Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 14, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:22:31

Woke University Oberlin Hit With MAXIMUM Penalty $33M Awarded To Gibson Family

Woke University Oberlin Hit With MAXIMUM Penalty $33M Awarded To Gibson Family Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:22:13

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Get woke.
		Go broke.
		Wow.
		Oberlin just received a jury verdict of $44 million in damages, punitive and compensatory, to the owners of Gibson Bakery.
		However, state law caps the maximum punitive damages at two times, so it may get reduced to 33.
		We don't know for sure, but this is a major victory.
		And I just want to say, I'm really happy.
		I'm really happy to hear this.
		For those that aren't familiar, Gibson's Bakery by all accounts did nothing wrong.
		We're accused of all of the worst things in the book that the social justice activists can throw at you.
		Protesting outside for an extended period of time.
		According to the jury, in this case, the college was facilitating and actually spreading false information, defamation against this bakery.
		And I want to say a few things before we just jump into the story.
		For those that are not familiar, this bakery has been around since 1885, surviving two world wars, a Great Depression, recessions.
		It is an institution, it is a monument to our long-standing survival of The greatness of the United States.
		It's a small bakery.
		It is a family business.
		And that's it.
		Listen, I don't know who these people are as individuals.
		I don't know what they believe.
		All I know is, by all accounts, they were smeared, attacked, defamed, and they won.
		Justice.
		Their bakery will- They're gonna get 33 million dollars.
		Maybe 44.
		So here's what we'll do.
		Let's read through the story.
		I don't want to drag this on any longer.
		Before we get started, go to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
		There's a PayPal option, a crypto, a physical address.
		But of course, just like and comment on the video, and subscribe and share because that engagement on YouTube is what really drives what makes YouTube work.
		From legal insurrection, who by the way has done an amazing job covering this, Oberlin College hit with maximum punitive damages, capped at $22 million by law in Gibson's bakery case.
		However, the initial compensatory damages was $11 million, the jury awarded $33 million, and it actually might be $44 million, but we'll see, we'll see.
		Let's read.
		The jury just rendered its verdict on punitive damages in the Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College case.
		Daniel McGraw, our reporter in the courtroom, reports that in addition to the $11.2 million compensatory damages awarded last Friday, the jury awarded a total of $33 million in punitive damages.
		Which will probably be reduced by the court to $22,000,000 because of the state law cap at twice compensatory.
		It's not an absolute cap, but probably will apply here.
		That brings the total damages to $33,000,000.
		We will have the breakdown soon.
		The jury also awarded attorney's fees to be determined by the judge.
		This is beyond a victory.
		This is... In every right, they have won at every... Maximum damage is... Man, man, you know...
		I'm really happy for them.
		This is an old family that's been running this bakery forever, and they were relentlessly attacked by the social justice outrage mob, and even the university handing out flyers.
		It's a mind-blowing story, it really is.
		It's been going on for a few years, and these people in court have won?
		They've won everything.
		Attorneys' fees, maximum punitive damages.
		The breakdown was David Gibson, $17.5 million in punitive damages, Alan W. Gibson, $8.75 million, and the Gibson Brothers Bakery, $6.973.
		Now the important thing here, again, because some of you may have missed the context in the ongoing story, My understanding is that there were several students, African American students, who were caught shoplifting, pled guilty, they pled guilty, and they apologized to the bakery, and my understanding is they said it wasn't racially motivated, but the university didn't care, the activists didn't care, they went after the bakery anyway, accusing them of all the worst things in the book, and apparently, one of the people, one of the administrators for the college was actually handing out defamatory flyers.
		After they lost the case in compensatory damages, they sent out a mass letter to alumni saying, oh, they didn't review the evidence, we were just facilitating free speech, and the jury disagreed.
		The jury said, no, you facilitated that speech.
		You were spreading the defamatory speech.
		So here's the statement from William A. Jacobson of Legal insurrection.
		Oberlin College tried to sacrifice a beloved fifth-generation bakery, its owners, and its employees at the altar of political correctness in order to appease the campus social justice warfare mob.
		The jury sent a clear message that the truth matters, and so do the reputations and lives of people targeted by false accusations, particularly when those false accusations are spread by powerful institutions.
		Throughout the trial, the Oberlin College defense was tone deaf and demeaning towards the bakery and its owners, calling the bakery nearly worthless.
		The jury sent a message that all lives matter, including the lives of ordinary working people who did nothing wrong other than stop people from stealing.
		The university claimed the bakery was worth only $35,000.
		And I was so, so offended by this.
		I take history very, very seriously.
		All history.
		And this bakery's been around since 1885.
		When I see these stories, and I know I mentioned this in other videos, but I really want to stress this because it does mean a lot to me.
	You hear these stories about pubs in Ireland existing since, you know, the Dark Ages, 900 AD.
	And you can go in there and they say, oh, the actual mud is still in the walls.
	That is incredible.
	And it gives me this feeling, you know, that humans have done good.
	We have survived.
	We have conquered.
	We have made the world better.
	And in America, we have actually brought about civil rights and expanded these rights, and we've done better and better.
	Every single generation better than the last.
	We faced turmoil, recessions, depressions, wars.
	And when you see a bakery that has been around since 1885, that says to me, we can make it.
	We can solve these problems we face.
	Whatever the problem is that you're concerned about, be it the culture war, climate change, you know, international conflict, we've survived.
	And that's what I see when I look at a long-standing institution like this.
	Success.
	And the United States is not that old.
	You know, when you hear about that pub in the UK, in Ireland, it's been around since 900 AD, you can see that they've been around forever.
	But here in the US, The United States is not that old.
	And I will stress, too, as someone very familiar with, you know, indigenous culture and all that stuff, I have tremendous respect for their cultures, and I'm absolutely to the left on a lot of issues pertaining to indigenous rights.
	Of course I would be.
	And I look at their history and all history of human civilization with profound awe and respect.
	Be it the, you know, Incan and Aztec civilizations and all that stuff.
	And we can get into the history of colonization, too, of course, I understand.
	The point I'm trying to make is As individuals, as a family, they've shown that they stood the test of time.
	And they even overcame this latest bit of nonsense.
	They withstood two world wars, a Great Depression, a recession, and then when the culture war came for them, they won.
	More importantly, this sends a message to all universities.
	If you facilitate fake news and disinformation to smear a working class family, you will lose.
	Absolutely a David and Goliath situation.
	A small bakery being attacked by a massive institution and the social justice outrage mob.
	I gotta say, man.
	David Gibson reacted.
	He said, I appreciate from the jury that they took care of this Goliath.
	That took a lot of guts on their part.
	They made it so that we have a chance and an opportunity to keep the lights on.
	Gives us an opportunity to keep the lights on for another generation.
	And it says here, overcome with emotion.
	In the video, he starts crying as he says this.
	I can only imagine to go through all of this, to have mobs outside your bakery accusing
	you of being the worst things in the book, defaming you, targeting you.
	You hear people talking about the escalation of violence.
	Throw milkshakes at these people, you know, bash them, all that stuff.
	And these people did nothing wrong.
	And they won.
	I hope they take that 33 million dollars, maybe 44, but sounds like it's gonna be 33.
	I hope they take that, they get themselves a nice little property somewhere where they can relax and clear their minds of this.
	And I hope they can put that money in a safe place that allows them to keep that business operating for another several hundred years.
	What's amazing out of all of this is that through all of the challenges faced by this small family bakery, they have survived.
	And now, because of the relentless assault by the outrage mob to defame them, they very well may survive for a lot longer.
	That money they receive, that can go into a trust, it can be invested, and that will allow this bakery to be an institution that stands the test of time from here on out.
	And so you know what?
	Good.
	In the end, justice prevailed.
	Let's read a little bit more.
	The Gibson family was visibly shocked by the amount, as most in the courtroom were thinking that the jury's final punitive damages verdict in the case might top out at maybe $10 million.
	The fact that it was triple that amount means in many ways that perhaps the jury understood that the whole country was watching.
	Ah, this warms my heart.
	We never wanted any of this to go to court and have to spend all this time in litigation, David Gibson said, exclusively to legal insurrection.
	David Gibson is the lead plaintiff in the case and is the principal owner of the business.
	People have no idea on how much stress this has had on our family and business for almost three years.
	But from the beginning, we just didn't understand why they were punishing us for something we had nothing to do with.
	The whole country is watching.
	And they didn't realize.
	I'm sure the college did not realize.
	You're going to pay up.
	You're going to pay up.
	They say, we appreciate that the jury understood what we had gone through.
	And I think that they were saying to the entire country that we can't allow this to happen to hardworking, small business people whose lives are defined by their business, their family, and their community.
	What the college was doing was trying to take away all those things from us.
	And we fought hard against that.
	The final tally on punitive damages that Oberlin College... Well, we did read through that stuff.
	I'm not going to read it again.
	I want to make a point.
	This business, when it was started, racism was abundant in our society.
	My family dealt with the ramifications of the identitarian culture that was pervasive in the US.
	Anti-miscegenation laws made it illegal to cohabitate if you were of different races.
	Guess what?
	We won.
	Liberty, freedom, and love won.
	And that's why when I grew up, when we talked about LGBTQ rights, we talked about the rights of individuals who love each other to be recognized under the law, I am absolutely on the side of social justice.
	My family came from this.
	I understood this growing up as a child, what it meant to be part of an interracial family, two generations of interracial families, and all of the struggle that came along with it, and the people who hated us and attacked us.
	But you know what?
	We won.
	But you know what else won?
	The institutions that existed since 1885.
	I want to make this point.
	They were around at the same time.
	They've survived today.
	You know what that means?
	It means we can all move forward and keep the best parts of our culture while getting rid of the worst.
	And this is something I stress so often.
	I talk about a couple months ago, there were some Mormons, maybe they weren't Mormons, but some religious folk came through my neighborhood knocking on doors and they were preaching, essentially.
	And there were two very young women, maybe late teens, who knocked on my door and I looked out the window and I saw, you know, carrying Bibles and knocking on doors and I kind of chuckled to myself.
	You know, here we go.
	But I'm not the kind of person who would shoo people away or be rude.
	I opened the door and we talked for a little bit.
	And they asked me if I thought that the Bible contained teachings that were important.
	And I said, absolutely, the answer is yes.
unidentified		100%.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And I love this story.
		I hope this is interesting to you guys.
		But Blackstone's formulation.
		The idea that it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent suffer is rooted in the story of, I believe, Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah.
		I could be wrong.
		It's been a long time since Bible study.
		I went to Catholic school for a few years as a child.
		I am not a Christian.
		By no means.
		I wouldn't necessarily call myself agnostic.
		But what I learned throughout my life is that there are teachings in the Bible that are extremely important.
		There are also teachings in the Bible that are archaic, outdated, and need to be done away with.
		And we've done that.
		Christianity has gone through reform, as have many other religions.
		And now, we've kept the best tenets of that book.
		And I think it's important to recognize what the book represents.
		To me, it's not the Word of the Lord or anything like that.
		It's a piece of human history that's stood the test of time.
		You can actually look in it and read about why there are certain things today that have withstood all of this turmoil and all of these changes and why they exist today and why we defeated authoritarianism, communism.
		You know, World War II, we won.
		We won because we believe in freedom and liberty.
		We've kept freedom, liberty, individual rights to protect the pursuit of happiness, and we've always won. And we won
		again today.
		The really bad things that came about throughout history, the really awful identity politics,
		we absolutely did. Like I said, miscegenation was illegal.
		They lost. Those things that restrict lose, and those that bring about liberty win.
		So this is what really is disconcerting to me when we talk about stories like this with
		the Gibson's Bakery.
		The authoritarians tried to shut them down, tried to destroy a bakery who stood the test of time, and won.
		All of the good things of our culture survived since 1885 in this business.
		They are legally obligated now to serve protected classes, and they do it with a smile on their face.
		That means we won.
		But the outrage mob is not about liberty, freedom, and respect for their common peoples.
		It's about subjugation, lies, and defamation.
		And it failed today.
		So when I see stories like this, I hope.
		This is what continues to happen.
		I hope that liberty prevails, that freedom prevails, that people will be allowed to practice their religion as they see fit, but that defamation, slander, and authoritarianism fails and fails.
		And that's true, and that's why you see me criticizing in the direction that I often do.
		When it was conservatives growing up, when it was the religious folk who were saying, you know, no swearing, you know, moral majority, all of this stuff, I was all about free speech then.
		When it came down to should we recognize the rights of same-sex couples nationally, 100% we should.
		Because the individual has a right to the pursuit of happiness so long as they don't infringe the rights of others.
		Now, I understand there's a lot of complication in that, but I believe that if two people love each other, you know, there's certain restrictions.
		Obviously, age of consent is the most important.
		But then, I'm on the side of liberty and freedom and recognizing individual choices that don't have negative consequences, like, that don't infringe on the rights of others.
		The ideas are extremely complicated, but in the end, the Gibson family have stood the test of time.
		And I don't want to rant on this too long, but I want to stress that it really does mean a lot to me when I see businesses that have been around since so long.
		You know, I love hearing stories about how in Europe they have laws from, like, 1200 A.D.
		showing that generation after generation, we have gotten rid of the bad and kept the good, and that's what we need to do.
		I want our future to be like Star Trek.
		A lot of people on the left say Star Trek is communist.
		It's not.
		Star Trek is a post-scarcity society, and we can get there by recognizing the rights of others.
		There's a great clip in the original Star Trek where they have, like, for some reason Abraham Lincoln is there, I think.
		It's been a while since I watched it.
		But he makes an off-color comment about Uhura, who is black.
		And he apologizes, but then Uhura and Kirk then say, we're not offended by that.
		Words are meaningless.
		And I laugh.
		I'm like, if only they knew the direction people would take it today.
		They don't feel that way.
		But I think if we win, if liberty wins, we can recognize that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
		Of course, words can hurt your feelings, but in the end, we should have free speech, we should have liberty, and we should be adults about things.
		So I'll just wrap up with this last statement from their lawyer.
	I believe Lee Plakas is the name.
	Plakas told Legal Insurrection why he joined up to represent the Gibson family in a case that early on seemed to be difficult to win.
	I was stunned early on when I saw the early letters and emails from the College on this matter that favored their biased ideology over what should have been some semblance of intellectual balance.
	What Oberlin College did to the Gibsons was irrational, and that part of it really angered me.
	As just a private person who saw what was happening to the Gibsons, you would expect a highly regarded university with a long history of being a great school in this country would have disregarded what we would think of as a basic thought process.
	We worked hard on this.
	And I'm proud of our legal team so much.
	But the Gibson family were the ones that worked the hardest.
	They knew from the beginning that the only way to get justice, to get their name restored, was to work hard and sacrifice.
	They had to lay off workers and go without salary.
	And most would have just quit and folded up the business, but they didn't.
	They did what a lot of people wouldn't do.
	And the country should realize that what they did will benefit many of us in many ways for many years.
	I completely, completely agree.
	So many people would have backed down and said, I just don't want the fight.
	And they would give in.
	But because they stood up for their rights, they took that risk, and they made that sacrifice, they have set precedent, culturally, for all of us.
	So much respect to the Gibson family.
	They don't need any good tidings from me, they just won $33 million!
	So, I hope they enjoy it, I really do.
	I'm not going to prattle on the story too much longer, but I'll end by showing this very beautiful photo of the legal team and the family smiling after their victory.
	And let this be a lesson to all of those who seek to defame, smear, and wield ideology as an authoritarian cudgel against their opponents.
	You will lose.
	You may win some battles, but $33 million is massive.
	And let that be a reckoning to anybody who seeks to violate the goodwill of the people for personal gain.
	Congratulations, Gibsons.
	I'm happy the story resolved in this way.
	But if there are any updates, I'll have them.
	Stick around.
	More segments to come.
	The next will be at 1 p.m.
	on this channel, youtube.com slash timcastnews.
	For those on the podcast, it'll begin shortly.
	Oh boy, do we got a complicated crisis on our hands.
	An oil tanker attacked.
	Was it Iran?
	Well, in this story from the New York Times, who I'm not going to trust on the matter, tankers are attacked in the Mideast and the U.S.
	says video shows Iran was involved.
	Now the video is really crappy.
	But apparently – let me just read what the caption says.
	Video released by U.S.
	Central Command shows a patrol boat pulling up to the Kokuka Courageous, one of two ships attacked in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday.
	Personnel removed what American analysts believe was a limpet mine from the ship.
	Military spokesmen said the patrol boat was an Islamic Revolutionary Guard vessel.
	I believe that may be true, confirmed by Iran.
	I've got a post from Press TV, which is Iran, which is, it's all very contentious and complicated.
	Here are my concerns.
	Uh, with the Iraq War.
	No weapons of mass destruction, right?
	Gulf of Tonkin incident.
	I haven't researched it heavily, but my understanding is that it was a false flag attack.
	So there are a few confirmed instances where the U.S., you know, flubbed some details, and I'm- I know, I know, I'm being really light on describing what the U.S.
	has done.
	The issue is, do we now trust the U.S.
	government that these tankers were attacked and Iran was involved in some capacity?
	Here's the thing.
	First, I am absurdly anti-war, right?
	I can see all of the things that the U.S.
	has done throughout the past, you know, several, the history of the U.S.
	Like Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korean War, et cetera, et cetera.
	Actually, the Korean War is more complicated, but there are certain things where it's like, hey, you know, when we do these things, bad things happen and they don't work out well for us in the end.
	It was actually, and again, it's been a long time since I've gone over this, but there was a CIA report that said 9-11 was the result of blowback due to US operations in the Middle East.
	So we can see how this affects us, and I understand the massive international conflict.
	It's not like there's a world war going on, but we really do have adversaries and there is competition and conflict.
	I understand these things.
	I often cite the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, which resulted in a lot of the Syrian stuff.
	The issue is, will the U.S.
	benefit in the long run?
	Will the people of this country benefit by getting into a war with Iran?
	And I think the answer is a resounding no.
	Absolutely not.
	It's going to do all the wrong things.
	And I think often when we see these issues, especially with international war, it is a few companies that make the most profit off of it, and it's the interests of a select few that have no allegiance, to a certain degree, to the U.S.
	And what I mean by that is they store money in Panama, like we saw with the Panama Papers.
	We see people storing money in foreign countries, and they go wherever they want.
	They can buy citizenship wherever they want.
	So, I'm concerned, to say the least.
	However, So one of the concerns I have in the bigger story of whether or not we were actually attacked, and I will move on to other stories we have here.
	One of the bigger issues is that simply because we know of some instances where there were false flags perpetrated by the US or special interests, doesn't mean these tankers weren't attacked.
	And that's the big problem.
	Sometimes you go to war.
	Sometimes it happens.
	I think the U.S.
	has gotten involved in a bunch of situations, and they should do better to avoid getting into war, but that doesn't mean you never go to war, right?
	So the issue is, I'm not a pacifist.
	I just think the U.S.
	gets involved in foreign war for the wrong reasons, and they screw everything up.
	That's why I err on the side of, we shouldn't do this.
	More importantly, Obama sending drones to foreign countries we're not at war with, like Yemen, and blowing up children.
	That's something I'm just, that's what I typically refer to when I say anti-war.
	However, If Iran is blowing up oil tankers in an effort to cripple international oil trade, then you got a problem.
	You can't just be like, by all means, go ahead and do whatever you want.
	No, then there needs to be a serious conversation.
	So right now, you've got a lot of libertarian types, a lot of people, just a lot of people saying it's another false flag.
	I wouldn't go that far.
	Again, to stress, just because we know of some instances doesn't mean every instance will be, and we need to figure out what this is.
	Do I trust the New York Times?
	No.
	Not after Iraq and Afghanistan.
	But here's the thing.
	So we've got a story here now from CBS.
	Tanker owner seems to dispute US account of Gulf of Oman attack.
	But here's the thing.
	They're not saying they weren't attacked.
	They were saying they were attacked by something else.
	The Japanese owner of the Kokuka Courageous, one of two oil tankers targeted near the Strait of Hormuz, said Friday that sailors on board saw flying objects just before it was hit, suggesting the vessel wasn't damaged by mines.
	The account contradicts what the US military said as it released a video on Friday.
	It said it shows Iranian forces removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the two ships that were hit.
	First of all, CBS, what are you doing?
	That absolutely does not contradict what the military said.
	Something flew at the tanker and something happened?
	Just before it got hit?
	Okay.
	Well, we don't know what those flying objects are, so why would we make any assumptions about who is or isn't right?
	It's another big problem.
	Right now, listen, here's all I can really confirm for you.
	Something happened, and some people are saying some things.
	That's really it.
	And I'm not trying to downplay, like, a something happened, you know, like, because I know Ilhan Omar got a criticism for that.
	I'm trying to point out, we are currently in a state where some tankers were damaged, You've got Iran denying it.
	You've got the U.S.
	saying it was limpet mines.
	You've got the guy, the owner of one of the vessels, saying something flew at us.
	Okay.
	Well, the U.S.
	might be right.
	What we do know is that something attacked these.
	That's it.
	So choose.
	Who do you believe?
	I think it's absolutely irresponsible to claim that's contradicting U.S.
	military.
unidentified		U.S.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		military didn't say nothing flew.
		They didn't say it was a mine and nothing flew at the vessels.
		No, they said there were mines.
		Okay.
		There could be mines and flying objects.
		The Japanese tanker was attacked twice Thursday, damaging the vessel and forcing all 21 crew members to evacuate.
		Company President Yutada Katada said Friday he believes the flying objects seen by the sailors could have been bullets.
		He denied any possibility of mines or torpedoes because the damage was above the ship's waterline.
		He called... So, okay, so let me walk back my other statement because, upon clarification, I jumped the gun, so let me apologize for that.
		He denied any possibility of mines or torpedoes because the damage was above the ship's waterline.
		He called reports of a mine attack false.
		It's a good point.
		Katata said the crew members also spotted an Iranian naval ship nearby, but didn't specify whether that was before or after the attacks.
		The tanker survived the first attack, which hit near the engine room and was followed by another damaging the starboard side toward the back.
		I will stress, it's also possible the U.S.
		Military Central Command said the video it released shows Iranian Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the tankers, suggesting Tehran sought to remove evidence of its involvement from the scene.
		Tehran denies being involved and accuses the U.S.
		of waging an Iranophobic campaign.
		So again, I think it's important to point out that we really just don't know anything at this point, and it's likely whatever we do find out, it's going to be limited, it's going to be hard.
		That's why I think you need some strong evidence.
		Right now, what we've seen with these videos, in my opinion, not strong enough.
		We do apparently now see a contradictory statement from the owner of the vessel.
		So, it's hard to know.
		It's a good point about being above the waterline, but I think people often make assumptions about what would or wouldn't happen based on an attack, and simply because there was a limpet mine removed, according to the US, doesn't mean there wasn't also an additional attack.
		further, it may be that US military analysts are incorrect about what was being removed
		and it was still Iran that attacked.
		Ultimately, I want to, here's my thing, right?
		We absolutely need to avoid getting into more fake wars for whatever reason.
		I don't know.
		It's a really complicated situation.
		But I'd be willing to bet any war with Iran is going to result in a decades-long nonsense war like we've already seen with Iraq and Afghanistan that's going to cost us a ton of money and be bad across the board.
		But what do you do?
		Right?
		One of the big things about the 2016 campaign was that Hillary Clinton was a war hawk.
		And that's why she lost a lot of support, and Trump was the one saying, no, we want peace.
		But Trump went and fired Tomahawk missiles at Syria, and now we're on the doorstep of war with Iran.
		These are bad things.
		It's not going to go well.
		I would say this.
		You want to avoid war at all costs.
		If someone just attacked these vessels, we need to figure out who did it.
		Of course, you've got two sides.
		Maybe more than two sides, but the point I'm trying to make is the U.S.
		is going to say, you know what?
		We know we must act.
		Who do you side with?
		Do you side with the U.S.?
		Iran?
		Well, here's what I'll say.
		I will always side with the U.S.
		because even though I know the U.S.
		has done things wrong, I really do not believe there is a cabal of anti-American elitists who want to destroy the United States.
		I just do not believe that's true.
		I believe for as bad as the Clintons were, as bad as a lot of these individuals are, I don't think they literally want to destroy America.
		I think they think they're doing right by America, and I think they're not.
		The idea of a mustache-twirling conspiracy bunch of people is just not the case.
		So here's the thing.
		When it comes to war, I believe there are special interests who will push the U.S.
		into doing the wrong thing.
		I believe there are people who can infiltrate and push private interests of their buddies, and we have to be careful of corruption.
		Corruption can lead to war to benefit a small few.
		This is why I err always on the side of opposing.
		No.
		You need the hardest of hard evidence, and Iraq should be an example to everybody as to why you should.
	Because they didn't.
	They claimed they did, and the media towed it along like little puppets for the war machine.
	And it was a mistake.
	It's a big mistake.
	I mean, almost everybody agrees.
	But here's what I want to end with, okay?
	Because, look, you guys know I'm a... I don't want to say I'm a milquetoast defense on the issue.
	I want to say we need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Here's something interesting.
	Press TV tweeted this.
	They're in Iranian state news.
	Facts.
	They say the IRGC, I believe that's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, was the closest force near the incident site.
	Iran was the first to rush to the scene to save the crew members.
	Do you think Pentagon footage proves Washington's claim of Iran's involvement?
	And they posted this video.
	But Yashar Ali posted something interesting.
	Iranian state TV has conveniently removed 10 seconds of footage from the beginning of the video originally released by CENTCOM.
	Interesting.
	Why would they do that?
	Why wouldn't they try and put out as much information as possible?
	I'm gonna tell you all right now.
	I do not like war.
	I think we need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before we ever engage in any action.
	Even if we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, war isn't the immediate response.
	I also will say, I will absolutely trust the U.S.
	before I trust Iran.
	Okay?
	Look, man.
	I'm somebody who's been on the front lines of protesting against war, you know, when I was a teenager.
	I've repeatedly denounced actions that maybe even the security apparatus believes was the right thing to do in the long run.
	I disagree.
	Even if it means foreign countries might gain certain footholds economically, I think war should be beyond the last approach we take.
	I also want to point out, however, There's international conflict, man.
	You know, it's like I'm not going to be so dumb and to wave a pacifist flag like we'll do literally nothing as bad people do bad things.
	We need to know what happened.
	Do you trust the government?
	I don't.
	Absolutely not.
	But I'll say this, I trust Iran less than I trust the U.S.
	So it's a very, very, you know, difficult position to figure out what you should or shouldn't be doing.
	I don't even know what to say.
	It's like, what do you do?
	Do you cheer on the war?
	Do you deny it?
	What if the war is the right thing?
	You don't know what these people know.
	You don't know what Iran knows.
	You don't know what the US knows.
	You don't know what our generals know.
	There's classified information.
	For all we know.
	The U.S.
	might have definitive proof, but it would compromise national security.
	So what do you do?
	It's a tough call.
	It really, really is.
	But I think you've got to justify it to the public.
	I really do.
	I think if the U.S.
	wants to, you know, make claims that Iran did it, well, show us more than just this grainy video.
	I'm sorry.
	You know, I don't trust Iran.
	I trust the U.S.
	way more.
	I still don't trust the U.S.
	to a great degree, but what can I say?
	I think if we get involved in another international conflict with Iran, it's going to be war with Russia, it's going to be war with China, it's going to escalate, and it's going to be one of the worst decisions we could possibly ever make.
	So you better damn well be ready for what comes after a full-on conflict with Iran.
	I don't know if we will see it.
	I don't.
	All I know is We're heading that direction, man.
	We've been heading that direction for a really long time, and it's not going to work out well for anybody.
	I guess the last thing I can say is...
	Which would you prefer?
	China as a superpower, you know, allied with Russia, controlling most of the global economy, but a strong U.S.
	national state that takes care of its own citizens and loses its position as a global superpower?
	Or would you prefer a U.S.
	globalist superpower where the U.S.
	is enforcing will on other countries and controls most of the flow of, you know, the global economy, but at the result of, you know, less protections for Americans and less focus on Americans?
	I'm not saying that it's one or the other.
	I'm just saying, you know, if we choose to be a strictly nationalist country and just
	say, you know, we're not going to get involved in these international incidents anymore,
	it's very likely that the rule breakers, people like China, countries like China that willfully
	flaunt international norms and law will gain tremendous power and they're already headed
	towards becoming the dominant superpower.
	Good or bad?
	Man, I'm not the smartest person in the world.
	I can't really tell you.
	All I know is that war doesn't, you know, it's not going to end well.
	Admittedly, though, as most, if you study this stuff, there have been, depending on
	who you ask, they'll tell you that following war, there's a great resurgence and sometimes
	war is necessary.
	It is.
	I mean, war is necessary sometimes.
	Not because we need to hurt each other, but because there are some people who want to hurt you, and they will do anything to make that happen.
	And so, at that point, what do you do?
	It's like a, it's a standoff, right?
	I tell people, if you're standing and staring at somebody and you're both pointing guns at each other, what do you do?
	There's no easy answer.
	And honestly, I don't know enough, but we'll leave it there.
	We'll leave it there.
	I wanted to address this just because I see a lot of people saying they did it, they didn't do it, I don't believe it.
	And I think, um, addressing the gray areas and uncertainty is really, really important because we need to make sure we do everything within our power to have a rigorous understanding before any action is taken.
	Let me know what you think.
	I'll see you in the next segment at 4pm on youtube.com slash TimCast.
	Ilhan Omar is being accused of tax fraud.
	It's a complicated story, but the general idea is that she filed her taxes jointly as though she was married when she, in fact, was married to a different person.
	While many people on the right are saying this is tax fraud, fraud requires intent, so it is complicated.
	It could simply be an error, in which case most people, when they make a mistake on their tax return, just gotta pay the fine and you move on.
	The IRS doesn't go after you this hard.
	But it is a much more complicated story than that.
	There is potentially criminal intent, but we have to go through all the details and try and break this down.
	But more importantly, I am not doing this story because Ilhan Omar filed her taxes incorrectly, whether intentional or not.
	It's because a leaked email allegedly shows that the Democratic Party, the crisis control people working for Ilhan, are trying to pressure news media into quashing the story and may have done similar things in the past.
	I did reach out for comments to many of the parties involved.
	For now, it is mostly rumor.
	I haven't been able to confirm anything, so take it all with a grain of salt.
	It's just, you know, there's some tweets going viral with some images, so I definitely thought it'd be good to address this, talk about what could or couldn't be, and where we're currently at in terms of Is her staff, or her PR people, trying to pressure news media, and have they in the past?
	That's what we're going to go through.
	Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
	There's a monthly donation option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, just like and comment on the video because the engagement really helps.
	Share and subscribe.
	From the Associated Press, Rep.
	Omar filed joint tax returns before she married her husband.
	At the bare minimum, all we have here is she made a mistake.
	But let's read on and see what may be going on.
	The Associated Press says, Minnesota campaign finance officials said last week that Democratic U.S.
unidentified		Rep.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Ilhan Omar misused campaign funds in violation of state rules.
		They also revealed that she had filed joint tax returns with her husband years before they were legally married and at a time when she was married to another man.
		The revelation put the freshman representative under more scrutiny from critics who have taken issue with her marital past.
		One tax expert said that if there is no criminal intent and the issue has been corrected, she's unlikely to face any criminal consequences.
		Some questions and answers about the tax issue.
		First, what did Omar do wrong?
		The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board said Thursday that Omar and her husband, Ahmed Abdesalan Hirsi, filed joint tax return for 2014 and 15 before they were actually married and while Omar was legally wed to another man.
		While some states allow for joint filing for common law marriages, Minnesota does not, and filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law.
		I think this part of the story is very relevant, as Ilhan Omar calls for Donald Trump to publish his tax returns, as do many other people.
		I think, you know, you live in glass houses, don't throw stones.
		And I would actually say perhaps she should now publish her tax returns as well.
		How did it become public?
		This is where it gets interesting.
		Last year, a Republican state representative accused Omar of misusing campaign funds, alleging, among other things, that she used $2,250 in campaign money to pay a lawyer for her divorce proceedings.
		The campaign finance board investigated and found she didn't use the funds to pay for a divorce lawyer as alleged, but other irregularities were found.
		The board's final report said there was an issue with her tax returns that needed to be corrected, and that some campaign funds went to an accounting firm.
		State officials ruled last week that Omar must repay her campaign committee nearly $3,500 including $1,500 for payments made to the accounting firm for services related to joint tax returns for 2014 and 15.
		Omar must also pay a $500 penalty to the state.
		That is the punishment.
		A lot of people are wondering whether or not there will be criminal proceedings.
		Very, very, very unlikely.
		Look, man, let me just put it this way.
		The world is boring.
		Do you have any idea how insane and exciting life would be if they actually came after Omar for, you know, criminal intent in a tax filing case?
		These things are just, they're not likely to happen.
		They can happen.
		But in the end, she was penalized $500.
		It's a fine.
		There you go.
		She did something wrong.
		She paid her fine.
		This is common.
		It is very, very common.
		However, we'll come back to the story.
		But the reason why this is very interesting is that for the longest time, Ilhan Omar has been accused of marrying her brother.
		And what ends up happening now... So this is Snopes.
		I'm pulling up Snopes on purpose because Snopes is often accused of having a liberal bias.
		And I do not want to push conspiracy theories, so we'll use Snopes as a source.
		They claim that it's actually her brother.
		It's a complicated story that I'm not interested in covering.
		By all means, you can look into it yourself.
		This is not the purpose of the video I'm doing.
		But I do want to stress, this just brings up more marriage irregularities that we've seen with Ilhan Omar.
		She was filing joint taxes with someone she wasn't married to.
		Makes the whole story very strange, but I will stress that Snopes has just called this unproven.
		They did not call it true or false, meaning it may be true, right?
		They do reference that it's been an unfounded rumor, so we can say it's fair to call it unproven, but typically you see Snopes say true or false.
		So, you know, I don't know how you disprove whether or not this person is her brother, so maybe it's fair to say unproven.
		I'm just highlighting this not because I want anyone to believe it's true.
		That is not the point.
		Just to show you that this controversy has warranted enough attention that Snopes even issued a... Well, they didn't debunk it, but Snopes did a report on it trying to break down what actually happened.
		We're now in the territory where more marriage irregularities are causing scrutiny for Ilhan Omar.
		So the Associated Press says that Omar hasn't really addressed this.
		In response to questions from the Associated Press, her campaign sent an email statement saying all of Rep Omar's tax funds are fully compliant with applicable law.
		In response to the overall campaign finance investigation, she said in a statement last week that she will comply with the state board findings calling for her to repay money and pay a penalty.
		They say that, uh, question, hasn't Omar faced criticism on other issues?
		Uh, yes, sure.
		I'm not going to get into much of the other details because I want to move on to the potential collusion between Elon Omar's office and a local newspaper.
		This is where it gets really interesting.
		But I do want to stress, they say in this article that criminal intent is, uh, whether or not she'll be criminally prosecuted requires intent.
		So far, I don't think we're at that point yet.
		There's no, there's been no criminal referral, but it is possible.
		A tax attorney said, if taxpayers incorrectly file tax returns as married filing jointly,
		where there is no legal marriage, it is typically not a criminal matter unless taxpayers have a
	strong intent to cheat on their taxes or unless they directly provide false factual information.
	He goes on to say that typically what happens is they'll just pay a fine and the public likely
	will not ever find out what actually happened here.
	So now we're seeing something really, really interesting.
	This is the Twitter account of Nick Solheim.
	I do not know who he is.
	He's the director of business development at Native3, a digital marketer.
	I don't know if this is true or not.
	This may be completely fake.
	And I want to stress that.
	And the only reason I'm willing to talk about it is that this is getting a massive amount of attention.
	So we need to make sure we temper, you know, any, any rumors or conspiracies.
	For now, what we see, he's, uh, Nick Solheim has tweeted.
	My God, props to Blois Olson for sharing.
	From Elon and Minnesota's crisis manager Ben Goldfarb.
	Does anyone in the team have a relationship with Blois?
	Someone should probably reach out to talk off the record as we shut it down with him, as we do with The Strib.
	The Strib is the Star Tribune, a Minnesota paper.
	In this email, I can't quite understand how it was structured and how it came to be in the possession of Blois, but somebody was trying to reach out to him because apparently he was sharing the story about Elon Omar.
	They then claim that they've made contact with Star Tribune and actually put pressure on them to shut down certain stories.
	If that's true, well that's pretty damning.
	I reached out to Blois, I didn't get a response on the phone.
	I reached out to Star Tribune, also didn't get a response.
	So for the time being, It's hard to know whether or not any of this is true.
	I lean more towards it likely is.
	I think it's really unlikely that someone fabricated this email and is trying to smear Ilhan Omar's team.
	I did look up this individual, Ben Goldfarb, although I couldn't confirm whether he was directly on Ilhan Omar's team.
	It may just be, you know, finding a certain story.
	I pulled up his LinkedIn and we can see that he does, he presumably does do community organization.
	There are a number of concerning things.
	Elon's team attempting to shut down a legitimate inquiry into tax fraud by a local journalist, admitting verbatim that they have employed such tactics before for Minnesota's largest paper, the Star Tribune.
	Elon Omar's campaign staff is so unwilling to go on the record with reputable journalists that they resort to finding a fixer who has a relationship to shut down the story.
	Nick says, I for one would like to hear a comment from the Star Tribune on what stories have been shut down by Elon's crisis manager through personal relationships, off-the-record interviews, and intimidation tactics.
	Any journalists care to comment?
	I traditionally have considered the Star Tribune to be a reputable outlet, aside from the awful editorial board.
	If Elon Omar's fixer was able to shut down stories from the Star Tribune, imagine how many stories do you think they shut down from Minnesota Post, City Pages, and others?
	He then goes on to link some other things, and I do want to give a shoutout to the redheaded libertarian on Twitter for linking me in this thread to which I found the story and decided to cover it.
	But all I can really say for now, I haven't confirmed the email, I haven't gotten a comment from any of the parties involved, it may not be legitimate.
	We'll just leave it there.
	The reason I did want to address this particularly is because I want to make sure we stress, until we have an official statement from the journalists involved, etc., which we haven't gotten so far, We should be careful about running with these stories.
	However, the individual where it apparently came from, Blois Olsen, he's the principal at Fluence Media.
	I don't think he's actually tweeted about it, which I find to be, I guess, interesting in that case.
	This is Blois Olsen, who allegedly leaked the email, and even as of now, you can see I just loaded some new tweets.
	He hasn't really addressed whether or not this is a real email that he sent, so I can't say I'm Thinking this is legitimate, right?
	I can just put it that way.
	The Star Tribune, for those that aren't familiar, is just the big paper in Minnesota.
	But now, on to the final bit of this story.
	Star Tribune issued an editorial board statement slamming Ilhan Omar.
	They say, Ilhan Omar's credibility takes another hit.
	Tax return irregularities are just the latest misstep by the first-term congresswoman.
	So I highlight this story for two reasons.
	One, I think it's interesting that locally she's being criticized for more, you know, more problems, potential tax fraud, maybe not campaign finance violations.
	But also, if it is true that that email circulating is legitimate, well, I'm not entirely sure I believe it, just because they're claiming they have pull with the Star Tribune, but Star Tribune is slamming, their editorial board is criticizing Elon Omar.
	Again, I don't want to say whether it's... I'll put it this way.
	I cannot confirm or deny the authenticity of that email so far.
	I wanted to make sure you all know about this and make sure that's the extent to which we talk about it.
	But let's see what Star Tribune has to say about Elon Omar because they are very critical.
	The Tribune writes, U.S.
unidentified		Rep.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Ilhan Omar is back in the news again, and not in a good way.
		The former state representative who won a seat in Congress last fall continues to be dogged by past missteps.
		This time, eight violations of Minnesota campaign finance law that will cost her nearly $3,500 in reimbursements and civil penalties.
		So complex were the allegations that the State Campaign Finance Board spent nearly a year assessing the case, deposing staff and former staff people, along with Omar herself.
		The investigation was broadened in October, just a month before her election to Congress, to look more deeply into the allegations.
		Board Executive Director Jeff Sigurdsson said that between six and eight people were deposed separately.
		So let's just, uh, we'll read their final thoughts on the matter because, you know, I think we're good with wrapping up on our final thoughts, they say.
		If this pattern continues, further investigation may be necessary.
		Omar could have avoided nearly every infraction by taking simple measures in advance to determine whether her actions would pass legal muster.
		In its findings, the board noted that Minnesota House research staff did explain that generally, when they discuss whether a member can accept something of value, for example travel and lodging reimbursement, they discuss whether that would violate the gift prohibition.
		But do not advise.
		Rather, they commonly refer members to the board.
		The Omar Committee did not contact board staff on the appropriateness of using committee funds for the travel reviewed in this investigation.
		Omar's political rise has been marred by a series of unforced errors, including intemperate remarks and tweets earlier this year that were widely perceived as anti-Semitic.
		Every month seems to bring a fresh problem.
		As an elected representative for Minnesota and one of the first Muslim women and Somali refugees elected to Congress, Omar is helping to break new ground.
		But more is expected of her than the symbolism attached to her victory.
		Omar's a special obligation to be worthy of the trust so many people have placed in her, including many still new Americans who expect better.
		So final thoughts just kind of wrap up where we're at so far.
		Elon Omar filed a factually incorrect tax return.
		Is it the biggest news in the world?
		I don't know.
		The potential collusion between her crisis management and a local paper is alarming as far as I'm concerned, but so far we have an unconfirmed email rumor, and even if it is confirmed, it's the word of an individual who may be just, you know, talking smack, trying to act like they're bigger than they really are.
		But I felt like this warranted a main channel video simply because we have seen, I'll put it this way, it's death by a thousand cuts.
		Ilhan Omar has been controversial for so long with so many small issues.
		a certain point, even if it is just, you know, campaign finance violation, which admittedly
		is a, it's kind of a big issue, but when you stack this up with all of the other controversies
		at a certain point, like the Star Tribune says, the pattern, uh, if the pattern continues,
		there's gotta be more investigation.
		It's it's particularly troublesome that she has been, uh, repeatedly involved in these
		scandals, whether it's, you know, her saying offensive things and getting, you know, uh,
		all of Congress pointing her direction, criticizing her or whether or not it's coming out.
		That she's violating campaign finance law.
		I think these things need to be talked about.
		And one of the things we have to make sure we don't do is ignoring smaller stories because
		they're just not big enough.
		So while I personally feel perhaps talking about some other big breaking news would have
		been more important, I've at a certain point, there are so many small stories about Ilhan
		Amar.
		It's got to come together and say, listen, this is a pattern of bad behavior that needs
		to be highlighted in a longer piece.
		I'll leave it there.
		Let me know what you think.
		Maybe I was wrong.
		Maybe this is just local news and doesn't need to be a main channel video, but I kind of feel like it's gotten to that point where there may be no other congressperson who is as controversial as Ilhan Omar.
		Maybe Ocasio-Cortez, but she's not—Cortez has been accused of many things, but this is pretty serious, right?
		Whether or not the people of Minnesota want to re-elect her, it's up to them, but I think the news is important.
		So comment below and let me know what you think.
		We'll keep the conversation going.
		You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
		Stay tuned.
		I will have more videos at youtube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m., and I will see you all there.
		Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has just banned sanctuary cities from the Daily Caller.
		They say that he signed a bill into law, an anti-sanctuary bill.
		So the bill is essentially going to make it illegal for cities within the state to implement sanctuary policies.
		They say that at a ceremony in the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners, alongside Florida GOP Rep Matt Gaetz, he added his signature to SB 168.
		The bill requires state and local governments to honor retainers made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
		There's a really, really interesting question in whether or not a local jurisdiction has a right to reject or supersede federal law.
		For me, the question arises when we see the DEA raids of like the Obama era.
		When California was like, hey, we're going to do medical marijuana and then, you know, Obama's DEA would go and raid these stores.
		We're like, why are you doing that?
		If California wants to smoke weed, let California smoke weed.
		Why should the feds go in?
		And so it becomes a really, really interesting problem.
	Should the federal government be able to tell the states they can or can't do?
	Man, I kind of feel like they shouldn't, right?
	Like, the federal government provides for the common defense, and does have certain roles in terms of federal regulation and laws, so to an extent, yes.
	But I like small government.
	I'm a more libertarian left kind of person.
	I don't like the idea...
	So this issue of sanctuary cities, man, is really, really complicated.
	I think about the Electoral College, right?
	If my town has a water supply, you shouldn't be able to outvote me and take my water away, right?
	But then when we look at how federal laws are enacted, it kind of does come down to certain situations like this.
	I think this is why I love America so much.
	Seriously.
	It's the three branches of government.
	Judicial, legislative, executive, because that's what judges are for.
	We have the law from the legislative branch, but then the judges interpret and determine what is fair and what makes sense, and the executive branch enforces.
	So, I think about these problems and I'm like, listen.
	Whether or not I should be able to have my water taken away by vote is very, very different as to whether or not I should be able to legally grow and sell pot or something like that or harbor illegal immigrants.
	Just because, you know, some laws are unjust and some are just doesn't mean they're all going to be the same in every circumstance, judges interpret.
	So I was reading this story and admittedly I'm like, man, should cities be allowed to be sanctuary cities?
	They're violating federal law, but there are some circumstances where that's a good thing and the feds shouldn't have authority over the states.
	Admittedly, it's complicated.
	I don't think I have a good answer for this one.
	I typically have a pretty strong opinion falling on the side of liberty, and it gets complicated then when you recognize that If a state like Florida allows illegal immigrants to be protected from ICE or CBP, well, those people may eventually leave and go into other jurisdictions, negatively impacting other places that don't agree.
	At the same time, if those places don't have sanctuary laws, they could just turn over the illegal immigrants to ICE and CBP.
	So it really is an interesting debate, especially as I'm trying to kind of break apart the freedom versus federal restrictions.
	In the end, I think ultimately sanctuary city laws are problematic in that we're a nation, we have citizens, and we provide for each other in our common defense.
	I believe we should grant asylum to those who need it, and refugee status to those who need it, and we should not allow those who would exploit that system to take advantage of us.
	I believe immigration should all be done legally because there's a reason why we have a legal process for safety, security, not just for us, but for those coming here.
	So it's interesting, but let me stop prattling.
	I had an ethical conundrum question.
	I'm like, should the federal government be allowed to do this?
	But let's read more.
	Earlier this year, Governor DeSantis asked the Florida Legislature to present him with meaningful legislation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that no city or country jurisdiction or county jurisdiction can get in the way of Florida's cooperation with our federal partners to enforce immigration law.
	That's from Helen Fair, a DeSantis spokeswoman, writing in an email.
	Public safety is paramount, and local law enforcement agencies can and should work with the federal government to ensure that accountability and justice are won in our state.
	DeSantis' bill signing marks a further divide in how conservative and liberal states deal with federal immigration enforcement.
	Ten states, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Iowa, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Missouri, have laws that mandate state and local governments help ICE apprehend suspected illegal immigrants.
	On the other hand, a growing number of blue-leaning states have passed laws that strictly prohibit local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainers.
	Colorado and Washington, both states run by Democratic-controlled legislatures, And governors signed sanctuary bills into law as recently as May.
	We are seeing the era of the sanctuary state.
	That if you're in a state, the local law enforcement won't cooperate.
	Interesting problem.
	And I feel like what we're seeing with illegal immigration may be this, it may turn into the major component of the coming civil conflict of whatever it is.
	There was a thread on Twitter where people were saying the U.S.
	is operating concentration camps and all these other things, and that's where the rhetoric is headed, whether you want to agree with it or not.
	So we see here looking very governorly.
	I'm kidding.
	I'm not uncanning, I was just making a stupid comment.
	While ICE made it clear that they do not take positions on specific legislation, the agency reiterated the consequences to public safety when local officials refused to cooperate with their efforts, saying, U.S.
	Immigration and Customs Enforcement places detainers on individuals who have been arrested on local criminal charges and who are suspected of being deportable so that ICE can take custody of that person when he or she is released from local custody.
	When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders onto the streets, it undermines ICE's ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.
	They said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
	So I want to make sure we can draw one distinction between rhetoric of old and rhetoric of today.
	The individuals that ICE is seeking to deport are actual criminals.
	It's not like ICE is necessarily just taking a random individual like, oh, you're not supposed to be here, you're being deported.
	Certainly they do that.
	But in this particular instance, they're talking about detainers.
	They're talking about people who have broken the law, and they're saying, hey man, this person broke the law, we should deport them.
unidentified		Right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Are we going to keep them in our jails?
		It's really, really scary, in my opinion, what we're seeing in terms of rhetoric.
		There's absolutely some very disgusting facilities where migrants, illegal immigrants are being held, and I don't agree with people being held in ways that are not humane.
		I also recognize that we're...
		We're at a budget crunch.
		The Democrats aren't funding border security the way Trump wants.
		We've got major newspapers saying you guys gotta give Trump his money, and the Democrats don't do it.
		And then you end up with overcrowding, and these people keep coming.
		In this thread, they talk about a place called the freezer and the dog pound, and they sound absolutely disgusting and terrifying, and it makes me sick to my stomach to think about.
		I also think about what's the alternative?
		Throw the people in the desert?
		Just leave them on the border?
		I honestly don't know.
		I really don't.
		I don't think we're talking about a situation where people are being abused.
		Necessarily, there are certainly circumstances that should be called out, and bad actors should be held accountable.
		We're talking about wave after wave of migrant caravan being incentivized to come to the US.
		And when they do, they end up in overcrowded situations, sick, and crawling through the desert.
		I gotta say, I don't have all the answers, but I certainly think we shouldn't be incentivizing people to come here with sanctuary cities.
		Seriously, it's irresponsible and it terrifies me.
		But perhaps it's all part of the rhetoric game being played by the Democrats.
		Create sanctuary cities, encourage people to come, then once ICE does their job and puts them in these facilities, they say, aha, look what they're doing, and it makes everybody look bad.
		It's mind-blowing to me that when a kid dies from dehydration, they blame CBP and ICE, and I'm like, Blame the parents!
		They brought that kid through the desert without supplies, and then the only thing CBP did was actually try and help them.
		I'm sorry they couldn't help them enough.
		It's truly terrifying, I gotta say.
		say. Let's read the rest of this article.
		Controversial sanctuary policies are adamantly opposed by making...
		Let's start over. Controversial sanctuary policies are adamantly opposed by
		immigration hawks and by federal immigration authorities themselves, who
		claim such laws make it much harder to do their job. The Florida anti-sanctuary
		bill was considered contentious when it was debated in the Senate legislature.
		Opponents questioned the necessity of the bill, pointing out that Florida currently has no sanctuary cities.
		The bill ultimately passed the State House by 68 to 45, and the State Senate by 22 to 18, despite facing stiff pushback from Democrats and immigration rights groups.
		Why, if there are no sanctuary cities, would anyone oppose the bill?
		I think it's a preemptive measure.
		I think the Republicans are saying, put the law in now, statewide, because once the Democrats come in, they'll start enacting these policies.
		So, it stops it before it starts, and I think that's why the Democrats and immigration rights groups are pushing back, because they would absolutely like to have these policies in place given the opportunity.
		I'll end with the final thought, the question to you guys, of whether or not states, cities, should have a right to supersede the greater jurisdiction.
		If a city wants to enact a law, should they be allowed to if it violates the law above them?
		If Chicago says, you know, we want to ban guns, but federal law is that you cannot do that, should the feds come and enforce that, how does that pertain to any other, you know, any other law?
		And this is where, again, I'll throw it back to why I love America, because the judges ultimately decide, and it's not going to be just a is or isn't, it's going to be, well, listen, guns and drugs are both very different things, even though they're both contraband.
		In certain capacities.
		You have to respect federal law, or you don't.
		It depends, it depends.
		And I'll end with one final thought that, keep in mind, sometimes laws should be broken.
		Laws are not morals.
		There are laws saying you can't bathe on Sundays in certain jurisdictions, because it made sense back then, doesn't make sense today.
		So while I'm certainly not advocating for people to go out and break the law by no means, I'm recognizing that over time, some people end up breaking the law, and then we kind of rethink how these laws work, and so that's why, you know, the way I put it is, marijuana is being legalized across the country, I completely agree with it, I'm on the libertarian spectrum here, that people should have a right to ingest what they want, to a certain extent, admittedly.
		I'm a liberal, not a complete libertarian.
		I believe in freedom.
		But how would people know they wanted this unless people were breaking the law by smoking, so... I don't know, comment, let me know what you think!
		It's an interesting conundrum, ethically and morally, and legally.
		Stick around, I got more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
		The establishment left, the regressive left, whatever you want to call these people, the far left, I think the far left isn't entirely fair.
		But this group, and you know how I'm talking about, the pro-censorship group, are causing harm to actual marginalized groups.
		Of course, we've seen the backlash over and over and over again, but I'm talking now about Saudi refugees fleeing abuse.
		And they get suspended on Twitter.
		Gee, I wonder why.
		Could it be that a Saudi prince has a massive investment in Twitter?
		Maybe, maybe not.
		But there's two stories here I want to focus on.
		Unhappy with Twitter.
		Thousands of Saudis join pro-Trump social network Parley.
	I don't know if you can call Parley a pro-Trump social network, but there are a lot of pro-Trump people on it, and many people are just calling it like Gab or something.
	But let's talk about this.
	People who are absolutely fighting against authoritarianism and fighting for civil rights and liberty are being censored on Twitter.
	Where are the leftists defending the marginalized groups?
	No.
	Let me make it clear, if it hasn't been already.
	These are people who are supporting authoritarianism, are pretending to oppose bigotry, And then in the end, do nothing for those who actually need help.
	So let's read this from Business Insider first.
	Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
	There's a monthly donation option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, liking and commenting, sharing and subscribing, all of that engagement tells YouTube I'm a good person and therefore people should watch my good content.
	Greatly appreciated.
	Twitter mysteriously suspended several accounts linked to women who say they are refugees fleeing abuse in Saudi Arabia.
	They say the social network pulled two accounts purporting to belong to Doha, 22, and Dalal al-Shawaki, 20, who say they ran away to Turkey to escape abuse in their home country.
	A third account belonging to Saudi activist Ali Hashim was also removed after he posted material on the al-Shawaki sister's behalf.
	Over the past week, the runaways posted videos, photographs, and messages in which they described the situation and asked for humanitarian rights organizations to help.
	In one video on Hashim's Twitter page, Doa said, My father took our passport and our national identity.
	He is looking for us now. We are at risk.
	The video has been republished by the Twitter account, ExMuslimTV.
	Business Insider has been, they say, they say Insider, I'm assuming themselves,
	has been intermittently in touch with the women, but has not been able to verify any details of their story.
	Their plight has, however, been followed by Detained in Dubai, a campaign group that provides legal assistance to people across the Middle East.
	The first account linked to the two sisters was suspended on Thursday after two days of posting.
	Two more accounts were set up and removed within hours.
	After these suspensions, Hashim It's simple.
	It's because Saudi Arabia told them to.
	Plain and simple.
	Think about this.
	And I'll jump off this story.
	We'll go to the next story and talk about Parley.
	Google can ban you.
	Facebook can ban you.
	Twitter can ban you.
	Insider has asked Twitter repeatedly over the past 24 hours to explain why it removed
	the accounts, but has yet to receive an answer.
	How much...
	It's simple.
	It's because Saudi Arabia told them to.
	Plain and simple.
	Think about this.
	And I'll jump off this story.
	We'll go to the next story and talk about Parley.
	Google can ban you.
	Facebook can ban you.
	Twitter can ban you.
	Who do you call?
	Who do you call?
	They control a massive portion of the advertising economy.
	They control basically public discourse, at least to a great extent, and they can remove you and there is nothing you can do to stop them.
	There's no phone number to call.
	It is a faceless monolith that controls the Amazon.
	The Amazon marketplace is displacing actual stores.
	They're being shut down.
	Twitter controlling politics and public discourse.
	YouTube and Facebook, more so.
	And who do you call when you have a problem?
	Sorry!
	No one.
	Unless, of course, you're one of these journalists, and you have a direct contact for these people, and they'll do whatever you say.
	But alas, we are seeing the rise of alternatives, and there's still potentially an opportunity to break through this monolith of tech oligopoly.
	Parley is one.
	I use Mines, and you see the Mines logo appear above my head all the time.
	I post to Mines frequently, and I definitely try to use them more than anybody else.
	And, you know, full disclosure, I do work with them to some capacity.
	But there are alternatives, too.
	There's Parley, there's Gab, there's ThinkSpot, Jordan Peterson's new social media endeavor.
	It's gonna be very interesting.
	So, in response to the tech monsters, we are seeing a Marketplace rebuttal, as it were.
	The marketplace is now presenting many alternatives.
	We'll see how Silicon Valley reacts.
	But let's talk about this, quote, pro-Trump social network parlay, which definitely being used by pro-Trump people.
	I did sign up.
	I don't really use it, but...
	So, beyond these two women, we have 200,000 users believed to be from Saudi Arabia, who are frustrated at what they say is censorship by Twitter, and have helped to crash the small social media network Parlay, which styles itself as a free speech driven space.
	The unexpected arrival of the new account since Sunday more than doubled the total number of Parlay users and crippled some functions, CEO and co-founder John Matz told Reuters.
	The influx of users has created unusual bedfellows on Parlay, which has mostly been a home for supporters of President Donald Trump after starting up a year ago.
	An analysis by Reuters and Citizen Lab, a Canadian research group, found that many of the new users came from Saudi Arabia.
	They promoted their use of Parley with hashtags on Twitter, which they accuse of stifling free expression by arbitrarily banning users.
	The nationalist movement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has made it known that big tech is censoring them at rates we have never experienced in the US, Parley wrote in a post on its own account on the site.
	Let us welcome them as we all fight for our rights together.
	Twitter declined to comment on whether the platform had taken any new action against Saudi accounts that could have triggered the sudden signups on Parlay.
	It is not clear how many of the new Parlay users had stopped using Twitter.
	some of the new Parli accounts, used the hashtag Twexit, or shared cartoons of blue birds in
	distress, using Twitter's logo to suggest the platform's decline. Other users tweeted threats
	to leave Twitter directly at chief executive Jack Dorsey.
	Saudis are prolific users of social networks, particularly Twitter. The kingdom has Twitter's
	largest user base in the Middle East, with 11.7 million people on the platform, according to the
	Arabic social media monitoring firm Crowd Analyzer. Well, let me say this. I believe there
	is one really good reason why a Saudi prince bought a decent chunk of shares in Twitter.
	The Arab Spring.
	Twitter was a massive tool for sharing the discontent and rallying people to protest.
	Sure enough, some individuals bought into some of these social media firms, and now we see angry activists and otherwise being censored.
	I wonder why.
	It certainly does protect the national, you know, authorities of Saudi Arabia.
	I will also stress too, because they kind of bring up something interesting, how that strange bedfellows on Parley, I kind of agree but kind of disagree.
	I believe you'll find many Trump supporters saying, sure, whatever, censorship is wrong.
	If Saudi citizens want to express why they don't like the nationalist Saudi government, bring it on.
	And you know what I've found?
	Is that Trump supporters love to be in the presence of those who disagree with them.
	Seriously, more so than those who agree with them.
	It's really weird.
	The left wants to surround themselves by who support them, and the right wants to surround themselves with those who don't.
	I gotta say, I think that the Trump supporter strategy is way more effective in exposing your ideas to other people as opposed to the left going in their own bubble.
	Of course, there are certainly people on the left who operate in good faith, but I believe it's disproportionate.
	I have sat down as a liberal individual at the table with various groups of Trump supporters and conservatives, and we've had amazing conversations.
	And I think because I'm willing to sit with people who I disagree with, they actually get exposed to ideas they've never been exposed to before.
	So this is actually really amazing.
	For those users that are on Parlay, you are now going to be exposed to a perspective that you weren't exposed to before.
	Because even though Twitter is big and does have Trump supporters and Saudi Arabian dissidents, you're not next to each other because the bubbles are huge.
	But on Parlay, You're going to now see a lot more Saudi users, and assuming they will post in English, you'll see something you didn't consider before.
	It's going to make you all very, very, a lot smarter.
	This is the real diversity of opinion happening.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	How long until you think BuzzFeed and Gizmodo and et cetera, et cetera, are going to call Parlay, Far-Right, Gab Jr., whatever?
	It's really crazy, isn't it?
	The smears have come from Minds.com as well.
	It's M-I-N-D-S dot com.
	Which is crazy because there were Vietnamese dissidents using the platform to fight against authoritarianism.
	So why then...
	Do we see the woke Twitterati trying to shut down these platforms and smear them?
	I don't know, but I will say it's really weird how Carlos Maza's campaign resulted in historians and teachers and activists getting banned from these platforms, but not Crowder, huh?
	It's almost like their intention is to remove those who are highlighting the extremists.
	Because invariably what happens?
	The censorship results in the dissidents and the activists getting censored.
	And here we have another story.
	Saudi activists angry with Twitter and moving to Parle.
	So for those that are listening on the podcast, it's spelled Parler.
	P-A-R-L-E-R, and I'm assuming it's pronounced parlay because it's the French word and it means to speak, but I'll leave it there.
	I want to highlight this because, listen, when we talk about arbitrary censorship on Twitter, the evidence is staggering, okay?
	And here we have it.
	Special interest?
	Maybe?
	Stick around, I got more segments coming up, one more segment coming up in a few moments and I will see you shortly.
	Last story of the day from NBC News, 12 white male officers are suing San Francisco police for race and sex bias.
	The lawsuit challenges a test scoring method that the city adopted in 1979 in response to a lawsuit from a group representing black and female officers who alleged discrimination in hiring and promotions.
	Now, this story is actually part of a bigger piece that I'm working on.
	about the blowback of intersectional feminism. And it's launching from the premise from Brett
	Weinstein, who is a brilliant man, I think he's wonderful.
	If you're not familiar, I recommend you go check out his content. But I'm going to focus
	specifically on this, but I am going to highlight one more issue that I brought up in another story.
	And it's that in this bit of data from Tablet Magazine called America's White Saviors, we can
	see that white liberals are the only racial political group with an outgroup bias, meaning
	they hate white people.
	These are white people who hate white people.
	And that's a bit hyperbolic.
	They're white people who favor non-white people is a better way to put it.
	Conservatives don't feel this way.
	This is ultra-progressives.
	The reason I'm highlighting this is because I want to talk about the issue of discrimination against white men, of which there absolutely is some.
	And I know this because, as I've stated time and time again, I am a mixed-race person.
	So trust me when I say I've experienced racism from both sides, and it's why I hate identity politics.
	Identity politics in the sense that they are going to restrict or support someone based on their race.
	As a person of varying ethnicities and heritage, I've been, like, you know what, man?
	Let me just put it this way.
	When you are mixed, you do not get the benefits of both sides.
	You get the detriments of both sides.
	And I'm sure there are many mixed people who understand what I'm talking about.
	If you're not, don't take it as a negative.
	I'm saying, you know, you've got these intersectional activists saying white people are discriminated against.
	You've got white people saying this is proof of discrimination.
	And I'm saying, I hear you both.
	I do.
	I understand.
	Okay?
	That's why it is bad to discriminate against even white men.
	But let's read the story.
	Now, before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash Donut if you would like to support my work.
	There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, like, comment, share, subscribe.
	Engagement really, really helps.
	Twelve white male San Francisco police officers are suing the city, arguing they were passed over for promotions because of their race and gender.
	The San Francisco Chronicle reports Wednesday that the lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in federal court, is the latest round in a conflict that dates back decades.
	A 13th plaintiff who is now retired says he was also denied promotion because she is a white lesbian.
	Wow, whoa, this is really interesting.
	So this is not just 12 white men.
	We now have a lesbian female joining in.
	Incredible.
	The lawsuit challenges a test scoring method that the city adopted in 1979 in response to a lawsuit from a group representing black and female officers who alleged discrimination in hiring and promotions.
	San Francisco bans promotional test scores Bans promotional test scores.
	I don't know what that means.
	So that people who score within a certain range are treated the same.
	Which means the department can consider other factors, such as language skills and experience in awarding promotions.
	That sounds fine.
	The latest lawsuit challenges that method.
	Well, tell me why.
	The city, to this day, has a long-standing practice and custom of discriminating against white males in SFPD promotions to the rank of sergeant, lieutenant, and captain, said M. Greg Mullinax, the officer's attorney in the lawsuit.
	Mullinax said that in 2016, the department promoted three black sergeants, even though their scores were lower than those of 11 white candidates who were denied promotions.
	San Francisco settled a similar 2003 lawsuit for $1.6 million, but did not acknowledge wrongdoing.
	Mullinex said the Police Officers Association contacted Chief William Scott, but none of the officers who met with Scott received any substantive response.
	John Cote, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the department uses lawful merit-based civil service examinations in making promotions.
	I want to come and address this comment first before moving on.
	They promoted three black sergeants, even though their scores were lower than those of 11 white candidates who were denied promotions.
	I want you to imagine this.
	There is a fire.
	I understand these are police officers, but there's a fire.
	You need someone to come put that fire out.
	These people on the regressive left would rather cheer because the firefighters who showed up were black instead of competent.
	So I'm not saying these sergeants are not competent.
	They just scored less.
	This is an issue of intersectionality versus meritocracy.
	Should we have the best candidate?
	Or should we have a racial component instead of skill?
	In my opinion, when it comes to saving lives, be it police or otherwise, it should not be race-based.
	Absolutely not.
	I do believe racial factors can be taken into consideration for some jobs.
	The DMV?
	I'm really not that concerned with merit necessarily when it comes to the DMV.
	I don't think you're gonna- you're- you know, it's- it's- it's fu- like, listen.
	I am somebody who firmly believes there are issues of historical racism in this country that have created circumstances that persist to this day.
	It is typically wrong in most circumstances to discriminate against one person in favor of another.
	That doesn't, you know, bring about any kind of equality.
	However, I recognize nothing is black and white, for the most part, right?
	That was an absolute statement, so that was kind of a paradox.
	But let me put this.
	Typically, things aren't black and white.
	You will find there's some circumstances where you can say, perhaps we should have someone who is black even though they scored less.
	Perhaps you want a firefighter who's going to be primarily working in the black community, and knows the people who there, is a member of that community.
	In which case, that might be really important.
	Because there are factors outside whether or not you know how to operate the fire hose, such as, will you be a cohesive force for this community?
	So, admittedly, race plays a factor in these issues.
	But I will add, too, it's not so much about the race in that regard, it's an issue of community membership.
	Community service.
	So, I want to stress that it is complicated.
	But I will also stress, when it comes to police, there are factors that should be considered.
	Is the police officer a member of the community, regardless of race?
	Are you going to put a middle-class white officer in a low-income black neighborhood?
	I think that's a recipe for problems.
	Not always bad.
	I'm not saying it's always bad.
	I'm saying racial factors can play a role, regardless of test.
	When it comes to the bare bones of meritocracy, however, I'd rather have the most suited to save my life.
	I understand that in policing, it's not necessarily about whether or not they're going to save lives.
	There are other issues such as being able to work with people on an effective level.
	What I find absolutely fascinating, though, in this study from Tablet.
	Let me read you this, because it was in a different video, but I want to read it now.
	The study says, remarkably, white liberals were the only subgroup exhibiting pro-outgroup bias, meaning white liberals were more favorable towards non-whites, and are the only group to show this preference for group than their own.
	Indeed, on average, white liberals rated ethnic and racial minority groups 13 points warmer than whites.
	This is the problem I have.
	I do not believe they are trying to give black officers a position for the right reasons.
	I believe they're just racist.
	As I mentioned, right, and I know my answer is probably not perfect, there absolutely are reasons to take race into consideration for some jobs.
	But when you look at this study, you can see that's not why they're doing it.
	They're just biased.
	They're racists.
	Plain and simple.
	I will never look at a person and say, you should or shouldn't have this job because of your race.
	I will, however, say I am willing to take into all the considerations and factors to the betterment of humanity.
	And that means opposing negative discrimination, questioning positive discrimination, that yes, positive discrimination is a thing, and recognizing that race doesn't define the person, but can play a role in social cohesion.
	I want to stress why these things matter to me, as you may have heard me talk about in the past.
	The left.
	Typically the left.
	All of them.
	They hold racist and prejudicial views, particularly when it comes to Asians, of which I find myself.
	I find myself... Funny, I am.
	I don't find myself the way I've always been this way.
	It is what it is.
	Literally, my existence is threatened.
	And I love how they like to say, like, you know, racists threaten the existence of minorities.
	Well, so do you when you claim that all Asians are the same race.
	Bigots.
	Please.
	No.
	Okay?
	The problem I have is that They claim all white people are the same.
	They're not.
	Tell my Ukrainian friend, okay, that they're the same as a posh British person.
	Please, no.
	There are differences based on your ethnicity, the country you come from.
	Just because your skin is white doesn't mean you're good or bad.
	I can't- It's racism, plain and simple.
	For me, You know, it comes down to having actual and, like, racists who don't like mixed-race people, and also the left-wing racists who just don't like white people, and they both get mad at me.
	But I'll tell you what.
	When I look at how they have these biased systems, and they want to claim Asian is one group, I'm sorry, man, they're not.
	Tell a wealthy Chinese person, tell somebody from Singapore, they're the same as somebody from, I don't know, the Philippines.
	And people do.
	They absolutely do.
	They say that Laotians and the Vietnamese are the same as Indians.
	I just can't stand this stuff, man.
	So, you know, whatever your opinion is, I'm not super familiar with how this is going to play out with the white officers filing a suit.
	I do think we have a problem that is not reverse racism.
	That is not what it is.
	This is literal racism.
	Period.
	I'll leave it there.
	Let me know what you think.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	Stick around.
	Next segment to come tomorrow at 10 a.m.
	for those on the podcast, every day around 630.

▲