Justice Ginsburg Treated For Pancreatic Cancer, Liberals Fear Trump May Appoint THIRD SCOTUS Justice
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Treated For Pancreatic Cancer, Liberals Fear Trump May Appoint THIRD SCOTUS Justice. Yesterday it was revealed that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in July and was successfully treated at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer center in New York. In a statement it was said that she is clear and has no traces of the disease in her body.But nonetheless this is Justice Ginsburg's fourth bout with cancer and she was injured earlier in the year. Democrats, Liberals, and the far left are worried that if she passes before the 2020 election Trump may appoint not only a third Justice but maybe even a Fourth supreme court justice as Stephen Breyer is 81, though seemingly in good health.Even if Justice Ginsburg can make it past 2020 Trump is likely to be reelected, she and Breyer would need to make it past 2024 in order to get more liberal justices on the court.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been treated for pancreatic cancer.
This got a lot of people on the left worried, because if she leaves the Supreme Court, or unfortunately passes, Donald Trump will be able to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice.
And everybody is getting ready, and they think they know who it is, but we'll get to that in a second, and you guys probably know who I'm talking about.
Now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had cancer in the past.
I believe it was around January she broke several ribs.
And she's still here and still kicking, even after a conspiracy theory that she had secretly died.
A lot of people thought so.
No, she's still around.
And I gotta admit, I do think she will survive into the next term, to 2020.
And we'll get into all of this, but I'll stress at this point, she has willpower, to say the least.
This is a very, very strong individual, who has served honorably in the Supreme Court for a very long time, and has an amazing life story.
So, don't doubt someone like Ginsburg, who survived cancer now twice, But sure enough, there are a lot of people who are hoping Trump gets to appoint another Supreme Court.
I'm seeing a lot of the mainstream conservatives saying they're wishing for the best, they're hoping that she remains healthy, but they do want her to live out her, you know, her remaining years peacefully.
But I kind of view Ruth Bader Ginsburg as somebody who refuses to back down and will not step down at all costs because, well, she said she's got five years left.
She wants to make it through Trump's next term so that hopefully, assuming Trump is re-elected, then another Democrat can come in and fill her seat on the court when her time does come.
So we'll see what happens.
But here's what I want to do.
I want to go through where we're currently at with the Supreme Court.
Some of, you know, we're hearing like Michael Moore and other celebrities are freaking out, saying we must, must, must campaign.
But I want to make another point about David Koch.
Because as it turns out, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was treated at Sloan Kettering, I believe, and David Koch don't—there's a wing named after him because he donated $150 million.
So let's bring some civility into the conversation.
Respect those who serve their country honorably, whether we agree or not.
And recognize Ruth Bader Ginsburg has done many great things and you may disagree with her but I believe civility is in order and I absolutely will give respect and I hope for her the best.
But we also have to recognize there's going to be a major political shift.
Right now the conservative justices outnumber the liberal justices five to four.
If Trump gets to appoint another justice It's going to be six to three.
Now, there have been people on the left talking about adding more seats, but it seems like they just want to change the rules because they know Trump is in office.
Everybody needs to chill out.
So let's do this.
First, let's read about what's going on with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health.
Talk about some of, you know, what's happening behind the scenes of the Supreme Court.
And we do have somebody we think Trump will nominate to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if that does happen.
And I do want to talk about some of the celebrity reactions, which I find appalling.
You know, people like Bette Midler and Bill Maher could learn a thing or two from what I'm going to talk about later.
So 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 address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
Let's break some echo chambers.
And more importantly, I am feeling the weight of YouTube's deranking.
They don't like me.
They don't like independent commentators.
They want you to watch CNN.
So if you really, really like CNN, then don't share this video.
You must be a big fan of Don Lemon, I'd imagine.
Maybe some of you are.
I'm just being a bit facetious.
If you like the content, share.
Otherwise, I'll keep doing my thing.
I'll keep working.
But let's read.
CNN reports Ruth Bader Ginsburg treated for pancreatic cancer.
Quote, the tumor was treated definitively and there's no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body.
So that's fantastic news.
This is the 86-year-old liberal icon's fourth bout with cancer.
In 1999, she successfully underwent surgery to treat colon cancer.
She was treated for early stages of pancreatic cancer in 2009.
Last December, Ginsburg underwent surgery to remove two cancerous nodules from her left lung.
They say Ginsburg, who inspired the memeatorious RBG and was the subject of a documentary and feature film in recent years, missed oral arguments for the first time earlier this year while recovering, but participated in rulings via court transcripts and in writing.
So let me stress this.
And you know what?
To those who would disrespect Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you're allowed to, but I will push back.
This is an incredible individual, okay?
You can disagree with someone, but this is somebody who served this country with honor and beat cancer four times, at least for now.
You know what, man?
That is resilience, that is strength, and that is absolutely respectable.
And even if you disagree, I think this country could do with some people, you know, standing up and giving, you know, some—one of our Supreme Court justices respect, the same respect that Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave to Brett Kavanaugh.
And this—this warms my heart, because they tried to tear Brett Kavanaugh down, and it was—it was—it was gut-wrenching watching, you know, Brett Kavanaugh testify, nearly in tears, having to stop himself, as they smeared him and dragged him through the dirt, and it was insane.
And I'll stress this.
Brett Kavanaugh was already vetted when he was appointed to the federal court in the first place.
Going through it again, finding these ridiculous stories to smear him in front of his family and kids was absolutely disgusting.
So props to someone like Ginsburg for praising him, because Brett Kavanaugh seemingly defied those who would smear his name when he brought on an all-female staff.
Amazing.
Absolutely amazing.
And I absolutely think, you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg willing to praise Brett Kavanaugh says a lot about the true professionals that are working in, you know, the top levels of our government.
Certainly they're bad people, but I am inspired by the civility.
The willingness to praise someone who may sit ideologically opposed, but I will stress too, I think the Supreme Court justices are above the noise, for the most part.
We know they may be liberal, we know they may be conservative, but I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brett Kavanaugh understand how to be professionals, and they interpret the law to the best of their abilities, and we have people on both sides who disagree.
But this is respectable and now I absolutely think she deserves the respect for giving some to Brett Kavanaugh and
she deserves the same.
But let's get back to the story and we'll read.
They say Ginsburg health has long been an issue.
The oldest Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg leads the liberal wing of the court, which is currently outnumbered 5 to 4 by conservatives.
A three-week course of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy began on August 5, the court said.
A tumor was first detected after a blood test in July, and a biopsy was performed as well.
The justice tolerated treatment well, the court said.
No further treatment is needed at this time.
Despite her recent health scare, Ginsburg has made a series of public appearances and continues to travel.
She attended a legal conference in Lisbon this summer, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who died soon after returning.
She attended the Broadway showing of Moulin Rouge!
Thursday night and is scheduled to speak in Buffalo, New York next week.
Asked last month about any retirement plans, Ginsburg said, I've always said I'll stay on this job as long as I can do it full steam.
At her age, she assesses that each year, quote, I was OK this last term.
I expect to be OK next term.
And after that, we'll just have to see.
I got to say.
I'm willing to bet Ruth Bader Ginsburg can make it for several more years.
I believe willpower is one of the most important factors in whether or not someone survives things like this.
And she definitely seems like somebody who has a history of willpower, to say the least.
Again, you can disagree with her, but you can't deny that this is one of the greatest individuals our country has seen.
I know a lot of people might get mad.
They might say, like, you know, she's had bad rulings and all that stuff.
But listen, you know, people want to point the finger at Trump and accuse him of being the worst of the worst.
I'll hear your criticism and I understand.
But you can't deny that Trump has accomplished something and that he is an imposing figure.
You know, he has made accomplishments and so has she.
And I think respect and civility is definitely needed here.
But we do have some celebrity reactions.
Michael Moore goes ballistic over RBG cancer scare work nonstop.
Michael Moore tweeted, first thought, she was seen at the Yiddish version of Fiddler on the Roof
in NYC last week, she's going to be fine. Second thought, holy mother FRBG, everybody right this
second join a movement, campaign, grassroots group, whatever, and work non-stop between right now and
November 2020. I'll stress this, one of the biggest mistakes that Trump supporters can make right now
is the assumption that Trump will win.
And I mean it.
And I have no problem saying I think he will.
And I've shown the polls, and I've talked about the economy and all that.
But you get arrogant, and don't be surprised when he gets swept out.
And that's one of the mistakes Hillary Clinton made, and everybody knows it.
They were so sure she was going to win.
I'm willing to bet a lot of people didn't show up.
Well, now these people are panicked, and they're going to show up.
And people are expecting historical turnout.
So the battle is on.
If Ruth Bader Ginsburg survives, and I'm not trying to be, you know, morbid or anything, I, you know, tremendous respect, but if she does survive into the next term, and Trump doesn't win, they will get another liberal justice on the court, which is good news for the left, for the Democrats.
Trump supporters would be wise not to underestimate their political opponents.
Well, I certainly don't think the Democrats have anything strong, you know, but check this out.
Here's some more important information, because this question's been asked before.
What happens if Ruth Bader Ginsburg remains too sick to work?
Let's say that she gets to a point where she's just, she's out, and she's on her deathbed, and they keep her alive, just with, you know, whatever, by any means necessary.
Well, according to Politico, they say nothing will happen.
History is full of Supreme Court justices who are incapacitated or worse.
That's the price of life tenure, and it's worth paying.
Well, I can't say I know for sure.
I do believe it makes sense to have a limit, probably because, just because, you know, you could be 90 years old and you might not have the ability to actually rule soundly on these decisions.
Maybe a life appointment doesn't necessarily make sense.
But, far be it from me to tell anybody what they should or shouldn't be doing.
There, you know, people often make claims like, one of the criticisms was that Ezra Klein, you know, the leftist from Vox, At one point said, yes, because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we must have lifetime appointments.
And then later, you know, because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I think, I could be getting this wrong, said, no, no, no, we shouldn't.
And the reason was they wanted to make sure they could get in a younger liberal justice before it was too late.
And now because Trump won, they're panicking like, oh no, oh no.
So their opinions changed.
So I'm not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't believe, but the story is absolutely fascinating.
Check this out.
They say Justice Henry Baldwin remained on the court nearly a dozen years.
After his 1832 hospitalization for incurable lunacy, one of Justice Nathan Clifford's colleagues described him as a babbling idiot in the final years before his death in 1881.
Justice Stephen Field in the mid-1890s and Justice Joseph McKenna in the early to mid-1920s each reportedly spent the end of their tenures in a haze.
So it is entirely possible, they say.
Mental decreptitude on the Supreme Court has continued into the modern era, and historian David Garrow has documented.
Frank Murphy, who served the 1940s, was likely addicted to illegal drugs by the end of his tenure, and his biographer wrote that on at least one occasion, with Murphy in absentia, his law clerk and fellow justices jointly decided what Murphy's votes should be.
Justice Charles Whitaker teetered on the brink of nervous breakdown for much of his five-year stint on the court in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Hugo Black stayed on for more than two years after his wife concluded in 1969 that his mentality had been impaired.
So look, man.
There's more!
There's more people!
They say the history of cognitive decline in the high court teaches two lessons.
First, there's a real risk of a substantial time lag between the onset of mental deterioration and a justice's retirement.
But second, and as important, there is a risk that can be contained.
No justice, no matter how deranged, can do serious doctrinal damage without the acquiescence of at least half of his colleagues.
And when a justice is so utterly incapacitated that he's unable to break four-four ties, the court can continue to function with an even number of active members.
They say originally the court had only six justices.
During the Civil War, it had ten.
And it has functioned fine with eight members during prolonged vacancies.
Indeed, there are notable virtues to having an even number of justices, one of them being that it takes more than a knife's-edge majority to overturn a lower court decision, Listen, I think we're looking at a third Trump appointee.
I think it's fair to point out.
Let's take a look at the Supreme Court.
Right now, the two eldest members, we have Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 86 years old and Stephen Breyer.
I've done a cursory search of some stories and Stephen Breyer seems to be in good health, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a fighter.
Four bouts with cancer, broken ribs, She's fighting, and she's fighting hard.
Next after Breyer is Clarence Thomas, and he's 71, seems to be in good health.
But it's important to keep in mind, you know, the rest of the justices are in their 60s to 50s.
Even Clarence Thomas is getting on in years, so everybody should be paying attention.
And, you know, we may be getting to a point where we're facing even two more appointees by Trump.
Now, look, women typically live longer than men.
So, you know, you can go through the numbers and see that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are above, I believe, the average life expectancy is maybe in the 70s.
Trump may appoint four justices, and we've talked about this before, because whenever there's a scare with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we kind of have this conversation.
But let's jump straight to who is going to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And this is a story from April.
Who is Amy Coney Barrett, and what does she have to do with Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Well, she was apparently on a shortlist for potential nominees, and Trump chose Kavanaugh.
And many people believe Amy Coney Barrett will be the right choice when Ruth Bader Ginsburg vacates her seat.
Notably, one of the reasons, and I know it's going to be kind of contentious for a lot of people on identity issues, but one of the reasons is that she's a female.
And it would be an excellent political play to replace a female with another strong female.
Certainly, Amy Coney Barrett has tremendous accolades behind her and a storied career just herself as a federal judge.
So let's read a little bit of this story from April.
Newsweek reports, Barrett, 47, a socially conservative Catholic who was appointed to the 7th U.S.
Court of Appeals in 2017, has been floated as a potential pick for the Supreme Court.
First as a replacement for Anthony Kennedy, who retired last year, U.S.
Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh took that seat.
Barrett's name came into prominence once again amid ongoing speculation over whether Ginsburg would retire after she underwent surgery in December 2018 to remove two malignant growths from her lungs, in her third bout with cancer, now fourth.
In January, Politico reported that the White House had reached out to conservative activist groups in preparation for Ginsburg's possible resignation, with Barrett once again named as a potential replacement for a retiring justice.
Over the past weekend, Axios reignited speculation with a report citing unnamed sources who said President Donald Trump had said last year he planned on saving Barrett to replace Ginsburg, 86, with one commentator, political journalist Josh Groenveld, tweeting that if it comes to this, it would escalate the culture wars in the USA to a whole new level.
And you better believe it.
A 6-3 conservative court with a socially conservative Catholic?
Conservatives are… Are pretty damn happy.
But I will extend my respect to the conservatives who are calling for the well-being of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm really wary of the cheering on of violence and morbidity and the awful behavior we've seen.
Check this out.
David Koch is a very controversial figure.
attack at leading conservative who honored David Koch.
David Koch is a very controversial figure.
He is.
He was a very wealthy libertarian.
I was reading about how he describes his wealth, and it was hilarious.
He seemed like a guy who really believed in what he was doing.
But let me express this.
In this passage, apparently from a speech he gave, people asked him how he became so wealthy.
And he said, I'm going to paraphrase him, I might ruin this, but you may know the story.
He said, when I was young, my father gave me an apple, and I sold that apple for one dollar.
I used that dollar to buy two apples, and sold those two apples for two dollars.
With the two dollars, I bought four apples, and went and sold them for more money.
And then my father died and left me three hundred million dollars.
And everyone laughed.
That was the joke.
He acknowledged that he inherited his wealth.
I may have gotten the math wrong, but you get the point.
It was a funny story from a very wealthy individual that the left absolutely detests.
And he's been criticized by even people on the right.
But here's the thing.
You want to rag on David Koch, you're allowed to.
I get it.
Bill Maher toned things down.
Bill Maher said he was glad that Koch is dead.
Well, let me tell you this.
From Frank Luntz, Justice Ginsburg was successfully treated for a pancreatic cancer tumor at the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Sloan Kettering has a 23-story treatment facility named after David Koch, who donated $150 million in 2015 and battled prostate cancer throughout his own life.
And you know what, fact check?
100% true.
In this story from the New York Post, just a day ago, before the story was broken by CNN, they talked about how he absolutely did give $150 million.
Where's the... I try and type it in.
There we go.
Coke, who fought prostate cancer after being diagnosed 27 years ago.
Donated a record $150 million to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2015 through the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation.
The hospital named a cancer center in his name after getting its largest donation ever.
And you know what?
I've been on those sides of the conversation where Koch has been slammed, where he's been criticized for funding climate denial and all that stuff.
But you can't deny that he was someone who believed in what he was doing, and you can say the same thing for all of these philanthropists.
You can criticize him for the work he did, for his ideology, and that's fair.
He was a powerful man.
But let's not demonize the other side.
We need to remember that people are humans, and yes, some people are bad.
Maybe David Koch was a bad person, but listen.
That $150 million went to a cancer center.
That was able to successfully help save the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And that is a story that also warms my heart.
Here is a woman with an amazing career, an amazing story, and she made tremendous strides.
And again, disagree, agree, that's not the point.
The point is, she is truly a professional.
She is truly strong.
Praising Brett Kavanaugh, to me, is one of the greatest things, you know, I could see after all of that horrible stuff that went on with Brett Kavanaugh.
Ginsburg praises him, saying he's making history.
And then you can see how it comes full circle.
David Koch, who is slammed and just, after his death recently, Bill Maher saying he's glad.
Well, you know what?
If it wasn't for David Koch, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not have made it.
You can see how it goes full circle.
And that's what we need to remember.
That even though we may be political enemies, and even though we may sit across from each other, sometimes very angrily, We're still part of the same community.
And you can criticize the things David Koch funded, but keeping in mind the specifics.
The amount of money, a record, you gotta understand, $150 million is an insane donation to make.
Now, I don't know what, you know, I don't know what his, um...
His true net worth finally was, I don't have that pulled up, but he made a lot of really amazing donations.
They mentioned in 2013, he gave 100 million, another record, to New York Presbyterian Hospital, which has a building in his name.
I think he understood.
You know, when people talk about healthcare, you hear like the left say the right wants people suffering, and the right says the left, you know, is, you know, talking about a pipe dream and all that stuff.
Listen.
I truly believe that most Americans, left and right, want everyone to be taken care of, to the best of their abilities.
We just disagree on the best way to do it.
And I think you can see that in what David Koch supported.
Here's just two instances.
$250 million.
Here's a quote.
Let's read this.
They say, the Upper East Side facility is described as one that offers innovative outpatient and ambulatory care to cancer patients.
Quote, the remarkable impact of David's contributions will be felt by our patients, their families, and our staff for many years to come.
Craig B. Thompson, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of Memorial Sloan Kettering, said in a statement, and this story was published August 23rd at 2.07 p.m.
It was updated at that time.
Check this out.
From CNN, 4.41, August 23rd.
So around the same time, these stories come out.
And this makes me kind of nostalgic for the country that we used to have.
You know, the culture war is escalating to such an insane and terrifying degree.
I think about how you can have someone like David Koch reviled by the left, but someone who still made hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to a cancer research center that helped save the life of a liberal court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and it makes me think about, you know, how good things were that even though we were at odds with each other, we still served the same community, and we actually still helped each other in the end.
And I'm worried we're going to lose all that.
I'm worried when we can't talk.
I'm worried when we see celebrities like Bill Maher and Bette Midler drag someone like Coke through the dirt and smear him with all the worst possible things.
I'm worried we're losing that professional respect.
I hear stories about left-wing and right-wing pundits who argue and hate each other on the TV, but they actually stay at the same hotel and they're friends and they grab drinks.
I hear stories about politicians you'll see in Congress arguing and then say, but I know we're friends, and then afterwards they'll be sitting there talking.
And I will throw into this Dan Crenshaw and Tulsi Gabbard.
It was amazing to hear Dan say he thought Tulsi was really cool and he really respects her and they disagree.
And I'm like, that's what I hope for.
That's the future I want for this country and for the world.
People who say, listen, listen, listen.
We can disagree on the most insane things, but so long as we can agree to, like, no violence, and stop the hate, that's great.
That's great.
You know, we'll have to figure some things out, because some people don't like other ideas.
Some people really believe that, you know, like Bernie Sanders tweeted we should lock up all of these oil executives, and it's like, you gotta chill.
We can come to a decision.
We can figure things out.
Sometimes it's impossible.
It really is, and it scares me.
Sometimes, you know, we're getting to a point where people cannot rectify their differences, and that's when it's truly going to get scary.
And that's why I long for, you know, I appreciate what this is.
So, here's what I hope for.
To everybody who doesn't like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and really, really just doesn't like her, just remember what they said about David Koch.
Remember what Bill Maher said about this guy.
You know, tweeting out, what did he say?
He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades, so F him.
The Amazon is burning up, I'm glad he's dead, and I hope the end was painful.
Remember what they said about David Koch, a man who for all his faults donated hundreds of millions of dollars and that money eventually turned around and helped save the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
That's what I wish.
For people on the left, think about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you know, being helped by something David Koch did.
And for people on the right, think about the fact that what they said about David Koch and how you didn't like it.
And I hope that everyone realizes that Justice Ginsburg deserves absolute respect for the perseverance, for her accomplishments, and though you may disagree, I believe she is someone of profound integrity, and I really do believe she will make it.
I believe she might make it to the next term.
That's where I'm leaning towards.
She's incredibly strong, I gotta admit.
Someone who survived cancer four times, broken ribs, Impressive, to say the least.
So, you know, feel free to be angry.
Feel free to say opinions negatively about either people.
I get it.
I won't play that game.
I believe that those who strive to do their best for our country deserve our respect.
And somebody who's willing to turn that around and give that respect to somebody who is smeared is, you know, you reap what you sow.
And if you sow praise and respect for your colleagues, then I will return that as well.
So anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Tim CastaNews, and I will see you all then.
You know, I think it's important to refine your opinions, evolve on issues, to try and better understand your own biases, and things like that.
And when I see a story like, you know, Hasan Piker of the Young Turks saying this ridiculously offensive thing, my initial reaction is like, that's a bad guy.
That's really, really bad.
But if you've watched my video on this, you saw that in that, I even had this moment where I said, you know what, I gotta stop myself.
I gotta stop myself.
Look, always he's allowed to say it.
I'm glad he did say it.
For those that aren't familiar, let me back up, let me back up.
Hasan Piker is a Young Turks host.
He went on this tirade about America deserving 9-11.
The greater context was that the U.S.
has been funding Saudi Arabia, who contributed to a lot of, you know, Al-Qaeda and things like this.
He's not wrong.
He's not.
But to say we deserved it, okay, it's like, chill, chill, chill, right?
That was a horrifying attack, and deserve is the wrong word.
You can say it's blowback, it's what the CIA has described it.
I mean, I'll say it this way.
You know, Hasan, you're allowed to have your opinion, and I think you are factually correct, but I believe it was, I don't know, callous a little bit.
But I also recognize that I am friends with and associate with people who can be quite callous as well.
When I look at some of the people I know and have defended in the past, I know that they have said things that are outrageous and offensive.
And my personal opinion is that, oh, but he's more offensive, right?
But I try to stop myself, because I'll put it this way.
Hassan's offensive.
The big story here is that Twitch has suspended him after his controversial 9-11 comments.
I think that was wrong, wrong, wrong.
I believe he should be completely reinstated.
And I believe he already got the flack he deserved for what he said.
I don't want to see, you know, someone like Sargon banned.
He already is.
And I don't want to see Hassan banned at all.
I actually respect Hassan for even pushing back on his own audience in saying something so absurdly offensive.
And, you know, the way I viewed it the other day was kind of like, I don't want to associate with someone who's going to say something so insane and outrageous.
It's not just that he said America deserved 9-11.
He said that the terrorist who cost Crenshaw his eye F'd him in the eye hole and called him brave.
That is so outrageously offensive.
It makes me say, man, I do not want to associate with this guy.
Like, I'm glad I know he said that, so now I know, you know, here's the person I want to avoid.
Here's a person whose ideas may be tainted with this weird fringe ideology.
But I accept.
Perception is reality.
While it's not empirically true, what people perceive is what they view reality to be.
So there is an objective reality, don't get me wrong.
But from his point of view, he's seeing all these things and he knows he's right.
And that means, if we're going to have a conversation about the best way to move forward together as a country, We need to recognize he doesn't see the same things we do, right?
So I imagine it like, you know, there's a divider between us and we're both on each side looking at something shocked, not realizing what the other person is seeing.
We sometimes peek over and say, that's not that bad.
And he peeks over and says, that's not that bad.
And then we disagree because we're looking in different directions.
I think it's important to recognize there are people on every side of the political spectrum who are ridiculously offensive.
To me, this is some of the most outrageous and offensive crap I've ever heard.
But I still think as much as I detest it, and I think it's like, yeah, Europe, that's a horrifying thing to say, man, you should apologize for that.
Actually, I don't know if he should apologize for it, because apologies do nothing.
Will anyone really care if he comes out and apologizes?
That's his honest opinion.
And I gotta say this, it is refreshing to hear someone just go all out, saying some ridiculous and offensive things, to finally hear what they really think.
Now, I'll say this.
How he described Crenshaw was so over the line, yeah, you know, I'm outraged.
But I'm trying to figure out how we actually stop this, right?
Hasan, you don't have to be so mean about it, you know what I mean?
Like, that's kind of the thing.
And so I want to make sure I am not creating a situation where I'm going to defend mean people, you know, who agree with my opinions about censorship, and then condemn someone else for being offensive.
No, absolutely not.
Hasan Piker should be allowed to be on Twitch and saying this, and I think that's fine.
Admittedly, look man, that was so over the top.
The eyehole thing.
Wow.
That's something that will get you knocked out.
But, that's what the left says about other people on the right and their opinions and everything.
So, I'm not saying one side's right or wrong, because certainly people on the right will say, hey man, we're nowhere near that bad.
The left will say, oh, it was a one-time thing or whatever.
Fine.
Let's just stop and have a conversation about it.
And let's figure out how we can do this in a way that's not so mean.
Right?
So, let's read the story.
I'm sorry I went on the rant.
I should always save the rant for after the news.
I try to do that, but let's read.
Before we do get started, though, you know the drill.
TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, just share this video.
And this one I really do mean, because I'm going to actually continue my defense of Hasan Piker.
Much as people might be angry about it, I think the principle is more important.
And Hasan should absolutely be allowed to be on a platform and express his opinion, even as offensive as it was.
I believe he has a duty to our society and to Dan and other people to apologize.
I don't know if it's the right thing to do, though, because apologies don't work, but I do think he shouldn't be suspended for this.
Absolutely not.
And I want to highlight something from Keemstar, too, because people always say, like, here's the thing.
Keemstar tweeted this out saying Twitch has not banned him.
Drama alert.
And there's a lot of responses like, I thought you were for free speech and all that.
And I want to stress this point.
The way I see it, I don't think Keem is saying he should be banned.
I think he's pointing out the double standard.
That there are a lot of people who are way less offensive who get banned.
But I do want to stress, I do believe in free speech.
And I will even stand behind someone like Hassan saying something as outrageous as this because he has a right to express his opinion.
He didn't call for violence.
He was just a mean person.
You're allowed to be mean.
And boy, that was the meanest I've ever seen it.
Some of the most disgusting and horrible things I've ever heard.
But I believe in free speech.
I'm not a free speech absolutist.
A lot of people seem to think, it's like they don't understand the concepts of, of you can be for free speech and still recognize that you can't incite violence and things like that.
It's so weird where they're like, your speech equals violence.
Okay.
Let's, let's, let's read this because otherwise I'm gonna keep ranting, but we'll come back to my rant in a second.
Kotaku writes, let me zoom in a little bit more for you guys.
During a Twitch stream earlier this week, popular leftist streamer Hasan Piker made a statement that would by pretty much any measure be considered incendiary.
He said, America deserved 9-11, dude.
F it, I'm saying it.
Today, Twitch suspended Piker for one week.
It's a one-week suspension, it's not that bad.
I still think it shouldn't have happened.
I think there are way more offensive people that should be allowed back on as well.
Emotions had been running high in the lead up to the statement on Piker's stream.
Piker, who is also a host of the online news show The Young Turks, was reacting to an episode of the Joe Rogan podcast in which the host interviewed recently elected Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw.
Near the start of the interview, Crenshaw, former Navy SEAL who served in Afghanistan, had made the assertion that prior to 9-11, Bin Laden had no reason to hate America except our Western ideology.
Describing that hatred and the acts that followed it as irrational.
Well, the point he was making here is that the U.S.
funded the Mujahideen and worked with bin Laden.
So, you know, he turned on the United States.
I can't say I'm surprised.
The U.S.
was funding them essentially to push back on the Russians.
They don't care about either side.
They're trying to... They want their space and their ideology.
So, yeah, he turned on us.
And the CIA referred to it as blowback.
Our operations in the Middle East resulted in this outrage and anger which came in our direction.
And I think Joe Rogan pushed back a little bit.
So I disagree with Dan Crenshaw.
I think he's a good dude.
I think he's trying to be honest.
I think he's sincere.
I think he has integrity.
He's one of my favorite politicians right now because he's such a chill guy who seems like he's acting in good faith.
Crenshaw and Tulsi Gabbard are probably my favorite, and the service has to do a lot with it.
Crenshaw is a veteran.
The fact that Tulsi is still a major in the National Guard, tremendous respect.
That's strength, that's courage, that's duty, and they're chill because of it.
You know, they've experienced something, and they're rational, and they're both smart, and they both disagree.
So I'm on Tulsi's side for the most part, but I think we can all recognize they're both pretty cool people even if we disagree with them.
Crenshaw went on to argue against the idea of the U.S.
destabilizing foreign policies had sowed the seeds of 9-11.
In response to Rogan's comments that people in other countries now dislike us because they've watched civilians die en masse to U.S.
drone strikes, yes, I agree with Rogan.
In other military ventures, Crenshaw suggested that millions of people in countries like Yemen and Iraq are actually begging for the U.S., but that doesn't change the fact that many people aren't, right?
So, but anyway, disagreement, right?
I appreciate that we can have this level of civility, I do.
They say Piker was raised in Istanbul, Turkey, but he's an American citizen.
Opposed the comment, said this is so insane.
Okay, so he went on to insult Crenshaw and then said he was like, you know, effed in the eye by a brave soldier.
It's totally nuts.
But they say something to the effect of...
His own audience pushed back on Piker.
Hasan Piker was getting flack from his own viewers because it was like, dude, man.
You know, here's the thing.
That's why I think Banning him is wrong.
It's like, I'm pretty sure he's gonna get a hard Smackdown from the Young Turks.
I mean that like a business sense I don't like like he's gonna go to work, and they're gonna be like dude dude dude Okay, when you're trying to win over hearts and minds you can't use this you can't say this stuff You know I mean, and that's the biggest criticism.
I've had with someone like you know Sargon I brought this up last time is that I've called him mean before I think he's dramatically improved And I that's the point right I was I was talking a while ago And I said something to the effect of You know, if I thought you didn't have the capability to self-reflect and improve, I probably wouldn't be talking to you now.
And so, I would give the same opportunity to Hasan Piker I give to anybody.
You know, I always bring up Joey Salads as one of the biggest examples of, you know, forgiveness.
I'm not saying Joey's a good guy now, I'm just saying...
There are still people who don't like him, but he got busted doing these staged racist videos.
And, you know, my thought was, if you don't give him a chance, then he can only go in the other direction.
If everyone keeps screaming and yelling at him, he'll turn around and go towards the bad people.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You gotta take these people, you gotta bring them in, and you gotta say, listen, you did bad.
You did real bad.
And if you want to stay, and you want to be cool, and you want to keep on keeping on in our system, you have to recognize the mistake you made.
And that's the way I see it.
So, I don't see Sargon as nearly as bad as what these two have done.
No, no, he was just being mean, right?
I get it.
And he still kind of is sometimes, but Snark, it's okay.
I'm just very conscious about what we can do to be less mean to each other because that's what we need to do.
We need to stop dehumanizing each other.
We need to stop treating each other like demons or idiots or morons.
You know, it's so easy for Hasan to say all these things staring at a screen, not really meeting Dan Crenshaw, but I learned this at a very early age because I remember When I was like 15 or 16, I was watching some video online, and I was making fun of these skateboarders, because they wore weird clothes or something, and I was laughing, and me and my friends like high-fived each other, and were like, we're so cool and hip, and then we met them, and they were some of the nicest people I ever met, and I felt so bad.
I was like, aw, like, that was so mean, like, they're such nice people, they were so cool, they were just this crew of like silly skaters, and when I actually ended up bumping into them, rather inadvertently, I was like, I was kind of feeling like nervous, like, oh man, I was just smack-talking these people, like, I'm so embarrassed, and they were some of the coolest people, most generous, and so that was really like a learning moment for me when I was like, man, maybe I shouldn't sit behind a computer and just call people stupid names all day.
Because then when you meet them, it's the most embarrassing thing in the world.
And I'll admit this too, like, even just being, like, rationally critical of people, it's still kind of a difficult thing when you actually meet that person because it's happened.
You know, I've made videos where I've said, like, oh, this person is so out of it, they're so dumb, like, how could they believe this?
And then you actually meet them, and they're like, yeah, I saw that video where you were, like, calling me stupid and saying it, and I'm like, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, look, you know, I won't hold back, right?
I will criticize your ideas.
But I try to be nicer about it, because, look, man, what happens if one day, you know, Hasan is, like, you know, in Los Angeles or something, and he's sitting at a cafe, and all of a sudden, Dan Crenshaw's, like, sitting at a table next to him?
It's gonna be so weird.
And you're gonna have to, like, you're gonna have to be like, oh, you can't.
But some people are nuts, I'll admit.
Some people are like, they'll stand up and start screaming and yelling and that's just... You know, I like to believe that most people...
When sitting across from each other, we'll be like, okay man, I'm sorry I was so mean to you.
And that's why I hate the internet.
It creates this situation where you can just yell.
Like I said in the other video, what I see right now, it's a black rectangle.
You know, a lot of people don't really think about what I'm looking at when I do these videos.
It's a black rectangle.
It's like a robot eye.
I'm looking into a circle with a rectangle around its camera.
And a lot of people don't realize that there's someone else sitting there.
It's like they're sitting across from you and we're talking.
So when you have something like this, the assumption is that Dan Crenshaw isn't one of those people.
And that's just not true.
Dan did see this and he pushed back and he made a comment.
And I think it's bad that we have to go to this degree.
So I'll stress this point.
Twitter suspended him.
Well, look, I disagree with that.
Twitter's gonna do what- I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Twitch.
Twitch suspended him.
Twitch is gonna do what Twitch thinks is right, and I disagree with it.
Because there are people on the right who are bombastic and say offensive things, and there are people on the left who do it, and I want to hear it.
I want to hear them say bombastic things.
The argument I often hear from the more authoritarian approach is that if you stop people like Hassan from saying this, it will simmer down the culture war.
I actually don't necessarily agree.
I really don't.
I think what's going to simmer down the culture war is welcoming Hasan to come to an event and sit down and talk about it and ask them politely, like, hey man, look, we really want to hear your idea.
We really want to understand what you meant by this, but please just don't be so mean and bombastic.
And you know, you know, Hasan will probably say, he'll probably say, okay, okay, okay, right?
Maybe, maybe, I'm not saying, you know, maybe he's a bad dude.
I think, I think there's, I think I think his idea about what America has done in the Middle East and weapons and everything is factually true.
And it's because the CIA said U.S.
operations resulted in what they called blowback.
So then you get anger and outrage and these things happen.
To say that we deserved it, though, is an entirely different statement.
Of course, we didn't deserve it.
But the CIA says that our operations, you know, created this circumstance.
And I think it's fair to point out that Obama's policies of bombing, you know, military-aged men and calling them enemy combatants Yeah, it's going to make a lot of people angry.
Well, Dan Crenshaw wants to mention there are people begging for help.
He's right.
I absolutely believe it.
I've seen the videos where they're like, thank you for being here, and we appreciate the security.
But also recognize, even if there are millions of people who do want us there, even if there's only 10 people who don't, those 10 people can go and do something crazy.
So what I ultimately think is, to clarify anything I said in the last stream is, I don't like seeing anybody suspended just for being mean.
You know what I mean?
Like, let him do his thing.
Now, it is a challenge because Twitch is trying to serve ads and run a business, and if advertisers don't want to be associated with this kind of talk, well then don't be surprised when you get shut down.
Same is true for YouTube.
And that's why I always say, I'm not going to rely on YouTube's system.
If YouTube won't promote me, if YouTube won't sell ads, well...
That's my problem.
I'm running a business.
You know, so many YouTubers seem to think, like, I read one story about a woman who had a couple hundred thousand subscribers and couldn't make money.
And I was like, right, well, that's a business problem.
That's a you problem, OK?
You've got a following.
Congratulations.
You've worked hard.
I really mean it.
I'm being sincere.
But now you've got to figure out how to monetize your business.
If YouTube says they're going to ban, suspend, or take away, then I've got to figure that out.
That's my business.
So, that I recognize.
But on principle, I believe they shouldn't.
I believe they shouldn't suspend, they shouldn't ban.
So I will stress this point though.
You know, Keemstar saying he has not been banned.
Well, he's been suspended because there have been people from Twitch who have done worse things, who have not faced punishment.
And we know YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, etc.
It's a special class.
There is the privileged upper-class elite, of which I enjoy some of those protections, 100%.
On Twitter, I've tweeted Learn to Code, what, a dozen times with no problem.
But the small Twitter accounts, the small, you know, smaller accounts get wiped out.
Because they know that no one will hear their cries.
So they give the bigger channels the privilege, and I think that's wrong, wrong, wrong.
So I can't say how a business should or shouldn't be run.
In my personal opinion, I would like Hassan to not have been suspended in the first place, and he can face the business ramifications of his statements, of which I'm sure Cenk and the Young Turks are probably facepalming at the sheer insanity of what he said.
The F'd in the eye by a brave soldier?
Come on, man.
I think everybody in America's gonna be like, dude, dude, dude.
Okay, not everybody.
You're gonna have a bunch of, like, far left anti-fascist guys, like, laughing and clapping.
But the young Turks?
They may be progressive.
I may disagree with them to a great degree.
But I'm fairly certain they're like, oh no, oh no, what have you said?
Why did you do this?
So, anyway, man, look.
All I can do is express my distaste, my disgust, and my principles.
That if I'm gonna defend the awful speech of, you know, a bigot, then I'm gonna defend the awful speech of someone like Hassan.
He should be allowed to say it.
And I'm glad I can hear it so that I know how he truly feels.
And then I would ask him to... I would ask him actually to do this.
Say the exact same thing, the exact same idea.
Convey the exact same idea.
Tone down the language a little bit.
If you don't want to, you don't have to.
But just know, we can do better.
And if you came out and said, Not that America deserved it, but America brought this upon itself, right?
Much more toned down.
Because that's still in line with the CIA, although I would... I'm a moderate, I'd push back a little bit.
But that's still at least in the realm of like people will argue with you and they won't
they won't like start shrieking saying we deserved it.
And saying somebody got f'd in the eye hole is so so so far over the top.
It's ableism right?
So that should make the left angry.
But you can you don't have to insult Crenshaw man.
You don't gotta call him a 12 year old immature.
You can just say something like this guy is naive and ignorant and you know he was probably
too in the weeds to understand what's going on around him to have this administration.
Like, you can do it very calmly.
Although, like, I was making a point.
I think Crenshaw's actually smart and has more insight than I do.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
Hassan could absolutely express this idea in a calmer way that would be substantially more effective.
If your goal is to rile up the left so they start jumping up and down and hopping and being happy, well, then say bombastic statements.
But if you really want to win your idea over and you want to communicate, then you've got to do it in a way that's not going to make everybody angry and shock them.
Saying F in the eyehole shuts the conversation down right away.
So I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm going to do my best to stand up for principle and check my own biases, which means Hasan should be reinstated.
So I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
For those of you that aren't familiar, I am sponsoring an event in the South Jersey area, it's like a Philadelphia suburb, for the purpose of a conversation about ending racism, violence, and authoritarianism.
I would like to introduce you to two of the main organizers.
Here we have Sean Frasick, who is a Mexican man, and we have Fritz Antonio, who is a Nicar- I believe Nicaraguan- forgive me Fritz if I get the country wrong- I believe Nicaraguan immigrant, so he was- he's not born in America.
And then of course, everyone's favorite, um, mixed-race high school dropout from the south side of Chicago.
Now, the reason I tell you the identities of these individuals is because, for those that aren't familiar, far-left activists, protesters, and yes, to a certain degree, anti-fascists, Antifa, are trying to get the event shut down.
There have been threats.
There has been one threat that we now believe to be, we believe we were potentially misled into the severity of.
But they're absolutely trying to get it shut down, and so we're putting on an event with a variety of speakers.
And I will now show you some of the speakers, but I want to show you this story from the Philadelphia Inquirer, and I want to talk about why I really believe that, you know...
There's a story from Newsweek.
A Russian ambassador or oligarch or something cancelled a trip to the U.S.
because he said we're undergoing a second civil war.
Recently, just about two or three weeks ago, a Princeton professor said we're in a cold civil war.
I really do believe what I am experiencing now is potentially one of the, maybe one of the biggest signs we really are.
Now there's a reason why I highlighted the identities of the organizers and myself, as much as I hate doing it.
It's because this is what we've come to.
A bunch of moderates, and actually some progressives and liberals helping organize this event, are trying to bring in some conservatives to have a conversation, to challenge some of our
assumptions about each other, and call out both sides. Because when you sit down and talk to each other,
you de-escalate. And there's a very famous man who de-radicalized, my understanding is, around or over
200 Klansmen. Why? He was able to sit down with them, become friends, and then they realized their
racism didn't quite make sense when they actually sat next to a black man.
Imagine that!
This guy's name is Daryl Davis, and he's an amazing inspiration for me and for many people, because he shows that you can have a dialogue, you can end the fighting.
And that's one of the reasons why we want to do an event like this.
We want to get someone, you know, like Megan Murphy, a gender-critical feminist, more aligned with the left, to be at the same event as someone like Blair White, who is a trans woman but a conservative, bringing people from opposing ideas to hash out a conversation and just, I don't know, associate.
Because when you befriend people and talk to them, You start to see their humanity.
So Daryl Davis was a huge, huge inspiration.
There's also a Heineken commercial, which I've referenced before where people sit down.
But I do want to make an announcement.
Daryl Davis is actually going to be our headlining speaker.
There are some other people that we haven't announced yet because it's been so crazy that people are trying to stop this from happening.
And so, you know, I'm trying to avoid being overly hyperbolic, but I've got to stress, When you have an event that is, you know, I don't know, what, 30 some odd percent not white, in a country that's around 61 to 67 percent white, you get this proportion of people.
But we have left, we have right, we have center, we have de-radicalization experts.
We have just conservative personalities.
We have very controversial comedians, edgelords, whatever you want to call Count Dankula.
We have Michael Rollins, who, you know, I don't want to say too much about people's personal lives, but this guy is a progressive.
He's on the left.
They call him Music Man Mike.
And so we've brought in some of these people.
And yes, some of them are controversial for both sides.
You know, I don't believe David Pakman's going to be here, but I believe he has a special presentation.
Because we are doing our best to get people from all sides.
But I'll tell you this.
This is what you see.
You want to talk about the potential for civil conflict of some sort.
Here's a post that I just saw on the internet.
I don't know where it came from, necessarily.
But this woman said, quote, don't punch racist Nazis, that's counterproductive.
Then she says, No, B. B-I-T-C-H.
Shooting someone to support or oppose gun laws is counterproductive.
Not slapping some B around who effing deserves it.
No effing way are we going to make peace or change their minds.
This is effing war, B. You better back the F up before you get smacked the F up.
And then just below it is a story that juxtaposes this claim.
Black man convinces 200 Klansmen to leave white supremacist group by befriending them, saying, I never set out to convert anyone in the Klan.
I just set out to get an answer to my question.
How can you hate me when you don't even know me?
Says blues musician.
I remember reading this story and just being so damn inspired.
And here we have, you can see on the screen, Daryl Davis, Confirmed speaker.
Headlining.
He's gonna talk about how we can come together, we can be friends, we can stop the fighting.
And the racism.
And it's one of the most amazing things I have the privilege of being a part of, because I defer to this guy.
You know, I can talk all day and at the end of it, but this is a guy who actually went out and made change.
And he said, Quote, established dialogue.
When two enemies are talking, they're not fighting.
And he's right.
And I agree.
But here's the problem.
There are people who want violence.
As we can see here, in this post, they don't want to make peace.
They don't want to change minds.
They want Violence.
So what do you think happens then?
When we put on an event with the overarching agenda of ending racism, violence, and authoritarianism, what do we want?
We want people to be treated for who they are, not what they look like.
We want people to have a conversation about what they think and why, instead of hitting each other.
And we don't want people using violence and coercion to assert their power over others in violation of their autonomy.
We do not want a system where arbitrary authority dictates.
And lo and behold, what do you get?
The authoritarian far left.
Trying to shut down this conversation.
And I will show you exactly why.
They want the violence.
So what do we do?
Well, check this out.
In this story from the Enquirer, which I highlighted in the beginning, they reference that the theater says the event is cancelled.
Well, I don't beli- Well, the event is not cancelled.
Absolutely not.
We have other venues.
But the issue is, this theater is rejecting hosting someone like, you know, this theater is refusing to put on an event With a migrant, a Mexican, a mixed-race person, and a Jewish man.
He's not in the photo.
And headlined by one of the most famous de-radicalization, you know, individuals in the world.
His story, it's incredible.
But the theater doesn't want any of us to have it.
They don't want it there.
So there is going to be, you know, there is some movement.
It was already announced that, I believe it may be in this story.
No, but in a different story.
Bill from Minds, one of the principal sponsors, has already announced we're pursuing legal action.
And I don't want to say too much about that, but we absolutely live in a time that is terrifying and dangerous.
Because when you realize the intent of the event, and you realize the lengths people are willing to go to to shut it down, we are now at a point where conversation is becoming impossible.
And you know what happens?
Like Daryl said, when two enemies are talking, they're not fighting.
And I completely agree.
And that's why they don't want us talking.
These people want violence.
They want it.
But here's the thing.
As mentioned in this story, it turns out, so we were under the impression there was a threat to burn the theater down.
The police believe it's serious.
However, it turns out now, at least my understanding, is that it was like some joke on Twitter that had nothing to do with, well, it did, but it wasn't directed at the theater.
Someone said something like, Are they going to end racism by locking everyone in and burning it down?
Which was not... It was made in jest.
It was a joke.
We weren't told that.
So when the initial stories came out, and I made that video where I said I believe this to be the case, I can't get into full detail because there is a legal course that's going to be moving forward, so I have to be very careful, but it was implied to me It was stated in, as far as I know, no uncertain terms, there was a serious threat of something of this nature.
And as it turns out now, it seems it was just some random Twitter person who probably lives nowhere near the venue, and in my personal opinion, I think they were using it as an excuse and wanted us to believe it was more severe than it really was.
So I guess that's the case.
Now, I'll admit, I don't exactly know, right?
I don't want to make a hard statement of fact, because all I know is that I had a conversation, something was expressed to me that was shocking, and something was expressed to other people that essentially confirmed this, and that was the narrative that, you know, not us.
Other people were conveying to us.
But then someone started digging up the tweet and now we believe it may have been a misdirection or something.
I could be wrong.
You know, I could be wrong.
I don't know exactly because, look, there's going to be multiple parties involved.
All I know is someone said something to me and that was what was conveyed.
But they say here, this threat was contained in a tweet that a progressive activist and even Poole both told me was quite possibly made in jest.
Nevertheless, it's being taken seriously and remains under investigation by the Pitman police, according to Chief Daniel J. McAteer.
He says I'm glad that a new venue has been found and certainly don't fault the Broadway Theatre for wanting out.
As Pittman Mayor Russ Johnson noted, the event as described several months ago seemed far more innocuous and less potentially contentious than the program now being promoted.
Not true.
The program has always been up and available with everything listed as it is.
I promoted this a long time ago.
The temporary takeover of the Broadway's website, it was their Twitter account, and the threatening tweet also attracted the attention of Breitbart News, which published a story showcasing Antifa's reaction.
They say the progressives I know have no use for costumed thuggery of Antifa, but I'm troubled that many comments on social media seem to regard the Pittman event as so inherently dangerous that suspending freedoms of speech and assembly is justified.
So, I don't want to read through the whole piece, but I want to highlight This is an op-ed from the Philly Enquirer saying, we should be allowed to have the event, it was wrong to shut it down.
It's all a bunch of fake nonsense, you know, that's being propped up.
But here's what worries me.
I was told by someone involved in the city that they watched my initial livestream talking about our intention and the program, and they couldn't figure out if I was left or right or, you know, what I believed.
They said, I didn't know if you were right-wing or left-wing or anything.
I mean, I listened to you for 45 minutes, couldn't figure it out.
I said, right, because I'm trying to bring people together.
So I'm going to avoid pointing the finger at one side or the other.
Except in this instance, where it's literally been the far left targeting the venues of the harassment campaign.
Now look, protest by all means.
You're allowed to protest.
But this has gone beyond that.
Someone hacked their Twitter account and then blackmailed them saying you will only get it back if you cancel the event.
And then what happened?
The theater says we will not have the event.
I believe that's what's in here.
They say, uh, let me make sure it's actually in here.
Because they've been all saying that, uh, yeah, okay.
It's not cancelled, okay?
And that was a huge error on the part of the press and the theater and everybody who made that claim.
Simply because the theater doesn't want to host it doesn't mean the event is cancelled.
We've known this has been a possibility, and I will stress, never expected it.
Never expected it.
Of course we think, you know, you might get some people protesting or something like that, but we certainly didn't expect any of this in the press or anything like that.
But you always prepare.
So what I should say is not necessarily that we expected it because we didn't really think it was going to happen.
But I should stress, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, in any circumstance.
So we had the, like, I guess evidence to suggest we didn't expect any of this to happen is, we had the address public!
You know, these Trump supporters put on events, they hide the event address until the very last minute so it can't be cancelled.
We didn't do that!
We had two of our venues publicly available, and we still have the address up for the second event.
Across the street from the theater is a brewery, and we are still having our VIP event because they've refused to shut it down.
Because they recognize that a few, you know, crazy people on the internet who don't live here should not be shutting down an event.
Look, I live here, and that's why I want to stress.
But this is what really scares me.
About where we are.
Conspiracy theorists are making weird fringe claims that our event, which is going to be hosted by one of the most prominent de-radicalization, you know, individuals ever, isn't really talking about ending racism and violence and authoritarianism.
Oh, because Andy Ngo, the guy who was brutally beaten and put in the hospital, certainly is not going to denounce it.
He already has a million times.
But these conspiracy theorists are coming out making fringe phone calls claiming that a secret organization of, like, Nazis are calling it an ending racism event.
Why?
It's the most insane conspiracy I've ever heard.
I gotta be honest.
Look, when you make a claim about the government and the government did something, that's not as insane as this.
You know why?
Because the government does have secrets.
They do have confidentiality.
They do have top secret.
They do have black ops and programs.
So when you say the government is secretly engaged in this nefarious plot, it's like, well, I don't believe you without evidence.
We do know the government does this.
There's at least a small bit of possibility, but let's think about what they're saying here.
They're saying that a bunch of racists are secretly trying to attract local people to come to an event titled Ending Racism so that once they arrive, they can be like, by the way, the title was a trick.
you're trapped. What? No, people would just leave. It's the most insane conspiracy I've ever heard.
I mean, granted, there are conspiracies about like aliens coming to Earth during like, you know,
2000 AD and like drilling a hole in the North Pole or something. So yeah, okay, there are other
crazy conspiracies. But when we're talking about, when we're talking about something in the real
world, you know, so like the government can engage in, you know, operations, false flags have
happened, but it doesn't mean any particular false flag is true unless you can prove it.
But here we have people who literally think that a group of white supremacists are trying to hold
an event called ending racism with several not white people who are known for, and progressives,
so we can trick people. Ooh.
Ooh, that makes literally no sense.
It makes no sense at all.
But I'll tell you this, my final point about the coming conflict or whatever's gonna happen is, I live here.
If I can't put on an event by my house with moderates and people, progressives and some conservatives, to sit down and talk things out, well then the talking is being blocked on purpose.
Why?
It's very simple.
They want the violence.
They.
Want.
The.
Violence.
So listen, if these people want it, and they're willing to engage in it, and they embrace it, and they beat journalists, and they encourage it, what do you think happens?
Look, you know, If we're not allowed to talk anymore, these people are refusing to allow diplomacy to happen.
They want it.
Now, all the people at our event denounce violence, and that's the point.
We want to come together, and we want to stop this before it gets too bad.
But the bad people are going to stop at nothing.
And they're going to do everything in their power to make sure that they wield their violence against those who would be willing to sit down for a conversation because they're dangerous and they're unhinged.
And we cannot bend the knee to these lunatics.
Absolutely not.
So I will stress in no uncertain terms, no resource will be spared in our coming legal issues for breach of contract.
I will stress This theater had a contract for months with a publicly available itinerary and speaker list.
They didn't seem to care about it.
When the first calls came in, they said it was fine and ignored them and even pushed back.
But something happened around the time of this alleged threat where all of a sudden they went into panic mode.
So I'll tell you what.
You can't break a contract because a crazy person who lives a hundred plus miles away told you not to have an event.
You can't do it.
You have a contract.
If the contract gives you an escape for it, well, I will stress this.
I don't have a contract at the theater.
The organizers do.
I'm just a sponsor, so I have no legal standing in any of this.
But I will stress, the event will happen at all costs.
And those that are willing to bend the knee to a harassment campaign and break a contract after five months need to be told, you can't do that.
You can't do that.
But we'll see what happens.
I'll have more updates later, but for now, this is where we're at, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Different channel.
I will see you all there.
Oh my stars and godders!
I could not imagine.
I could never have predicted this.
Jerry Nadler is accusing Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib of anti-Semitism.
Wow.
Who could have seen this coming?
As of August 24th, today, a Democrat is accusing squad members of being anti-Semites.
Huh!
Imagine my shock!
Here's a story from the Daily Wire.
Ilhan Omar fires back at Jerry Nadler after the senior Democrat accused her and fellow squad member Rashida Tlaib of anti-Semitism.
They say, Ilhan Omar has fired back- Oh, we just read that.
Why do they always repeat the title as the first sentence?
You don't need to do that.
Omar's remarks on Friday appeared to be in response to Nadler's tweet, accusing both the squad members and Trump of spreading anti-Semitism.
Okay, okay.
He included Trump.
Alright.
So it's okay.
It's okay.
No.
In reality, this is partly what Trump wants, right?
We know that Trump has been propping up the squad because nobody likes them.
When I say nobody, I mean the majority of Democrats do not hold them a favorable view.
At least, that's what I've seen from the data.
Could be wrong.
But they have like a fractured group of people around the country, not even their own, like, they don't even get a majority of their own top donations from their own districts.
Quote, the growing anti-Semitism in our political dialogue is repugnant, Nadler tweeted.
Real Donald Trump's comments about disloyalty are a vicious and dangerous anti-Semitic trope,
and the Carlos Ledeff cartoon forwarded by Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar can surely be
read for its vile underlying message.
Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, responded in a tweet, it is sickening to watch people make
false equivalences between the open bigotry and hatred of this president and progressives.
From everything I'm experiencing with the event I'm trying to put on, with this, it's very obvious The far left is trying to crush the moderates.
The people who are regular, rational individuals who are trying to have a rational debate.
Many of the liberals I know aren't paying attention anymore.
And they sometimes act like they are, and it's so frustrating when they're like, well, you know, I sometimes catch the news.
And it's like, no you don't.
Just stop.
Just tell me straight up, you don't care anymore.
You're gone.
You've left this fight to the few of us, moderate liberal types.
You've left us alone.
And now we're facing off with far-left, identitarian, socialist, insane people who are anti-semitic.
And then you can see that, you know, look, the Democrats that are still in, most of them, are more moderate, but we'll see what happens.
We will see what happens, because I think it's fair to point out these people, you know, the squad, their support base is fractured.
We'll see if they win again, but it's getting bad.
Now, before we read on, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but seriously, Share this video if you think it's good.
I honestly feel like if I wasn't asking you to do that, my channels would be dead.
Just because the deranking and, you know, it is what it is.
Like, viewership is down for a lot of channels, every independent commentator is being hit, and maybe it's the end.
Maybe YouTube commentary will be over soon, but I guess we'll see.
I'll keep doing it so long as you guys, you know, think the videos are worth sharing.
So, here we have the two tweets.
Jerry Nadler, oh, I'm so shocked that the Democrats are experiencing this internal clash.
Donald Trump called out the squad.
Oh, I gotta stop.
Have you guys seen the Simpsons thing?
Wow!
I wasn't planning on bringing up a video about it, but this is a really good point to interject here, you know, right now, with this ongoing feud between the Democrats and all that.
The Simpsons did a parody, I guess, of West Side Story, where the squad, like, chase after Trump, like, yelling at him, and Trump's cowering, and then the Democrats, the 2020 Democrats start doing, like, a dance or something, and it is the cringiest, most awful thing I've ever seen.
And I think it shows exactly, look, the mainstream, these celebrity types, the media people, think The Squad is popular.
They're not.
On Twitter, maybe.
Maybe.
But making a video like that, everyone hated it.
It was so awful.
Listen man, when you've got the Democrats like Nadler and Pelosi, and even Trump, calling them out for being anti-Semites, why are you defending them?
Why is anyone defending them?
You know what?
Whatever.
There is a growing fringe far left in this country that are getting out of control, and people need to speak up.
Because when we don't, these people gain ground, and they are nuts.
They are anti-Semites.
They are racists.
They believe in insane policies that make no sense.
So, you know, I think Trump's gonna win 2020, but let's keep reading.
Donald Trump has spent his whole life targeting minority communities.
I'm sorry, that's just not true.
Didn't Trump win, like, some award or something for civil rights?
You can criticize him for being boorish and crass, but this certainly doesn't make sense.
That's from Omar.
Promoting hate against blacks, immigrants, Muslim, Latinx, women, people with disabilities, and Jewish Americans.
Nadler, in his criticism of Omar and Tlaib, cited a cartoon that the two freshman Democrats shared on Instagram.
The cartoon depicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu silencing Tlaib by putting his hand over her mouth and Trump doing the same gesture to Omar.
And referenced a recent controversy over a planned visit to Israel by the two Democrats, except in their itinerary they said they were going to Palestine, not Israel, so you can understand there's a bit of a contention here.
The cartoon creator, Carlos Latouf, has a history of creating images that have drawn accusations of anti-Semitism.
Israel denied Omar a visa but granted Tlaib permission to visit her grandmother in the West Bank, though Tlaib rejected the offer, claiming it came with unspecified restrictions.
No, it wasn't unspecified.
Rashida Tlaib, in a letter, asked if she could go and she would not preach BDS, boycott, divestment, and sanctions of Israel.
And then after they said, okay, you're good, she came out and said, no, I refuse these restrictions.
Like, wait, wait, wait, wait, what was the point of all that?
Now, it's fair to say maybe she changed her mind, but come on, man, have a little bit more tact and think ahead before you do these things.
If you're going to send a letter agreeing to something, come on.
And then coming out and turning around.
So this is the photo, and apparently the writer has made some extremely controversial cartoons in the past.
Ilhan Omar posted this and says, the more they try to silence us, our voices rise.
The more they try to weaken us, the stronger we become.
The more they try to discredit us, the truth prevails.
And you know what the problem is?
Trump wants this to happen.
Because this is all the focus the Democrats are getting.
Like, name a Democrat outside of the squad.
Most people can't.
No, for real.
There are so many Democrats in Congress, and you might hear their name for the first time and be like, never heard of that person.
But you've heard of the Squad probably, and Trump knows it, and he wants them to be front and center, so that when it comes time to vote in the midterms, all people will be thinking is, these people are nuts.
And people vote party lines.
Trump wants moderates to see this.
And as I've pointed out in several videos, the Harris X poll shows moderates, independent voters, are more concerned the Democrats are going far left than they are concerned the Republicans are going far right.
So Trump knows he's winning.
He's willing to take that hit to his own personal approval rating or whatever if it means the Republicans make gains in 2020.
Nadler, who is Jewish, also referred in his tweet to Trump's remarks saying Jewish people who voted for Democrats were showing a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.
Now, I think it's fair to point out, if you want to say that Rashida Tlaib was talking about dual loyalty when she said these politicians don't know where their loyalties lie or something like that, then I think it's fair to criticize Trump in a similar way.
However, I've taken the position that it's more like what I call crop-dusting anti-Semitism.
Meaning, it's not overtly, but it's close to it.
Like when the plane gets real close to the ground, but doesn't actually touch it.
Like, yeah, almost there, buddy.
And I think it's worthy of criticism, because we can't play a game where we're going to criticize one person for saying dual loyalty and not Trump.
Disloyalty may be a bit different.
I guess the question is, who is he loyal to?
And the issue may be to America and its allies, but I kind of don't see it here for the most part, but look, it's not up to me who's offended.
You know, if somebody's upset about it...
I mean, whatever.
Let's read on.
So it's actually an inversion.
It sounds like Trump's saying you should support Israel, not that you shouldn't.
Whereas Rashida Tlaib said you shouldn't.
and you're being very disloyal to Israel.
So it's actually an inversion.
It sounds like Trump's saying you should support Israel, not that you shouldn't.
Whereas Rashida Tlaib said you shouldn't.
So yeah, I got to admit, it's all very confusing.
And so you know what?
You take your opinion.
I'm going to slowly walk back from this one quite confused.
In her first interview since declining Israel's invitation to visit her grandmother in the West Bank, Tlaib attacked Trump as a white supremacist.
Oh, oh heavens, like Trump hasn't been called that 750 million times?
It's been very clear to me, especially this last week, that he's scared of us.
Look, when every single news outlet can say the same thing, Trump is distracting us and he wants them front and center, to anger moderate voters, why would you think he's scared of you?
Oh my, these people are playing his game.
You know what, man?
You can call it 4D chess, you can call it whatever you want, but Trump has a strategy.
Maybe it's not his personally, I don't know.
The point is, it's working!
Here we go again!
Another story about Democrats in turmoil, fighting, and it's the squad.
And it's the squad.
Like clockwork.
They say something and do something offensive, and the Democrats call them out.
And Trump highlights this, and there you go.
He highlights the antisemitism, and they're playing his game.
Who are people going to vote for come the midterms?
I'll give you my final thought on this, you know, because I can only say it so many times.
Imagine my shock.
Oh, the Democrats are calling the squad anti-Semitic, right?
Imagine my shock.
Trump supporters didn't come out in the midterms, and they're going to come out in 2020.
And that's why they're scared that the Congress will fall back to the Republicans.
And that's part of the plan.
And the squad doesn't seem to care at all.
They have very little support from their own districts.
So, you know what?
We'll see what happens.
Maybe they'll get re-elected.
I don't know.
Maybe the Republicans will take back the House.
We'll see.
We'll see.
But, color me surprised.
That's sarcasm, by the way.
Is anyone really shocked by this?
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you shortly.
So there I was, sitting at my computer, reading Twitter, and I saw the complete shock from people when it turns out that Sarah Sanders was going to be brought on to Fox News.
I believe that's what happened.
It might be in the story.
But there was like shock. They were like, oh man, it's the state TV channel and they're insulting it.
And then I saw the tweet from Oliver Darcy, a media reporter from CNN, saying that Andrew
McCabe was being brought on. It's like, man, talk about, I guess, is that ironic? Is that ironic?
They're going to criticize Fox News for bringing on a former government employee, and then they do literally the same thing, so it's kind of.
But here's a story from BizPacReview.
15 former spooks who work at CNN and MSNBC now.
Spook is a reference to spy, government agent.
And boy, do they have a hefty list.
So why is this?
It's really weird.
And then you end up with the deep state conspiracy theories.
Now, I'm not a big fan of the conspiracy theories.
You know, people like the QAnon stuff.
No, leave me out of that.
But there has been talk of something called a permanent government.
And outside of any conspiracies, I'll just say this.
It is true that when the democratic institutions churn, The intelligence agencies have employees who stay on between administrations, giving them an anchor point in our government and giving them control.
So imagine this.
Trump says, I'm going to do X, Y, and Z before getting into office.
They vote for him.
As soon as he gets in, an intelligence agent, you know, individual, hands him a folder saying, here's everything that's happening in the world and what you got to do.
And the president says, wow, I really have no choice, do I?
And that's why I think the office is kind of irrelevant.
In referencing promises made by the politician, it's like, no matter who gets an office, they go to war.
But maybe it's because they're being fed intelligence from the same people.
Maybe it's because there really are global problems and our intelligence agencies are correct.
I guess the conspiracy theory is that the intelligence agencies are all lying or something.
Well, I don't know about all that, but I will say this.
Isn't it weird that CNN and MSNBC hire so many of these people?
I find it kind of creepy.
So let's read about these 15 former spooks.
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 address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
The deranking is hitting everybody really, really hard.
And if you like my content, just share it to help keep it going.
But don't forget to like and comment, because those really, really help too.
So, from BizPacReview, they report CNN added to its deep state—I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I didn't say deep state—its deep roster of former FBI and CIA officials turned analysts Friday, with the hiring of Andrew McCabe, the former FBI deputy director fired for lack of candor during an investigation last year.
McCabe is the 10th ex-FBI, CIA, or intelligence community official CNN has hired during the Trump administration, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis.
MSNBC has followed closely behind, having hired five former officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan.
CNN was widely mocked on Friday after announcing the McCabe hiring, largely because the network has criticized its competitors for hiring former Trump administration officials.
But the personnel move is also part of a larger trend that has come under scrutiny from some media observers.
Now, let me stress this point.
If they want to hire a former FBI or CIA person, I think it's a great idea.
They have insight and experience, right?
They want to hire 15, I'm gonna be a little bit confused.
Certainly 2 or 3 is enough, right?
But 15?
Now it's starting to sound weird.
But let's read on.
Jack Schafer, a media critic who writes for Politico, noted the potential pitfalls of networks like CNN and MSNBC having a stable of ex-spies and G-men as paid on-air contributors.
But the downside of outsourcing national security coverage to the TV spies is obvious, Schafer wrote in a February 5, 2018 article at Politico.
They aren't in the business of breaking news or uncovering secrets.
Their first loyalty, and this is no slam, is to the agency from which they hail.
Glenn Greenwald, an editor at The Intercept, the founder of The Intercept, I believe, who covers national security issues, echoed that sentiment during a Fox News interview in March.
And not only did MSNBC and CNN use those people as their sources, they hired them as their news analysts.
So if you turn on CNN or MSNBC, it was basically state TV.
It was CIA TV, he told Tucker Carlson March 26.
Greenwald and others have noted the lopsided analysis offered up by former officials, especially on the topic of the Trump-Russia probe.
Isn't it really funny that for years we hear about Russiagate?
We have all of these people talking about it and it was all fake?
And the network still hired these people?
Why?
It's really strange, isn't it?
Why would you hire someone who was wrong for years?
Right?
Let's step aside, okay?
Let's ignore the fact that their former government employees, their government agents for intelligence agencies, they were wrong.
A lot of them were wrong.
Why hire them?
Who cares about their analysis if they have no idea what's happening and their speculation was wildly inaccurate?
Glenn Greenwald is on the left.
He's not a fan of Trump.
Yet he complained MSNBC would not have him on.
And he said it was because he wouldn't push the Russiagate narrative.
In fact, he pushed against it, as did many others on the left, saying these government agencies are making up this weird Russia scare nonsense for some reason.
Let's read on.
They say most have hewed to the network's general viewpoint that Trump or his associates conspired with Russia.
Fake news.
Others, like McCabe, Brennan, and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, have all defended the investigation of the Trump campaign.
They've maintained their defense even in the wake of the special counsel's report, which debunked the theory that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.
Here's a rundown of CNN and MSNBC's most prominent analysts.
First, they start with James Clapper.
Director of National Intelligence under Obama.
As the nation's top intelligence official, Clapper was intimately involved in the investigation of possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian government.
He set up a now-infamous January 6, 2017 meeting with top intelligence officials and then-President-elect Donald Trump.
During that briefing, then-FBI Director James Comey told Trump about the existence of the Steele dossier.
Four days later, CNN reported that the briefing occurred.
Hours after that, BuzzFeed News published the Steele dossier in full.
Republicans have accused Clapper of leaking information to CNN for its report, though he has denied it.
Though he was hired by CNN, which is kind of funny.
And then we have Andrew McCabe.
Former FBI Deputy Director, CNN announced on Friday McCabe would serve as a law enforcement analyst.
McCabe was fired from the FBI on March 16, 2018, upon the recommendation of the Bureau's Office of Professional Responsibility.
An investigation determined that McCabe lacked candor under oath regarding his authorization of a leak to the media in October 2016 regarding the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
McCabe sued the Justice Department and FBI August 8, claiming that he was fired due to pressure from Trump.
Why would you want to bring someone on who was fired from the FBI?
Why wouldn't you bring on someone who may be, I don't know, a journalist who has covered this stuff and doesn't have a conflict of interest?
I can understand bringing on a former employee, but why one of the most controversial?
Look, I'm not making this video to allege any conspiracies.
I'm just saying they have a clear bias.
They are clearly biased against Trump.
They are hiring on people who are accused of one thing or another, one thing or another, and who clearly don't like the president.
James Baker, former FBI General Counsel.
They say Baker, a CNN legal analyst, left the FBI in May 2018 under a cloud of suspicion.
In a congressional interview on October 18th, Baker's lawyer revealed he was under criminal investigation for an unauthorized leak to the media.
And then he gets a job.
So, you know, I gotta say, it's like clockwork.
We have Josh Campbell, former aide to James Comey.
We have Asha Rangappa, former FBI special agent and leading collusion conspiracy theorist.
Isn't it interesting that these people who were hired aren't just, like, former FBI agent, had no role in Russian collusion?
Stephen Hall, a former CIA Moscow station chief and outspoken critic of Trump.
Can we get one FBI agent who's not a critic of Trump?
And she'll be like, oh, you know, I ran the fax machine.
If you want to bring on someone as an analyst for Launch Force, then I get it.
It makes sense.
But why is it that everyone they bring on is... It's... They all have some kind of anti-Trump or pro-Russiagate narrative behind them.
Now look, I'll say it's possible that everyone in the FBI believes it's true, except for the fact the special counsel said it wasn't true.
So at this point, you'd think there'd be FBI agents who are like, yeah, it's not true.
Nah, that's not true, we're good.
Instead, what do we get?
MSNBC hired Andrew McCabe.
MSNBC's got John Brennan, the former CIA director.
Now look, again, I will stress, maybe it makes sense to hire someone like him.
But why do they always have to be the conspiracy theorists who have pushed all this nonsense?
Look at Malcolm Nance, former Naval Chief Petty Officer.
Nance has also been noted for pushing the collusion conspiracy theory, among other things.
Weird conspiracies about Trump sending secret messages or something.
He said something like, there are people who believe Trump is sending subliminal messages.
I don't, yeah, yeah, yeah, so he was the guy who said subliminal messages.
There was another guy in MSNBC who said, he said that Trump was gonna raise the flags on August 8th because August 8th is 8-8.
I kid you not, it's a bunch of conspiracy wackos.
At the very least, I can criticize them for bringing on all of these very obvious personalities with the same point of view, but can we stress that many of them were conspiracy theorists who were wrong, wrong about everything, and they're still being hired.
If you want to hire someone because you think they have insight, fine, but why the conspiracy theorists?
So, Jeremy Bash is the last one in the name, former CIA Chief of Staff.
Now there you go.
The very last name.
They say nothing.
He just worked for the CIA.
I'm happy with that.
I am.
It's fine.
You've got someone with experience.
They don't put here anything about him hating Trump.
Okay.
But at any rate, you tell me why you think they're hiring all these people.
I know there's a lot of people who believe in conspiracies.
I think it's just nepotism.
Nepotism.
It's a bunch of high-profile individuals who keep ragging on Trump, and they all hate Trump, and they have Trump derangement syndrome, so there you go.
You get a job!
Congratulations.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
Many of you may wonder how it is that I'm so accurate.
Why is it that Tim Pool makes so many videos and produces so few corrections?
Well, I have a standard ethical editorial process.
I check sources on stories before using them.
I use a third-party rating agency.
Now, this is an outlet you may be familiar with called the New York Times.
I believe some people refer to it as the paper of record, which is absolutely certified by NewsGuard across the board.
And guess what?
The news you've been hearing about the Amazon forest appears to be completely fake news.
I saw one tweet with over a hundred thousand retweets.
It was like two days ago.
And I saw everybody screeching, the Amazon's on fire.
Wow, what do we do?
And so I decided to look into it.
And I couldn't find anything really definitive.
And I said, I'm not going to do it.
I'm not going to report this without being able to fact check any of these sources or having a reputable source tell me what's happening.
I'll admit, it's possible this story is incorrect, but as it turns out, the New York Times reports as of today what satellite imagery tells us about the Amazon rainforest fires.
Scientists studying satellite image data from the fires in the Amazon rainforest said that most of the fires are burning on agricultural land where the forest had already been cleared.
Can we stop the fake news, please?
See, this is what happens when you wait.
When you wait.
I saw the viral tweets.
There was a video of a woman who's an indigenous screaming, they're burning our forests!
And I said, OK, OK, OK.
If that's that's a serious allegation.
But I don't have any proof of that.
It may be true.
I don't know.
Check this out.
First, I will stress, deforestation in the Amazon is bad.
It is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.
It is really bad.
There are some stories saying that if we deforest, if the Amazon is cut down any further, even a few more percentage points, it could cause a total collapse.
And we absolutely need this part of the planet to be very green.
See, getting water into these areas is... it's a complicated process, you know?
I'm not super familiar with, like, weather patterns and the climate cycles.
You ask a meteorologist, but look at the Sahara Desert.
It's actually growing, and so they planted a bunch of trees to try and stop the encroaching... encroachment of the desert.
So, it's dangerous to continue to tear down these trees.
That's why so many people are shocked, and I can respect that you're concerned about all the fires.
Now look at this photo.
They say, existing forest, deforestation through 2018, and fires in August.
And it looks like there are a decent amount of fires here.
Oh heavens!
Why so many fires?
Isn't that weird?
Look at all the fires over here, too, in Bolivia and other parts of Brazil.
And look at all this deforestation.
This is a problem.
The deforestation is a problem.
I am a full-on environmentalist.
I would prefer them not to do this, and we need to talk about deforestation in the Amazon.
But I will stress, we don't get there through sensational, insane nonsense about fires that are seemingly Normal.
I kid you not.
According to the story, they say that the fires are part of a natural agricultural process.
They burn the land on purpose.
Check this out.
Most of the fires were likely set by farmers preparing the land for next year's planting, a common agricultural practice, said the scientists from the University of Maryland.
Satellite images like the ones below show smoke plumes from fires emanating from agricultural areas.
Listen.
I saw one story that I actually agree with.
It says, if you want to help the Amazon, one thing you can do is stop eating beef.
One of the big things that's happening is cattle ranching.
Setting up farms for animals.
Well, I'll tell you this now.
Guess what?
I don't eat beef.
I almost entirely don't eat beef.
I'll eat it sometimes, right?
I take a more of a freegan approach to beef.
Now, for one, beef, it just makes me sick.
It's not a big fan.
Chicken, turkey, love that.
Love the birds.
Love fish.
Beef's not so good for me.
So, I think it's a good idea.
Cut down on your beef consumption.
By all means, enjoy your nice beef cheeseburger, a good juicy burger with bacon slopped all over it.
Go for it.
But it is smart for a couple reasons.
One, it is healthier.
to cut down on too much meat, add more leafy greens to your diet, cut down on sugars too.
But it is good better for the environment because it takes a lot of resources to make beef.
But let's let's not talk about beef. Let's get back to fake news. So check this out. Look at this.
See this right here, September?
Look at all these fires.
Going back all of these years, it was worse in 2003.
The fires were all over the place.
Why?
How come nobody talked about it then?
Is it because Bolsonaro is in office and people want something to be mad about?
Is it Bolsonaro derangement syndrome?
I am no fan of Bolsonaro.
Look, I will criticize Trump, but Bolsonaro, I think, is way, way worse.
Look, I'm not... I will say this.
I am never someone who have any kind of derangement syndrome.
I'm not gonna get into the whole Brazil-Bolsonaro thing because I think it might be too esoteric for a lot of people.
You gotta know a lot about Brazil.
Brazil's got political correctness problems to an insane degree.
I know comedians who are facing jail time for jokes, much like Dankula, and these are famous people.
So yeah, people were craving a strongman when people were getting shut down for telling silly jokes, so I get it.
There are a lot of things to criticize him for, but I'll keep it to talking about the fake news and avoid derailing into another one of these rants about these presidents and whatever.
The New York Times reports the majority of the agricultural land currently in use in Brazil's Amazon region was created through years of deforestation.
Most of this land use... Most of this land use that have replaced rainforest, said Matthew Hansen, who is a co-leader of Global Land Analysis and Discovery Laboratory at the University of Maryland.
Brazil has turned certain states like Mato Grosso into Iowa, said Mr. Hansen, referring to the Brazilian state on the southern edge of the Amazon region.
You've got rainforest, and then there's just an ocean of soybean.
So stop eating soy.
I think conservatives might agree with that one.
You gotta watch out, uh...
I think it's fair to point out too much soy can be bad.
I know a lot of people talk about soy boys and all that.
I think it's mostly just a meme.
It's not necessarily that bad, but it's bad for the environment.
So if, I'll tell you what, if you're a conservative and you want to eat beef, the next best thing you can do is tell everyone to stop eating soybeans.
For real, they grow a lot of soy in the Amazon region.
So, they say, the grid maps below show the month-by-month pattern of fires across the Amazon rainforest in Brazil each year since 2001.
The increase in fires every August to October coincides with the season when farmers begin planting soybean and corn.
So here right now we are, August 2019, and everyone's going, oh no!
The Amazon's on fire!
It's the greatest problem in the world!
Heavens!
And the deforestation is a problem.
But they're acting like the forest is being torched when in reality we have a satellite map showing it's just farmland.
And that video where she says the farmers are doing this on purpose?
Yeah, they're torching their farm fields seemingly on purpose.
Now, it's possible the fire spread and it's dangerous.
I get it.
But tell me this.
Look at this map!
Every year, at the same time, September, we see all these fires.
And no one said anything before?
That's why I believe it's complete fake news.
Because not only that, it looks like the fires in August this year are actually lighter than they were in 2017.
They were actually lighter than they were in 2010!
Where was the activist outrage?
Where were the celebrities?
Where was the screeching howls?
I'll tell you this.
It's fake news.
It's fake news and outrage.
And we can see, look, these are the winter months in South America.
We can see that in their summer months, not a whole lot of fires.
But let's see what else they have.
They say, these maps were created using current and historical data from two NASA satellites, Terra and Aqua, which can detect the infrared radiation emitted by fires.
Comparing the area that burned in August this year to an average of the areas burned during the same month in the previous five years illustrate part of the reason why this year's fires have garnered so much attention.
Wait, wait, what?
It's the same thing.
Is it different?
It looks like there were more fires on average than there were today.
So why is it gaining so much attention?
It says it illustrates part of the reason?
What was that reason?
For real, you could overlay these and it's almost identical.
They say, Scientists at Brazil's National Institute of Space Research calculated that there were 35% more fires so far this year than in the average of the last eight years.
Now that's a fair point.
I will take it back, but I want to stress Perhaps there were more fires.
But when you show me this graph, it doesn't look like that's the case.
And I'm talking about averages, too.
That's the important thing.
What about 2017?
Can we talk about the density of red in 2017 compared to 2019?
Because it seems like 2017's fires were actually worse.
Sure, there were other years, like 2011, that have much less.
2010 appears to have way more fires than this year.
So when you average it out, Sure.
I feel like the New York Times is misleading us right now.
Why combine every year, when we should be pointing out that the fires appear, at least based on this, to me, and I could be wrong because I'm not an expert, but it appears to have been worse in select years past without outrage at all.
Sure, talking about an average, that makes sense.
I'll concede that point no problem.
So they show this here, and we can see, what does it say?
Cumulative number of fires each year for the entire Amazon region.
And we can see these lines are 2011 to 2018.
And 2019 through August 22nd.
What do you mean?
It's not even the highest.
It's not even the highest.
So it's happened before and where are the complaints?
And then we have 2003 to 2010.
Look at this!
Between 2003 and 2010, the fires were way worse where they are now.
So let me ask this.
If from 2003 to today, we're actually in the middle, why are the complaints today?
It doesn't seem strange.
I'm ranting on this, I know.
They say fires are not a natural phenomenon in these forests, and that's fine to point out, and the deforestation is bad.
But look at this.
Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is down from the 2000s and the 90s.
We can get it down lower, but look.
They say Bolsonaro, who took office on January 1st this year, has been criticized by environmentalists for policies that have increased deforestation.
Sure, but it's still way, way less than where it was in, what, 2004?
So listen, that doesn't mean it's good.
By no means.
But it means we're making progress.
And as long as you keep screeching as though the world is ending, it's going to be hard to fix these things.
So from where I'm looking, it seems like from 2003 to 2010, the fires were substantially worse.
And nobody bat an eye?
But now today people are upset?
It's not even the worst for the 2011-2018 time span.
So what's the deal?
It's bad, I get it.
For sure.
But we're in between the average for the past 15 years.
So you know what, man?
I'm so used to this.
Whenever I see these stories going viral, I just wait.
I wait.
So look, good on the New York Times for presenting the nuance, but still.
You just gotta chill.
You see these viral tweets?
It's almost like a Covington situation, right?
It's almost like everyone got outraged seeing a video and didn't fact-check.
Thank you, New York Times, for at least doing your jobs.
