Sup you beautiful bastards!
I hope you're having a
fantastic Monday. Welcome back to the Philip Defranco show and let's just jump into It. The first thing I want to talk about today is we
have Ivanka Trump in the news actually for two reasons the first reason is connected to American silver medalist Lauren Gibbs Gibbs took a
photo with Ivanka Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders with a caption
"It's important to remember that we don't have to agree on everything to get along be civil to each other and enjoy each other's company
hashtag it's for America
It was a pleasure to meet you both. There were also photos and video of Gibbs giving her silver medal to Ivanka Trump Sarah
Sarah Hukabee Sanders
So they could wear it for a picture. Some people cheered the picture on saying unity is what we need
Others bashed Gibbs, seemingly so much so that Gibbs ended up actually deleting the picture and the other reason
Ivanka was in the news is that during an NBC News interview. She was asked this, "Do you believe your father's accusers?" "I
think it's a pretty inappropriate question to ask a daughter
if she believes
the accusers of her father when he is affirmatively stated that, "there's no truth to it."
I don't think that's a question you would ask
many other daughters. I believe my father. I know my father, so I-I think I have that right as a daughter
to
Believe my father." And there have been two general
responses to this some saying it's a legitimate question like Jake Tapper who tweeted" trying to figure out what part of this is inappropriate she
works for the taxpayer she focuses on women's issues was at the interview because she went to the Olympics to represent the USA is an
Adult, and has spoken publicly about accusations against others."
But on the other end of people saying that this is unfair treatment. Drawing comparisons to how the media treats Ivanka Trump and Chelsea
Clinton in the past. There people arguing that it appeared that mainstream media was was shielding Chelsea Clinton against rape and sexual harassment
allegations against her father. You also have people pushing back against that comparison because they're saying it's not apples to apples. While Clinton was in
office she was just the first daughter. So I want to pass the question off to you, was the questioning inappropriate?
Yes or no, what do you think about the comparisons to how Chelsea Clinton was treated?
I just love to know your thoughts in those comments down below.
Let's start with the massive Supreme Court decision around DACA.
And just a little background on this to bring you back up to speed back. On September 5th 2017,
President Trump issues an executive order rescinding President Obama's DACA law. President Trump's law gave a six-month time period for Congress to create a legislative
fix. The deadline for that is March 5th
which is next week and of the
800,000 DACA recipient's those with permits expiring through March 5th would be able to renew their permit for another two years.
But those with permits expiring after March 5th would lose protection under the law and on that same day
September 5th the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would reject all renewal requests filed after October 5th.
issues an injunction to allow DACA renewal applications
to continue. Then in February you see a judge in the federal district court in Brooklyn issue another injunction to keep DACA
functional. That injunction ordering the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA as it was before the September 5th
announcement of repeal. This meant that renewals would actually continue to be accepted; however, new  applicants will not be accepted.
We also saw the Department of Justice announced that a plan to appeal to the Supreme Court to hear a case pertaining to the legality
of DACA and that process planned to skip the ninth appellate court of San Francisco.
Which was unusual and it was unusual because normally in appeal cases the case would go from a lower court to a higher court the highest
court being the Supreme Court.
And then of course between then and now
Congress failed to push any sort of DACA bill through. And the big news today
is that the Supreme Court rejected the appeal to immediately here this DACA case. The Supreme Court deferring the case to first be heard in
the ninth Appellate Court of San Francisco.
And that essentially is erasing the March 5th deadline that we've been talking about for a while and allowing the injunctions against the administration to
Remain for the time being. And so what does this mean and who is this a win for? As far as current dreamers
Those who are already enrolled in the system
they essentially were just bought some time. In this kind of waiting period those were already protected by DACA they can apply for a two-year
renewal, but if they're an undocumented immigrant They-they're not a part of the system. They cannot apply right now.
Also,
though if you think about it this might actually end up being a win for Republicans
As well in the meantime. And just think about it from an optics angle.
It's a midterm election year if all of a sudden dreamers
who, if you actually look at a lot of polls most people support dreamers. If everyday you turned on TV
and there was just mass deportation being covered it probably wouldn't help them. I mean when it comes to illegal immigration,
there are a lot of really strong feelings.
But the group that has the most sympathy our kids are brought here that they didn't make the choice.
It was their parents when you look at the numbers left and right you see a meaningful amount of support for this group. As far
as what happens now this will go to the 9th appellate court. They're gonna make a decision although a big note
there is it is known to be liberal. It is also frequently upheld nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration.
That said they'll make a decision on whether it was lawful or unlawful
for the Trump administration to rescind DACA if they find it to be unlawful. At that point it can go to the Supreme Court and
then the Supreme Court will decide whether they will take the case or they will not
and then if they do take it they'll make a decision. Even if the appellate court expedites this situation
we're still looking at months. All the while Congress can hopefully come up with some sort of decision and so that's where we are with
this right now. But from that I want to share some stuff
I love today and today in awesome, brought to you by Squarespace.
Squarespace, of course fantastic place if you need a domain a website, an online store. Make it with Squarespace. You make that beautiful website
you've been wanting to with their easy-to-use all-in-one platform.
There is nothing to install,
patch, or upgrade ever. So if you want to check it out, you want to start your free trial go to Squarespace.com/phil
And if you really like it use code PHIL for 10% off your first purchase. And the first bit of Awesome today is we have
a trailer for Fahrenheit 451. Also I want to go on the record. I know pretty much every last,  TIA
we've had had Michael B. Jordan in it. I didn't do it on purpose, at least this time.
Then, we got a fantastic new video from TheOdd1sOut called buying clothes. Easily one of my new favorite subscriptions.
A little late to the party and we got the slow mo guys throwing a needle through glass in slow motion.
We had meet Arnold's and what if you were at the nuclear explosion area?
And if you want to see the full versions of everything I just shared, the secret link of the day anything at all,
links are always in the description down below.
And then let's talk about the rise and spread of hashtag boycott NRA, now since the school shooting in parkland, Florida on February 14th
we've seen a lot to talk about gun reform on social media. A lot of  people been sharing their opinions all the way from more guns, to
no guns, to less guns, to we need to talk about access and specific guns.
We've also now seen people specifically targeting the National Rifle Association
and the people that are partnered with them. One of the first tweets after the Parkland shooting to use the hashtag was actually posted a
the day after the shooting. Judith Pearson writing, "As a retired school principal, I am so tired of "thoughts and prayers" which are substance-less condolences!
Let's have a law outlawing AR-15s and paying a substantial bonus to all that are turned in! hashtag
boycott NRA" Over the next few days activist and students of Stoneman Douglas
start using the hashtag.
They also shared lists of companies that have ties to the NRA most of these companies offer some sort of discount or promotion for people
who held NRA memberships.
And the pressure on these companies started to build very fast. The first company we saw cut ties was First National Bank of Omaha.
Last Thursday someone tweeted at the bank, "Please END your relationship with the NRA
hashtag NRA blood on your hands." The company responded the same day with a tweet that read "customer feedback has caused us to review our
relationship with the NRA. As a result, First National Bank of Omaha will not renew its contract with the National Rifle Association to issue the
NRA Visa Card." And very quickly company after company followed suite Enterprise Rent-a-car, Alamo Rent A Car, National Car Rental,
MetLife, Delta Air, United Airlines,
Symantec, Wyndham hotels, and more. We've also seen a number of people that have been using the hashtag boycott NRA are a now focusing on
tech companies. The main ones they're targeting include Amazon, Apple, and Google.
All of them stream NRA TV which is a 24-hour
streaming service which claims to be quote," source for the most comprehensive coverage of
the Second Amendment and firearms related issues."
Some people accusing the NRA of using the streaming service as a form of propaganda. People have also started a petition on change.org
to remove NRA TV from Amazon streaming service and websites as of recording this video there are over 100,000 signatures. Another company
we've seen really really targeted is FedEx, reportedly the specifics of the relationship is that FedEx offers NRA members a twenty six percent
discount. And the push against FedEx specifically has gained a lot of attention
thanks to a lot of celebrities tweeting,
survivors from the shooting, also
promoting this. What I personally think is when it comes to boycotts, people can do whatever the hell they want if they're not a fan
not a fan of an organization that they feel is pushing legislation, that is leading to more people dying,
and then there are companies that offer benefits to that company. They can boycott. Same is what we're seeing from some members of the NRA
where they are now doubling down their support on organizations like FedEx or those who provide
benefits to the NRA, but are not backing down.
We've also seen some promoting the boycott making it not just about the NRA and specific companies.
But also partisanship student and survivor David hog
who we talked about on the others show because there are a lot of crisis actor conspiracy theories against him.
Which-which were ridiculous you saw him tweet, "FedEx chairman is Fred Smith apparently he's a huge Republican donor.
hashtag boycott FedEx" And while some are very supportive of this position this kind of tweaked to the conversation of
Republicans not just the NRA. They are others saying this is kind of a change of the conversation
you don't want to promote of just Democrats versus Republicans. That this should be about gun reform
specifically. If you're trying to promote change
it's best not to try and label the entire group as somewhat of a villain. Just by being a
Republican you're on the wrong side of this. Also
there's a question of how effective will these boycotts be? We will have to wait and see if the revenue numbers are going to change.
So really all we can do is look to the stock market, as a recording this video FedEx stock has pretty much remain unfazed
on Feburary 22nd 2018 the stock was at two hundred forty five dollars as of recording this video
it's at two hundred fifty four. We've also seen the NRA respond to these calls for a boycott issuing an official statement saying, "the
Law-abiding members of the NRA had nothing at all to do with the failure of that school security preparedness,
the failure of America's mental health system, the failure of the National Instant Check System or the cruel failures of both federal and local law enforcement.
Despite that, some corporations have decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice. In time, these brands will
be replaced by others who recognize that patriotism and determined commitment to Constitutional freedoms are
characteristics of a marketplace they very much want to serve." We also saw the NRA put out a tweet
defending NRA TV. That tweet containing a video of Dana Loesch arguing that the boycott is attacking the NRA's right to free speech.
"The NRA has been the biggest defender of free speech. I find it interesting that those individuals who
simultaneously preach about free speech want to silence the speech of the millions of people who make up NRA membership."
Ultimately we're at a point with this story
that we just have to wait and see what happens. What happens with the companies that stay? What happens with the companies that go?
Will there be companies that replace them? and also a note I want to add is I know a lot of people get angry when companies get
"political". I think what we're seeing with this situation is we now have an environment where a company cannot just remain silent, because even that
is seen as a move. Even that is seen as taking a side.
There is no such thing as an apolitical company anymore.
Which also does but a lot of pressure on those companies and the people that work there, because if you look at any single
company most everyone doesn't have the same exact opinion.
But all of that said it will be very interesting to see what the long-term ramifications are for everyone involved.
And I'd love to pass a question off to you,
what are your thoughts around the situation? And the story around the boycott is actually connected to another story still involving the Parkland
Florida shooting. And the reason for that is the NRA and seemingly many of its supporters have been saying that gun owners are being unfairly
targeted here. Saying that the main problem was local and federal law enforcement
failing. People reporting the shooter as a threat beforehand, that law enforcement was actually called multiple times.
But news came out over the weekend about the specific day of the shooting and the Broward County
Sheriff's Office, reportedly on February 22nd the Broward County Sheriff's Office open an investigation into the actions of deputy Scott
Peterson. This due to his actions during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Peterson was a deputy and school resource
officer assigned to the school and reportedly the
investigation was launched after Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel saw a video showing Peterson waiting outside the school during the active shooting and staying outside for
four minutes. Peterson was suspended without pay and shortly thereafter
announced his resignation. Out of this news, like many,
I was horrified that there was an armed deputy waiting outside
the school while-while innocent children were being slaughtered. Even sheriff Scott Israel seemingly throwing him under the bus, "what matters is that
when we in law enforcement
arrive at an active shooter. We go in and address the target and that's what should have been done.
And if we find out or anybody were to find out that any officer or deputy
Got to an active shooter building and didn't exactly
go in. That would be something we would absolutely look at." Then we got news over the weekend that it might not have just been
Scott Peterson waiting outside. Before moving forward though I do want to point out
this is a
contested point on Saturday CNN reported the three other Broward County sheriff's deputies did not enter the building.
CNN saying they spoke with anonymous sources from the nearby town of Coral Springs whose officers also
responded to the shooting. According to the sources, "many of the Coral Springs officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County sheriff's deputy Scott
Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building,
but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered."
But it's also unclear whether the shooting was actually occurring at this point. The source is also saying, some Coral Springs police were stunned and
"upset that the four original Broward County sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene
did not appear to join them as they entered the school." But to this the public information
officer for the Coral Springs Police Department would not comment on specific allegations
but said, "Our Police Department has continued to work alongside the Broward Sheriff's Office to assist in any investigation pertaining to this incident."
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel was also asked about this report during an interview with Jake Tapper on Sunday.
"I'm also told by sources in Coral Springs that Coral Springs Police who arrived at the scene
saw that three other
Broward deputies were standing behind cars not having gone into the building.
What can you tell me about that?" "Our investigation to this point shows that during this horrific attack,
while this killer was inside this school there was only one law enforcement
person
period. And that was a former deputy Scott Peterson.
There's also now reportedly an internal investigation
being done by the Broward County Sheriff's Office regarding the shooting response. And as a result of this story coming out as well as the
other reports that many calls were made to the Broward County Sheriff's Office regarding the shooter in the months and years before this incident. Many
including some state lawmakers have called for Israel's removal or resignation. This including Florida representative Bill Hager who called on
Florida Governor Rick Scott to remover
Israel from his post citing, "various news outlets have confirmed that the school resource officer and three Broward Sheriff's deputies were on campus at the
time of the attack and chose to take cover themselves rather than stepping up to protect our students." In response to this sheriff Israel wrote
a rebuttal letter to Governor Scott writing, "Only one law enforcement officer was ever on the campus - at any time - during the attack deputy Scott
Peterson. Coral Springs received the initial 911 call knowing it was an active shooter incident, before the
call was ever transferred to Regional Communication for dispatch to [Broward Sheriff's Office]
and it is believed Coral Springs Police Department
Officers arrived first at the school. Unknown to the officers on the initial entry, video shows the killer had already fled the building over four
minutes before they first entered the 1200 Building." Then on Sunday,
Florida House speaker Richard
Corcoran also wrote a letter to the Florida Governor writing, "Sheriff Israel's fundamental duty is to keep the peace and protect the citizens of Broward
County. He has the power and responsibility to appoint highly qualified deputies and to ensure they receive
state-of-the-art training. Sheriff Israel failed to maintain a culture of alertness,
vigilance, and thoroughness
amongst his deputies. Sheriff Israel failed to fulfill his duty to ensure that all of his deputies have the necessary active shooter tactical training. As
a result of Sheriff Israel's failure students and teachers died." And that letter was also co-signed by
73 other Republican representatives. Then following that letter, Florida
Governor Rick Scott announced that he was ordering the Florida Department of Law Enforcement
to launch an investigation into the response to the parklands shooting saying, "There must be an independent investigation and that is why I asked the
FDLE Commissioner to immediately start this process." As the Broward Sheriff's Office says, "It welcomes the investigation."
But that said that's also not where the controversy ends. Ryan Anton a reporter for Miami news station WSVN
said he spoke to an emergency medical responder who was at the scene that day. According to Anton he responder wants to remain anonymous for
fear of being fired that source said medical responders were actually prevented by law
enforcement from entering the school
when they arrived. According to the exact quotes provided by Anton and responders said quote, "Everything
I was trained on mass casualty events says they did the wrong thing. You don't wait for the scene to be cleared You go in
immediately
armed. Retrieve the victims. You can't leave the victims laying there. We were asking to go in. Asking the scene commander to go in. Why
are we all standing around? Why are we not having patients to treat?
Why are we not going into the building and retrieving these kids? The response every time was law enforcement
did not clear the scene and would not allow medical personnel in. I would hypothesize I could have saved lives.
I can't say for sure. I would have risked my life to go in. I was eager to. I was frustrated the entire time I
was there. Rapid evacuation of the wounded. All they had to do was drag them out of the building.
And we could have started medical care.
I think they made the decision they thought was right at the time. But I don't think it was the right one.
They should have been more aggressive
about getting the victims out." And following this Anton says, he has not received any response yet from the Broward County Sheriff's Office on these
these accusations. We also got an update to this story today Scott Peterson has now responded
Releasing a statement through his lawyer today, saying, "his actions were appropriate under the circumstances." Peterson initially claiming
He took up a position outside building 12 after rushing over to respond to a report of firecrackers then Petersons, "heard gunshots
but believe that those gunshots were originating from outside of any of the buildings on the school campus." The statement continuing, "BSO trains its officers
that in the event of outdoor gunfire one is to seek cover and assess the situation
in order to communicate what one observes with other law enforcement."
Saying, "Radio transmissions indicated that there was a gunshot victim in the area of the football field which served to confirm mr.
Peterson's belief that the shooter or shooters were outside." Adding, "allegations that Mr.
Peterson was a coward and that his performance under the
circumstances failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue." Now as far as the push back of being called a coward that
seems to at least be somewhat connected to Donald Trump's statement on Friday, "but when it came time to get in there and do something
he didn't have the courage or something happened, so he certainly did a poor job, but that's the case where
Somebody was outside,
they're trained. They didn't react properly
under pressure, or they were a coward." We also saw President Trump saying this today,
"I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon.
And I think most of the people in this room would have done that too because I know most of you.
But the way they performed was really a disgrace." So that's where we are as of right now.
I do want to pass the question off to you one of your thoughts are around sheriff Israel?
What are your thoughts around Scott Peterson? For you personally
do you believe that Peterson's defense has merit or no?
He should have gone in he just he didn't perform when he was supposed to perform.
I'd love to know your thoughts a day on this last story the first one anything in between.
Let me know in those comments down below.
That's actually where I'm going to end today's show and remember if you like this video you like what I'm trying to do on this
Channel hit that like button if you knew where hit that subscribe button. Make sure you don't miss these daily weekday videos actually if
you did miss the last show, you want to catch up click or tap right there to watch that or if you want something lighter you
can watch the newest behind the scenes vlog just uploaded today, click or tap right there to watch that. So that's it of course.
As always my name is Philip Defranco. You've just been philed in and I love your faces, and I'll see you tomorrow
