Iran Is Targeting US Critical Infrastructure, Are We Heading Toward World War Three?
Iran Is Targeting US Critical Infrastructure, Are We Heading Toward World War Three? Malaysian Prime Minister has warned that US mistakes in a conflict with Iran may lead us into World War Three.Recently Iran destroyed a US spy drone, though it was unmanned Trump ordered a retaliatory strike. He later decided that the retaliation was not worth the potential harm to human life.But even still after this it is being reported that Iran is targeting US infrastructure including oil and gas. Cyberattacks have the potential to cause catastrophic failure in large systems like oil refineries which incidentally we just saw blow up in souhtern Philadelphia. While there is not reason to believe these are realted in anyway I highlight as an example of some of the possibilities should a foreign actor launch a cyberattack against us.For now Trump made the right choice in standing down. But with Iran reportedly increasing its tactics against us it seems that war is inevitable.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It's being widely reported that Donald Trump has ordered the military to stand down and not retaliate against Iran for them shooting down a U.S.
drone.
For some reason, there are people who are mad at the president.
Some of these people are actually saying that Trump should have killed 150 people in retaliation for an unmanned drone being shot down.
Now, I understand the unmanned drone is very expensive, But I'm going to have to agree with the president on this one.
It's a really weird situation.
In fact, there was a tweet from Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks saying if Trump keeps us out of war with Iran, he will be a better president than George W. Bush.
I'd have to agree.
But why then do we see conservatives, people on CNN arguing that Trump is being weak and ineffective?
The crazy and sad truth is that we are on the precipice of World War Three.
And that's not just my opinion.
Foreign leaders are saying missteps in conflict with Iran could create a world war.
You're going to be going up against Iran's allies, and then you're going to rope in the allies of allies.
And there we go.
It's not something we want to do.
Now, listen, you guys know you watch my content.
I'm a pretty anti-war person.
In fact, my biggest criticisms of Trump have been foreign policy, weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, just blocked by the U.S.
government, drone strikes.
Same thing Obama was doing, I know.
So I'm very, very happy to hear, personally, in my opinion, that Trump has said, we're not going to do this.
Good news.
But war is a sad reality.
And the truth is, sometimes war happens, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
So today, let's take a look at some of the latest news having to do with what's causing the escalation, and yes, the very real possibility of, I know it's crazy to say, but a World War 3.
Now, people have brought up the potentials in the past, but we have had increasing tensions With Russia.
We now have escalating tensions with Iran.
And yes, any conflict between the two will likely rope in other countries and not be good.
Iran is not the same as Iraq and Afghanistan.
That was a mistake.
Iran is a large, developed nation.
It is not the same.
Now here's the first story I want to highlight.
From the Associated Press, Iranian hackers wage cyber campaign amid tensions with US.
I highlight this because even though Trump ordered the stand down, conflict rages on.
Most people can't see what's happening behind closed doors, especially behind monitor screens.
So according to the Associated Press, Iran is actually targeting US infrastructure.
What's scary is war is likely already happening to some degree.
Cyber attacks happen all day and night.
Cyber espionage.
It's entirely possible that Iran is targeting U.S.
infrastructure.
In fact, what may actually be more worrisome is that although I've criticized Rachel Maddow for talking about Russia shutting off the heat in the winter, it's a real possibility That we have basically a Mexican standoff, where the U.S.
has accessed critical infrastructure from Russia, Iran's got the U.S., the U.S.
has got Iran, and potentially, when war breaks out, it's not going to be nuclear warheads that wipe out civilization, but simply executing code which could cripple critical infrastructure and destabilize the global economy.
So even though Trump has ordered to stand down, we're still seeing very real conflict.
So let's read a little bit about this and then we'll move on to some other stories I have.
And I want to highlight one story about a foreign leader, I believe it was Malaysia, saying this could be the doorstep of World War III.
I don't want to be hyperbolic.
I don't want to act like the end is coming.
But I invoke the idea of a world war to remind everybody the image of what could truly come If we escalate these tensions.
Surprisingly, I find myself on the side of the president in this regard with him standing down, but certainly not his advisors and certainly not the pundits on CNN or elsewhere saying Trump is being weak because of this.
In fact, he's probably being very smart.
Some people are saying, well, Trump ordered the strike in the first place, then good on him for reconsidering when he realized not only would it result in a massive loss of life, but it would dramatically escalate international tensions.
We cannot afford this.
Iran has increased its offensive cyber attacks against the U.S.
government and critical infrastructure as tensions have grown between the two nations, cybersecurity firms say.
In recent weeks, hackers believed to be working for the Iranian government have targeted U.S.
government agencies, as well as sectors of the economy including oil and gas, sending waves of spear-phishing emails according to representatives of cybersecurity companies CrowdStrike and FireEye, which regularly track such activity.
I highlight this story for two reasons before moving on.
One, because it's very easy for them to attack our infrastructure and cause us serious damage.
In fact, we just saw a refinery blow up in Philadelphia.
Do I think that was a foreign cyber attack?
I don't.
But to be honest, if it was, would we really even know?
These kinds of attacks are extremely, extremely easy to pull off.
And I mean easy in a relative sense.
When you're talking about the Iranian government, the Russians, when you're talking about any nation that would be at odds with the U.S., the amount of resources required is actually relatively low.
You find an exploit, no one knows about it, and you can do very dangerous things.
When I was working for Vice, we did a documentary.
I don't know if we ever actually did anything with it, but we did several interviews.
With people showing how you can, from 40 miles away using a drone, send a signal to detonate a refinery.
And now we're at a point where there was a massive refinery explosion.
Again, I'm not saying it's related.
I'm using that as an example of what a cyber attack could really do.
And to also highlight that you won't know what's behind it.
The reason I'm bringing this up before we move on is that sometimes war is inevitable.
It really is.
We don't know what form the attack will take, but even though Trump stood down, it doesn't mean Iran will.
Whether or not you believe the oil tankers that were attacked by something were attacked by Iran, Whether or not you believe the U.S.
drone was in or not in Iranian airspace, none of that matters.
For all we know, Trump called back the physical strike, but something's going on in the back end.
Maybe the U.S.
is targeting other... I'd be surprised if the U.S.
wasn't targeting Iran.
This is an example of how, even if Trump stands down, war is still likely.
And this is truly terrifying.
That there's some things you can't do.
The next story I have is from NBC.
It says, Obama, others warned Trump that pulling out of Iran nuke deal could lead to war.
Obama said in 2015, the choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.
Well, obviously.
I think it's interesting that that's the quote they pull up because it's just common sense.
Either you have diplomacy or you have war.
What else do you have?
Just nothing?
No communications?
But I bring this up not to support or, you know, to agree or disagree with what Obama said, but to highlight that the conversation has been going on for years, since 2015.
In fact, Obama likely did the deal with Iran to avoid some kind of escalation.
But here we are.
The escalation may very well be inevitable, because you have conflicting powers that want to fight.
But let's move on.
For music today, they say, Trump, I don't want to go to war with Iran.
And Trump has said this in the past.
He said, you've got the military-industrial complex that wants to escalate tensions.
But even if Trump wants something, doesn't mean that the dominoes can be stopped at this point.
I highlight this because it feels like dominoes are starting to fall over.
And with the tanker attacks, with the drone, and now cyber attacks, it feels like it doesn't matter what Trump wants.
Trump called off the strike good for him, but he's not going to call off other intense actions.
So I want to read this and then I want to give you a hypothetical scenario to explain war to people who don't understand.
From USA Today, they say President Donald Trump said Friday he does not want to go to war with Iran, but warned there will be obliteration like you've never seen before if a conflict does arise.
I'm not looking to do that, he said of going to war during an excerpt of an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd for Meet the Press.
In the same sit-down, the president also said he's willing to talk with Iran without any preconditions.
The president's comments come the same day he announced that he abruptly canceled an attack on Iran after it shot down a U.S.
drone on Thursday.
Trump has said in no uncertain terms, we will rain down fire and fury on our enemies.
It doesn't matter if he wants to or doesn't.
It doesn't matter what you think or what we don't think, and I'll explain to you why before we move on to the next statements about potential World War 3.
I want you to do something right now.
I want you to imagine you're in the middle of nowhere, in the woods.
You have a small bag of food, a small little, you know, canteen of water, and you have a rifle.
You don't know where the nearest city is, you don't know how you'll find food, you have no shelter.
You're walking through the woods and you're looking to survive, maybe set up camp, when all of a sudden, about a hundred yards in front of you, someone carrying the same canteen, the same bag, which may have food in it, and a gun, sees you.
You see each other at the same time.
What do you do?
I ask this question to people when I talk to them about conflict and war.
Because it's interesting when people say things like, oh, I'd go and shake their hand, or I'd wave.
Because that shows you where their assumptions lie.
What if that person doesn't speak English?
What if that person sees that gun and thinks you're a threat?
What if that person doesn't have food, they're starving, and they want yours?
What if that person knows there is no food nearby, and the only thing they can do is take your food and water?
You don't know, they don't know, and you don't know what either does, what they want, so what do you do?
Well, if you're scared and you want to protect yourself, you might draw your weapon.
You might put your weapon close to your gun.
I'm sorry, you might put your hand close to your weapon.
Imagine you then take your rifle off your back because you don't know what this person wants.
Well, this person just saw you go for your weapon, so now they freak out.
They draw their weapon.
Now you see them pulling it open, so you aim your weapon.
They see you aiming, they aim back, and now you're shooting at each other.
War can be as simple and as quick as that.
So, it's possible you see someone, and you lay your weapon down, and you put your hands up, and you put your trust that they won't kill you.
But how do you know?
Is it worth the risk?
This is a serious challenge when it comes to any circumstance, but scale that up to a population of millions.
Iran doesn't know what the U.S.
wants, nor does it trust the U.S.
Trump probably just wants peace.
Special interests want war to sell weapons.
What do you do, and how do you solve this problem?
I oppose war.
But I recognize, sometimes, there is nothing you can do to prevent a fight.
I have seen a lot of silly, inane comments from people who are saying Trump's being weak on this.
No, Trump was right.
Trump was absolutely right to back off when he had the opportunity to do so.
Because de-escalation is always the best choice.
It is better that we take a downed drone and we do not go to war, lest we see the true consequence of what really happens.
In this story from CNBC just earlier today, miscalculations in US-Iran conflict could lead to a world war, says Malaysia's Mahathir.
The United States is provoking Iran, and growing risk of miscalculation could lead to a world war, according to Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
I think as far as I can see, it is America which is making all the provocation.
First, they withdrew from the nuclear treaty, and now they're sending warships to the Gulf and doing things that will provoke Iran, he told CNBC in Bangkok, Thailand, where Asian leaders were gathered for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit.
Tensions between the U.S.
and Iran tested new highs on Thursday when Tehran shut down an unmanned American military spy drone.
The shooting of the drone prompted U.S.
President Trump to approve military strikes on several Iranian targets, but he abruptly called off the attacks late Thursday.
The president said he withdrew the plan because he believed the loss of life, estimated to be about 150 people, would have been disproportionate to the downing of an unmanned drone.
I am in no hurry, Trump said on Twitter Friday.
Our military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go.
I'll say this.
Trump made the right call in cancelling the strike, but he did order it in the first place.
It's entirely possible that Trump is doing essentially a game of chicken.
Maybe Trump never had any intention of striking the targets, but wanted U.S.
military assets heading in that area as a threat.
We really don't know.
What I can say, though, is amidst all of these conversations and speculation about what's really happening, we have stories breaking that tell us Iran is attacking us in some capacity.
They really are.
Whether you want to trust the Associated Press or not, I don't know what to tell you.
Imagine yourself in the woods.
Who do you believe?
Let's expand that scenario.
You're standing there and you see someone in the distance, and now some guy walks up to your side and whispers in your ear, that guy's, that guy's, you know, loading his weapon.
That guy's gonna attack you.
That guy is attacking you.
That's the guy that attacked you before!
What do you do?
Do you believe them?
Do you distrust them?
I don't know the answer.
And that's why I feel like sometimes conflict is inevitable.
And I don't know what you can do to stop it.
I prefer the real solutions.
I prefer something that we can say definitively.
But I will say...
On its surface, no conspiracies here.
Just all we know is Trump said, do it.
Then he said, don't do it.
It's a bad idea.
And that was the right move.
But I think it's going to happen soon.
I think they've been planning it for years.
We saw a segment on Tucker Carlson where he showed a clip of John Bolton saying, we will be celebrating in Tehran.
Reminiscent of the calls they made just before the Iraq war.
This has been a long time coming.
Activists have seen it.
And now you've got Tucker Carlson on Fox News saying, this is a stupid decision, it's a bad idea, but these people have been planning it for a long time.
So I think it'll happen.
I do.
And I think the missteps within will result in a growing global conflict beyond what we're seeing now.
Do I really think there will be a World War III?
Honestly, don't know.
Because our infrastructure is controlled so much by digital technology, the internet, it might not be like something we've seen.
But I thought, you know, we definitely want to- I definitely want to make sure I'm talking about serious and important issues when something like this comes up.
Look, the culture war is internal.
It's domestic.
I mean, it does affect the UK and other Western nations for sure, but this is beyond all of that.
The arguments about feminists and bathrooms and whatever mean nothing in the face of what could truly be the absolute obliteration of, you know, human civilization on the planet.
I don't think the world will end.
I think that, you know, there's a waxing and a waning period for civilizations we've seen throughout history.
Perhaps it will be a dark time.
It'll be a dark age.
There will be crippled infrastructure, people will starve and struggle, and then it will lead, you know, in a few thousand years or hundreds of years to something different.
What I do know is, I can't see how we reconcile the growing tensions and conflict.
Clearly, in response to the cyber war, we're going to see the US retaliate.
And it's all just an endless cycle of vengeance, back and forth.
Fortunately, Trump stopped at least this one.
Fortunately, he stopped this one here.
But I think it's going to happen.
I think it's going to be way worse.
So we can talk about the potential for a civil war in the U.S.
But what we're seeing now, I think, is much more worrisome.
In fact, maybe they'll both happen.
I don't know.
Comment below.
Let me know what you think.
We'll keep the conversation going.
Stick around.
I got more videos coming up on my second channel, youtube.com slash timcastnews, starting at 6 p.m.
The podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
Regulation is looming for Google, Facebook, and actually tech giants as a whole.
Facebook's been stocking up on antitrust lawyers.
Google recently came out, the CEO Sundar Pichai came out and said, please don't regulate us government.
We need to innovate and make the future.
And then we saw Josh Hawley introduce a bill that would strip liability protection these companies enjoy under Section 230 if they can't prove they're politically neutral.
It's a very difficult thing to do.
However, in a recent Supreme Court ruling, Google has, uh, it's basically having to do with public access versus, you know, state and private actors.
Google is defending their right to censor people.
And boy, I gotta tell you what, this is probably one of the greatest problems we are facing in this generation.
And it's funny.
When I was on the Joe Rogan podcast, there were people who said, who mocked me, ridiculed me, when I said that I think censorship on social media is one of the biggest problems we are facing.
Many of these people probably don't understand what's happening.
So I kind of feel like, you know, I'm standing at the shore, and I've watched the water start receding.
And all the people around me are looking at the water receding, going like, wow, the water's leaving.
And I go, guys, that means a tsunami is coming, run!
And they go, oh please, the water's going the other way.
And what's going to happen next?
The tsunami.
One of two things is going to happen in response to this.
I've got another story pulled up.
Advertising companies don't want to be involved.
These companies are saying, we have a right to censor.
Why?
They're scared of losing advertisers.
That's their bread and butter.
But they're causing damage to the commons, to the right to engage in civics, the right to civic engagement.
So let's see what's happening with this story.
And what's really interesting about this is that the ruling from the Supreme Court has nothing to do with big tech, but they've seized upon it to say, aha, we have a legal right.
We have a legal right to censor whoever we want from the Daily Wire.
Google claims new SCOTUS ruling hurts PragerU's censorship claim.
This is from Josh Hammer who writes, as the Daily Wire first reported back in 2017, PragerU filed a lawsuit against YouTube and Google, its parent company, for unlawfully censoring its educational videos and discriminating against its right to freedom of speech.
Now, I'm going to stop right here and say something.
I've been very critical of YouTube recently.
It is a dangerous place to start a business, and as you may notice, I'm in a new office.
I was trying out the van for those who aren't familiar.
We're doing a news van.
YouTube.com slash subverse videos.
We actually have a recording studio.
We're hiring people.
This is full swing.
But I'll tell you what.
YouTube censorship, Facebook, Twitter, all of this stuff, makes it very, very scary.
They've dominated the ad market.
So if you want to be a player in this game, you go through them and they could Thanos you in two seconds.
But I will say this, as much as I will be critical of them, YouTube is still a great opportunity.
You know, I make money on here.
Fantastic.
I'm able to start this business.
I do think YouTube does a better job than most in defending free speech, but they're still on the negative, right?
Free speech should be defended on these private platforms because they've dominated the marketplace.
YouTube is not the worst actor.
They're actually one of the best, but they're still unaccountable, and they're still negatives.
As for PragerU, I'm gonna say it.
Prager, guys, I personally, based on a cursory glance of the story, do not believe they have a case, because what they're suing over is what's called Restricted Mode.
Restricted Mode is basically, at the bottom of every YouTube page, you can turn it on or off.
You can just do it.
So, if your videos in Restricted Mode disappear, of which all of mine do, That's just, like, for a school to, you know, remove this and say, like, hey, these are things we don't want.
Now, I guess the argument from Prager University is that- excuse me.
They think their content is above board and educational and shouldn't be restricted.
That way, if schools want only some kind of content, PragerU shouldn't be included in that.
If that's where the suit goes, fine.
But I think you're pushing a line here, right?
The issue is that there are YouTube channels that have been just deleted outright.
That's terrifying.
Channels that have broken no rules.
My go-to here is always gonna be Mumkey Jones.
If you're not familiar, he was an edgy, you know, an edgy boy making jokes.
A lot of his content was really good, insightful, thoughtful.
You know, he had one video about Diary of a Wimpy Kid, and you might be thinking, I don't care about that movie, but it was actually a really good analysis of how this character is a sociopath, and it wasn't that, it wasn't offensive at all.
But he had some edgy videos that, like, didn't break any rules, and one day, YouTube just deleted them.
That's what we're concerned about.
That's the real issue.
Look, man, if YouTube wants to create a secondary feature that, like, hides my videos, I gotta say, I don't care, right?
When they start age-restricting, that gets me a little worried, but for the most part, the videos I've had that have been age-restricted, I kind of shrug and say, I get it, man.
I'm talking about war, conflict, crisis.
When they demonetize videos like this, then I get frustrated.
Okay, it's like, I get it, I have no right to their ads, but seriously, why would- You know, I made a video, this was really bothering me, I made a video about Facebook regulation, and they demonetized it!
And I said, clearly it's a mistake, because, and let's be real, 60-70% of the content I make every day is demonetized, right?
So it's like, I make 6-7 videos, and like 4 or 5 will be demonetized.
But usually a day later they reinstate it, but it's too late.
You don't make money then.
They confirmed my Mark Zuckerberg video, and I'm like, why is Google protecting Zuckerberg?
You know?
Yeah, because they're all buddies to an extent.
But let's get back to the story.
They say this week Prager U, a conservative not-for-profit organization founded by Dennis Prager, filed a lawsuit against Google and YouTube for unlawfully censoring its educational videos and discriminating against its right to freedom of speech.
In an interview with the Daily Wire on Friday, Prager U CEO Marissa Streit underscored the far-reaching free speech implications of her organization's legal action against what has become two of the most important public forums in the world and explained why their legal team feels very strongly they can win.
So don't take my opinion for it, I'm not a lawyer.
In a press release issued Tuesday, PragerU's legal team, which includes Harvard's Alan Dershowitz and former California Governor Pete Wilson, and Eric George of Brown George Ross, among several others, laid out the rationale of a lawsuit, which was prompted by Google YouTube restricting or demonetizing over 50 PragerU videos for what YouTube claims is inappropriate content for younger audiences.
There's an interesting argument here.
PragerU has videos where it's like, why can we talk about World War II Germany, but not the Soviet era, right?
Why is, you know, why is it that no one cares about what the Soviets did?
And that's something kids should probably learn about.
It's history.
You know, you want to, you want to guide them into it because history is brutal.
But then if, you know, one of the challenges then is you always end up with One story from history is like the most important and we ignore China.
Excuse me.
We ignore China, we ignore the Soviet Union, etc.
So I think that's one of the things they're getting at.
I don't know.
But I will add this to my earlier comment about whether they could win.
I'm not a lawyer.
If their team looked at it and they're confident, well then we'll leave it there.
But here's what's happening because I told you about this ruling and now we're seven minutes in, but let me read it.
They say, Earlier this week, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the case of Manhattan Community Access Corp.
v. Halleck.
As described by SCOTUSblog, the court held that Manhattan Community Access Corp., a private nonprofit corporation designed by New York City to operate the public access channels on the Manhattan cable system owned by Time Warner, now Charter, is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.
The court's case reflected a traditional ideological split.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a 5-4 majority and was joined by the traditional conservative-leaning bloc of Chief Justice Roberts and Thomas Gorsuch and Alito.
The four liberal-leaning justices dissented.
It's really interesting.
I don't necessarily know enough about this case.
I feel like I would lean more in favor of the liberal-leaning justices.
Here, once again, we have Justice Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion.
He's been very prolific since joining the Supreme Court.
And I gotta say, there have been a lot of cases Brett Kavanaugh has opined upon, and I was impressed.
I was like, wow, he's spot on.
I actually think he's right here, and Daily Wire agrees.
They say, from a black-letter legal perspective, this is almost assuredly the correct outcome.
Private actors are not synonymous with state actors, and our legal tradition and case law has always been imbued with that carefully delineated distinction.
It does not suffice that, as Justice Sotomayor wrote in dissent, Manhattan Community Access Corp may or may not have stepped into New York City's shoes in terms of the applicability of the First Amendment.
But now Google is publicly boasting that the ruling in Manhattan Community Access Corp undermines PragerU's legal claim.
This is dangerous, dangerous precedent.
There's an interesting point to be made here.
There's a private—this is my understanding, I could be wrong, but it sounds like what they're saying is a private company is running public access.
And the Supreme Court said, well, it's a private company, they can do what they want, even though they're stepping into the public space.
This is what's really worrying to me.
Because YouTube is becoming the commons.
Twitter, the Facebook, they are taking over the commons.
Now we've got Facebook talking about this insane currency?
That's a nightmare.
Okay?
When Facebook starts using technology to take over our right to trade, I'm telling you all, we're standing at the shoreline and I am watching that water recede because a tsunami is coming and it's going to wipe everything out.
And you know what?
Unfortunately, there's sometimes nothing you can do about it.
These big companies that control the conversation, they don't like that I talk about this.
These videos get demonetized.
Like I said, my video about Mark Zuckerberg was confirmed by someone at YouTube to be like, you can't make money on that.
And while my message still got out to like 400,000 people, which is awesome, Here's what they do.
They want me to only make videos that I think will make me money.
So when they demonetize something, what they're really trying to do is nudge you.
Not always.
Sometimes they're just like, come on man, you can't make money off that.
And I understand.
There's conflict, crisis, etc.
And sometimes you can't make money on it.
But when I make a video about Mark Zuckerberg saying it's time for regulation, what they're doing is wrong, and they demonetize it, what, in my opinion, I think they're trying to say, these videos don't make money.
Right?
Because they're hoping that I'll say, well, if I want to make money, I won't talk about it.
Yeah, sorry.
I will talk about what I want to talk about.
Fortunately for now, I'm still standing near the edge of the- Like, I'm standing far enough from the cliff, I've not fallen into the void of censorship where they've wiped out my videos, but they're certainly getting to the point where they're demonetizing most of my videos, and I think the reason is, to a certain degree, right?
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but I certainly believe some videos get demonetized because they're like, although it doesn't break the rules, they confirm it manually.
Literally someone at YouTube is like, let's not put ads on this.
Why?
Think about that.
Over time, people will fall in line.
I'm not the only one who's brought this up.
A lot of people have said they're trying to tell us, like, hey, you can make money if you do videos about Skittles and rainbows.
Skittles and rainbows, ooh, candy canes.
Do that.
You'll be rich.
Don't be principled.
Principal, oof, that's controversial.
You can't do that.
Every day, I make, you know, I'm making six or seven videos.
I'm mostly doing six now because Subverse is kind of being taken over and we've got people coming in.
They're all demonetized.
My main channel now is... It's doing okay, as of right now.
I don't know why.
I will say this, I will be at VidCon, YouTube... Like, I think YouTube likes me to a certain degree, because I'm, like, publicly acceptable dissent, you know what I mean?
Like, I don't insult people, my opinions are kind of tepid, I still call out certain things, so it creates an opportunity to, you know... I think what they like about me is that dissenters will come to me for dissenting content, And I'm not particularly out there, right?
That's just my opinion as to why they tolerate what I do.
But rest assured, when Sundar Pichai comes out and says, please don't regulate us, and I make, you know, how many videos in the past week?
15 or so?
Where I'm like, regulate, regulate!
You can't imagine they'd like that, right?
Let's read a little bit now about what Google is saying to defend their right to censorship.
As MediaPost reports, Google is now telling the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Manhattan Community Access Corp ruling protects companies like itself from lawsuits alleging censorship.
YouTube is a private service provider, not a state actor.
Excuse me.
And its editorial decisions are not subject to First Amendment scrutiny, Google writes in new court papers.
When a private entity provides a form for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor.
Hold on.
They say ordinarily, and I'll tell you why.
There are instances where privately owned spaces are subject to the First Amendment.
I would argue that applies to YouTube.
Now, of course, they're rushing to their defense because they need to.
They want to protect their bottom line.
But at a certain point, you become too big.
Let's read on.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, the private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum.
Aha!
But now it gets interesting.
Editorial discretion.
Google, are you taking that defense?
I think that may run afoul of the good faith section 230, like the understanding of what section 230 was supposed to be.
A good faith effort to make a hospitable platform.
Not editorial discretion.
That's different.
So perhaps, YouTube, you should get editorial discretion, and then you'll be liable for everything you editorially chose to publish.
Or perhaps, you should act more like a phone company and allow people to talk.
That's where I think we should be.
Now, ads and recommendation, totally different story.
If people choose to go to your content, well, so be it.
The problem with YouTube is the subscriptions mean nothing.
So...
Google says the same logic applies to claims by the right-wing Prager University.
The tech company writes that the ruling affirmed the Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
Interesting.
It sounds like Google's taking the, we're a publisher!
We have a legal right to publish or not publish whatever we want.
They use a First Amendment argument.
It's not Section 230.
When YouTube says, when Twitter says, we can delete whatever we want, it's a First Amendment argument.
They say, we have First Amendment protected speech, and no one can force us to publish speech we don't want.
But Section 230 specifically says, these companies are deemed not to be the speakers of that content.
And thus, they would act more like a phone company.
They want it both ways.
It's... You know what, man?
I don't know what the right thing to do is.
I know there are people saying don't regulate, and there are people saying they should regulate, but I'll tell you this.
Do something.
Let's sit down and figure it out, because letting big tech monopolize and grow bigger, and now they're trying to... Now Facebook's moving into economics.
No, no, no, no, no.
Okay?
This is what really bugs me, is all the people left ignoring this.
Yelling, but my private platform.
You've got conservatives because conservatives are being banned and wiped out left and right.
Although, look, I get it.
Conservatives really do dominate in terms of shares and all this stuff.
And thus, YouTube and Facebook and Twitter are coming after them more so than the left.
This gets people on the right saying it's time to do something, but you still got a lot of conservatives saying no, no, no, no regulation, no regulation.
You've got the boot of Google, Facebook, and Twitter on your neck.
At a certain point, you might want to look up and be like, hey, how about no?
And I love the saying bootlicker.
Imagine this.
Left-wing anti-war groups have been censored and banned.
Project Veritas did a video about Pinterest and investigation, but did you know, because I did a video too and it got deleted, but did you know it wasn't just live action?
The anti-media was also on their list.
They're anti-war left.
It's really strange to me.
I understand why they, you know, uh, the bias against live action, right?
It's, it's, it's a left-right thing.
But why are they banning anti-war stuff?
That's creepy, right?
I get it, you shouldn't ban either of it, but isn't it kind of weird?
Who's pro-war?
They're people, like, for sure, but that's kind of weird.
So here's the thing.
I step up and say, hey, don't do this.
CNN targets Mavic Media.
I say, hey, don't do this.
David Neiwert writes a book about, you know, the far right.
Gets banned from Twitter.
I say, hey, don't do this.
And they respond with, but my private company.
Like, you are looking at the boot.
Like, these people are literally licking the boot of Facebook and Google every time they say, but my private platform.
At least it's not the government, they say.
When did the left become the libertarians?
At least it's not the government.
Okay, look.
You need a balance, okay?
You can't just have laissez-faire capitalism, because without constraint, this is what you get.
And I told this to some Trump dudes I was talking to.
I was talking to, like, three Trump supporters.
They're very libertarian.
And they said, we shouldn't have regulation, yadda yadda yadda.
And I said, so you think these media companies should be able to lie, manipulate, cheat, and steal, and ban conservatives?
And they're like, no.
And I'm like, great!
Maybe we should have some kind of protection from the commons, from unrepentant, you know, uh, capitalism.
Capitalism, at its core, not bad.
Pretty good, actually.
Probably the only way to create an efficient system at grand scale.
But you still have to have checks and balances because you'll end up with Google, Facebook, and Twitter.
And this is why I've always been on the left.
The liberals were always like, we can't let these companies run amok.
I agree.
Well, fortunately, now we're seeing some people step up.
I want to get to the next story because there's something even scarier.
I don't know how this will play out for those of us on YouTube.
You know, a lot of us are going to get banned.
Advertisers are saying they could go somewhere else.
So here's the thing.
There's an economy that was built upon Facebook and Google.
Buzzfeed, Vox, etc.
They're laying people off.
They're laying people off because Facebook changed its algorithm.
On YouTube, you have people like me.
You have people like Crowder and others, and Dave Rubin, who have built a career monetizing through YouTube.
YouTube is trying to make sure they can stay on top of protecting advertisers, which means they want to get rid of bad stuff.
If the advertisers leave because Facebook and Google won't deal with the problems, we all hurt.
But I will say this.
I think regulation might actually be the saving grace.
If Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
went to the advertisers and said, listen, we can't do anything, this speech is legally protected.
If you want to put up a billboard in the middle of downtown Chicago, someone might stand next to that billboard holding up a sign that you don't like.
And then someone will take a picture and your sign will appear next to that.
You can't do anything about that.
The same is true for the internet.
So I don't know what else to say, right?
I know that we're going through trying times.
I don't think that... I think YouTube does a generally better job of protecting free speech.
But at the end of the day, they're not protecting free speech.
They're arguing against it.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment to come at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
The podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
Go to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
I am in a new office.
Things are starting to heat up.
I just set this up.
So there's a lot of technical glitches to work out.
My videos yesterday, I know, they were stuttering and stuff.
Computer couldn't handle it.
So there's a lot of work that's got to be done.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next segment.
Feminists are outraged because the line to the women's bathroom is too long and the men's is much shorter.
So certainly it is unfair.
Women need more accommodation because men and women are different, right?
I can't believe this story.
And it's mostly based off just Twitter nonsense.
But surprise, surprise, from the pluralist, feminist mob airport over sexist bathroom lines Now, many of you who are adults know that women take longer in the bathroom.
I, as a man, don't know why women take longer in the bathroom.
I assume it's because women do other things that men don't need to do.
I'm sure it partially has to do with probably sometimes women touch up their makeup.
So naturally, as adults, we've come to notice that throughout our adult male lives, or throughout our male lives, men's room lines are always shorter and men are in and out super quick.
And now, it's apparently discriminatory.
I almost busted out laughing from that.
So let's, um, excuse me, let's read and see just what happened.
So they say, the official Twitter account for Switzerland's Zurich airport replied Friday morning to a woman complaining about lengthy wait times at women's restrooms by suggesting she take her grievances up with Mother Nature.
A Twitter user going by the name of Laura Rolden posted two photographs showing long lines at the bathrooms in the terminal.
When she asked in an accompanying caption was, quote, the airport going to solve the problem with the ladies... toilets?
I just want to stop right here.
And I want to tell you all that this story makes no sense.
It's entirely pointless.
But I think what we're seeing here, even if it is just one tweet, one time,
and there are several people who have like chimed in, I'm always very critical of news outlets that like,
will take one tweet and be like, oh, look what this one person said.
But this, I think, warrants an actual conversation for two reasons.
First, some levity.
It's kind of funny and silly.
But also, you realize this is the track we are on, right?
You know, they say that men and women aren't different, right?
You've got some intersectional feminist saying, you know, men and women can use whatever facilities they want because they're not different.
Men and women are different, period.
But now you have women arguing because they are different.
It's equality if you give women more, right?
Apparently so.
So, excuse me, Laura Roldan, She said, what are you going to do to solve the problem with the ladies toilets?
And then she posts two photos.
The men's line being non-existent, and the women's having a line out the door.
This is true everywhere.
There's a Whole Foods in Union Square in New York City, and when you go there, there's like, something really funny happens sometimes.
There's a line coming out of the place where the bathrooms are, and so some guys think it's a line in general, not realizing it's just the women's room, and the men's room, you just walk in and walk out.
It's like, real easy.
But I don't know where this woman, Laura Roldan, grew up.
But this is not unique to Zurich Airport, nor can they do anything about it.
Like, what do you do?
Do you provide women with funnels and urinals?
Like, here's a funnel, and there's a urinal on the wall, and you'll go faster now.
It doesn't make sense.
Zurich said.
Hi Laura.
We are very sorry to hear you had to wait.
There are many toilets all over the gate.
We hope at your next visit at Zurich Airport everything will work out smoothly.
Best regards from ZRH.
Zurich suggested Roldan try one of the many toilets all over the gate.
When Roldan continued to press her case, the airport delivered a more blunt response.
Unfortunately, we can't influence how long it takes a woman to go to the toilets.
Certainly, the architects who built the airport didn't do this on purpose and included enough space for the women.
And this person responds, And there you have it.
The argument is actually that because men and women are different, women need more.
The women's bathrooms should be bigger.
That's equality, right?
I guess so.
If there was enough space, there wouldn't be queues.
How is that not obvious?
There is enough space for men.
There is not enough space for women, tweeted columnist Tracy King.
So now you got more people chiming in, huh?
Columnist.
Women need 2.5 times the provision that men need.
And this is just a math teacher.
She's irrelevant.
BBC World Service broadcaster Jackie Leonard was appalled.
Clearly not.
Wow.
What a response.
I kid you not.
We literally have a story of feminists who are taking issue with nature.
Seriously, we've come to the point now where they're blaming the airport because women use the bathroom longer than men do.
Like, what do you think?
You know, so listen, I'll say this.
In a lot of men's rooms, different from women's rooms, men's rooms will have like two stalls
and maybe like three or four urinals.
Women's rooms will have like four or five stalls.
So there are technically, and in my experience, though I'm not someone who frequently
has gone into a woman's bathroom, the few times I have been, it's usually like
there will be less toilets in general.
However, even if guys have only two urinals, it's like guys just go faster.
But what we're seeing here is kind of a really interesting paradox in that no matter what you do, these people will be angry.
I know this is another video rehashing the same idea you've heard a million times, that you can't please them, no matter what you say, no matter what you do, even if it comes down to the fact That women take longer in the bathroom.
Be it mother nature or cultural.
Who knows?
I don't know why.
I'm not going to tell women why they use the bathroom longer.
They're complaining about it now.
The complaining will never stop.
Okay?
First, I will say, obviously not all women, right?
It's just the weird feminists.
The complaining will never stop.
It's like you've got a kid, right, and he's complaining, he's screaming and crying, saying, I want ice cream.
Well, what do you think happens when you give him ice cream?
You teach him that if he keeps crying, he'll keep getting more.
At a certain point, you got to smack the hand and be like, no, put your hand away.
You know, you know, bop him on the head.
I'm not talking about striking children.
I'm saying reprimanding your child in a, in a less forceful way.
I'm being somewhat facetious.
Chill.
People are gonna start getting freaking, people are gonna start getting angry because everyone's always angry about everything.
So, quote.
Of course you can influence it by providing correct number of toilets based on the needs of each sex.
Had never thought about male privilege extending to almost never cu- Oh my god!
Ugh, I can't- I can't read it.
I'm gonna- I'm gonna- I'm gonna- I'm gonna push through it and read it just for you.
Okay.
Had never thought about male privilege extending to almost never queuing for a piss, but here we are in 21C with men's time and comfort more valued than women's.
Oh my god.
I kid you not.
The airport answered the avalanche of criticism by apologizing and conceding that the issue urgently requires action.
You see?
And what do you think's gonna happen next?
You can't simultaneously say, like, okay, okay, okay, okay, full stop.
You've got people arguing for unisex facilities, saying that men and women are the same and people can use whatever bathroom they want.
You've now got a group of people saying men and women are different and that women deserve bigger facilities because they take longer.
You don't know what'll happen.
If you put like, I don't know, let's say you double the amount of toilets.
Women will still take longer on the toilet.
You will reduce the queue somewhat.
But what are you going to do?
You've got to figure out the percentage of time longer on average that a woman's in the bathroom to solve this problem.
But here's the thing.
Feminism is so fractured in terms of what it actually wants.
Today, none of it makes sense.
If they're gonna argue that women need more than men because they're biologically different, well then what happens when all of these airports start opening up bathrooms where there's only like four rooms instead of actual, you know, right now you've got two rooms with multiple stalls.
They're moving towards doing like four single-person rooms.
Great.
The lines will be twice as long and they'll be ten times longer for dudes.
That's... Look at it this way.
If there was no men's room next to this women's room, they'd never complain.
Let me tell you a story.
I can't remember which airport this was, but they did some... People would get off the plane, and they would immediately go to the baggage check, which was pretty close, and they would wait like 10 or 15 minutes for the bags to come down.
They would complain non-stop because they were like, why did it take so long for my bags to get here?
So, the airport was able to solve the problem with a very, very simple, albeit kind of expensive solution.
They moved the baggage claim very, very far away.
And you know what happened?
People had to walk 10 minutes to get to the baggage claim, and by the time they got there, their bags were coming!
They didn't have to wait, so they were happy.
No one complained ever again.
See, the thing is, people were thinking, I'm at the baggage claim and my bags aren't here.
That's not fair.
Not realizing someone's got to pick the bags up, drive them to the conveyor belt, drop them off.
But nobody thought it was a problem that they had to walk ten minutes to get to the baggage claim because they thought, well, you know, that's what the baggage claim is.
The only reason they're complaining is because they can see the men's room has no line.
But I'll tell you what.
I'll tell you what.
I've got a solution to your problem.
It's called, just go to the bathroom.
Like, just go to the men's room.
Go use the men's room.
You'll be fine.
Pluralist is really making me angry with all the stupid nonsense they have on their webpage.
I should have used the inspect element to remove this.
For those that are listening on the podcast, they just got all these images that are popping up.
You know, side note...
When I do videos like this, I didn't notice this until I actually, um, had a note play- It's a complicated story, but let's just- I'll put it this way.
I recently noticed, based on someone mentioning something to me, that when I read stories like this, I don't really pay attention to what's on the webpage outside of the text, assuming, like, pluralist is gonna have nothing, but they're running videos of, like, really awful crap that's going to get my channel in trouble.
So that's really frustrating to me.
But anyway, it is what it is.
I'll take more care in the future.
They say several critics, including Roldan, referenced Invisible Women, a book by British feminist activist and author Carolyn Criado-Perez.
In it, Criado-Perez compiled a plethora of statistics intended to prove her thesis.
Despite the appearance of progress on the women's right front, modern society is still very much a man's world because those who built it didn't take gender differences into account.
We've done it!
We've gone full circle.
We're now at the point where There's no differences in genders.
There's multiple genders, but genders are also different at the exact same time.
So pick one.
I don't know what you're gonna do, but I'll tell you what you'll get.
No matter which one you pick, someone's gonna be angry.
So you know what?
I'm out.
I'm done.
Congratulations.
I'm not gonna read the rest of this.
It's a ridiculous story, but I guess you all know it.
Congratulations.
They say that offices are five degrees too cold for men.
Yes, it's because guys can't take off their skin.
Like, you know, you know... This to me shows how they're guilty of exactly what they're accusing men of doing.
They claim the patriarchy built a world for men.
Okay, let me tell you something.
Offices are cold because you can put on a sweater, but you can't get naked.
So men wearing a t-shirt and jeans who feel 5 to 10 degrees hotter than women on average can't get naked in the office.
Women can put on a sweater.
You know what?
I like wearing hoodies.
I love wearing hoodies.
You know what I mean?
So...
I'd have no problem if the office was too cold.
But the point is, it has nothing to do with AC.
It has to do with, no matter what happens, they will complain.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think it stops with the bathroom?
Do you think it's going to end now that they're like, men's lines are shorter, women's are longer, therefore, they didn't take into consideration women?
Oh, well, men tend to be taller than women.
Are you gonna have feminists complaining doorknobs are too high next?
Desks are too high on average?
That's literally the same argument.
You know what, I'm done.
I'm gonna talk about some serious news in the next segment.
Uh, for those of the podcast, you probably already heard it, so... But, uh, yeah, stick around.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
4 p.m., and I will see you there.
I have a theory.
The theory is that Ocasio-Cortez just says whatever comes to her mind, and then refuses to back down and admit when she's wrong, thus turning her nonsense into an official policy position.
She often, as well as the other far-left Democrats, will say things that offer up no solution and mean nothing, and they'll make it a policy position.
So Ocasio-Cortez tweets out nonsense about camps on the southern borders.
What happens?
All of her tribalist buddies rush to her defense and, congratulations, she's now launching a rallying cry around something that makes no sense and is not true.
And they're blo- Oh my god.
They're obstructing the funding for the border because she said a nonsense tweet and has to stand behind it.
But I'm not going to get into all that border stuff necessarily.
There's a little bit I want to talk about in terms of her silly tweets and talk about her policy positions.
I've got another segment coming up after this to go more in depth on their current obstruction of actual progress, which man, I, you know, I was so happy the other day when I was saying like, hey, it's really great.
The Democrats are finally getting on board and they're going to come together in a bipartisan effort to fund border security.
And then the far left, Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida and Elon come out with their nonsense tweets and have to push policy based on their nonsense because they refuse to admit they're talking nonsense.
Look at the tweet on the screen.
Here's Ocasio-Cortez, and I'm gonna go through some of these responses on this thread.
She said, Okay.
One moment, please.
Excuse me.
after an oil refinery exploded this morning. Okay. So what's that about how climate change
isn't an existential crisis that will disproportionately impact working-class
people and burn its way up? We need a solution on the scale of this crisis.
One moment, please. Excuse me. What? What are you talking about?
Oh my god.
This tweet is an absolute... It means literally nothing.
Is she actually implying a refinery exploded because of climate change?
If this is what she's basing her policy positions on, help us all, please.
Because when she said that global warming is making casual tornadoes, I thought to myself, wow.
If she thinks that's true, then she must believe a ton of other psychotic nonsense.
And if she's pushing these bills, we probably want to walk back.
I'll tell you what, a meteorologist on Twitter was like, no, no, stop, please, Hortez.
There are tornadoes, like he said, this is just the weather.
Tornadoes sometimes happen.
Weather is not climate.
And I'd like to add something.
Ocasio-Cortez freaked out because tornado warnings were going off in D.C.
Do you know why tornado warnings were going off in D.C.?
Because D.C.
has tornado warnings.
Because sometimes tornadoes happen.
Okay?
Now, I'll tell you what would be strange.
If a place that never had tornadoes all of a sudden had to install tornado warnings because a new thing was happening.
Let me just reiterate.
DC has tornado alarms, warnings, because they sometimes have tornadoes.
No, it's not climate change or global warming and casual tornadoes, but that's what she tweets.
And she refuses to admit she's wrong, and then, that's her policy.
So what's the policy now?
She's gonna go around marching around saying, we can't have these refineries exploding anymore, it's time to fight climate change, and we're gonna be like, what, what are you, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't know where you're going with this, dude.
So, she tweets things that often just go nowhere, and she offers up no solutions.
Your tweet has gotten 120,000 retweets by the time of filming this video.
Can you tell me why he needs to be impeached?
They can't.
But she can certainly tell me that climate change made a refinery blow up.
Now we're going to go through all of the controversial Twitter responses.
Mike Cernovich responded to a Cortez saying, are you high right now?
And then someone posted the meme of the little critter thing doing like the what?
Like, what is this?
What is she talking about?
Listen.
She gets by, sometimes, when she tweets things because you can kind of understand what she's trying to say.
Sometimes, she tweets things that just, the president needs, this president needs to be impeached.
Okay, dude, you've got to go somewhere with that.
Remember when, I always bring this up, she said that the 21 trillion dollar accounting error could fund healthcare?
She bases her policy positions on this.
The point I was trying to make in the beginning, Is that when she tweets something nonsensical like this, and then people call her out, she doubles down and goes, nuh-uh, nuh-uh, like her concentration camp thing.
So we have this Twitter account.
Quoththeraven, what the F are you talking about?
Talk about a non sequitur.
This was an accident at a refinery.
Has nothing to do with climate change.
Excuse me.
You use hydrocarbon-based products and fuels every single day, AOC.
I support alternative and green energy, but I also support common sense.
And as someone who loves Philadelphia almost as much as I love life itself, my only concern is that none of my brothers and sisters from my fine city were hurt.
Prayers up to everyone in the area and the employees.
There's always going to be accidents.
At the chemical plants that make products you use daily, at nuclear power plants, at solar farms and wind power plants, on airlines, in electrical cars, at vegan restaurants.
You're just using an accident to further a political agenda.
No matter how far left you drag the politics of this country, we will still require production of goods and services, and as long as we are human, there will always be accidents.
Next time you want to be appalled, check out the supply chain for the products used to make the iPhone you tweeted this from.
I don't know what that means.
without using plastics, or see who makes and manufactures the clothes and shoes you wear
daily.
EOM.
I don't know what that means.
Climate change caused the explosion.
What we can see here is that Ocasio-Cortez doesn't understand the difference between
using fossil fuels for making petroleum-based products and petrochemicals, and burning fossil
fuels for energy.
She seems to think that there is a direct correlation that, like, climate change caused the refinery.
Okay, let's back it up a little bit.
Let me say this.
Perhaps she's taking the long, circuitous path towards refineries shouldn't exist.
That's the point I wanted to make.
If she's claiming that refineries exploding are akin to the climate change problem itself, is she arguing that refineries shouldn't exist?
If that's the case, she has now stepped up her rhetoric from going... At one point it was like, hey, we shouldn't have planes and farting cows.
We can't get every car off the road.
But now she's going beyond that.
Because apparently she doesn't understand that petroleum is used for more than just burning for fuel.
It's used for plastics, petrochemicals.
Like, there's like...
She's gonna legislate.
She's going to pass sweeping Green New Deal legislation.
And then if this stuff actually passed, which it never will because she went off the rails with this stuff, it will result in people not having shoes.
It will result in no more bottles.
Like, okay, look.
Plastics can be bad for the world.
We want to get rid of pollution.
But what Cortez does is insane.
So, but let's talk about how it turns into her policy positions from the Daily Wire.
Ocasio-Cortez refuses to apologize for her concentration camp remarks and spreads new lie.
Here's what happens.
She says something that makes no sense.
She gets called out for it.
She doubles down and goes even further with it because she's always right.
This is a dangerous mentality to have.
The Daily Wire writes that Cortez refused to apologize on Friday for engaging in the trivialization of WWII-era German actions.
When she falsely claimed the U.S.
government was operating concentration camps on the southern border, Ocasio-Cortez then spread a new lie.
That it was the Republicans who were intentionally conflating terms in order to attack her, despite the fact that she made clear what she meant during her Instagram live video when she said, never again.
We get it.
She's a liar.
She doubles down and then it becomes like an official position for her.
Then she proposes legislation.
I don't want to rehash all that stuff we talked about in the past several days because I've got another segment coming up where I want to talk about ICE is planning on deporting you know what it's like it's like millions of people are on the deportation list and what we can see beyond this okay I didn't want to do this in one super long video because it was like just enough that it had to be done for another video so the next thing I'm gonna do is going to talk about how Ocasio-Cortez goes from saying something that makes no sense, refusing to back down when she's called out for it, to then proposing something in legislation, or obstructing legislation, and offering up no solution.
When you have someone as dangerously idiotic as her, who says something like, there are concentration camps on the border, then people say you're wrong, she refuses to back down, then she says, but we should do this.
And you ask her why?
The proposal she's offering right now, she's asking for compassion.
I kid you not.
She's literally saying, defund the camps and offer compassion.
I ask you, what the hell does that even mean?
We had a chance now for Democrats and Republicans to come together, and they want to.
And Ocasio-Cortez and the other far left are saying no.
So here's what I'll do.
I'll end this now because it's going to be two shorter segments.
I don't want to make one super long thing.
The next video coming up is going to be about how they're trying to obstruct actual border policy because they don't want to be wrong, I guess.
So stick around.
That video will be coming up in a few moments, and I will see you shortly.
My last segment was essentially me venting my frustration at seeing the absurd nonsense that Ocasio-Cortez tweets and highlighting some of the responses to it.
But there was more.
And so, you know, when I was going through the story, I was like, I can easily call out, you know, several of the things she said that are nuts.
But the point was that she says something crazy, and then turns it into an official position, and then obstructs or proposes nonsense.
So let's get into that.
She tweeted, The GOP has supported building mass concentration camps on the southern border.
Here she goes quadrupling down.
Kids and families are dying.
Okay, hold on.
There's been a few deaths, dude.
Chill.
Now they want money for more.
No, they want money to get the kids the toothbrushes they need.
Because everyone's complaining we don't have the resources to accommodate them because we're facing record numbers of illegal immigrants.
Yes, we need money.
And guess what?
The Democrats agreed, except for the fringe leftists like Ocasio-Cortez who are saying, no money for nothing.
She says, we can't do that.
They've shown that when they get more money, they build more camps.
Okay.
No.
Okay, actually, actually, yes.
Yes, they will build more camps because we're overcrowded.
That's part of the problem.
But of course, she takes the fringe ridiculous position that they're concentration camps.
So here's the thing.
She was quote-tweeting Rashida Tlaib, who put out a statement.
And guess what their proposed solution is?
I'll give you a few seconds.
Let's rehash.
The Democrats want to do a bipartisan bill with Republicans, $4.5 billion in funding, to solve the humanitarian crisis on the border.
The far-left Democrats like Rashida, Ilhan, and Ocasio-Cortez are obstructing this.
You know why?
Because they have a better solution.
Empathy and compassion.
I'm not kidding.
That's literally their proposed solution.
Empathy and compassion.
This makes me really, really angry.
I'm serious.
Like, you'll see me, you know, in the last video, in the last segment, I'm like frustrated and venting, but that's more of like a point, like pointing out the absurdity kind of frustration, but this genuinely ignites anger within me.
I want the problem solved.
I want these people helped.
What do you say?
The Trump administration is criminalizing immigrants instead of offering empathy and compassion.
What does that even mean?
You have said literally nothing.
You know why I'm really angry?
I will tell you who is causing the crisis at the border.
It's Rashida Tlaib, it's Ocasio-Cortez, it's Ilhan Omar, and it's, um, and Rep Pressley.
I'm less familiar with her, Ayanna Pressley.
She does better of not being as controversial as the others, I suppose.
Hashtag not one dollar.
Okay, there are kids that are suffering and dying and you won't give one dollar.
You are causing the problem.
They refuse to offer up any solutions.
Where do we bring these people?
Do we just have them wander the desert?
Do we just open the borders and let anybody come and go where they want?
Do we ferry them?
To random cities where you have Portland, Maine and Del Rio, Texas already begging the feds for help because we can't accommodate all of these people that are just rushing the border?
No.
We need border security and we need resources for those who are here so they're not suffering in what you call a concentration camp.
Instead, They rant and rave and complain all day and night about how these are concentration camps, they refuse to back down, they make it their official position, and then they say, but we're not gonna give you one penny to actually help these people.
That is sick and twisted, and I've had enough.
Seriously, these people are nuts and they're dangerous.
It's one thing to make fun of Ocasio-Cortez because she said something that's silly and stupid on the internet, It's another thing when they're absolutely obstructing humanitarian aid and there are people suffering and there are people standing behind them for tribal reasons who refuse to act on principle and say, I don't care what you want to do.
I care about helping the people on the border who are suffering.
Oh, but they don't want Trump to win.
Congratulations.
This is what you get.
Not $1.
So look what they said.
We cannot turn our backs on the abuses taking place on our own soil, executed by our own government.
Yes, because they need funding.
Because the Democrats wouldn't get on board with funding, giving Trump what he wanted.
Oh, because they don't want any deportations.
They want to abolish ICE.
Seriously, they say abolish ICE.
Okay.
You want to abolish ICE.
You don't want to give humanitarian aid.
What's your solution?
It seems to me they just want to wash their hands of anything and walk away and turn a blind eye.
Which would result in children wandering the desert, as we've already seen, getting dehydrated and dying.
So you literally want to do nothing?
With no border security, these illegal immigrants are incentivized to come here, okay?
I have nothing but sympathy for them if they want to come here.
I get it.
America is great.
But then they wander through the desert, get sick, get exploited.
You wonder why the Koch brothers wanted open borders.
Even Bernie Sanders pointed this out.
It's a Koch Brothers policy to have open borders so they can exploit cheap labor.
And guess who's behind the Koch Brothers?
Guess who's standing shoulder to shoulder with a firm hand available for a handshake?
Rashida Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, and Ilhan Omar agreeing.
No camps, no borders, and no ICE.
Wonderful.
Then the massive corporations like the Koch Industries and their subsidiaries will exploit cheap labor all day and night.
Remember when there was a left that was concerned about this?
Bernie Sanders was one of those people.
But I'll tell you what.
Even though their proposed... What they actually want is empathy and compassion.
Whatever that means, I would have assumed empathy and compassion would have been you providing funding to make sure that people on the border are being fed and taken care of.
But sure, whatever you think empathy and compassion is, apparently leaving people to wander through the desert is compassion.
But regardless of what they want, I'll tell you what's happening.
ICE is set to launch nationwide raids on immigrant families starting this weekend.
And you know what really, really frustrates me?
It's the weird doublespeak they do.
I know why Hamed Aliaziz... I'm sorry, I can't pronounce your name right.
I know why he wrote this without adding the caveat, illegal immigrant, because this is the game that they play.
Specifically, to omit that key word.
Because immigrants and illegal immigrants are different things.
They want you to believe that ICE is just raiding random people's houses.
No, these are people who have skipped court, who have deportation orders.
And the law, because no one is above the law, president included, says that these people should be deported.
Unfortunately, you have people like Cortez, who don't want to do anything for those suffering on the border.
They want to complain about it.
Do they want to offer them any money?
No.
Do they want to offer border security?
No.
And then once the people are here, they just say, let them do their thing.
Yes.
This is why people say the Democrats are for open borders.
Because even the mainstream centrist-type Democrats resisted Trump's calls for border funding.
Even after major publications said, guys, give them the money, they resisted.
And now they're finally, finally getting on board.
But guess who isn't?
Yeah, the far left.
Let's read a little bit of this.
BuzzFeed writes, The roundup targeting families who have been issued final removal orders is expected to begin Sunday in several cities across the country.
ICE is planning to conduct a multi-day raid targeting undocumented immigrant families across the country beginning this weekend, according to sources close to the administration.
The roundup is expected to begin Sunday in several cities across the country, including LA, targeting families who have been issued final removal orders after not appearing in court.
The enforcement action comes during a period in which the administration has called for additional funding to help add resources to handle the record number of immigrant families crossing the border this year.
I'm sick of this.
I'm sick of it, BuzzFeed.
We're not talking about immigrants, and this is just so, so absurd.
Let's call them illegal aliens.
That's the legal term.
They're playing a semantic game, and it's really annoying.
Immigrant families are not crossing the border.
Illegal aliens are.
And there's a difference.
You besmirch the good name of honest immigrants who fight every day for legal citizenship and legal access to the United States, and there's a reason we do it.
Because we don't want people suffering on the border.
There is no mastermind twirling a mustache behind the scenes going, put more people in camps!
It doesn't exist.
There are people on the border saying, how can we deal with all of these people coming here?
There are people in ICE saying we cannot accommodate everyone.
You can't just have people in San Francisco taking dumps in the street.
Or in L.A., we have a homeless crisis.
Okay?
L.A., where the Democratic supermajority has a homeless crisis, couldn't pass a housing bill.
And of course, we can't even pass bipartisan funding because the far left is obstructing it.
There is no person Sitting in the White House, laughing with a top hat and a monocle about how they want the migrants to suffer on the border.
No.
You've got people saying, please don't make the journey.
It's dangerous.
We can't accommodate you.
You will die in the desert.
It is dangerous.
And you have people like BuzzFeed conflating.
The struggling migrant family who filled out all their paperwork, answered all their questions, and came here to find the American Dream with those who are just coming here because they want Buffalo Wild Wings.
I chose specifically the two most extreme examples.
The hard-working migrant who wants the chance at the American Dream, and from the Vox article, right, the left-wing Vox, who said, I miss PlayStation and I want Buffalo Wild Wings.
Who deserves to be here?
The person who works really hard and says, I will be an asset to your country and your community, and I will help you if you help me.
You say that to me, and I will say, let me know what you need, and I'll take care of you.
You run past me because you want chicken wings.
We've got a problem.
You are taking from those hardworking people, and when BuzzFeed does this, they conflate the two, and I take offense to that.
I'm getting so fed up and frustrated with this but trust me you know a lot of people see me when I'm like frustrated in these videos and they're like Tim oh man you're so angry it's like dude it's 10 minutes trust me I'm gonna go out and go skating afterwards and it's all fine it's just every day with these far left AOC you know with AOC look I made a half an hour video celebrating her victory in the primary because I was happy to see a young upstart displace these, you know, incumbent, long, you know, long-term corporate whatever Democrats.
But Ocasio-Cortez has proven time and time again she doesn't care.
All she cares about is being right on Twitter.
I think she is a disgraceful monster.
People on the border need aid.
She's blocking it.
That is disgusting.
I'm done.
I got one more video coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I'll see you there.
I can't say I've ever been a big fan of Maxine Waters, but I gotta say right now, I will stand alongside her in this fight as she condemns Facebook's new cryptocurrency.
Now there's a lot of caveats to what Facebook is trying to do, but as far as I'm concerned, Facebook is an unaccountable Tech monopoly, sort of, duopoly, you know, Google and Facebook control a massive portion of the ad market.
Facebook is stealing private data.
They have done wrong time and time again.
And this is an effort to entangle themselves in our economy, and we cannot allow this.
I've made several videos saying this is a nightmare.
Look, there are a lot of things that I'm like, oh man, that's bad, like censorship.
It's like, oh man, more censorship, that's dangerous.
But I'm telling you, Facebook launching a cryptocurrency without restriction, without regulation, is a total doomsday scenario.
Maxine Waters agrees with me.
So no, this is not a conservative position to challenge the big tech companies.
Sorry, far leftists.
Maxine Waters is saying it too.
And I'm gonna have to agree.
Let's check out this story.
From the Daily Wire, Maxine Waters warns about Facebook's new cryptocurrency.
You know, can I say one thing real quick?
I think this is a bipartisan effort.
Can we get, like, the fringiest of the left and the right together and just be like, everybody put down your swords, we're gonna do something about big tech.
Unfortunately, you got a lot of these far lefties saying, but the private platform, it's like, dude, seriously?
How is it the far left wants a massive, unrestrained, international corporation To run things?
Let's read the story.
House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters warned this week about Facebook's new cryptocurrency Libra, saying the tech giant needs to stop what it's doing immediately.
Bravo Maxine Waters, the New York Times reported.
Facebook says its new cryptocurrency Libra is a tool for financial inclusion and disrupting the world's cumbersome payment systems.
In reality, there is a deeper motivation behind it.
Although not the one its critics imagine, Libra is the last best hope to re-establish trust between Facebook and the world.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
If that's what they think, maybe.
But I'll tell you what will happen.
Facebook is the last effort to suspend your ability to buy Twinkies because you violated Facebook's guideline by buying HoHos.
You see how dangerous it can be?
Facebook will send you a notification on your phone.
This was tweeted by atbitcoin, by the way.
I don't want to take credit for it.
Your account has been suspended for 30 days because you purchased something that violates our community guidelines.
Imagine that world.
Imagine you go to Burger King, and Burger King's not part of the Libra program, so they say, Burger King is deemed hateful.
You have to shop at McDonald's.
Maybe you want to go to Whole Foods and get something healthy.
Oh, that's Amazon, by the way.
So they'll say, you can't buy here because, sorry, we don't support our competitors.
Let's read on.
Facebook harnessed billions of users to the engine of artificial intelligence and steered unerringly toward advertising riches.
Privacy, civic discourse, and even democracy were crushed beneath the wheels as Facebook rolled toward global domination.
Now it faces angry legislators around the world, huge fines, hostile investigations, and punitive regulations aiming to rein it in.
Yes.
Absolutely.
Maxine Waters joined CNBC's Closing Bell on Thursday to discuss the new cryptocurrency and urge Facebook to stop what it is doing immediately.
We're going to move aggressively and very quickly to deal with what's going on with this new cryptocurrency, Waters told CNBC on Thursday.
I think it's very important for them to stop right now what they're doing so that we can get a handle on this.
I've asked them to place a moratorium on moving forward with Libra, Waters continued.
We don't have a regulatory agency to oversee who they are and what they are doing.
This is like starting a bank without having to go through any steps to do it.
And of course, we have some questions about Facebook and some of the ways that it has conducted itself in the past.
I'm gonna stop right here and say, Republicans, Conservatives, you should be standing behind Maxine Waters on this one.
If you thought it was bad when they censored conservative news and conservative personalities and purged people for arbitrary reasons, let me assure you, it will only be worse, ten times worse, when they wipe all of you out of the economy.
Can't buy a house, can't buy food, can't buy a bike, can't buy a car.
Now look, of course, in the beginning, it won't be that way.
It never is.
They'll offer up this little tool and say, hey, it's just a bonus.
But guess what?
We've already seen all of these different websites.
So you gotta log in with Facebook or Google.
Yes, they've dominated this.
Now people say, well, it's easier just to log in with Facebook.
How long until people say, it's easier to get paid in Libra?
Your boss says, it's easier if I just pay you in Libra instead of US, right?
Sure.
How long until that slips through the cracks and we enter a future where everything's going to be okay for the first couple of years?
Twitter was the free speech wing of the free speech party.
Now look where they are.
They will slip in slowly.
and they will provide you with this great benefit. And you will say, wow, it really is easy to use
this currency. And you'll be beeping your phone, boop, boop, boop, just super easy everywhere.
Transactions International, no problem. Five years goes by.
All of a sudden, you got some weird dude talking about moon landing being fake. His Libra gets
suspended.
But unfortunately, his employer only pays in Libra.
Oh no!
Union contract emerges.
The union says, We demand that you pay in Libra for convenience to our
staff.
Now all of a sudden, you don't have Libra, you can't get a job.
I worked for a union once.
This is a legitimate example of why I bring this up.
And they told me, If I didn't join the credit union,
I could only go to one ATM to get my paycheck.
And it was in a weird obscure location.
I'm serious about this.
And they said, however, if you join the credit union, well then you can use any credit union ATM, plus we have a ton of specialized ATMs just for you.
We had no choice.
Everyone joined the credit union.
To me, that felt devious.
Dirty.
Imagine what happens then when some tech union, or like the BuzzFeed union, says, we want to be paid in Libra because everyone accepts it and it's easier to use and it's faster.
Instead of going to the bank, oh man, it takes three days for a bank transaction to clear.
Just use Libra, man.
Then it's going to start slow with the boss saying, you know, if you, if you'd like, we offer a Libra as a portion of your compensation.
The thing is, If this was happening with Bitcoin, I would be less concerned because Bitcoin is decentralized.
And if you said, look, provide the address and we'll use Bitcoin, I'd be like, that's cool.
Some people have brought up Mines.com.
And as many of you know, I actually work with the CEO of Mines on other projects.
But Mines is not Facebook, right?
I think it's awesome that people want to use crypto technology for various awesome endeavors.
Let me show you a picture from CNET that should probably... Man, you know, I made a lot of videos about this, but trust me when I say it's because of all the things that I've cared about, this is serious.
I grew up in the hacker community, right?
Or at least a hacker community with hacker friends on the internet.
I was a member of several hacker spaces.
And technology, I truly, I understand to a certain degree the power of this and where it goes.
Look at that picture on the screen.
Libra right in the middle of all of these different services.
PayPal, Coinbase, PayU, Uber, MasterCard.
Women's World Banking, whatever that is.
Calibra, I guess Calibra is part of the same thing, I don't know.
Facebook, Spotify, eBay, Stripe, Lyft.
Did I say Visa and MasterCard?
What do you think happens when all of these services use Libra?
Let me explain to you something that's even more dangerous.
Okay, maybe the scenario about your boss paying in Libra never comes to be.
Maybe it's a far-fetched idea.
Here's what you won't see happening.
The companies will agree to exchange in Libra because they have a backing interest.
So Facebook launches Libra and then Mastercard says, hey Iliad, whenever we do a transaction, we'll just do it in Libra because it's faster and easier and we don't have to worry about regulation from the US government.
Well then what happens when you want to use one of these services?
Coinbase might say, you need Libra because we do all our transactions between MasterCard through Libra.
Maybe Facebook, maybe you sign up, maybe you sign up to, I don't know, Spotify.
Vodafone, your cell phone carrier.
And you're signed up using MasterCard.
Here's the thing.
MasterCard and Vodafone both use Libra.
So maybe you're still spending USD for Vodafone.
But to transact from MasterCard to Vodafone, it uses the Libra network.
Let's say Facebook bans you for hate speech.
And now your transaction won't go through because the address used by you is associated with a banned account.
So MasterCard says, we can't do a transaction between a partner company because you've been banned from Libra, so we can't transact the money.
We don't know exactly what will happen, but I assure you, giving Facebook the ability to network all of these different companies and allow them to arbitrarily enforce these rules will be a nightmare doomsday scenario.
So I'll say this.
I have been very critical of Maxine Waters and the things she said about getting in people's faces, but that's it for the most part.
But I'll tell you what.
When Ocasio-Cortez called out the big tech companies, Elizabeth Warren has called them out, you've got now Maxine Waters calling them out, you will see me standing beside them holding up a sign.
I mean that figuratively, like you will never see me protesting or anything.
These are just my opinions about what I think we need to do.
I'm not telling anybody necessarily what to do.
I'm just saying for me personally, I will absolutely stand alongside anybody who wants to challenge these massive tech oligopolies.
My principles lie in restricting massive power from dominating and oppressing.
Plain and simple.
Freedom.
For some reason, people on the left right now, not all, but some, because I'm talking about some people on the left who are calling them out, but you've got these private platform people who just don't seem to care.
It's like this weird libertarian, but authoritarian, I don't even know, their position makes no sense.
It's an authoritarian position, I guess.
They want massive corporations the right to do whatever they want.
Well, I'm not gonna, I'm not me!
So, I'll leave it there.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Podcast every day up at 6.30. iTunes, Google, etc.
