ICE Is "Ready" To Deport One Million Illegal Immigrants, Potential ICE Raids Incoming
ICE Is "Ready" To Deport One Million Illegal Immigrants, Potential ICE Raids Incoming. Immigration and Customs enforcement is reportedly ready to apprehend and deport the approximately one million illegal immigrants with final removal orders according to USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli.Just last month Donald Trump announced that ICE raids would be called off in order to give Democrats and Republicans a chance to come up with a deal. However, some speculate that the real reason was that critical details of the raids were leaked and compromised security.The issue of illegal immigration used to be bipartisan with both the left and the right in agreements on border security. But since Trump's election Democrats have flipped tot he far left and begun pushing a social justice narrative that flies in the face of the actions of Obama. Obama was called "Deporter in Chief" by many as he had a very hard stance on illegal border crossings.How did we end up at a point where Democrats play to the far left and pander on TV to to woke democrats instead of securing US borders and interests?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It was only a couple of weeks ago that there was supposed to be this huge ICE raid to deport 2,000 illegal immigrants, but Trump called it off.
He said that he wanted to give Democrats and Republicans a chance to come up with a plan, a way to actually deal with the problem of illegal immigration.
Well, others have said it was because details of the operation were leaked, compromising security.
In fact, there were many Democrats issuing warnings, a lot of activist organizations issuing warnings.
Many people were wondering how these organizations got the information on the operations.
In fact, some journalists apparently were spreading information about where to go for the planned raids.
So I'm pretty sure the information got leaked.
But here's the latest update.
ICE ready to apprehend and deport 1 million illegal immigrants.
So this is the breaking news as of today that the acting director of USCIS, Citizen and Immigration Services, said the government is ready to identify, detain and deport the illegal immigrants who have ignored court orders to leave the country.
Now I want to go through all this news, but I want to talk about a few other issues as well.
There's a problem we're seeing in the 2020 race that Democrats seem to be going too far to the left.
The reason it's a problem is that they're now kind of campaigning for non-citizens.
While many people on the left and many Democrats would deny this, you actually had Beto O'Rourke doing a campaign event in Mexico.
You had Cory Booker actually accompanying illegal immigrants back into the country.
And on the debate stage, they all raised their hand for providing illegal immigrants with Universal healthcare with government healthcare.
So it definitely seems like Democrats are playing into this game.
But here's where it gets interesting in relation to this story.
We're at a time now where different states are going to be granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
New York and Oregon, for example, that I have pulled up.
We're now learning that the FBI and ICE are using state driver's license photos without consent for facial recognition searches.
Meaning, if these illegal immigrants actually go to get their driver's licenses, ICE is going to use those photos for facial recognition to potentially track them down.
And this ties back into the main story of how they will identify, detain, and deport.
One million illegal immigrants.
Now here's the thing.
One million, it's a bit hyperbolic.
My understanding is it's going to be similar to the previous announcement that they're targeting a few thousand people.
But what they're saying is there are a million people who are on court orders to leave and have not done so.
So here's what we'll do.
We'll start with this story and we'll move through it and talk about some issues, how this pertains to politics and how I think this ties into the story about the Democrats not actually caring about what they're campaigning for.
Bernie Sanders said not too long ago that we can't have open borders because there are too many poor people who would want to come here, but then on the debate stage says he would provide illegal immigrants with health care?
You can't incentivize them to come here and then claim you're opposed to it.
So I've got some stories lined up, but we'll start with this.
Now before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There is a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
Now forgive me for plugging this, but I'll tell you something.
I have done many videos talking about what's going on with illegal immigration, and YouTube has actually said it is biased against a protected class, demonetized.
Seriously.
Which means simply talking about this can result in demonetization, or actual penalties on my channel.
So I'll say this, recently we learned that my channel and many others are no longer getting suggested by YouTube.
So, if you like the content, please share it.
But let's talk about the news now.
We have a quote here, it says, They're ready to just perform their mission, which is to go and find and detain and then deport the approximately 1 million people who have final removal orders.
Ken Cuccinelli said Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation.
Cuccinelli was referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency with the Department of Homeland Security that's tasked with locating and deporting aliens living in the U.S.
I think we know what ICE is.
Who among those will be targeted for this particular effort or not is really just information kept within ICE at this point, the acting director explained.
Cuccinelli's comments come after President Donald Trump announced and then later scrapped plans in June to conduct sweeping ICE raids across the country.
The raids would have targeted major U.S.
cities and roughly 2,000 undocumented immigrants who are disobeying deportation orders.
Trump at the time said the raids were postponed in order to work with Democrats on a solution to the immigration crisis, but other accusations make it unclear why exactly the raids were called off.
The president now appears ready to move forward with the mass deportation plan.
And we have another quote.
This is from Trump.
These are people where we have their papers.
We've gone through the court system.
They'll be starting fairly soon, but I don't call them raids.
We're removing people that have come, all of these people over the years, that have come in illegally.
We are removing them and bringing them back to their country, Trump said to reporters on Friday.
When host Margaret Brennan asked if Cuccinelli's statements mean ICE would be targeting a far larger number of illegal aliens than just a few thousand, the US CIC chief hedged, pointing out that he was just referring to the pool of people given final removal orders.
I think it would be silly to assume ICE has the capacity to actually deport one million people in a short amount of time, but He is saying there is this large group of people, and he did say that they're actually ready to find, to identify and deport the approximately 1 million people who have those removal orders.
So it may just be, you know, hyperbole.
The mission will likely just be a few thousand, but let's read on.
Cuccinelli, who was tapped by Trump to lead USCIS in June, pointed out the irony in how much controversy ICE has garnered over reports that it's conducting one of its main duties.
It's important to note, here we are talking about ICE doing its job as if it's special, and really this should be going on a rolling basis for ICE, and they've been interfered with effectively and held up by the politics of Washington to a certain extent, and they're looking forward to just getting back to doing their job.
The USCIS chief called on Congress to change asylum and human trafficking laws and to put a fix on the Flores settlement to help stem the immigration crisis on the US-Mexico border.
I will add, too, as an aside, we recently saw CNN's Fareed Zakaria come out and say Trump is right about asylum laws, that people are gaming the system.
Now there's an interesting political issue happening right now with the census and the citizenship question.
Supreme Court recently said Trump could not add a question to the census that asked whether or not people were citizens.
Many people on the left and activists said this would deter, it would be an incentive, it would scare immigrants.
They wouldn't want to fill out the forms out of a fear of reprisal, of maybe being deported or something.
I don't believe that's actually a legitimate argument.
Not my opinion, I don't believe so.
If someone is living here legally, Then they'll fill out the form and say they're not a citizen.
If someone is a citizen, they say they will.
Now, people have wondered, why would Trump want this question on the census?
My understanding is it used to be on the census.
Obama may have removed it.
At least that's what many people are saying.
Not sure.
I haven't dug too far into that.
But it would allow, for one, federal appropriation, funding appropriations from the federal government, as well as districting for Congress and otherwise.
And we're seeing this tweet go viral here.
Allison Frankel.
Is a legal columnist from Reuters who said, Trump just said in an impromptu news conference that he needs citizenship data for congressional districting.
So now we know.
This is effort to deny political representation to non-citizens.
This needs some clarification.
There are a lot of people on the right who are saying something as simple as this.
Non-citizens don't have any say in what happens here.
Another reason to re-elect Trump.
This person said, non-citizens aren't supposed to be represented.
A third, non-citizens do not deserve, nor does the Constitution mandate, political representation.
If they become citizens, they can.
They can answer the question, which will help the apportioning funding for the infrastructure.
Okay, okay, we get it.
People are all saying non-citizens should not be represented.
That's technically not true, okay?
It's mostly true, but there is nuance within these arguments.
People who are here, illegal or not, still have constitutional protections.
They break the law, they can be deported.
There still has to be some kind of representation, in a sense, to how we deal with these people and their human rights.
So this is my understanding.
I could be wrong.
But my understanding is that you still have constitutional rights even if you are an illegal immigrant.
Therefore, it will require politicians in their area with those people living there to discuss how to deal with the problem.
So it's different, okay?
I want to make sure that's clear.
I understand what they're saying.
When it comes to what laws are passed, it should fall to citizens to decide how they determine whether or not people enter or are removed from the country.
But it is still an issue of people who are here have human rights.
Human rights exist.
We have to uphold those rights even if the people, you know, are criminals.
Criminals have human rights too, plain and simple.
Even bad criminals.
So, I think we can tone this one down a little bit, but I do think it's kind of telling to what we're seeing in the mainstream left about this idea Whatever this woman's intention was, I think there are a lot of Democrats who really do believe that illegal immigrants should have government-paid health care, should have government benefits, should not be deported.
They're actively open borders.
We saw them on the debate stage putting up their hand saying, decriminalize illegal immigration.
I kid you not.
It was Castro who said he wants to decriminalize illegal border crossings.
Well, then what do you do?
He says you shouldn't arrest these people.
Even Joe Biden said these people who enter the country illegally but don't break any laws should not be the focus of our deportation.
Well, that's literally what we do.
I mean, unless the implication is that there are way more people who are criminals.
Like, is Joe Biden implying that the illegal immigrants are mostly criminals and the ones who aren't should stay?
No, it's silly.
There's very basic reasons why we have immigration laws.
Security screenings, stopping trafficking, protecting children, but also just making sure the economy can sustain massive growth.
If we had 144,000 in May, the number has gone down.
But as I've said over and over again, I think you get it.
You can't just flood a city with a large number of people because the economy won't support it.
In one of the videos I did a few days ago, we have a woman in Maine who is about to be evicted from her apartment.
So the government gives her a tent and tells her, go ahead, sleep outside.
Meanwhile, they have facilities for migrants from Africa.
Listen, I absolutely want to make sure we can accommodate those who come here and are seeking asylum, whether it be from Africa or any other nation.
I think it's important to point out if you're in Africa, you could probably stay in Brazil.
That's what they're doing.
They're flying to Brazil.
But it does become extremely problematic when you have homeless people in our own country that aren't being taken care of.
This woman who's being evicted, presumably paid taxes for a long time, and is now being told she can sleep outside.
This is a problem.
These are problems that need to be dealt with.
So here's what I want to do.
Let's not get into too much of the politicking necessarily, but I want to address this story next as well.
Look, the lead is all we really need here, the headline.
ICE is using driver's license photos and the FBI without consent.
I believe this is wrong, full stop.
A lot of people are posting jokes saying it's funny, haha, give the illegal immigrants their driver's licenses and then ICE can fine them.
This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I could be wrong, but we have a right to Uh, to be free from illegal search and seizure.
The government should not be going into databases for, you know, identification databases for facial recognition without warrants, and it's already getting pretty dystopian as it is.
We need IDs for various functions.
It makes sense, okay?
You can argue about how some things shouldn't have IDs, some things should.
You've got the Democrats right now saying no voter ID, Republicans saying voter ID.
Okay, let's stop right now.
If you are required to have an ID to vote, then you should not allow law enforcement agencies to go into those databases that were designed for other reasons for law enforcement purposes.
You should be able to be free from that search.
If my expectation is my ID is good for driving, and it's good for casting a vote, it should not be giving It's complicated.
I'm not an expert.
or ability to actually do a search and facial recognition against me.
I think we need to have these clear dividing lines.
I need to make sure we hold these institutions accountable and make sure there are warrants whenever there is a search.
It's complicated. I'm not an expert.
But as I've shown you, we have these stories about various states granting
driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Now, as I mentioned early on, the point is, a lot of people on the right are laughing, saying,
saying, aha, if they take their license now, they'll be caught by ICE.
Well, it's true.
So perhaps that will be a deterrent to a certain extent for illegal immigrants to get licenses.
I don't agree with law enforcement agencies just going into our databases and looking up our photos.
But I will also point out there have been some actually interesting arguments in favor of why they should have driver's licenses.
To track them, plain and simple.
Right now, ICE has to actively identify and figure out where these illegal immigrants are.
So you've got a lot of people on the right who have been very critical of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but then there's actually the argument, once again from the right, that if these people get a license, for one, if they get pulled over, you will know who they are and what they're doing, but more importantly, if they defy, you know, certain orders, Again, it falls into a complicated space where I don't like the idea of the government issuing one thing in exchange for another.
That's just an argument I've heard.
able to find out where these people are. So it's essentially acting as a kind of tracking.
Again, it falls into a complicated space where I don't like the idea of the government issuing
one thing in exchange for another. That's just an argument I've heard. Another argument is that
people who have licenses are less likely to flee the scene of an accident. But in the end, I think
one of the big challenges, I believe this will probably end up being a net negative for everybody
and it probably is a bad idea because it's going, look, I'm not going to argue in favor of the
government doing the cross-agency warrantless searching and I don't think it's a good idea
to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses because we have the next story I want to get into.
And I think I might have a yes right here.
This is where it starts to get really complicated.
Loophole in law granting illegal immigrants driver's licenses could lead to voter fraud.
There was an instance where a woman in Texas was a permanent resident with a green card and she voted and she didn't know she couldn't do it and she got I think she got prison time for it.
It was an older lady and I think this is Abhorrent.
Absolutely not.
Purge the vote, deal with the problem, but don't put a little old lady in prison because she didn't realize she wasn't supposed to vote.
I get it.
If you're not a citizen, you don't vote.
But she was a, you know, if someone just makes a simple mistake, a non-violent crime, it was a mistake, then rectify the problem.
Tell them not to do it again.
I believe pencils have erasers for a reason.
And we should definitely be lenient, but a lot of people are concerned.
This will be a serious problem, and thus they want to set an example.
It's true.
What happens is, when people sign up for a driver's license, sometimes they're automatically registered to vote.
This could result in actual people being registered.
Let's read this.
They say a loophole in the new law granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants could allow hundreds of thousands of people to fraudulently register to vote in New York, according to critics, the State Board of Elections, and the bill's own sponsor.
A major concern is that many states, including New York, use their DMVs to enroll voters.
Since New York does not have voter identification laws like the majority of other states do, this bill increases the potential for voter fraud.
This means that New York will soon have the most radical open-ended law in the entire nation.
The Green Light Bill, which passed the Senate 33-29 Monday and was signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, allows illegal immigrants to obtain standard state driver's licenses that can be used for identification and to board domestic flights.
But it is also the sole document required to register to vote.
So here's the thing, right?
This is a story from last month.
But check this out.
A story from February.
NPR.
NPR is not right-wing.
NPR is not centrist.
NPR is left-leaning.
And they said, some non-citizens do wind up registered to vote, but usually not on purpose.
Okay.
Full stop.
We can look to their concerns and say it could lead to voter fraud.
And then we can see that even NPR says, yeah, it's not on purpose, but it happens.
Let's operate from the perspective of the left and NPR.
It's not on purpose.
You're right.
It's still a problem.
It is.
We can't have non-citizens voting.
Right?
There have been certain jurisdictions, local jurisdictions, that have actually tried passing bills that would allow undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants, the right to vote in certain local jurisdiction elections.
I believe this is a terrible mistake.
Plain and simple.
When you bring people in and then tell them they have a right to vote, they will vote to bring in more people.
The problem with this is nothing racial, nothing based on country.
I believe legal immigration is great.
Bring everybody.
Everybody bring your families.
Legally, you know, emigrate to the United States.
It's a great place.
I recommend it.
there's a reason for a legal process. When you give people who are not citizens the right to vote,
or when they fraudulently vote, they vote to provide the resources of your community to other
communities that aren't contributing to the pot. Plain and simple. Okay? Look, if the whole world
was paying taxes to like one global fund that evenly distributed it, and then you wanted to
have like, you know, people from, I don't know, Mexico come to the United States, well, if everyone
was paying into it, it makes sense. That's a long way to go before we get to a global society and
international funds and all that stuff. Sure. I'm just, I'm making a point. The point is,
if people from Mexico are not paying in to the taxes of the United States, then come into the
US and vote, they're likely going to vote in a way that will provide benefits to people who
aren't putting back into the system.
That is a net loss for the country.
Taxes are already like people paying... I look at it this way.
When it comes to taxes, you're paying a subscription fee to the US, essentially, it's percentage-based, to reap the benefits of this wonderful country.
The Constitution is worth every penny, plain and simple.
Now, I think it's fair to point out a lot of taxes go to stupid places, and I would prefer not to give my tax dollars to war, but it's also a community where people vote and choose, and we've come to this point.
And look, I'm not one of these anti-tax libertarian types.
I think taxes, for the most part, are a good thing.
I do believe we need periodic reform and we need some serious overhaul, but we're paying into a system that, you know, in a sense, funds the, you know, the country, builds the roads, sets the building up, provides for the common defense.
If someone is going to come here from somewhere else and they're not paying into that subscription, Why should they reap the benefits?
I look at it kind of like, you sign up for Netflix, and you give out your password, and then someone starts giving out the password to other people, and all of a sudden your Netflix is all screwed up, and you can't even watch movies anymore, and you're like, dude, look, I gave the password to one person, right?
But that one person has friends too.
And now they have the access, and they're gonna share it.
It's important to make sure citizens vote, non-citizens don't.
So it sounds like across the board, giving licenses to illegal immigrants is kind of just a bad deal for everybody.
Again, FBI and ICE are abusing the driver's license database to actually use facial recognition to track people down.
Not a good thing for the illegal immigrants.
If you're someone on the far left who thinks they should have a right to be here, great, well, ICE is using that.
It's not a good idea for them to get it.
So in the long run, One last thing I want to point out as we talk about illegal immigration, just to highlight the big main story of the video to make sure it's fresh, ICE is ready to deport 1 million illegal immigrants.
But I want to highlight this story right here, just really quickly.
I'm not going to read it, I might read it later.
The Democrats aren't a left-wing party, they just play one on TV.
And I believe that's true, for the most part.
Look at what Bernie Sanders says about illegal immigrants, and then look at what he says in the debate stage.
At a rally, he says, there's too many poor people, they can't come here.
Man, there'd be too many.
And then when he goes into the debate stage, what does he actually say?
Healthcare for illegal immigrants, you know.
We shouldn't, basically everybody, I don't want to put this specifically on Bernie because I'm not sure of his record, but you had a bunch of the people on the stage saying healthcare, no deportation and decriminalization of illegal immigration.
Does he really believe that?
Well, just a few, a month or so ago he said no.
So no, I think they are just playing them on TV.
I don't think they actually believe half of what they say.
And that's why I think this is all so disconcerting.
We've got Democrats actively campaigning in Mexico.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that.
Beto O'Rourke literally went to Mexico and Cory Booker brought in illegal immigrants.
And yes, while many people will say they're asylum seekers, no.
The women with Cory Booker had previously been deported under the Migrant Protection Protocols.
They were awaiting their court case and they were actively trying to bypass the law and Cory Booker brought them in.
So look, the Democrats are pandering.
They're pretending to care about issues that are actually bad for the whole of the country and even bad for the migrants.
So please, we need sound policy.
Instead, what do we get?
Ocasio-Cortez fights with Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi then, you know, drags Ocasio-Cortez and the far-left Democrats, saying, you got four votes.
It doesn't matter how many followers you have.
You, like, they're not, okay.
I'm going to go off on a rant, so we'll wrap this up.
Basically, Ocasio-Cortez and the other far left won't even fund the border bill, which provides $3 billion in humanitarian aid.
It's posturing.
They don't care about solutions.
They're pretending to be far left.
And meanwhile, we have serious problems.
So the important final takeaway is that the raid we're talking about the 1 million migrants, you know, 1 million illegal immigrants.
It's probably going to be a few thousand but Trump was going to do this before and apparently many people said that the information was leaked.
They were accusing of leaking critical details before the plan was executed.
I received some information from sources about some speculation based on leaked information.
So I believe, yes, information was leaked.
So look.
Who knows?
We'll see what happens.
We'll see if the raid takes place.
I think we will start seeing an uptick in ICE activity.
And we're going to see the Democrats using this because the position has basically been orange man bad.
And I'm not trying to be a dick.
I know it's a silly thing to say.
But look, the Democrats really have just opposed everything Trump does for whatever reason.
Americans are concerned about immigration.
They don't think Trump's doing a good enough job, but the Democrats are obstructing.
We have a humanitarian crisis because the Democrats wouldn't flip the bill.
They didn't want to sign on.
Well, they finally did, but Ocasio-Cortez won't, so please.
We have serious problems with immigration.
I don't know what the right answer is, but I know that we're gonna see action taken,
and it's gonna be used against Trump.
We'll see where it takes us.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
More segments to come starting at 6pm.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
The podcast will be every day at 6.30pm, unless of course for some reason it didn't publish
properly which is what happened last night.
But anyway, thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next segment, again
at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
When I first heard this story, it was just framed as some dude in California who took
a bunch of drugs and went on a drug-induced rampage, where the cops ended up shooting
him several times, and I was like, wow, that's a crazy story, but what's really there?
And then more information came out, and it turns out this guy worked at YouTube, I kid you not.
So I have two stories.
They're both basically the same.
YouTube software engineer injures eight with pencil, garden light, and vehicle during LSD-fueled rampage.
Now, here's the thing.
I am no expert on drugs, but I'm not... I could be wrong.
I mean, I never thought of LSD, you know, like acid, to be something that would make someone go nuts and start attacking other people, maybe like some speed or an upper or something.
But hey man, I guess when you're tripping, you can go nuts.
So I am the opposite of a fan of drugs.
I do not like drugs.
I think drugs are bad.
I don't smoke.
I drink maybe like twice, maybe three times per year, if that, and only for very special occasions.
And I have never done any kind of drug or hard drug, nor will I ever, because...
When you look at a story like this, you kind of... I mean, this is... Look, I know these kinds of things are few and far between, and you'll get someone like Joe Rogan asking if you've ever done DMT, and they talk about shrooms.
I'm not about that stuff.
I do not like the idea of seeding control, right?
And this is what you get.
So, I don't know if it's... I don't think it's relevant.
This dude is a YouTube engineer, but...
It's still a weird story, so let's read this, see what happened, and then we'll talk a little bit about drugs, because, you know, I don't really talk about drugs a lot, and I think there are a lot of very high-profile people who do, so we'll go over some drug philosophies.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a cryptocurrency option, and a physical address.
And of course, just share this video if you like it, because YouTube doesn't share my videos anymore.
I kid you not.
I did a video, like two videos in the past couple days, just talking about immigration law, and YouTube said that was hate speech.
So I didn't get a strike or anything, but it was demonetized specifically for being biased, so it's like, alright man, look, you guys know I'm a tepid, milquetoast fence-sitter.
Even I can't, you know, get monetized, so I really do rely on you guys to share, but let's read the story.
From Fox News, LSD-fueled rampage in California leaves eight injured after man stabs others with pencil, lawn light, police.
How do you stab someone with a lawn light?
What is that?
They say this was one very bad and violent acid trip.
A man in California was shot by police on the 4th of July after a drug-fueled rampage left eight people injured and a vehicle lodged in a rental home.
The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office said in a news release the suspect, 32-year-old Batai Kofi, is charged with two counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and one charge of carjacking for the incidents leading up to the officer-involved shooting.
Kofi of San Francisco was staying with five quote longtime friends who had rented a home in Bodega Bay for the Independence Day holiday weekend and arrived on Wednesday.
And I'll pause right here to make a point about this.
This is what I'm talking about with seating control.
Dude's gonna get two- He's being charged with two counts of attempted murder in which- Like, listen.
Okay, he was shot several times.
Put that aside.
That's messed up, right?
Well, you do drugs, you know.
This dude was hanging out with his friends, and they were like, you wanna try ass?
He was like, yeah!
And now he's gonna go to prison.
It's like, why would you open yourself up to that kind of thing, you know?
But let's read on.
They say during the day on Thursday, police said that Kofi consumed about two doses of the hallucinogenic drug LSD, also known as acid, and had become delusional by 3 p.m.
around the home as friends had tried to calm him down.
Between 4 p.m.
and 5 p.m., Kofi then took two more doses of acid and by 8 p.m.
wanted to leave as his friends tried to stop him.
Several members of his party took a half-tab of acid.
But Kofi took four doses of acid, and he had a really bad trip with it, Sonoma County Sheriff Sergeant Spencer Crump told KTVU.
So maybe it's an issue of don't do four doses of acid.
I mean, I'll say this, man.
Don't do drugs.
Straight up.
You know, I tell people, like, you want to know the secret to success?
No drugs.
Hard work.
Eat healthy.
Exercise.
Other people will disagree, sure, fine, but I'm a very, very anti-substance.
You know, people have always said, like, Tim, are you straight-edge?
And it's, like, the weirdest thing ever.
It's like, no, I'll drink a beer, you know?
Like, it's not like I've never smoked.
Like, I've smoked cigarettes and pot at some, like, when I was younger.
And I was like, why waste your life?
I'm not saying, you know, just doing it one time was wasting your life.
I mean, like, your physical cells in your body and, like, the energy you have in your brain cells.
I'm not gonna waste that, man.
I'm maximizing potential, you know?
Exercise.
Eat healthy.
You gotta focus.
But hey, man, look.
I'm fairly, you know, on the liberty side, so... You do you.
So long as it's legal, hey, man, do your thing.
But this is what you get.
Check this out.
This is where everything goes south.
As he was hallucinating, police said Kofi punched a woman in the chest and sighed, then stabbed a man with a pencil before choking another man and punching a third man in the face.
The 32-year-old was able to get outside the home into his rental car, backed into another car behind him, then drove toward one of the men who dodged him and crashed into the garbage of the home, lodging it into the structure.
Kofi then took off on foot and encountered a security guard who patrols the subdivision, attacking him.
He picks up a landscape light, like a solar landscape light.
He picks it up and then stabs the security guard with the metal end of it, knocking the guard to the ground.
Oh, man!
So I think what they're talking about is they have these things you buy at like, you know, Home Depot or whatever, where it's a lamp with a metal spike and you stick it in the ground.
Straight up tried to stab.
He straight up stabbed a guy with it.
In the chest!
Oh my!
After stabbing the security guard in the chest, Kofi then stole his truck, which was unlocked and running.
Speeding away, he then drove straight toward a couple who were walking on the road and violently hit a woman, leaving her with significant injuries, according to police.
The man was struck on the arm, but was not seriously injured.
After striking the first couple, the sheriff's office said Kofi then drove toward another man and woman who were walking and, quote, aimed at the woman and hit her with the truck causing significant injuries.
He's intentionally running people down.
Intentionally ran four people down.
The couple that did not see it coming, who are walking arm in arm, it's really sad, and when you watch the video you can't help but feel emotional.
The rampage finally came to an end when a sheriff's deputy and California Highway Patrol officer arrived, by which time Kofi had driven through someone's yard, hit a wall, and continued back on the road.
The sheriff's office said that when Kofi saw the officers, he turned the truck and drove straight at police.
When the deputy who had gotten out of his car started firing, Kofi continued accelerating and struck the CHP vehicle as the deputy fired his weapon according to police.
Kofi was struck at least three times through the windshield and was airlifted to the hospital along with the first woman he ran over.
He was listed in critical condition at an area hospital.
The woman received significant injuries, but were not life-threatening, according to the sheriff's office.
If this guy had kept going, who knows what he could have done to other people, Crum told KTVU.
He was just blatantly going after people, driving after them.
The security guard and second woman hit by the truck were transported to a local hospital by ground ambulance and were expected to survive their injuries.
Kofi's friends in the house treated their own injuries.
The officer involved's shooting is under investigation by Santa Rosa Police and the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, while the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office is investigating the assaults and events leading up to the shooting.
The deputy has been identified as Jason Pacero, an 18-year veteran of law enforcement, Are these the people at YouTube that are demonetizing my videos?
Like, I feel bad.
This dude took drugs then went off the rails and he just ended his life.
Was it worth it, you know?
Kofi's Facebook page shows he is a Stanford-educated software engineer who worked at Microsoft before
now working as an engineer at YouTube.
Are these the people at YouTube that are demonetizing my videos?
Like, I feel bad.
This dude took drugs then went off the rails and he just ended his life.
Was it worth it, you know?
That's what's crazy to me.
The final, finally they say, the sheriff's office said the incident was captured on video
and intends to release the deputy's body-worn camera footage.
So I'll tell you this right now.
This dude, so look, there's a, wow, that's a photo of him.
This dude struck a couple that were just walking down the street, significantly injuring this woman.
I can only imagine what that dude is thinking when his girlfriend's significant other gets slammed into by a car from some dude who's tripping, you know, tripping balls on some crazy drugs.
And then I'll make this point too.
This is an example of the unfortunate circumstances for police, I would say.
You know, there are very few people who genuinely want to hurt other people, and here we have a cop who, look, based on the story, had no real option but had to put this guy down, you know?
Not.
He shot him three times.
It's a sad story.
So let's talk about drugs, man.
Because here's the thing.
This dude.
I'm curious.
Because I think a lot of people might make this argument.
Was he already suicidal and depressed without the drugs?
Was it the LSD that was the defining factor that made him go over the edge?
It's hard to know for sure.
And people will definitely argue it, especially when you...
Like, again, my understanding is that LSD is not something that makes you go off the rails and attack people like this, but hey, it can happen.
I've heard horror stories.
I've heard horror stories about people hurting themselves seriously with... I'm not gonna get into great detail, but yeah, people tripping and then just losing it and hurting themselves.
So this could be that.
There are a lot of proponents, like a lot of people I know back, you know, like a lot of my friends are very like pro hallucinogenic, the idea of micro dosing, I think they actually have this over here, micro dosing, this idea that you take a teeny bit of LSD every day to like improve your performance.
And there have been some really interesting studies about LSD actually improving, you know, like kind of like opening your mind and helping you learn and approach problems from new perspectives,
that LSD can do that.
And there's a lot of stories about how, you know, a lot of people believe,
I don't know if this is true, that like great apes 50,
or like hundreds of thousands of years ago ate psilocybin mushrooms,
and that's how humans came to be.
I don't know about any of that.
What I do know is, when you see a story like this,
is the several hours of fun you might have worth what, like, this is a lottery ticket, right?
So again, let me preface.
Maybe this guy was already nuts.
Plain and simple.
Maybe he was already angry and depressed and suicidal and the drugs were just like the straw in the camel's back.
I don't know.
But what I'll say is, if someone offered you a lottery ticket, and if you won, your life would end?
You'd go to prison for attempting- I'm not gonna buy that ticket, that's crazy.
I don't even wanna- I don't even wanna attempt the possibility that something like that could happen.
And so, for me, looking at, like, drugs in general, Damaging to your body, in most circumstances.
A lot of things are.
But I try to eat healthy and exercise and do my best.
I actually have resveratrol here, I take that every morning.
It's interesting because I watch Joe Rogan's podcast, and that's how I decided to actually buy some resveratrol.
And there's some other stuff they talk about, NAM or NMA or something.
But then also, you know, Rogan talks a lot about DMT, and I'm not gonna act like I know his literal position, like his actual position on all these drugs and everything.
But you get a lot of people in popular media that are gonna be like, no way man, that was not LSD, that was something else.
But all I can really say is, when it comes to protecting my body, maintaining control, maintaining focus, I personally am on the no drugs.
Now, let's talk about legality.
I'm a fairly liberty-minded person, right?
The problem here is this dude went nuts.
And so, sometimes people go nuts.
With or without the drug, sometimes people will go nuts.
So should we have these drugs be illegal because sometimes people go nuts?
I actually kind of lean towards no.
I think it was Portugal, I could be wrong, that like legalized everything.
I think the best thing we can do in this country One of the best things.
Ending the, quote, war on drugs, which is nonsense.
Or whatever it is we're doing.
I mean, look, recreational pot is being legalized across the board in many states.
I think it's a good thing.
Look, I don't smoke.
I don't like it.
I don't like being around people who smoke.
I don't like drinking.
I don't like drugs.
I don't like people who do drugs.
But you know what?
Hey man, do your thing.
This is about someone deciding for themselves, they want to go into the privacy of their own home or with, you know, with friends and enjoy something in their body.
Hey, what can I say?
It's different in the sense, like, that, you know, some people would argue, like, people are ingesting a poison, they're damaging their body.
It's like, yeah, but, you know, drugs are very, very different.
We have a lot of legal drugs.
We have a lot of illegal drugs.
I think, recreationally, people should have to, they can do what they want.
There's a greater challenge, and the more traditionalist, nationalist argument tends to be that a nation with legal drugs will have a lot of people doing drugs, and it'll break up social cohesion.
But I actually don't know if that's true, because I've seen reports that when drugs get legalized, drug use goes down.
And not only that, if you do legalize drugs, you replace law enforcement with therapy.
So you have a lot of people who can safely go... Imagine if they legalized, like, hard drugs like heroin.
I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, I'm just saying one potential that I've heard is that you will then have addicts going into a clinic or a shop and they'll have a controlled dose around people with first aid training and that will prevent overdoses and death and could actually help people break addiction.
Right now, It's similar with alcohol.
Actually, I got another story about this.
Right now, it's like people go and hide in the shadows and they get disgusting dirty needles and get diseases and other nonsense.
So it's like, you know, end prohibition.
Put people in facilities and help them get off the drug.
But interestingly, there was an instance, an incident I read about when I was, I took like two months of like a community college course in criminal justice back like when I was 18, I think.
And one of the things we studied, one of the stories, and this is a common story, was an 18-year-old went to college, and they started partying, and they got drunk, and this young man passed out drunk, and his friends put him on the couch, and the next morning he was dead.
Just dead.
And they were asked why, you know, they didn't call an ambulance, and they said because he was drinking illegally.
They figured he would just sleep it off, they thought something was wrong, but they were worried that if they called an ambulance, they'd all get in trouble.
And there you have it.
Adults, people who are over the age of 18, being told you will get in trouble for drinking beer.
It's always been crazy to me that you can choose to die for your country but you can't choose to have a beer afterwards?
Like, that's insane to me.
You know, like, if you can sign a contract, you can have a beer, right?
But then again, I'm not the expert on these issues.
Just my opinion.
And I don't talk about this stuff a whole lot.
But I will say this.
I'm very strongly anti-drug use.
But I'm also very strongly anti-authoritarian, anti-government.
And I don't think the government necessarily knows what's right.
And I think the quote-unquote war on drugs has resulted in recidivism.
It leads to harder crimes.
It leads to black markets.
I think it's a bad thing.
And I think there's a better way to do it.
Anyway, I'll wrap this up here.
I'm not going to do a big rant on drugs beyond this, but there you have it.
YouTube employees' LSD-fueled rampage, and now his life is over.
Let me know what you think in the comments, leave a review if you're on the podcast, and I will see you all in the next segment at 1 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you then.
People don't seem to get it.
They think they can stage these things where they lick a product or tamper with a product, and everything will be fine.
It won't.
You're committing a crime.
And I gotta say, you know me.
I am a non-violent person, but I tell you what, when I watch these people licking ice cream, and there is a ton of this, man, I have never wanted to punch someone more than watching people lick this stuff and put it back, because...
You know, I was thinking about why does it make me so angry?
Why does it make so many people so angry?
No, no, no, full disclosure.
Of course, I'm never gonna hit anybody.
I'm just exaggerating.
But why do I get so angry seeing this?
It's because, first, you have the sheer arrogance and, like, lack of compassion for your fellow man by doing something like this.
I mean legitimately, like, my understanding is that the woman, the first ice cream licking incident was legit.
She licked it and put it back and left.
Now people are staging it.
So the big story, because I don't want to bury the lead.
A guy has been arrested even though he could prove he staged it.
Full stop.
This guy right here was arrested and he proved to the police it was fake.
Doesn't matter.
He committed a crime and they list what it is.
So he's still tampering with the product.
So here's the thing.
First, you have the really annoying behavior of just sheer desperation from people to get attention.
It's gross.
Okay?
When people, like, were putting... There was one kid who put a Tide Pod in his mouth.
Don't do that.
Because they weren't really eating Tide Pods.
It will kill you.
But he thought it'd be funny to take it one step further and put it in his mouth, and sure enough, it broke open.
So, listen.
The first thing, it's so annoying to see desperate people so desperate for attention.
That they would stage a crime.
The other thing is, it's just people who are so dumb that they follow the mob when the mob says, haha, look what we're doing, and then everyone just does it.
Dude, think for yourself.
And the sheer arrogance now from people staging it like, I'll just pretend to do it.
Sorry, you're gonna get arrested.
So here's the thing.
Let me, uh... First, the original woman, okay?
This is the video that went viral.
She's arrested.
She's a minor, however, so we don't know what's going on.
This is a few days ago they announced that she was arrested.
She's a juvenile.
She's facing up to 20 years in prison because she put a contaminated food product back and they had to recall everything.
Now, take a look at this story, and believe me, it's- there's more than these two stories.
I've got- I've got- man, I've got more.
Here's- there's- there's another woman, uh, here, licking ice cream.
Then you've got this woman drinking sodas and putting them back.
I'll tell- I- I- man, so- so let's look at this story.
This is really, really fascinating.
Because what a lot of people are claiming online, it's like, oh my god, it was staged, it's not real, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if you pretended to do it.
You still contaminated the store.
Period.
So let's break down.
You can see this photo of this guy did.
Before we go on, go to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
I apologize for the plugs.
when I do this but YouTube is no longer suggesting my videos. This was revealed, the censorship of
many channels, the de-ranking of many channels was revealed somewhat recently so if you want
to support my work, timcast.com slash donate and you can share the video if you think people should
watch it. But let's get back to the news. So this guy, Lennis Lloyd Martin III, as revealed by KTBS3
because YouTube actually deleted one of my videos for doing basically the same thing, commenting on
on a news website.
Sure, let's read on.
They say...
Another person has been arrested for going to the grocery store and filming themselves opening a Blue Bell ice cream container and licking it.
Deputies arrested 36-year-old Linise Lloyd Martin III from Bell Rose.
The incident happened Friday at a local supermarket called Big B's on Highway 1.
Deputies responded to a complaint of a man taking a container of ice cream out of the freezer, removing the cover, licking it, putting his fingers in it, and then covering it and returning it to the freezer.
A video appeared on Facebook by Martin basically showing what witnesses described to police.
Authorities then went to Martin's home to arrest him, but he was not there.
They then found him at the store where the incident occurred, explaining to the store manager what happened.
He showed the manager the video, explained that he then bought the ice cream that he licked.
Martin presented to deputies and the manager the receipt for the ice cream, which matched the one he contaminated.
Authorities then searched the freezer and could not locate the container.
Deputies said there was a continuation of the clip, and you see Martin take the ice cream off the shelf a second time.
Quote, We do know that he paid for a container that was identical to the one that he did lick, and we could not find it on the shelf.
Said the Commander Lonnie Cavalier of the Assumption Parish Sheriff's Office.
Commander Cavalier said based on the circumstance, they have to conclude that he did buy the ice cream.
So all is well and good, right?
Wrong!
Martin was arrested and booked in the parish prison for the unlawful posting of criminal activity for notoriety and publicity, and one count of criminal mischief for tampering with property.
Can I just explain something very, very simple?
Did you read the part of the story where they had to search the ice cream to try and see if the contaminated ice cream wasn't there?
Plain and simple, they had to open it, destroying all of the products, breaking their seals, period.
This is what people don't seem to understand.
This guy thought, by filming himself, just putting it back and then taking it and leaving and laughing, Everything would be fine.
By having a receipt would be fine.
Sorry.
You were arrested because you filmed a criminal activity tampering with consumer goods, which I believe is a felony.
That's what we saw from the other woman.
And one count of criminal mischief for tampering.
The police have to open every single ice cream, period.
They have to throw them all away.
Okay, think about it.
When you put it back, full stop, now we don't know which one is which.
And to make sure, we would have to open all of them.
You can't.
You might as well just throw them all away because as soon as you open it, it's trash anyway, period.
He is just contaminated all the ice cream.
God, these people are so dumb.
So here's the thing.
This is a story from a few days ago, but it includes a clip that I had not seen of more ice cream lickers.
Man, this stuff is so, so disgusting.
I can't... I'll stress it again.
I can see political conflict and not want to hurt anybody, but I tell you what, watching people do this just gets me so damn angry.
From Fox 11, they says, L.A.
I believe.
Girl who licked Blue Bell ice cream and put it back on shelf inspires copycats on social media.
So here's the thing.
They showed the disgusting video that she did in the first place, and now she's arrested, and there's her, and great.
We'll see what happens.
You then had this guy going in, you know, and it's weird that all these people are doing this, like, weird effeminate walk as they do it.
I don't know if they're, like, homophobic or something.
They're trying to, like, insult people as they do it.
Or whatever the reason is, that's weird.
Because you also had the individual, I don't know if, I'm not trying to be a dick, I don't know if it was a man or a woman who gargled the mouthwash and put it back, but then later was like, I paid for it, doesn't matter, it's still gross.
But we have this one right here.
Uh, it says that Blue Bell Ice Cream Girl has started something, and I'll pull up this tweet.
Because this one I hadn't actually seen before, but we can see this woman does basically the same thing.
It's got 7 million views.
And there's the problem, right?
So, on Instagram she goes in, she grabs the ice cream, she licks it, and she puts it back.
These, like, dude, these people need to be arrested at this point.
These are just really, really stupid, stupid people.
And I can't, I can't, look.
The first woman who did this, I'm like, man, she was being a really dumb kid, she doesn't deserve 20 years, right?
But now that everyone basically knows it's a serious crime, there's no excuse.
They're doing it on purpose because they want the 7 million views.
She put it back.
And of course, I bet, you know, she walked back, grabbed it and said, now I'm gonna pay for it and everything's okay.
Sorry, the video stopped.
We gotta figure out where the store is and throw everything in the trash.
Man, social media is destroying the world.
These young people, it's, look.
What you see here is almost, like, it really does relate to the rise of left-wing identitarianism.
And you're now going to be saying, what, Tim?
It's people licking ice cream.
It makes no sense.
Think about what gets you followers, and think about what people will do to get followers.
They know they will go to prison for this.
They know a woman has been arrested.
They're still doing it.
They're drinking sodas and putting them back.
Now, this one might not be in the U.S.
I'm not entirely sure.
But this chick is cracking open sodas, drinking them, and putting them back.
I tell you what.
I went to a store not that long ago, and I bought one of the Starbucks cold brews, and I opened it, and it didn't pop.
And I was like, whoa, it wasn't sealed.
What the... Somebody cracked it open and drank- taken a swig from it and put it back, and I almost drank it.
So this is really disgusting stuff, I gotta say, but to the point about left-wing identitarianism, the point I want to bring up, what you see here, this mob mentality, the arrogance, the ignorance, just the sheer ego, it's the same thing on social media that's driving everyone insane.
Social media is tearing apart the fabric of society.
I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but seriously.
When someone posts something like orange man bad, it gets a million retweets.
So what happens?
More people tweet orange man bad.
There was one guy who tweeted the other day something like, we literally have tanks in DC.
What's happening to this country should be obvious to everyone.
I'm like, that's what you're concerned about?
You're not concerned about Obama flying a drone in Yemen and blowing up a 16-year-old kid, which he did.
I'm not making that up.
He created what's called the disposition matrix, which is literally called the kill list by the New York Times.
The kill list.
And Obama signed off on a drone strike into a country we are not at war with to kill a 16-year-old American kid they claimed it was an accident.
And you weren't here to claim that we were facing the rise of fascism.
And that's why I think these people are full of it.
Not by all means.
Slam the president, fine.
But when you complain about some silly little tanks on flatbeds for a parade that just sat on the sidelines, I'm gonna have to say, they are posting this for clicks.
The same as these kids are tampering with food for clicks.
Look, people who know they can get arrested don't care.
They're going to do it anyway because they think they'll get away with it.
And the same people posted ridiculous political nonsense for brownie points.
Praising Antifa, for instance, and now having to delete all of those tweets.
Same game.
The bill came due.
With this, people are gonna start getting arrested, and then everyone's gonna be like, oh no, and they start deleting their posts.
With Antifa, for years, for a couple years, the media ran defense for these people, but then Andy Ngo got attacked, and the bill came due, and now people are panicking and deleting all their tweets.
I can't stand.
I cannot stand just ignorance, and I can't stand people who don't think for themselves.
Okay?
Do your own research.
Look into what this is.
Stop being a pawn and a puppet, and get your life sorted.
Period.
This stuff is disgusting.
I'm done.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
Different channel from this one.
I will see you there.
You may have heard that the United States won the Women's World Cup.
This is great news.
Congratulations to the soccer team.
You guys played really, really well.
And everybody in America is really, really happy.
But there is a controversy growing around the winnings.
Because apparently the women's soccer team isn't paid the same amount as the men.
And this is a really great example of how often social justice arguments are actually completely wrong.
And inverted, I guess the best way to put it is inverted, because it turns out women actually are paid more than men.
See, here's what they do.
They take the average, you know, game earnings per player of the men and the women, and then say, if the women are only making like three grand and the men are making five, therefore the men are making more.
However, when you actually break it down business to business, recognizing that they're two separate businesses, You realize the women are paid a higher percentage of revenue than the men are.
Like, it's... Okay, listen.
If I had a coffee shop, and there was another coffee shop across the street, and they're not the same business, and one shop makes more money, then yeah, they pay their employees more.
But in this instance, the women are getting paid a higher percentage But they want even more money, even though their company doesn't make it.
Well, let's read the story and break down what's actually going on.
This story about human events.
There should be equal pay for the World Cup.
That means paying men more.
Interesting, eh?
They say, the United States women's soccer team just won the FIFA Women's World Cup against the Netherlands.
The left was more ecstatic over this than anything, than they were during the 4th of July.
The crowd traded a USA chant for one saying equal pay.
The Soccer Equal Pay Controversy began making headlines in March when 28 of the U.S.
women's team sued the United States Soccer Federation over institutionalized gender discrimination.
The 28 include the team's leading players.
There is no pay gap in soccer, no doubt.
But to the dismay of social justice warriors, they have incorrectly identified the victim of the skewed pay.
It is in fact men who are not earning their fair share, comparatively.
So there is a pay gap.
But I'll say this.
Women's soccer and men's soccer.
Completely different businesses that bring in different amounts of money.
So what they're essentially saying is that even though women are making a higher percentage relative to the amount of revenue generated by the business, they want the men's team to effectively subsidize the women.
You know, essentially pay the women out of the earnings, the revenue, from the men.
That's also not fair.
Plain and simple.
Let's read on.
Leading up to the Women's World Cup, and especially now that the U.S.
has secured the win, the pay gap conversation has snowballed into one that grabbed the attention of Congress.
Over 50 legislators signed a letter addressing this supposed institutionalized gender discrimination.
Amongst the legislators is Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who stated,
the women make just as much of a sacrifice, put in just as much mental and physical energy,
absorb just as much risk of injury as the men who play for our national team. Yet,
when you break it down, a women's national soccer team player earns a base salary of $3,600 per game,
while a men's player earns $5,000. Now, I want to stop here, because I heard that the men actually play more games.
I don't know if it's true, I'm not a big soccer fan, but one of the things that was going around is that men play like three of five and women play like two of three or something like that, I don't know, but that essentially men will play more games and thus not only are men getting paid less relative to the revenue of men's soccer, but they're actually doing more work.
So that's really unfair, right?
Well, let's read on.
They say, The Huffington Post threw out some numbers commonly used to propagate the pay gap myth.
They reported U.S.
soccer's women's salary are approximately $30,000 less than the men, in addition to earning smaller bonuses.
They say, U.S.
soccer awarded the men's team a $5.4 million bonus after it lost in the round of 16 at the 2014 World Cup.
It awarded the women's team $1.7 million when it won the entire 2015 tournament.
But when you figure revenue into the equation, the money that drives the financial reward, the math does not add up.
They say.
Forbes' Mike Ozanian helped set the record straight when the lawsuit was first filed.
Referencing the Women's World Cup in Vancouver four years ago, Ozanian said, the Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%.
2010 Men's World Cup in South Africa made almost 4 billion, of which 9% went to the
players.
In yesterday's World Cup, participating teams received over 22% of the revenue, whereas
men only received 7% of the revenue in last year's World Cup in Russia.
Women are actually earning over three times more than men.
But I will tell you what, when you don't understand basic math, they don't seem to realize, they
look at the simple number, hey, I got paid $10 today and that guy got paid $20.
The job is different, okay?
If your company sells chocolate ice cream, and my company sells asparagus ice cream, and you make more money, what do you expect?
I can't go and complain, it's not fair, they're making more money than me.
Well, dude, they're selling a product that people like more than yours.
What are you going to do about it?
Sorry, there's nothing you can do about it.
Could you imagine if we actually ran businesses that way?
Like, listen, we know that you're a chocolate ice cream shop, but we're going to take a portion of your revenue and give it to the asparagus ice cream shop because we feel they should be allowed to make more money.
If people don't want it, and they don't buy it, the money's not there.
However, in the end, we can see that the women are getting a higher percentage based on their revenue.
So yes, if I'm selling a crappier product... I shouldn't say crappier product.
Look, great athletes.
Women's team.
Great job, okay?
But less people want to go see it.
What are you going to do about it?
If people don't want to give you money, then there's less money to go around.
But even still, they're paying you a higher percentage.
I think they're doing alright, but let's read on.
They write, because the Men's World Cup made north of $6 billion, that 7% equates to $400 million for the teams.
The Women's World Cup earned around $130 million, so the 22% is only $30 million.
They're getting 22% versus Men's 7.
earned around $130 million, so the 22% is only $30 million.
They're getting 22% versus men's seven.
Mind-blowing, huh?
Not only has the wrong victim of skewed pay been identified, but the wrong motive as well.
The gap has nothing to do with institutionalized gender discrimination, and everything to do with fewer people wanting to watch women's soccer.
An LA Times opinion editorial said, The U.S.
women's soccer team outperforms the men's team when it comes to victories, domestic viewership, name recognition, and general awesomeness.
I don't know what that means.
Its members are stars, consistently ranked number one in the world, and they make millions of dollars for their employer, the U.S.
Soccer Federation.
Yes, the U.S.
women's soccer team is ranked number one internationally, in women's sports, but it still doesn't hold a candle to the men.
The Men's World Cup in Russia generated over 45 times the revenue of yesterday's Women's World Cup.
Why so much more?
Have you ever watched women's soccer?
So let's go back a second and point this out.
They outperform the men's team in terms of victories.
Doesn't change the fact that internationally less money goes into women's soccer.
They are winning more against women's teams, but it doesn't mean there's any more money.
So that's not outperforming, it's just, I guess you could call it outperforming, but it doesn't translate to actually having the money to pay them.
In fact, I'm pretty sure if they paid the men the same amount, the company wouldn't work.
There would be no business because the men are getting 9% or what is it 7% of the net
revenue generated.
If you were going to give that same percentage or that same flat number, that's what more
that's, listen, plain and simple.
Let me just, the men's team, the men's world cup made $6 billion.
Okay.
And the men got $400 million.
The Women's World Cup earned nearly 30% of what the men's actually got paid.
Meaning, if you were gonna take $400 million and give it to the teams, you're negative!
You're negative $270 million, okay?
The money doesn't even exist to pay women the same amount.
So they're going to say a team entirely made up of adolescent males beat the U.S.
women's national team 5-2 in a scrimmage that was supposed to tune up the women's team prior to their game against Russia two years back.
People opt to watch the fast-paced, more aggressive gender.
It is simply more exciting.
Until this changes, which it won't, the tournament revenue imbalance is not going away.
Equal pay means paying men and women the same percentage of their respective tournament's revenue.
Men deserve to compete for the same percentage of revenue they generate as women do.
To fix the pay gap, we either need to pay men more or women less.
Plain and simple.
I will say it, in no uncertain terms, because there's gonna be a ton of arguing and the left is gonna be like, equal pay!
Okay, plain and simple.
The amount of money paid to men that you want is almost three times, it's just over three times the amount the entire Women's World Cup earned, period!
Okay?
There is quite literally not enough money to actually pay them in the same flat rate, but I'll tell you this, to end this video, women receive a higher percentage of revenue than men do.
We're done.
I got more segments coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you shortly.
There's a new book coming out about Brett Kavanaugh and issues around Brett Kavanaugh.
So you may remember when Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of like 30 years ago throwing her on her bed and groping her.
Many people believed she was lying.
We're now learning.
One of those people?
Melania Trump.
Now, of course, Melania Trump is gonna, you know... Look, someone on the right is gonna defend the right.
Fine.
But I find it very interesting that it's so... Look, it's so obvious Blasey Ford's lying.
Like, I don't even know how to explain it, okay?
If you can't see her as a liar, then we live in different realities.
We really do.
Melania Trump apparently whispered to Donald, you know she's lying, right?
What did she say?
She said, you know that woman is lying, don't you?
Yes.
Her story made no sense.
At the very least, she's unwell and she believes nonsense.
But she lied full stop, okay?
She lied.
She said she was like afraid to fly or something.
And then she was actually questioned, but don't you fly regularly?
She's like, yes.
Lie.
It's a disgusting game they play, but outside of this, There's actually a big update here.
Trump team held back dirt on Kavanaugh accuser, according to the book.
So it's really interesting.
I'll briefly go through this, but I want to talk about this other issue.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, YouTube no longer suggests my videos, and many others, so I rely on you to share the videos if you think they're worth listening to.
And I want to clarify for a lot of people who don't seem to understand.
Recommendations and suggestions are two different things.
What happened is YouTube is now censoring videos that appear after other videos.
So my videos are rarely now appearing in the sidebar and in the autoplay.
That's what suggestion means.
So if you want someone to watch his videos, you can share it.
Plain and simple.
Let's read.
They go on to say that it's Molly Hemingway, and who wrote it?
They say Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino, whose book comes out Tuesday, used the first lady as an example of an underreported storyline in the news media that millions of other women and men didn't believe Blasey Ford, the author said.
She had no evidence.
She didn't know where she was.
Come on.
The accuser gave tearful testimony amid Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearings about assault that she had suffered at the hands of the future justice when they were teenagers.
And so there's a quote here, her credibility, if anything, was viewed as stronger because of her
lapses in memory and because the otter parts of the story, such as her description of how she came
to tell her husband about the assault. The authors wrote of how Blasey Ford's testimony was perceived.
Despite the holes in her story, the media clung to these details, but Melania didn't buy it,
according to the book. Reached out for comment Sunday, the White House declined to comment on the first lady quote.
So how did they get the quote?
I wonder.
How do they know she said that?
Did Trump or Melania tell Hemingway or Severino?
That's interesting.
So let's just jump to the next story here that the Trump team was holding back dirt.
Well, they won.
They didn't need the dirt, but it probably would have been more damaging to use because they would have been smeared.
But let's see what happened.
According to Fox News, they say at the height of the furor over Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, the media were filled with speculation.
that the Supreme Court nominee might withdraw from the nomination battle.
But President Trump and his top aides wanted to fight back in the press and on the Hill,
especially after Kavanaugh showed White House Counsel Don McGahn his decades-old calendars
showing he hadn't attended a party where Ford alleged the assault had taken place.
In fact, according to a new book, Trump realized the nomination might fail in the latest MeToo
frenzy, but if so, they wanted to go down fighting.
The behind-the-scenes strategy is revealed in Justice on Trial, The Kavanaugh Confirmation, and The Future of the Supreme Court.
The authors are Molly Hemingway, a Fox News contributor and senior editor at The Federalist, and Kerry Severino, we know that.
The book describes a central conundrum for the judge and his advocates, which is that the team understood that any criticism of Ford would be treated as a smear and depicted as victim shaming.
That's exactly what I was saying.
It may have actually hurt if they try and used any political tactic.
Although some of those who knew Ford shared details about her behavior in high school and college that were dramatically at odds with her presentation in the media, the book says that the Kavanaugh team decided to focus on his record and the damage to his reputation.
The book touches on some of those alleged details involving Ford.
The authors are extremely critical of the coverage of the nomination drama, including a New York Times and Washington Post, including THE New York Times and Washington Post, and blame in part the media's irrational personal dislike, personal dislike of Kavanaugh.
That was, that was insane if you guys remember how nuts it was.
He was near tears talking about how he's being smeared and lied about and he's a guy who's already a federal judge who already went through background checks and all of a sudden these ridiculous stories emerge and the media tries to destroy him with nonsense stories that made no sense and had no evidence.
It's like rationality went out the window and a bunch of crazy people We're taking charge, but I'll tell you this.
I don't think they're crazy.
I think they knew exactly what they were doing.
They knew they were lies.
They knew they were smears.
Several of the stories changed.
Some people actually publicly recanted their stories and apologized.
And now we have Justice Brett Kavanaugh, period.
Associate Justice, I believe.
But it seemed so obvious at the time.
And what's crazy to me is I can look at Kavanaugh and his record on the Fourth Amendment, and particularly like spying and technology, and think he's got a regressive view, or maybe not a regressive view, but an uninformed view of technology.
And how the Constitution should deal with it.
I disagree with him.
I'm not a judge, though, so sure, I'll defer to the expert, but I disagree.
It doesn't matter if I agree with or like the guy.
It matters do we have a cohesive functioning system.
Think about this, okay?
Over time, there will be left-leaning judges, right-leaning judges, liberal, conservative, whatever.
The only thing that matters, will the system work?
We need a system in place that functions in a fair and balanced way so that we can make sure new judges come in and the will of the people is upheld.
An election was had.
Donald Trump won.
Donald Trump then gets to choose his nominee.
Then, there you go.
You got a real reason not to confirm them?
By all means, let's hear it.
What do they do?
They try and break the system to stop the justice from getting in, with lies and smears.
And that, to me, is truly terrifying.
You want to talk about civil conflict?
Let's talk about the breakdown in our trusted institutions.
People don't trust them anymore.
And I look at the Democrats, and I look at the weird smears that made no sense, with no evidence, that were actually entertained.
By all means, hold them accountable if they've done wrong.
But 30-year-old accusations, people talking about spiked punch and gangbang parties and like, you know, it's nonsense, okay?
Period.
Let's read a little bit more.
They particularly unload on the New Yorker for publishing the allegations of Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, who claimed that he exposed himself to her and caused her to touch his, we'll call it junk.
The magazine was unable to find a corroborating witness, acknowledging that Ramirez had significant gaps in her memories, and that it took her six days of assessing those memories and consulting with a lawyer to name Kavanaugh.
He flatly denied the allegations.
Come on, it's fake and we all know it.
Soon afterward, Avenatti, the lawyer now facing criminal charges in three cases, produced an affidavit from another accuser, Julie Swetnick.
She claimed to have attended more than 10 house parties in the early 1980s at which Kavanaugh and a friend became inebriated and assaulted women and got them drunk.
I'm not even gonna read the next- It's just- It's just such a ridiculous- It's like somebody was sitting in a Hollywood room, like, writing a script for a nonsense story to make it as shocking as possible.
You expect me to believe that Kavanaugh and his buddies were drugging the punch and having these multiple men-on-women parties and no one knew about it?
Please.
They say.
Hemingway and Severino called the allegations obviously ridiculous, saying, They gave this guy background checks before and this stuff didn't come up.
decades, much less a man who went on to hold high-profile positions in the White House
and then became a judge on the second most prominent federal court.
Kavanaugh said the charges were from the Twilight Zone.
They gave this guy background checks before and this stuff didn't come up.
It's ridiculous.
When NBC's Kate Snow interviewed Swetnick, the network acknowledged that some of her
comments off-camera differ from her written statements.
So we get it.
You know, we're rehashing old news here.
I don't think it's important.
But what's interesting is that they withheld the dirt.
Okay, so that's the big takeaway.
Melania Trump didn't believe it.
Of course she didn't.
I'm going to say this.
Sane, rational people did not believe that, period.
The only people who believed it are people who are blinded by tribalism, and the other people who claim to believe it are lying because they wanted to win.
They don't want Trump getting these people on a Supreme Court.
Why?
A lot of states right now are challenging Roe v. Wade.
They're putting up laws that would fly in the face of Roe v. Wade.
And with a very conservative court, there is a concern that it will be challenged, and the opinion will change, and Roe v. Wade will not be established anymore.
It'll be overturned.
However, My understanding is that Kavanaugh said it's established precedent at this point, and they're not going to change it.
We're not going to go back and rehash this.
So it's likely many of these states will lose.
In fact, Kavanaugh has been siding with the liberal court on many prominent issues, but still they drag him, still they hate him.
I think there's a lot to criticize him for.
Well, actually I'll take that back.
There's a bit to criticize him for.
And for me, it just goes into the FISA court issue, which I'm not going to rehash.
But I disagree with his opinions.
That's about it.
He won.
Trump is the president.
Trump picks.
And this attack was insane.
But you know what?
Final thought.
The key point here is that they couldn't use their political dirt because it would have backfired.
So they made the right choice.
I mean, they shouldn't be using it, period.
We should play fair, but unfortunately, in this instance, you've got Democrats not playing fair.
Anyway, stick around.
I've got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Ah, you poor innocent fools browsing the news as if you're going to get an honest take on what's actually happening.
But of course, it's all fake news.
Even the fake news about fake news is fake news.
I'm actually joking a little bit because check this out.
You read the headline of this video, you know where I'm going.
Bloomberg wrote this story.
How Facebook fought fake news about Facebook.
Polling data and secretive projects Storm Chaser and Night's Watch helped the social media giant track public sentiment and respond to it.
I was kidding about this being fake news.
The point is, they actually dropped the lead here.
The bigger story is that Mark Zuckerberg was trying to shut down memes claiming that he was an alien.
No, I really don't believe that the average person, a regular human being, believes Mark Zuckerberg is an alien.
We just like to make fun of him and call him an alien or a robot.
Because he's a weird guy.
He's a weird guy who runs a massive company that does evil things.
So yeah, Mark Zuckerberg is an alien.
And apparently... So here's the joke I was making.
Bloomberg runs a very serious story saying, you know, Facebook is tracking public sentiment and they're trying to shut down fake news.
But the Daily Mail goes right for what you know we really care about.
Mark Zuckerberg didn't like memes that claimed he was an alien.
So let's read this story because it's funnier.
They say, a new report reveals that Facebook is particularly concerned with one victim of misinformation on its platform itself.
As detailed by Bloomberg, several staffers at the company say Facebook used a tandem of tools to track down and kill hoaxes on Facebook and its encrypted messaging app WhatsApp that were thought to be spreading misinformation about the company.
Is it misinformation if someone calls Mark Zuckerberg an alien?
Seriously?
If they really were shutting down memes insulting Mark Zuckerberg, I think what we can really see here is that Mark Zuckerberg is an authoritarian weirdo.
And he doesn't like it when people make fun of him.
Imagine what would happen if someone like Mark Zuckerberg had more power or governmental power.
Heaven help us.
So you can recognize how bad it is that he runs a massive section of the ad market online and a place for massive public discourse.
He doesn't like people making fun of them, and they're actively trying to remove memes.
Well, you know where this goes.
So let's read on, but before we do...
Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
And I have to do the promotion because my videos aren't in the suggested feed anymore.
They get recommended, it's different.
But YouTube doesn't suggest them, and I kid you not, I made a video about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, and it was demonetized, and I have no idea why.
So you have to imagine Silicon Valley, they like each other, and as I routinely say that regulation is probably a good thing, they don't like what I have to say.
Especially when I make fun of Mark Zuckerberg for being an alien.
Now whether or not Facebook can make Google do anything, I don't know, but Mark Zuckerberg is an alien, so let's read on.
They say, according to the anonymous sources interviewed in the report, The tools, called Stormchaser and Night's Watch, named after a fictional group in Game of Thrones, were used to monitor an array of hoaxes in real time.
That misinformation included popular copy and paste posts that alleged Facebook would start charging users and other unfounded campaigns accusing the company of tapping users' microphones to spy on them.
You know, let's address this real quick.
This is scary, okay?
Facebook doesn't listen to your conversations.
They don't.
A lot of people can't believe that.
Because what happens is, you know, you'll talk about, say, like, I don't know, Ben and Jerry's.
Ice cream!
We all love half-baked, right?
It's got brownie bits and what, cookie dough?
And then all of a sudden, you're on Facebook, and then boom!
There's an ad for Ben & Jerry's.
And you think, how did they know?
I just mentioned to my friend.
Or there's other things, like, you'll be listening to the music.
Spotify, maybe.
And you'll talk to your friend like, hey, what's that one song?
I can't remember the name of it.
And then all of a sudden, boom!
Spotify plays it.
And then everyone's like, dude, they're spying on us.
No.
It's worse than that, okay?
It's worse than that.
The algorithms can predict your behavior so well that when you get an idea, the algorithm already knew.
Period.
Now, of course, they're also tracking your location so that, you know, maybe you walk past a Ben & Jerry's or you're walking around a Walmart.
But yes.
Apparently, I read a story that Facebook knows when you gotta poop.
I'm not exaggerating.
They know when you have to poop.
They can predict that.
Isn't that crazy?
Let's read on.
The company also used the tools to track trends like the Delete Facebook movement and even monitor inane memes such as those positing CEO Mark Zuckerberg was actually an alien.
This is why, this is the only reason I wanted to do this story, because I wanted to say that Mark Zuckerberg is an
alien over and over and over again.
And I wanted you to hear it.
Depending on the hoax in question, Facebook would sometimes take steps to debunk information by serving notices to
customers who had shared or engaged with the posts.
No!
No!
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Are they actually saying that there are circumstances where Facebook would warn people to stop claiming Mark Zuckerberg
was an alien?
Tools to monitor and track rumors and misinformation about the company coincide with a broader internal struggle to
counter other misinformation being spread via their platform.
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a statement that said,
In 2016, Facebook played a central role in spreading Russia-generated misinformation meant to influence the U.S.
presidential election.
Yes, but it was so little.
It was like less than $100,000 worth of ad buys.
It was nothing.
It was nonsense.
There was like, what, like $2 billion spent in campaigning?
Please, can we not talk about the nonsense?
They go on to say, As a result of their role in the misinformation campaign, in addition to the improper access of 50 million users' personal data by political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, sources in Bloomberg say the company internally amped up its efforts to restore Facebook's image.
Zuckerberg testified before Congress last year regarding the company's role in both of the scandals that led up to and continued after the 2016 election.
According to Bloomberg, the Night's Watch tool in particular was used to assess how news—real news, not misinformation—regarding Facebook's spread on the platform and WhatsApp.
A spokesperson for Facebook responded to Bloomberg's report stating that the tools in question weren't used to combat fake news, but were designed to intervene in cases of product confusion.
Full stop.
Facebook developed programs not to combat misinformation, but to protect and track its image.
So you may be sitting there laughing, saying, Tim, haha, it's so funny that Mark Zuckerberg is an alien, that the memes claimed he was an alien.
Why?
What a silly thing Facebook would do to track that meme.
It actually falls perfectly in line with what they were actually doing.
Trying to track their own reputation on their own platform.
So yes, even if people were mocking Zuckerberg and calling him an alien or a robot, there's one meme where it makes his skin look pale and his eyes yellow like data from Star Trek The Next Generation, an android.
It falls in line with them simply trying to protect their brand.
I can't, you know, is that so bad?
Like, businesses want to do this?
I will say it's rather creepy that there's the potential.
I'm not saying they did, but they do say it potentially happened that Facebook instructed people to debunk information and send notices to consumers.
Oh no, it's opening Facebook's up.
Send notices to consumers about them calling Mark Zuckerberg an alien.
Mark Zuckerberg's an alien.
Let's read on.
The spokesperson added that Storm Chaser was discontinued in mid-2018 but did not elaborate on why.
A request for comment by Daily Mail had not been responded to before time of publication.
Facebook still continues to track its own perception on the platform through the use
of its public polling to track both the company and Zuckerberg's favorability within the company's
Dude, we're gonna hate him and we're always gonna hate him, period.
He's a creepy dude who is an authoritarian running a giant creepy platform that does
creepy things.
And he's an alien.
He's a robot.
The polling serves as the basis for the company communications and marketing teams who have
have worked to position Facebook as a privacy-focused platform in recent months.
Earlier this year, Zuckerberg stood before a crowd at a developers conference to announce that the future is private and outline a host of new privacy and safety-centric features and goals.
No, I'll tell you what Zuckerberg is doing.
He's preempting the regulation.
Because of all the breaches of privacy, of personal data, the selling of private data, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Zuckerberg knows he looks bad.
They tracked their reputation, found that people were concerned about privacy, they're bleeding users, young users, and so they knew they had to make a change and a PR change if they were going to survive in the long run.
America Online used to dominate the internet.
It still exists in some form or another.
I don't know what they do.
They still exist as a company.
It's like they never went out of business, but they used to be the king.
Now they're not.
Now they're just relegated to behind-the-scenes, small, much less revenue.
Zuckerberg doesn't want that to happen.
So he will track everything, even if it's someone simply saying Mark Zuckerberg is an alien.
He wants to know what people are saying about him.
I assure you, this video is going to be tracked by them.
Well, okay, that's my assumption.
But because the title of the video is going to be something negative about Zuckerberg calling him an alien, people are going to share it on Facebook, and they're going to track it.
And then they're going to get mad at me.
So anyway, look, I don't think it's weird that a company wants to track what people think about it.
I do think it's weird that he's concerned about people insulting him.
And I think it's weird, I think it's dangerous that they're going to use their ability to preempt people's opinions and what they want, like I was mentioning with the tracking, to protect them from regulation and antitrust.
So, Facebook is awful.
I don't really use it anymore for the most part.
Follow me on MINDS, M-I-N-D-S dot com slash Timcast, because it's better.
