Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib Barred From Entering Israel Following Pressure From Trump
Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib Barred From Entering Israel Following Pressure From Trump Over their support for the BDS Movement.It was reported initially that the far left progressive Democrats would be allowed to enter Israel but following pressure from President Trump it seems that the interior minister of Israel has refused entry. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement explaining the decision and expressing support.Israel has a law that allows the country to deny entry to anyone who supporters the Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions movement as it causes harm to Israel.They criticized Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib for negating their 'right of existence.'Recently Israel welcomed 70 democratic and republican members of congress but singled out the far left democrats for writing 'palestine' as their destination and planning to meet Pro BDS individuals.Donald Trump tweeted that Israel would appear weak if it allowed them in and specifically criticized the two as hating Israel and the Jewish people.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Israel is blocking Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from entering the country over their support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, also known as BDS.
Now, interestingly, some people have said Israel was actually going to allow them in up until pressure from Donald Trump.
And sure enough, early this morning, Trump did tweet out that Israel would be weak if they allowed Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar to enter the country.
My understanding as of now, and we'll go through the story, is that Netanyahu is saying they will be allowed in for humanitarian reasons to visit family if that's what they choose to do.
But essentially, there's concern that they're going to come to Israel to try and further the BDS movement.
Now here's the thing.
This debate has been ongoing between the left and the right and everybody else as to whether or not these women are anti-Semites or just critical of Israel.
I have certainly talked with people who say it is not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel.
For that, I agree.
Based on the statements made by Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, I think they have gotten really close to being anti-Semitic in their statements, but haven't actually made overtly anti-Semitic comments.
However, based on the company they keep and the people they support, I really do believe they don't like Jewish people.
It goes beyond Israel, okay, and that's the big argument.
They're criticizing Israel, sure, but there's a lot to dig through, and one of the big criticisms is, why always Israel?
And that's a legitimate question.
I gotta say, one of the things that annoys me more than anything else in the world are these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that get pushed by people like Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib, and then they dance around the issue by saying, it's just Israel, but then you look at who they hang out with and the conspiracy theories they push, And I think what they're actually doing is targeting Israel specifically because it's the only real state that Jewish people have.
But my opinion, that's just my opinion, let's read the news and I'll show you some of the legitimate criticisms and how I feel that, you know, I actually think they're anti-Semites.
Now, the other question is whether or not they should have been barred.
In that regard, I think honestly the answer is no.
They should be allowed to come in.
Look, Israel is one of the freest places in the Middle East.
I've been there.
It was actually quite beautiful.
There's a lot to criticize Israel for, and I do think it's fair to point these things out.
I think you can absolutely criticize some of the things Israel has done, and many conservatives and actually pro-Israel people do criticize them.
However, You know, that being said, I think barring them sends the opposite message.
But let's figure out what's going on and why, and we'll start with a story from NBC News, and then I want to go through the history of some of the things they've said and why I really do believe.
You know, outside of Israel, whatever the criticism is, I think they're anti-Semites.
I said it a million times, but let's read the news.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, The best thing you can do is just share this video.
Look, this is the big trending story right now.
Israel, antisemitism, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar.
And I know I will be likely demonetized and deranked for talking about it, even though it is the number one U.S.
trend right now.
Everyone wants to know what's going on, and I'm gonna go through it.
And I'm gonna get punished for it.
So, you know, look, if you like the content I do, I need your help to overcome that deranking by sharing this video if you really do think it's important.
But let's read.
They say Israel will block Muslim reps Omar and Tlaib from visiting the country, Deputy Foreign Minister says.
The Democratic Congresswomen have voiced their support for the pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment, sanctions movement known as BDS.
Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister said Thursday on Israeli state radio that the country had decided not to allow Tlaib and Omar to enter.
The Muslim-American lawmakers had been expected to arrive on Sunday.
We will not permit someone who negates our right of existence in the world to enter the country, said Deputy Foreign Minister Zippy Hatavoli.
As a matter of principle, this decision is very correct.
Omar and Tlaib have previously voiced their support for BDS.
Under Israeli law, supporters of the movement can be denied entry into Israel.
So, look, I'm of the opinion that Israel should allow them in simply to prove the point about freedom of speech and true freedom.
But I understand, and I believe Israel has a right to deny whoever they want.
I also think this is kind of a stain on the Democratic Party.
Look, the U.S.
has always been very strong allies with Israel.
It's a very important ally in the Middle East.
And the Democrats overwhelmingly support Israel as well as the Republicans.
By all means.
Criticize Israel all day and night.
Criticize the establishment Democrats.
Criticize the Republicans for their support.
The point is, I say it's a stain, not necessarily trying to say the Democrats are worse off for it.
I'm just saying the Democrats who traditionally have been in favor of this are now starting to show a group.
So maybe stain is the right word, but the point I'm trying to say is there is now a growing faction in the Democrats who are not pro-Israel, who are not interested in being allies, are actually interested in BDS, which diminishes the power of.
Let's read on.
Omar has also been accused by House Democratic leaders for promoting anti-Semitic tropes.
That's probably where the stain is better placed.
And in February, she was forced to apologize for controversial tweets about the pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
In one tweet, she said, money was driving U.S.
lawmakers to defend Israel and that AIPAC, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, was paying politicians to support Israel.
Last month, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, told the Times of Israel that the country would not block their trip.
Out of respect for the U.S.
Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America, we would not deny entry to any member of Congress into Israel.
I believe that was – I think that's the more appropriate response.
I don't think you look good by blocking them.
But perhaps the goal is to truly send a message, of which the Prime Minister of Israel has done.
So in a statement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has written on Twitter, no country in the world respects America and the American Congress more than the State of Israel.
As a free and vibrant democracy, Israel is open to critics and criticism, with one exception.
Israeli law prohibits the entry into Israel of those who call for and work to impose boycotts on Israel, as do other democracies that prohibit the entry of people who seek to harm the country.
In fact, in the past, the U.S.
did this to an Israeli member of the Nesset, as well as to other public figures from around the world.
Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting the legislation of boycotts against Israel in the American Congress.
Only a few days ago, We received their itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel's legitimacy.
For instance, they listed the destination of their trip as Palestine and not Israel.
And unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress who have visited Israel, they did not request to meet any Israeli officials, either from the government or the opposition.
A week ago, Israel warmly welcomed some 70 Democratic and Republican members of Congress who expressed broad bipartisan support for Israel, which was also demonstrated a month ago in a resounding bipartisan vote against BDS in Congress.
However, the itinerary of the two congressmen reveals the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase incitement against us.
In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is MIFTA, which is an avid supporter of BDS and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel.
The Minister of Interior has decided not to allow their visit and I, as Prime Minister, support this decision.
Nonetheless, if Congresswoman Tlaib submits a humanitarian request to visit her relatives, the Minister of Interior has announced that he will consider her request on the condition that she pledges not to act to promote boycotts against Israel during her visit.
Now, what's interesting here is that it's actually being alleged that Trump's pressure is what triggered the response from Israel.
Now, whether or not that's true, I can't necessarily say.
It's certainly been pushed by Haritz.
There has been a reporter from The Telegraph saying, That Netanyahu was prepared to let them in a week ago, but changed his mind under pressure from Trump.
I would say that's not out of the question, and that's actually been reported by a couple different sources, so perhaps, but I don't think it's necessarily definitive.
However, it is true that Trump sent out a very strong message this morning saying, It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep Omar and Rep Tlaib to visit.
They hate Israel and all Jewish people, and there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds.
Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office.
They are a disgrace.
From this tweet, I have seen many people on the left challenge the notion that they don't like Jewish people.
I am of the opinion that they really don't like, for the most part, Jewish people.
I don't think it's as cut and dry as to say that if they find out someone's Jewish, they'll just hate them outright.
But I do believe they are cut from the cloth of those who blame some kind of Jewish conspiracy and are not very, I don't know, trusting of somebody who might be Jewish.
I don't want to say that, you know, I think it's important to point out the shades of gray and the nuance in any kind of ideology or belief system, but Omar and Tlaib are associated with, you know, Linda Sarsour and the Women's March, and we have seen the reporting that they are overtly anti-Semitic.
Or I shouldn't necessarily say overtly, but subvertly, right?
You know, behind the scenes, they espouse these conspiracies, according to the outlets, and I want to go through some of the things here, so let's just jump right in.
We have this story from January 7th.
Rashida Tlaib was accused of an anti-Semitic slur days after her profane anti-Trump tirade.
Now I will stress, she's accused of an anti-Semitic slur, and there's two points to be made.
She said, they forgot what country they represent.
Many people then said this was an allegedly the dual loyalty anti-semitic trope that people that Jewish people don't have allegiance to the countries they're actually in.
Some people on the left did not interpret it that way, simply saying that they were paying too much allegiance to Israel.
But I will stress these two points.
The first being, if you want to interpret that as antisemitic, that's your opinion.
And this leads me to what the second point is.
Although I understand there are people on the left who don't think she was being antisemitic by saying that, the fact is, many people did, okay?
And you don't choose how someone else interprets what you say, to put it simply.
And simply by, you know, being accused by many people on the left and people in the Jewish community of having played into that trope, you will see a pushback from people in Israel about this.
Okay?
Did she apologize?
I'm not entirely sure.
So we'll move on from this.
The main point in this one particular instance is the accusation.
But more importantly, The ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, said with regards to Rashida Tlaib's comments, three things can be true at the same time.
When any public figure makes comments about deeply sensitive issues, such as the horrors of the Holocaust, that are inaccurate or misinterpreted, it's appropriate to clarify correct their remarks.
This is in relating to another statement made by Tlaib, where she said she loves the fact that her Palestinian ancestors were part of an attempt to create a safe haven for Jews after the Holocaust, although the role was forced on them at the price of their dignity, which is insane to me, at least.
You know what, man?
Look, I get it.
I'm not trying to play into any Israel versus Palestine.
I know very little about the whole thing, but come on, man.
You know, at a certain point, you've got... Actually, I shouldn't say come on.
Let me say come on after I go through all of these different stories.
Even the ADL is calling them out, and they are far left.
They are not fans of conservatives or the right or Trump, and they are saying this.
He said, Palestinians did not provide safe haven to Jews post-Holocaust.
They opposed the entry of Jews to mandate Arab Palestine and opposed the creation of
a Jewish state alongside an Arab state.
Nevertheless, it is not acceptable for elected leaders to weaponize others' comments about
Jews or the Holocaust for political gain.
To move forward in fighting anti-Semitism, we must end the blame game.
Spot on!
I think that was a fantastic statement, which I agree.
I think the ADL actually does a good job in many areas.
I'm critical of a lot of what they said, but I think that's a fairly spot-on statement, and I think it's important for everybody not to play the blame game.
Although I do recognize, and I'm kind of playing it now, I'm mainly trying to make a point that they have a history of dancing this line.
And so, look, man, I can't be surprised that Israel's gonna say you can't come in.
Now, they've definitely supported BDS, that's for sure.
But take a look at this story from Capital Research.
This is from Ashley Rae Goldenberg.
Rashida Tlaib follows anti-semitic Instagram page, and I'm gonna show this, and I know I'm gonna get in trouble on YouTube for doing so, but you have to look at this stuff.
Rashida Tlaib was following this, okay?
It's the Israeli flag with a rat with a star on it.
This is what she followed.
Now, I'm not gonna blame her necessarily for who she followed, but I do want to point out, you know, Look, I follow a lot of people who are not good people, and she did too, and so, again, I'm not going to blame her for the posts they made, but grains of sand in a heap.
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make.
So they say, Tlaib's official verified Instagram account, which follows under a thousand users, is following an account called FreePalestine1948, a reference to the establishment of Israel.
The Instagram page appears to post multiple times per day, while Tlaib does follow other pages that mention Palestine in their names.
Those pages are private.
Tlaib does not appear to follow any obviously pro-Israel pages.
So here's the thing.
For journalists and people in politics, I can understand why you would follow certain pages.
The challenge here is the grains of sand making a heap.
While I certainly don't think Rashida Tlaib should be faulted for following a different page that did this, with her rhetoric in the past, it's not good for the optics.
And at a certain point, you know, look, you've got to be aware of what you're supporting or following.
I don't want to say she's supporting this, but I just mean in general.
I will stress, some people have highlighted the friends on Facebook of some of these people, these far-left Democrats, who are overtly anti-Semitic.
So this story was carried also by the Washington Free Beacon, but I do think it's fair to push back a little bit and say, just because she's following them doesn't mean very much.
I certainly follow far-right and far-left accounts.
I understand.
It's hard to say.
I don't want to blame someone for following a different account, but I do think it would be... I don't know.
Maybe condemn it.
I don't know what to say, but I will push back a little bit.
There is a lot of criticism of her for following an account.
Take it for what you will.
Let's move on and talk a little bit about Ilhan Omar.
So, I just pulled up her Wikipedia page, and I'm not going to go through everything she says, but I do want to highlight one of the statements from Omar that I think crossed the line into anti-Semitism.
While Omar has said many things that have been criticized for either being close to, or, you know, like, the left has said she's just anti-Israel, and the Demo—actually, I shouldn't say the left, but it's, like, progressives.
The Democrats and the Republicans have criticized her, but it's this one particular tweet in 2012
where she wrote, Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the
evil doings of Israel. This is completely anti-Israel.
However, the comment, particularly the notion that Israel had, quote, hypnotized the world, was criticized as drawing on anti-Semitic tropes.
The New York Times columnist Barry Weiss wrote that Omar's statement tied into a millennia-old conspiracy theory of Jews as the hypnotic conspirator.
When asked in an interview how she would respond to American Jews who found the remark offensive, Omar replied, After reading Weiss's commentary, Omar apologized for not disavowing the antisemitic trope I unknowingly used.
are addressing what was happening during the Gaza war, and I'm clearly speaking about the
way Israeli regime was conducting itself in that war.
After reading Weiss's commentary, Omar apologized for not disavowing the anti-Semitic trope
I unknowingly used.
Unknowingly.
I'll take her at her word, but in my opinion, I lean towards I really don't believe it.
I really, really don't.
And I'll tell you why.
From Legal Insurrection, hours after joining the Congressional Black Jewish Caucus, Ilhan Omar expresses support for Linda Sarsour.
Linda Sarsour has been, you know, she is one of the leaders of the Women's March, and look, the stories coming out about the Women's March and the things they've said and believed are insane.
Linda Sarsour and the other people in the Women's March, and the other people who associate with these progressive Democrats, They are very much like the New York Times and Talent Magazine have shown them or has accused them of pushing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and they even have statements where they talked about how the slave trade and these other Jewish conspiracies.
So take a look at this.
The Jerusalem Post has said Linda Sarsour whitewashes Rep.
Ilhan Omar's anti-Semitism stand with us.
Sarsour also excused Omar's anti-Semitic comments because Omar is Somalian born and wouldn't have known better.
So Linda Sarsour has absolutely come to the defense.
We also have this story where Let me just read this.
This is the Women's March story from the New York Times.
She said she was told by one of the march leaders that, quote, we really couldn't center Jewish women in this or we might turn off groups like Black Lives Matter.
While Black Lives Matter is a diffuse movement, some activists have issued statements expressing solidarity with Palestinians under Israeli occupation.
At one point, Ms.
Rubel said she asked about the security for the march and was told by the leaders that the Nation of Islam would be providing it.
They also go on to mention, I think it's up closer to the top, where there's a reference to Farrakhan as, she said apparently he's like a goat, right?
Which means, here we go, check it out.
Ms.
Mallory, I believe this is Tamika Mallory, who is now co-president of the Women's March Group, has been criticized for attending an event by Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, who had been widely reviled for making anti-Semitic remarks.
Ms.
Mallory has called Mr. Farrakhan the GOAT, or greatest of all time on social media.
The point I want to make, specifically here, is Linda Sarsour is one of the leaders of the march, but more importantly, how they directly equate Israel with Jewish.
That's the point, okay?
They say, we really couldn't center Jewish women in this or we might turn off groups because those groups are in solidarity with Palestine under Israeli occupation.
The point I'm trying to make, the Women's March people, these progressive activists of which Linda, I'm sorry, Ilhan Omar has endorsed and which they're associated, don't see the difference.
They flat out said Jewish women would anger people because of Israel.
I have a friend I was talking to about this, and they were telling me that there are absolutely left-wing activist groups – this is a very progressive feminist friend of mine – there are left-wing activist groups that blame regular Jewish women in America for what Israel does.
They don't see the difference.
Now, I don't want to say every left-wing activist.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm simply saying, in my opinion, When you have all of these grains of sand from Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, from even Ocasio-Cortez, to an extent, right, she's not in the same field as what, you know, they're doing, but the association with the Women's March, the commentary from, or the reporting from the New York Times and from Tablet Magazine, we know that there is a group of left-wing activists for which these congresswomen associate
Who link the idea of being Jewish specifically to what Israel does and have pushed anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
In one part of the story from the New York Times they say, Ms.
Rubel, a central organizer for the march says she agreed that white women, including Jews, should grapple with their racial privilege.
She put out a call for women of color to join the planning team and was connected with Ms.
Mallory and Ms.
Perez.
At that first meeting, Ms.
Rubel said they seemed to want to educate her about a dark side of Jewish history and told her that Jewish people played a large role in the slave trade and the prison industry.
However, the New York Times notes, she said she went home that night and searched Google to read about the Jewish role in the slave trade.
Up popped a review of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a 1991 book by Mr. Farrakhan, which asserts that Jews were especially culpable.
Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, has called the book the Bible of the New Antisemitism.
Ms.
Rubel said she did not dwell on the issue because she wanted to work together on the march.
Uh, which was only two months away.
Ms.
Mallory and Ms.
Perez brought a friend on board, Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American activist.
The three women and another woman named Bob Bland, a white fashion designer who created one of the first Facebook pages about the march, became the event's official leaders.
They were widely featured in the press as the public face of the movement.
So let me stress, guilt by association, I am no fan of.
But we're looking at something different here.
We're looking at the repeated statements by Omar, by Tlaib, and their association.
So it's a combination.
I wouldn't ever say, oh, like, actually, guilt by association is mostly, mostly bad, right?
A lot of people try to point the finger at me because I've interviewed people.
Yeah, that's playing it fast and loose with the word association.
In this instance, we have fellow travelers.
Of which, certainly, people try to accuse everybody in the culture war.
You're a fellow traveler!
No, this is somebody who, you know, Ilhan Omar endorsed Linda Sarsour, okay?
They say she expressed support for her, for Linda Sarsour.
Sarsour being one of the leaders of the Women's March, and who was friends with two women who expressed anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
So, let me wrap this up so I don't make this video too long.
The point I want to make sure that, you know, I'm getting across is, With the statements made by Ilhan Omar, with the statements made by Rashida Tlaib, they have expressed ideas which lean towards being anti-Semitic but aren't overtly anti-Semitic.
However, Well, actually, Ilhan Omar's statement about hypnotizing the world, I think, definitely crossed that line, for sure.
Although, people on the left will refuse it, they'll deny it.
I think they do that for political reasons.
They have a political... Look, I have no game... I have no understanding, for the most part, about Israel-Palestine.
I'm not here to play a game I am not in support of or in opposition to.
But I will point out...
The people I see in the establishment who defend Israel are doing it for strategic military reasons.
I mean, Israel's a powerful ally.
So, by all means, criticize Israel.
I think a lot of people in the establishment push too hard, claiming it's all anti-Semitism.
No, no, come on.
That's why I call it crop dusting.
They get as close as they can.
From where I sit, I see them as having a political agenda, and they're pushing all of this stuff.
Look, they're pro-BDS.
They've played into anti-Semitic tropes about dual loyalties, about hypnotizing the world.
They're friends with people who have espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
It is a complicated situation.
But to me, I just see a couple anti-Semites being told they can't come to Israel.
And that's about it.
However, I can understand Israel can ban whoever they want.
I kind of lean towards let them in.
Let them in, do their thing, right?
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press.
Let these politicians come in and do their thing, and then show the world what they're doing.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I don't know why they were banned outside of the statement from the prime minister.
Again, some have stressed that it was Trump's intervention, but they make a point.
Israel does not like the idea of people pushing for a boycott against their products.
That's really bad for their economy.
Again, I don't want to get involved in the whole Israel-Palestine thing, but in my personal opinion, I do believe they are anti-Semites.
I'll leave it at that.
So there you go.
Complicated issue, but stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
Different channel.
That's at 6 p.m., and I will see you all then.
So, uh, they found broken bones in Epstein's neck.
Plural.
And, uh, some people said, uh, I believe it's the hyoid bone.
It can break in a hanging.
Except that, uh, Epstein's cell was really small, and he didn't hang himself from above like falling down.
He just leaned into it to put pressure on his, uh, on his neck.
You know, cutting the blood flow to, uh, the brain.
At least that's what they claimed.
And so, uh, no, yeah.
Broken bones in his neck.
Most common in, uh, strangulation.
Yeah.
You know, I'll say this.
I do not care for conspiracy theories at all.
I really don't.
And you know I don't.
My thing is always start with the evidence and walk yourself to a certain point, right?
And if there's any story that makes me not believe all the other conspiracy theories, it's this one.
And I'll tell you why.
It actually appears to be unraveling before our eyes.
Like, all these other conspiracies, of which, yes, there have been conspiracies.
Like, uh, I think the Gulf of Tonkin was... I could be wrong, you know?
But there have... Conspiracies are a real thing.
That's why there's a word for it.
I just mean, like, often, you have these extraordinary claims and, like, sparse evidence.
Here we have everyone believing somebody murdered Epstein, and now they found broken bones in his neck.
So here's what I want to do.
I got another crazy story.
Check this out.
Not only did they find broken bones in his neck, we'll come back to that part, but from New York Mag, which I'm not saying is the most credible source, they have an interview with one of Jeffrey Epstein's bodyguards, who says something to the effect of like, stop following the story if you know what's good for you.
Something like that.
Let me see if I can just like, jump.
So let's do this.
where he's like, I can't, I don't want to, I won't dig through this, I'll try and find
it.
But anyway, that's the point of the story.
The one reason I want to highlight this though is because it appears that people are publishing
off the record information because they think, you know, Epstein's dead.
So let's do this.
Let's read about what happened to Epstein's neck.
Strangulation maybe?
And then, uh, I have a tweet I want to go through where I list a bunch of things.
It's really funny.
Um, it's really, if, uh, not funny haha, but, like, funny, like, it seems like it's unraveling before our eyes.
So, uh, first, go to timcast.comslashstudio if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, you guys know the drill.
Look, this video is going to de-be, this video is going to be deranked, demonetized, all of these really bad things.
Because even though you have the Young Turks coming out and being like, yeah, even though you have mainstream journalists going, well, they still do not want us talking about this on YouTube.
Just because it's like bad brand record.
Like, everybody's scared that even though we all know something happened, or that's the simple solution, they're still worried about what advertisers will think.
But let's read.
An autopsy performed on Jeffrey Epstein showed he sustained multiple breaks in his neck bones.
No way!
He hung himself in the way they claimed he did!
Come on!
People familiar with the autopsy report told the Washington Post.
The bones broken in Epstein's neck included the hyoid bone, which is near the Adam's apple.
This sort of break can happen when a person hangs themselves or dies by strangulation, forensics experts told the Post.
However, Um, I've done some digging, and it's something like 70 plus percent of, uh, it's way, way, way more likely to have been strangulation.
And I also want to stress, multiple bones broken.
Sure, you can point to the hyoid bone, but there were multiple broken bones.
They go on to say he was found dead.
The multi-millionaire hedge fund manager had been jailed since early last month, awaiting trial on federal charges, accusing him of, uh, sex trafficking, we know all this stuff.
Officials have cautioned to CNN that they don't know what the staff members were doing during the time they were supposed to be watching him, and are still trying to pin that down days later now.
One staffer was not currently a regular guard!
Oh, it's so funny, isn't it?
Here, let's do this, because they're going to go over a lot of these details.
Here's my tweet.
He was taken off suicide watch.
His cellmate was transferred.
They put an irregular guard on duty, who have both apparently fell asleep and didn't check on Epstein.
Shrieking is heard from his cell.
And now they're finding broken bones found in his neck, more common in strangulation.
John Levine of the New York Post saying, don't forget, no video.
Yup.
And then we have, so I'm basing this off of a tweet from Yashir Ali, who's a great journalist,
and he says, such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older,
but they are more common in victims of strangulation. Now, I want to stress,
my understanding of the official story is that he tied a sheet around his neck and then leaned
into it. My understanding is that when it comes to breaking the hyoid bone, and I'm not a doctor
or anything like that, is that when people hang themselves and there's pressure on the bone from
from their full body weight, it breaks the bone.
When you're leaning into it, You know, your full body weight isn't on it.
It's just enough pressure to cut off the blood flow, you know, the oxygen to your brain, and then you die.
So, I said this the other day.
You know, that's the original story.
Someone said, source for shrieking.
We have a CBS News story.
They say that someone was heard yelling, breathe Epstein, breathe.
Here, right here.
Breathe Epstein, breathe.
Do people call him Epstein?
I don't know.
It seems like a weird thing to yell, at least to me, but hey, far be it from me to tell you how you would react in a panic.
But I just, here's what I see.
I see a dude having him in like an armbar or something, strangling the life out of him, and then leaning over his shoulder out to the cell.
Yasir Ali is a high-profile, well-respected journalist tweeting this out, John Levine saying, don't forget the video, also a New York Post reporter, we are not in the fringe and we haven't been.
One of the things I highlighted early on was that the Young Turks, they're on the left.
We have Unity, the left and the right, both like, hey man.
So, uh, when you've got high-profile mainstream journalists calling this stuff out, it's like, at a certain point, Occam's Razor, that's what I said, Occam's Razor has shifted pretty far towards murder, I'd say.
So, the main point being, you know, Occam's Razor, the simple solution tends to be correct.
Well, with all of these things, isn't it more simple to believe that somebody killed the guy?
I mean, he's got broken bones in his neck.
You know, fine.
I guess you want to claim the hyoid bone broke when he leaned into it because he's old, but I don't know if that's a simple solution anymore.
They say, the guard, a man not identified by officials, had previously been trained as a corrections officer, but had moved to another position.
So, a guy who wasn't one of the regular guards was there.
Now, here's what I want to do.
In this story, From the intelligence or New York mag I want to just jump to the bottom because I want to find the part where he's like You know stop digging into this and it's it gets really creepy They basically have a conversation on the phone and there's some serious journalistic ethics things I think may have been violated here and a lot of people have done this because they feel like You know Epstein's death means it's fair game.
There was actually I think it was um I think it was Neiman Lab, which is a journalistic venture saying, you know, if you're off the record but then someone dies, is the deal over?
And for me, I'm like, no, the deal isn't over.
If you agree to stay off the record, it doesn't matter if they're alive or dead, you made an agreement.
So, check this out.
He says, let me see, here you go, here you go, check this out.
First, there's some ethical issues.
The reporter asks, you and I have a history at this point.
One thing you told me, for instance, okay, one thing you told me is he got a heads up when the authorities were going to come to his house the night before.
Listen, what you say is between you and me.
So now it kind of feels like this guy didn't realize it was for an interview.
He thought it was off the record.
Maybe not.
You told me he would get phone calls the night before at 8 o'clock.
The police are going to come.
He would get a heads up from local police.
This reporter is stating on the record that Epstein's bodyguard informed him.
Local police warned Epstein.
You think Epstein had cops on payroll?
Someone did.
Silence.
You told me that, Igor.
You want me to read the quote?
He says, well, you can read whatever you want right now.
Don't just... You can put yourself in big trouble.
You said, quote, he always do something wrong.
There was some nights in question.
There was at home arrest and police.
Before they come to the house, they call him and tell him they're coming in at eight o'clock in the morning.
It's all corruption, you know.
It's all BS.
The bodyguard says, listen, don't put yourself in trouble, seriously.
We talked about this.
Bodyguard responds, I understand, we got this.
Reporter then says, I'm telling you to give you a chance to remember, because we talked about this stuff, I know it's hard, I don't know what you mean about put myself in trouble.
The bodyguard then says, let that go, seriously, let that go.
Why is it so important?
Are you worried about the local cops?
Bodyguard says, listen, you're really smart, and I'm not going to offer that over the phone right now, okay?
You said last time, and we didn't talk for years, you can tell the world who this guy was.
You were with him for a long time.
You know what I mean.
Silence.
I totally understand that you think he could have had help committing suicide.
First of all, I have to go right now.
I have another client.
Still training, people?
Yes.
But just be careful, I'm not kidding.
What's your email so I can send you?
Don't do any kind of that stuff.
Just don't play it seriously.
Can you tell me why I can't?
I can't.
May I ask you one more question?
Go ahead, he says.
Have you been talking to anyone in the government, the FBI?
Have they come to you?
Long pause.
Um, great talking to you.
Seriously, we'll talk later.
Really?
Bye.
Alright, bye.
Wait, let's just rewind a little bit.
I really gotta drive this one home.
You're a really smart guy.
I'm not going to offer that over the phone right now, okay?
You're really smart.
You have no idea.
Please.
What do you mean by that?
I can't explain you.
I can't explain you over the phone any of this.
This dude is Russian, so English is a second language, so... He tells the journalist straight up, let it go.
You're gonna get yourself in trouble.
When the journalist asks about the local police tipping off Epstein, We are looking at something crazy.
And I'll say this, man, if the apparatus, whatever it is, mafia, I don't care if it's the Clintons, I don't care if it's Trump, I don't care if it's the Italians, I don't know or care.
Maybe it's the government.
Whatever it is seems to be falling apart.
Let me try to explain what I mean.
We had an establishment, right?
I look at this and I was talking to a friend of mine, I'm like, oh god, QAnon is going to go nuts.
Because it really does feel like there was an establishment that's losing a grip over what it had.
The fact that the New York Mag has published this.
The fact that we know Epstein had broken bones in his neck.
You know what, man?
It all seems really sloppy, but extremely desperate.
Like Epstein was a loose thread, and they had to take him out at any costs.
I don't like playing the conspiracy game, okay?
We'll start from the evidence, and we'll work ourselves to where we go.
But when you've got a former bodyguard, who said, on the record, according to New York Mag, in the past- Listen, listen, listen.
We are not talking about Infowars or Rachel Maddow.
We're talking about New York Magazine.
We're talking about CNN reporting this information.
We're talking about New York Mag saying, this guy, he reports that in a past conversation, This bodyguard said Epstein was with teenage girls and got tipped off by the cops.
I don't know why the journalist didn't publish in the past, but all that matters right now is that they're on the record right now saying this is true.
When you have a bodyguard saying, drop this for your own good, it's like, are we watching a movie?
What the hell's going on?
You have him saying, when he gets asked about local police tipping off Epstein, he clams up, refuses to talk, drops the interview.
This is weird stuff, huh?
But anyway, the point I'm trying to make is, it seems like there was an establishment at some point, and it was impossible to get justice, you know?
We knew that there were crimes being committed by certain people and that nothing happens.
Like, let's be real about the Clintons, okay?
I don't care for any conspiracy theories, but let's be real.
There was even a Reddit post from someone who we believe worked for the Clintons saying, how do I purge a very VIP person's email from this database?
So whether or not any of that's true, she did bleach bit her servers.
We know she did.
No, nothing?
That was public record.
Nothing happens.
So I don't care for the Clinton body count stuff.
Like, dude, start with the evidence and work from there.
You got a bunch of coincidences, that's still not enough for me, even now.
Okay, I'll recommend Occam's Razor, but the problem, you know, I don't want to get into the conspiracy stuff.
I'll just stress the point again.
Start with the evidence and work your way there.
And in this instance, we have broken bones in the neck more common in strangulation.
That means Occam's Razor is suggesting strangulation and not hanging.
The simple solution when it comes to the broken hyoid bone is strangulation.
Well, we got something here, I guess.
And my favorite part is this bodyguard saying, drop it for your own good.
Let it go, please.
I can't talk about it on the phone.
What is going on?
Oh, it's all crumbling, isn't it?
We're in a simulation and about to wrap up the climax of the story.
It's like Our World is actually a GTA game and the ending is about to happen, so... I'm kidding, by the way.
Anyway, whatever, man.
Next segment will be at 1pm.
There's a bunch of stories today, and this is the big lead, so I'll see you at 1pm.
Stay tuned, it's gonna be fun.
It actually didn't start with the Fredo thing.
For those that aren't familiar, recently the top US trend on Twitter was Fredo and Chris Cuomo.
Because in a video, Chris Cuomo threatened to ruin a guy and throw him down the stairs for referring to him as Fredo, which is the younger brother in The Godfather.
I think The Godfather.
And Cuomo snapped.
Now Cuomo eventually apologized, but man, this story went viral!
Here's the thing.
It's been a pretty damn bad week for CNN.
Take a look at this tweet from Betty Johnson.
CNN curses Cuomo.
I'll effing ruin you.
I'll throw you down the stairs like an effing punk.
Don Lemon is sued for sexual assault.
Do you like P or D?
And then we have April Ryan nods with approval as bodyguard assaults reporter.
Benny says, Well, that's a bit of a biased opinion, but it's his opinion, so, you know, he's allowed to have it.
promoting conspiracy theories and seeding hatred in the American public.
The people that work there will no doubt be poisoned.
CNN is bad for America."
Well, that's a bit of a biased opinion, but it's his opinion, so he's allowed to have
it.
I don't completely agree, but I do agree that the story is pretty bad.
Now, here's the thing.
The April Ryan story actually predates all of this.
The initial claim came from Charlie Crotaville, probably pronouncing your name wrong, on August 5th, saying this man took his camera, which is, it's like third degree theft or something, we'll go through all this.
Basically, this guy was filming an event.
He was invited to the event.
April Ryan, who is a CNN host, I believe, or contributor, was going to be speaking there.
And she ordered them to remove his camera without, like, telling him what was going on.
He says, basically, a random guy comes up and says, get your camera out of here.
And he's like, what do you mean?
I'm press.
I'm supposed to be here.
And the guy actually drags him out of the building.
Very, very bad look.
But here's the thing.
There's a video of it.
We got video of them dragging a journalist out.
So let me put it this way.
A CNN host, I believe, I'm not, we'll read through it, or an analyst or something, apparently told her bodyguard and said to the audience, when I speak, I don't have news covering my speech.
CNN!
The anti-press.
Oh, they want to talk about how, you know, they're the most trusted name in news and all this other stuff.
Okay.
When you have one of your—I don't want to necessarily say this reflects on all of CNN, but I will stress April Ryan.
Then you have Cuomo and Don Lemon accusations.
Well, look.
The Don Lemon thing is an accusation.
We'll give that one a pass, because innocent until proven guilty, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But Chris Cuomo, we got you on camera.
And April Ryan, we got you on camera, too.
So let's read the story.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video, because we are dealing with deranking.
YouTube is propping up CNN and MSNBC and other channels like it, including Fox News.
But if you think my content is good, you sharing it is the way to, I guess, push back on the deranking.
But let's read.
Fox News reports, a local news editor claims that a bodyguard for CNN, political analyst and White House correspondent April Ryan violently removed him from an event where she was a keynote speaker.
Charlie Cradiville, editor of New Brunswick Today, was on hand to cover a speech given by Ryan at the fourth annual New Jersey Parent Summit, which focuses on educating, empowering, and preparing parents for our future leaders, on August 3rd at the Heldrich Hotel.
In emails obtained by Fox News, Cradiville had previously RSVP'd to the event and received confirmation.
After covering the event for roughly three hours, without incident, Cradiville claims he was approached by a man who he said he later found out was Ryan's security guard, Joel Morris.
During the intro, this man comes up to me, mentioned my video camera, and asked me, who are you with?
Crediville wrote on Twitter, I gave him my card and explained that I followed the proper channels to cover the event.
I asked if he had a card and he responded by saying he was with the speaker.
We have this photo of the guy.
Crediville alleged that Morris threatened to take down the camera if he himself didn't, and the public relations team began pressuring Crediville to stop recording, all while, ironically, Payne was praising the American Urban Radio Network's reporter for her, quote, freedom of the press award she received.
How rather ironic.
CNN.
They want to tell you that they're going to be representing, you know, the facts, fairly and honestly.
Yet, you can actually see this video.
So, the reporter, Charlie, actually published a video from his camera where the bodyguard takes it and brings it out of the room, and then we have the surveillance footage, which I'll play in a second.
I'll see if I can make it a bit bigger.
And I'll describe it because I know a lot of people are listening and not watching, but let's go on.
Morris appears to approach Ryan as she was speaking at the podium and whispered something to her.
She nods and then pauses for almost 30 seconds until Morris grabs Cradiville's camera equipment and tripod and walks out of the ballroom.
Don't touch my camera, please!
Put that down!
Don't you dare put that down, sir!
Cradiville told the bodyguard as he followed him out of the room.
Oh, okay.
We got the footage right here, actually.
As Crediville and Morris began causing a scene, Ryan explains to the crowd, quote, here we
go, when I speak, I don't have news covering my speech.
Oh, really?
But you work for CNN.
You think you have a right to film other speech?
Like how does it work?
Okay.
Now, I think it's fair to point out, again, to stress, it's not reflecting necessarily
on the organization that CNN is, but when you have accusations against Don Lemon, which
again are just accusations, but you have Chris Cuomo on camera snapping at somebody, yeah,
there might be a bit of bad apples at the network that probably need to be dealt with.
I don't know exactly what you do, reprimand, apology.
As Cred- uh, they say, the two men enter the lobby where Crediville is berated by Shenel MacLeod, executive director of Project Ready, the group that hosted the event.
MacLeod accuses Crediville of interrupting the event and demands his removal from the hotel.
Security camera footage from the hotel lobby appears to show Morris forcibly pushing Crediville towards the exit.
So, let's, uh...
I don't want to play it too loud, but we'll skip that a little bit, I'll keep this clip short.
But basically, here you can see, they took his camera out, and they put it on the counter.
He then comes out, pointing to the camera, saying, give me my camera, I'll give it back.
Saying, give me my camera, this is on August 3rd, this happens.
This is a couple weeks before the Cuomo stuff.
This guy finally gives up, tells the guy he has to leave, and we'll just skip through because I know people are listening, they're not going to be able to see what's happening.
But eventually, other people come out.
This woman, who's at the event, is yelling at the journalist, who apparently didn't do anything wrong.
You get out of here right now, she says.
And then, eventually, the bodyguard tries grabbing the camera from the dude.
And then, get ready, here he goes.
Grabs him, and he's grabbing him around the waist, it looks like, pushing him on the back.
The journalist is now yelling, call the police.
It's been a pretty bad week for CNN.
And this is completely inexcusable.
There's no reason this should have happened.
I mean, all she had to do, all the security guard had to do, apparently, was tell the journalist that they're telling him he has to leave and he can't stay.
Apparently, he wasn't by his camera.
So this is a common thing that journalists do.
They'll set their camera up and then sit down somewhere.
And the camera, like, he was just gonna film the whole thing and then publish it raw, like, here's her speech.
She apparently didn't want it to happen, but he was invited to be there.
And he published the emails, and apparently Fox News has seen them as well.
He said, Once I got the camera back, I was concerned for my physical safety and I asked for hotel security.
I was hoping they would maintain order and maybe document the theft of my camera and any damage that may have occurred to it as a result.
I was thinking, wow, this guy is really crossing the line here.
At the same time, I was trying to fall down face first while also trying to protect the camera and yelling for bystanders to call the police as it was happening.
But I'll tell you something.
There's some old tricks in the old, uh, literal street grift, conning.
If somebody sees a guy in a suit pushing a guy who's not in a suit, guess what?
They're gonna assume the guy in the suit is the good person.
End of story.
That's just, that's how it's gonna play.
There's a lot of tricks that grifters use in con artists, like dressing up like cops or security guards, because people won't interfere.
They see a guy in a suit pushing him out, and they assume that the guy who's being pushed out is the guy in the wrong, when in reality, he was being physically assaulted by someone on the payroll of CNN.
Well, allegedly.
I don't know the full details of who this guy is, but if he's a bodyguard for a CNN staff, then it may not be directly from CNN, it may be from her, but it's at her behest.
So CNN should probably apologize.
I mean, the story's in Fox News.
Creditville expressed his solidarity with Ryan, an outspoken critic of President Trump, and his treatment of the press, but told Fox News that her reputation now depends on addressing what had happened and is hoping for an apology.
I think that the president deserves much criticism for his administration's lack of transparency, his own irresponsible rhetoric towards the media, and his childish attacks on individual reporters like Ms.
Ryan.
Her reputation now depends on finally addressing the situation head-on and proclaiming that what happened that night in New Brunswick cannot be tolerated.
Apparently, though, she's just blocking people on Twitter.
Cradiville said he intends to press charges against Morris later this week, noting he's not a staff for the hotel, at least it seems.
In which case, yeah, that was an assault from a private citizen on a private citizen.
The New Brunswick Today editor thanked members of the media who have shined a light on this unfortunate incident.
It can be a really hard job, and one of the risks we take is getting hurt by someone who doesn't respect freedom of the press.
CNN.
We must stick together to preserve the freedom to do this work.
CNN did not immediately respond to Fox News for comment.
So, Marcus DePaola mentions this.
Instead of apologizing for the incident in which her security guard assaulted a local reporter and stole his camera, April D. Ryan appears to be blocking anyone that retweets the story.
I wonder if she blocked me.
So, I don't know if she blocked Marcus, But I don't think she blocked me.
She follows me.
No, she didn't block me, but I've been tweeting about it.
So she didn't block me, but there it is.
She actually follows me.
I wonder if I should DM her.
No, no, no, no.
So, bad week for CNN.
The footage is going relatively—it's got 336,000 views on Twitter from Marcus Alone.
He then points out Charlie's statement.
But he does mention this.
Someone said why she needs a bodyguard, and Marcus points out she's a high-profile black journalist, and she gets countless credible death threats from white supremacists.
She has a legitimate need for a bodyguard.
I completely agree.
I completely agree.
There are a lot of people who are in political commentary, high profile, who need bodyguards.
Totally respect that.
This?
Crossing the line.
Plain and simple.
Period.
He could have come up, and he could have pressed the- Actually, I think Charlie mentioned this.
The guy could have walked up and just pressed the record button and turned the camera off, and then gave her a thumbs up.
Instead, he picks it up and tries to- He walks out with it, and then this guy has to chase after him, and then he physically removes him from a hotel in which he is not an employee.
So, CNN!
What are you doing?
It's been a bad month for CNN.
But, you know, I don't know what to say.
I'll leave it there.
You guys send me your thoughts in the comments, I guess.
I definitely think this is crossing the line and April Ryan should probably come out.
And condemn what her bodyguard did, and there's got to be some kind of action because that's not cool.
I mean, the dude published emails showing he was supposed to- he was allowed to be there, so.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
on youtube.com slash timcast, which is a different channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
I don't know if we are living in a simulation, but whatever this universe is, I must say, if there is a divine creator or some all-powerful entity, they have a great sense of humor.
Because at least it's not boring, right?
Now we can all be stressed about the regressive left and censorship and cancel culture, but I gotta say, every so often you get one of these gems from campus reform.
New York University promotes paper comparing cow insemination to rape and milking cows to sexual abuse.
Okay.
A journal published by a New York University gender studies department recently put out a paper meant to call attention To the sexual exploitation of dairy cows.
The author argues that in order to be a true advocate for feminism, one must consider the commodification of a dairy cow's reproductive rights.
Is this a hoax?
Pete?
Is this you?
Peter Bogosian?
Are you doing this again?
If you guys aren't familiar with what Peter Bogosian did, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, They submitted just ridiculous papers to journals and got some of them published.
Like one of them was about rape culture in a dog park.
Tell me this is not a hoax.
Tell me it was not you behind this.
I don't believe it.
I don't believe that somebody would actually claim milking a cow is sexual exploitation.
Oh my god.
But you can see I'm trying.
I'm trying really hard.
Okay, when I first saw the story, I just busted out laughing.
And I'm trying really hard to not just bust out laughing, but you can tell I'm
enjoying myself.
Now this story is by Celine D. Ryan on Twitter for Campus Reform saying,
a paper, well, let's get to the meat and potatoes here, titled,
Readying the Rape Rack, Feminism and the Exploitation of Non-Human Reproductive Systems.
The paper was published Friday in a journal called Dissenting Voices, which is published
and edited by the Women's and Gender Studies Program at the College at Brockport State
University of New York.
The published piece aims at discussing the sexual exploitation of non-human bodies, specifically dairy cows.
I'm trying so hard not to laugh.
The author notes that, quote, as a vegan and animal rights activist, she feels compelled to reveal the, quote, feminist aspects of animal agriculture, a topic she says is unfortunately under-researched, but is nonetheless important because, quote, the same way women's health has been at stake for years, a dairy cow's reproductive system has been poked and prodded.
People pay money for this!
They pay money to go to a university to hear these things!
And boy oh boy, we get it for free.
Now, I gotta admit...
I would pay someone to write something like this, just so that I could read it and laugh.
But the thing that makes this truly funny is that it's serious.
It's like somebody actually wrote this.
Let's go back in time, okay?
First of all, animal husbandry is like one of the first things you develop in the game Civilization.
Like farming, and like...
Domestication of animals!
It is the domestication of beasts of burden and other animals that have helped humans progress to the point they are today.
Some of the first major developments for humans, like the domestication of the dog, dramatically increased human survivability.
And the domestication of the cow.
And yes, we had cows, and we knew they would mate, and we knew that when the cow had a baby, she'd make milk, and then we'd take that milk, and we selected the animals to be bred specifically for being dairy cows.
Like, over thousands of years, this happens.
What do they propose?
Like, do they want a world where humans... Like, imagine this, a bunch of, like, proto-humans are sitting around, and they're, like, hungry, and one of them goes, hey, what if we take that animal and drink its milk?
Because that way we won't starve.
And then the other, you know, nomadic, you know, I don't know, proto-human goes, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
We're not going to sexually exploit another animal.
We're not going to eat meat either.
Man, veganism.
I'm sorry, vegans.
By all means, if you're a vegan, you do your thing.
I got no beef.
Live and let live.
But veganism can really only exist in a society that can supplement all of those things you need.
Look, I don't eat beef.
Maybe people don't know this.
I don't eat beef.
I have nothing against it.
I just can't really do it.
I get sick if I eat it.
But I love fish and chicken.
I absolutely chicken fingers all day and night.
And I also, I also at one point owned chickens, okay?
And there's a lot of things people don't know about chickens.
Like I learned they ate grass and they sure, they tore up that little grass patch around their little coop.
But they were laying eggs, two fresh eggs every day from two chickens.
Now, I know people said I didn't have enough, and they get lonely, and you gotta have a bunch, but I was taking those eggs.
Dare I say it, would I be accused of sexually exploiting these chickens by taking their eggs?
This, how insane this is, okay?
Humans farm animals, okay?
These are farm animals.
This is so funny.
According to the publication, the dairy industry is a host for sex-based discrimination and a site where sexual assault and objectification based on biological makeup are highly prevalent but ignored as we choose to neglect non-humans with whom we share a planet.
Listen.
Humans eat other animals, and other animals eat other animals.
Snakes eat eggs and—or, I don't know what snakes—snakes eat mice and stuff, and chickens eat mice, too.
You ever see this?
There's, like, a viral video where there's, like, a cat looking at a mouse, like, about to swat it, and then a chicken jumps out and grabs the mouse and just beats it to death on a rock.
And that's, like, the craziest thing.
People don't realize chickens are carnivores, man.
They like eating bugs.
Everybody thinks you give them, like, you know, corn and stuff, but there's, like, special food you give them, but no, they like eating... They're, like, they're omnivores, you know, they... I said carnivore, but they're omnivores.
They eat everything.
Let's read.
Okay, the paper argues that in order to fully fight gendered oppression, society must also address the plight of dairy cows, which it asserts are still subjects to sex-based discrimination and violence.
Okay, let me, let me, I'm not a dairy farmer, but I did do a few videos, like a mini-doc, talking to dairy farmers.
And one thing that really blew my mind, I didn't know this, I was in California, There was no gate where the cows were, right?
There was, like, there was a fence, okay?
And then there was no gate.
It was just open.
And I noticed that one of the cows had, like, crossed the street and was, like, milling about.
And I was talking to the farmer and I said, how do you- the cow is leaving.
And he was like, oh yeah.
And I was like, aren't- there's, like, the other cows were eating.
And I was like, aren't you worried, like, there's no gate?
And he was like, oh, no, they'll come back.
And I was like, wait, what?
And he goes, yeah, cows, they do their thing.
And I was like, you don't have to keep them here with a gate?
Oh, no, no, no.
You know, they go out, they come back.
And I was like, why do they leave?
And he's like, oh, I don't know.
Go walking around, I guess.
And I'm like, well, I didn't know that.
And I'm like, and they come back?
And he's like, oh, yeah, for sure.
And I said, why do they come back?
And he goes, oh, I think that's where the food's at.
Really?
Yeah, and I noticed this in California.
I don't know if it's common.
I know there are horrible factory farms with dairy cows and other stuff, and it can be gross, but at least in California, I saw cows just kind of walking around, like often just leaving, and I asked them, and they were like, yeah, they come back.
They know what's up, and it's been a while, so I could be wrong.
I could be, you know, misremembering, but I remember talking to a guy.
He said one of the things is, The milking stations are automatic.
The cows choose to go in there because otherwise they get full of milk and it's uncomfortable.
And he's like, so the cows, you know, when they're good and ready, they go in and it milks them and they come out, you know, happy as, you know, can be.
And I'm like, so you have cows who are choosing to stay here, who are going into the milking station on purpose, No, taking their babies away, you know, I've seen those videos too, but it's not like, look, there are certainly bad places, and I can respect people for calling out the factory farms, because I've seen them, like, driving, I can't remember what highway it was on, it was like 80 or something.
You could see, it smells bad, it's like mud, and the cows, they're not happy, but California was very different.
So I think, you know, one of the problems with stories like this is how just completely absurd.
Like, these people have no idea what goes on in a farm.
They've probably never even been around a cow.
Like, seriously.
I bet you could talk to a farmer and he'll tell you all sorts of things about animals you never knew because city folk and these kind of people don't know anything about these animals.
One thing I didn't know for a long time is that chickens and roosters can jump really high.
So I had a fence that was like six and a half, seven feet at my house when I lived in Miami.
I was in the Redlands.
And a rooster would always go missing.
And I'd be like, where is this guy?
He would just jump straight over the seven foot fence.
And I didn't know they could do that.
But yeah, you'll walk up and see like chickens up in a tree because they can't fly, but they can get a good jump and then flat their wings and actually get some good distance and they can jump fairly high.
Kind of, like, almost flying.
So, there are certain misconceptions people have when it comes to animals.
For one, when humans have selectively bred these animals to be a certain way, then they're fairly dependent on humans.
And, like, human support, you know?
But, uh, I've got a couple things I want to wrap up in this segment.
The first is, uh, Bridget Fatassi tweeted this out, saying, "...milking cows is sexual assault and we are living in a fucking South Park."
Outraged by this bullshit double standard of murdering cows when they're infertile, but not murdering cows shaking my damn head.
To which Bridget said, this is why the New York Times hired you.
Hashtag MooToo!
And I'm not going to give a full segment to this, but I just want to stress, every so often you get that great journalism.
The Hill, this is what I come for.
Here's the breaking news story for those that can't see the segment because you're listening on the podcast.
Quote, Trump retweets baby elephant video.
And they actually have a recorded segment where somebody reads the voiceover, Donald Trump today retweeted a video of a baby elephant getting stuck in a patch of mud.
Thank you for this, The Hill.
I really mean it.
It's always good to have some levity.
Things have been really crazy.
And while the story from the New York University about milking cows being exploitation is terrifying and funny, the story about Trump retweeting a baby elephant video is actually quite hilarious and enjoyable.
So I hope you had a good laugh this whole segment because I'm gonna press stop now and then bust out laughing for the next 10 minutes.
Stick around.
I got another segment coming up in a few moments and I will see you shortly.
You know, admittedly, I'm surprised we haven't had more of these stories.
White professor investigated for quoting James Baldwin's use of N-word.
Lori Sheck, who teaches at The New School, says inquiry followed a complaint that she had discussed Baldwin's use of the slur.
Yes, yes.
Because professors aren't allowed to tell you about words that exist.
And now there are two N-words.
I'm not trying to be dismissive.
It is true.
I'm gonna go ahead and say one of these words, which won't get me banned, and it's Nazi.
But the reason I say it's an N-word is because, by saying that, there it is.
This video will be deranked and demonetized.
In many ways, I am being told by YouTube not to use the actual word.
In which case, I have heard people refer to it as an N-word.
But this is how insane everything is getting.
You can't talk about certain ideas without getting people mad.
And now we have another one of these.
Because it was, I think like a year ago or something, a Netflix executive was fired for explaining that the N-word was offensive to people.
And now a white professor investigated for quoting James Baldwin, civil rights activist?
Are you nuts?
Oh, this is why we can't have nice things!
You know, see, I laughed at the story just before this.
I don't know if you saw it, but they're saying dairy farming is sexual exploitation of cows.
Now everybody who had that good laugh in the last segment, I'm gonna bring you down and show you how the world is actually getting twisted.
But let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical...
Uh, address you can send to.
And the reason I say this is because, look, this video is going to be deranked hard.
Just for saying N-word, right?
For saying Nazi.
So, if you do like my content, I ask that you share it.
Because I've been looking at analytics, and I gotta say, man, I don't know if YouTube is a long-term thing.
I really don't.
I don't know what's gonna happen, but YouTube has been absolutely deranking not just me, but even left-wing people like David Pakman.
Let's read.
The Pulitzer-nominated poet Laurie Scheck, a professor at the New School in New York City, is being investigated by the university for using the N-word during a discussion about James Baldwin's use of the racial slur.
Let me tell you the difference between leftist and liberal.
George Carlin was a liberal.
He was pro-choice.
He was anti-war.
He railed on the government all day and night.
And he said a slew of racial slurs in one of his bits to make a point that context matters.
It's not the word, it's the person behind the words.
George Carlin was amazing.
Let's read on.
The investigation has been condemned by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE, which is calling on the new school to drop the misguided case because it warns faculty and students that good-faith engagement with difficult political, social, and academic questions will result in investigation and possible discipline.
Check.
Who is white?
I believe that's fair, too.
In a graduate course this spring on radical questioning in writing, she assigned students Baldwin's 1962 essay, The
Creative Process, in which the black American writer and civil rights activist argued that Americans have, quote,
modified or suppressed and lied about the darker forces in our history.
I believe that's fair, too. That's true, yeah.
And must commit to a long look backward whence we came and an unflinching assessment of the record.
During the class, Sheck pointed to the 2016 documentary about Baldwin, I Am Not Your Negro, and asked her students to discuss why the title altered Baldwin's original statement, in which he used the N-word instead of Negro during an appearance on the talk show.
Sheck told Inside Higher Education that a white student had objected to her language.
According to Sheck, she questioned the student about her objection, who said she had been told by a previous professor that white people should never use the term.
At the end of the term, the student gave a presentation about racism at the new school.
Sheck told the IHE that she used the word because Baldwin, a New School alumnus, did, and quote, as writers, words are all we have, and we have to give Baldwin credit that he used the word he did on purpose.
In June, months after the class, Sheck says she was called to a meeting where she was questioned about her choice of reading assignments and how she had prepared students for discussing Baldwin's essay.
She told the university that graduate students on a literature course, quote, should reasonably be expected to be able to discuss painful or offensive language and the various implications of altering the words of an iconic writer.
As the meeting ended, she was given the university's guidelines for dealing with issues of discrimination and told to familiarize herself with them.
Think about the results of this kind of action.
that the university is proceeding with an investigation despite its regulation stating
that complaints of discrimination must be lodged within 60 days of an incident,
which had passed by the time the complaint was made against her.
Think about the results of this kind of action. Okay, Baldwin, famous civil rights activist,
made a point and someone changed the context of his writing to avoid being offensive.
Now, just don't assign it.
Stop talking about Baldwin, stop talking about civil rights, because there are offensive truths buried beneath the surface.
Is that the result?
No one can bring up these concepts anymore?
Apparently so.
Quote, I have been left completely in the dark with the accusations against me still actively in place and classes starting in two weeks, she said.
Having taught at the new school with an impeccable record and consistently stellar student evaluations of my classes for nearly 20 years, this drawn-out approach appears to many as an unnecessarily callous and insensitive treatment of a devoted and longtime faculty member.
The bell tolls for thee.
What is it?
Ask not for whom the bell tolls.
The bell tolls for thee.
Listen.
You reap what you sow.
Can I do a bunch of these idioms?
I love these things.
I also love analogies about ice cream.
If you watch my channel, you know I always do the ice cream thing.
Listen.
When you push this rhetoric, when you advocate for this culture, don't be surprised when you are the target of what you preach.
I want to make a point.
I think there's an amazing thing to be said about James Baldwin's essay.
Look at it this way.
Let me tell you a story about when I was young.
I remember growing up being told that Christopher Columbus discovered America.
I was then later told that he actually didn't discover America, he landed in the Bahamas and the Caribbean.
So he never actually set foot on, you know, where we are today.
I'm not going to go through the history of whether or not that's true, but that's what people were saying.
But then the question was brought up later on.
It was actually Leif Erikson.
That's right.
The Viking, I believe he was a Viking, Norse.
There's like a statue of him in Iceland.
He actually came to the Americas first.
Something like a thousand years before Christopher Columbus.
And so I was asked, when I was young, who discovered America.
And people would always say Christopher Columbus.
And then I would have some snooty teacher be like, actually, it was Leif Erikson.
And then one day, I think it was my mom, she said, the Native Americans were already here.
And it's like, oh yeah.
It was already populated.
So you can say, in terms of, like, European history, which European made the initial discovery, by all means, but thinking about the greater context of the world, there's a great point made by Baldwin.
That history is written by the victors, and our view of our own history is often skewed by us, you know, I don't know, patting ourselves on the back and ignoring the horrifying things that have been done by us and by anyone else.
Now, I think one of the problems we face with the social justice crowd is that they don't realize other groups aren't, you know, self, aren't, you know, okay, I'll avoid, you probably know what I was gonna say, I'm not gonna say it, but you have other countries that are still pushing their own national supremacy.
China, for instance, is pushing us on all fronts.
And the problem is, yes, we can reflect on our bad history, but we will likely be overtaken by doing so.
And it's a difficult position.
So here's the thing, the point I'm trying to make by bringing this up.
I think Baldwin was a good dude.
Civil rights activist.
He made a bunch of really important points.
I watched that documentary.
I thought it was great.
Interesting.
I don't say I agree with everybody when it comes to historical movements and activism, but I think there are some great people in our past who bring up important points, and they don't have to be perfect characters.
However, Let's talk about true social justice, as opposed to what this is.
Here's a guy, a famous civil rights activist, who we should listen to, and think about critically.
Don't just agree with everyone from the past, that would be absurd.
But there are probably some good ideas buried deep within, and civil rights was a fantastic and important thing, especially, I'll tell you what, from my family history, 100%.
People like Baldwin and others were the ones who helped my family get on and live peaceful, happy lives.
Uh, you know, when miscegenation was, uh, they had laws against this.
You couldn't cohabitate.
You couldn't live in the same house if you were different races.
That's insane.
That's why I think social justice is a good thing.
Fighting, fighting against a system of oppression.
However, what we often see from these people is not fighting oppression.
Telling a professor she can't say a word is not fighting oppression.
She was actually, she was fighting oppression.
Right?
And so I'm not going to say I agree with this teacher because I'm very skeptical of somebody who's going to be, you know, a professor at the new school, but she brought up a point.
They changed the word from the n-word to the word negro.
Why?
Because they didn't want the n-word.
But he chose it for a reason.
You can see how social justice is being dominated and watered down by authoritarian weirdos who are actually damaging the cause of true social justice.
Now, some people have pointed out social justice is just justice.
That's fine.
Whatever you want to call it.
The point is, We are a country with a constitution, and there were statements made by our founding fathers who didn't realize the true genius of what they were saying.
And in the future, we looked at their document, and we looked at it stripped of any ideology or context based on bias and racism, and said, you know, at the end of the day, we are all created equal and that must be upheld.
Now we have people pushing back on this.
When a professor says we should be able to use this word to make a point, she gets an investigation because of it?
I'm surprised it's been so long since I've seen a story like this, considering, you know, the Netflix thing was last year, but expect worse.
You know, people point the fingers at these professors, these leftist professors, for creating this culture, and they contribute to it, so congratulations, you reap what you sow.
The whole thing backfires on them, making everything worse.
I don't know where it'll end up, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around, one more segment coming up in a few moments, and I will see you all shortly.
I often talk about how I can't say certain words because my channel will be deranked or demonetized, all of these things.
So I'm going to say it right off the bat.
You can take a look at the screen, for those watching on YouTube, and see that this video is going to hit every single one of these words, which means, you know, I'll be surprised if anyone sees this.
I'll be surprised if I don't get a guideline strike, to be honest.
But if you think this video is important, I'm going to be talking about how advertisers are pulling away Because of certain words, which is having a huge negative impact on journalism and political commentary.
And we can see one of those words is Trump.
Kid you not.
And I know this.
Like, I know when I make a video about even the Democrats or the Republicans, just mainstream politics, advertisers, you know, YouTube says, oh, we don't want to do it, so...
Share this video if you think this is important because I gotta stress, in this particular video, it is extremely important that people understand what's happening and this is gonna need a push because YouTube is gonna knock this one down hard.
From the Wall Street Journal, advertisers blacklist hard news, including Trump, fearing backlash.
Bomb, immigration, racism, and Trump are among keywords marketers insist should not appear near their ads.
Lucky for the Wall Street Journal, they're a very subscription model-based service.
And thankfully, I have a lot of people who donate to me on a regular basis through PayPal.
And that's... So let me stress that, okay?
When I say support my work through PayPal or crypto or whatever, this is why.
If in the event my channel gets demonetized like I did to Crowder, I'm out.
You know what I mean?
I need to make a living, right?
So everybody who donates through PayPal has basically created a safety net that in the event anything really bad happens to my channels, I can keep working with no problems.
Admittedly, Every single video on this channel, I think it's fair to say, 99% of the videos is more fair.
99% demonetized out the gate for like 36 to 48 hours.
Which means I make like almost no money.
People don't understand demonetized means some ads will still appear, but it's gonna be like a beer commercial or something.
Maybe an action movie.
They don't care about being associated with these things.
But no, almost all advertisements are removed.
So there's still some red revenue, but I tell you what, man, the numbers are microscopic.
Absolutely, Michael.
So that's why it's great when you support it.
But let's read.
And I think the big thing here that I want to stress is, take a look at this.
I can understand why, like, bomb, shooting, drugs, terror, dead, attack.
There you go, deranked again.
But Trump!
That means if you make content about the president, advertisers are pulling out.
Now there's some good news here.
A lot of the news about Trump is negative because they want the ratings boost.
But if advertisers are saying, enough, we don't want to be associated, we might start seeing all the negative press about Trump start going away.
I doubt it, but let's read.
The Wall Street Journal reports, let me zoom in once.
Like many advertisers, Fidelity Investments wants to avoid advertising online near controversial content.
The Boston-based financial services company has a lengthy blacklist of words it considers off-limits.
If one of those words is in an article's headline, Fidelity won't place an ad there.
Its list earlier this year, reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, contained more than 400 words including bomb, immigration, and racism.
Also off-limits is Trump.
And you know what, The Wall Street Journal?
It's partly your fault for that huge smear you did on PewDiePie, which resulted in all these advertisers freaking out and creating new policies where they're not going to advertise on stories about immigration and Trump.
I kid you not.
Some news organizations have had difficulty placing Fidelity's ads on their sites.
Ad sales executives said, Because the list is so exhaustive and the terms appear in many news articles.
I go through this every single day.
Like I said, almost every video I do is demonetized.
I'm like, you see that scene where the ship goes to hyperspace and rips through the ship, causing an explosion, like blows up like it was a bomb, like boom, boom.
Oh, there you go.
Talking about a movie!
That's what's being played right now, and it's bad news for everyone across the board.
I gotta say, I think we're moving towards a subscription-based service.
What we're doing over at Subverse, right, we raised a ton of money in this initial crowd investment run, we like broke a record.
We're aiming for subscriptions, just like everybody else.
Because if you like the content we produce, it's like subscribe, subscribe.
Because these advertisers are saying, no thanks.
It's getting really difficult.
They say big advertisers have been burned.
And you know what the problem is?
It's this far-left cancel culture stuff.
Look, the right plays the game sometimes, but it's overwhelmingly the left.
They'll come out and be like, Coke, did you know your ad appeared on a video about this?
And then Coke goes, we're out, we're done.
And there you have it.
Now news is being hurt by this.
Big advertisers have been burned several times in recent years when their digital ads appeared next to offensive content, including fabricated news articles, hateful or racist videos on YouTube, and pornographic material.
Such miscues happen in part because the complexities of online ad buying, where brands generally target certain kinds of audiences rather than specific sites or types of content.
It has become clear to advertisers that one way to protect themselves is to stipulate the websites or types of web content they want to avoid, and ensure their partners, digital ad brokers, and publishers honor those wishes.
Political stories are, regardless of party affiliation, not relevant to our brand, a Fidelity spokesman said in a written statement.
The company also avoids several other topics that it says don't align with published content about business and finance.
You know right now a bunch of LGBTQ creators are suing YouTube?
Big story.
And while I'm not going to pretend that LGBTQ is on the left because you have people like Blair White, for instance, who is, I believe, a Trump supporter.
But it is usually associated with intersectional feminism and the left.
Now, here's the thing.
I'm not gonna blame these LGBTQ creators who are suing, but the left went out of their way to target YouTube and target advertisers, and guess who got hit?
The LGBTQ community!
Of course they did, because that's offensive to some people.
You don't get it.
Everything is offensive somewhere for some reason, which means when you push this, mostly on the left, this is what we get.
Marketers have used blacklists for years to sidestep controversy.
Airlines avoided articles dealing with airline crashes, for instance.
Now those blacklists are becoming more sophisticated, specific, and extensive, ad executives said.
Online news publishers are feeling the impact, from smaller outlets to large players such as CNN.com, USA Today owner Gannett Co., The Washington Post, and The Journal, according to news and ad executives.
The ad blacklisting threatens to hit publications' revenue and is creating incentives to produce more lifestyle-oriented coverage that is less controversial than hard news.
Some new organizations are investing in technologies meant to gauge the way news stories make readers feel in the hopes of persuading advertisers that there are options for ad placement other than blacklisting.
I will point out, Maybe it's good news.
Maybe CNN will start doing, I don't know, like the guinea pig bump.
All of a sudden they're going to be front page, it's just nothing but guinea pigs.
I tell you what, you want to talk about safe content?
Guinea pigs.
Did you know that there are laws in some countries and jurisdictions that make it illegal to own only one guinea pig?
You know why?
Because guinea pigs get lonely and they need a companion, otherwise they can become depressed and get sick and die.
Isn't that the kind of news we want?
The Hill recently published a story.
Donald Trump retweeted a baby elephant video.
Oh, sorry, I said Trump.
Deranked and demonetized.
How about this?
The President of the United States has retweeted a video about baby elephants.
I gotta say, while it's silly and I'm being somewhat facetious, it probably would be good to see CNN stop going insane about Trump because advertisers are saying, enough.
No more Trump content.
In which case, ratings don't matter.
You can get a million views, but if you can't make any money on it, why would you do it?
So CNN's gonna shift and be like, DRUMPF!
And then they're gonna be like, come on, we know what you're doing.
Let's read a little bit more.
I love it.
is a consumer products company, Colgate Palmolive.
Sandwich Chain Subway and Fast Food Giant McDonald's Corp are among the many companies blocking digital ad placements
in hard news to various degrees, according to people familiar with those companies'
strategies.
I love it.
I love how people accuse me of being a grifter and other people of being grifters.
And I'm like, listen, man, if I wanted money, I wouldn't be talking about Trump bombs, racism,
and all of these other awful words.
I'd be talking about Fortnite, Minecraft, and guinea pigs.
I'll tell you what, I'm gonna make a new channel, a third channel, called TimCast's Guinea Pigs, where all I'm gonna do is show videos of guinea pigs and rate the guinea pigs and what they're doing.
Well, that guinea pig is hiding under some kind of little piece of plastic.
Mmm, 4 out of 5.
You know, it's not bad.
But that guinea pig, that guinea pig just jumped over between two carpets, that one, where the guinea pigs are jumping over the carpets.
That's what I would do if I wanted money.
Instead, these people on the left, these activist organizations that are targeting advertisers, are destroying everything for everybody.
But you know what?
The advertisers, they don't have to advertise on things they don't want.
That I get.
But apparently you can't even see the word accident or crash or trump.
These are the words I can kind of get.
Here's the thing.
The only reason they're scared of these words, dead, is because of activists.
It's because activists are going to see it and they're going to go nuts.
So now we can't have nice things.
You know what?
That's why I often say, you know, share, you know, etc., donate through PayPal, because of this.
It's only going to get worse.
Maybe it won't be so bad, but, you know, in the long run, journalism is going to be hurt, because it's not so much about me doing commentary.
I can talk about Star Wars, and that video did really well, and it made good money.
So, these news organizations, these journalists who only really talk about, say, the Middle East, They're not gonna be able to make money, and that means we can't fund this stuff, and it's because of this outrage culture.
But whatever, I don't know.
I'll leave it there.
I felt like it was fun to elaborate on the idea, so stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
