditions under which unique inequities, inequities, and outcomes increase while misleading people to believe that things are more fair

Speaker 4: 1:01:06

Than they are. Right. And

Speaker 1: 1:01:08

Remember all of the enlightenment thing or many of the enlightenment thinkers were white people, right? They thought about these concepts that made their way into our governing documents. And now there are inequitable solutions. Some people have more money than other people. Some people have bigger houses. Some people have nicer

Speaker 4: 1:01:23

Cars and it's rooted

Speaker 1: 1:01:25

In systemic racism. Why, how do we know that? Because they came from enlightenment thinkers back in the 17 hundreds. Well, who were the enlightenment thinkers back then? White people,

Speaker 4: 1:01:33

Hello, narrative and

Speaker 1: 1:01:35

Counter storytelling, critical race theory, favors the telling of stories, especially stories that challenge prevailing wisdom or reject established knowledge. They also seems like the support revisionist history, according to Mr. Lindsey says critical race series, believe it is their obligation to rewrite history. To tell it from the perspective of critical race theory, even if it's factually inaccurate. And then we have intersectionality, all forms of oppression by all forms of identity are linked into one broad pervasive matrix of domination, thus necessitating, necessitating solidarity, across all forms of suppression. All right. So now that we know a little bit about what this is and where this is going and what's happening, I want to play for you a video from the CIA. Now, if you go to the CIA's YouTube channel, you're going to see that they have a lot of these videos. I did not watch most of them, but this one has been poking around the internet. It's got at the time that we clip this, you can see down here in the bottom left, it's got 1.9 million views. I just checked before I hopped on here. It's like 2.1, 2.2 million views. And it's about a two minute and 18 minute video of a woman, a Latino woman who is explaining why she's an officer with the CIA. She's about 36 years old from the video. And I want you to listen to this narrative and you ask yourself based on what we just read, you know, what does this, this does, this, does this fit? Does this sound like this is what that is? Cause it certainly does to me. And the other thing I want you to notice is, is listening to what this woman is talking about. Is there anything in this that is relative to the, her experience as an officer for the CIA relative to her ability to save America, to be Jack Bauer or whatever, or is this about who she is as a person and about maybe sort of about what the CIA is looking for for recruiting? What type of ideology? Okay. So it's not about the woman here in the video. This woman is an actress, or maybe she's a real person. I don't know, but it it's, you know, she's, she's in there for a scripted message to tell a story, to reach a certain demographic, to reach a certain audience. They didn't just make this in, you know, on a flip phone, behind a camera, somewhere in a spare bedroom, this is the CIA. Okay. They are thinking this through. They've got teams of people well-versed in human psychology. They've got, you know, they're, they're, they know what they're doing here. So the question is, why are they making this video? What do they, is this is this the trend? Is this the direction that the CIA is going? That we're going to be having a lot of people who talk this way and think this way. And this is how they sort of think American society operates. It's a good question. We're going to find out because, but it certainly looks that to me, the second thing I want to just flag for you is in this video, this woman says something to the effect that my life is not a box checking, a experiments. You know, this is not something, you know, I don't look at me like you should just check the boxes. She's doing it for like two minutes and 18 seconds as we're about to see. So let me share this with you. All right. So here, this is, here's a video from the CIA.

Speaker 5: 1:04:32

When I was 17, I quoted Zora Neale. Hurston's how it feels to be colored for me in my college application essay, the line that spoke to me stated simply I am not tragically colored. There is no sorrow dammed up in my soul nor lurking behind my eyes. I do not mind at all. At 17, I had no idea what life would bring, but Sora sentiment articulated so beautifully. How I felt as a daughter of immigrants then, and now nothing about me was, or is tragic. I am perfectly made. Listen. I can wax eloquent on complex legal issues in English while also belting[inaudible] in Spanish. I can change a diaper with one hand and console, a crying toddler with the other. I'm a woman of, I am a mom. I am a cis-gender millennial. Who's been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. I am intersectional, but my existence is not a box checking exercise. I am a walking declaration, a woman whose inflection does not rise at the end of her sentences, suggesting that a question has been asked, I did not sneak into CIA. My employment was not an, is not the result of a fluke or slip through the cracks. I earned my way in and I earned my way up the ranks of this organization. I am educated, qualified, and competent. And sometimes I struggle. I struggle feeling like I could do more, be more to my two sons. And I struggled leaving the office. When I feel there's so much more to do. I used to struggle with imposter syndrome, but at 36, I refuse to internalize misguided, patriarchal ideas of what a woman can or should be. I am tired of feeling like I'm supposed to apologize for the space I occupied rather than intoxicated people with my effort, my brilliance, I am proud of me full stop. My parents left everything they knew and loved to expose me to opportunities they never had because of them. I stand here today, a proud first-generation Latina and officer at CIA. I am unapologetically me. I want you to be unapologetically you, whoever you are, know your worth, command your space.

Speaker 1: 1:06:48

All right. So, uh, you know, very interesting, very interesting stuff going on here. And you know, I, I, I like people being proud of who they are and where they came from. I'm not saying that at all. I'm proud of who I am and where I came from too. There's no, no issues there, but I'm also not somebody who is working for the CIA. And I'm also not somebody who says that you can just be whoever the hell you want to be. Right. Just come in and just do whatever, do whatever you want. And, uh, CIA we'll we'll have you, I guess, uh, it's a little bit more concerning to me that the CIA is sort of recruiting these people that are wearing, you know, the sort of a BLM flag looks like right here or that, or the hand, you know, the, the, the, the woke hand is, is, is right there. And you've got this woman who's using a lot of the woke, you know, ideology that language. And here's a summation of those from Ayesha. Amman said actual quotes from the new CIA recruitment ad says, I am a woman of color. Right. I am a cis-gender millennial. What? Nobody. Okay, great. I have been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. Okay. I'm intersectional and says here, I think it's safe to say the contemporary American left has failed. It's like, what are you? Okay, that's great. And she goes through and she says, listen, I am not, this is not an exercise in checking boxes. You just did that for two minutes. You just said, I'm a woman of color. I'm assistant gen a cis-gender millennial. I've got generalized anxiety disorder. I've got two kids. I've got all this right on. And you're checking a bunch of boxes and then telling us not to check boxes. So very strange, very strange behavior in particular for a government entity like the CIA, uh, you know, I mean, if she wanted to start a vlog or something like that. Okay. Like all of that, stuff's relevant to that, but not really for the CIA. Okay. All right. Well, here's Glenn Greenwald says, uh, what this also shows is this type of politics fixated on cultural identity poses, no threat whatsoever to the institutions of authority. Very interesting point, as Glenn always comes up with to the contrary, they love it. It's easily co-opted and the liberal obsession with this stuff, it means they're not focused on how power is wielded. I think it's a very interesting point, right? If you're in a position of power, what better thing to do than to just let all the peasants, all the plebeians down there, all the little people just go Duke it out about your genitals and about your genders and bathrooms and locker rooms. Nobody cares. Okay. You people care about it because you think it's the most important thing in the world, because you've been taught that every single thing in society is based around that identification. You say I'm a, I'm a whatever, whatever, whatever this, that you know this. Okay, great mash all of those things together. Now, anything that happens to me in the world that I don't like, guess what guess why that is? Well it's because the world is oppressive. They are ruining my ability to be who I am to live my authentic life because of their oppression. They're white power, this male, patriarchy that we're also infested with. Right. That's okay. I think that all you want, you can think of that all day long, just keep buying your Apple products. Keep going to Starbucks, keep wearing your mask. Nobody cares. Have fun. Go hog, wild. You know, cancel everybody you want. We don't care. Cause we're the CIA. And we're going to continue to do whatever we want to do. Where the elected senators, we're Mark Zuckerberg. We're Jeff Bezos. We are Jack Dorsey. All of you, people can just, you know, bicker amongst yourself about your genitals and your pronouns. We're going to just keep running things the way that we want to run them while you waste your time and your manpower dealing with stupid stuff. Well, that's what Glenn Greenwald is talking about. So specifically, well, no, they don't care. They're going to kill themselves over this woke culture. And nothing's going to change in society. It causes more division, not anymore solutions in my humble opinion. All right. We've got LT 13 in the house as he was on Rogan. And they published a bunch of hoax papers that were peer reviewed. Yeah. I think he was on Rogan twice. I think that's where I first came across him, but I didn't, it didn't sort of resonate with me when I listened to him. And, uh, those hoax papers are hysterical. We have Sharon Quinney in the house as read the penis, not being an organ. Here's another example of walkers seriously needed some education of basic science. I guess they don't believe in anatomy the same way they don't believe in genetics. It's hilarious. I mean, cause you could see this, like I took a class in college called uh, women in other cultures. I think it was, it was one of those classes you had to take. Right? I needed that letter. It's like a C when you, when you graduate, you have to have an A-class a C class and a, and a, and I don't mean grades, but you know, it's a certain designation. Like I needed a cultural credit, so I had to go a class that was cultural. All right. So, so I picked one that worked in my, in my, my slot and I was the only male in the entire class. Probably 70 women started out with three men and then they dropped out after like the first week because it was a disaster and it was a disaster. It was so eye-opening, but it was sort of the, the opening salvo of a lot of these theories. I was shocked, shocked at what I was hearing, but it was also hysterical. I learned a lot and it really left a Mark on me. But uh, but yeah, this is exactly what that professor, she would have loved this. Oh yeah. The male penis is a total fiction. It's not even an anatomical, you know, it's, it is, um, it's a figment. It's an idea. Just like Antifa. The penis is an idea just like Antifa. Oh my God. We have a flux in the house, says, how will the laws have to change with all the changing language? Our language has been so changed drastically that the lay man could never reasonably conclude the same thing. It's a good question. Flux. I don't really, you know, I don't know what the laws are going to do. You know,[inaudible], [inaudible] boot, but they'd beat all day, right? All on the law because nobody knows what the heck is going on. So, you know, at some point the courts are going to have to flush some of this out, but we're not quite there yet. Next up we got, Ryan says kudos for reading through the literature, defining critical race theory, de capitalization intentional. I don't think I could do that without getting an overwhelming about, of nausea, defining critical race theory. Yeah. It's, it's really bizarre. It's like a whole different way of thinking, but it's like, it's extremely powerful. I mean, I got to give them credit. The people who designed this theory extremely powerful because you can use it as a shield against any criticism at all and like anything, Oh, excuse me, sir. You just cut in front of me. You cut my line. I'm standing in line. You just cut in front of me. They turn around and say, excuse me, you racist white person. Right? Because everything is systemic because racism is intertwined on everything. All right, Sharon Courtney says any anti-racist anti whiteness, walkers, totally racist. Sharon Quinn. He says, all this wokeness is total communist indoctrination and struggle sessions. It's communist oppression and brainwashing techniques. Yeah. And moral crises right there. They're creating these things where everybody has to be up in arms. And if you're not up in arms, you're a bad person. You got to get with us. You got to put on the mask and get out there with us and rally. Otherwise you're just as racist as the other people were speaking against farmer's daughter says, how are we supposed to take these people seriously scary that they have so many brainwash. Fortunately, we are seeing some pushback. Hopefully it will continue. Yeah. I think it will. I think more and more people are going to recognize that as people try to use this stuff, right? If you are in a relationship with somebody else or a business relationship or going to lunch with somebody and they are talking this way and you are not comfortable with that and they are comfortable with that and they are not comfortable with you not being comfortable with how they talk. It's just, it's just better not to out with each other just okay. Right. You just separate. So I think what's going to happen is you're going to see sort of echo chambers really develop. You're going to see a greater divisions, the Wolk critical race theorists. They're there. I think their, their concept here is they want to accelerate a destruction of the current order. They want to make sure that all of the current system that is systemically racist is gone. Because if it's systemically racist, it's a bad system, which means it has to go away. So they want to eliminate it. How do they do that? By accelerating the division in society. By saying every time that I opened my mouth, I'm a white racist. All right, that's fine. You can say that all you want, but I know that's not true in my heart. And I know I don't believe that about certain people. You can say that I do. You can say that society makes it so that I do. But I know in my heart, I know in my soul that I don't. So say it all you want. I don't care. And you know, eventually that's going to be the norm. People are going to continue to say that anybody who pushes back against these locusts is going to be labeled a racist. And if somebody who's dangerous or a libertarian, we saw that a lot of that language is sort of minimizing a little bit, the further and way further and further away we get from January 6th. But we saw that that was the narrative that was being drafted. Anybody who speaks out against the government, anybody who's a libertarian. Even according to the former CIA director, John Brennan, all are dangerous people and all need to be monitored and sort of kept tabs on because of that danger. And what's going to happen, I think is people will slowly start to just segment themselves out. All of the workers can go over there. All of the free speech, people can go over here and we'll see what happens, right? That's where people start to get concerned about the country, dividing to a degree where they start talking about succession and civil war. I don't think that's going to be the case. I think that once enough people conglomorate themselves into the woke culture, they're going to realize it doesn't work. It's not functional. You can't even do anything productive when you're having those conversations. Because everybody's offended about literally everything. I mean, it's like take high school where everything that you say to Becky turns into a little secret that spreads around like wildfire, the high school campus. And everybody's angry at each other. It's like high school drama. It's going to be like that with woke culture, somebody, Oh, what did you call me a bro? Did you call me a bro? I'm not a bro. My name is Robert. And that's offensive to me. You know, it's all of those types of little microaggressions all over the place. How can you get any business done? If everything you say is offensive to somebody else you can't. So at some point, people are just going to say enough of that. I'm not liking living in this bizarro world. I'm going to go back to reality land where not everybody is offended at every drop of the pin. Next up we got seen and unseen. Couldn't hear the sound the first time, but caught you saying F thank you for making me laugh really hard and actually out loud. Then I say that. Sorry about that. Yeah. Uh, you know, uh, I tried, uh, sorry about that content warning. I said the F word, we have Joe Snow in the house, as you're proud of who you are and where you came from yet. I've yet, I've never heard you describe your heritage or your race. Hm. Yeah. If I don't feel the need to, because I don't feel like everything that happens to me in this world is, is oppressive. But that's just my white privilege speaking. Right. That's just me obviously being so fortunate for being white. Even though I got a laundry list of victim Olympics events that I could compete on. Okay. A lot of them said that, but I don't choose to do that because it's not a useful way to live your life. I am not interested in waking up every morning, trying to calculate and quantify how much the universe has wronged me and that particular day. Okay. I used to live that way. I used to wake up all the time like that and go, ah, I got to do this and I gotta do this. And I'm so, you know, miserable because I was under the weight of, of alcohol. I had a lot of internal, you know, stuff going on in my head. I was trying to figure my life out. So I went through a period of darkness and I had to grind through it to come out the other end, a better man, a better person. And it, as part of that equation, as part of that realization, it was this idea that yes, there are certain things in my life over which I am powerless. I have no control about it. And for those things, I got to just accept that powerlessness. I have to just accept that the world is going to continue to world no matter what my will, no matter what my intentions are. Once you can kind of accept that you live in your hula hoop a little bit more, anything that's inside. The hula hoop is my business. Anything that's outside of the Hulu, none of my business. And you can have a little bit more peace and clarity in your life versus the opposite. Me waking up every day, saying I'm oppressed about everything. Everything that every person in this world does is personally offensive to me. And now I deserve reparations for that. I deserve restitution because somebody took a privilege away from me. That should have been mine because of something. You know, people did, you know, generations ago in creating this country suddenly sort of, you know, has winded. It's wound its way into your life and I'm responsible for it. I choose not to do that. Okay. I'm proud of my race. I'm proud of my heritage. I'm proud of who I am. I'm proud of my Italian background. I'm proud of everything. I'm proud of my life. I'm proud of my world. I'm proud of your world. I'm proud of our society. I'm happy that people are happy about who they are and where they come from. That's fine. When you use this as a sword to go and attack other people. That's when I have a problem with them. When they come out and start saying, Oh, you can't, you can't even express an opinion because it's white privilege. It's white, uh, you know, whatever fragility, it's whiteness, it's multiracial, whatever it becomes a sword. And that limits your ability to converse. Once you lose your ability to speak, that's a big problem. That's why our first amendment is the first amendment. It's that important. And what I'm seeing in terms of this critical race theory seems like it is intended to nip the conversation in the bud. It's intended to silence people less. They be racist and identified accordingly. Underscore shade says modern day, suffrage of women for new roaring 2020s games, oligarchy money, then nothing is new. Under the sun modern day, suffrage of women for the 2020s games.

Speaker 6: 1:20:08

I don't know what you're asking. Modern day.

Speaker 1: 1:20:10

The suffrage that suffrage is the, the right to vote. Do you ever see that man on the streets? I forget who did it? Um, I forget it might've been may have been a YouTuber when I went around on the streets and said, end women's suffrage with a sign and women's suffrage. And then he had a petition. He was asking women to sign this, Hey, Hey, I'm just here. I'm just here on the man on the streets. We're here to end. Women's suffrage. There's a lot of women's suffrage going on in society today. We want to end that you agree. Oh yeah, totally. I'll sign it.

Speaker 6: 1:20:37

Right. Right.

Speaker 1: 1:20:40

For those of you missing the joke, it's the right to vote to suffrage. All right. We got norovirus says, weren't you trying to get back to monetize status? You recalculated your odds after this segment. Yeah. So yeah. Thanks Nora. You don't look, uh, I don't think that anything that we're talking about here breaks the lines. Really? I don't think it's hate speech. I don't think that it, it, that it's dangerous or harmful. These are educational conversations that I think are well within YouTube guidelines and content policies, including their monetization policies. Nora, we're following the rules, but I'm not holding my breath anyways. I think that YouTube, uh, you know, may never let us back in, in, uh, in the playground, but that's okay. All right. We have another question comes from eclectic prophet in the house. As Rob, you realize this parallels, the Chinese cultural revolution, don't you. I do see some similarities on that and I've referenced, you know, Mao and a lot of that here, I've actually been to China. And so, so I, I have some perspective on this, on this, on this topic. And it does leave me a little bit concerned that we're sort of gobbling this, this concept up at the pace that we are. Everybody is really excited about it. And we already know China owns most of the country anyways, including the politicians. So, uh, great questions, a little bit of a spicy segment there, right? Wasn't that a little bit. Ooh, yikes. But we'll see, we'll see how it goes. It's important. We have to talk about this stuff. This is free speech. We got to push back on some of this, you know, some of the other topics, maybe we kind of, you know, don't, don't talk about here, but this is very important. This is foundational. If we don't have the ability to speak freely and, and communicate and exchange ideas, we're in big trouble. And, uh, there are people in this country that want that to be the reality. I don't. All right. So let's change gears. We've got one more segment on the program today and we're going to wrap this up.

Speaker 6: 1:22:37

Oh,

Speaker 1: 1:22:38

It has been some time since Donald Trump has been on Facebook or the social media platforms, as we all know, unfortunately he was booted back after the January six Capitol Hill protests. And now Facebook is determining, uh, debating whether to let Donald Trump, former president back onto Facebook and they have an entire oversight board. That's going to be doing the analysis on this. And so I want to share this story with you. It comes over from the Washington post and we're going to, we're going to sort of break this up. I want to show you how the process works. Now. They are expected to announce the decision on Wednesday. So today's Monday, we've got Tuesday. And then Wednesday, they're going to tell us, is Trump back on Facebook or not? Is he going to be able to come back on? I don't, you know, I mean, I would imagine that he would take that opportunity or his team would, uh, because of the audience and the reach. But you know, at the same, at the same time, it's Donald Trump. You know what I mean? He, maybe he just says, I'm going to build my own platform and to hell with you Zuck. Well, we'll see. So this article says here it's been four months, long time since Donald Trump was last allowed to post on Facebook. After Zuckerberg said he was banned indefinitely. Now the Facebook oversight board, the F O B the Facebook oversight board says it's an outside group that is funded and created by Facebook to review the social medias giants, thorniest policy choices. They've made a decision on the case. It's expected to announce on Wednesday, whether Facebook can uphold its suspension of Trump or whether it has to allow him back on the site. So I want to show you the purpose of this board. What is this? What this first time I heard about this, the oversight board. Okay. And I've long railed against these tech companies, uh, on this show, like a broken record. You've heard it, I've heard it. I'm going to do it again. Cause they drive me nuts. Uh, I've said this many times that Facebook, Google, Twitter, all of them, right? They are so powerful in this country that they can de platform a president, a former president. And it's not just, you know, because he might say something dangerous. It's dangerous to the country. You have to think about this from the power dynamic, they are also telling 80 million citizens, 80 million potential customers, 80 million clients, people who use their service. You are not even a concern with us. If you want to be on Twitter to hear from Donald Trump, nobody cares. Right? It's not about Donald Trump. Being able to spread his message out, which is what they really want. They don't want him to communicate with his constituency. So they silence him. But what about the people on the receiving end? Okay. What about guys like me? Who say, I want to know what the president has to say. I want to know what Donald Trump has to say. There's a pretty easy way for me to get that information. Whether it's for the show, whether it's to support a cause or to criticize and condemn a cause I want to know about it. He was still in office when they threw him off of the platform. I believe it was, it was right there. Uh, January six Biden was sworn in on the 20th. So a little bit of an overlap there, but you get my point, right? A former president booted off of a platform. Huge problem. Huge problem for free speech. In my opinion, didn't like that concept. And so what what's Facebook going to do? Well, they formed the board now it's got 40 people on it. I want to show you what the board looks like, how the process works so that when the decision comes out on Wednesday, we're up to speed. Then we're gonna see what other governors are doing about some of this stuff. In particular, we're going to look at Ron DeSantis out of Florida who passed a new bill that sort of, uh, puts the kibosh on some of this stuff. So here is the purpose of the Facebook oversight board, which is extremely Orwellian. If you ask me and you can see it's a, it's got this little circle here, all right. Purpose of the board. It's to promote free expression by making principled independent decisions regarding content on Facebook and Instagram, by issuing recommendations on company content policy. So does anybody believe this, this free expression garbage? They tell you that. And, and, you know, uh, Susan will lucky over from YouTube, same thing, right? She just won an award for free speech that I think YouTube sponsored. So they're, you know, they're, they're creating their own committees and then passing off their hard policy decisions or giving themselves awards from the committees that they create. Here's Facebook doing the same thing when fully staff, the board will consist of 40 members from around the world represents a diverse set of disciplines and backgrounds members will be empowered to select content cases for review and to uphold or reverse Facebook's content decisions. The board is not designed to be a simple extension of the existing content review process. Rather it will review a select number of highly emblematic cases and determine if decisions were made in accordance with Facebook's stated values and policies. So it's almost like a Supreme court, right? Like, like the tech company has its own little court that things work their way up to, you know, if, if my page gets suspended or canceled or whatever, uh, you know, I go through the regular process, Hey, this was not fair. They say we don't care. Uh, and you say, okay, thanks. If you're the president though, the former president, you get a little bit more of a second look. So that's happening now. And they're going to review it to see if it, if Donald Trump promotes free expression, according to Facebook's terms, the board is connected to Facebook and the decisions are actually binding. It's a global body of experts. It's going to review the decisions, going to make binding decisions on that content, which means Facebook must implement them unless doing so could violate the law. The board will also be able to issue policy recommendations. We're going to find out who's on the board here in a minute. The board's independent judgment is critical to its function. Both the board and its administration are funded by an independent trust and supported by an independent company that is separate from Facebook. The board structure responsibility, purpose relationship are outlined in the oversight board. Charter. The board acts as a service provider to Facebook. So Facebook, it sounds like is funding this. And then they're going to be funneling a bunch of, uh, decisions back to Facebook. So it's sort of a nice way for them to separate themselves from some of the political, uh, let's say a blast zone. If they come back out and say, uh, well now Donald, Trump's not allowed on the platform Facebook and say, well, we didn't do it. The oversight board did with 40 people. They reviewed it and look at these people. They're highly credentialed. They know what we're talking about. So that Mark Zuckerberg doesn't get the blame for it. So that Facebook as a company, their brand is less tarnished from the mega constituency and this country that want to see and hear from a candidate that they support. And so here, we've got the oversight board, they're going to be making the decision for Facebook so that they don't have to get their feet muddy. We know here, this is how the process works. Facebook says ahead of our announcement on the Trump suspension case, a reminder of how the oversight board works. Number one, the board selects cases that affect many users are of critical importance to public discourse and it raises important questions. So yeah, I think it's critically important that a former president be allowed to communicate with the country, a diverse five member panel convenes to deliberate the case. So of the 40, who are they, members of the panel are randomly chosen. Once a case is assigned to the panel. It should be decided by the oversight board and implemented by Facebook. Within 90 days, the panel looks at whether the content violates Facebook's community standards and values and international human rights standards. Then we have the panel considers information from the user, Facebook outside experts, public comments to reach a draft decision. And then the decision is circulated to all of the oversight members for review. A majority must sign off for a decision to be published. So a sounds like a simple majority in order for the decision to make it to the next step. Then the decision is published on our website. Facebook must implement decisions within seven days and respond publicly to recommendations within 30 days. So just like a Supreme court case, okay, you're waiting for the order. Are they going to grant search your worry or not? They did. So, uh, you know, I don't know, maybe, maybe Trump's gonna be sitting there waiting for Facebook to notify him whether he can get back on the platform now, who are these people expertise from around the world to ensure a global perspective. The oversight board includes members from a variety of cultural and professional backgrounds, reflecting the diversity of the Facebook community itself. These members were chosen because they are experienced at deliberating thoughtfully and collegialy skills at making an explaining decisions based on a set of policies or principles and familiar with digital content. Special consideration was given to people who have demonstrated a proficiency in questions of online content moderation, and a history of working with others on difficult problems toward a common goal. This is the board, my friends we've got Nicolas SUSAR. We've got to here, uh, crushing the wame. So let's take a look. You're not probably not gonna remember a lot of these names or recognize a lot of these names, but let's take a look at where these people come from. So we have professors school of Queensland university technology from Australia, India, vice chancellor, professor of law, national law school of India, professor director of constitutional law over at Stanford, uh, is Michael McConnell, Emmy Palmer. She's an advocate lecturer at the interdisciplinary study over in Israel. We have a, another professor from Hungary. We have an executive director, somebody who's got a background in international law coming from Cameroon, Yemen. We've got a Nobel peace prize Laureate. We have chairholder UNESCO, senior editor board member at the Jakarta post from Indonesia, Denmark, uh, Senegal, Ghana journalism from the UK program manager, open society, former prime minister from Denmark. Wow. Okay. All right. So we've got a new dot.digital rights foundation, Columbia law school, Jamal green. We've got my Ani Kiki, Kenya, Evelyn Nash, swabbed college of law. We have John sample's vice president of the Cato Institute. So I recognize that we have another professor, uh, law school, national unit, uh, Catherine chin. Does that sucker Berg's wife, is that Dr. Berg's wife? Very curious on that one. Suzanne, no cell CEO. All right. And so that's what we've got. Right? I don't know what that means. That means anything, but that's who's on there. It looks like a lot of lawyers. It looks like a lot of people from law schools, Cato Institute and others, nothing particularly interesting stands out, but we'll see. And we'll see if, uh, they let Trump back on now, BLM they're out today. They have a new recommendation cause they have some things that they want, as we all know, and they posted, or they released a new list of demands today, which is great because I've been curious as to what their demands are. Maybe this will solve the justice problem in our society. What does BLM want to solve justice in America? They've been very angry about it for some time. Now. Maybe they'll give us some guidance. What do they want? What, Oh, what, Oh, what do they want? Well, they want Trump permanently banned from all digital media platforms. Okay. BLM released an updated set of demands and it's giving people the opportunity to sign their name onto the list. We are joining representatives, Ilhan Omar rep, Ayana Presley, Cori Bush, Jamal Bowman, and others who are demanding. Trump be immediately convicted in the United States. Senate reads the first demand on the BLM website. Trump must also be banned from holding elected office in the future. Well, folks not going to get that one. Okay. Cause you already tried that you already had the impeachment twice and you tried to convict him twice. Didn't happen. So you can try again, I guess, but you're going to have to concoct a whole new reason and you're not good at it. You already tried to concoct the reasons twice. It didn't work. Try again though. I don't care. The group also called on former president, Donald Trump to be permanently banned from quote, all digital media platforms, arguing. He uses the platforms recklessly and irresponsibly to spread lies and disinformation req or effectively, right. It's pretty effective to using it, which is why it's a good thing. He's not on there because a lot of the Democrats would be angry about that. Turning their attention to Trump, loyalists and Congress. The activist group demanded that all GOP lobbying makers that stoked Trump's conspiracy theories and encourage the white supremacists to take action and overturn the election, be expelled from Congress. So BLM is just moving the needle forward right there. They're helping us really solve the important issues. Like I don't know whether Donald Trump is on Facebook or not. That's good. That's good. All right. And what else, w w w what are governors doing around this country? Is there any pushback? Are there any stinking Republicans who are doing anything about this? Uh, not really. Other than Ron DeSantis is the only person I can really think that is doing anything meaningful. All of the other senators and house of representatives, losers think that they, the, by calling these people in front of Congress, Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, uh, Sundar from Google and on and on, they call them in there. They say, Hey, isn't it true that you are canceling conservatives? Oh, no, sir. Senator now, Oh, no, we have algorithms and we have teams and blah, blah, blah. And they go, okay, well, that sounds good, but don't let us catch you, uh, canceling conservatives there, Jack. Now I'm going to go back and use my Nokia phone from the 1980s. Cause I have no idea what you're even talking about. So are they going to do anything about it? No, of course not because the senators are largely owned by the big tech people. And there's a quote. I forget who it's from. Uh, I learned about this in my political science class. Maybe somebody knows the answer to this, but this was years ago. So the name escapes me, but there was a billionaire, one of the Vanderbilts, or one of those people said, somebody said, Hey, sir, you've accomplished everything in the world. You've got billions of dollars. You've got the breakers here. You've got all this stuff. Why don't you run for Senate? He said, you know what? I don't need to run for Senate. I already have the best senators money can buy owns them all same thing. Right? Same thing with all of these people. That's why when they get called in, when the CEOs get called in, in front of the Senate, it looks like child's play. Like they just brought them in for lunchtime and nap, time and playground during kindergarten. Ridiculous. So what, who is actually doing anything about this? Well, Ron DeSantis is trying something here. We see this comes over from the Hill written by Lexi loan us a couple of days ago, April 30th, Florida passes a bill prohibiting social media companies from banning politicians, Florida house, and the Senate voted this week to pass legislation that would prohibit social media companies from banning politicians finds for social media companies that try to ban politicians from their platform. Could app add up to 250 grand a day for statewide politicians and 25 a day for other elected officials. So if you're a, uh, you know, a statewide position, if you are a federal Senator statewide, I don't know what that means, but I think that the distinction would be like, if you are a federally elected Senator or house of representative individual, that statewide office versus maybe a local, uh, house representative or a local house and Senate seat, we have the bill, which still allows politicians to be suspended for two weeks for individual posts to be taken down. If they violate the company, policies is now headed over to Ron DeSantis. Governor's desk opponents argue that the measure is unconstitutional, which it may be, and that Republicans are only advancing it because president Trump was banned from multiple platforms. Well, obviously right. Obviously this is in response to that. They're only advancing it because of former president Trump was banned. Yes, of course. Yes. You got it. Thing being, you hit it on the well done, uh, stop inciting insurrection against our Republic. We're hearing this bill because Twitter finally, the platform former president Trump, after five people were killed in an insurrection that he incited at the Capitol said some, uh, bizarre representative, Carlos Guillermo Smith said during a debate. Well, Carlos, you recall, right? That, uh, officer sickening died of natural causes. Several of the other people died of essentially natural causes. Uh, and we have Ashley Babbitt who was shot and killed by law enforcement. So three of the people I think died from heart attacks and other stress-related incidents. And they were part of the magnet people. So, you know, they were where they were, they killed by the insurrection in an insurrection, or did they just die in the middle of a heated situation? In other words, did the insurrection kill them or did they just die? I don't know. Yeah, I guess you could make the argument. All right. So, uh, Florida governor Ron DeSantis is going to sign the bill banning social media de platforming bill also requires tech companies to give users seven days notice that they are at risk of being banned and offer them the opportunity to correct. The issue suspensions of up to 14 days could still be allowed. What this bill is about is sending a loud message to Silicon Valley and they are the absolute arbiters of truth. NBC news reporter, what this bill does send a loud message is the constitution does not have an asterisk that says only certain free speech. Only certain speech is free and protected. Advocacy groups have stuck by the law saying struck back single. I would violate their first amendment, right, to decide who can participate on their platforms. This is going to be an ongoing legal issue. We're going to see a lot more of this stuff. Ultimately, the Supreme court might get involved because Lord knows none of our elected congresspeople, uh, will do anything about it. So we'll see. First question over from watching the watchers.locals.com, by the way, if you want to support the show, that's the place to do it. It's at watching the watchers.locals.com awesome platform, a lot of new stuff coming. And I'm going to be putting a little bit more time into that platform posted over there today, talking about a book club or, you know, potentially, you know, zoom, meetups and monthly groups, which we can connect a little bit more. Doesn't that sound fun. Getting to know each other. You can use a pseudonym. You can put a mask on. I don't care. It'll be fun. As long as it's PG, this is a family show. We have N Y renal MD says most liberal media can not operate without Trump. They can also see the writing on the wall. Census data, five less blue congressional seats likely change in the house. Senate will change hands. Twitter is nothing without Trump. It is true, right? Twitter is kind of bland these days. Like it was look, Twitter was like a, like an anxiety inducing click for a long time with Trump on it. Every time I opened them like, Oh God, what's coming next, but it's kind of fun. It's exciting. We don't have that anymore. It's mostly boring. Uh, that's not true. I have a lot of great follows on there. Follow many of you, but it's different. It doesn't quite feel the same. I'm on team. Bring Trump back just for the spectacle of it. Farmer's daughter four says, do you think Trump even wants to come back on Facebook? I hope not. I think it's to get people back. I say, screw them. Yeah. I mean, honestly, yeah, if you're Trump, at some point, you kind of go, all right, and whatever, right. Have your have your garbage platform. We're going to start our own and go different places. But remember, you know, there's a good argument that Donald Trump won the 2016 election on Facebook. Right? There's some very good interviews between, uh, Brad Parscale and, uh, gosh, who was the guy who interviewed him anyways, if you look at, you know, obviously he's had some, some troubles recently, but he had an early interview in the early, uh, right after the 2016 election where he explains what he did. They ran like 50,000 Facebook ads, different permutations. And it was very effective for them, which is why they had to mute that they had to sort of put the limitations on that in the 20, 20 election. And we saw that actually happen. Facebook moved the needle on it. So, you know, does Trump try to get back onto the platform because he's so effective at using it maybe. Right? So it's sort of you, you buy, or you sort of bite your swallow, your pride a little bit. Okay. You kick me off. You want me back? All right. I don't, you know, you don't want me, I don't want you, but maybe I do need, you can, maybe I will come back. Maybe this is sort of a mutually beneficial relationship. It's a little bit like an abusive relationship, but we still need each other. So maybe he goes back norovirus in the house, says, I am pretty sure that the only team of Trump will ever come back on that only team of Trump. We'll all we'll come back on and make insignificant announcement that will not ever be breaking news. There is no way that Trump will ever get Facebook. This power in. He said, so about Twitter and Facebook, he has been communicating on telegram parlor and gab, which I think is the better move. Honestly. It's like it abandoned these platforms. If you can. Um, if you, if you can avoid it, which is why we push locals so much. So we've got eat on testing in the house, says the biggest problem with the banning of Trump is that the tech guys have ingrained in the public's mind that Trump is dangerous. They said he was a danger to society over and over. And now many, maybe even a majority of people in the U S take that as face value. Trump was never convicted or proven to have incited anything. This is all accusation and no proof. Well, and, and we've gone through it here a lot. And we went through the transcript. I went through the, the, the words that he used, I looked at, you know, gun and fight and all these things. And we counted the number of times. He said, fight in there and we put it in context, didn't fight like hell to against those poles. We, we did a deep dive on it. I don't know that there's anything that he said on that day. That was incitement. I don't, I don't think so. I think legally, it doesn't fit that we have Nadar in the house as yet. Trump did nothing for four years to solve this problem, to have, which Republicans had the birth, had both house and the Republicans are trash Democrats or even worse. They're all criminals in my mind. You're 100% right about this Nadar. I was so irritated that they didn't do anything about tech. Okay. You guys deserve to lose your you're going to because they really control conversation in this country. And because you didn't do anything about it, you're going to lose. And you're probably still going to lose until you decide to do something about it, but they're not going to because they're too beholden. They're okay. Slowly losing as long as they don't lose their seat, which is why they're not willing to step out on the ledge and do something that needs to be done, but is a little bit controversial. They don't want the big, heavy hand of big tech to come crashing down on their backs, especially when they need them and their platforms for reelection. Uh, but I agree with you, uh, in the dark that Republicans are also trash. I haven't seen anything meaningful from the Republican party in a long time. And it's disappointing. We have Liberty or death says, did you see that Pence is considering running? He is doing the New Hampshire thing wants to marry mega with traditional conservatives. I don't think I do not think he has a shot anymore. I would vote for him over Kamala, but not in the primary. Interesting. Yeah, we've got, we've got a lot of people who are sort of jockeying right now. We've got Ron DeSantis. Who's looking like he's making a run for sure. Uh, even Trump might be doing it. Pence certainly looks like he's doing it. Then you have the, you know, the, the, the always runnings like Ted Cruz, probably Josh Holly at some point, you know, we'll see who else, who else is coming down the pike. Um, and, and, you know, I, I always liked Pence. I always liked Mike pants. I thought he was a very, very solid vice-president. I thought he was very loyal, extremely, extremely polished as a politician. I mean, his debate with Kamala Harris was like, uh, a bloodbath. In my opinion, he just, he was outstanding. And I think he would make a formidable candidate. Uh, Jeremy[inaudible] says they will implement their findings if it complies with the law. However, if they decide to stifle someone's first amendment rights, they seem to have no problem with that. And a lot of people are talking about this concept, like, well, they're private companies, you know, they get, they get to moderate. However they want to do it. They say, Hey, you, you moderate here on YouTube. You moderate here or on locals. What are you doing, Mr. Free speech? Huh? No, you're, you're, you're, uh, not allowing certain things. And look, there's a difference here, in my opinion, between moderation and cancellation. And when you're a platform like Facebook, that literally owns essentially social media. I mean, where else are you going to go? You've got Facebook. They own Instagram. They own WhatsApp. They own everything. You've got an alternative in Twitter. And then you've got an alternative in Google, kind of on YouTube. Right? And they all are colluding with each other. We saw it happen with Donald Trump. And when people would try to go to a different platform like parlor, Amazon got in on the game and booted them also. So people say, well, it's just private business, right? My argument back to them is, well, that's what a lot of private businesses did back in the sixties, fifties during segregation, era, forties. And, and before that, right? Those are private businesses. Should they be able to segregate certain from other people? No, because our society said, that's ridiculous. That's offensive to us as human beings, because we think that all people are equal. And we want people to be able to have lunch together or to drink from the same drinking fountain or use the same restrooms because that segregation is offensive. We have civil rights in this country that lift the bottom on this. You might be a racist white car shop owner, but we're not going to let you segregate people in your store for good reason. Same concept here. Free speech is paramount. When you have these platforms that have essentially become the public square when Facebook controls conversation, because they own everything. And when you try to go somewhere else and have a conversation, they just reach out to Twitter, Twitter, Twitter calls, Amazon, they shut down the whole friggin website. What are you supposed to do? So more civil rights and more opportunity to express yourself are warranted. If you're on my local's platform and you say something that's racist or offensive, well, we made boosts you out of there, but you're not canceled, right? You're not. You just can't come over to my house and have dinner with me because you were rude and offensive, but you certainly have the ability to speak. You don't have to come in my house, but you can still be on locals. You can go to other platforms and you can go around and still be meaningfully engaged because I do not have a monopoly on the entirety of the internet. I don't have a monopoly on this channel on YouTube or elsewhere over the entire platform. So if I, if we, if we mute somebody in the chat, it's, it's because it's moderation, you can go to somebody else's channel and still participate. So your speech is not being eliminated. It's just being moderated. Same, same concept that the Supreme court actually talks about it with time, place and manner restrictions. Okay? You have free speech in society. You can go out and protest, but they can put some time, place and manner restrictions on you. You do not have the ability to what you know, to, to take a bull horn and just go scream in somebody's office in their face. That's disorderly conduct. That's not free speech because we have limitations on it that are reasonable provided that you still maintain your ability to speak. You still maintain your ability to express yourself. So when these platforms are now coming down and eliminating that and colluding like this cabal of tech bros to prevent people they don't like from participating at all, that's a whole different conversation. That's not a private business conversation anymore. That's people who have commandeered the public square and they're making it impossible for other people with whom they disagree to participate in free speech. That is a fundamental concept that is inherent to America. And we've got to protect that and uphold that just like we did back during segregation. And we said, that is not acceptable. Same thing should be happening here. But our weak quisling politicians are not doing anything about it. And why renal MD says however, they try to hide and bury the fact that the president and others were banned across platforms. The fact is that if the different social media outlets, colluded and acted on behalf of a democratic party, they were acting on behalf of the government, which totally obviates section two 30 and has serious first amendment considerations. Yeah. And I just think it just, it, it, it falls below the standard that we have deemed to be important in this country. And I mean this across, I don't care what your political perspective is. If it's dangerous speech, if it's unpopular speech, those by and large are supposed to be protected. Okay. Your ability to speak out against your government. Yeah.

Speaker 4: 1:50:07

That's very important. Free speech.

Speaker 1: 1:50:10

The reason we have it. Okay. Free speech is not about polite speech. It's not about making sure that people get their pronouns, right? It's about saying, Hey, our government is blowing it and they need to be held accountable for it. And we have to

Speaker 4: 1:50:22

Be capable of saying those things. Otherwise, what the hell is the point

Speaker 1: 1:50:26

Under the first amendment? And if the social media companies don't allow us to do that, they're falling below the standards and they need to be held to account. Great questions all came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you so much for your support. I want to give a quick shout out to some of you who came over and, and are currently supporting us. This is a big shout out. Welcome to locals to flux. Good to see you in the house. We have Donna LV. Welcome to you. Evangela man. Evie angel, man, uh, angel man. Good to see you. Welcome to the show. Sorry about that. Butchering of your name. We got code gyro in the house. We have Coucher five, three zero nine, and we have a Finnish

Speaker 4: 1:51:04

Fish, all supporting

Speaker 1: 1:51:07

The show@locals.com. And we're very grateful for that. I also want to thank everybody who asked a question today and participated in the show, big shout outs to all of you, you know, who you are on the screen. And then of course, all of our supporters on locals, you're on the list right here. You want to just give a little bit of a shout out and pay tribute to you because you help keep things rocking and rolling. And honestly, I had a, uh, conversation on locals today. There was a creator's call and there was a lot of great people on there. And I'm very excited about where the platform is going. We were talking specifically about some improvements that they're going to be making and they are cool. They're there. I'm going to be bungling some stuff so that you can actually get a full, you know, kind of pay for a full year, get two months free, which will be great organized stuff on a playlist so that you can sort of easily, um, it may make the content more easily accessible. You can also, they're also going to be rolling out live streaming, which is just awesome, which I'm super excited about. So, uh, you know, Dave Rubin is sort of the spearhead of this platform. And so they're going to be testing live streaming on his community first, and then they're going to slowly start to roll it out to the rest of us. So, uh, Scott Adams, I think is probably up there. Uh, there's a doctor, a psychologist called Carolyn over at locals. She's got a huge community, of course, Viva and barns have a huge community. They also do a lot of live streaming there. So my point is, is there's, there's some real weights behind this platform. You know, it's not sort of one of these things that feels like a project, like, Oh, maybe we'll just throw a website up and see they've done a full round of investing. So they've got a lot of people, uh, including Scott Adams who made significant investments into this platform, which means it's here to stay. And a lot of people are very unequivocal in their commitment to free speech and their ability to, uh, or their, or their, their desire to protect that. And so, you know, there are a lot of different platforms out there. There's, uh, many people are using different, you know, only fans or Patrion or a subscribed star or mine's dot com. There's tons of them, right? You can pick anyone you want. I'm very, very happy that we decided to go with locals because of the people there. And you should have heard the call. Uh, you know, I don't want to sort of reveal too much about it because I don't know what the rules are. I'm very new to all of this, but the sort of takeaway there was, there are a lot of people who are in alignment with a lot of the same values that I hold to be dear, that I talk a lot about here, that I know many of you hold to be dear, because you tell me, because you talk about it on locals, you talk about it, you send me emails, DMS on Twitter and stuff. I know you're interested in this. I read the, the chats and I'm just very happy that we sort of lucked in to making a decision with this platform because it's cool. There's going to be some pretty, pretty neat stuff coming down the pike. And I'm excited to share that with you and make sort of a bigger effort to creating locals only content stuff that is maybe not as, as, um, structured as this show tends to be maybe a little bit more, you know, personal stuff, more, you know, sort of abstract thoughts, stuff that I don't have time to sort of sit down and PowerPoint out and prepare for the show where we can have more conversations. We're also playing around with some other ideas. Like what if we had a book club? What if we had a debate club? What if we had some lectures? You know, we have different people from the community that have some knowledge to share that want to come on and guest speak one month. And we all hop on a zoom and get to know each other, you know, meet people. I'm part of these networking groups. Uh, one's called the genius network where we do that once a month, we get on there and you just get to see everybody, whether you're actually going to be paying attention or not, whether you're going to be, you know, participating in the event, doesn't really matter. It's all about, uh, just, you know, sort of seeing each other and just sort of plugging yourself in then before you know, it, you're hanging out with these, these, these folks, you know, you're actually, uh, doing business and creating good relationships and building a community that you can live in and operate in and do business in. And that's sort of the long-term vision, you know, 10 years from now. Um, maybe you just don't even have to worry about any of the localism because you're in, in anti woke Ville and everybody over there, just say, we're not going to do things that way anymore. So anyways, long story short, I'm just super excited about it. You can see, I can go off on, on this, on and on and on. I'm grateful that, uh, that you are there and supporting us. And once again, it's at watching the watchers.locals.com. When you go over there, you can get a free copy of my book. It's a PDF. You can download it. You can also grab a copy of the slides that we went through today. You can get a look at my existence system template, which is a personal productivity tool that's available there. Also download a copy of my exam. I'm sorry, my, uh, impeachment party document. This is a template you can use to impeach anybody that you want. We share links throughout the day, and we're, there are a ton of just really great people over there. So I want to invite you to go check that out@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and that it for me and my friends. I want to thank you so much for being here before we get out of here. One last reminder that I am a criminal defense lawyer right here at the R and R law group. We love to help good people. Who've been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and their lives. So if you happen to know anybody who's been charged with a crime things like DUIs, drugs, domestic violence, felonies, anything, and everything in between, we would be honored and humbled. If you sent them our direction, we're very passionate about what we do. We can help people clear those old cases up. We can hear them help them. Quash, old warrants, expunge old cases, clear up arrest records for certain marijuana violations, restore your rights to possess a firearm, your right to vote, your right to apply for federal benefits. Just clear your record, clean so that when you're applying for jobs, you don't have to check that box so we can help with all that. We're very, very passionate about what we do. We offer free case evaluations. We're located in Scottsdale. We can have you come into our office. We can schedule something over the phone or over zoom, whatever you want to do. We just want to see how we can help. We'll make sure that you leave our office better than when you came in. And that is it for me, my friends. I want to thank you so much again for being a part of the show. Great conversation with Brandon Tatum, former officer from Tucson. So we'll see if we can do some more of those. I'd be curious about your feedback on that too. Do you like those interviews? You liked some of that, you know, change it up a little bit. I'd be curious. So let me know other than that, I want to wish everybody a very night. Nice. Night's sleep. Very restful, nice hearty dinner. See everybody right back here. Tomorrow. Same place. Same time. 4:00 PM. Arizona mountain. No Arizona's Pacific, which is the same time in California. Mountain is at 5:00 PM, 6:00 PM in central, Texas, and 7:00 PM on the East coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody. Thanks so much for being here. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye.