Record Wave Of African Migrants Reach US-Mexico Border, Complain Of Bad Conditions
Record Wave Of African Migrants Reach US-Mexico Border, Complain Of Bad Conditions. Migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa have begun flying across the Atlantic to South and Central America to try and enter the US at the Southern Border.We are already at record levels of illegal immigration at our Southern border and now we see even more people flying half way around the world to travel through several countries to try and enter the US.While Trump has used emergency powers to being construction on a border wall, many mainstream publications such as the New York Times have called on Congress and Democrats to give Trump the funding he needs.Many questions arise in response to stories like these. Why won't Democrats provide funding for shelters, food, and personnel, and why are so many Africans skipping over safe countries to try and enter the US?While many far left and social justice activists decry the harsh conditions faced by these migrants we seem to see no clear path to securing the border, keeping these people safe, and disincentivizing these journeys.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Record number of African migrants coming to Mexican border.
It's a confusing story.
If they're coming from Africa because of danger, and they're in Mexico, they're presumably safe.
I doubt anyone's gonna traverse the Atlantic Ocean to try and Find them, so the danger has certainly been passed.
Why are they then trying to come into the U.S.?
Furthermore, this isn't the first time I've covered this story.
There was video recently showing African migrants trying to enter the U.S.
through the southern border.
I've had a joke with a friend of mine who is not American about how instead of trying to actually come here legally, apparently going through the southern border is the easiest way to do it because everyone's doing it now.
Again, a joke.
I'm trying to get my friend here legally, as people should.
But we're actually seeing this story, and there are a couple of other stories.
So I'm going to read through the story from PBS, but also what may be really interesting to me is that CNN's reporting that African migrants are denouncing the conditions at the Mexico border, which the question I want to ask is, for one, first, why are they coming this way?
Why are they trying to enter the U.S.
through the Mexican border from Africa?
But more importantly, why are they complaining about the conditions in Mexico instead of just staying in Mexico?
Why are they trying to enter the U.S.?
I understand the U.S.
is very, very nice.
Mexico's not that bad, especially if they're coming from war-torn or dangerous areas.
Something doesn't seem to make sense.
Perhaps the real goal is not asylum or refugee status.
It's just economic benefit.
So we'll start with PBS, but before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, and of course, like and comment on the video because the engagement really helps.
Share the video and subscribe because that helps even more.
The story says, Portland, Maine.
Undaunted by a dangerous journey over thousands of miles, people fleeing economic hardship and human rights abuses in African countries are coming to the U.S.-Mexico border in unprecedented numbers, surprising border patrol agents more accustomed to Spanish-speaking migrants.
Officials in Texas, and even Maine, are scrambling to absorb the sharp increase in African migrants.
They are coming to America after flying across the Atlantic Ocean, to South America, and then embarking on an often harrowing overland journey.
In one recent week, agents in the Border Patrol's Del Rio sector stopped more than 500 African migrants found walking in separate groups along the arid land after splashing across the Rio Grande, children in tow.
That is more than double the total of 211 African migrants who were detained by Border Patrol along the entire 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border in the 2018 fiscal year.
We're continuing to see a rise in apprehensions in immigrants from countries not normally encountered in our area, said Raul Ortiz, head of the U.S.
Border Patrol Del Rio sector.
The immigrants in Texas were mostly from the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Angola.
Cameroonians have also been traveling up through Mexico and into the U.S.
in larger numbers and seeking asylum at ports of entry.
This is bad for a lot of reasons.
It's bad because our economy is a fragile system.
You'll hear a lot of arguments from the left and the right.
People will say that it can cause economic strife.
It doesn't cause economic strife.
People on the left say they pay more taxes, they're a benefit to the economy.
Yes, there are certain circumstances where immigrants are a benefit to the economy, and there are certain circumstances where they're not.
Neither of those positions matter.
What matters is the only way to prevent hardship and the only way to guarantee a benefit is through a legal process to place migrants and refugees.
That's why we have a legal process.
I can only assume the reason we're seeing record numbers of African migrants flying to Central America and then walking here is because they know the southern border is porous and the Democrats are not funding securing it.
Trump has repeatedly called on building a wall.
We've now seen a record number of Central and South African, I'm sorry, Central and South American migrants coming to the country.
But now we have the strange circumstance of Africans flying here.
Because instead of applying through a legal process and then flying to the U.S., as would you expect, they know they can bypass all of these legal systems by going through Mexico.
The question is, first, to the people saying that they should be welcome in the U.S., have you been to Mexico?
You know that Mexico is really, really nice and that Americans go there to vacation?
There are dangerous parts of Mexico.
There are dangerous parts of the US.
If these people are just randomly allowed in the country, they will find themselves in the more dangerous parts, in the middle of the desert, getting sick, or potentially in ghettos without resources.
If they enter through the legal process, which admittedly can take a long time, they will get placed properly.
Many people will be turned away because they're trying to manipulate the system.
And take advantage of our goodwill, but those who truly need the help will be given the help they need in a much better way than simply being left to wander in the desert.
Why is it so hard?
But I gotta say, the main reason I want to cover this is that I'm actually rather shocked that it's come to this point.
You would think that the Border Patrol in a previous statement saying this is a full-blown emergency would be enough to get some politicians to fund this.
Instead, what do we see?
This from the Daily Signal from just a few days ago.
Veto looms for Democrats' bill to block border wall spending and fund abortions abroad.
I have no idea why that second bit of the bill was included in here, but we'll come back to the story and read it.
I want to make the point that it seems like every day that I see an alarming story about, say, Listen, I'm not talking necessarily about just building the wall.
You don't have to like the wall.
I'm talking about funding facilities to provide medical care for migrants and refugees.
are obstructing. They don't listen. I'm not talking necessarily by just building the wall.
You don't have to like the wall. I'm talking about funding facilities to provide medical
care for migrants and refugees. I'm talking about providing resources so that there could
be manpower to help accommodate the people who are coming.
Certainly the border wall makes sense to a certain degree.
In terms of spending, I don't know.
There's an argument there.
But we have seen in many countries, upon the completion of border barriers, it disincentivizes this mass migration, which can result in people getting sick and dying.
If they want to come to the US, they should probably fly.
They should probably apply.
Instead, they're flying to Central America.
If you're being allowed into these Central American countries, you're already safe.
You are.
And Mexico has offered asylum to many of the migrant caravans.
So why is this still happening?
And where are the sane, reasonable people to say we can't just let everybody in because you see what's happening?
The argument has been consistently that if we don't secure our border, everyone will be incentivized to come.
And some argue that's not true.
These are people who have no choice.
Fine.
Let's work with that argument.
You now have people flying from Africa.
Certainly, people are realizing, you know what?
Screw it.
Fly to Mexico, walk in.
And they're making it to these borders, but then, strangely, complaining about the conditions.
I understand.
You know, we don't want people in bad conditions.
But we literally can't just open the door to everybody to quote Bernie Sanders.
There are a lot of poor people in this world, and we can't take care of them all.
That is a- I am paraphrasing Bernie Sanders.
If Bernie Sanders is on board with securing the border and disincentivizing this behavior, as well as conservatives, I think we need to recognize that the Democrats as a whole are not doing their jobs.
And admittedly, to an extent, Bernie Sanders is still in that camp.
But even he says we need to do something about this.
So sure, you don't want a wall?
Well, then come up with a plan To accommodate the people that are here, to take care of them, to make sure they don't die, but also to disincentivize people flying from Africa.
Let's read a little bit more, and then we'll take a look at some of the CNN report.
They say a few days after the big groups of African immigrants were apprehended in Texas, federal officials dropped off dozens of them in San Antonio.
Officials in the Texas city sent out a plea for French-speaking volunteers for translating work and, most importantly, making our guests feel welcome.
Many were bused to Portland, Maine, about as far as one can get from the Mexican border and still be in the continental U.S.
Word has spread among migrants that the city of 67,000 is a welcoming place.
Somali refugees were resettled in Portland in the 1990s.
A total of 170 asylum seekers arrived in recent days.
Hundreds more are expected in an influx that city manager John Jennings called unprecedented.
With one shelter already full, a basketball venue called the Portland Exposition Building was converted into an emergency shelter.
We don't have places to bring these people.
They can go to other countries.
It's not about putting these people in harm's way, it's about making sure they aren't in harm's way.
If Portland, Maine and other facilities are full, letting them in the U.S.
doesn't help them, it hurts them.
Where is this conversation among those who claim to care about these people?
You can't just bring people in and say, we don't have food or water or shelter, but by all means, walk through the desert.
It's absurdity.
Complete absurdity.
Portland officials tweeted Thursday that rumors some of the migrants carrying the Ebola virus are patently false, and said that as asylum seekers, they are in the United States legally.
That's true.
On Thursday afternoon, families in the Expo chatted in French and Portuguese as children kicked a soccer ball near rows of cots.
One of the men, 26-year-old Prince Pumbo, described himself as a pro-democracy activist and said he had fled his native country, Congo, because of political oppression.
He went to neighboring Angola, then flew to Brazil.
There, he met a local woman, and they had a baby they named Heaven.
Now 16 months old, she giggled as she played with her mother in the expo.
Pombo said his journey from the Congo to America took three years.
Why didn't he stay in Mexico?
Listen, I've been to Mexico City.
It's amazing.
I don't know what people have in their minds, but Mexico City is a modern, wealthy, contemporary place.
You go there, there's buildings, there's restaurants, there's beer, there's studios.
I don't know what people think Mexico is.
I think you have a lot of people on the left who absolutely are overtly racist, who imagine that all of these minorities have no choice but to come to America.
Dude, Mexico's really, really nice, okay?
It really is.
And man, I just can't stand the offensive stereotypes.
You want to help these people, you don't do it by incentivizing more to come and take dangerous journeys when they're already safe.
Period.
To quote Bernie Sanders, there are a lot of poor people in this world, we can't help them all.
So, I don't want to read, you know, necessarily through all of this, because PBS takes a rather, like, you know, informative approach to this, but I do want to move on to some other stories I have here, some really shocking things.
They say the explosion in immigration to the U.S.
from Sub-Saharan Africa coincides with a steep drop in the migration flow across the Mediterranean to Europe after European countries and two main embarkation points, Turkey and Libya, decided to crack down.
From January 1st to June 12th, only 24,600 migrants arrived in Europe by sea, compared to 99,600 over the same period in 2017.
They're basically saying that these people know they can't get to Europe, so they're gonna come here and come through our border.
Well, this story is interesting.
I don't want to necessarily play too much through it, and, you know, because I normally don't like playing videos.
People will file claims against you.
But it says, there is growing unrest and desperation at a detention center in Tapachula, Mexico, where migrants from countries outside of the Americas are denouncing what they say are poor living conditions.
Why did you not stay in Angola?
Why are you now upset?
Like, listen.
I don't want people to get hurt.
I don't want them to be sick.
I want to help them.
But I do have to question the motives of individuals who have already made it to a better country, Brazil, then risk their lives and coming to dangerous conditions and then being upset at the conditions they found.
What did they think was going to happen?
I wonder.
So I do have another tidbit.
This comes from CNN, and it's why I want to highlight this.
Are migrants at the southern border renting babies to pose as families?
Well, that's a pretty specific question to ask, but they do say.
ICE says there is evidence some migrants coming into the U.S.
have used children to pose as a family, though the agency has said it is uncommon for an infant to be used for this purpose.
Whether or not they're renting children is kind of a loaded question.
It's very specific.
Last month, Border Patrol agents apprehended a Honduran man crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into Texas with a six-month-old baby.
According to a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, ICE, Homeland Security Investigations, interviewed the man.
After finding that he was using fraudulent documents, the complaint says, and he conceded, the child was not his.
Cases of fake families are popping up everywhere, and children are being used as pawns, said Kirsten Nielsen back in March.
She also said DHS had uncovered child recycling rings in which children were used repeatedly in an attempt to be released into the U.S.
I want to now show you this video.
This is a video published by KFOX 14 News, El Paso, Texas.
This video shows people emerging from a sewer in El Paso.
We don't necessarily know what this is.
According to KFOX, they say, an anonymous viewer sent us this video of people coming out of a manhole in the middle of the road in South El Paso Saturday night.
See news happening?
Send us your photos, videos here.
And this video has been traveling around for quite a bit as it was published on the 10th of June.
Now, many people are saying, this video depicts illegal immigrants coming out of the sewers and then sneaking into the country.
I don't know if that's true. That is unconfirmed and it's a rumor.
Though we've heard that repeated far and wide, I wanted to highlight this video for a few reasons.
We're talking about the migration crisis, we're talking about the escalation of African immigrants
into the U.S., but we're also seeing unconfirmed reports.
It may be at this point, this may be confirmed, I'm not sure, but I just want to make sure that
I provide some kind of, I don't know, rationality to the story.
It's entirely possible people are sneaking into the country through sewer systems and then climbing out into the cities to avoid law enforcement.
It's also possible that people actually live in the sewers and they're sneaking out now, at night, to go and get food or something like that.
New York, Las Vegas, and many other cities have people who live in the sewers and in abandoned train stations.
So, again, it's possible this was confirmed.
I'm not saying it wasn't, but let's do this.
I want to lastly just get into the story from The Daily Signal.
Where they say that the Democrats are seeking to block border wall spending and just give you a little bit of info on this front because I think it's important context in regards to a wave of people from Africa flying to Central America and then trying to enter the and South America to enter the U.S.
to me seems reckless, dangerous, and we need to do everything in our power to disincentivize this and secure our borders.
However, and let me also stress, I quoted Bernie Sanders, and I also have the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, this is not my individual opinion, this is my opinion being formed by what other outlets are saying, but what Bernie Sanders is saying, it is not me saying, like, I think, you know, this, that, and this, it's me saying, I have seen Bernie Sanders, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post all come out and explain these things, and actively, with their editorial boards, say, Democrats need to get on board with this, And then I say, OK, we have a damn near consensus here where you've got all these major papers and politicians saying, do something about it.
But for some reason, the Democrats don't.
They say, Democrats announced they would bring the House to the House floor for debate on Wednesday, an appropriations bill to fund the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, state education, labor, energy and health and human services.
But they did say, so let me go to the beginning of the article.
The White House issued a veto threat over a House Democratic spending bill that would increase funding for abortion abroad and ban construction of a southern border wall.
Now you can argue whether the border wall makes sense.
But the issue here is that every single time I see a story about this and I look into what the Democrats are currently doing, it's in opposition to border security.
They say the administration strongly objects to language in section 8127 of the bill that would prohibit the use of FY 2020 or prior year defense appropriations to construct barriers or security infrastructure along the southern border.
So let's not just play the game of the wall.
They're talking about security infrastructure, which could be roads.
It could be watchtowers, it could be cameras, it could be anything related to infrastructure
on border security, and they are presumably going to restrict defense spending to that
end.
So, I'll end the video here.
I think we've gotten to the end and made the point.
Let me know what you think about the wave, record number of African migrants coming to the Mexican border.
We'll keep the conversation going in the comments below.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
More videos coming up at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
and I will see you all then.
You probably would.
Recently, Gibson Bakery won a massive lawsuit against Oberlin because Oberlin, according to the jury, was facilitating defamation and helping protesters lie and smear and target their business.
The total determination from the jury, $44 million, which will probably be restricted or already has to $33 million due to state limits.
So let's just call it a $33 million maximum penalty under the law.
Is being imposed against Oberlin.
Really quickly, the gist of the story.
The shopkeeper at Gibson's bakery caught some kid shoplifting.
The kid happened to be black.
Protesters claimed it was racial discrimination and profiling.
And then protests ensued, but guess what?
Gibson won.
Now, the story has wrapped up, but we are seeing Legal Insurrection publish excerpts from the court case which, my God, will blow your mind.
I saw this Twitter thread, and I was absolutely impressed with some of the admissions from the college about what's really going on at these universities.
Let's start with the first tweet, of which there are many.
And I will say, Props to Legal Insurrection has done a great job covering this, seriously.
They tweeted, this weekend going to be tweeting excerpts from our Gibson Bakery v. Oberlin College trial coverage.
Will take a while.
Watch this thread.
Let's start with administrator suggesting campus worse than nursery school.
Check this out.
Gibson's attorney, Lee Plakas, asked Protzman what was the reason for cutting ties with the business they had worked with for more than a century.
I kid you not, Gibson Bakery, since 1885.
They cut him off.
He pointed out emails from various administrators that the student might throw a tantrum on campus, specifically in the cafeteria while eating dinner, and that might be a good reason to get their cookies and bagels elsewhere.
The concern was that the students were angry, Plakas asked.
The fear was that angry students would throw food made by Gibsons on the floor and stomp on it.
Yes, that was one of the concerns, Protzman answered.
Doesn't that sound more like a nursery school than a college?
Nursery school students do throw food on the floor, yes, Protzman added.
Uh, said, adding, we are not the students' parents, as the reason the school could not tell the students to quit threatening to throw food on the floor and eat their dinner like nice people do.
The regressive college students literally are children who have never grown up.
My God, am I happy?
I dropped out of high school.
Let me tell you something.
My friends who dropped out of high school, successful.
I'm not exaggerating.
All successful.
No, no, no, I shouldn't say all.
But a couple of my people are very, uh, well-known professionals in their, in their, uh, profession.
Making a lot of money.
And I'll tell you why.
From music to skateboarding or otherwise, these people left high school to do something they wanted to do and they made it.
I have friends who dropped out of college and they're also doing fairly well.
None of them are homeless, but guess what?
My friends who graduated college are in debt and struggling living with their parents and, and, and et cetera.
And I am glad I didn't go, because is that where you want to send your kids?
Like, let this be a warning to parents.
What do you think's happening?
Your children are throwing food around and whining and crying.
My God, that is insane.
Check this out.
Oberlin College claimed administrators were at the protest to calm things down.
Police disagreed.
Ortiz also questioned the supposition from Oberlin College that the school's employees on the scene at the protest, including Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo, a defendant in the case, were only there to calm the situation down.
I didn't see anyone trying to calm the students down at all, Ortiz said.
Didn't see any of them instructing the students not to use curse words, and didn't hear any of them tell their students not to shout that Gibson is racist.
The sidewalks were filled up, and a lot of businesses closed in the early afternoon because they were afraid.
So here's what they were handing out.
A local reporter testified Raimondo, who is an administrator of the School of Oberlin, tried to block him from taking photos of the protest and handed him a flyer accusing Gibsons of racial profiling.
So someone from the Oberlin News Tribune, with a print circulation of less than a thousand, testified.
He was repeatedly blocked from taking photos of the protest.
Sound familiar?
Remember that woman who yelled about getting muscle to block the press?
Yeah, they don't like it when people expose them for what they really are.
And this is what she apparently handed out.
Defamatory information.
A long account of profiling and discrimination.
Sorry, that's not true.
Oberlin College had no trespass list, keeping about 400 locals off campus, and it had a disproportionate number of African Americans on it.
Sounds like the college was the racial profiler, not Gibsons.
This stuff, you can't write this for a TV show, right?
It turns out, as I've explained over and over again, and of course, most of you know this, and it sucks.
Preaching to the choir.
I get it.
But listen.
Did you know that I am a mixed-race person?
And you want to know why I bring this up?
To stress the point that these people are racist.
And they have been racist to me as long as I've known them.
I'm talking about, like, the regressive activists.
Most conservatives and most liberals I meet, normal people, not racist.
So you want to talk about extremists?
These people are extremists and they're racist and they hide behind anti-racism.
Plain and simple.
So they basically just reiterate what I just said.
They had 400 people who live locally on a no trespass list and a large number of the community were upset about it because there was a disproportionate number of African Americans on it.
Wow.
Less than a month after the protest, Tito reads in an email to her boss, laying out how she thought things could be fixed, is what the jury read today.
So can we draft a legal agreement clearly stating that once charges are dropped, the purchase orders with Gibsons will resume?
I'm baffled by their combined audacity and arrogance to assume the position of the victim.
Raimondo testified she didn't know if racial profiling accusations were true.
This is big.
Someone else testified that Raimondo, who is with the school, was handing out flyers that said, it is true, they do this, but then testified she didn't know.
Well, I think you've just proven malice.
I'm not a legal expert, but my understanding is that malice is the understanding that you knew something may not be true, or you knew it to be false when you shared that information.
So if she argued, I didn't know if it was true or not, but I'm going to claim it is anyway, then I think they can prove.
So in this one they say, Plakas presented her with a paper that asked if she agreed or disagreed with the statement about assault.
Agreed, and to check the proper box, Raimondo hemmed and hawed a bit, but then said her answer was, I don't know.
So Plakas wrote, I don't know in the paper, and asked her to sign her name as to that being her answer.
They say, uh, going on.
Uh, that wasn't enough for Plakas though, as he seems to have realized he may have struck some gold here.
He then pulled out Oberlin College's student senate resolution passed a day after the shoplifting event, and pulled out this gem from that.
Quote, Gibsons has a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment of students and residents alike.
Once again, Raimondo was asked if she agreed or disagreed with that statement.
She again answered, I don't know.
And Plakas brought the next group of papers up to her initial, and it goes on.
But if she's going to claim and hand out flyers to journalists, but then later say, I don't know, well, you're gonna lose your case.
Former Oberlin College security director was at protests and testified.
College admins not trying to calm things down and college admin tried to intimidate him into not taking photos.
Former nurse at college went to comfort David Gibson's wife who was distraught at protests as protests raged outside.
Legal Instruction then tweets, wonder why the jury found actual malice.
Internal emails are big part, including Raimondo's unleash the students and F him.
And there you go.
Internal emails of them saying, first of all, it was testified
they were handing out fake news.
It was testified that the woman didn't know if it was real or not.
And then she said, F them.
Well, there it is.
So check it out.
He closed with F them, they've made their own bed now.
All these idiots complain about the college.
When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance wrote a letter
to the campus newspaper soon after the protest ended.
He criticized how the school was treating Gibsons in the letter.
Jones sent a text message in caps saying, F. Roger Copeland.
F him, Raimondo responded in a message.
I'd say unleash the students if I wasn't convinced this needs to be put behind us.
They knew the students were a weapon against those who wouldn't bend the knee.
These people are psychotic, disgusting authoritarians who know exactly what they're doing.
Man.
Wow, this is incredible stuff, I gotta say.
These documents.
I wanna add one thing.
Side note.
Google is being sued for discrimination.
They're moving into the discovery phase.
Okay, the reason I bring this up is everything we're seeing from here presumably came through discovery, like private text messages.
Wow.
Isn't it amazing when you lift the curtain and see how these people really act?
No, we didn't do anything wrong.
We're fighting for truth and justice.
No, they said unleash the students, even though they also believed.
It was akin to a nursery school, where the children, the infants, were threatening to throw food on the ground.
And that's what the school was scared of.
We cannot allow this kind of behavior.
Seriously.
I am so happy to hear that Gibson's won in this regard.
So, they said, sometimes lawyers... Well, actually, let's go back.
In response to the FM and Unleash the Students, check this out,
Raimondo was given these examples and others and then asked a very simple question.
When personal beliefs get involved in decision making, does that have an effect on trying to
maintain professional responsibility? Asked plaintiff's attorney, plaintiff's attorney,
Leigh Plakas. She was asked specifically about herself and the higher ups in the Oberlin College
admin. Her answer was quite surprising. Their position is to not have a position. Several of
the jurors shook their heads in surprise when they heard that from her. Wow.
Sometimes lawyers ask a question just to make a point.
The statement is absolutely false, Raimondo answered.
for the school to be thought of as treating minority students better, right?
The statement is absolutely false, Raimondo answered.
African-American bakery employee denied racism, said Raimondo, orchestrating protest and flyer distribution.
She had a stack of them, and while she was talking on the bullhorn, she handed out half of them to a student who then went and passed them out.
That's her officially acting in her professional capacity, to target a small business and you lose. They should have
been awarded more money. Give them the full 44 million. A message needs to be sent to
these regressive authoritarians who care nothing for justice and just want to watch the
world burn. We have an army of jokers running around giggling and laughing as everything
falls apart and that's what they want. This woman doesn't care about minorities.
It was an African-American bakery employee who presumably lost their job because they said they had to lay people off.
Let me tell you something.
During Occupy Wall Street, there was an individual who was rather prominent working for a major newspaper.
I know this person decently well.
And we talked in private, and this individual told me they were doing it to watch the world burn.
Complete nihilism.
They said, life is boring.
Don't you want to shake things up a bit?
And I said, no, I want to make the world a better place.
I want a Star Trek future.
I want to travel the stars.
And that means we need to make sure we can work together and advance our civilization.
And they said, no, none of that matters.
It's nonsense.
The world is boring.
This person is still extremely active with Antifa today.
That's what they told me.
I was told by some other activists during Occupy Wall Street, they want to flip the pyramid upside down.
Now when most people hear that, they're thinking you take the bottom, you know, poor people, and put them on top and the rich people on the bottom.
But I asked in response to this, if you take a pyramid and flip it upside down, the bricks will crumble and it'll form the same pyramid.
But someone from the bottom will be the new top, and everyone else will fall down.
And they said, exactly.
That's right.
Flipping the pyramid upside down doesn't put the proletariat above the bourgeoisie.
It just causes the pyramid to collapse and shape into a new rigid and ugly looking pyramid with different people on top.
And they told me that's what they wanted.
And these are some pretty prominent activists who are still relatively active today.
Student protesters initially entered bakery and harassed customers and staff.
I asked them to leave and they wouldn't.
And they started pushing their cameras in my face and yelling things at me.
Store employees had tires slashed.
Lorna Gibson on husband David.
It isn't just a job for him and all of us.
It's been our life.
It's been crucial for him and our family.
Oberlin College promised full investigation of incident but never did.
Raimondo suggested to Jones they could dodge the media's questions because our phrasing was unfortunate and they said they were indeed doing an investigation.
There's a lot here.
Senior college admin rejected community warning.
The students are on the wrong side of the issue and they refuse to listen to anything that doesn't fit their narrative.
The townspeople are furious.
I find this misdirected rage very disturbing.
Excuse me, that's a quote.
Plakas, the lawyer, said, would it have killed Oberlin to say we got it wrong?
Jones answered, this was between the students and Gibson.
We don't speak for the students.
I was neither wrong nor involved.
Yet we already heard that one of the administrators got on the bullhorn and handed out flyers.
And then he says, legal instruction, that completes day 14 of 13 days of witness testimony.
Keep in mind, as Oberlin College tries to spin this as them being responsible for student speech, that's not what the case is about.
It was their own conduct.
And then it goes on to say, keep in mind brilliant trial strategy by Zengis Plakis.
This is the lawyer.
Start Gibson's bakery case by going directly after and destroying key Oberlin College witnesses and defenses, as I noted on day one.
Marketing expert called by Gibson's pointed out college age consumers' decisions driven by desire to be perceived as fitting in.
Oberlin College unsuccessfully tried to keep out police records showing no racial profiling at Gibson's bakery.
Forty arrested, thirty-two were white, six were African American, and two were Asian.
Pretty much matched cities' racial makeup.
Check that out!
You often hear about these people saying, we want proportionality, right?
Parity.
With, you know, the national level population distribution.
That means, you know, at Google, they should have x many, you know, Asians, x many white.
What happens when, when Gibson's Bakery, their arrest record for shoplifting fits the, the actual population, uh, um, uh, diversity, I guess, what are you gonna call it?
Proportionality?
They call that racial profiling.
When 80% of those arrested at Gibson's Bakery were white, it doesn't matter.
Six were black, therefore it's racial profiling.
They're lying.
And they tried to keep that evidence out.
These people are truly, truly despicable.
This is not justice.
This is manipulation, authoritarianism, and playing to people's goodwill to try and destroy an innocent family.
Culture of corruption.
A large percentage of shoplifting arrests were Oberlin College students.
What Student Mac called the Oberlin College culture of theft.
Wow.
Magazine not admitted in evidence, but stats were.
On day seven, they didn't rest.
They presented plaintiff's damages expert.
The bakery market had already lost and will lose about 5.8 million dollars from the school's alleged racist accusations.
David Gibson takes the witness stand in emotional testimony.
I realized very soon on how everything had been going in this that my dad was going to pass away labeled as a racist.
Think about that.
I'm going through a current battle right now with one of my videos being censored.
I could not imagine what it's like to be under the boot of this horrifying mob.
I mean, I will say, I've been targeted by many of these activists, I've been physically assaulted, they lie about me all day and night, but I'm a relatively powerful individual.
And I don't mean that to be egotistical, what I mean is, I've got over a million followers across the board.
On YouTube alone, my three channels break over a million, I've got nearly 340,000 on Twitter, and I recognize With that comes certain power that small families like this don't have.
I do not feel the same stress and pressure from getting people tweeting at me and lying about me.
I ignore it.
And people like Joe Rogan, he gets it all the time too.
Ignores it.
Not everybody does.
There are a lot of people who kind of play to it.
If I was a regular, you know, um, like private figure working on a job at a theater or something, just like, you know, a small, like, you know, a low salary, $10 an hour, $15 an hour job, small business owner selling widgets, and you have the entirety of the social justice community bearing down on you to destroy you, I could not imagine what that would be like.
I can only imagine it's a, it's a nightmare.
And so I don't want to read through the entirety of the testimony because there is a lot of tweets here and I don't want to rehash the, relitigate the whole case.
So I'll put a link to this thread so you guys can read on, but I want to end by stressing this point, which inspired me to talk about this video in the first place.
When they said, when they actually agreed, nursery school students do throw food on the floor.
That's what college is.
It's a nursery school for children who never grew up.
What a goddamn nightmare.
Get your kids out of these schools.
Send them to go work.
Send them on a two-week camping trip for the love of all that is holy.
Take your kids out camping for a couple weeks and teach them what life is like in the wilderness.
Teach them what it truly means to survive.
Don't put them in daycare for 26 years and then cross your fingers and think they'll survive in the real world.
I actually feel bad for these kids.
I really do.
I've got some friends who went to school for 26 years.
No, I shouldn't say 26 years.
Until they were 26 years old.
They had never had a real job.
They don't know what it's like to have to survive in dangerous territory.
They don't know what it's like to have gangs in your neighborhood.
Deaf people die of overdoses.
No, they've been pampered and protected, and their parents bulldozed everything out from in front of them.
And what do they become?
Babies.
They have the mentality of toddlers.
I'm not exaggerating when I say this.
When it's testified in court that the school actually views them in a similar way to nursery school students, the lawyer presented it.
The fear was that students would throw food on the floor and stomp on it.
Yes, that was a concern.
Doesn't that sound more like a nursery school than a college?
Nursery school students do throw food on the floor, yes.
Bad parenting.
Man, I don't know what's gonna save us, but I'll say this.
Millennials aren't having kids.
They're not getting married.
And Gen Xers, their kids, and yes, to an extent, the Boomers' kids, like other Millennials, are babies.
They never aged out of being toddlers who are throwing temper tantrums and throwing food on the floor.
And here we have it.
I hope you enjoy.
You reap what you sow.
I hope you enjoy it.
You reap what you sow, Oberlin.
That's $33 million.
I just, you know what I want to see?
I want to see a photograph of the Gibson family on an expensive luxury yacht with their feet up sipping pina coladas with a smile on their face.
I want them to take that money first, protect your business.
That's what it's for.
But I hope to God.
They take a good slab of that money and they go party on a rooftop, looking over, you know, a beautiful city with the skylights and the stars above them with a smile on their faces because they absolutely deserve it.
No one deserves this nonsense from these fringe, wacko mobs.
Nobody.
If you do something wrong, justice is coming.
If you actually want to racially profile someone and be, you know, discriminate against them in violation of civil rights law, justice will come for you all the same.
But if you lie, And you bend the knee as a school to whiny children who are throwing food on the floor and having temper tantrums, or like Evergreen State, then you will get your comeuppance.
I'll leave it there.
Man, long video, but you know what?
Amazing story.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
I will see you there.
The ends don't justify the means, because you will never meet the end.
If you live your life feeling that you are justified in doing unjust things to find an unjust future, you will only create an unjust world.
Period.
Kyle Kashuv is not going to be going to Harvard.
Because when he was 16, several years ago, he said very offensive things, for which he apologized.
I will say this.
Harvard is extremely, extremely meticulous in how they choose who they choose.
And I can't say I'm surprised that they have rescinded the offer of Kyle Kashuv.
I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing your name wrong.
Um, over what he said.
I just think it's really stupid.
Teenagers say dumb things, and, you know, look, if you can't accept someone's apology and allow them to move on, you force them to double down and move in the other direction.
This is why I have adamantly defended the right to forgiveness, be it from a Buzzfeed writer or from someone like Joey Salads.
You know, we're gonna read this.
Um, You know, let's read it first.
I'll save my anecdote and my life lesson for afterwards, just so we can see what's going on.
From the Daily Wire, Harvard rescinds admission to conservative Kyle Kashuv over private racist remarks he wrote at 16, despite apology and evidence of growth.
It's from Ben Shapiro, who is very clearly outraged.
And I thought this would be the appropriate way to approach the story, because Ben and, you know, Kyle's a huge fan of Ben, and I think it'd be interesting to see Ben's personal opinions on the issue.
On Monday, Parkland survivor and outspoken conservative Kyle Kashuv announced that Harvard University has withdrawn his admission from the school over revelation of racist, offensive, idiotic posts written on a private Google document with friends when he was 16 years old.
Never mind that Kashuv apologized publicly for the comments.
Never mind that his public behavior has evinced no racism whatsoever.
What's the point of apologizing?
That's a dangerous world you're creating if you refuse to accept it.
The appropriate response from Harvard, in my opinion, should have been We want to encourage growth.
We want to encourage people to turn away from this kind of behavior.
And because of that, we will accept the apology.
And we want, you know, he can provide, you know, he provided a written statement where he denounced the things he said, blah, blah, blah.
And there you go.
Make it a profound statement rejecting these ideas.
What do you think happens to people when you say, we won't do anything with you, period, if you've ever said anything like this?
You are fracturing society.
So Kyle tweeted this thread.
He said Harvard rescinded my acceptance.
Three months after being admitted to Harvard Class of 2023, Harvard has decided to rescind my admission over texts and comments made nearly two years ago, months prior to the shooting.
I have some thoughts.
Here's what happened.
A few weeks ago, I was made aware of egregious and callous comments classmates and I made privately years ago when I was 16 years old, months before the shooting.
In an attempt to be as extreme and shocking as possible, I immediately apologized.
So apparently, he apologized immediately.
In private.
Before this was public or anything like that.
That's my understanding.
However, a few, uh, he says.
After I issued this apology, speculative articles were written.
My peers used the opportunity to attack me and my life was once again reduced to a headline.
It sent me into one of the darkest spirals of my life.
See, when you apologize, it's an admission of guilt.
And it'll be used against you.
You know what- You know what's gonna happen in the future?
Deny, deny, deny.
And I've- I've talked about this before.
The smartest thing you could- I never wrote that.
That wasn't me.
This is a smear- This is a smear campaign.
Why apologize?
Why grow?
Just deny it.
And that's all that's happening.
And I'm the only one- I'm not the only one who's brought this up.
He says, after the story broke, former peers and political opponents began contacting Harvard, urging them to rescind me.
Harvard then sent this letter stating that they reserve the right to withdraw an offer of admission.
They do, actually.
They withdraw a lot, apparently.
He said he responded to the letters with a full explanation, apology, and request for documents.
I also sent an email to the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to seek guidance on how to right this wrong and work with them once I was on campus.
Harvard decided to rescind my admission with the following letter.
Somewhat ironically, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion sent me this response regarding my apology.
Thank you for your email.
We appreciate your thoughtful reflections and look forward to connecting with you upon your matriculation in the fall of 2020.
How sad that they were actually looking to connect with him on the issue.
And it was an excellent opportunity to explain why you shouldn't do these things.
And this is what I always explain to people.
If you want someone to change their behavior, Banning them and deplatforming does the opposite.
We'll use Carl Benjamin as a good example.
He said some silly words on YouTube, in a specific context I don't care to bring up.
But he said naughty words.
So Patreon banned him.
Now he can just keep using the naughty words all he wants, because you've already banned him.
But imagine if Patreon said, listen, you're bringing in $12,000 a month with us.
We do not like you using this language.
It's bad for all of us.
This is your warning.
If at any point from now on a video emerges from this date forward with you using this kind of language in this way, we will remove you.
Guess what would have happened?
He would have said, you know what?
You're right.
I don't need to say these things.
It's not worth it.
I apologize.
And I'm pretty sure Sargon actually said that was the fact, the case.
You banned him already.
Now you have no leverage whatsoever.
But here's the thing.
The companies, Harvard, they don't care about what was said.
They don't care at all.
If it wasn't for the press, this wouldn't even be an issue.
It was activists highlighting this issue.
It was a tiny group of individuals to make sure Kyle would not get access to Harvard.
But then, I think what's really funny is that, here's my understanding, I could be wrong, and I'm not saying this to be disrespectful to David Hogg.
My understanding is that Hogg didn't qualify for Harvard at all.
But got in because he provides something else, right?
Harvard takes into consideration other aspects of a person's life outside of their SATs and things like that.
So it is believed, from my understanding, Hog got in because he's famous.
Kyle didn't get in because he was famous.
He got in because he scored really high.
And so they took that away from him.
Let's read on, however.
Kyle says, After receiving Harvard's letter revoking my acceptance,
I responded by asking for the opportunity to have an in-person meeting to make my case
face-to-face and work towards any possible path of reconciliation.
Harvard responded by declining my meeting request.
Harvard deciding that someone can't grow, especially after a life-altering event like
the shooting, is deeply concerning.
If any institution should understand growth, it's Harvard, which is looked to as the pinnacle of higher education despite its checkered past.
Throughout its history, Harvard's faculty has included slave owners, segregationists, bigots, and anti-Semites.
If Harvard is suggesting that growth isn't possible, and that our past defines our future, then Harvard is an inherently racist institution.
But I don't believe that.
I believe that institutions and people grow.
I've said it repeatedly.
In the end, this isn't about me.
It's about whether we live in a society in which forgiveness is possible or mistakes brand you as irredeemable, as Harvard has decided for me.
So what now?
I'm figuring it out.
I had given up huge scholarships in order to go to Harvard, and the deadline for accepting other college offers has ended.
I'm exploring all options at this moment.
So then Ben adds, as far as his Harvard qualifications, they weren't based on activism.
Kishov was ranked second in his class with a weighted GPA of 5.345 and an unweighted GPA of 3.9.
He scored 1550 on his SATs.
But Kishov's activism has been impressive nonetheless.
He has worked consistently across the aisle to bring about school safety measures to protect other high schoolers and that his terrible comments were written before the life-changing event of what happened at Parkland.
Kyshev's comments were originally surfaced by fellow students who oppose him politically in an overt attempt to damage him.
Kyshev did the right thing and issued an immediate apology.
He did do the right thing.
He absolutely did the right thing.
And he has my respect for that.
And now you can see what happens when you do the right thing.
Let no good deed go unpunished.
They don't care about what is right.
They don't care about reconciliation or reflection.
They care about weaponizing your guilt against you to destroy you and destroy their political opponents.
In a normal world, this would have been enough.
Kachov is 18, and he wrote the comments when he was 16.
He didn't commit crime, he didn't espouse his gross publicly.
His behavior since has not mimicked any of the content or attitude of the comments.
He also underwent a life-changing trauma.
The kind of trauma that has provided an unbreakable shield of protection from the media for all other Parkland survivors.
Hell, criticizing outspoken activist David Hogg was considered an act of extreme evil by the mainstream media, an act worthy of advertiser boycott.
Not for Kachov, however.
Yes, I would actually say a little bit worse than a dumb kid.
the statements though because I think you guys get the point and the news
you know effectively you know what happened but I want to read his closing
statement and then provide you with a story a philosophy.
Kagashev acted like a dumb kid. Yes I would actually say a little bit worse
than a dumb kid. He was a dumb kid for sure but it was particularly egregious.
He's remorseful and that I can respect.
Denying him the chance to prove it is horrifying, and if the new standard is that anyone whose old comments are resurfaced for fun and games can have their life ruined, no one will survive.
I look forward to tasking my reporters with digging up everything everyone on the admissions committee has ever said.
If these are the new rules, so be it.
But these are apparently the new rules.
Keshav is not the first to feel the brunt.
He certainly won't be the last.
Daily Mail has substantial resources.
Don't ask me how I know that, but of course we know they do, right?
Massive reach.
One of the top podcasts in the world.
They can... Wow.
It's gonna be really, really interesting.
But I want to end with a story I've often told on this channel, like three or four times.
So you can understand my philosophy on forgiveness.
I was in Manhattan.
And I hailed a cab.
For those that don't know, cab drivers in Manhattan hate driving to Brooklyn because they can't pick up fares in Brooklyn.
They have different cars.
There's green cabs for the other boroughs and yellow cabs for Manhattan.
But they can't reject a fare to any of these other locations.
So often what they'll do is you'll flag them down, they'll crack the window a tiny bit and say, where are you going?
And as soon as you say Brooklyn, they speed off, which they're not allowed to do, but they'll do it.
Well, this guy pulled up, and I got in the car, and he says, where to?
And I gave him my address in Brooklyn, and he was livid.
Furious.
Started passive-aggressively mumbling and swearing, driving like the worst person I've ever driven in a cab with, and I was getting pissed.
I'm like, dude, don't get mad at me.
This is the city.
You know the rules, too.
I didn't say anything, though.
He just drove like a dick, and he was really mean the whole time, grumbling non-stop.
Finally made it to my apartment.
And he doesn't say anything, he just looks away and, you know, makes an angry face.
And so I go in to swipe my card, and I gave him a 100% tip.
You may be wondering, why would I give this angry, mean person, who is mean to me for no reason, double the fare?
Putting double the money in his pocket.
It's very simple.
When he saw that amount of money I put in the tip, his face changed.
He turned to me and said, thank you so much!
Blessings to you!
Blessings to your family!
And I said, hey, don't worry about it, man.
Like, have a good day, and I hope this gets you back to Manhattan without having to worry about, you know, picking up a fare.
He was like, no, no, no, of course, of course!
Thank you so much!
Thank you so much.
It's really simple.
The guy was mean to me.
He was having a bad day.
I don't want him to have a bad day.
I want him to have a good day.
I don't need revenge.
I don't need emotional satisfaction.
I just need people to be less mean.
And so I realized something.
There are many people who deserve that big tip because they go out of their way
to try and make sure you have a good day.
This man was not one of those people.
But, what would happen if I stiffed him as penalty for being mean?
I'll tell you what'll happen.
He'd make it back to Manhattan angry.
He'd pick up his next fare angry.
He would be continually angry, then pissing off his next fare, who would then not give him any money either.
That person who's riding in that cab would then leave angry, and the wave of anger would persist, with everybody increasingly making each other angry like a virus.
The guy who gets in the back of that cab, who's late for a meeting, now has this angry cab driver who's being mean to him, and he gets mad, and then he gets out of the cab, and he walks inside, and he's like, what?
Then he redirects his anger and says, why is this guy?
You know, why do I gotta deal with this?
I'm late for my meeting, this guy's yelling at me!
I'll tell you what happens now.
I hope.
That cab driver's gonna have a massive grin, a big ol' smile like, wow, what a good day, wow.
You know, basically a free ride, I don't gotta worry about going to Macon, Manhattan.
He's gonna pull up to the next fare, the guy's gonna get in late for his meeting, kinda grumbling, and the driver's gonna be like, hey man, let me take care of you, you know, I understand you're having a bad day, I'll get you where you need to go, don't you worry about it.
Then that fare is gonna say, oh, this guy's really nice, you know, that makes me feel better, and hopefully I can spread happiness and love like a virus instead of hate.
So to redirect back to the story about my philosophy, why create more strife and anger?
Why do these activists try and do this?
Because they want emotional vindication.
They want their perceived symbols to suffer.
They want schadenfreude.
To me, that's evil.
Certainly, there's a catharsis in watching your political opponents and your enemies fail or suffer, but that's just a cycle of suffering.
And that's not a good world to live in.
The ends will never justify the means.
If you think you have a right to smear and defame and target and attack Kyle because you don't like his politics and you will do anything to stop him, the same will come for you.
It always will.
And the only thing that will happen is we will all live in a crappy world filled with crappy people doing crappy things while they look to the sky and cross their fingers that eventually they'll swim through the air and find their utopia.
You won't.
This is life.
People don't agree with each other all the time.
There is no end.
The only thing we have is today and what comes from our actions today.
So you want to make an unjust world thinking eventually when you're in power, you can make things better?
You won't.
Because you will never have enough.
No one does.
The same is true for the tech giants and for every tyrant and dictator who has ever existed.
I don't want to be absolute.
There's probably some good, you know, benevolent dictators at some point in history, sure.
But I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Next video to come up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
And, um, I will see you in the next story.
Many of us keep an eye on what's going on with Ocasio-Cortez because she's anomalous, she's new, she has far-left politics, and she's rapidly rising in the ranks of the Democratic Party.
With over 4 million followers, what's going on with her is particularly newsworthy.
There are certainly many other congresspeople who aren't as newsworthy.
So this is why I want to do a video about her latest poll.
Ocasio-Cortez devastated a new poll from inside her district.
The story from the Daily Wire talks about how Though there has been a waxing and waning of her favorability, her unfavorability, my understanding is now very high.
Two to one.
And so we also have an op-ed here from Washington Examiner.
Again, these are both conservative outlets who are going to be taking a critical approach to her polls.
So I'll definitely be commenting on that, but before we get started and looking at why people don't like her anymore, I don't know if they ever did, go 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, and of course, liking and commenting, some of the best things you can do.
Engagement really helps, as does sharing and subscribing.
From the Daily Wire, a new poll from inside Socialist Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 14th Congressional District has found that among registered voters, the far-left Congresswoman is deeply unpopular.
The door-to-door poll from Stop the AOC PAC yielded the following key results.
They don't like her.
She has a more than 2-to-1 ratio of unfavorable to favorable in public opinion.
They don't trust her.
Only 10.75% thought she had their best interests in mind in quashing the Amazon deal.
32.6% said she didn't.
They don't want her.
33.44% are ready to vote against her, and only 13.3% would vote for her.
But let's just make sure we make it very clear.
Stop the AOC PAC clearly has an agenda when it comes to these polls.
And you don't know necessarily what questions they were asked.
We can potentially look at them.
But I would also stress there's an inversion that is true as well.
Many of the polls done by groups that favor Ocasio-Cortez would invert them as well.
So take it all with a grain of salt.
The story says, The poll also found that a plurality of Ocasio-Cortez's district did not agree with her decision to sabotage the Amazon deal, which would have brought tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity to her district.
My understanding is that Amazon would not have been in her district, but there would have been people living in the area.
Ocasio-Cortez has now tried to backpedal, claiming she had nothing to do with Amazon pulling out.
But I want to make sure I stress, Ocasio-Cortez headlined a protest in the Financial District in New York to oppose and obstruct the Amazon deal.
Very devastating to New York, who really needed the new revenue to repair their crumbling infrastructure like the MTA.
The final analysis from the poll stated, facing an electorate more concerned with results than retweets,
Ocasio-Cortez has problems in her backyard. Despite her online notoriety and
fandom in the National New Progressive Movement, the citizens of New York District 14
want a representative aligned with their values. After surveying voters in 2,261 homes in the
district, it's clear Ocasio-Cortez is not the model for hope and change she sold
herself to be.
The opportunity for a new voice is prevalent, and the electorate is ready to take action in 2020.
The results from the Stop the AOC PAC poll are just the latest devastating numbers Ocasio-Cortez had to face over her job performance in marks in March.
I said marks because I mixed March and Vox.
Vox reported, That a Quinnipiac poll released on Thursday morning found that 23% of Americans had a favorable view of Cortez, while 36% had an unfavorable view.
However, I want to make sure I stress, there were polls in between that showing that her ratings, her favorability, went up.
So, you can very easily pull a specific poll from back then to claim that she was doing really bad, and she still is, but there's been a wax and a waning.
She's done some things, people really liked it, and then she's done bad things, and people have retracted, and it goes back and forth.
They say that in March, the Daily Wire also reported the findings of this Siena College poll of New Yorkers, taken between March 10th and 14th, prompted Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg to say only 12% call her a hero, while 38% label her a villain.
Well, let's pop up this year's story from the Washington Examiner.
Opinion.
And this goes more in-depth on the poll, and so we actually have the questions asked, and I want to take a look at the questions to see if there's any bias in the framing of the narrative, because This pack clearly doesn't like Ocasio-Cortez.
So, you know, people— pollsters love asking loaded questions, because they want to publish stories saying, like, oh, our polls are really bad, hoping that people would rather vote for a victor instead of a loser, and if they think our polls are bad, nobody wants to be in the outgroup.
So here we have— let's start just with a little preface of what the story is.
They say, A new door-to-door survey found that she has a low 21% favorability rating.
The survey of registered voters was conducted by the Political Action Committee, targeting her with a Federal Election Commission complaint.
A previous survey for the group found that residents were upset with the lawmakers' opposition to Amazon.
Just so we know where they're going with it.
And they say the key findings.
42% are unfamiliar with AOC.
51% have an unfavorable view.
with AOC. 51% have an unfavorable view. 33% are ready to vote against her. So let's look at these
The first question.
Familiar, unfamiliar, refused.
So we can see that 58% were familiar.
Student activists concerned about our community.
Our Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected to represent us last year.
Are you familiar with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Familiar unfamiliar refused.
So we can see that 58% were familiar.
They said that, right?
Yes.
And 41.73 were unfamiliar.
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Cortez?
And okay, so it looks like the questions are legit.
I'm satisfied with that.
Do you support allowing businesses like Amazon to move here and hire thousands of new jobs?
Support Amazon, 36%.
Unsure, 55.
And does not support Amazon, 8%.
Do you believe politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had our community's best interest in mind when they forced Amazon out of Queens?
And unsure was 56%.
This seems fairly legit.
The only question I...
These final two questions I would take issue with, but if they ask them in this order, then I think we're looking at some legitimate responses.
So let me just explain my thought process on these questions.
When they say, do you believe that Cortez had our community's best interest in mind when they forced Amazon out of Queens?
That takes a very direct approach to what I would say is a framing of the narrative.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't necessarily force Amazon out of Queens.
I don't know how you could ask that question.
Better because she played a role in that?
Perhaps you could say something like, do you believe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had our community's best interest in mind when she led protests to block Amazon coming into Queens?
And then I'm sure you would have gotten a very similar response.
So I'm not super unhappy with it.
They said, will you pledge to oppose Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in our next election?
Yes.
33% said they would oppose.
53% were unsure.
I don't like that question.
That's a direct question.
I would rather ask, In the next election, would you support or would you oppose Ocasio-Cortez?
And then you could have oppose, support, etc.
Let's read on a little bit.
Facing an electorate more concerned with the results than retweets.
Okay, we read that already.
Backer said that he hopes potential opponents act on his survey results and take on Ocasio-Cortez.
She does not have a strong constituency outside her core support group.
I would stress, neither did Joe Crowley.
Listen, So let's analyze this, right?
So for those that are familiar, Ocasio-Cortez won using an exploit.
Primarying.
Most people just vote Democrat.
They know this.
Even Nancy Pelosi said a glass of water with a D on it would win in her or Ocasio-Cortez's district because people will just vote for the Democrat.
So most people, as we can see, don't even know who she is.
27% were unsure if they were favorable.
Wait, hold on.
This is really interesting.
I wonder if they did the math on these questions for only people who knew who she was.
Because look, if 41% are unfamiliar, why would 27% be unsure?
Unless they only count those who are familiar with her.
I don't know.
Hopefully they did.
But here's what I want to point out.
Ocasio-Cortez won with something like 16,000 or 17,000 votes in a district of 700,000 people.
And only 50% were... 41% were unfamiliar with her.
I guess she is really, really famous.
Whether or not she can win in her next upcoming election, which is 2020, is to be seen.
In her initial primary run, she won because activists were activated.
And they didn't need that many votes to get rid of Joe Crowley.
And Joe Crowley, nobody knew who he was.
I didn't know who he was.
But if nobody was gonna come out to vote for him, You know, people didn't know him.
It's entirely possible more people did know who he was, but don't know anything about primaries.
So they're like, when's the vote?
And thus, Ocasio-Cortez got into an exploit.
The companies that she worked with to do this, they knew what they were doing.
That was their strategy.
Since then, she's become very famous, which is probably going to get her a ton of support, and she will be very difficult to defeat.
Take that into consideration.
She's very famous, and there are a lot more people who know who she is now today than they did a year ago.
But we can see that if this poll is correct, her unfavorability is really high.
And that's kind of scary, especially for New York District.
I wonder if that could lead to a Republican victory.
Serious question.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got more segments coming up in a few moments, and I will see you soon.
Because we're all so damn concerned about election meddling, we take our advice from John Oliver.
A British guy.
I think John Oliver might actually be a citizen, though, so I'm not entirely sure.
And I'm only somewhat being facetious.
I don't care where you're from.
You're allowed to have an opinion on whether or not we should impeach the president.
But I do find it interesting that we see all of these late-night hosts pushing for this rhetoric.
Calling for the impeachment of the president, and I ask why.
Because there's a potential for obstruction of justice into an investigation that basically exonerated the president.
There was no evidence for conclusion.
So here we have something interesting.
A criminal investigation, a legally done special counsel and all that, didn't find enough evidence for any kind of prosecution.
And now what?
Now they want to impeach him over the potential for obstruction.
Listen, I understand the left's argument when they say that Mueller didn't file obstruction charges because he can't file charges against the president.
But he didn't say Trump did anything wrong.
He simply said if we could exonerate him, you know, we would have.
No, that's not what the law does.
The law looks for evidence and if you have enough, then you make your way up to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt we convict somebody.
But let's see what Mr. John Oliver has to say.
But before we do, two things.
The second story, CNN pundit wonders if news orgs would push impeachment to boost ratings.
I wonder why John Oliver is calling for impeachment.
Ha ha ha ha.
But go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, just like, comment, share, and subscribe to help with the engagement.
From the Daily Beast, John Oliver makes the case for impeaching Trump nobody is above the law.
Last Week Tonight host explained why the Democrats should start an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Yes, because they want President Pence.
Well, let's read on.
On Sunday night, John Oliver dedicated the main story of Last Week Tonight, which has published overt fake news on numerous occasions, to laying out the case for impeaching President Trump.
Though impeachment isn't popular with the public, a majority of Americans currently do not support a Wait, what?
Oh, okay, okay.
I'm one of them.
As is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
She's pointed out time and time again.
proceedings. I'm one of them. As is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She's pointed out time and time
again. Oliver argued that most of the public aren't aware of the contents of the Mueller report.
I read it. I read it. I've been covering this stuff and I think you are wasting your time.
You are spinning your wheels for a fringe minority of resistance crazy people who just
don't like the president, orange man bad, and you're not talking about what we need to deal with.
I made a video about African migrants in record numbers coming to the southern border.
That is a crisis.
The Wall Street Journal thought so, the New York Times thought so, and here's John Oliver twiddling his thumbs to preach to the resistance.
Well as CNN wonders, perhaps it will increase our ratings.
I wouldn't be surprised.
What a waste of all of our time.
Look, man, if there was something done that was just overt in terms of obstruction, like we knew Trump did something, whoa, of course no one's above the law.
But what we're looking at right now is the nonsense from the resistance rating, you know, vultures that are pushing this narrative simply because Orange Man Bad sells t-shirts.
It sells advertisements.
My word.
Okay, so he says, I'll tell you what the risks are.
A bunch of disaffected liberals saying, Can I say that?
involves, so we thought tonight might be a good time to discuss what it is, why it
may be warranted, and what the risks might be in carrying it out. I'll tell
you what the risks are. A bunch of disaffected liberals saying, you never
offered us anything, you never gave me a reason to vote for you. Can I say that?
I've said it a lot. I'd love to vote for some of these Democrats.
In fact, I likely would vote for someone like Yang.
Yang's... I think Yang's better and better every time I watch him, and he's a good dude.
So I like Yang.
Not all the Democrats, but many of them.
In Congress, in the Senate, and the presidential candidates.
What are you offering?
Elizabeth Warren wants to break up big tech.
I really, really like that, but I really, really don't like Elizabeth Warren.
So you got me at an impasse.
Andrew Yang?
He wants to impose a value-added tax On these big tech companies so that portions of the revenue they generate can be distributed as a universal basic income program that would displace our standard welfare packages, which in essence could actually reduce our welfare spending.
It's a complicated system.
What I like about Yang is mostly that he's thought these things out.
He's pro-nuclear energy, for instance.
He's pro-free speech.
I think he's a good guy.
He's willing to sit down with Ben Shapiro, go on Fox News, Dave Rubin.
That, to me, says a lot.
So I have a tremendous respect for him.
Not perfect, though.
So I definitely want to hear legitimate arguments and I want to see these debates.
But what about the rest of them?
What is John Oliver doing?
Going on his TV and rallying his base.
Listen, you know what John Oliver said?
Nobody is above the law.
We should impeach Trump.
He might as well have just gone on TV and said, orange man bad for 40 minutes straight.
Because that's all he's really saying.
You're not telling me anything, dude.
You're not telling me why I should or shouldn't vote for any of these people.
They just want to get rid of Trump and make Pence the president.
And I don't know why.
I don't know why.
But impeachment would never even happen.
That's the other thing.
Trump will never be impeached.
Look, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that Trump will not be impeached.
I mean, they don't have the Senate, right?
So what are they going to do?
It just seems nonsensical.
I think the real goal of impeachment is to try and just unearth as much bad press as possible.
But guess what?
Didn't work in 2016, won't work now.
I don't even want to read this nonsense from John Oliver.
He says, while impeachment in no way guarantees a president's removal from office, with no past presidents ever being removed due to impeachment, Oliver claimed that Trump had committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
Did he?
A treasonable offense.
Seriously?
He pointed to the 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report.
Oh my God.
So here's what you want to say.
No, we're not going to begin impeachment proceedings.
Congress is now going to investigate possible obstruction.
And of course, you know, the Democrats will fall on the Democrat side and Republicans on the Republican side.
Waste of everyone's time.
He says, including Trump's repeated orders to then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, the person investigating him, which they don't mention was because of fear of a conflict of interest, which never actually moved beyond that point.
My, come on.
If that weren't enough, the report outlined how Trump then pressured McGahn to put out a statement denying that he tried to remove Mueller and wanted McGahn to write a letter to that effect for their records.
Listen.
The problem is, is firing Mueller obstruction.
There's not even a definitive yes or no in that regard.
Trump ultimately—well, I'll just put it this way.
It didn't happen, OK?
So you want to call it obstruction because Trump was like, I want this to happen.
They said no.
It's like, OK.
Nothing happened!
Man, I—look, I get really annoyed.
When instead of arguing the veracity of Trump's policy positions, we're arguing whether or not a hypothetical may have been obstruction.
We're arguing whether or not Trump saying a sentence of like, I want that guy fired.
I'm not going to fire him.
That's what we're arguing about.
Do you wanna have a conversation about the migrant crisis?
I'd love to do that.
You wanna have a conversation about the economy, manufacturing?
Do you wanna have an argument about Yang's idea of automation and UBI versus Trump's idea of, I guess, more protectionism and border restrictions and tariffs and things like that?
Both have their merits and their pitfalls.
Some more than others, and I think it warrants a good debate.
Instead, John Oliver goes on TV and says, Orange man bad.
Orange man so bad, impeach orange man.
I get it.
He says, when it comes to impeachment, there aren't just two outcomes.
Even if Trump is not removed, which he probably won't be, the process could shine a light on the contents of the Mueller report.
And that's the point.
They know they won't remove him.
John Oliver said as much.
They just want bad press.
Why?
Well, in this story from Fox News, CNN pundit wonders if news orgs would push impeachment to boost their ratings.
And there it is.
News outlets often bill themselves as gatekeepers of truth with slogans such as Facts First and Washington Post's Democracy Dies in Darkness.
In that case, democracy died a long time ago.
But CNN pundit Brian Stelter suggested on Sunday that money, clicks, and ratings could influence their coverage, too.
Spot on, Brian.
We've had our disagreements, but he's right here.
Stelter raised the question during a conversation on his show Reliable Sources about whether or not the press wants to see President Trump impeached.
Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan, a guest on the show, said impeachment is in the air but denied the media had much to do with it.
B.S.
John Oliver has nothing to gain politically from going on his show and ranting and raving about what the Democrats should or shouldn't do other than ratings.
Pandering.
That's why I like Bill Maher.
Bill Maher goes on his show and he says a lot of things that are offensive and calls out, you know, the SJWs, as it were.
But look at MSNBC.
We know it's about the ratings.
We know it's about the clicks.
We know it's about the money.
Because Rachel Maddow went on for years about Russian conspiracies and the power being shut off in Fargo.
And it's a mind-numbing, insane conspiracy.
They call it the Trump bump, and we all know it.
And Brian Stelter pulls the mask down and says, but what about our money, clicks, and ratings?
You know the media... And I don't mean this to be a dick.
I respect him for bringing this up.
This is an excellent point.
Sullivan responded that news executives may want impeachment to occur because it would be good for business.
That may be going on in the background or in corporate offices, but I don't think that journalists ever really, uh, even really think that way.
I cannot.
There's two people.
There are two kinds of people in media.
99% of people fall into one of these two categories.
Overt activists who lie, cheat, and steal for political ends.
And the journalists, the actual ones, who provide them safe harbor and turn their heads and close their eyes and refuse to call them out.
I know many of these people.
I work for some of these companies.
I know the people of these big organizations.
I am a member of the Online News Association and I spoke at one of their conferences.
So I know a lot of these people.
I know Brian Stelter.
Is Brian going to call out the activists who are lying?
No!
He brings him on the air, Kevin Roos from the New York Times, to talk about his anecdote about, I kid you not, the New York Times ran a story where Kevin Roos watched one YouTube video And then presented a conspiracy theory.
This is news.
Providing safe harbor to these activists.
And I would call Kevin an activist because I worked with him at Fusion.
Fusion, which is now called Splinter News, is a woke progressive digital media outlet.
I worked with him there.
So don't tell me he's not an activist.
And Brian Seltzer gives him safe harbor.
The New York Times gives them safe harbor.
And this is what we end up with.
Activists who want money, sociopaths who want fame, and the other people who just provided all safe harbor.
Both of these people saying, I'm not going to call out our people because, you know, I like money.
No.
That's where we are today.
Journalism is in the trash hole.
So I'll leave it there.
Final thought.
I don't think any of them care about impeachment.
They're riling up Democrats to make them lose their minds because they want to sell, I don't know, laundry detergent or something.
I got one more story coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you there.
In an op-ed from the Washington Examiner, the future of men and marriage is bleak.
And I agree.
And perhaps there's a bit of a personal bias in why I'm interested in stories like these, but admittedly I think it is very news relevant to talk about the decline of marriage and men.
Men aren't going to school, they're not having relationships, the amount of male virgins is skyrocketing, and you have to wonder why this is.
Why they're living at home?
This is not good for society.
Of course there's the, you know, Radical feminists who are laughing about it because they view the world through a lens of patriarchy.
But this will be bad for everyone.
I am a firm believer in equality.
I believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to succeed.
And that means a lot, that really does.
That means providing resources to impoverished communities.
Yes, libraries, education, internet.
Very, very social-democratic of you, you might say, to me.
Of course.
Equality of outcome, on the other hand, is absurd nonsense that means nothing.
You can't guarantee outcomes.
They'll never be the same.
And now we're seeing a problem in equality.
Do I see the left coming out to the defense of men?
They never do.
Sometimes.
There are some good people who have called this out, and I appreciate it.
But always, it's just negative, patriarchy, etc, etc.
And we are headed for a dark future without families.
I don't care what your family structure is.
I'm not talking about nuclear heteronormative families either.
I'm talking about people who can share resources to help raise children and provide a loving family environment.
Single-parent households don't do as well as, you know, dual-parent.
And again, I'm not talking about straight couples.
I was reading about this.
It's really interesting.
They don't know yet Okay, the studies are still ongoing.
That's my understanding.
I could be wrong.
My understanding was that...
We know that fatherless households, the kids who grow up without fathers, tend to do really bad, more likely to do drugs, more likely to go to jail, but they haven't been able to determine necessarily if same-sex couples would be better or worse.
So for the time being, it is presumed, and this is coming from like intellectual dark web types, that two parents is still a major benefit.
And so I bring this up to point out, families matter.
Families are important for children.
And more importantly, Millennials ain't having kids!
It's not even that they're not getting married, and I'm like, like, look who's talking, you know?
33, single, no kids.
You know, my dad had two kids by the time he was 27.
Well, it's weird what they have to say about the future of men and marriage.
The Washington Examiner says, with Father's Day upon us, the time has come to address, as a nation, what Heather McDonald noted earlier this year is the greatest social catastrophe of our time, fatherlessness.
Fatherlessness is the number one cause of nearly all social ills we face.
We can't afford to ignore it any longer.
To be clear, father absence is the more accurate term, since fatherlessness implies that men have become deadbeat dads.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Sure, this faction exists, as do deadbeat moms.
But the two most significant threats to a father's presence in the home are divorce and out-of-wedlock births.
It's the breakdown of marriage, in other words, or the collapse of the family that results in father-absent homes.
Whether you feel its pain directly or not, it affects you.
Families are the building blocks of civilization, writes Genevieve Wood at the Daily Signal.
They are personal relationships, but they greatly shape and serve the public good.
Family breakdown harms society as a whole.
Indeed it does.
And how exactly did the family fall apart when we stopped valuing men and marriage?
Excuse me.
There was a time, believe it or not, when marriage was highly valued.
Ergo, the majority of Americans married.
They even looked forward to it.
It was an honorable mark of adulthood to leave one's family of origin and build a family of one's own.
You ever play the game of life?
I believe it's by Milton Bradley.
It's the game where you live a life and you have kids.
I do not believe there is a game of life where you can choose a single childless option.
For real.
But think about what that means.
When the game was developed, to them, a normal course of life was college, no college, and getting married and having kids.
Today!
People aren't doing it!
They're not having it.
I will also point out one of the funny things about life is that there was never any obstruction of same-sex coupling.
In fact, many times growing up playing life, people would be like, you know, you have a pink and blue little character and you can put pink and blue whatever you want in the car.
Which means when you got married, you could have put two men and two women.
Isn't that amazing?
That even in the game of life, the possibility of same-sex marriage existed, but there was no possibility of single, single childlessness.
At least I'm pretty sure that's the case, right?
I could be wrong, but I played Life not too long ago, I'm pretty sure you get married and have kids.
Let's read on.
Then came feminism, and with it noted Dennis Prager in his fireside chat on marriage and children versus career, the notion that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
This mantra was glamorized, though not coined, by Gloria Steinem in the 1970s, and was quickly inculated both in Prager's generation and those who followed.
Prager rightly defines America's new narrative, which is directed specifically to women.
You don't need a man, you need a career, then you'll be happy.
I don't entirely agree with a lot of the ideas put forth through Prager University in terms of family and marriage.
I do, however, completely agree that the new narrative we see from the left specifically targets women.
It targets women positively and men negatively, in the sense that they tell women, you can do this, go do this.
They want women to be more masculine and men to be less masculine.
And it's very, very weird.
They say the most masculine traits are toxic.
They really do.
I understand that some people point out legitimate toxic masculinity, like hazing kind of situations.
Women haze too, but you get the point I'm trying to make.
There are some aspects of male behavior that are bad.
We all get it.
And the honest, good-faith actors will point to that as toxic masculinity.
There absolutely is toxic femininity.
How you define it?
Well, a lot of people have different definitions.
One that I've heard is that toxic masculinity is arrogance and aggressive and assertive behavior to the point where you cause harm to others for self-gain.
And toxic femininity is feigning the victim in order to make gains from those who seek to help.
Right?
But a lot of people have different definitions.
The point is, what women are being encouraged to do for the most part, at least in my life growing up, is to be more like men.
Think about like any movie.
Captain Marvel, for instance.
They made a movie where it was good, it was better, it was finally that a woman was becoming a warrior and causing damage to their enemies and saving lives.
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, but I'm pointing out that the traditional gender roles were that women raised families and men went off and risked their lives and saved lives and hunted and things like that.
And that's literally why we're at the point where we are.
Captain Marvel is a woman in a more masculine role.
I'm not saying she shouldn't be, that's not the point.
The point I'm making is, where is the movie where the man is the mother, is in the motherly role, and the whole movie is about raising a good family?
I'm not saying they don't exist.
I'm making a point about what the big blockbuster is, and what people really, really want when it comes to social justice.
The left says women should be CEOs, but we don't see the same level of activism in the press or otherwise of them saying men should be stay-at-home dads.
It does exist, but it's disproportionate.
Almost all of the feminism is about breaking the glass ceiling.
What about men breaking the, I don't know, wooden cabin?
I don't know what you'd call it.
But for men, there are a lot of guys who would love to be stay-at-home dads and raise their kids, teach them, you know, how to be successful or whatever.
And society typically wants men at work and women at home.
And that's the controversial stereotype.
What do we have now?
Men at work.
Women at work.
So who's in the home?
Nobody!
For real.
It still is disproportionately women, for sure.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
But we can't have a society that only prioritizes one aspect of life or acts like there aren't two parents, two parental roles.
Whether or not you think women should be doing the motherly role, or the feminine and the masculine, is not the point.
The point is, we have two parents.
One looks after kids, one goes and works.
Today, it's just both parents working and then hiring a caretaker.
Go to L.A.
It's crazy.
So this is, in my opinion, the big problem of what we see from, you know, regressive left-wing activism is that it's not fighting for equality.
It really isn't.
It's fighting to diminish one gender role and inflate another gender role in a certain degree, right?
I'll put it this way.
Men are criticized for being toxic.
They say, tone it down.
Men should be more in touch with their feminine side.
Yes, okay.
But that still leaves, let's put it this way.
If there's a scale from negative 10 to positive 10, and negative 10 is feminine, positive 10 is masculine, they're telling men to tone it down to a 5, and women to tone it up to a 5.
You see what I mean?
Like, there's no femininity at all.
There's been numerous TV shows, like Family Guy and The Simpsons have commented on this, where Lois Griffin or Marge Simpson are criticized by feminists for being housewives, and they say that's their choice.
And it should be.
In my world, Growing up and believing in true equality and liberty for all, men and women have a choice as to what they truly want to do.
But today, I kid you not, I speak with a ton of women who tell me they don't want careers.
I'm not saying everyone.
Most women I know, the overwhelming majority, want careers.
I'm saying there are women who want to be moms who can't because they feel pressured by society.
To me, that kind of sucks.
And I think what we should do to protect the family and to help improve society, reduce crime, all of these things, is encourage the family and encourage people to take the path they want.
If you want to be at home with the kids, whether you're a man or a woman, you have that choice.
We need more of that side of the argument and less, you know, all we ever hear is, I want to work at the top of the office and make a billion dollars.
Okay, great.
Even within that argument, there's no one arguing that women should be, you know, cleaning sewers and, you know, being garbage women.
It's always about the big, cushy, air-conditioned office jobs.
And that's fine.
I'm not saying just because you prioritize one thing doesn't mean you ignore the other.
But I think there's an imbalance in the argument, and this is not going to result in equality.
So, I know I went on a rant about family stuff.
We'll just wrap up with their final thoughts.
They say, It has been 50 years since feminists first began to make the claim that women don't need men.
And by every statistical measure, we are worse off because of it.
How much longer are we willing to stay silent?
Well, my opinion is less that it's about men and more about parents and dedicated child-rearing.
So, it may be.
That I'm wrong and the studies will prove that fathers and mothers do provide a very specific benefit.
That's fine.
I was reading some, you know, I can't remember exactly who, some of the intellectual dark web types talking about we don't actually know if there's a difference between two parents and a male and a female parent, right, if it matters.
But I'll read into it, and if you guys know better than I do, feel free to comment and set the record straight.
I'm not a scientist in this regard.
I'm not an expert.
Just some thoughts I have and my personal opinions.
But I think we can all agree that families are important.
And that the current narrative we see from the left does nothing to balance out what families really need.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all tomorrow at 10am on this channel.
