🔰Crowd ERUPTS In Laughter As Trump Supporter DESTROY AOC In Public

The greatest freedom is for us to allow anyone who wants to hate, to hate without violence, without threats, without incitement, and that is true. That is true. You're bringing incitement and hate speech together, which is totally absurd and fascist. Okay. Well, thank you, sir. Thank you. Wow. Just... wow. Did you see that? Did you see them try to shut this guy down? This is it, folks. This is the progressive left in a nutshell. This is what happens when a real American, a patriot, stands up and asks a real question that they can't answer. They don't debate you. They don't argue the facts. They cut your microphone. They send their staffers to try and physically intimidate you. This man is trying to school AOC on the actual First Amendment, and she and her team just cannot handle the truth. They are terrified of it. We're about to watch the whole thing, and I want you to pay close attention to how she squirms, how she dodges, and how she tries to twist this man's words. It is unbelievable. Let's roll the full video. I think at the bedrock of what you're discussing is freedom of speech and the freedom of expression. Right. And that is what I would call it. Yes. I think that we have a freedom to express ourselves. Oh, here we go. She loves to talk about freedom of speech as long as it's her speech. All these nice-sounding words, bedrock, expression. It's all just a setup. Just wait. But we should also know that in the United States, there are also limitations on our freedom of speech. No, only if it involves violence or threats, things that are illegal. Illegal. But that's not free speech. That's threat. Threats are not free speech. And also, beyond violence or threats. Yes, exactly. He's 100% correct. It's not complicated. Is it a direct, imminent threat of violence? No? Then it's protected political speech. He's already starting off with facts, and you can see her getting uncomfortable. I just want to introduce some nuance to the conversation. That's okay. So, I just want to throw some nuance into the conversation, and I'm not trying to have an argument here. I want to have a discussion. No, that's fine, sir. I am absolutely certain. I am absolutely open to being proven wrong on many issues. So, I'll just let you know my perspective. We can disagree at the end of it, but I want to at least let you know my perspective. My perspective is that we absolutely have a protected freedom of speech. Someone can say, I hate so-and-so, and that is protected speech. And there it is. They cut his mic. Unbelievable. He wasn't yelling, he wasn't threatening, he was making a valid constitutional point, and they silenced him. This is what they do, folks. This is the tolerant left. This is what they mean by our democracy. It means, shut up if you disagree with us. Look at her. She just pauses, lets her team do the dirty work, and then… When we think about one of the landmark freedom of speech cases brought down by the Supreme Court, one of those cases and one of the verdicts said, another form of speech that is not protected is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Because that will force people to trample one another. And so that's not protected speech. Oh, the fire in a crowded theater line. The single most misused, out-of-context argument in American history. She always goes to this. First of all, as the man rightly points out later, you can yell fire if there is a fire. Second, that case was about causing an imminent panic that would get people killed, not about political speech you just don't like. She is comparing a video of what Ilhan Omar actually said to a life-threatening stampede. It's a dishonest, absurd comparison. And she knows it. If there's a fire. Right. Right, sir. But he's saying, you know, in the landmark speech… No, sir, it's fine. Oh, sir, no, no, it's… Whoa. Hold on. Did you see that? Her staffer is literally trying to rip the microphone out of this man's hand. Look at that. He's manhandling him, just like the text says. They silenced him, and when he wouldn't just sit down and shut up, they sent a goon to physically intimidate him. This is disgusting. This is what AOC's town halls are like. Don't you dare ask a real question. No, it's totally fine. For me, I think… And so, I think for me, sir, it's… My concern is we have freedom to say, I hate this, I hate that. Where I do get concerned is where that line is played with, so that we have plausible deniability to incite violence against people. I don't think that the president should have tweeted that video that he tweeted. Do I think he should have gone to jail for it? Absolutely not. But I don't think he should have done that. I think that by endangering Congresswoman Omar, he was playing with this line. Well, I disagree. She endangered herself, okay? That's not endangering. By showing the truth… So, showing the truth is endangerment, is inciting violence to show the truth. That is fascism. He's not wrong. What is fascism? It's using state and corporate power to silence your political opponents. What did her team just do? They used their power to silence their political opponent. He's calling a spade a spade. She's the one trying to shut down speech, and he's calling her out on it. Well, sir, I don't think anyone's trying to ban that speech. His right to show the truth of what happened is just as valid as her right… It is. …to say whatever she wants to say. And, sir, that's why he's not being… That's why there's no charges being brought up against him. He's being criticized by you as though there should be charges. No, no, I don't think there should be charges. But the truth is that he's inciting violence against her. I think he is. That's absurd. You cannot incite violence. Yeah, well, I think he is. Inciting violence is illegal. Right. And so… Inciting violence is illegal. So, okay. And, sir, I think one of the larger… And, sir, I think one of the larger questions that we have here is that if we're explicitly talking about do we have the right to say, I hate so-and-so, I hate this, I… Listen to this word salad. Plausible deniability. This is the new trick. If they don't like your speech, they just say it's incitement, it's dangerous, it's stochastic terrorism. These are all just made-up terms to shut down speech they don't like. She's not mad that Trump was inciting anything. She's mad because Trump showed a video of what her friend Ilhan Omar actually said. He showed the truth, and this man is spot on. So showing the truth is incitement. She has no answer for that. None. You even have the right, yes, to be bigoted in America. Absolutely. You absolutely have the right to be bigoted in America. Right, right. My question is, why do you want to, not you, but why would one want to be bigoted in America? It doesn't matter. I don't want to be bigoted. I grew up as a conservative Christian. And there's the dodge. That's the oldest trick in the book. He makes an ironclad point about the right to free speech, and she can't debate it. So what does she do? She pivots. She does a classic straw man. Well, why would you want to be a bigot? That's not the question, Alexandria. We're not talking about what's nice. We're not talking about what's polite. We are talking about what is legal and what is protected by the Constitution. It doesn't matter if you want to be a bigot. The First Amendment exists specifically to protect the speech you hate, not just the speech you agree with. She literally cannot, or will not, answer his point. So she tries to paint him as a bad person for even bringing it up. It's a slimy, dishonest tactic. But I'm telling you that the greatest freedom is for us to allow anyone who wants to hate to hate without violence, without threats, without incitement, and that is true. That is true. You're bringing incitement and hate speech together, which is totally absurd and fascist. Okay. Well, thank you, sir. Thank you. He's literally giving her a free lesson on the Constitution. He's making the exact distinction that she is deliberately trying to blur. He's saying, I'm not talking about violence. And she's saying, but your words feel like violence to me, so they should be banned. This man is the hero of this video. He is an absolute patriot. He stood his ground, he didn't back down, and he spoke the absolute truth. A moment like that is fine and it's acceptable because I do think that if we don't let it out, then it gets worse. So I think it's fine to air out disagreements and to have these conversations, even if it hurts our feelings. Oh, now it's fine? After you cut his mic, tried to take it from him, dodged his question, and smeared him as a bigot. How incredibly patronizing. She got completely and totally owned by a constituent, and this is her pathetic attempt at damage control. This video, folks, is everything you need to know. This is the entire progressive playbook. They don't believe in the First Amendment. They believe in their own power, and honestly, what else would we expect from AOC? She and the rest of The Squad, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, all of them, are a complete and total disappointment to this country. They spend all day every day complaining about America and trying to tear down the very freedoms that this man is fighting for. The very freedoms that, by the way, gave them the platform to spew their own nonsense in the first place. It's a disgrace. My hat is off to that man for having the courage to say it right to her face. Yes, I signed that memo. So you are the author of the family separation policy? I am not the author of this memo. You're not the author, but you signed the memo. Yes, a zero-tolerance memo. So you provided the official recommendation to Secretary Nielsen for the United States to pursue family separation. I gave Secretary Nielsen numerous recommendations on how to secure the border and save lives. But it says here that you gave her numerous options, but the recommendation was option three, family separation. What I'm saying, this is not the only paper where we've given the Secretary numerous options to secure the border and save lives. And so the recommendation of the many that you recommended, you recommended family separation. I recommended zero-tolerance. Which includes family separation. The same as is with every U.S. citizen parent gets arrested when they're with a child. Zero-tolerance was interpreted as the policy that separated children from their parents. If I get arrested for DUI and I have a young child in a car, I'm going to be separated. When I was a police officer in New York and I arrested a father for domestic violence, I separated that father from his family. Mr. Holman, with all due respect, legal asylees are not charged with any crime. When you enter the country illegally, it's violation 8 United States Code 1325. Seeking asylum is legal. If you want to seek asylum and go through the port of entry, do it the legal way. The Attorney General of the United States has made that clear. Okay.