Google Email LEAKED, Proves Conservative Censorship At Youtube
UPDATE: After filming this segment I noticed the Veritas video was still live on Vimeo at a different link, it may have failed to load due to a bad link posted by Veritas on Twitter. I apologize for the errorGoogle Email LEAKED, Proves Political Censorship At Youtube. Project Veritas has just published a leaked email proving political censorship was at least being entertained. The email targeted Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and PragerU and called on removing the 'suggested feature' which we learned was later throttled on Dave Rubin's channel as well as all of my channels.Following Veritas' report Youtube even deleted the video in a shocking display of arrogance. The censorship against conservatives and those who oppose the far left is confirmed at this point. An email making overt political statements and calling on censorship based on politics and the video exposing Google's corruption was deleted seemingly to hide their wrong doing. They cited a third party privacy complaint but the women in the video worked for Google so that is clearly not true.It would seem that we have reached a tipping point. Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert have directly called out Google over these actions.But will Democrats and Republicans come together to enact legislation to protect the commons and our Democracy?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A new whistleblower has stepped forward and provided Project Veritas with an email where Google employees directly refer to Jordan Peterson, Prager University, and Ben Shapiro as a certain group from World War II Germany.
And using dog whistles.
This is direct confirmation, more direct confirmation, of employees within Google being biased politically, targeting a group of people, and then going on to say, we should disable the suggestions feature.
This email corroborates statements made by the whistleblower yesterday, that they were going to be stripping recommendations from certain creators, myself included.
I have a lot to say.
There's a lot to go through.
James O'Keefe's video has been removed by Google.
I'm not exaggerating.
The Google expose has been taken down due to a privacy claim by a third party.
What third party?
They were Google employees.
This is YouTube.
I guess you could make the argument fine.
As to the statement made yesterday, I'll make some updates.
My recommendations, known as suggested views, are down.
About 10% of my views, less, right?
So, how do I explain this?
My suggested views comprised about 28% of all viewership before May, and now they're around 15-17%.
They are down.
So this could corroborate what the whistleblower yesterday was saying, for those unfamiliar.
He said that my views had gone down dramatically in response to suppression.
That's not entirely true.
Suggested views made up a very small portion of my views regardless.
But now it would seem that, yes, my views and suggestions are down, but I'm being recommended in other ways.
So I bring this up specifically because it's important context as we move forward this conversation.
So it's happening.
We have confirmation.
Probably the most alarming confirmation I think we have is James having his video taken down by YouTube itself.
If you challenge or make YouTube look bad, they will take down your content.
This video has a staff member, a woman, talking about manipulating US elections, how Google won't respond to Congress.
Here's what we need to do.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate.
You can donate monthly through PayPal.
There's a cryptocurrency option, a physical address.
The most important thing you can do right now, share the video if you think I deserve it.
YouTube will not recommend me to new people to help me grow.
You know what?
Fine.
I do not believe I have a right to YouTube recommending my content to other people, but we know they are now suppressing people to a certain extent.
I want to stress, I am still being recommended in other ways.
Recommendation is like a slang term, so that means that homepage recommendations, you'll still see my thumbnails if you choose to click them.
That's good.
I'm still gaining thousands of new subscribers every day.
I do not believe YouTube is trying to destroy my channel outright, but we are seeing them take some kind of action.
The action as a whole may be against news channels.
It might not be political.
It could be specifically targeting news channels.
I've reached out to some progressives, and I've corroborated some information that leads me to believe the suppression of suggestions may have hit news as a whole.
So the point is, if you think I deserve to get views, it's going to be on you to share the video.
If you don't think I, you know, go to Facebook, wherever you want to share them, fine.
More importantly than that, I have a podcast.
For those that are listening on the podcast, you get it.
But for everybody else, it's called the Tim Pool Daily Show.
It's on all podcasting platforms, I believe.
Mostly iTunes, Google, etc.
And you can listen to me there, and it is safe and free from YouTube's algorithms.
Not perfect.
I also will be posting content at minds.com slash timcast.
It is very likely, you know, this video could be taken down for showing you that initial email.
My past video could be taken down.
YouTube already took down my video on Pinterest.
So let's go through all of the big breaking updates.
For one, Ted Cruz today grilled a Google employee on the Veritas report.
I don't think it was the right employee, but good on Ted Cruz for stepping up.
We also have Congressman Louie Gohmert issuing a statement saying Google should not be immune.
They should not be granted federal immunity.
They are seeking to manipulate our elections.
I will come back and read a statement shortly.
Even more worrying, though, is that James O'Keefe published to Vimeo, a YouTube competitor, the link to the report.
That appears to have been taken down as well.
It seems like we're facing, to use the similar words to James O'Keefe, a watershed moment for journalism.
James O'Keefe exposed censorship at Pinterest.
They reacted predictably.
They reversed the censorship.
But then something happened and they decided to double down.
And then they just came out with a blanket statement saying they were banning this conservative group.
Period.
It seems from there, there has been an emboldening of censorship against conservatives.
The initial email I showed you, they have called Jordan Peterson Prager, Ben Shapiro, a certain faction from World War II, you know the N-word, A-N-word, I don't wanna, people are gonna get mad at me, and then suggested taking away their suggestions.
There's reasons why this is so important.
For one, The woman in question, who was exposed by Veritas, issued a public statement on Medium.
This is not how I expected my Monday to go.
She talks about how, here, they don't take political affiliation into consideration.
However, we have an email now confirming they do.
Absolutely.
And they falsely align people as a way to justify censorship.
And they even went so far as to say, take away their suggestions.
But more importantly, this individual said, Meredith's suggestion.
In the email, he says, why don't we go with Meredith's suggestion of taking away the suggested feature.
That means other people within Google have made recommendations to strip recommendations from certain creators based on their politics.
Wrongly aligning them, of course.
This woman, Jen Janai, has made herself now a public figure with this statement, so that's important.
However, going back to the Vimeo issue, it looks like now we are seeing, as I mentioned earlier, an emboldening.
They're just doing it.
I think we are going to see massive moves made against Big Tech because we're seeing Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert.
We have bipartisan support now for some type of regulation.
Maybe they won't be aligned, but they're calling it out.
In fact, this woman at Google, in the expose that was taken down, said They should not be broken up because then smaller companies would be tasked with stopping a Trump situation and they don't have the resources.
This was a woman at Google directly saying they want to interfere in the elections.
So you know what?
Elizabeth Warren is correct.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times recently, Cory Doctorow, a science fiction writer, said it's a hypothetical future.
And he said stripping away the immunity is not the right answer.
We need to break them up to create a diverse and robust internet.
I believe he may be right.
It creates more market competition.
And you need to recognize that YouTube is one element within Google, but it's like five or six different kinds of companies.
They host videos for you.
They market videos for you.
They sell ads for you.
They buy ads from advertisers.
They do multiple different tasks all rolled into one company.
Perhaps that should be broken up.
Gmail, G-Docs, Google, Alphabet, all of these companies have a disproportionate amount of control over the public forum, the comments, our information.
And yes, if they choose to manipulate elections, they can.
And we are now... I'm gonna say it one more time.
Confirmation, a leaked email, a whistleblower, and statements from Google employees.
This is happening.
I think the most important thing to consider is taking down James O'Keefe's video should remove all doubt.
Of course, we've understood this for a long time.
There's been circumstantial evidence.
But before Pinterest, it was, well, maybe the moderation is just because they violated policies.
You'd have people say, hey, they're private platforms.
They can do what they want.
Okay, that argument is gone.
Pinterest stepped forward and said, you know what?
Wipe them out.
Banned several people and said, we're just gonna do it.
We're just gonna do it.
There was still some arguing.
How do you explain this?
How do you explain an expose on Google staff malfeasance with a whistleblower confirming the details and Google deleting the video?
Are you still going to say, but my private platform?
Sure.
I guess Google's under no obligation to host a video that makes them look bad.
But then understand how dangerous it is that YouTube has a monopoly on video hosting, period.
There are other places to go.
Mines.com, for instance.
Bitchute.
And I will once again stress, in no uncertain terms, I have this content.
It's all available on a podcast.
Okay?
You can get it on other platforms.
It's still Apple and Google, for the most part.
But there are some other services I use.
The important point is, even if I get taken down from YouTube or Google, I will exist in other ways.
Mines.com slash Timcast, seriously, you know, as well as Bitchute and others.
Ted Cruz did some grilling.
I want to move on to Louie Gohmert's statement as well.
He referenced Veritas, which is good on him.
I think we need to see more, but good on him for bringing this up immediately right when the report broke and challenging someone at Google.
The statement issued by Louie Gohmert is also good, but we'll get to the point of Section 230 moving from here.
He responded to the undercover video, which has since been deleted from YouTube, removing all doubt as to their censorship policies.
And the email now leaked from Veritas, removing all doubt.
They are targeting people for their politics.
They are lying about them.
They are smearing and slandering them in private.
This is libel.
And then they strip away access to the platform for political reasons.
Louis Gohmert says, This video shows Google's biases are now a threat to a free and fair election.
All while they hide behind the immunity given by Congress years ago, when they were supposed to be a simple town square, where everyone's voice could be heard without biased results.
In fact, Google references a significant role they see themselves fulfilling in the 2020 elections.
This discovery should set off alarm bells throughout the country.
It is no secret that Google has a political agenda.
Multiple brave tech insiders have stepped forward and exposed Google's censorship of content and specialized algorithms.
This media giant's social narrative should distress all Americans who value a free and open society.
Google should not be deciding whether content is important or trivial, and they most assuredly should not be meddling in our election process.
They need their immunity stripped and to be properly pursued by class action lawsuits by those they have knowingly harmed.
Interestingly.
My suggested views are down.
Does that include me?
I don't know.
My channel's doing really well.
Everything's been great.
Subs are up.
Views are up.
I can't complain.
I'm certainly concerned about manipulating our elections.
But whether or not, you know, let's break this up into a few different important discussions.
I do not believe YouTube is required to promote my content for me.
I'll ask you to do that.
As I said earlier, if you think this content deserves to be seen, share it on social media.
If you're not willing to do that, then I don't deserve to have anyone listen to what I say.
If one person says, I am not going to share your content, well then so be it.
This is the marketplace.
This is how business works.
If I opened a pizza shop and nobody told their friends I had good pizza, well maybe I should make better pizza.
But I will recognize that as a monopoly, they are dominating the market and making it much more difficult for competitors.
They're buying up competitors.
They're suppressing competitors.
I'm talking about big tech in general.
And thus, there is now a problem if they aren't going to suggest fairly.
While I can rely on suggestions from you guys and shares, we're going up against the Google machine, which is going to be recommending biased content.
Now, let's bring up another really important point, which was brought up by Ted Cruz.
He asked, to this woman at Google, do you know how much money Google employees donated to Hillary Clinton?
It was like over a million dollars, like $1.3 million.
I'm getting the number wrong, but something like that.
a not in substantial amount, a lot of money. How many Google employees donated to Trump?
I'm sorry, how much money from Google, Google employees made its way to Trump? The answer is
zero. The bias exists. We have the emails, we have the employee statements, but I want to stress,
please understand me when I say YouTube taking down Veritas' video.
I don't care if you don't like them.
I don't care if you don't trust them.
This was information exposing malfeasance at a massive international corporation with no allegiance to the U.S.
that is imposing its will on the U.S.
and then deleted a critic from its platform.
Fine.
It's their platform.
But that means, because they've dominated the ad space, the ad market, they have destroyed independent and local journalism.
They will not allow you to challenge their power.
Period.
Local journalists have been screaming for a while that Google has harmed them.
It's true.
Google and Facebook have dominated the ad market.
Now, I'm not going to blame them necessarily.
It's technological advancement.
But this means they do need to be broken up if they're going to be censoring this stuff.
If they want to act like the arbiters of truth, which they claim to be.
If this woman, she says explicitly, Trump voters do not agree with my view of fairness.
Too bad.
I'm adding the too bad part.
She said that.
And then goes on to express that basically it doesn't matter.
We're going to do this anyway.
She says they're going to reject congressional hearings.
They're not going to change their mind.
And they reject being broken up.
This is authoritarianism.
This is technocratic authoritarianism.
And at some point, we need to break them up.
Elizabeth Warren agrees.
We now need some people on the right, which I'm sure there's a lot of, that agree.
Antitrust action.
Plain and simple.
So, I'll move on now and highlight just a few other things.
For one, one of the things that worries me greatly, Washington Times.
Project Veritas video targeting Google pulled by YouTube after privacy complaints.
Well, as I stated earlier, whose privacy complaint?
That woman?
She works for Google.
They called it a third-party complaint.
Sure, I guess.
Her acting as an individual?
Fine.
But here's the thing.
Do a search for news articles about this.
You'll find the Washington Times.
You'll find conservative outlets.
Will you find the New York Times?
Will you find Vox or BuzzFeed?
At least for now, the answer is no.
I haven't found any of them to be reporting on this.
There was one New York Times employee, Charlie Warzel, I believe, who tweeted about this and said, this is just algorithmic bias, you know, correcting.
They're wrong.
It's not political bias.
A woman on camera at Google saying we're going to prevent a Trump situation, you know, essentially saying something to that effect.
He says it's not political bias.
I gotta say, it's really alarming.
It's very worrying.
That we're seeing two worlds being created.
As Scott Adams said, same screen, two different movies.
The media on the left will not cover this.
Maybe they will, I don't want to say they absolutely won't.
The story has gotten so big, it may now break out into the open.
I saw the Daily Beast published a story on the Google employees statement, but not the actual expose.
This is how the game will be played.
All that matters is that you have a media that is complicit in defending big tech.
Look, Elizabeth Warren called them out.
Ocasio-Cortez called out the big tech surveillance.
It's a bipartisan issue.
But the media is doubling down.
Why?
Why, why, why?
I'm on YouTube.
I make my revenue on YouTube and I have no problem calling them out and saying, break them up.
Break them up, even if it means my business gets hurt.
I don't care.
This is about the betterment of democracy and our society and civilization.
Again, I'm not saying I know that breaking them up is the right thing to do.
Cory Doctorow published an op-ed in the New York Times.
I lean in that direction.
We've seen Democrats and Republicans alike make statements like this, but something needs to be done.
When I went on Joe Rogan's podcast with Jack Dorsey, Yeah, we had an interesting conversation about how they were dominating the public town square, the commons.
But we're at a point now where, plain and simple, you challenge them, you will be banned.
Period.
So I guess, you know, I could prattle on this forever, but I'll make a few points.
Another point, I know I said that, the final point I want to make, because I'm a bit flustered by all this, admittedly.
Veritas sent a cease and desist to Pinterest, is according to Town Hall.
My understanding, based on information I've received, is that Pinterest is sending their lawyers after me, as well as Veritas, to get our videos taken down.
That may be the end of it.
They did.
My understanding, and I'll just say it, the woman who sent the information, who made these requests to have our content deleted, at least mine, deleted her social media.
Interestingly, just purged everything after this request went through.
I did a video on Pinterest censorship.
Public information.
The video was taken down by YouTube.
YouTube was acting in the defense of another Silicon Valley company to prevent the censorship from coming out.
I can't say why.
What I can say is this.
For the longest time, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, whatever.
Less so Amazon, but still.
These companies have said they're not biased politically.
And it's been hard to prove it.
But Pinterest kind of proved it.
It was the damn breaking.
And when Pinterest said, you know what, screw it, we're gonna ban him anyway, that was... well, that was them straight up saying, your cover's blown.
You can argue all day and night, we think the censorship is there, we've seen the evidence, you've denied it, but now you've done this, and now it's basically definitive.
What was their response?
Pinterest sent lawyers to Google, and Google complied, taking down my political commentary on publicly available information.
That should send alarm bells to everyone.
That YouTube will decide, if you're not newsworthy, we'll delete you because we can.
And now here we are.
Following a watershed moment with Pinterest, James O'Keefe's nearly a million views on this video, deleted.
Did he do anything wrong?
No.
Did he break any rules?
He did not.
One party consent in California, he was in his right to record the woman, and he was exposing corporate malfeasance.
And Google employees discussing manipulating our elections.
Period.
And now he's published an email confirmation.
It's political.
Plain and simple.
Will Congress act?
Will Senate?
I have no idea.
But if they don't, Republicans deserve to lose.
I tweeted this out.
I'll say it again.
Not that they should lose.
Not that it's good or bad.
But if you don't take action against big tech manipulating elections, well then, why should you win?
Why?
If you're not going to do anything about it now.
You know what?
Maybe they can't.
Maybe it's too late.
Maybe Google is doing this now because they know they'll get away with it.
Because the fourth estate, the media in this country, isn't going to bring this up.
They're not going to say it's disconcerting that a company that's monopolized the video space is now suppressing political commentary and deleting things that are damaging to them, exposing their corruption.
No one will say it.
So you can find me on my podcast.
And seriously, listen to me there.
Every day around 6.30 I publish all of my videos.
It's an hour and a half long podcast.
You press play.
Usually my main channel video starts first and then it goes through the five other videos from my second channel.
I don't know how long I'll be on YouTube.
I do know this.
Over at Subverse, which now has an independent crew producing.
I'm no longer hosting the videos.
It's become a thing, a life of its own.
You will not find political opinion for the most part.
You'll find a team doing their best to present fact-based news and information to help you navigate the world.
We are launching, we are fundraising, we are seeking investment, and that is going to be what helps solve this problem.
Real journalism, real fearless journalism, that has no problem telling Google to their face on their own platform, you, something, again, I don't want to say specifically that's, you know, break Google up, but I will say this, I will call out Google on Google's own platform.
Delete me.
Go for it.
I'm done.
We're going to find new ways to do things.
This is the market making a change.
But Congress does need to step up because Google has too much power.
We won't be able to do this on our own.
I don't know what the answers are.
All I know is I will continue to do the work that I do.
And with your support, and with the support people are sending over at Subverse and the work we're doing here at this new office, you may have noticed, we're going to do real news and real journalism.
With editorial standards.
I am hiring fact-checkers.
We're going to change the game.
We're gonna change it back to the way it used to be.
When you watch my content, you're getting my political commentary show.
This is not a news show.
I'm wrong all the time.
I try my best.
I'm not the smartest person in the world.
By all means, go and Google search me and read all of the criticisms about me and all the bad things I've done.
It's true.
But I will tell you this.
We are going to follow strict editorial guidelines with Subverse, we are going to have fact-checkers, and we are going to make sure everything goes through a standardized process to be legitimate news, on-the-ground reporting, to break this system.
And guess what?
I will now officially disclose.
Whatever is going on with the suppression of suggestions, Subverse has been suppressed as well.
We've gone through the numbers, I have the graph.
At the beginning of May, our news channel that has zero opinion, that is not political commentary in any respect, it is news reporting period, has also seen its suggestions stripped.
This is where it gets dangerous.
A complicit media that is willing to ignore these big stories, and those who dare challenge them are being suppressed by a massive tech monopoly.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines for more videos as well.
Mines.com slash TimCast.
I'll have more videos coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
I will see you all there.
So I've had some people tell me that civil war is just not gonna happen.
We're just looking at a dramatic social upheaval.
There have been periods where we've gone through this before.
Someone was telling me that if you look at, like, the 60s, we went from, you know, a very identitarian country with segregation and anti-miscegenation, and then within 10 years that was all changed.
And so this may be something similar.
It may result in just a restructuring and everything's fine.
But I kind of don't think that could happen this time because of the, I guess, the fracturing of media and the advent of information technology and the ability of both sides to coalesce around an ideology.
That may have been true, I guess, in the past, but for whatever reason, I don't know enough about the minutiae on the day-to-day that happened during the 60s to say that would happen similarly today.
I think in the 60s we saw a lot of government versus protester.
Today, the government is kind of less involved, to an extent, and it's more about two factions that view each other as inherently evil.
So take a look at this story.
Oregon Republicans walk out on state Senate over climate change bill as governor threatens police roundup.
Well, they say it's a threat, but they actually, apparently, I believe the governor did order the police to go round up the Republicans.
So, uh, let me... I don't know exactly where it brings it up, but they do mention that, uh, state police can force any senators they track down in Oregon into a patrol car to return to them in the Capitol, although the agency said in a statement that it would use polite communication and patience to bring the rogue lawmakers back.
The state police don't have jurisdiction outside of Oregon, but the Oregon State Police confirmed Thursday evening it was working with out-of-state agencies to track down the Republicans.
So what's happening in Oregon isn't necessarily the point of this video, but I will go through the story just so you have a general understanding because it's what's happening around Oregon, which I think is disconcerting and is evidence, in my opinion, of some kind of escalation.
So look, I've repeatedly talked about escalation.
We've had street skirmishes between left and right-wing groups.
That's about it, right?
Some people say, oh, violence happens.
Sure.
We have these extreme partisan moments.
Basically what's happening is Republicans are a minority in the state legislature and so they don't want to vote on what I believe is a cap-and-trade bill.
Basically climate change resolution.
They don't want to vote on it, they'll lose, so they're leaving.
So let's read a little bit so you have some context.
11 Republican senators fled the legislature, and in some cases the state, to thwart the passage of a cap-and-trade proposal that would dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The minority GOP caucus wants the plan to be sent to voters instead of being instituted by lawmakers.
But negotiations with Democrats have collapsed, leading to a headline-grabbing walkout.
They say that Portland News K-O-I-N-T-V reported a Sunday morning Senate session promptly adjourned because only 18 members showed up, as 11 Republican Senators are still not participating.
The Oregon State Senate is made up of 30 Senators, 18 Democrats, and 11 Republicans.
Republican Jackie Winters died last month and has not yet been replaced.
Because the Republican walkout has prevented the 20-senator quorum in the Senate, legislation cannot be passed in a legislative session scheduled by law to end June 30th.
In a dramatic move Thursday, Governor Kate Brown authorized the state police to round up and bring back the missing state senators.
Brown said she will call a special session if Republicans run out the clock.
They say that a spokesman for Senate President Peter Cornyn confirmed that each missing senator was hit with a $500 fine Friday morning.
This just seems like state politics, right?
My understanding is this is not the first time lawmakers have fled to prevent a bill from passing.
But it's what's happening around this.
We increasingly see two media spheres pushing two different worlds, and it's getting worse and worse.
For those of you who are apprised to the Project Veritas situation, rest assured I will be covering that later today as the story develops.
But for those that aren't familiar, Project Veritas released some undercover information showing that at least some Google employees feel it's their duty to prevent Trump from winning again.
This is not surprising.
But it is disconcerting when you have people at Google who have at least some power.
I don't want to say this woman's the most powerful person in the world.
But here's the thing.
Not only did you have this woman, you had a whistleblower who provided documents to James O'Keefe and Veritas confirming a lot of these details and showing that Google is less concerned about facts and more concerned about what they view as fairness.
They're trying to create a more fair and equitable future.
Now, I know that sounds noble, but in reality what they're really talking about is their identitarian ideology And instead, they want equity, not equality.
Equity is forced balance between all peoples, as opposed to letting people be free and have the opportunity to choose for themselves.
I'm not going to rehash the whole Project Veritas thing, but I want to point out something important.
For one, if you haven't been following, the Veritas video was deleted from YouTube.
This is a nightmarish dystopian reality of a massive tech giant with disproportionate control over our public space censoring extremely newsworthy information in an effort to protect themselves.
It's quite terrifying.
In fact, in the video, the woman says it's misguided to break them up because they're resisting Trump or whatever.
But what's really important in this context is how the media has covered it.
Certainly, right-wing media has come out and said, like, hey, this is happening.
This is a big deal.
Donald Trump Jr.
has tweeted about it.
What's interesting is that when Trump Jr., Trump, or, you know, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and other individuals tweet things, The media loves to run with it.
They love to talk about, you know, I'm talking about left-wing media now.
They love to talk about this stuff.
Well, Donald Trump Jr.
and many, many people have highlighted this Veritas video.
It had almost a million views in a single day before it was taken down.
Where is the response from mainstream media?
Nowhere.
It's not online.
I don't know why.
You'd think that they would at least try to debunk it?
Or question it?
Or challenge it?
But they're not.
It's just not there.
BuzzFeed's not talking about it.
Vox isn't talking about it.
The New York Times isn't talking about it.
And should they?
I don't know.
But I'll tell you the point I'm trying to make is, you have two worlds developing.
Where both sides view each other as inherently evil.
I do not believe that- Look, you can question the credibility of Veritas and James O'Keefe, that's fine, but you've got a whistleblower.
And you can then challenge him to provide evidence of this person's identity or whatever, but it is an extremely newsworthy story to say that a big tech monopoly is talking- at least some people are talking about suppressing and manipulating our elections.
We've seen Facebook privacy scandals.
But I guess the question is, why isn't it being covered?
Well, you know what?
In the end, I don't know.
I really don't.
But I'll say this.
Where do you think we go when you have people who are saying, this is targeting us, these big tech giants are targeting us, and the other side is ignoring it and refusing to talk about it?
Do you think people will just say, ah, you know what?
It's no big deal.
We're fine.
No, not at all.
You're going to see an increasing split between the two worlds and the two ideologies that are forming through this fracture in media.
But let me tell you where it gets really dangerous back in the Oregon story.
Because Media Matters for America, which is one side of this world that's being fractured in half, says...
A pro-Trump subreddit is full of calls for violence in support of Oregon Republicans.
And this is a common narrative we see.
When James O'Keefe put out this video, the woman who said these things pushed the narrative that she was out of context and that now she's being victimized.
Carlos Maza of Vox, what did he say?
I'm being attacked.
I'm being victimized.
They're trying to make it, they try to inflate what's happening to some kind of personal attack and a call for
violence.
Oregon Republicans staged a walkout. Not too uncommon.
They're being fined. Again, my understanding is this has happened before.
What's different now is that Media Matters will push out to, you know, their activist buddies and their disproportionate,
you know, and their allies in media, that there's calls for violence against these people.
Maybe somewhere on the internet people are saying nasty things.
But what do you think is going to happen as the extremes get amplified?
The view on the left will now be that Republicans, and I kid you not, the rhetoric is already out there.
The articles are being written.
I didn't want to pull them up because of the language they use is rather terrifying and extreme and could probably get me in trouble.
But there are left-wing articles saying that the conservatives and the Republicans are The worst of the worst, and they're trying to end the lives of certain people.
And they're threatening them and trying to use force and they're authoritarian, etc.
I don't care if you agree or disagree with them, that's not the point.
The point is, what do you think happens when two tribes continually call each other evil and amplify the most extreme perspective on the issue?
What we're seeing with Oregon, with the police coming out to round up, looking for, to round up these Republicans, is worrisome.
But as I've said for the millionth time, I've heard stories like this in the past, I don't know for sure, but I'm like, oh yeah, walkouts.
It's a strategy to drop the clock.
Sure, whatever.
But I think something interesting is happening.
Why is it that Republicans are outnumbered in the state legislature?
I don't really know, and I don't want to make insinuations about what's going on with the politics of the state of Oregon.
But I do think the information sector and the outsourcing of jobs has resulted in a shift towards big cities.
My understanding is that big cities, to an extent, are growing.
I could be wrong about this, so this is just like my conjecture.
But I will say, at the very least, if there are pockets of flyover states, middle America, that have lost their jobs and people are on drugs, like opiates, and that is tied to unemployment, and they have less power, they have less of an ability to support politicians and fight for their needs and their rights.
What we're seeing now in Oregon is interesting.
There are people who do work in the state.
Well, the cap and trade will negatively impact their jobs, so they resist.
Unfortunately, they're the minority, because the big cities, where the liberals live, don't understand the needs of the rural areas.
I think this may be in part due to the decentralization of media, but I do think we're seeing a rapid centralization of media.
Media companies in local jurisdictions have collapsed.
And now they're increasingly being headquartered in big cities, where the opinions are going to be big city opinions.
This is why you see a lot of, you know, a lot of disproportionate calls for gun control.
It makes no sense if you live in a rural area to support gun control, which is why Maine, for instance, my understanding is that in Maine, which I'm pretty sure is a blue state or split, you can conceal carry without a permit.
And then you have Vermont, which is fairly pro-gun.
And you have Bernie Sanders, who is like a moderate on the issue of gun rights.
And it's because it doesn't matter if you're left or right, it matters if you live in a city or not, and that's where your politics will fall.
But as media is increasingly being centralized in big cities, you're going to see a disproportionate view of the world.
And without local journalism and local resources to push back and support politics that would support people in rural areas, they are going to increasingly be subjugated by big cities.
Now you've got people calling for an end to the Electoral College.
Long story short, we're trailing off a little bit I guess.
The point I'm trying to make is, There was a story I heard.
Someone was talking to me about an extreme act of tribal civil war in Africa.
I'm trying to avoid certain language.
Where basically one tribe went and just massacred the other tribe.
You might know what I'm talking about.
And the problem was that both tribes viewed each other as inherently evil and irredeemable.
There was no choice.
The purge had to happen.
Look at what happened the other day with Revelry.
For those that aren't familiar, this is a knitting social media site.
They banned all support for Donald Trump.
And they claimed that this support was tantamount to white supremacy.
Literally calling it overt.
It's quite literally not.
It's actually kind of the opposite, I guess.
But this is what's happening.
Definitions are being pushed to the most extremes possible.
I believe social media is the cause for it.
But the main point that can be seen here that really needs to be driven home is that you've got people who are holding up signs and protesting.
And then you have Media Matters putting out this statement saying there's calls for violence in support of these people.
They're trying to make them look like villains.
This isn't the only thing I've seen, but it's the only thing I'm, you know, I don't want to highlight these other articles because they're actually much more worrying.
Referring to conservatives as violent extremists, I guess.
So, that's the view.
The tribes view each other as inherently evil.
Unfortunately for us, that are kind of in the middle and moderate and free thinking or whatever, the mainstream is being dominated by extremes.
And passive and irregular or liberal, the people who voted for Obama, not all, the ones, like the liberals who did, not the moderates or the independents, They're not playing anymore.
They've walked away.
And so now it's just the crazies that are taking over.
And so long as media will pander to the baser instincts of humanity, we are going to see, in my opinion, an escalation in extreme rhetoric.
Media Matters for America should never be considered credible, but they are, because they have allies that fund these big media companies.
And it's all going to result in complete catastrophe.
So, I guess I'll leave it there.
When I saw this story from Morgan, you know, it's from a couple days ago and it's been escalating, it just made me think that I've been told by people, no, there won't be civil war, there won't be a conflict.
I'll tell you what, man, with the Project Veritas stuff the other day, which it's gonna be on my main channel at 4pm because there's a lot to go through and the story's still developing, When you've got big tech manipulating, admitting to manipulating, documents proving it, whistleblowers coming out, statement after statement after statement showing that these tech giants are absolutely biased against half the country, and then the media says it's a conspiracy theory with no evidence, you have to wonder, is this intentional?
Do these people who look at BuzzFeed or whatever, are they lying?
They didn't do any research.
In fact, it was Gizmodo.
My understanding is that Gizmodo broke the story that Facebook was censoring conservatives.
Where did that go?
Where is Gizmodo now?
The rhetoric now is simply that it's just supposed, it's an accusation, or it's false.
But you actually have whistleblowers.
Multiple whistleblowers coming out and saying it's true.
You have a lawsuit against Google.
They're being sued for discrimination against certain individuals.
It's all there in front of you, but they won't talk about it.
So the only thing I can see is...
The people who follow this live in a world where they won't actually do an investigation and track down this information.
And I'll say this, too.
You can look at my Wikipedia page and see, like, how insane the writer press is becoming.
In an article from the Huffington Post... Let me rehash a little bit.
We're going to extend this video now.
I went to Sweden two years ago because Donald Trump made a statement that was controversial and he was slammed for it.
He said, last night in Sweden.
So, me having just come off working for Fusion, aka Splinter News, a progressive like far-left outlet, I said, let's go check out Sweden and see what's going on.
Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars then put out a challenge saying, you know, he challenges someone, he'll pay their airfare and accommodation if they go to Malmo.
Everybody clamored, demanding the money.
Paul chose to give it to me, somebody who had previously worked for a far-left news outlet.
So he held up his end of the bargain.
I was immediately attacked by a ton of journalists for accepting it.
I said, I already have the GoFundMe up.
I was going because Donald Trump said, quote, last night in Sweden.
Something like that.
I shouldn't say quote, but that was the phrase that went viral.
In the Huffington Post, they say that explicitly.
Tim Pool went because Donald Trump said X.
What does Wikipedia write citing that article?
That I went in response to far-right conspiracy theories.
I didn't know anything about conspiracy theories.
I just knew what the president said.
I don't know anything about Infowars.
I'd never met Paul Joseph Watson.
He was a guy I saw on the internet.
What do they do?
It would seem they really, really are trying to twist and mangle the narrative because you repeat the lie enough and it becomes truth.
You go and look at the talk section and you can see people saying, like, well, regardless of whether or not Trump says it, you know it's a far-right conspiracy theory.
It was Ami Horowitz.
My understanding is Ami Horowitz on Fox News or something.
Whether or not there are far-right conspiracy theorists who push it, I didn't go because of that.
But that's what they write, even though the citation says the opposite.
So how does that happen?
Well, it's activists.
People want to push their ideology.
They don't care what's true.
They care about what they demand to be true, regardless of what the citation says.
And that's where things are going to fall apart.
I care about what's true.
I don't care for conservative politics.
I mostly care for more, like, liberal policies, but even in that capacity, I'm not the most, like, tribalist person.
I care about freedom, and integrity, and information, and freedom.
And what I see now is you certainly have the pro-Trump, you know, evangelical, like, dogmatic individuals who are very much Trump or nothing.
You know, yep, he's chanting.
You then have more moderate Trump supporters and reluctant Trump supporters who are just scared of what the left is doing.
You have moderate passive liberals who aren't playing anymore.
They're not.
My friends, the people I talk to, they won't.
They don't care.
They don't want to be involved.
They're leaving.
My friends are getting in vans and doing van life and just taking off.
I have friends who are just, you know what, I don't care anymore.
I'm, you know, after Bernie lost, I'm done playing the game.
But then you have the fringe crazy people who won't even do a basic fact check.
They write stories for the front page of the New York Times.
Overt lies.
And they don't do a basic fact check.
Or they don't care.
They really don't care.
The ends justify the means, and by any means necessary.
And the by any means necessary phrase is what I think should be worrying to anybody.
They don't want freedom, and they believe they have a right to subjugate you if it gets them to the goal they want.
Which I can't really tell what that goal is, but the rhetoric is getting more extreme every day.
I've shown the charts where you see the spikes in rhetoric around intersectionality and identitarianism.
These people are absolutely pushing this, and there are many people who don't care if they're lying.
They believe the ends justify the means.
I know because I've met them.
I met them at Occupy Wall Street, and I've seen where this goes.
And I think it's going there.
So anyway, you know, back to the main point, I guess, is just that when I see what's happening in Oregon, whether or not it's typical, I think this is playing into the narrative that these people can use, where you now see the more extreme rhetoric emerge, like from media matters, that it's not about a political tactic.
It's about violence.
And then they're telling people every day that Trump supporters are trying to end the lives of and harm minorities.
It's like, where does that rhetoric come from?
They're making it up, but they're doing it because they believe, by any means necessary.
So, it's not the entire left, it's not the entire right, and I want to make sure we do our best to kind of break down this rhetoric, but I gotta admit, I do not believe right now there is a solution.
I really don't.
I'm, I'm, uh, I pride myself in understanding how to calculate and plan ahead, and this is one of the reasons I'm so successful.
A lot of people, you know, I get emails every day from people saying things like, Tim, you know, your channel's being censored and all, so I'm like, dude, I know more than you guys think.
I can, I certainly respect people trying to warn me and trying to help me out, but I have planned things ahead beyond what you probably know, okay?
I have a van.
It's not necessarily a contingency plan.
It's a smart move for several reasons.
Not because I think the world's gonna end.
Not because I'm gonna go, you know, off the grid and be a prep or anything like that.
It allows me to travel and have fun.
It provides me with an independent electrical source for producing content and doing my work.
And, yeah, it could be a contingency plan.
So, when I plan ahead and I think about my life, I'm not doing it because I know what's going to happen.
I'm looking at probabilities and statistics.
I make all of my decisions based on values.
Do I think there's a 100% chance of civil war?
I really, really don't.
I think it's slightly greater than chance.
In which case, why buy gold?
That's silly.
Just learn.
Train.
Prepare.
Like, think about what you are going to be doing the next year or two.
Because of the increasing calls for violence, because of the increasing violence we've seen, because of the increasing rhetoric around both sides being violent, I really just see, like, how do you break down this rhetoric and get to a place where people can be Americans together?
I don't see that happening, because the special interests have become too ingrained in their realities.
How many people who you'd consider like intellectual dark web have tried to reach out to the left?
The left doesn't want to do it.
There are certainly some good actors, people I think who operate in good faith, Jimmy Dore, David Pakman, the people over at MAFIC like Rania Kalik, I think those are good people who are absolutely engaged.
But these are people who also kind of sometimes get attacked for it.
Like Rania at MAFIC has been silenced and censored for calling out the war machine.
David Pakman, someone would try to get him fired from his job.
Jimmy Dore gets slammed all the time.
And that's what happens when you challenge the regressive side of politics.
I don't know if it's how many.
I just know that what I'm looking at right now If I was going to make a plan for the future and strategize as to what I should do and what will happen next, I do not believe there is a path towards stopping this.
The snowball has rolled down a hill, it's bifurcated into two ever-increasing boulders of snow and ice, and they're going to collide.
Trump, by every metric, is going to win in 2020.
And short of mass censorship, which we are seeing, I don't think he can be stopped.
So this is what we really have.
Trump has the economic advantage, the incumbent advantage, and he still has a lot of support.
His approval rating is, you know, it's not great, but it's going up.
It's been kind of like steady with a good economy.
Regular Americans will see that.
The only option then for the left is to use big tech and manipulate.
And that's what we saw from Veritas.
So that's where I think we're going.
And what do you think's gonna happen then when Trump wins again?
You're going to see- if you thought the temper tantrum after 2016 was bad.
And you know what, man?
I know we're running really long, but I'm just gonna keep talking because there's a lot to be said.
I have said over and over again, as have many people, if you thought the censorship in 2016 was bad, wait till 2017.
Wait till 2018, 2019, and 2020.
And every year it's gotten worse.
We're at a point now where YouTube has actually deleted two Veritas videos.
You don't gotta like them.
You can accuse them of all the bad things in the book, that's fine.
But YouTube actually took down their videos on ridiculous claims.
Privacy claims.
For what?
It's news.
These are individuals who are legally recorded.
Ah, but here we go.
They don't believe you can film people without their permission.
Even though you're protected by the First Amendment, these corporations aren't required to do so.
Someone brought up a good point on Twitter.
You have all these people saying, oh, but, you know, they're not First Amendment protected, right?
You know, on private platforms, you don't have a First Amendment.
So think about this.
You want to stop the government from violating the Constitution, so what does the government do?
Hire a private company to do it for them.
And there you have it.
How can you close that loophole?
The government can hire a private company who can then violate the Constitution and say, it's not us, it's a private company.
The government can then just let Google, Facebook, and whatever run wild and censor and spy into all these things and say, hey, it's not us, it's a private company.
And we're the Republicans.
So I tweeted this.
Republicans deserve to lose.
I'm not saying it's a good thing.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
I'm not saying they should lose.
I'm saying they deserve to lose.
Because they have done nothing in the face of this growing problem for the past several years.
Look at Marco Rubio, who, like, mocked and laughed and joked about InfoWars.
I don't like InfoWars.
I really, really don't like InfoWars.
I think Alex Jones is a funny weirdo, sure.
But this isn't about my politics.
It's about freedom, liberty, and the right to share your opinion.
Well, Jones was successful.
They got rid of him.
Where was Marco Rubio to defend the right of individuals and their free expression?
The same is happening now to left-wing activists who challenge the system and challenge war.
You get what you get, you know?
So, Republicans, good luck!
If your supporters aren't online, you will have no support, and then how are you going to win?
You probably won't.
Plain and simple.
The narrative is being shifted.
The crazies are, you know, the inmates are running the asylum.
I think we're going to see some, you know, I don't know what we're going to see.
I really don't.
I just know that the volatility has escalated to a point where even very, very smart, much smarter than me, individuals like Eric Weinstein, you know, intellectual dark web figure, said the political world is coming apart.
So what do you think is going to happen?
What are your contingency plans?
I don't think the world's gonna end.
I'm not saying go prep.
I'm not saying, you know, stack up canned food or anything.
I'm just saying think about the possibilities and plan ahead because people don't plan ahead.
They really don't think ahead.
They think, what can I do today?
Well, what happens after you do today?
What happens after tomorrow?
Where are you gonna be and what's gonna happen?
I think things are falling apart.
The train's running wild and there's no brakes.
Anyway, I'll end there.
This is a long video.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all at 1 p.m.
in the next segment.
We have several updates from the border, the biggest story of which, from CNN.
Mexico sends nearly 15,000 troops to the U.S.
border.
Kind of a big deal.
So we've seen the U.S.
sending troops to the border, now Mexico is doing it, and we've seen that Mexico is upholding its end of the deal with Donald Trump.
That they need to do something about the migrant crisis and the caravans.
So let's read this story a little bit.
You know what, I'm gonna do this real quick.
I don't have the tab pulled up, but go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a bunch of different ways you can do it.
But the most important thing right now, considering all of the news around censorship, is just share this video if you like what you see.
I'm not going to rely on YouTube to do any promotion for me.
If you guys think my content is good, you guys can share it.
If not, I don't deserve to be watched in the first place.
We'll figure it out.
But let's get back to the news.
Mexico has deployed almost 15,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the country's Secretary of Defense, Luis Sandoval.
In the northern part of the country, we have deployed a total of almost 15,000 troops composed of National Guard elements and military units, Sandoval announced today in Cancun.
Approximately 2,000 National Guard members have already been deployed to Mexico's southern border with Belize and Guatemala, he noted, adding that 4,500 troops already spread across the area.
Many migrants begin their journey in Central America and even further south, passing through Mexico on their way toward the United States.
The deployments come after renewed pressure from the Trump administration on Mexico to help slow migration flows northward.
Mexico, however, has also called on the United Nations and the United States to help with the monumental task.
Migration is not a crime.
It is an administrative responsibility.
I don't necessarily know what he means by that.
It's kind of a, I don't know, it seems like a non sequitur.
But I'll say this.
I don't think it's Mexico's fault or Guatemala's fault.
Well, necessarily.
I don't think it's anyone's fault that America is doing great.
In fact, America is a great place to live.
Certainly, we've got a lot of problems going on right now with the culture war and politics.
Seems like things are kind of breaking down.
So that's kind of bad.
But hey, we're a prosperous nation and life is pretty good.
Because of this, people want to come here.
I absolutely respect that and I, of all people, Want to share the wealth.
Share the prosperity.
You guys knew I was a Bernie Sanders fan, right?
I'm actually... I wouldn't call myself... I would jokingly refer to myself as a socialist, but not really.
Like, mixed economy, you know?
But I really do like the idea of helping other people move up, come to the US, and do better.
But guess what?
There's a legal process for it for a specific reason, for many specific reasons.
We don't want traffickers on the border.
We don't want drugs on the border.
We don't want problems in our country.
So I think Trump actually said, you know, let all the migrants come legally.
And that's what's wrong with that.
I don't understand why that's a problem.
So here's the thing.
As I've covered in the past several days, Democrats, for the most part, are on board with a $4.5 billion aid package.
I haven't checked the latest updates, but I do have some news in and around this area.
It's the far-left Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, et cetera, et cetera, who are obstructing this under the hashtag not, what is it, like not one dollar.
The idea being that they're not going to give any money for any reason.
Okay, well I got really angry the other day because guess what?
This is a story from Reuters.
And this kind of news breaks my heart.
This is from today.
Actually, it's from just a few hours ago, from the time of recording.
Seven migrant deaths reported in extreme heat at the U.S.
border.
No.
My understanding is that these were not coming from within the camps.
These are coming from people taking a very dangerous journey.
Excuse me, I'm gonna sneeze.
It's a very dangerous journey.
And the extreme heat ended the lives of seven people who are looking for better circumstances.
It's unfortunate.
I would like to provide better circumstances for these people, and I think immigration is enriching and wonderful for our country.
The problem is it's a legal process for just this reason.
The journey through broken borders and open desert is dangerous.
And of all the things we can cite as to why we need a legal process for this, the economy, you know, stopping crime, protecting the innocent, protecting local jurisdictions, properly placing people, sure, those are all great administrative reasons.
But let me just say the most important reason is to prevent people from making an extremely risky and dangerous trek through the wilderness and dying in the extreme heat.
This is the point of border security and the legal process.
Because without it, people are incentivized to take the dangerous journey because it's a huge gamble.
If you make it, if you win, it's like winning the lottery.
You're in America, the land of opportunity.
I can certainly get that.
But even then, you're not going to enjoy the same privileges as a true American citizen or a migrant who's here legally.
Granted, there are those that would argue, get rid of the legalities and everyone is legal.
They say, you know, what did David Hogg tweet the other day?
No one is illegal on stolen land.
Okay, tell it for literally every country in the world, period.
Because land wasn't owned by anyone.
Like, you know man, I don't even need to get into it, but yes, land has been stolen back and forth by many different countries.
So by all means, make that argument, make a globalist argument, that's fine.
The point is, you can't just have people coming through the desert because they will get hurt.
Children have died.
So this is why I don't know if a border wall makes sense.
You know, it's really crazy because...
I'll say like, okay, I hear the idea of a border wall.
And then I get this nonsensical criticism where it's like, oh, so Tim's supporting Trump.
It's like, well, hold on.
I'm talking about ideas and solutions.
I don't care who's proposing them.
If you think the wall is a bad idea, let's come up with a solution.
I'll tell you what right now, I am biased against the idea of the wall.
What's your proposed solution?
Democrats have offered up enhanced security and technology.
Okay, I hear that.
But then they don't want to give more money for the facilities and things like this.
So you know what?
We're now at a point where I guess you have to concede that Trump was right to the extent there is a crisis.
Even the Democrats agree.
Thank you.
Okay?
Now, the far-left Democrats are still obstructing, and here— Let's read this story because I want to make sure I can express the gravity of the situation as to why, you know, all the political posturing, all the politicking, is a huge waste of time, and in my opinion, it's bad.
It's just— Okay, look.
Authorities in Texas reported seven migrant deaths on Monday, including those of a woman, two babies, and a toddler, showing the danger of extreme summer heat as Central American families surge across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The woman and three children may have been dead for days before they were found by Border Patrol at the Rio Grande in South Texas on Sunday, according to a local law enforcement official who asked not to be named.
They are thought to have died from heat exposure and dehydration in an area about 18 miles east of McAllen.
That is serious to walk, okay?
To the west.
U.S.
Border Patrol agents in the Del Rio area recovered the bodies of two men on Ranch Lint near Carrizo Springs after anonymous calls on June 19th and 20th alerted them to lost migrants, the agency said in a statement.
Another decomposed body, wow.
Okay, we're just, we're getting to, look.
I think you get the point.
I don't want to get into the great detail on this.
I want to point out, it doesn't have to be about politics.
You can have, you can say whatever you want about administration, about open borders, fine.
But know this, even if the borders were completely legally open, I believe that would only result in more loss of life, and that's what we should be fighting against.
That should be our main priority.
Forget everything else.
Forget the economics, okay?
By all means, keep those arguments, talk to your friends, talk about, you know, these policies.
But let's just do this.
The first and most important thing, in my opinion, is protecting human life.
And I think everyone left and right can agree to that, right?
So then let's say this.
Without border security, if we had straight open borders, people would be wandering through the desert like crazy.
Granted, you know, presumably people would be going through the main ports of entry, like San Ysidro, but then you have, uh, just congestion and you have people... So I'd imagine you need congestion, the people who work between the border...
would be having trouble and people would still resort to coming through these open areas.
Not only that, but even with a complete open border, you're going to have people who are
still trying to bring in illegal things going through these areas. And guess what? I imagine
through sheer arithmetic, you will see more loss of life.
What can we do to stop people from walking through the desert with their babies to protect
them? Okay, I'm not going to leave the...
So there it is.
I'm not going to leave this story just on this one issue.
I want to make sure I highlight, as I've said time and time again, the conditions at these border facilities are not good, and I detest them, and I will have no problem speaking out against them, and I hope you would all as well.
However, I'm waiting for a solution to the problem.
I'm asking Democrats to propose something that might solve the situation and help.
Okay, so right now we have the story from the Sydney Morning Herald.
Migrant kids on U.S.
border moved after bad treatment exposed.
In Clinton, Texas, the U.S.
government has removed most of the children from a remote border patrol station in Texas following reports that more than 300 children were detained there.
Caring for each other with inadequate food, water, and sanitation.
Just 30 children remained at the facility near El Paso Monday, said Representative Veronica Escobar, after her office was briefed on the situation by an official with Customs and Border Protection.
They say.
Attorneys who visited the Border Patrol station in Clinton, Texas last week said older children were trying to take care of infants and toddlers.
The Associated Press first reported on Thursday.
They described a four-year-old with matted hair who had gone without a shower for days and hungry, inconsolable children struggling to soothe one another.
Some had been locked for three weeks inside the facility, where 15 children were sick with the flu and another 10 were in medical quarantine.
So I'm not sure if they name which facility this is.
It's just the El Paso facility.
So I'm not sure where Homestead is.
But I do know that we do have a problem with a lot of kids coming here unaccompanied.
What do we do with them?
Legitimate question.
There was a woman on Twitter who tweeted that it's time to free these kids, to release these kids from these conditions.
And I said, I completely agree 100%.
Where do they go?
One of the biggest problems we have is that people are less interested in talking about what comes next, and they're more concerned about what my side wants.
So you've got Trump supporters saying, close the border down, stop the migrants.
OK.
Sure.
Well, that would prevent loss of life and prevent kids in these conditions.
I understand.
That makes sense.
You have the left saying, stop locking these kids up.
Stop separating from their parents.
Absolutely.
I think these conditions are horrible.
And I don't like this.
I don't like hearing these stories.
What can we do better?
I don't think either side is wrong, but I do think we need to have a conversation about what makes the most sense.
And I would lean towards disincentivizing kids from coming here because we don't have the facilities, administrative problems result in children suffering, and yes, we should get these kids out of there.
Glad they did.
Where do they go?
Apparently they've gone somewhere in this case.
Great.
But we need funding.
We've got Democrats who are posturing on not one more dollar like Ocasio-Cortez.
Great.
Well, that's not helping anything.
I get it.
You want a virtue signal to your base that you're not going to fund ICE and you want ICE to be abolished.
This is CBP, not ICE.
Well, they're willing to let these kids continue suffering because they don't like the government.
And I assure you, there are people in government who don't mind the suffering because they think it might disincentivize migrants from coming here.
I think it's a fair point to make that this may be a huge disincentivization to migrants coming here when they hear stories that they will lose their kids and their kids will suffer.
That's horrifying.
We need to just secure the border and stop human suffering and protect life and there are simple ways to go about doing it if we can please have a conversation.
This conversation should be over.
Democrats and Republicans for the most part have come together in an agreement.
4.5 billion dollars.
Fantastic.
Well, then I would say to the far-left Democrats, let's see you get on board.
And there we have it.
So, final thought on this segment.
Mexico is now engaging the border in a similar way to the U.S., sending 15,000 troops to their northern border, which is our southern border.
I don't know if that's good or bad.
It's happening.
Something needs to be done to disincentivize these children and these women and these people.
Everybody.
I don't want to separate it.
People in general should not be losing their lives in this journey.
They shouldn't be going on the journey.
We need to figure this out.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I got more segments coming up.
Next one at 4 p.m., an update to the Project Veritas situation.
For those on the podcast, you probably already heard it, but the order is different online.
So I will see you at 4 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Well, if you've been watching my videos throughout the day, you know we have a major breaking update in the Google censorship story.
I have another story here from The Verge.
Google warns its employees that pride protests are against the company's code of conduct.
A leaked internal memo has Googlers concerned about whose free speech the company is protecting.
Once again, a political stance taken by Google about what people at the company can or can't do.
Now, this story wasn't as big as the Veritas expose, so naturally this is falling to a 6pm video.
But, the most important thing.
The censorship is confirmed.
As far as I can- Look, we have an employee email saying, if you missed the story, an employee email saying straight up, these people, their politics, strip them of their features.
Okay?
We have now seen people no longer getting recommended.
It's confirmed.
Period.
Plain and simple.
So here's what I'm going to say.
TimCast.com slash donate.
Support my work if you like what I'm doing.
For those that aren't listening on the podcast, Tim Pool Daily Show on all podcast platforms.
Seriously, every day at 630.
You will get my full hour and a half content available.
Listen whenever.
I seriously urge you to find me on the podcast platform.
It's doing fairly well, and the only reason Google will keep succeeding with this censorship is because we keep using their platform.
Now, I'll say this.
I'll keep using, you know, YouTube and Google so long as I can, but they've already censored some of my content.
And I'm concerned they will do it in the future.
So I'm hedging my bets pretty hardcore.
I would also say share this video if you think I deserve it.
YouTube is no longer recommending my videos at the same capacity they used to.
It's down substantially.
It's fine.
Because ultimately, if you think my content is good, you can share it.
If not, I don't deserve it anyway.
Plain and simple.
And I'm gonna rely on good old word of mouth, as should everybody else, so don't just share my videos.
If you like other YouTube creators that you know are being impacted, share their content too.
Plain and simple.
But let's read the news.
From the Verge, employees are allowed to peacefully protest YouTube or Google during the Pride Parade as long as they are not marching with Google in an official capacity.
According to internal memos sent to employees, anyone who chooses to walk the parade as a representative of Google and voice any protest will be considered in violation of Google's Code of Conduct.
The discussion came out of a broader conversation among Gagler's Listserv, one of Google's LGBTQ groups.
About petitioning San Francisco Pride to remove the company's float from this weekend's parade.
Some employees plan to march with Google while also visibly demonstrating against YouTube's recent policy decisions with signs or t-shirts according to screenshots shared with The Verge.
When one Googler asked if this would be tolerated by the company, an inclusion lead said no.
Employees are free to make whatever statement they want personally Apart from our corporate-sponsored float contingent.
The inclusion lead told the members of Gaglers, but they are not permitted to leverage our platform to express a message contradictory to the one Google is expressing.
Boom!
There it is.
Once again, Google is saying flat out, fall in line with corporate.
And these are people who are at odds with Steven Crowder.
These are people who are challenging Google's decision.
They have every right to protest, and I would stand beside them as they did.
If you want to- In terms of free speech defense, I'm not saying, like, there's- Look, I have absolute- I would absolutely defend LGBTQ rights.
The point I'm trying to make is in terms of free speech, if they want to stand up and say, I contest, then they should be allowed to do so.
Google doesn't care about you or me, and I think a lot of their decisions aren't necessarily political, but it's about protecting their bottom line.
We've seen the email.
So there are employees who are overtly political and are taking political action.
Period.
But here we can see it from a corporate standpoint.
They don't care about the left.
The corporate side doesn't.
They just don't want to look bad in the press.
They say.
Internally, LGBTQ employees at Google have expressed anger and exhaustion over YouTube's recent policy decisions regarding conservative YouTuber Steven Crowder and Vox journalist host Carl Smazo.
Which earlier this month became a flashpoint in the ongoing controversy over how YouTube moderates its platform and decides when and for what offense it punishes certain channel owners.
In a recent letter to Google's LGBTQ employees, CEO Sundar Pichai said that he echoes YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki's recent apology to the community and vowed the company would be taking a hard look at its harassment policies.
The decision to stifle a would-be protest is frustrating to some employees who see it as especially ironic, given YouTube's dedication to free speech.
Yeah, right.
YouTubers who use our platform and sometimes get significant revenue get to claim free speech to keep using our platform.
But LGBT Googlers get no free speech to say that Google doesn't represent us, one tells The Verge.
That's ironic at best, but hypocritical.
Specifically ironic trying to curb our speech on the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall March riots.
Now look, let me say this.
If Google doesn't want you in a parade on their float, which was private from the get-go, then I can kind of understand.
YouTube is marketing itself as YouTube, like for you, for the public, for everyone to use.
And they enjoy protections under the premise that they are a neutral public forum for people to engage.
If they're gonna censor people now, I think it's a problem.
It is different that Google has a float and they don't want you on their float protesting.
I can understand that.
And it also makes sense that they don't want you wearing their company's shirts when you protest.
However, I still land on the side of free expression and believe if you're a Google employee who wants to contest their decision, you have a right to do so.
What I see here is that behind closed doors, Google makes overt political decisions.
They deny it publicly.
But even when it comes to their own faction trying to protest what they're doing, they're not going to allow you.
That's called authoritarianism.
Maybe now you'll understand why it's a problem to allow a massive multinational corporation the right to police speech.
They will stop you.
Sure, they might agree with you, on paper, with certain policy ideas, but I believe it's all about the bottom line.
When it comes down to it, they will tell you to your face, you're not gonna speak up against us.
Just like they won't, you're lucky you get it better than they do.
That's authoritarianism, period.
Google has no problem censoring, restricting certain political viewpoints, certain political channels.
And those on the left, clap and cheer!
Good, I'm glad they're doing it, they say.
But what happens then when you say, we don't like it that you didn't go far enough?
They smack you down and tell you to fall in line because you don't have any special privileges.
You're just lucky you're not them.
It's two kids in the house, and one parent, you know, whips on the other kid, and you know, kid A gets beat up, kid B laughs and says, aha, you know, you're getting beat up, good, good, you're the bad one.
And then he gets smacked in the face when he tries to challenge the parent.
So let's see.
They go on to say, Rebecca tweeted, today Google told employees that while marching in the
Google contingent in the SFP pride parade, any protest against YouTube's current policies,
interpretation of policies, and so forth would be considered a violation of Google's
communications policy.
Hashtag no pride in YouTube.
How exactly employees would be punished is unclear.
When one employee asked for clarification, the original poster of Google's decision said that employees would need to contact the Code of Conduct team for any further questions, although employees are allowed to do so outside of company groups.
Some employees say it's too late for them to participate in official pride parades in any other capacity.
So, look.
Pride Month drawing to a close, these cities and many others will hold their official festivities
at the end of June.
For employees getting ready to celebrate Pride, one tells the verge.
This means that in practice, you either protest or you march.
Google was not immediately available for comment.
What do you think happens when you violate employee guidelines?
I'd imagine you might get written up.
I also imagine you might get fired.
So look, I've said this time and time again.
I feel like it falls on deaf ears or it's possible that YouTube, Twitter, they just
want the echo chamber.
They don't want anyone to see new videos from me, so it requires word of mouth.
I ask you to share the content.
But one of the big challenges with getting rid of suggestions... Now, look, I still get suggested quite a bit, and my channel's doing better than ever, but they are down, so there's a throttling going on.
We need to expose people to new ideas to expand their minds and challenge these systems.
One thing I noticed on Twitter, you may have seen this, is that many tweets appear as tweet unavailable.
However, they're not blocked, muted, banned, suspended, and there's other ways you can view them, those tweets really do exist.
It would seem that there's some kind of algorithmic system to restrict you from seeing certain comments that are totally available to other people.
Why?
Maybe these platforms like the echo chamber.
They don't want the left to hear me talk about free speech and defend their right to protest Google's policies.
They have a right to protest Google, absolutely.
I don't care if they're an employer or otherwise.
It's almost like unionizing, right?
If I have a company and my employees are going to protest me, well, you know what?
I think they have a right to do so.
And that's just the way it works.
But think about this.
Those who are upset with Google are being smacked down by Google, told they can't protest.
You might lose your access to resources.
Welcome to an authoritarian regime.
You clap and cheer when the regime does what you want, but what do you do now when they point the sword at you?
I think it's really funny that The Verge was able to get a hold of a leaked document because Google is inherently left-wing.
We've seen it.
We've heard the testimony and the emails.
So when something bad happens, they'll leak those documents.
It's unfortunate there aren't more people at the company willing to leak documents exposing their political bias.
But at least now we're seeing that Google doesn't care about free speech, even for them.
It's corporate.
It's a machine.
It's an authoritarian machine that will suppress speech of anyone that dare oppose them.
Unfortunately, it's usually conservatives because they do hold some left-wing views.
But when it comes to the left, they will knock you down too.
More segments to come.
Stick around.
I'll say it a millionth time.
The podcast is available on all platforms.
Tim Pool Daily Show.
If you like the content, share it, comment, whatever.
You know, you can find me on other platforms.
Minds.com slash Timcast.
I'll see you in the next story.
E. Jean Carroll, a woman who recently accused Donald Trump of forcing himself on her in the dressing room at Bergdorf something.
I can't remember the exact name of the place.
But it's not as important because I'm sure you know the whole story.
It was front page news on some outlets.
I think it was irresponsible for many of these stories to report on an interviewer, because you can't just take every 30-year-old accusation and act like it's big news, but you know what?
In today's world of ratings-driven nonsense, yellow journalism, you'll see CNN put her on front and center because they didn't learn their lesson with Michael Avenatti.
Here's the thing.
Recently, she said something very offensive.
That she feels that most people, in her mind, think of men forcing themselves on women.
She thinks people view that as sexy.
I had to break that up specifically for a reason, because even I don't want to repeat what she said.
Now I will say this.
There are studies that talk about fantasies, which she brings up.
Maybe she's not wrong.
I don't know.
I disagree with her.
But there have been some studies that have been brought up by people, talk about fantasies of force, etc.
But there's a big difference between what we know to be a crime of assaulting someone and playing with someone.
More importantly, there's been some tweets from scientists who know better than I who say it's actually not true.
But here's the thing.
In saying that, she officially jumped the shark.
She has now said something ridiculous and kind of discredited herself because that's an absurd statement.
Now, what was pointed out was really interesting.
There's a journalist by the name of Matthew Keyes who tweeted, In this segment, she says this.
She says this sentence.
And they immediately cut to commercial.
Yet for some reason, all of these major outlets republish this interview and they omit that section.
I tweeted something silly like, oh, how weird.
Why would they do that?
And Matthew points out accurately, because they're driven by ratings and they know the Trump bump exists.
They want to smear Trump.
They want the money, period.
So this woman, should we take her seriously?
In my opinion, no.
I'm not trying to be a jerk.
I'm not trying to discredit victims.
I'm sorry.
When you're accusing someone of a crime, 30 years after the fact, I just, I don't know what we can do for you.
Now, she's saying she's not going to press charges, fine.
But this is a serious attack on the credibility of an individual that can't be backed up.
And it's going to fall to tribal lines.
People still deserve some professional respectability, even if you don't like them.
But you know what?
These people say it over and over again.
By any means necessary.
So why am I going to trust this woman who's an overt Hillary supporter, left-wing activist, when she says this 30 or so years later?
I think it's like 23 years later.
What else I find kind of strange is that a lot of people have brought this up.
Trump is known for dating young supermodels.
She was 52, I think, at the time that this apparently took place, so people are naturally challenging whether this is true, because yes, sometimes people lie.
Let's read a little bit about the opinion.
Bergdorf Goodman was the name.
Anderson Cooper asks, you don't feel like a victim, and she says, I was not thrown on the ground and ravished, which, you know, people would assume.
She says, it hurt, it hurt, just you know.
But I think most people think of it as a violent assault.
It's not, Cooper says.
She goes on to say the infamous line to which you can read on the screen, but I won't repeat.
Let's take a short break.
Think of the fantasies she interjected.
We'll take a quick break.
If you can stick around, we'll talk more on the other side.
You're fascinating to talk to, she adds.
Carol accused Trump of assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room 23 years ago in her new book.
What do we need men for?
A modest proposal.
She describes the allegation of a man pushing her up against a wall and unzips his pants and forces, you know, in her privates, I'm not going to read that.
Trump has denied it.
He said, I'll say it with great respect.
Number one, she's not my type.
Number two, it never happened.
It never happened.
Okay.
Trump added that she is totally lying.
And then he knows nothing about her.
Vox ran this story.
Why?
E. Jean Carroll's assault accusation against Trump wasn't front page news.
Actually, I can tell you why.
Before I even read Vox's assessment, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.
I'm gonna assume they're wrong.
I'll tell you why it's not front page news for one simple reason.
There's no credibility behind what she said.
She's a political actor.
She's protested, she's clearly anti-Trump, it was 23 years ago, and it doesn't really fit any known modus operandi.
Donald Trump was dating supermodels and young women.
For him to go into a dressing room and do this to a woman of her age, while I'm not trying to be a dick to her, it's not about whether or not women of a certain age are desirable or not desirable, It's about—look, how about I say it in a way that's not flattering to Trump?
He was a lecherous, lascivious old man going after young women.
He wasn't going to go after an older woman.
I think that's fair to point out.
You don't have to say it in a way that belittles the woman.
It's not about politics.
It's not about tribe.
It's about MO.
It's about a pattern of behavior.
Trump doesn't fit the bill.
Plain and simple.
I'm not saying he's a good dude.
I'm certainly not saying I like the guy.
I'm just saying, when I look at a pattern of Trump's behavior, he seems to go after young women.
You can't simultaneously smear Trump for being too close with his daughter, as they've done over and over again, and then act like it makes sense that he'd go after a 52-year-old woman.
The reason it's not front-page news is there's no credibility, no corroboration.
Yet, you know, New York Mag or whatever, whichever one it was, New Yorker, I'm not sure which magazine, did a front-page story on it.
Well, nobody else wanted to.
It wasn't front-page news because it's just not credible.
And nobody wants to tarnish themselves to chase the ratings in the same way.
Apparently CNN does, and Vox has no problem.
But let's see what Vox has to say.
Why does Vox think that this is, uh, it doesn't fit the bill?
They're right.
On Friday, a prominent advice columnist wrote in a national publication that the President of the U.S.
had assaulted her.
But if you read or watched the news this weekend, you might have missed the story entirely.
Most major newspapers didn't put the allegation.
It was New York Magazine.
Okay, I don't want to be a smart New Yorker.
They didn't put the allegation on the front pages.
It was also largely absent from the Sunday morning talk shows, though Carol did appear on MSNBC and eventually CNN.
Of course, the news media had other important stories to cover, from a humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border to an administration inching toward war with Iran.
Still, the relative quiet on Carroll's allegation was telling.
Some media outlets may be too exhausted to report on yet another woman Trump has manhandled, or maybe they fear his wrath, wrote Natasha Stoynoff, a journalist who says Trump forcibly kissed her in 2005, in an email to Vox.
The muted reaction from the press was a reminder that while powerful men in entertainment, tech, journalism, and other industries have been forced out of their jobs, Trump remains untouchable.
And hold on.
So let me interject.
I feel it's disrespectful to the woman who have called out the likes of Weinstein and who's that guy on NBC?
You know what?
I can't remember his name.
Good.
I'm glad I can't remember his name.
These are guys who had women on the record and corroborated their details and came out within a few years of it happening.
We even had one video of Weinstein being inappropriate with a young woman.
She filmed it.
We had proof.
We knew they were doing it.
Bill Cosby, whatever, he admitted to giving women... Okay, I don't want to get into all that.
I don't want to get sued.
But it's dramatically different when you have women who have recorded videos, when you have corroboration, when it was an open secret in Hollywood this was happening.
I don't think Trump treats women with respect for the most part.
I'm pretty sure, like sure locker room talk all you want, I would not be surprised if Trump was aggressive with women.
I don't believe this story.
It doesn't mean I don't think it should be investigated.
I'm just saying we take everything with a grain of salt because there's money to be made in lying and pushing this narrative.
The Trump bump exists.
The media wants it.
The books will sell.
Vox will get their story.
But comparing, you know, what's-his-face from NBC and Harvey Weinstein to a 23-year-old accusation, I'm sorry.
I'm not playing that game.
Do I think Trump was aggressive with women in the past and even assaulted?
I'd be willing to bet.
Trump supporters might not want to hear it.
I'd be willing to bet Trump was inappropriate and even assaulted some women.
Absolutely believe it.
Times were different back then and men behaved badly.
If I was going to make a bet, when you look at Harvey Weinstein and his other very powerful men, powerful guys do it.
Now, Trump said, when you're famous, they let you do it.
Yeah, okay.
I do not like that.
I do not like, you know, Trump's demeanor and his attitude towards it.
And I think there's a strong possibility that a lot of women let him do it.
I'm doing air quotes for those who are listening.
In the sense that they were scared to do anything about it.
And he presumed they were letting him do it.
No.
Look, you guys know I don't like Trump.
And I do think he's oafish and a bit lascivious.
But he's a player.
He's a rich dude who does these things.
Do I believe this story?
I don't.
I believe it's possible.
Let me put it this way.
I believe it's less than chance, likelihood, because there's too much to gain by making up a story and publishing 23 years later.
She could have came up with a story in 2016, 2015.
She could have campaigned and said, hey, now I can't blame somebody who doesn't want to come up and speak about it, but I do think it's insane that you would expect front page news coverage on a 23-year-old allegation with no corroboration.
There's two sources who claim to have corroborated it, according to the New Yorker, who won't go on the record.
Okay, then.
You've got nothing.
You can't put every crazy person on TV to say crazy things.
I'm sorry.
Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.
But then she goes and says this nonsense statement.
Because I'll tell you what, I get emails every single day with crazy accusations about the president or otherwise, and I'm not gonna run with it!
I'm not gonna do it.
I am no fan of Trump.
My god, I am no fan of Trump.
You should hear the conversation.
There was a period where I would devolve into anti-Trump rants periodically through videos, and I'm impressed people tolerated it from me.
Because it is, in my opinion, nonsensical.
I have an absolute bias against the man.
But I'm not a crazy person.
I don't have Trump derangement syndrome.
If the economy is doing well, well, you know, there you go.
What are you going to do?
I'm not going to accuse him of doing a bad job if things are going well.
You can say everything you want about him.
I think he's a man of bad moral character, plain and simple.
He's talking about body slamming journalists.
He recently alluded to imprisoning journalists in a story.
I think it was from Time.
I'm not sure.
I need to do more looking into it.
Foreign policy, I can criticize the man over and over again.
But can I also point out, this makes no sense, I recently made a video calling out the President and Candace Owens for restricting free speech when it came to burning the U.S.
flag.
I love America.
I love the flag.
I'm critical of the United States in many capacities, but I love what it stands for.
But you better believe I'll put out a video criticizing the President and Candace Owens when they said you should lose your citizenship for burning the flag.
It's about principle, plain and simple.
If the economy is good, fine.
If he said, no war with Iran, and he pulled back, even better.
Excellent choice, Mr. President.
I will commend you for doing so.
No war, please.
It's not going to work out.
There are better solutions.
I understand war happens sometimes.
But even though I might be biased against the president and genuinely believe he probably assaulted women in the past, I'm not going to play this game.
I'm not going to play this game.
I'm certainly not going to vote for the man, plain and simple, because I think he's a man of bad moral character.
You can criticize me for that all day and night.
I'll accept it.
But I'm not gonna play this game and entertain a woman who goes on TV and she thinks it's sexy.
No, no, no.
You're discrediting yourselves.
You are hurting...
Rational discussion.
So you know what?
Comment on this video and tell me why I'm right or why I'm wrong.
I know exactly what's going to happen.
I know where my opinions lie.
There's gonna be a lot of people say, Tim, you're right.
Do not believe this woman, but they're going to defend Trump.
Period.
Fine.
Don't care.
I'll say what I think and that's what I think.
And I'm sick and tired of the fake nonsense.
I'm sick and tired of everything being fake all the time.
Every PR statement, every corporate statement is fake.
I don't like Trump.
I think he's a bad dude.
Period.
He's done some good things.
This story is BS.
Can that exist?
Can I be unorthodox or heterodox?
Can I have an opinion that makes sense based on principle?
Can you not like a man and still think the story is BS?
Just everything is a game.
It's like when an accident happens, the corporate spokesman comes out and says nonsense.
Sarah Sanders comes out on the stage and she says all the things to defend Trump and the press.
It's a nonsense of false reality and I'm just sick of all of it.
So, this stuff pisses me off, you know?
And I find myself having to defend a man I don't like and never liked and would never vote for.
Because he's not... he's not... he's not the worst guy in the world.
He's a bad guy.
He's not worth voting for, in my opinion.
We'll see, though.
We'll see what the Democrats have to offer.
I like Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, and I am trying to be honest about how I view the world.
I wish that was true for everybody else.
Seriously.
I wish when an accident happened, the corporation would come up and be like, you know, we cut corners here, it was a mistake, we regret it, and we're gonna pay the price for it.
I wish people could admit when they were wrong.
I wish that news organizations would put, you know, corrections up.
I wish these tribalists would actually say, you know, maybe this woman has no credibility and we shouldn't run the story.
Maybe it shouldn't be front page news.
I'm gonna keep ranting, I'm gonna stop now.
I got another story coming up in a few minutes about tribalism, AOC staging some nonsense.
Stick around, I'll see you shortly.
I'll admit it.
When Ocasio-Cortez won the primary, I was happy.
And I cheered for her.
I kid you not, the video exists on this channel.
It's like a half an hour long.
I go through her policy positions, and I'm like, 60% of what she proposed as her main policy talking points, I was like, spot on.
Ending private prisons.
Environmentalism.
Expanding healthcare.
Well, not healthcare for all.
I'm not a universal healthcare guy.
But I'm like a moderate democrat, you know what I mean?
That's where I fall.
Public options.
Expanding coverage.
I don't know what else to say.
I was happy because she ousted this incumbent, but she has proven herself to be just an awful person.
It's like, look, you know what really bugged me recently?
Is the border crisis.
It's a crisis.
Okay?
And these children are dying.
And I don't like it.
I don't like it one bit.
I don't want to support it.
I don't want to be in a country that does, but I don't know what the solution is.
You certainly just don't have kids wandering the desert.
Which is apparently what their proposal is.
The conditions in these centers are horrifying, and they're moving many of these kids.
We've seen the videos.
Good.
Can we get some funding?
It's been said now for weeks in the press, in the mainstream, Congress, fund, you know, give Trump the money he's asking for.
We need to provide resources to at least give these people humane conditions.
Can we do it for everybody?
We can't.
Something needs to be done to disincentivize the behavior.
What do we have here?
Staged.
AOC slammed for pushing photos of herself at border to help concentration camp remarks.
It appears that AOC, while campaigning or something, went to a border facility and pretended to be upset.
Now, maybe she was really upset, but it really does look like she faked it.
Check it out.
On Monday, Democratic Socialist Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was criticized for pushing photos of herself seemingly intended to help quell the blowback she received from equating detention centers at the U.S.-Mexico border with World War II-era camps.
The photos were apparently taken at Tornillo, Texas, detention center, but did not show the conditions the congresswoman was upset about.
Rather, the pictures were merely of Ocasio-Cortez looking sad by a chain-linked fence.
Users online, many of whom identified as her supporters, mocked the photo op and suggested the pictures were staged.
I gotta say, it really does look like she's pretending to be upset for the camera to benefit her campaign.
The photos are of her, not the facilities and not what was happening, because she doesn't care.
I do not believe she cares.
I believe she is a sociopath who is playing up to tribalism to win, plain and simple.
The Democrats said, let's fund the border security and give Trump what he needs.
They came up with a bipartisan bill for $4.5 billion.
And who obstructed?
Ocasio-Cortez.
What was the money going to do?
It was going to help these kids.
And guess what?
While the Democrats have sat around doing nothing, more migrants have been coming through, and now they're dying on the border from heat, exhaustion, exposure, etc.
We don't want these people wandering the desert.
We can't help all of them.
The conditions are bad enough.
We are strained.
Can we please do something?
I don't know what we need to do.
I really don't.
I can't tell you what we need to do.
But I saw Democrats step up and say, we're going to do something with Republicans.
And I said, thank you, Democrats.
You have my respect.
We can criticize them for dragging their feet all day and night, but I don't care.
They've come to the right choice.
Let's congratulate them for doing the right thing now and say this plain and simple.
I will encourage good behavior.
If the Democrats are willing to step up and make that change, they deserve our respect.
And that's what I want to see.
Bipartisanship.
Problem solving.
But Ocasio-Cortez was not one of those Democrats.
Nor was Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, et cetera, et cetera.
And what happened now?
It's not getting done.
And then what do we see?
Ocasio-Cortez tweets out these photos of her pretending to be sad.
Like, it is such an exaggerated photo.
It is such an exaggerated, nonsensical photo.
I'm going to go through the photos in a second.
There's a quote.
Before AOC hit the national stage and was just a fairly unknown House candidate from NYC, she took time away from her campaign to come down to Torneo to protest the tent city housing migrant children.
I made these previously unpublished photos a year ago today, posted Ivan Pierre Aguera, hopefully pronouncing right, the man who took the photos of Ocasio-Cortez.
Let's take a look at some of these photos.
Actually, we'll do this, because Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response, and that's the way I've pulled up, so we'll show this.
AOC pushed the photos to her 4.5 million followers on Twitter, captioning the tweet, I'll never forget this, because it was the moment I saw with my own eyes that the America I love was becoming a nation that steals refugee children from their parents and caged them.
I am disgusted and infuriated by this woman.
This is a photo of her, of herself, looking sad and looking into the camera, calling these children refugees.
She is lying.
She is manipulating.
It is just not true.
It is just not true.
She said, more kids died after this.
To date, no one has been held accountable, she added.
We need to save these kids.
Well, it's not you.
You're obstructing.
You're saying not one dollar and more kids are getting sick.
So here's the tweet.
She tweeted this and said, more kids died after this.
36,000 retweets.
Let's pull up this guy's tweet right here.
Here's one photo.
For those that are listening, I'll just try and describe them.
She's looking with a furled brow and a wince toward the camera.
In the next photo, she's covering her eyes and it looks like she's pretending to cry.
Maybe she was really crying, I don't know.
But it definitely looks like she's pretending and she's not good at it.
We have another photo where she's now bending over, looking down, covering her eyes.
Once again, I say this looks like she's pretending to cry because the last photo shows that she's just got a furrowed brow.
There's no tears.
Her eyes aren't puffy.
It does not look sincere.
Her own supporters said it looks staged.
Here are some of the same photos published a year ago, in June of 2018.
Now, he said these photos weren't previously released, but some of them were.
The first photo shows a very similar position where she's bent over and she's got one hand on her leg and she's covering her eyes as if she's crying.
The next photo shows her just staring longingly with a furled brow.
Another photo shows her with both hands over her eyes and someone putting their arm around her.
And finally, The gate is partially opened, and we can see there's some DHS police standing there keeping guard.
What is she looking at?
I don't know.
Because the big problem here is that while it absolutely appears to be staged, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't appear to be looking at anything that I can... She's looking at the tent city, but what is she crying about?
Looking at a bunch of tents?
Interestingly, they're not showing us what she's looking at.
Because I assure you, she's not looking at a bunch of kids hunched over and crowded in cages.
She's looking at a bunch of big tents.
Like, the photos I've seen of this place, they're big tents.
And she's looking off crying.
About what?
I don't believe it.
And no one else does either.
The story goes on, while some praised the freshman congresswoman for looking sincerely heartbroken, not all her supporters were won over.
I love AOC, but these images feel so staged.
It undermines her credibility on these issues.
This crisis is not about striking photos of a congresswoman.
It is about dying children.
I agree.
She's posting photos of herself.
Please.
Post photos of the kids.
Seriously.
When an AOC defender claimed the elected Democrat was not posing but merely caught by a photog on the scene, no one responded.
This is not an example of that.
I reiterate these feel contrived and staged, not organic.
This is a bad look.
Well, I love that.
It's a bad look.
Yeah, it is.
Another left-wing Twitter user criticized.
Show the children at the conditions.
This isn't about her face.
Not helping.
Other reactions of a similar flavor flooded the replies to the tweets.
And at such a relief, she was able to be followed by a photographer on this day, instead of, you know, just going like a regular person.
Regurgitated PR stunt, another reply said, linking to photos of AOC in black and white posted by Pierre Aguirre in June of last year.
Make sure to look into the camera for max sympathy, a tweet mocked.
Thanks for showing me a ton of pics of the terrible conditions and not just a bunch of selfies, one sarcastic tweet reads.
If these photos were about the camps, the photos would be of the camps.
The comments are about the main subject of the photo.
The criticism is not directed towards an agreement or disagreement of the situation.
It is towards an obvious PR stunt using the children as props.
This is why I don't believe Ocasio-Cortez cares.
She's saying abolish ICE.
What does that mean?
What are you gonna do?
When offered to come to a bipartisan agreement with Republicans on humanitarian aid, she obstructs.
She doesn't care.
She doesn't care about the kids.
And when it comes time, she posts photos of herself.
It completely explains who she is.
She's Lady Trump.
I'm not the only one who feels that way.
She is the female version of Trump.
You know, I wish her all the best.
Political success because she deserves it.
These are the politicians we get.
We get what we deserve.
The world we created.
Congratulations, a selfie-posting woman who doesn't care to fund humanitarian aid to actually save kids, who postures and panders and pretends.
These are the most staged photos I've seen!
You used this place and people for a photo op pretty sick, someone replied.
Sorry, this to me looks like a staged photo op.
Tragic situation nonetheless at the border, but none of this was candid in nature.
And this was when she was campaigning.
And this is what got her elected.
An exploit.
Pretending to care.
On June 17, Ocasio-Cortez posted an Instagram story lamenting the detention centers at the southern border, describing them as concentration camps.
The government is running concentration camps on our southern border, she told her followers.
And she goes on.
I'm not going to rehash the old story.
I'm going to end it there.
I just can't stand her.
I really can't.
She holds some similar policies to me.
Sure, fine.
But so does Dan Crenshaw.
I disagree with her on a lot of issues.
And I think this shows her character.
This is who she is.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I'll see you tomorrow on the main channel.
And I'll stress.
Tim Pool Daily Show Podcast.
Minds.com slash Timcast.
Share the video if you think it's deserving of being shared.
