CNN and MSNBC Bias Is So Bad Reporters BANNED From Appearing
Credibility Shot As Reporters BANNED From Appearing On CNN And MSNBC. In a surprising turn The New York Times has banned its staff from appearing on CNN and MSNBC shows, specifically Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell over the shows being "too partisan."CNN and MSNBC have gone so far off the rails that now the NYT is worried that if any of their staff appears on the show they will be accused of partisan bias.While this has always been true of Fox news, many leftists and far left activists claim that only Fox News is biased but now we can see that the polarization is getting worse and MSNBC and CNN are being treated exactly the same. While the idea of left wing media or liberal bias has existed for a while, this is direct proof that even the NYT feels its bad.This comes at a time when Rachel Maddow's ratings are their lowest yet and CNN is laying off many staff members.Perhaps this is a good example of journalism's Get Woke Go Broke
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In what is both a striking blow to the credibility of CNN and MSNBC and also a dangerous escalation in the culture war, we are now learning the New York Times is barring its reporters from appearing on Don Lemon's show and Rachel Maddow's show because they are too partisan.
In this story from Fox News.
Now, Fox News does highlight these shows specifically, but moving into the actual Vanity Fair report, they do mention Fox News.
The big takeaway here is that we are becoming polarized to an even greater degree.
You may remember just a couple weeks ago, Pete Buttigieg backed out of an interview with Dave Rubin following backlash from left-wing activists working in media.
What we're seeing here is, as I mentioned, two things.
New York Times is worried their reporters will look partisan by appearing on Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow's show.
Now, for the longest time, people have criticized Fox News, but they like to claim that there's no liberal media.
Well, the New York Times disagrees.
This is a striking blow to the credibility of these shows because now we know they are partisan shows.
I do think it's absurd, however.
Why shouldn't a reporter appear on anyone else's show?
Why shouldn't someone appear on Dave's Rubin show?
Why does partisanship have to do... What does that have to do with anything?
In fact, they should appear on the show and be placed, you know, under scrutiny by people of varying political factions.
But this is another part of the big polarization.
New York Times is basically saying they're not impartial.
Journalists, fine, but it's scary when you realize it's becoming so polarized that they're not going to even talk to people on the other side anymore.
Before we read into all this, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option.
Cryptocurrency address is a physical address, but of course, liking and commenting on the video, best thing you can do.
The engagement really does help.
Share the link and subscribe if you'd like to do that as well.
But let's just jump to the first story from Fox News.
They say, The New York Times is cracking down on its own reporters, stopping them from appearing on certain primetime cable news shows seen as being too partisan, according to a new report.
Vanity Fair published the explosive report which alleges MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, as well as CNN anchor Don Lemon, made the newspaper's no-go list.
The magazine began its report by alleging The Times financial editor David Enrick had initially accepted an invitation to appear on The Rachel Maddow Show, May 20th, to discuss a report involving President Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner's transactions with Deutsche Bank, but had to ultimately turn down the appearance after he informed the communications department.
Vanity Fair's report is based on information from sources inside the Grey Lady, according to the magazine.
Vanity Fair's media correspondent Joe Pompeo wrote.
might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enric talking politics with a mega-ideological
host like Maddow," Vanity Fair's media correspondent Joe Pompeo wrote.
But you also need to consider Maddow has been Russiagate nonstop for years.
And I know most of you already know this, but this is an issue.
So if you're going to have a reporter go and talk to her, and she is a partisan actor who's seeking to make gains for a political faction, that may bother some people.
This shows that not only is the media ridiculously partisan with Don Lemon, Maddow, and also Fox News on the opposite ends of the spectrum, But CNN is absolutely considered partisan.
New York Times doesn't want to play the game and get involved with either of the, you know, the partisanship.
So we can see this is a problem in many ways.
Look, do the interview.
But it shows that the rhetoric is escalating to such a degree that people won't even talk anymore.
Sources told the magazine, the Times' executive editor Dean Baquette expressed concerns certain primetime shows are becoming more opinionated and that reporters who appear in the shows will be perceived as being aligned.
He thinks it's a real issue, one source said, adding that their view is that intentionally or not, it affiliates the Times reporter with a bias.
Both MSNBC and CNN have hired several prominent New York Times reporters as contributors in recent years, but it is unclear from the Vanity Fair report if they would be discouraged from appearing on shows deemed too partisan.
Now, in the actual story from, uh, from Variety, from Hive, which is, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Vanity Fair, Variety, that was incorrect, uh, they do mention Fox News absolutely.
They mention how Tucker Carlson's show would likewise make the cut, but it's not like Times reporters ever do those shows anyway.
So this is the latest development.
We don't typically see New York Times reporters appearing on Hannity and Fox News anyway.
We routinely see activists accuse Fox News of being political propaganda and that, you know, every other news outlet is legitimate.
But we know.
MSNBC is absolutely, you know, resistance left.
CNN, 100% resistance left.
Don Lemon has made many racist comments aligning with left-wing racism, specifically.
And I'm talking specifically about derogatory terms used against black people, used by Don Lemon.
You can argue if you think he should be allowed to do that or not.
That's not the point.
The point is, he's used these words in a partisan, tribal way.
He's also made disparaging comments about white people.
Of course, this is more aligned with the left.
All of this is coming off of what we just heard about Pete Buttigieg backing out from Dave Rubin's interview.
And Dave Rubin certainly has had to deal with these issues for a long time.
People don't want to do a show because it's hosted a handful of people.
It's seemingly absurd that someone won't sit down with someone else.
And it shows me the kind of dramatic escalation in the culture war that we can't even talk anymore.
But, outside of the credibility of CNN and MSNBC, whether you trusted them in the first place, I think it's fair to say if the New York Times is saying they're too partisan, well then your argument left is out the window.
You are partisan, same as Fox News.
But now we're learning.
Man, CNN is in bad shape.
We've got some bad news for MSNBC as well.
CNN recently laid off people in London.
They laid off their health unit in Atlanta.
They had 100 voluntary buyouts.
They moved to a new studio.
Their international arm is losing $10 million per year.
I don't know about their main parent in the United States, but it would seem that CNN is not doing too well.
In this latest news from Red State, Failing CNN.
Now paying its freelancers 90 days after work is done.
This is called a net 90.
And it is absolutely insane.
Okay?
Most places I've worked or worked with have a net 15 to net 30.
And maybe that's not true for the whole industry because net 15 is not bad.
What that means is 15 days after you submit your paperwork, they will issue payment.
That's a net 15.
A net 30, 30 days.
A net 90 means if you do freelance work for CNN, they won't pay you for three months!
That is insane.
And it's an indication, in my opinion, of CNN being desperate.
They need people to work for them and will pay you later.
CNN essentially pulling that old, you know, comic, we'd gladly pay you 90 days from now for news you'll produce today.
I gotta say, if you do this, that's insane, man.
Unless you've got the time, and you're rich or something, going 90 days without getting paid is insane.
The story reads, and admittedly, know this too, RedState is a partisan outlet, but they use tweets from Marcus DiPaolo, who is a journalist I know and trust.
In a testament to their lack of financial stability, a letter was recently sent out by CNN parent company WarnerMedia informing contracted freelancers for CNN that payment for their work will reach them 90 days after their invoice is originally submitted.
In a Twitter thread by freelancer Marcus DePaola, the notice went out notifying freelancers that the change is occurring because it aligns with our corporate requirements.
It also notes that they are working with Citi in order to create a financial tool that will hopefully get freelancers paid faster than 90 days.
As DePaola notes, this is going to hurt freelancers who do work for CNN, and that it's the same as financing their own paycheck.
So let's pull up the thread from Marcus.
Again, I know Marcus.
I trust him.
I believe this to be 100% legitimate.
He says, uh, Scooplet.
In a blow to their financial stability, CNN sent a letter to several of the network freelancers this week, extending their payment terms to net 90.
Payment 90 days after invoice.
The change is to be better aligned with our corporate requirements per letter.
The letter says Turner is working with Citi.
We read that part.
I can tell you that this is going to hurt everyone.
Oh, are they, are they actually quoting him in the story?
Is this story from?
Interestingly, they're just writing his thread.
He said photojournalists for networks used to be good union jobs with benefits and a pension.
All that's gone.
And now many camera ops are being put on freelance 1099 Schedule C. Works well for some, like me, but doesn't work for everyone.
That's a quote.
He says ethical disclosure.
Not a big deal, but just in case, I am currently owed $400 from footage I sold in 2014 to CNN.
But they are in the process of mailing me a check for it after I emailed Jeff Zucker and he intervened to get me paid.
They didn't pay this man for five years!
CNN not doing well.
If you are a CNN freelancer affected by this, get in touch.
My DMs are open.
Here's a copy of the letter the freelancers received.
Sorry for the delay.
CNN freelancer tells me they were hoping to increase the work they do with CNN by buying a LiveU.
A LiveU is a backpack you can wear to do live broadcasts.
It's very expensive.
But this net 90 deal makes it feel less financially viable.
He says, I'm hearing from multiple people, this most recent freelancer included, that they are trusted with CNN anchors and reporter cell numbers and have good relationships because they see them out in the field.
It'd be interesting if their on-air hosts and anchors covered this.
This is ridiculously bad news for CNN.
Look, hear me out.
This is nuts.
90 days after you submit an invoice, which means you do the work, you send the invoice, and three months later they'll pay you?
That is insane.
That is CNN desperately... It's like CNN trying to get a loan, essentially.
Like, hey, do the work and give us three months.
We swear we'll pay you.
They didn't pay Marcus for five years.
It's also incredibly bad news.
There is also incredibly bad news for Rachel Maddow.
This story from The Wrap.
Two days ago, Rachel Maddow had her lowest-rated month of the Trump presidency, and yes, Fox News won again.
They say May has not been Rachel Maddow's month.
The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC has averaged 410,000 viewers and the advertisers sought adults, the key demo, according to Nielsen.
That's her lowest tally of the Trump presidency.
Maddow averaged 412,000 demo viewers in January 2017, which was the month Trump took office.
May 2019 was the first time she dipped below that previous low mark.
Rachel Maddow.
Her credibility is shot not just because she's seen as a partisan actor, but think about this.
Her ratings have gone back to where they were.
She chased the Russia narrative, making her a ridiculous partisan actor, to the point where the New York Times is now saying, don't do her show.
You reap what you sow.
Rachel Maddow chased after a narrative that was not true, a conspiracy theory, and for it, the New York Times cancelled on appearing on her show, and now guidelines have been issued, or are being, um, Now enforced, apparently they've existed before, but new enforcement saying, our journalists aren't going to go on your show anymore.
That's what you get when you chase after the insane conspiracy theories.
Ultimately, I don't think it's a good thing, though.
I think, by all means, let her be a Russiagator, go on her show, talk to her, give her some pushback.
That's what should be done.
They say, though, to be fair, her all-in average of 2.6 million total viewers per show this month was better than several other months she's experienced during Trump's tenure.
But admittedly, she's getting older viewers, as is CNN and Fox News.
But the key demo is what's important.
So we have seen Rachel Maddow's ratings tumble, and I want to make sure I represent that it's not all bad.
I'm not trying to, you know, wave my arms in there and shriek.
She's doing fine, in some respects, in terms of total viewership.
Key demo is down.
They end by saying that Hannity and Tucker Carlson marked Fox News' 209th straight monthly win in primetime viewers over its cable news competition.
Wow.
So here's what I'm going to do.
I've hit a lot of the major points, but I want to make sure I add context in this video that you may have missed if you didn't see my videos coming up to this.
We're learning now that the New York Times is saying straight up, MSNBC, CNN's Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow are too partisan.
Okay?
And we saw this story of Bleeding Eyes Carlos Maza saying, you're watching Fox News, you just don't know it, where he claims the political narrative is driven by Fox News.
Well, I believe this new development, the story from Vanity Fair, flies in the face of that claim.
We can also show that in this story from Fox News, Unmasked Book ranks media members who hate President Trump the most, from Jim Acosta to Micah Brzezinski.
And of course, the story from Mediaite, Jim Acosta rejects neutrality for the sake of neutrality, admits to grandstanding and showboating.
You want to act like the media agenda is driven by Fox News.
I'm sorry.
We know full well that journalists are not acting as journalists.
And you may remember this story from just a few days ago.
A Times columnist wrote a fake Trump quote, and it was picked up by tons of journalists who parroted the nonsense without fact-checking.
The Times, in my opinion, is wrong to bar anyone from appearing on anyone's show.
However, it's a good example that the nonsense we are seeing from the media, their lack of credibility, their refusal to fact-check, their admission of partiality, of partisanship, it's no surprise when they do these things, the New York Times says, count me out.
And then, it's no surprise to me that CNN is going to basically finance the employment of their people, lay people off.
Rachel Maddow's ratings are down.
And then you see the absurdity, the insanity of left-wing digital media.
An individual jokingly making his eyes and ears bleed in a video where he claims it's a right-wing conspiracy from Fox News.
No.
You're in an absurd partisan bubble.
And the bubble exists on both sides, and they're moving further and further apart.
There is a Fox News bubble, and there is a liberal media bubble, and you live in it.
And your Fox News bubble is actually on the fringe.
No.
The media landscape is not dictated by a Fox News conspiracy.
You're just losing your mind.
Because they're becoming smaller and smaller, because they're losing credibility, they're going insane.
Their ratings are dropping.
Their evaluations are dropping.
They're laying people off.
People aren't watching them anymore.
So they can't understand what's happening.
They say, Fox News did it!
It's a conspiracy!
Sorry.
The New York Times says your side is just as nuts.
Okay, I'm being hyperbolic.
The New York Times says you are partisan actors as well.
It swings both ways.
The fact the New York Times is going to bar journalists shows us the divide is getting worse.
So how do we stop it?
I don't know.
Let me know what you think in the comments below and we'll keep the conversation going, I suppose.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
More stories to come starting at 6 p.m.
on youtube.com slash Timcast. Again, like and comment if you do like the video. If you're
listening on the podcast, then leave a good review. It really, really does help. And I
will see you all in the next segment. Illegal immigration is a serious problem,
and we have a crisis on the southern border.
Just the other day, Trump tweeted about the largest apprehension ever, 1,036 illegal aliens entering the country.
Following this, we're hearing that Trump is taking major action against Mexico to stop illegal immigration.
Trump is going to be imposing an ever-increasing tariff on products from Mexico unless they do something about the problem.
Now look, before we get into any of this, we have a problem.
It's a crisis.
End of story.
Don't take my word for it.
You can look at the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., who are all saying, yeah, okay, we have a crisis here.
So something needs to be done.
I don't know if this is the right thing to do, but this is Trump dropping the hammer.
This is pretty crazy.
Trump tweeted, on June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% tariff on all goods coming into the country from Mexico, our country.
Until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico and into our country stop, the tariff will gradually increase until the illegal immigration problem is remedied, at which time the tariffs will be removed.
Details from the White House will follow.
So apparently...
They're going to increase it every month over the next five months if Mexico doesn't do something.
Surprise, surprise.
As soon as Trump announced this, we're hearing breaking news.
Mexico wants to set up a meeting in D.C.
to talk to Trump to try and solve this problem.
I believe this might be in the story, but I want to make sure I get the details right.
Now, before we go any further, make sure to go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency address, physical address, but of course, like and comment, the engagement really, really does help.
But let's read what the White House has to say.
In a message sent out by the White House, Trump explained that the 5% tariff on Mexico will increase by 5% every month, maxing out at 25% until the flow of illegal immigration comes to a halt.
To address the emergency at the southern border, I am invoking the authorities granted to me by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Accordingly, starting on June 10, 2019, the U.S.
will impose a 5% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico.
If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our... Excuse me.
sole discretion and judgment, the tariffs will be removed.
If the crisis persists, however, the tariffs will be raised to 10% on July 1st, 2019.
Similarly, if Mexico still has not taken action to dramatically reduce or eliminate the number
of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the US, tariffs will be increased to 15%.
He basically goes on up to 25.
If Mexico fails to act, tariffs will remain at the high level,
and companies located in Mexico may start moving back to the US.
to make their products and goods.
Companies that relocate to the U.S.
will not pay the tariffs or be affected in any way.
This is a double... This is a... This is a two birds with one stone.
A lot of companies set up shop in Mexico, especially with NAFTA.
So when the products can freely move between Mexico and the U.S., there's no incentive for companies to be in the U.S.
when they can get cheaper labor in Mexico.
Trump wants those companies back, and he's also using it as leverage so that Mexico takes action to stop these illegal immigrants.
Fox News' Greg Rhee reports that White House sources have indicated that Mexico needs to step up security efforts on the border, target transnational smugglers, crack down on illicit bus lines, and align with the U.S.
on a workable asylum policy, and that there are choke points on the southern border that Mexico could use to sharply curb illegal immigration.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 permits tariffs to be levied by the executive in the event of a national emergency originating from a foreign source, Fox News added.
However, the situation could complicate the legislative passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, sent to Congress by the White House on Thursday, which aims to broadly limit tariffs among three countries.
So why does this matter?
Trump recently tweeted about 1,036 migrants who crossed near El Paso as proof we need to fix the border.
I believe they actually have footage.
This is, this is ridiculous.
It's seriously insane.
This is a caravan, okay?
The caravans haven't stopped coming.
The migrant caravans are coming in increasing numbers.
We've seen some of the biggest, I think there was a caravan with like tens of thousands of people.
Now we have a group of a thousand plus people crossing all at the exact same time through the southern border in El Paso.
We're having news agencies repeatedly call out we have a serious humanitarian crisis.
Something needs to be done about it.
And I believe it was the Wall Street Journal that said, Congress, give Trump his money.
The Wall Street Journal, I think, was earlier than this.
They're more conservative.
But the New York Times was like, enough.
I wonder why this is happening.
So here's what we'll do.
Right now, if you're watching on YouTube, comment and let me know what you think is driving these people to do this now.
I'll give you my theory.
The more we hear news about these groups getting in, the more we hear Democrats defending and activists defending them coming in, well then they have every reason to come.
And it's extremely dangerous.
You know, it's crazy to me that you have the left talking about fairness and compassion and all that stuff.
These people are wandering through the desert without food or water and children are dying.
You know, it's not like there's been dozens, there's been a small group of children, a small handful, and that's enough.
One child is too much.
So no, we don't want to encourage these people to be wandering through the desert to try and come to this country, especially if they're fleeing violence and they're already in Mexico.
So, the more we hear about it in the media, the more we hear activists say, oh, defend them and their rights to asylum, well then they're like, okay, great.
What's the worst case scenario?
You show up in the US, they give you a stamp, they let you go, and then you're here.
And then what?
Like 90% don't even show up for their hearings?
The story says, yesterday border patrol agents apprehended the largest group of illegal aliens ever.
1,036 people who illegally crossed the border in El Paso around 4 a.m.
Trump posted to Twitter on Thursday evening, Democrats need to stand by our incredible border patrol and finally fix the loopholes at our border.
The president also shared a video of the apprehension in his tweet, which showed video surveillance of a large mass of immigrants being wrangled near the El Paso-Texas crossing by border patrol agents.
With large groups of migrants continuing to try and cross into the U.S., the president says this is just another example of needing to fix the loopholes at the southern border.
Trump says the border wall is a good way to ensure security at the border and has clashed with Democrats on funding.
Recently, the Pentagon announced it would be redirecting Department of Defense money to fund miles of constructing the border wall.
And then we can see a series of tweets for Trump.
On Thursday morning, Trump said he would be making an announcement of very dramatic action at the border.
Oh, but we now know what that is.
Trump's applying a ridiculously large tariff on Mexico.
That's going to be bad news for everybody.
But I think, you look at these pictures, it's not stopping.
Okay?
Interestingly, there's a private wall being built too.
It's, you know, as an aside, I'm not going to talk too much about that.
But why do the migrants keep coming is the serious question.
I mean, for one, yeah, we get it.
America is nice.
It's not like Mexico isn't nice.
A lot of people have this vision of Mexico as a terrifying place.
But the migrant caravans admitted to Tijuana.
Tijuana's not bad.
But now these shelters are being overcrowded.
This is a serious, serious problem.
There's disease.
There's trash.
There's feces.
One of my friends went down to the migrant caravans near Tijuana and actually checked this out, and it's really, really bad.
You cannot just cram all these people into these small spaces and you can't just open up the border and let everybody in.
We have to have security checks.
So again, I throw it to you as to why you think it's happening.
For me, I think it's the media, the media that is trying to be partisan to resist Trump.
Democrats need a reason.
They need something to, to allow them to be different from the president going in 2020.
So they're going to claim what he's doing is immoral.
They're going to claim, you know, they want to protect these people.
And it's an opportunity.
It's these people saying, hey, why not now?
But it's dangerous and it's incentivizing dangerous behavior and it's not going to work out as they think.
This is a big league statement, but we are going to do something very dramatic on the border because people are coming into our country.
The Democrats will not give us laws.
They will not change laws.
They will not meet.
They will not do anything.
He brought up the speech when asked whether he would respond to a restrictive abortion law in Louisiana.
As he does during his campaign rallies and other events, Trump accused Democrats of wanting open borders and wanting drugs pouring into our country, asserted that they want to have crime and want to have human trafficking.
You could argue that because Democrats don't want to take action, they're, they're more willing to allow open borders, drugs and trafficking, et cetera, because they're trying to counter Trump, in my opinion.
One of Trump's big campaign promises, being build the wall, has been resisted every step of the way by Democrats, and all they really say is it's immoral, or it's racist, or whatever.
Sure, that means nothing to me.
The one argument I think makes sense is the cost, but all I see is we have a serious issue
that you could actually watch on video, like tell me that's not a serious problem.
And then the Democrats are saying it's a manufactured crisis.
I kid you not.
It was like a week or two ago they said it was a manufactured crisis.
I'm like, dude, those are real people, man.
Those are real people who need resources.
And our border patrol, our law enforcement has to not only, you know, like register and
And all these people have to accommodate them, feed them, water.
These are resources, okay?
You can't just allow these people to wander through the desert and act like nothing is happening.
That's what really, really, really blows my mind.
The idea that this is a manufactured crisis, as if nothing is going on the border, and we see story after story.
I gotta say, I think it boils down to a lot of people just not doing any research, and not actually watching what's happening.
And they're so hell-bent on resisting Trump, they're not paying attention that something is actually going on.
What's the conspiracy?
Okay, let's call it a manufactured crisis.
What's the conspiracy?
You think the Republicans are funneling money to various non-profits to send migrants up to the U.S.?
That's absurd.
Migrants are coming here regardless of the reason.
We have a serious issue.
Call it whatever you want.
It's a crisis.
Asked if he was closing the borders, Trump said no, but then said we're doing something else.
He said it will have to do with people illegally coming over the border, saying it would be my biggest statement so far on the border.
That's, yeah, I guess that's fair to say.
25% tariff as of August 1st.
Trump has acted unilaterally to reprogram billions of dollars from military functions to border construction at the US-Mexico border, although some of his actions are tied up in court.
Let's talk about 2020.
What do you think middle-of-the-road, independent, moderate types are going to think when they see a video of 1,000-plus people coming to the border and the Democrats saying it's a manufactured crisis?
What do you think the moderates are going to think when they're like, you know, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal newspapers are saying this is a serious crisis that needs to be dealt with?
What do you think the moderates are going to think then when the Democrats don't give Trump the money he needs for law enforcement, for the border patrol?
They're going to think the Democrats have lost it.
I'm sorry.
I mean, that's just the only way I can see it.
I was thinking about what does it mean to be a conservative?
What does it mean to be a liberal?
And why there's this weird space that exists today where there are many people who are traditionally liberal being called conservative.
And I thought it was really interesting, right?
I have to talk about how the left has gone so far left that people who used to be in the middle are now closer to the right than they are to the left.
But it's a really good point.
You will end up seeing something very, very simple.
Regular middle Americans are now essentially conservatives.
Congratulations!
The further left the Democrats go, they make conservatives.
They're making the conservative side bigger and bigger and bigger.
Look.
You go talk to a regular old American in the middle of nowhere who doesn't pay attention to the news, and they're gonna be like, oh, we gotta have border security.
And then you show them a video like this of all these migrants pouring in, the massive apprehension, and say, oh, we gotta do something.
And then tell them this.
Well, the Democrats are resisting providing funding for Trump and for ICE and CBP.
They're gonna be like, that's insane.
That's crazy.
Now, of course, some people are gonna be pulled to the resistance far left and just reject Trump, no matter what it is, no matter what he does.
But I think you will find There was an article that was published that said something like, we can't impeach this racist president because it would ostracize his racist voters who wouldn't vote for us anyway.
It was something like that.
And I thought that was so insane.
You know why?
Barack Obama got elected.
Because there were a group of people who voted for Barack Obama and then later voted for Donald Trump, right?
So the point I'm trying to make is some of the same people who voted for Obama had to have voted for Trump.
Trump won.
Period.
Look at Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.
Yeah, a lot of Democrat voters in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump.
And they don't seem to get it through their heads.
Listen.
No, Trump voters are not all racists.
Are there some racists who voted for Donald Trump?
Sure.
Are there some racists who voted for Hillary Clinton?
You betcha.
Is the average American who's concerned about the economy, immigration, jobs, are they racist?
No.
Absolutely not.
And I would bet over 90 plus percent are not.
Sure, there's probably a small handful.
But it would make no sense that middle Americans who voted for Obama are the racists voting for Trump.
And if you think you don't need these people, then, well, you've just forfeited 2020.
That's insane.
Trump played the game.
Popular vote, be damned.
Trump played the game.
He won.
Hillary Clinton played the same game with the same rules, and she lost.
Trump is pointing out something that's literally happening that you can watch on video.
What's your response?
What are you gonna do?
Seriously, the Democrats needed to come out and say, we agree on this issue.
Plain and simple.
But they're anti-Trump for the sake of anti-Trump.
They're anti-Trump for the sake of being the resistance.
It is the most insane strategy I've ever seen.
There's nothing wrong with saying, I agree with the president on this issue.
We need to enhance border security and deal with this crisis.
We'll talk about economics, policy, and culture later.
There's nothing wrong with that.
The Democrats, not all of them, not all of them, of course, right?
There are some Democrats I think do a fantastic job.
And I never want to blanket anybody.
There's some Republicans do a terrible job.
And for the most part, I disagree with a lot of the Republican policy.
But what's easy for me is to be like, wow, that's crazy.
Trump's going to do something about this, right?
Are the Democrats going to help?
They're not.
Um, what?
That's mind blowing to me.
So I sit here as, you know, I guess a traditional liberal, you know, like in 2008 border security was on the democratic platform and Chuck Schumer smirks and says, who would be for, you know, opening borders.
Bernie Sanders, even a couple of, a month ago said, no, no open borders.
But this is the nature of partisan politics in 2019 and going into 2020.
It's less about what's right.
It's less about what needs to be done to help the migrants and help Americans, and more about resisting Trump for the sake of resisting.
And then you see someone like Jim Acosta say this utter nonsense, that neutrality for the sake of neutrality.
What are you talking about, man?
No, Jim Acosta is anti-Trump for the sake of being anti-Trump.
Okay.
Listen, I do it all the time.
Rag on Trump for his demeanor, for his foreign policy, and then say, border security?
Gotta agree with him.
Don't like the guy?
You don't have to like the guy.
We gotta solve problems.
And there's no reason why... Like, you got a neighbor who's an a**hole.
Sorry, I just swore.
I shouldn't have done it.
You got a neighbor who's a bad person.
You can still figure out how to build that fence to take care of both of your properties and not like each other.
You can still vote on city ordinance issues that benefit your block without liking each other.
It's that simple.
Now you got me all swearing.
Okay, I'm gonna stop here.
Stick around, I got more segments coming up later today.
For those on the podcast, it'll be coming shortly.
For everyone else, 1pm youtube.com slash timcast and I will see you all then.
I was surprised to see this story on BuzzFeed News as one of their trending stories.
The title of the article is, She's the Public Face of MeToo and Science, Now Critics Are Speaking Out About Her Tactics.
Seven leaders of the MeToo STEM group have resigned, citing a lack of transparency and the founders' combative tweets.
Naturally, this is a left-wing activist group focused on Me Too and science, so it's called Me Too STEM, and now they're dealing with resignations and infighting, which is all too common.
And what's really interesting is that the BuzzFeed News story even goes into detail about other left-wing groups and their infighting, like Occupy Wall Street, the Women's March, Black Lives Matter, etc.
So I gotta say, wow, BuzzFeed.
I did not think I would see some of this from you talking about a left-wing group dealing with turmoil and potential collapse.
So let's take a look at this story and some of these other references they bring up as to what exactly is going on with this MeToo group.
Now, before we get started, go to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, and of course, Uh, there's a physical address, but if you like and comment, it really really helps the engagement.
Share the video if you really like it, and don't forget to subscribe if you want more videos like this.
unidentified
Even though subscribing doesn't matter at this point!
An outspoken campaigner against harassment in science is facing a crisis of leadership at Me Too STEM, the volunteer organization she founded last year to support victims and hold perpetrators and institutions accountable.
Since November, seven members of the leadership team have resigned, citing concerns about the behavior of its founder, Bethann McLaughlin, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
In their resignation letters, former Me Too STEM leaders said that McLaughlin kept them in the dark about key decisions and reacted with hostility when they asked about the small organization's finances and legal structure.
They also worried that McLaughlin had alienated allies through her combative tweets.
One of the biggest accusations levied against people in the regressive left, and I don't mean social justice activists, I mean the regressive, you know, left, is that they're doing it for power, and I believe this to be a fundamental truth.
Many of the people claiming to be activists are in fact just trying to gain power by playing the victim.
So when you hear that someone won't be releasing key information about financials, and is attacking even allies on Twitter, it makes you wonder what their true motivations are when it comes to social justice.
It should be said, in no uncertain terms, social justice is a good thing.
Now hold on.
There's a lot of people who you'd call anti-SJW, but SJW, social justice warrior, is very different from social justice.
Social justice as a general concept is just the idea that everyone is deserving of their fundamental God-given rights enshrined, well, that are inalienable, that exist, but also making sure the law is fair and just.
What we've seen in the past decade or so, and ever increasingly in the past couple decades, getting worse and worse, is a perversion of social justice.
There are many friends that I have that are social justice activists, and I talk about my lefty friends all the time.
In fact, most of my friends are.
And they do not align with these weird groups.
These people are perverting and damaging actual justice.
In fact, I'd argue Anti-SJW types are more likely to be actual social justice activists than these regressive leftists.
And I'll give you an example, right?
You can't attack someone for being white, penalize someone for being white, simply because you believe white people are better off.
Now, I certainly understand the concept of white privilege, and I believe that there's historical imbalances based on race and things like this.
I experienced this with my family.
But the idea that you would hold an individual to a different standard based on how they look is not social justice.
So the same is true for when you see feminists attacking men's rights activists.
By all means, there are some bad men's rights activists, there are some bad feminists, but at its core, before these ideas get perverted, there's something truthful about the problems faced by both men and women.
So, the point I'm trying to make here is, when I see things like this, somebody who's refusing to talk about finances, someone who's being mean and aggressive, that is not social justice.
And it's unfortunate, it really is.
Because, you know, look, I'm someone who's kind, I'm moderate.
I want to talk about the problems presented in a fair and rational way, with good faith.
And that means I will engage with a conservative, and have an actual conversation, and I'm not blinded by ideology, and I'm no zealot, which means my views can be changed with new information.
As should most peoples.
Let's keep reading so I'm not ranting.
There have been several instances where supporters of MeTooStem have been upset by the tenor of your tweets, up to and including blocking you or being blocked by you, wrote Julie Labarkin, an environmental scientist at Michigan State University, who has compiled a database of more than 770 academic misconduct cases, and Tisha Bohr, a biology postdoctoral researcher at Cornell University, in their resignation email sent in November.
Some of them, victims themselves, have reached out to us for clarification and support, putting us in an impossible position of trying to support victims as well as you and the movement.
So let me ask you, if you have a social justice leader, Blocking, attacking, insulting victims.
What does that say about some of these groups, okay?
And again, I'm not act- look, absolutely there are grifters on the right, there are anti-SGW grifters.
I've seen videos from some, like, anti-SGW types where I'm like, there's no way you actually think that, come on!
You know, and it seems like people just jump on certain opinions.
And it's really hilarious, though.
Because some of these people exist.
I love it when I see the criticism of me.
They're like, Tim Pool criticized Captain Marvel.
Oh my god.
It's like, uh, yeah, some people don't like movies sometimes.
But that's how the game is played.
They'll look at me.
They won't watch the video where I talk about actual, you know, nuance.
And it's not just me blindly saying some nonsense.
They don't care.
They don't. It's all about your tribe is what you talk about and if you hold an opinion,
you're done. But I think there's a reason why I skirt by many of these weird hit pieces.
And I think it's because my opinions honestly are kind of tepid. You know what I mean? It's like,
you know, people can watch it like, hey, Tim's all about freedom, but I don't overtly attack
people. I try to avoid, you know, naming people in organizations and things like that, because I'm
trying to actually engage with these ideas and figure out what's going on and express my opinion
in a way that minimizes harm, which is a tenet of ethical journalism.
Don't get me wrong, this is political commentary for sure, but I try.
But did I skip over the... Yeah, let's read on a little bit.
I'm less concerned with the nitty-gritty of what this group is doing.
They talk about, you know, some people leaving, some resignations.
They say that Me Too STEM was formed after a string of harassment scandals involving leading scientists amid growing recognition that gender harassment is a pervasive problem in science.
The rifts within the organization come against the backdrop of a debate about how best to tackle these problems.
I think there is an issue in, you know, if you're working in a professional environment, it is not appropriate to engage in certain behaviors with women.
In fact, actually, I'd say this.
I'm pretty sure any behavior you can engage in in the workplace is probably not okay outside either.
That does not include, you know, saying, hey, what's up?
You want to go out for a drink or something or complimenting someone's appearance.
So we have kind of two extremes.
There are people who work in academia, work anywhere, men or women, typically men though, let's be real about it, who are going to say things that are inappropriate to women.
But that's not the majority.
Although you're going to hear about the squeaky wheel wanting grease, in most work environments I've been in, it's few and far between when you have guys who actually do this.
Of course, you'll hear women say, no, it happens all the time.
But that's the other extreme.
When a guy says something like, hey, you look stunning in that outfit, it's beautiful, you know, a guy compliments a guy's outfit, it's no big deal.
A guy compliments a woman's outfit and all of a sudden you're entering murky territory.
And that's the real issue, is trying to define what is or isn't appropriate in the workplace.
So what ends up happening then is, you know, actually I'll put it this way, what we're really doing is trying to figure out where this line is.
Is it okay for a man to compliment a man but not a woman?
Well, I think that's not equality.
So then, is it better that the man doesn't compliment the man either?
Can a guy pat a guy on the back?
Can a guy pat a woman on the back?
No.
Like, seriously, you can't.
It would be harassment to touch a female.
So we're trying to figure out where these lines are, and I believe that's absolutely fair, but we've got to make sure we avoid the absolutely hyperbolic nonsense extremes of the squeaky wheels demanding grease.
You know, if we really want to figure out how to make a better work environment for everybody and find true equality, We can actually sit down, listen to each other, and chill.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of loud, angry people who I believe are just using this for power.
And that's probably why we see stories like this.
But here's what I want to do.
They say, Me Too STEM is not the first grassroots activist organization to face growing pains.
Occupy Wall Street was riven by infighting among its founders.
Founders, huh?
The Women's March was accused of antisemitism.
Accused?
It was published in the New York Times!
Black Lives Matter has wrestled with debates over its future direction, and the March for Science, formed to protest the Trump administration's science policies, added women of color to its leadership in 2017 after complaints that it was neglecting the concerns of minority groups.
This is the all-too-common narrative.
The left eats itself.
Obama even said it.
A circular firing squad.
Is anyone listening right now to this to this segment surprised that once again we have a high-profile story about left-wing infighting and people resigning and fighting with each other?
In fact, There's one part of the story, which is crazy to me, where someone actually says, I don't want to dig through here and spend too much time reading through everything because the nitty-gritty of it is less important, but someone talks about how they have positive experiences with this woman, this woman who's being accused, right?
Of being combative, etc.
The leader.
They say that their experiences were only positive, but they don't really want to say anything because they don't want to diminish the complaints of those who have legitimate grievances.
Think about that.
If we want to figure out if this woman actually did anything wrong, well then we need people to come up and talk about what's happening.
But because some people complained, those who actually liked this woman are not going to defend her because it would delegitimize the complaints of other people.
That's the absurdity of this ideology.
No.
If someone gets accused and you believe they're of good moral character, you defend them and say, I don't think this is true.
I think you might be overreacting.
I'm going to defend this individual.
We're at a point now, though, Where people won't speak up against the grifters on the left because they're like, yeah, but it would diminish the legitimacy of those who are actually complaining.
And there you have it.
It falls to the oppression Olympics.
Whoever is the most aggrieved, the most perceived to be oppressed will be allowed to speak and no one else can because it would be diminishing a legitimate complaint.
That's absurd.
It doesn't matter what you are, who you are, where you come from, you have a right to your opinion, be it positive or negative.
I remember this Huffington Post live segment where an Asian woman told a white man The host, something like, you know, you're interrupting me and you shouldn't have an opinion on this issue because you're a white man, and he says, I can have an opinion on whatever I want!
And he called her an idiot or something, it was hilarious.
But it's true!
Yes!
Everybody has a different perspective.
People experience the world in different ways.
Did you know that there could be a tall Asian person who has more privilege than a white, short person?
You can't judge someone based on their looks because you can't quantify privilege beyond, like, really simple things.
And all that ends up happening is people keep complaining about everything until you end up with, like, A queer, transgender, you know, immigrant, Muslim, who's disabled, you know, it's like, it's just like, at what point, at what point do you stop and say, no, no, no, no, we understand you're, you know, you fit all these different intersectional issues.
We'll listen to you.
But we're gonna listen to these people, too, and we're going to express our opinions as well.
Like, when do we get to that?
You don't.
Because there's no reason among the extremes.
And this is what ends up happening.
So, no.
There's a reason why, after thousands of years, we ended up with the legal system we have today.
I think we've done a pretty damn good job.
You know, um...
I'm brain farting on what we call it, but English common law, I believe.
It's the root of a lot of how we handle justice.
Presumption of innocence, right?
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
That means I'm not going to hold back my evidence against an individual because someone's accusing them.
No.
If someone accuses you, and you have some circumstantial evidence to counter that, by all means bring it up.
But now we're entering a period where it's just believe the victims, and give the victims whatever they want.
So then, all someone has to do is claim to be a victim to get whatever they want, that makes literally no sense, and it'll bring about nothing but tyranny and, dare I say it, fascism.
Fascism.
An authoritarian system where the evil people, the sociopaths, don't care to lie and play the victim to get what they want.
This doesn't make any sense.
Is this bringing justice for anybody?
No.
Is this woman who is leading this group deserving of being ousted and attacked?
I don't know.
Some people are saying they don't want to speak up because some people are speaking up and it makes no sense.
But hey, there you go.
Once again, another story about the left eating its own.
Let's read the conclusion and carry on because I feel like this is something I'd rant too much about.
But, uh, and then, this is a big story, it was a correction on it.
They say the volunteers who have left me to STEM said that they are still committed to its wider goals of supporting victims.
I believe that STEM would greatly benefit from having an organization, or more than one, with the goals of fighting harassment and discrimination.
My hope is that we can learn from this experience to make a stronger and more inclusive community intent on battling harassment.
Well, I don't think you can, because what happens when you fight yourselves and no one defends you?
What happens when you get, you know, it's a circular firing squad.
These groups are such at odds with each other.
This is what's gonna happen, and that's how it's gonna be.
You will start a group, you'll say, hey, let's fight X, and then someone will be like, I accuse you of Y, and then your group's gone, because that's the rules you play by.
Ah, whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around, I got another segment coming, another story coming up on main channel, youtube.com slash timcast at 4 p.m.
If it wasn't the podcast, I do change the order of a lot of these segments, so bear with me, but that'll be starting soon.
For everyone else, I will see you at, I will see you then.
I have a somewhat graphic warning for this video.
They're going to be images of somebody who was brutally beaten.
I assume, since you clicked on this video, you understand what the story is going to be about, and there are images in this article.
From the Daily Mail.
When I came to, he was beating me about the head.
AmericanTourist51 relives the terrifying attack by a stranger that almost killed her at an all-inclusive Dominican Republic resort and reveals she blames herself.
I do videos every so often talking about how the world is dangerous.
It's unfair.
It's cruel.
And some people are crazy.
They are.
Typically, they're not.
You're usually fine.
And this is actually an outlier.
It's surprising.
But the reason I want to talk about this is, for one, I think the issue is really important that you understand you can ask for fairness all day and night.
It doesn't mean you're going to get it, especially in the Dominican Republic.
But the other issue is, there's another story from the Daily Mail simultaneously.
I have to change my lifestyle to remain safe.
Women reveal the weapons they carry to protect themselves while out running.
And I saw that and I thought it was interesting because there's something that pops up from time to time from feminists about teaching men not to do things.
The problem with that is it's normal in culture not to do these things.
It is a crime.
We have TV shows, movies, everything in our culture says don't do it.
The issue is people who just are insane think they can get away with it or just don't care.
In this instance, a woman was at a resort and someone seemingly randomly just started brutally, brutally beating her.
And it's actually a really sad story.
Before we get into everything, make sure you go to TimCast.com slash donate.
If you'd like to support my work, monthly donation option, cryptocurrency, physical address, of course, liking and commenting, just engaging with the video really, really does help.
And share the link and subscribe if you really want to support me.
So there's also a graphic images warning for the Daily Mail too.
The Delaware woman, who was severely beaten at a luxury resort in the Dominican Republic, says she blames herself for the horrifying accident.
Tammy Lawrence Daly relived her January attack during an interview with CBS this morning in her first TV appearance.
It's very difficult, very difficult reliving.
I could hear footfalls behind me, and before I could turn around, he plowed into the back of me.
She blames herself.
I don't necessarily disagree with her.
While I certainly would never, you know, on the surface, the people who are at fault for doing things like this are the crooks, the criminals, etc.
Too often you see people trying to conflate responsibility.
When it comes to firearms, say the company is responsible.
How's the company responsible for making a product?
If someone sells bleach and then someone pours bleach into the punch, are you going to blame the bleach company?
You got to blame the individual actor.
However, We do have certain expectations, and we do have some responsibility.
She says she blames herself.
I don't think that's entirely fair, but I don't entirely disagree with her either.
Because at the end of the day, my dad always said to me, no matter what happens, it is your fault.
That doesn't mean that, you know, you getting attacked, you could necessarily change that.
But the choices you make bring you to these places.
So it's not, you know, it's complicated.
It really is.
We can't sit here and pretend that we can just teach people not to do things, because some people will do them anyway.
Or to tell someone not to protect themselves, not to bring a weapon, because it's unfair is insane.
Do I think women should have to carry weapons to protect themselves?
Absolutely not.
But the reality is, sometimes bad things happen.
Women are not the majority of victims of violent crime, at least based on the last statistics I saw.
However, Men tend to be the perpetrators of violent crime, and men have a better chance of defending themselves one-on-one with another man.
It's not absolute.
Some men are too short, some men are taller and will have an easier time of it.
But women tend to be smaller and physically weaker than men.
Therefore, they may have to carry weapons to equalize that in the event of danger, in the instance of danger.
This woman thought she was safe.
And she had good reason to.
She was at a resort.
But the reality is, when you're a tourist in another country, when you're not in the luxury bubble that is, you know, the United States, these things can happen.
I gotta admit, if I was in a resort, I would probably be blindsided as well.
Because you don't expect these things to happen.
And even in the US, you may be attacked by some bad person.
It happens.
And that's why I think the responsibility ultimately does point to the individual.
We've created a system, police, law enforcement, laws, you know, a court system, to deal with those who cause harm to others.
But even if you have a weapon, there's no guaranteeing you're gonna make it out, depending on how crazy or dangerous the person is.
Even if we have police, there's no guarantee they will get there in time.
So it is probably wise that regardless of what you think about what is fair or isn't fair, what women should or shouldn't be doing, you protect yourself.
You have some kind of weapon.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a firearm.
It could be something simple.
Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions, everything is basically illegal.
So I guess then you can take some martial arts defense training or something like that.
But I can't necessarily speak to what this woman could have done differently.
You know, most of us live in comfort and we live sheltered lives.
The lives of even America's toughest people today are probably nowhere near as dangerous as life was a hundred, two hundred years ago.
Even, you know, people in the military with weapons and gear have tools that provide more protection than people would have had a long time ago.
You know, someone gets a drop on you, you don't have the same communications and protections,
the ability to call for help. So life has gotten easier for basically everybody.
Not absolutely, you can definitely still find yourself in the middle of the woods with nothing
but a pointy stick, don't get me wrong. So, you know, I think that's what I want to stress,
right? Because the idea that we should say that women shouldn't have,
should, they shouldn't have to protect themselves.
They shouldn't have to be worried.
It's like, when I go to an ATM, you know, I have to protect myself.
Because some people sometimes do bad things.
Let's read a little bit more about this story.
I'll try to keep the graphic images off, you know, for the most part.
The 51-year-old had been on vacation with her husband at the Majestic Elegance Resort in the Dominican Republic, when she says that she went out alone to get a snack at 1030.
She claims the man pushed her from behind as she tried to fight him off, only to lose consciousness as he beat her.
When I came to, it was to him beating me.
About the head, kicking me and beating me.
Laurence Daly was found hours after the attack in an underground crawlspace.
She spent days in a local hospital and underwent months of physical and emotional therapy.
They performed an assault kit that was administered, but too much time had passed for there to be definitive results.
She said, you just have a feeling of safety and a feeling of, you know, paradise, but this can happen.
It has happened and it will happen again.
It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman.
You go outside at night alone, this can happen to you.
Men tend to be the victims of violent crime more often than women.
Don't ask me why.
I'm not going to analyze all the stats.
But there's a slight deviation that it is more likely that males will be attacked.
So you will hear the narrative from women that's like, oh, it's unfair, etc.
Admittedly.
On average, you're likely to see a man having a better chance of fighting back, but it could, and more often does, happen to them as well.
So don't, you know, this shouldn't be an issue of gender.
It should be an issue of the world is a dangerous place, and sometimes these things happen, and we need to be responsible for our own defense to the best of our abilities.
Now, of course, at a resort, she's apparently, like, this guy who attacked her was actually an employee.
Sometimes people are crazy.
She said, And while she is thankful to be alive, Lawrence Daly does blame herself for the attack.
I just, if I didn't go down there by myself, it wouldn't have happened.
I wouldn't have put my family through that.
She would later state in an interview with People, I internalize this.
This is my fault.
I got myself into this situation.
I feel horrendous that I put my husband and my friends through this situation.
Their lives are changed forever, as well as mine.
The person responsible for the attack has not been found, and Lawrence Daly said that police investigation led nowhere.
The hotel has not taken responsibility for the attack.
I really hate the way they handled everything.
I'm at the point where I feel strong enough that I want to get this information out there because women need to understand they can't walk around by themselves.
I hate to say that, but it's the truth.
What I went through, I would never wish on anyone.
Yep.
But how many far-left, regressive types say things like, women should?
How many people put up flyers at the university saying things like, don't defend yourself, don't carry weapons, just teach men not to do these things?
Do you think men don't realize it's against the law to do this?
Do you think this guy thought what he was doing was OK?
If he thought it was OK, he wouldn't have knocked her out and dragged her into a dark space.
He would have done it in front of everybody.
He wouldn't have done it at 10.30 at night.
He would have done it in the dark.
They would do it in front of you thinking, why?
It's not wrong.
He knew it was wrong.
Of course they know it's wrong.
That's why they hide it.
You can teach them all day and night.
They know already.
They don't care about you.
They don't care about what you want, or what you think is offensive, or what you think is fair.
They will sneak up behind you, and they will attack you.
These things are rare.
It doesn't happen all the time.
For the most part, you can go out and mind your own business.
In fact, I've only been mugged, I think, like, once in my life.
And, unfortunately for the dude, I was completely broke, and then some cops sprang up, grabbed him, and it was kind of surprising.
I've rarely dealt with, you know, things like this.
I think it's true for most people.
I've been in fights before, you know.
But for the most part, things like this where you're blindsided by someone in some kind of random attack, it is rare.
But it also means, you know, so what happens is we enter this false sense of security where we think it won't happen to us.
It can happen to us.
It can.
Someone could kick in your door tomorrow.
It's not likely, but it could happen.
And if you're not responsible, you don't take care of yourself, you could end up being the victim.
I'm sick and tired of people acting like responsibilities on someone else.
People are nuts and they don't care about responsibility.
You are you.
You are you.
And you have, you know, the interest in your safety, you have more interest in your safety than literally anyone else.
And bad people will do bad things.
So if you're not, you know, to these people who act like Women shouldn't be taking self-defense classes.
Or men shouldn't either.
Or that no one should carry on some kind of protection.
Well, don't do it for yourself then.
Do it for your friends and family.
Because the way she's described it, she feels bad about what her family went through.
So think about how your family would feel if something bad happens to you.
By all means, teach everyone you know not to do these things.
But then take care of yourself and do it for your friends and your family.
I'm not going to go through too much of this because the idea is what it is and I kind of like beating a dead horse on the issue.
But, you know, they have these stories where it's like, women are saying these things as if it's like, it's a, it's, it's... I don't know how to describe it.
It's unfair.
Sure, you shouldn't have to, but that's the world.
It's always been the world.
If not some crazy dude, a bear!
Think about it this way.
They say things like, Teach men not to attack women, right?
Okay, teach dogs not to.
Think about that.
If you don't have something to protect yourself, what if you're at the ATM and a dog bites you?
Are you gonna teach the dog it was wrong to do it?
Dog don't care.
That's the point.
They act like people are somehow You know, not going to commit these crimes even if, you know, just by telling them.
Well, sure.
And think about it this way.
If you don't protect yourself, wild animals could come for you.
It's always been this way.
It's not a new thing.
And I'm honestly flabbergasted by this rise in this political ideology acting like people shouldn't be taking care of themselves.
But I'll leave it there.
You know, life isn't fair.
It is what it is.
But stick around.
I've got some more segments coming up shortly.
And I will see you then.
I think Elizabeth Warren is just awful.
I really don't like her.
And, you know, it's not so much about the Native American thing because, like, I think it's kind of a silly thing to bring up, but she got roasted hard and called Rachel Dolezal.
If you don't know who Rachel Dolezal is, she was apparently a white woman pretending to be black.
How that happens, I have no idea.
And she, like, worked for, like, an NAACP chapter.
And now she's actually, I guess Rachel Dolezal is claiming to be, like, transracial or something.
But the thing I don't like about Elizabeth Warren is that she's a very plastic person.
Like, I don't believe anything she says.
She's out of touch.
She's a wealthy person who doesn't understand the working class.
And I just... I think she's the wrong choice.
You know, apparently Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed her over Bernie Sanders.
I think Elizabeth Warren is bad.
I don't like her.
I don't think she's sincere, but let's read about why she got roasted and what they said about her when one of these radio hosts said, you're the original Rachel Dolezal.
Damn, that's a slam.
But before we get started, check out timcast.com slash donate to support my work.
There are multiple options to donate, but as always, you can just click the like button, comment below, share the video and subscribe because engagement is the most important thing to help the channel grow.
The story reads, on Friday morning, Elizabeth Warren took some serious hits while appearing on New York City-based radio show The Breakfast Club.
Co-host Charlemagne the God told the presidential hopeful she was the original Rachel Dolezal.
This is from the Daily Wire, by the way.
I don't want to, you know, forget to say that.
I grew up in Oklahoma.
I learned about my family the same way most people learned about their family.
From my mama and my daddy and my aunts and my uncles, and it's what I believe.
But I'm not a person of color, I'm not a citizen of a tribe, and I shouldn't have done it.
Warren said, when pressed by the co-host, about her dubious Native American claims of ancestry.
But Warren wasn't out of the woods yet.
When the Democrat then tried to steer the conversation elsewhere, she was asked when she stopped believing she was of significant Native heritage, and if she had ever benefited from such claims.
How long did you hold onto that?
Because there were some reports that you were Native American on your Texas bar license, and that you said you were Native American on some documents.
When you were a professor at Harvard, noted Charlemagne, why'd you do that?
It's what I believed.
Like I said, it's what I learned from my family, Warren responded.
When did you find out you weren't?
Man, they would NOT let this go.
Well, I'm not a person of color, I'm not a citizen of a tribe, and tribal citizenship is an important distinction and not something I am.
Warren skirted the question before denying that she ever got ahead because of her claims of minority status, and I'm gonna stop there and completely disagree.
Look, how we quantify or determine whether or not she actually benefited from this, it's probably impossible.
But according to Harvard, she was listed as such.
On her Texas Bar License, she was listed as such.
And so, yes, I believe she absolutely benefited, at least among progressive circles.
There was some benefit conferred to her, and now she is paying the piper.
I think that's the right way to use it.
You reap what you sow.
But for all the benefits she may or may not have received, for whatever reason she was doing it, I don't believe she was doing it for no reason.
She was trying to claim some kind of credibility, and now it's coming back.
It's coming back to bite her.
You're kind of like the original Dolezal a little bit, Charlemagne told the Democrat.
Rachel Dolezal was a white woman pretending to be black.
Man, that's bad.
That is bad.
Dolezal was infamously outed as a white woman by her parents after claiming to be black at the time she was the head of an NAACP chapter.
This is actually called transracialism.
I kid you not.
It's a thing.
People believe there are different races.
It is crazy.
But I do believe it's fair to point out there is some nuance in the issue.
And my perspective on this comes from my personal history.
Because for those who don't know, I'm part Korean.
So the thing is, when I get flack from the left and the right, and I shouldn't say the left and the right, but the racists of the fringe groups, it makes me realize that it's hard to really be something without someone coming after you.
Because I have people on the left...
If I agree with them, I'm mixed.
If I disagree, then I'm white.
And it makes me realize, like, what does it even mean, for the most part?
Because there are some people who are Middle Eastern who just look like any old European person, right?
It's hard to know the absolute difference.
And I've traveled the world and have been mistaken for a bunch of different ethnicities.
So at that point, I'm like, man, what we see in people is completely irrelevant.
And that fuels my perspective on the issue.
Content of someone's character is way more important.
So, but let's read on.
She says, well, this is what I learned from my family.
Again.
She keeps saying that.
The 2020 presidential contender had long claimed that she was Native, oddly citing her family's high cheekbones and suspect family recipes gathered in a cookbook titled Pow Wow Chow.
So basically what we've actually learned is that not only is Elizabeth Warren the original Rachel Dolezal, not Native American, she's actually culturally appropriating Native culture.
In October, however, the senator's released DNA test showed that she's as little as one 1,024th Native American.
Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation even vaguely is inappropriate and wrong, Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr.
slammed Warren in the wake of the DNA test.
It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.
And the reason this is important...
Is that being Native American is not about what you look like or your DNA.
It's about being a part of the tribe because there are people who are European who joined, you know, became part of tribes or intermarried and there are people who have very little DNA, you know, of the indigenous but are still historically and familiar and part of families that are in those tribes and have tribal citizenship.
And I believe there was even an instance like 10 or 20 years ago Where Americans were granted, I don't know if they're still allowed to, it's been a long time since I read this, but you could actually get tribal citizenship by renouncing American citizenship.
That was something I read about, I don't know if it's true, but it was like some libertarian-esque rumor that was going around, maybe not.
The point is, becoming a Native American has less to do with your DNA.
At least according to these statements, and I think it's fair.
They say, the Democrat has also been branded by President Donald Trump as Pocahontas over the exaggerated claims.
Now that her claims of being of Indian heritage have turned out to be a scam and a lie, Elizabeth Warren should apologize for perpetrating this fraud against the American public, Trump posed in an October tweet.
Harvard called her a person of color, amazing con, and would not have taken her otherwise.
So we have this tweet, and I'll just play this really quick.
I'm not going to boost the audio or anything.
You can just see the kind of reaction.
Look at his face.
He's not having it.
And I also want to add, like, I have a lot of respect for people who typically align more on the left, calling out people on the left who do this.
And I'm going to do what I think is kind of an unfair honorable mention in the story that I want to point something out.
This is an old story.
It's about Sean King.
And I want to talk a little bit about the nuance Of, uh, of, you know, race and issues like this.
In this story for the Daily Mail, they say, he's no Rachel Dolezal.
Sean King's wife defends her husband over claims he lied about his race and family,
as family member confirms both his parents are white.
Sean King is a really interesting character in this whole debate.
His parents are white.
His brother's white.
However, he claims in his family history that his mother cheated on her father.
I don't know if that's true or fair, and the only thing that really makes Sean King look like he might be partially not white Is that he cuts his hair in a very specific way.
If he didn't cut his hair that way, he would look like any regular old white dude.
Notably his mustache, how you can see he shaves the top and the sides and keeps this little thin line and he keeps his hair, you know, shaved really, really low.
But here's the thing.
I'm gonna leave it to Sean King, and I'm gonna say, you know, I don't care about this stuff.
I don't care if Rachel, uh, I'm sorry, yeah, if Rachel Dolezal says whatever, I don't care if Elizabeth Warren says whatever.
I think cultural appropriation is silly.
And, you know, when it comes to the issue of Sean King, if he says that's what his family is, then whatever, man, I don't care.
If people are cool with it, they're cool with it.
Personally, I think it's all silly.
And for me, it's an interesting debate in the idea of transracialism in that, you know, like, when I grew up, I never really identified as white or anything like that.
It didn't make sense.
It didn't exist.
I grew up with a bunch of different friends of different races and ethnic backgrounds.
So there was no group that we were like, we're white.
I had a friend who was Filipino.
I had a friend who was Mexican.
I had a friend who was an immigrant from Eastern Europe.
I had, you know, friends from, you know, of every background.
And so the only real identity we had were, like, weird dudes, like skateboarders in Chicago who skate.
And there was no, like, I don't know, there was no real identity.
And I feel like over the past several years, identity is being forced on people.
They, you know, people on the alt-right, they call it the racial awakening.
I think it's silly and dumb, because we actually did well to get over it for a long time, and now it's being reawakened by the left, not the right.
So, for me, I was thinking about, like, what makes you a race, right?
If you're 1% Native American, can you identify that way?
Who gets to determine whether you can or you can't?
It's really strange, right?
Like, is there a percentage?
What's the line?
And that's why I think, you know what, man?
The whole thing is dumb.
It's dumb.
But in the instance of Elizabeth Warren, the reason this is pertinent is that the left are the ones who are very strict and stringent, and it's very strange to see Sean King receive very little scrutiny from the left, And then Rachel Dolezal received a ton of scrutiny for the left.
I guess the only difference is, when Rachel Dolezal was called out for having white parents, she just kind of, like, didn't answer the question.
She could have easily said, my parents cheat on each other, like Sean King did.
Maybe Sean King's telling the truth, I don't know.
So again, I think it's, you know, it's kind of dumb, whatever, but it is funny to see, it is interesting to see that, you know, Warren's being called out by people on the left, so, you know, it is what it is.
Thanks for hanging out, stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
I couldn't believe it when I saw the tweets, but apparently Ted Cruz tweeted something about agreeing with Cortez, banning lawmakers from becoming lobbyists.
Ocasio-Cortez said, if you're serious, let's team up.
And Ted Cruz said yes, and I was like, this is one of the coolest things I have ever, ever seen.
Yes, lawmakers should not be allowed to become lobbyists.
I do not think so.
I think if you want to serve the public, you serve the public.
And too many politicians have been able to become somehow millionaires.
Let's talk about Nancy Pelosi.
I love bringing her up because she's worth, like, a couple hundred million.
It's a ridiculous number.
I don't know specifically.
But how, as a member of Congress with a salary of, you know, $174,000, do some of these people become millionaires?
It makes you wonder.
And I don't like the idea that people use their position of power in government to enrich themselves.
So perhaps this is a good start.
But surprisingly, it's an amazing bipartisan effort and respect, handshake, whatever you want to call it, to Cortez and Cruz.
This is awesome.
I think this is fantastic.
In fact, it's not just about this story.
You know, when Trump brought together Democrats and Republicans to reform, you know, for criminal justice reform, that was fantastic.
I think the more bipartisan stuff we can get done, the better.
And especially seeing someone like Cortez, who's more in line with the far left of the Democrats, good on you guys.
So let's read this.
Before we get started, go to timcast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There are multiple options for donating.
But the easiest thing you can do is just like the video, comment below, share and subscribe because engagement on YouTube makes YouTube go crazy and everyone, you know, then they say your channel's great and they love me and then it helps channel grow.
The story says politics can make for strange bedfellows.
Oh, you betcha.
And that happened Thursday when one of the most unlikely pair of lawmakers found an issue they can agree on.
Closing Washington's famous revolving door.
Spot on.
Conservative Senator Ted Cruz and Liberal Rep Ocasio-Cortez agreed to team up on legislation that would ban lawmakers from lobbying after they leave Capitol Hill.
Yes.
Yes.
I- I- I- This is exciting.
I think it's a good, good move.
If you think I'm wrong, comment.
But I- I don't.
I think I'm right.
The duo, who sit at opposite ends of the political spectrum, found common ground on Twitter when Ocasio-Cortez complained that exiting lawmakers should not be allowed to become registered lobbyists.
Yes, because what happens is, the revolving door is companies becoming lawmakers, lawmakers, you know, going to work for these companies, they become friends, they make deals, and then here's what happens.
Someone comes to you as a congressman, as a senator, and they say, I'll tell you what, You pass this law, it's going to help us out.
We got a six-figure job for you once you leave in two years.
Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.
Nah, nah, nah, nah.
Shut it down.
Shut it down.
You know what, man?
I understand it's complicated because you want to say people should be free to do what they want, but I don't know.
We got to deal with corruption in government.
I think everyone agrees on that.
I guess unless you're some big industrialist or a politician, by the way.
So this is what Ocasio-Cortez said.
If you're a member of Congress, plus leave, you shouldn't be allowed to turn right around and leverage your service for a lobbyist check.
I don't think it should be legal at all to become a corporate lobbyist if you served at Congress.
At minimum, there should be a long wait period.
That too.
But again, think about it.
Just stress.
Seriously.
You know, some big company, Facebook, says, don't regulate us, don't stop us from banning who we want, and we'll give you a high-ranking position once you leave.
No, no, no, no.
None of that.
Ted Cruz said, here's something I don't say often.
On this point, I agree with AOC, indeed.
I have long called for a lifetime ban on former members of Congress becoming lobbyists.
The swamp would hate it, but perhaps a chance for some bipartisan cooperation.
Ocasio-Cortez responded.
She said, Ted Cruz, if you're serious about a clean bill, then I'm down.
Let's make a deal.
If we can agree on a bill with no partisan snuck-in clauses, no poison pills, etc., just a straight, clean ban on members of Congress becoming paid lobbyists, then I'll co-lead the bill with you, Ted Cruz said.
You're on!
I've never been this happy.
Actually, I've been way happier before.
But come on, man.
Isn't this...
This is great news for so many reasons.
Bipartisan support between Cortez and Cruz?
That warms my heart.
Gives me hope for the future.
I get worried and scared when I see all of this insane nonsense, this partisan escalation, the censorship.
I'm like, man, things are getting worse.
This is good news.
And again, not just this.
Any bipartisanship is going to be good, but I'm like, Man, let's end the revolving door, seriously.
I think that's a very populist position.
Stop the elitists from creating these cliques and these circles where they can do whatever they want and they're accountable to no one.
It's an oddball pairing to say the least.
Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest member of Congress and the new face of the left, who chats on Instagram videos while cooking dinner.
Cruz is a second-term senator, beloved by the right, who is more comfortable in smoke-filled backrooms than on social media.
The bipartisan bonding was sparked when Ocasio-Cortez cited a report from the watchdog group Public Citizen, which found that 59% of lawmakers who left office in January, 26 out of 44, took jobs at a lobbying firm.
That makes me sick.
I just find that disgusting.
You know, I don't know what the solutions are.
Maybe it's wrong for some reasons.
There's often things you don't see when you think about these solutions.
It seems like it makes a lot of sense.
Like, hey, maybe we stop these people from doing this, but maybe there are unintended consequences.
So it's hard to know how to solve this problem.
What I can say is I'm absolutely disgusted.
At the idea that people go work in politics, you get elected, you become a rep, you go to Congress, you go to the Senate, and then you're good because you can do some favors for somebody and then get a cushy deal later on.
Well, let's end that.
If this is not the right way, then you comment below.
Let me know what you think is the right way to actually solve these problems.
It's common for former lawmakers to cash in on their years of Capitol Hill experience to work for lobbying groups, think tanks, or law firms.
Think tanks, fine.
Law firms, fine.
Maybe.
It's the direct lobbying, I think, you know?
And former lawmakers have an advantage over other lobbyists in that they have floor privileges, meaning they can go onto the House or Senate floor to talk to their former colleagues.
However, there are some restrictions already in place on the former members.
There is a one-year cooling-off period for the House and two-year for the Senate, where the former lawmakers cannot lobby in current members of Congress.
So that's good, still.
Their connections and expertise get lawmakers' salaries on K Street well above their $174,000-a-year congressional salary.
How Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez will proceed in their quest is unclear.
They could sign on to existing legislation or write their own,
and no details have been released in terms of whether they'll propose a lifetime ban on lobbying
or stronger restrictions. It's unknown if they've talked beyond the tweets.
Neither office responded to Daily Mail's request for comment.
So it looks like a Republican Rep Chip Roy and Democratic Senator Brian Schatz joined in on
Aww, this is so heartwarming, seriously.
Happy to lead or otherwise co-sponsor in the House AOC and Ted Cruz.
This is Twitter legislating, right?
Twitter diplomacy and Twitter legislation.
Brian Schatz said in.
Ocasio-Cortez says, OK, with Brian Schatz, Ted Cruz, we've got at least one D-R team in the Senate, two band members becoming lobbyists, and myself and Chip Roy, Texas, makes at least one Democrat-Republican team in the House, and that's just in a few hours.
There will surely be more from both parties to sign on.
My heart is so warmed.
I have such hope.
This is such good news.
Doesn't it make you smile?
But the togetherness is a marked change of pace from an earlier Twitter rift between the two.
In early April, Ocasio-Cortez bemoaned the croissants at LaGuardia are going for $7 a piece, and yet some people think getting a whole hour of personal, dedicated human labor for $15 is too expensive.
Now I point out at the time, regular people don't eat at the airport, and the airport has a ton of infrastructure costs that increase the price of, you know, working in the airport.
They have security costs, high taxes, rent, etc., and that croissants actually go for like 30 cents at Walmart or something.
Cruz snapped back.
Oh, the humanity.
Here's the answer.
Government mandated free croissants for all and will just force the bakers to give all of their time for free.
They say, Cortez's response didn't mention Cruz, but appeared to address his tweet.
It's not an argument against the price of a croissant.
It's about the value of human worth, but I guess that idea is foreign to them, since
their policies treat people as disposable anyway.
The Texas senator has also blasted Ocasio-Cortez's signature legislation, the Green New Deal,
saying it would destroy the American energy industry as we know it, and I agree that it
would.
But their willingness to work together Thursday inspired lawmakers from both sides of the
aisle to join them.
Republican Rep Chip Roy tweeted he was happy to lead.
We saw that tweet.
And then they go on to bring up the tweet from Cortez where she says, we've got two teams in the House and in the Senate.
And that's what we need more of.
You know, there was a video from Vox talking about how Republicans are no longer working with Democrats on bipartisan legislation, claiming the Republicans are becoming more and more extreme, but they like pulled a narrow view.
When you actually look at the Democrats and the Republicans, we can see that the median Democrat has stayed the same, but there was a massive shift to the far left, and Republicans have moved slightly to the right.
So, yes, it will be very difficult.
And one of the reasons this is so surprising to me is, as I mentioned earlier, Cortez is the far left.
She's not even, like, a moderate centrist Democrat.
But you know what the thing is?
She's not a corporate Democrat.
These, like, middle-of-the-road, I guess you can call it, like, they call them centrist Dems.
I think it's unfair because centrists are good people.
It's the corporate elitists.
They don't like this because they want their cushy job when they get out.
How many politicians do you think right now are sweating bullets like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I bet they would vote this down.
I bet they'll shoot it down because they're probably thinking like, dude, when I'm done here, I never have to run for office again.
And I'm gonna get paid 50, you know, you know, a million bucks to go work for some law firm.
How many career tracks are going to be derailed by this?
And oh, I love it.
The one thing I hate most in the world, the elitism.
Snooty, snooty elitism.
Sorry, we're going to shut down your revolving door and your elitist policies that grant access to a wealthy, privileged few.
None of that.
But again, I'll end by saying, I wonder how sitting politicians become millionaires.
Isn't that weird?
Whatever.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all tomorrow on this channel, youtube.com slash timcast, starting at 10 a.m.
