Ilhan Omar Accused Of ILLEGAL Payments To Secret Lover, State Republicans DEMAND Her Expulsion
Ilhan Omar Accused Of ILLEGAL Payments To Secret Lover, State Republicans DEMAND Her Expulsion. In divorce papers obtained by the New York post the wife of Tim Mynett claims that he is having a secret love affair with far left democrats Ilhan Omar. She also alludes to the claim that Ilhan Omar's payments to Mynett are not in fact for political work but to fly him around with her as they engage in a love affair.A watchdog group has called for the feds to probe the far left democrat over her payments as they believe at the very least Omar failed to properly itemize "travel expenses" for her alleged lover.At nearly the same time as this scandal Omar was roped into another involving State level republicans in Alabama who passed a resolution demanding her expulsion from congress. This was in response to comments made by Omar that angered Democrats and Republicans across the isle.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A new bombshell story has been published by the New York Post titled, Ilhan Omar Stole My Husband, DC Mom Claims in Divorce Papers.
This, in and of itself, is a shocking scandal involving a US congresswoman.
But it gets worse.
According to the story, at least, it's being alluded to—I'm trying to be very careful with language here—that Ilhan Omar may have been paying this political consultant not for work, but to travel with her outside of what he's supposed to be doing for work, and the payments may be illegal.
We now have a watchdog group saying Ilhan Omar should be probed over payments to love her.
Interestingly, we heard not too long ago that she split from her husband, and then this story drops, where this woman, according to divorce papers, is saying she's having an affair.
Now, what makes this all just way over the top is at the same time, we're hearing Alabama Republicans approve resolution calling for Omar to be expelled from Congress, and this has nothing to do with the affair story and potential illegal payments.
It's all happening at once, and man, is this a scandal and a half.
So let's do this.
I want to be very careful with language here because of the severity of the allegations, and because of the potential legal and political ramifications.
So just know, much of what I'm going to tell you will be my personal opinion, which may be wrong.
But I'm going to read from these stories, and these are sources that are certified by NewsGuard, the New York Post, and The Hill.
Just so that's clear, I want to make sure you all understand this disclaimer.
Let's read the story.
But, before we do, I am going to be producing on-the-ground and behind-the-scenes content.
from on a new channel called Timcast IRL. The link will be in the description below.
Please subscribe to this channel if you like what I do and want to see field reporting.
The van is near completion and I'll be heading to the border soon. So there's going to be a lot of
on the ground content at this channel. Link in the description below. Again, it's called Timcast IRL.
It should be in the featured channel section as well. But let's read the news.
The New York Post reports, a Washington DC mom says her political consultant husband left her for Rep.
Ilhan Omar according to a bombshell divorce filing obtained by The Post.
Dr. Beth Manette says her cheating spouse, Tim Manette, told her in April that he was having an affair with a Somali-born U.S.
Representative, and that he even made a shocking declaration of love for the Minnesota congressman before he ditched his wife, alleges the filing submitted in D.C.' 's Superior Court on Tuesday.
The physician, 55, and her 38-year-old husband, who has worked for left-wing Democrats such as Omar and Keith Ellison, have a 13-year-old son together.
Quote, The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when defendant told plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar, the court papers say.
Defendant met Omar while working for her.
Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him and was willing to fight for the marriage.
Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him and moved out the next day.
It is clear to plaintiff that her marriage to defendant is over and that there is no hope of reconciliation.
They say the Minettes lived together for six years before marrying in 2012.
Omar, a member of the squad, which they say is far left, far left-leaning, member of the house, recently separated from her husband, according to reports, so I will stress.
The New York Post says they have the documents.
She did just leave her husband.
This sort of adds up.
Now where it gets weird is how much money this guy was paid.
Check this out.
The 37-year-old congresswoman and mom of three paid Tim Minnette and his E Street Group approximately $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising, consulting, digital communications, internet advertising, and travel expenses.
Omar was spotted enjoying time with Tim Manette at a California restaurant in March.
Beth Manette is seeking primary physical custody of her and her husband's son, in part because of Tim Manette's extensive travel with Omar, which isn't exactly part of his job description, the document says.
Defendant's more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Omar than with his actual work commitments.
The allegation, essentially, that she is not paying him for work.
She's covering his travel expenses so they can continue their affair.
This, I would imagine, is extremely illegal.
Let's read on.
They say, when he was home, he was preoccupied and emotionally volatile.
That's what Beth says.
Meanwhile, the mom has been juggling the vast majority of responsibilities related to their son's school, medical care, and extracurricular activities.
So they do want to make some points, but I want to keep this not in the realm of, you know, drama, tabloid nonsense.
I want to talk about the allegations now about this payment.
So let's move on to the next story.
The watchdog group says she needs to be probed over payments to her lover.
A conservative watchdog group said Tuesday that it plans to file a complaint against U.S.
Rep.
Ilhan Omar with the Federal Election Commission after the Post revealed allegations she was dating one of her paid consultants.
This arrangement where Ilhan is paying her lover consulting fees could be illegal if he's not doing the work, said National Legal and Policy Center Chairman Peter Flaherty.
And we'll be asking the FEC for an investigation to determine the nature and level of his work product.
Earlier Tuesday, The Post reported that Beth Manette, a DC-based doctor, filed for separation from Tim Manette, alleging the affair and all that.
So let's get into the nitty-gritty of this allegation.
Records show that the 37-year-old Minnesota congresswoman paid Tim Manette and his company and his E Street Group $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising, consulting, digital communications, internet advertising, and travel expenses.
More than $70,000 of that money was transferred in 14 payments to Manette's E Street Group LLC between April 22nd and June 11th.
The fact that Omar's campaign committee continued to pay Tim Manette's firm for months after his wife said he left her for the congresswoman isn't outright illegal.
They go on to note that you can pay family members, you can hire them, if they're doing the work.
But this is where it gets interesting.
The question is whether that actually occurred here, Flaherty said.
He noted that six of the expenditures in Omar's filings are simply labeled travel expenses worth $12,673.43, and that in Beth Manette's legal papers, she questioned whether her husband's purported work travel was all for legitimate purposes.
On reflection, Defendant's more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep.
Omar than his actual work commitments, averaging 12 days per month away from home over the past year.
Flaherty said that, at the very least, the FEC should ding Omar for not being more specific when reporting Manette's firm's travel.
The law states that travel expenses have to be itemized, but Ilhan's campaign is just reporting large amounts for, quote, travel.
Our question is whether this was necessary travel or whether she was just bringing her boyfriend along for the company.
A statement from the E Street Group on Tuesday touted the more than $2.3 million that it said it had raised for Omar's re-election campaign in 2019 so far.
As FEC reports show, we provide grass-tops and grassroots fundraising, political and communication support for Democratic candidates, including events, digital fundraising, ad acquisition, SMS mobilization, research, video and other content collateral creation, the statement said.
E Street Group does not comment on the personal life of either our staff or clients.
A request for comments to Omar's spokesman wasn't returned.
So let's... I want to make sure we stress this point absolutely.
You can hire people you're in a relationship with.
That's absolutely legal.
The question now is whether or not he needed to travel at all, or whether this was just her bringing her boyfriend along with her.
That's the allegation, at least, from the wife, who appears to be divorcing this guy.
I gotta say, this is a huge scandal, and it's... Look, Ilhan Omar has a sordid past, and they have it right here, the story, inside Ilhan Omar's tangled web of relationships, multiple husbands, faith traditions, and now an alleged affair.
Does not bode well for the congresswoman, but I will stress too, these things are sort of coming together.
If we know that she's kind of gone back and forth with her past husbands, and it's been a very confusing and contentious circumstance, and we know that she recently separated from her second husband, it sounds like the statement from this woman, this doctor, the allegations being made, have some corroborating evidence.
But that's, that's, you know, I'll leave that story where it is because I want to move on to now this other scandal involving Ilhan Omar.
I can't believe this is all dropping at the same time.
This is, I gotta admit, it's rather shocking.
Alabama Republicans approved resolution calling for Omar to be expelled from Congress and she responded.
So I want to dig into her, you know, the vote, the elections in which she was running to look at whether or not she actually has support from her constituency.
That's one of the accusations made.
Let's read.
The Hill reports, Alabama's Republican Party is urging the state's congressional delegation to begin the process of expelling freshman rep Ilhan Omar from Congress.
The state GOP supported a resolution calling for the Congresswoman's ouster at its summer meeting in Auburn this past weekend, according to AL.com.
The committee reportedly approved the resolution on a voice vote after it was introduced by State Rep.
Tommy Haynes.
The resolution calls on Alabama's congressional delegation to, quote, proceed with the expulsion process in accordance with Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S.
Constitution.
Omar Somali Refugee, who last year became one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, has sparked criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle over her comments about issues tied to U.S.-Israeli relations.
Now, Ilhan Omar has responded to the calls of her ouster, and you may have noticed that jump cut, and unfortunately, because of YouTube's rules and how insanely strict they are getting, moving into 2020, I have no choice but to cut out the direct statements from the Alabama GOP.
But I can say That we know a lot of the criticisms towards her.
Statements she's made about Israel that have been very offensive, and a statement she made about a historical event where she said some people did something.
I think that's about as far as I can actually get in telling you what happened, and I had to actually install a profanity filter.
I kid you not.
Now, I know there are some people that will be angry and say, Tim, you shouldn't do this, you should tell us exactly what's being said, but listen.
The other day, my video was deranked so hard, it was getting basically no views.
I can tell you the news and avoid saying certain things, and it's better than nothing.
I apologize for this, but blame it on YouTube.
They're duplicitous standards.
They make no sense.
But at least we can come this far.
Now, as I stated, the criticisms they have for why they want her out is disloyalty to the U.S., statements she's made about our history, very offensive statements about Israel.
She responded, But here's what I decided to look into.
She says that she was elected with 78% of the vote, so let's look at the primaries and see if that's a fair assessment.
not the Alabama Republican Party.
But here's what I decided to look into.
She says that she was elected with 78% of the vote.
So let's look at the primaries and see if that's a fair assessment.
I will stress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another member of the squad,
got something like, I don't know, 15,000 votes, which is a ridiculously tiny percentage of the votes of her
district.
That was the primary.
When she was then in a heavy Democrat district, she was essentially guaranteed the win, and even she was saying she had won at that point.
So, I don't know, if you get 15,000 votes and you're guaranteed to win, I wouldn't call that heavy support.
Ilhan Omar was in a primary with many contenders, and she got 65,000 votes, a bit more than AOC, so it's a bit fair to say she did win her Democratic primary, and that's fair.
We can then look to the general, where she won her seat with 78% of votes, 267,000 voters.
However, it is a very heavy Democrat district, which means all she had to do was win the primary.
Granted, 65,000 is a lot more than, you know, 15.
But here's what I want to highlight specifically.
In this story from a couple weeks ago, The Daily Caller reported Ocasio-Cortez's known donors from her own district are nearly non-existent.
But I don't care to talk too much about AOC in this particular story.
I want to go down because they do highlight Ilhan Omar.
They say, Omar reported $717,000 in itemized contributions to her re-election campaign so far in 2019.
Just over 4% came from her constituents.
The story specifically highlights Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, saying, The average freshman representative's re-election campaign received $107,000 in itemized contributions from their constituents in the first half of 2019.
FEC filings, the DCNF analyzed show, Ocasio-Cortez's reported in-district funding haul of $1,525
was just 1.4% of that average.
Now the reason this is important is that if on average they received $100,000 from their
district but Ilhan Omar only received 4% of her $717,000.
She is well below average.
So sure, you can play this game where you say, aha, you know, I got 78% of the vote, but no, it's a Democrat district.
They'll vote for you no matter what.
So I'll make this point.
She is being targeted by the GOP in Alabama for ouster, and they are within their right to actually push for this.
It doesn't mean they have the power to do it.
Now, she can claim that she wasn't elected by Alabama, but this is the United States of America, not the United Peoples of America, which means the states have a say in how the federal government operates.
And this is just one state expressing their distaste with one other state's representative.
But that's, in my opinion, it makes sense.
You have one state saying, hey, we believe this person is disloyal, has made disparaging comments, and we want them expelled.
And they're pushing back.
Well, that's two equal players on a national stage making accusations against each other, and perhaps there needs to be some kind of statement or resolution on this.
I don't think it's fair to remove Ilhan Omar simply because one state's GOP has, you know, claimed she's disloyal and they want her out.
It'll be up to the rest of the union of states to make the determination.
But to wrap this all together, we have a major story about Ilhan Omar and various scandals.
And I want to stress a couple points as we get near the end and I sign off here.
Whether or not the payments to this man were illegal, it's going to be on a technicality.
At the very least, I think we can say she has a history of scandals and unethical behavior.
In my view, it's corruption.
I believe it is overt corruption.
Even if she's legally paying this guy, it's still overt nepotism.
She's still having an affair with someone's husband.
She's had a weird history with campaign payments and fines.
Yeah, her story is about unethical behavior.
And now we have the story about her being, you know, called out by the GOP, and they're highlighting all of the things that have offended both sides of the aisle.
This kind of behavior can't be ignored.
I don't know what we should or shouldn't do, but I think it's important to highlight.
I want to end with one very important thing.
There was a big jump cut early on, and I talked about the restrictions YouTube is placing on content like mine.
They recently deleted several channels who broke no rules.
And that's the problem of what YouTube is.
And I recognize that.
You know what?
It's on me to run my business effectively, and I'm going to do what I have to do.
But just know, they are trying to force a conversation in a certain direction.
Recently, Dave Chappelle did this epic comedy special.
It was amazing.
And it was very offensive.
Very offensive.
Now, YouTube has said in the past, and employees have said this to me personally, that Netflix is their biggest competition.
Well, let me stress.
You have a show on YouTube, Cobra Kai.
Extremely offensive.
You have Dave Chappelle on Netflix putting out a bombshell of a special.
Extremely offensive.
YouTube is playing a game where I can't tell you what politicians are saying without my channel getting struck down.
I stress, yesterday's video, it showed a New York Times employee making a derogatory statement.
I didn't personally say it, I just showed it.
And all of a sudden, when the review came in, it was a manual review, my views dropped to basically nothing, down 90 plus percent.
I went in and I blurred the slur, They reinstated the video.
That's the game we're playing.
I can't tell you the specifics about what Ilhan Omar said.
I can't.
I can only make allusions to it.
And this is a nightmarish scenario for independent media.
And you know what?
In my opinion, it will cause the downfall of YouTube.
So, you know, this video is not supposed to be about censorship and anything like this.
But trust me when I say I'm angry.
And I'm playing by the rules of YouTube because at least you got to watch this video.
So I will stress.
In the description below, there's a link to this channel, Timcast IRL.
Subscribe.
It's going to be on the ground, it's going to be newsworthy content, and it's going to avoid a lot of the articles and mainstream political bickering.
You'll hear from real people as I travel the country, so at least then I can still bring you the news and behind-the-scenes content while avoiding the offensive rhetoric that YouTube hates.
And I understand.
At a certain degree, it is a loss for free speech.
But I'm not going to lose my ability to communicate with you over a few words, and it's unfortunate.
It really is.
So you know what?
Tell YouTube why you think it's a problem.
But I guess the choice is, I can get banned, and you'll never hear from me again, or I can just do what I have to do to let you know the scandal is happening.
And I prefer being able to highlight the scandals of Ilhan Omar as opposed to just doing nothing.
I apologize again.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
I will see- 6 p.m.
I will see you all then.
For the past several years, there's been an ongoing conversation about intersectional feminism as a religion.
I believe calling it a religion is unfair, because I would view it more like a cult.
And I actually have something to show you that, in my opinion, really does prove it's a cult.
And it's actually kind of scary.
Now, a lot of people might find this story funny.
We can see Lauren Chen tweeted, It is a cult.
But this is not funny.
At least not to me.
You might find it funny, that's fine.
People find different things funny.
But I'll tell you, this is terrifying.
pushing intersectionality on them.
It's both hilarious and sad at the same time.
Imagine alienating your best friends because they refuse to join your cult.
It is a cult.
But it's not funny.
At least not to me.
You might find it funny, that's fine.
People find different things funny.
But I'll tell you, this is terrifying.
Listen, in the real world, cults use a variety of techniques to manipulate and control your
One of them is surrounding you, telling you how much they love you, but then threatening to give you negative emotion and take that away unless you abide by their rules.
It is exploiting a fundamental aspect of human nature.
Longing for belonging.
That we want to be part of this group, and we don't want to be kicked out, we want to do what's right.
So when you're surrounded by a group of people saying, this is what you have to do, otherwise we won't love you anymore, a lot of people will bend and say, yes, absolutely.
Now consider this.
In the past, you could take someone like Sarah Rowe or however you pronounce her name, and you could physically remove her from the cult.
You could bring her somewhere safe and say, stop.
It's a cult.
And eventually you might be able to break through and save them from the cult.
Sometimes people can break out and escape.
They still can.
Today though, the cultists are everywhere.
They surround you.
They make harassing phone calls to businesses.
They will text you.
They will tweet you.
You can't escape them.
Someone can physically remove you, but then your phone buzzes, and there it is, one of your followers, a member of the cult.
And it's getting worse, and it's expanding.
What's truly terrifying about this story is how her friends tried to save her, saying, I'm really worried about you, we are worried about you, but she says, No!
They won't give up their whiteness!
What is whiteness?
You're saying literally nothing to these people.
It is a vague, nebulous term that you might think you can define, but you can't.
Because we have seen articles, there was one article that said something like, black people are the white people of black people.
Or, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, it said black men are the white people of black people.
And it's like, what, what are you, what does that mean?
Does it mean anything?
It doesn't.
So when a woman like this is sitting with her friends, and she starts reading from her doctrine, her cult, you know, the tenets of her cult, they look at her confused, saying, Honey, you're not saying anything, please.
And she rejects them.
She rejects her friends.
And that's what's scary.
They can't pull her from this cult.
Now, I want to read through this, and I also want to show you this article from Andrew Doyle, who is the, I believe it's safe to say, I'm pretty sure this is true, he runs the Titania McGrath, the woke Twitter parody, which is really funny, and he talks about how it's a cult of victimhood, and he makes some really interesting points.
So I want to read through Sarah's tweets and show you, you know, how this is a cult and they tried to save her.
Before we do though, check it out.
I have a new channel.
It's called TimCast IRL.
This was my gaming channel, but I decided just to change it because the gaming stuff's never gonna happen.
And there's a few really important things pertaining to the woke stuff that I want to talk about real quick.
Subscribe to this channel.
This is gonna be on-the-ground travel.
It's gonna be very, like, barely political, but there will be field reporting, on-the-ground reporting.
A lot of the more, like, higher quality stuff will exist on Subverse.
But this is essentially going to serve as a vlog channel while I travel the country.
With some friends, doing real conversations, on-the-ground reporting, and yeah, so it should be in the featured channels on this channel.
I don't think there's a URL for it, so I don't know, it's probably gonna be difficult to find.
But yeah, TimCast IRL, subscribe to that, and I'll tell you why.
I explain it in this video, but I'll make that point really quick.
The other day, my video critiquing the New York Times and showing, like, hey, people are mad at the New York Times, and one guy's been outed for being, I'll just say, a bigot.
You see, I can't tell you specifically what the guy said, because the video was doing ridiculously well.
It skyrocketed like 80,000 views in an hour.
That's amazing for my channel.
And then all of a sudden it just dropped off to nothing.
To nothing.
And I got a notice that there was hate speech.
And so I looked in it, and sure enough, I didn't say any hate speech.
But I was proving the New York Times did.
The act of proving the New York Times are presenting hate speech got the video struck down.
Not like a copyright strike, but it was, like, hard-limited.
The views were gone.
So I went in, I blurred the slur from the New York Times reporter, and it came back.
It came back after, like, later in the day, after I made this video.
I explained.
I blurred it.
I blurred it.
They made me realize This is a cult.
And it's infecting everything.
So, I don't even know if it's safe to have a second channel.
I don't- I shouldn't say second, a fourth channel!
Trying to get away from politics, but...
That channel will exist because, you know, I'm starting to get worried.
Come 2020, they're gonna put us on the chopping block.
So here's what Sarah said.
She said, I was a white feminist until 2016.
I was deeply self-loathing and internally oppressed.
Nearly all my closest friends were white women.
These women were in my wedding and I in theirs.
They cradled me when I wept for my dead mother.
They would have done anything for me.
Except give up whiteness.
That literally means nothing.
How do you give up whiteness?
It is a cult mentality that makes no sense.
What she was really saying is, they refuse to bend to our cult.
That's what she's saying.
I spent one full year meeting with them for coffee, drinks, lunch, and dinner.
I sent them articles.
I wrote articles.
I sent them those.
Rather than show an interest in awakening, nearly all of them dumped me.
Think about how psychotic and terrifying that is.
Awakening.
They wouldn't have an awakening into her cult.
Check this out.
Dumping has involved a pinch of ghosting, a dash of quote, I'm really worried about you, we are really worried about you.
It's involved leaving me and my family out of group plans and pretending it was an accident.
There's a saying, if you smell human waste everywhere, check your boot.
Okay, I'm gonna avoid swearing, you know I do.
But she doesn't seem to understand.
If all of your friends are abandoning you, you have the problem, not your friends.
She says it's involved leaving me out of group plans and pretending it was an accident, which I did already.
Some of these women weren't really even friends before, but have bonded over their mutual disdain for me and my quote, craziness.
They've bonded around whiteness.
She's truly lost it.
She says, It's no different than the Klan.
Instead of robes, they coalesce around brunch, wedding, spin classes.
I no longer harbor anger towards them.
I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me sad from time to time, because it does.
But the overarching feelings I have are A. Understanding.
Understanding how they are all just reading from their whiteness script.
A script they received before they were born.
And B. Fear.
Fear that the intense love they had for me and my family wasn't enough to reflect on their own white supremacy.
What hope do we have?
Those who love us still love whiteness more by a long shot, the most powerful drug on the planet.
This is truly a terrifying mentality, a window into the deranged mind of those who are infected with this cult, with this mind virus, as some people have described it.
Now, I'm not referring to general aspects of social justice.
Civil liberties, these things make sense.
But this is the poison.
I can certainly say something very obvious, like racism is bad.
And we're going to put on an event in the Philadelphia area with one of the most famous men who de-radicalized racists.
Daryl Davis.
Truly an honor and inspiration to hear this man speak.
And that's the goal.
That's real social justice.
Bringing people together, ensuring equality for all.
What she's talking about are strange buzzwords that make no sense.
A perversion of this idea that we can be better.
An extreme ideology built around something we believe in.
Now I think it's on purpose.
What do most people agree in the past, you know, 20, 30 years?
Bigotry, in all its forms.
And I'm using their version, you know, bigotry.
I understand it means, you know.
But I mean, like, prejudice.
It's a bad thing.
And we want equality.
Most of us agree.
Almost all.
Left and right.
So what have they done?
The cultists are exploiting our goodwill to create a cult.
Not to bring about fairness and equality, but to implement a radical economic transformation and to bring about an authoritarian system.
That's not my opinion.
It's what we see with the Green New Deal.
They say something to the effect of, we're going to better the environment.
And then you can hear from someone like John Delaney, there's nothing about the environment in it!
I mean, one or two mentions.
But what do they say?
Free college?
Free healthcare?
Socialism?
And that's the real play.
They are exploiting our goodwill and longing for belonging to implement a radical economic and authoritarian transformation.
They use cult strategies to get it done.
I'm not saying it's on purpose.
I'm not saying there's a cabal.
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy.
I'm saying this idea is an infection that is spreading and perverting true justice and equality for all.
How can you claim to fight for equality and then single out the color of someone's skin and tell them to give it up?
That makes no sense.
How does, as one person says, Mindy Robinson says, how exactly did she expect white people to stop being white?
What she's really saying is that they have this idea of whiteness, and it literally just means you have power and you should bow.
And I mean that sincerely.
They say, like I mentioned earlier, I think I did.
There's an article that said black men are the white people of black people.
They talk about how a hundred years ago Irish people weren't considered white.
What they're really saying is you can be a dominant and successful individual and you must bend the knee to the religion.
They want you to bow in the literal sense.
It is a religion.
They want you to bow at the altar of wokeness and give up any control over your life that you've ever had.
It is a religion.
Actually, no, I'm sorry.
I want to take that back.
It's a cult.
It is a cult, and I'll explain the difference.
Religions have good things about them.
Religions, many of them, not all, but many of them, offer something valid that actually helps humanity.
It's true.
A lot of people might not want to recognize that.
They might say that Christianity, you know, Judaism, Buddhism, you know, I don't know, whatever religion, is, uh, they're bad things, and they'll point to the bad things about them.
I certainly won't deny there's a lot of bad things in a lot of religions, but it's also important to point out that some of our most important beliefs Come from, you know, are codified and come from some of these religions.
It does make sense, sometimes, to tell people to try and give up that control and that rage.
And so a religion, in my opinion, brings about unity and community, and there can be bad aspects of it.
But a cult, in my opinion, is destructive.
Extremely destructive.
And there are certainly religions that are destructive, too.
So it's a fine line, I'll admit.
But you're looking to something like Christianity and Judaism and Judeo-Christian values, we can see things like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the idea that we must protect the innocent at all costs.
From this story, at least my understanding, is that we ended up with Blackstone's formulation.
It is better that the guilty go free than the innocent suffer.
So there are, within religion, things that make sense.
You know, I'm not a religious person, I'll admit.
But I draw the line at, you know, cult and religion.
This is a cult.
Why?
It serves no purpose but destruction and control.
You can argue that about religions, but I, you know, some people would, especially atheists.
I disagree with that.
I think there are people who can read the Bible, who can read the Torah, who can even read the Quran, and learn some, you know, and have a philosophical understanding of something about life.
You know, especially if they have a wise, you know, elder who can help guide them through some of the, you know, older texts.
And certainly Buddhism has many wonderful and fantastic tenets to it.
This, however, this cult brings about violence, absolute violence, extremism, and it doesn't seem to serve any purpose.
It doesn't enlighten anybody.
It doesn't teach you philosophy.
It doesn't teach you protecting the innocent.
It does the opposite.
It wants you to punish the innocent, and mock them, and berate them, and throw bricks through windows.
That is a terrifying cult.
And this is what we can see.
I'll wrap up here.
We can see someone whose friend said I'm worried about you.
That was someone saying, please, you're in a cult.
You need to stop.
And her refusing.
Instead, they claim her friends have bonded around whiteness.
This vague, nebulous term that means very little To those in the cult, I bet they can't even define what it is.
And the reason I say this is because I've read the articles.
I've tried to find a cohesive singular definition of what whiteness really is.
There doesn't seem to be one.
There doesn't.
Because you will get 50 different definitions of what it is.
Now admittedly, religions are similar, but I will stress.
I would be really worried if this becomes an overarching ideology, but I will say, it seems that this religion is infecting colleges.
That's scary.
It's infecting the media.
It's really scary.
And some people argue that the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of the cult.
And I disagree.
I really, really disagree.
There are dangerous aspects to many religions.
There are people who carry out actions that fly in the face of what that religion stands for.
But does wokeness advocate for peace?
Quite the opposite.
It's the woke who tend to say, we can't change minds, and they call for violence.
In fact, within the Abrahamic religions, they don't.
To an extent.
To an extent, I understand.
I understand.
The point is, you can call it a transformation, or you can say that quite literally, Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
Could you imagine someone who was woke, you know, an antifa guy showing up to a protest, and when he sees the Proud Boys, he presents his cheek.
Absolutely not.
They show up with crowbars and baseball bats.
That's a huge difference.
Maybe.
You know, they're violent religions.
I'm not going to get into all of that.
So maybe, like I said, it's a fine line.
But this is a cult that makes no sense, that has vague and nebulous rules, using words that no one quite understands, and they find everything offensive because, in reality, it doesn't matter if you're saying woman with a Y or Wimixin with an X. They're both offensive.
And the reason is, no matter what you do, it's whiteness, and it's about time you bow to those in power.
That's what they want.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
I will see you all then.
The latest story in the Epstein case, lawyers and some kind of expert have said, evidence shows Epstein's death is far more consistent with murder.
Yes, who didn't see that coming?
Now, I'll go over a little bit for those that aren't familiar.
Epstein, you know, what is it worth?
Like 500, 600 million dollars?
Found dead in his cell.
A couple weeks after, they claim he tried to kill himself.
It's a very complicated story and nobody believes the guy killed himself.
There's some more information outside of their statement here that, sure enough, we all expected.
Video from camera outside Epstein jail cell unusable!
Oh, uh, okay, and this is from yesterday.
Who could have seen this coming?
You know what's really funny?
Is how many mainstream journalists have tried playing the game of, jails are just corrupt.
It's just a problem of a bad correctional system.
And everyone, and I mean everybody, okay?
I know it's a little hyperbolic, but almost everyone is saying the dude was taken out because he was going to bring down a lot of powerful people.
Well, I'll tell you this.
His lawyers are refusing to back down, saying they were working with him.
They were planning an appeal.
They had a strategy moving forward.
So you've got to understand one thing about the lawyers here.
Whether or not you think they're being honest or not, the point is they were working a job.
They likely had a retainer or a contract or something and said, we're going.
We're gonna do this.
I guess the concern is, or the idea would be, you never know why someone might end their lives.
But considering the evidence, apparently he had a broken bone, the hyoid bone, right?
But what wasn't released until later by the lawyers was that apparently he had two broken bones in his neck outside
of the hyoid bone.
Which they said was more akin to strangulation.
I gotta say man, to what...
Like, we talk about Occam's razor.
Okay, the simple solution tends to be correct.
Sorry man.
The story's coming out now saying the camera outside his cell is unusable?
Oh, please dude.
You know what?
They've jumped the shark on this one.
It is so obvious at this point, the simple solution is that the dude was killed.
So let's do this.
Let's read why the lawyers think he was more likely to have been murdered.
Before we do, however, I want to stress this.
I have a new channel.
In the description below, you will see a link for Timcast IRL, because I'm about to go on the road, and there's going to be travel vlogging and field reporting, and it's going to be admittedly less important content, but There's another reason why you should subscribe to this channel right now.
It is another branch, another backup.
A backup for a backup.
Okay, I have multiple channels specifically because you never know when you get the axe.
It's possible that at some point YouTube hates me.
They just get rid of everything.
It doesn't matter if I have a backup channel.
But hey, this channel is going to be much less political.
I got one video.
So subscribe.
Subscribe because within the next week or so, you will see videos from this behind the scenes and on the ground.
But let's get back to the story about Epstein.
The Hill reports Attorneys for financier and accused trafficker Jeffrey Epstein said his death in federal custody was, quote, far more consistent with assault than suicide in a court hearing Tuesday, according to Newsweek.
We did not see a despairing despondent suicidal person ahead of Epstein's death on August 10.
One of Epstein's attorneys told District Judge Richard M. Berman, according to Newsweek.
The lawyers said they could provide further evidence backing their claims.
His lawyer said the medical examiner who ruled Epstein died by suicide had only seen nine minutes of footage from a single security camera before making the determination.
And what about the broken bones in the neck?
Why would that be enough to make a determination?
I mean, maybe, I don't know.
At the same hearing, federal prosecutors asked Berman to end the proceedings, while Epstein's attorneys asked him for a formal investigation into the death.
The Justice Department and FBI have already announced multiple probes into Epstein's death.
Attorneys representing women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse and rape have also asked Berman for an independent probe, saying their clients would be more confident in the outcome of such an investigation, according to the publication.
Here's a quote.
We have a profound problem.
With the conclusions of the medical examiner, said one attorney, with another telling Berman, there are conspiracy theories galore.
What if the tapes only broke down on the day he was killed or he died, and inviting Berman to tour the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where Epstein was found non-responsive?
Attorneys argued Epstein lacked motive to take his own life, saying that at the time of his death,
the registered offender's legal team had decided to pursue an appeal challenging prosecutors'
ability to pursue the case that they believed had a high chance of success.
Listen, I really do think we're at a point now where, look, one of the guards wasn't a guard,
they falsified, you know, the logs about what they were doing.
Everything about this makes no sense.
The guy had previously been accused of trying to kill himself.
Then they took him off suicide watch.
They put him in a room where it was possible.
Like, nobody believes that was the thing, right?
And we have this story now about the camera outside Epstein's jail cell being unusable.
Let's read this.
But I do want to make one point.
Listen, I'm not saying any of this is absolute.
I'm saying it's interesting the lawyers are bringing this up.
It is entirely possible that even with the chance of appeal, Epstein just ended his own life.
Maybe he just thought, I'm not gonna win, it's a waste of time, and I can't stand being here anymore.
That's possible too.
I just kinda don't believe it.
Now, there's a lot of stories about suicide and self-harm where the person was showing no signs, and it's true.
It's why a lot of people talk about how they aren't suicidal and they'll tweet this out like, you know, and it's almost become a joke at this point, but I think people are half serious when they say it.
So I'll say this first.
I don't use drugs, period.
Never in my life.
I don't drink.
smoked pot like once or twice, 15, 16 years ago, you know, from, you know, just like general
peer pressure.
Not a fan.
I don't drink.
I maybe have one or two drinks per year, if that.
And I'm quite happy with my life and I'm enjoying everything that I'm doing.
And I look forward to the future.
Very much so.
I'm a pretty overall happy person who's very much in control of their emotions.
So let me just state that for the record.
Because people seem to do it, and I know it's silly, but I'll say it right now.
I am an obstinate individual.
And I am extremely passionate, and nothing will stand in my way, in all endeavors.
So if anything happens to me, trust me when I say, it was murder.
Or, you know, whatever it is, someone else did it to me, because I don't back down under no circumstances.
Okay?
And, and, look man, I got my van ready to go, we're gonna do videos, I'm so excited, everything's been wonderful.
Just making that clear, as we continue on with this story, and the video will likely get hundreds of thousands of views, and people probably won't like that I'm talking about this.
Especially the media.
So one of the other things they do outside of, like, actual physical harm...
It is what it is, but let's read.
The Hill reports, at least one camera stationed in the hallway outside billionaire financier Epstein's prison cell, where officials say he hanged himself, had footage that was deemed unusable.
While one hallway camera had usable footage, another nearby camera caught clearer video, the Post noted, adding that it is unknown why certain footage was usable while some was not, as well as the extent of the glitch.
At the time, when the news broke, there was a viral tweet going around claiming the footage was no good with no source.
And I was really frustrated people were saying it, because, like, don't push nonsense.
And the tweet went viral, and there was no source.
I can't tell you how angry that makes me.
But now we have an actual source later on, which shows this may be the case.
They say his death in federal custody while he was awaiting trial.
Yada, yada, yada.
We know all this from the other story.
He was jailed at MCC.
Attorney General William Barr said he was appalled and angry over the circumstances.
Lawmakers have continued to demand answers about why Epstein, who had high-profile friends and acquaintances, including Trump and Clinton, was not being more closely observed and whether he should have been on suicide watch after initially being placed on watch in July.
Reports have surfaced that show abnormalities in how he was observed, including one saying guards fell asleep and failed to check on him for roughly three hours during the time when he is believed to have hanged himself.
They say he served 13 months in jail about 10 years ago after reaching a deal with prosecutors that has since resurfaced and garnered widespread criticism for being too lenient.
He was arrested in July and charged with trafficking dozens of underage girls from 2002 to 2005.
So I don't know.
Look, I really don't know what to tell you because I don't think anything will come of this.
Even if all of the conspiracies are true, what do you think is really going to happen?
Do you think anything will ever come up?
I will tell you this.
Let's say you've got the left claiming Trump did it.
They believe Bill Barr did it.
And you've got the right thinking the Clintons did it.
And it's like, you know what, man?
I don't care who you think did it.
Let's just say there's a secret cabal, whoever's in charge.
I don't care.
Do you think anyone who discovers this is going to be able to tell you about it?
It'll never happen.
It'll never happen for two reasons.
First, if they were willing to end Epstein, you know, over this, why would they allow anyone else to come out?
Now, admittedly, things are starting to stack up.
And if the prison guards and lawyers start disappearing, people will get suspicious.
But in the end, what are you going to do about it?
What will you do about it when they tell you?
There's a story, apparently, that a journalist writing about Epstein woke up to a bullet in front of their apartment door.
And they knew what it meant.
And I'm sure things like that, if it's true, would be happening today.
So there are going to be people who say it's just not worth it.
Life is too good.
I don't want to get involved in this.
The other thing is, let's say someone in government discovers there was a conspiracy and decides we need to do the right thing.
Ah, but...
An embarrassment of this scale is bad for national security.
It just is.
It shows the weakness, ineptitude, and so they'll keep it a secret.
Even if the good guys catch the bad guys, they're not going to tell you.
This is going to get swept under the rug, and it will disappear.
I assure you that.
I'll leave it there.
But you know, a lot of people have been pointing out how all of these other stories are gaining traction in the press, and the story of Epstein is kind of disappearing.
Well, yeah, let's be real.
First of all, there's not going to be a story about it every day.
I mean, things are weird, for sure.
Like the Ghislaine Maxwell, whatever you pronounce her name, with the photoshopped image behind her.
Like, what is going on?
It's weird, right?
But here's the thing.
Even when the government, the good guys, whoever find out, they won't tell you.
Because it'll make them look bad.
It'll make the country look bad.
And they'll sweep it under the rug.
Maybe they'll get rid of the bad guys.
So maybe there's still some good here.
But I just, I doubt we're going to hear anything about this.
So I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Stick around and I will see you all then.
They are at it again, trying to smear people like me in an effort to get us banned, and that's the game they play, and it works.
Cornell Study, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro infect people with alt-right beliefs, and for whatever reason I'm included in this, and I think it's so absurd.
While I will say, In this study, they have said, lolol, Tim Pool is an intellectual dark web member.
I appreciate you thinking that highly of me, but I am a high school dropout and I am not an academic.
So no, I reject that association.
But it does show that they think very highly of me, I guess.
No, I am not on par.
In terms of education with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, thank you very much.
I'm a random dude on the internet talking about his feelings who happens to have very moderate politics and am addressing cultural politics.
This study is so ridiculously flawed.
It is fake news masquerading as research, and I can actually prove it to you very, very simply.
We'll read this.
But I do have the actual study, and they make several claims.
Claims of which I can easily, I can move one piece of what they've done and show everything they're claiming is built on a false premise.
While I certainly respect there's an attempt to address the issue from an academic standpoint, because data in society just, if you're not familiar, data in society is a big hit piece on me and other people, which had no research, I can respect this, they're wrong.
First, they don't know anything about YouTube culture and the YouTube community.
They assume simply because someone comments on the intellectual dark web and then later comments on an alt-right video, it means they've been radicalized, not understanding that people make videos about similar subject matters that omit ideology in the first place.
Simply because someone comments more on an alt-right video doesn't mean they've been radicalized.
It simply means they may be more active on YouTube.
It says nothing about what they believe or don't believe.
In fact, many alt-right channels might talk about Star Wars!
I'm not exaggerating.
They do.
Is someone commenting on a Star Wars video being assumed by this study that they've adopted alt-right beliefs?
It may simply be that the alt-right makes many videos.
But more importantly, I can tear this whole thing apart right now with one simple point.
A couple, actually.
The first thing I'll do is show you that this study assumes Sargon of Akkad is Intellectual Darkweb, but the Thinkery is Alt-Light.
Because apparently they don't know it's the exact same person and basically the same content.
Sargon of Akkad's opinions don't change simply because he has a second channel.
And therein lies the big problem.
But it actually gets worse than that.
First, the insinuation that I'm anything to do with the intellectual dark web I reject for a lot of reasons, though I certainly understand what they're trying to go for.
It is dramatically... it makes no sense.
It really doesn't.
Let's just be honest.
But here's the thing.
In a bigger list, of their channels. They include News2Share as alt-light.
Here's what they've done in my opinion.
By putting the Thinkery here, by putting News2Share here, and certainly some of these you could say are alt-light, putting BlazeTV in the alt-light, they have built a false premise of radicalization.
They can then take intellectual dark web channels and then say, who do they connect to?
Well, Sargon connects to the Thinkery.
Ooh, claim the Thinkery is alt-light.
And there's the game.
They aligned the- Everything about this is fake.
My- You know what, man?
It is so damn annoying to see this fake news, this fake game, and you know what the problem is?
People like me are unwilling to use this underhanded, deceitful tactic to try and make the claim that I'm right or wrong.
I won't do it.
I will just tell you why they're wrong.
I won't do anything underhanded or deceitful to win the ideological war.
And that's why I think those that truly believe in freedom, liberty, free speech, etc.
are going to lose out.
So here's what he does.
He says, look, we can see that people will move from the alt-right, you know, from the intellectual dark web to the alt-right.
That's the claim, right?
We can prove it.
Here's what they do.
People who commented on Sargon of Akkad then went on to comment on the Thinkery!
Oh my.
And then they went on to comment on something like, I don't know, Black Pigeon Speaks.
Black Pigeon Speaks, as far as I understand, is not alt-right.
I believe Black Pigeon Speaks is, like, mainstream conservative.
But by aligning the channels based on their own personal bias, they can claim there is a path to radicalization.
Noting, the control group is left-wing mainstream channels.
How is that a control?
Well, let's read.
Actually, I gotta stop here, because I'm gonna rant on this one for a while.
In the description, there's a link to Timcast IRL.
It is a separate channel on purpose because the attacks are relentless.
They're trying to destroy channels like mine.
They don't want me talking about moderate milquetoast opinions, apparently.
They don't want independent creators talking politics, period.
Subscribe to this channel.
It's going to be on the ground, and it's going to be very apolitical.
I mean, it'll be political and news reporting, but I'm going to be going on the ground and talking to people About news issues, and we're gonna avoid all of the centralized nonsense.
It's just gonna be me doing my thing, and it's gonna be very much just behind the scenes stuff, so subscribe to this channel.
The link is in the description below.
It's also kind of a backup channel, because these attacks are getting relentless.
And 2020 is coming, and I am worried.
I really am.
But don't, you know, I will not be one of these people caught off guard and having all of their channels deleted.
I am putting, you know, diversifying my portfolio, as it were.
So subscribe.
Now, there's no guarantee.
YouTube could just wipe all of us out and delete every channel I'm associated with.
I kind of think that's not the case because I am creating a strong delineation between various channels.
But let's pop back over to this study and read.
They say controls.
We collect popular media channels as controls.
These were obtained from the MediaBiasFactCheck.com.
For each media source of the categories on the website, left, left center, center, right, right center, right, we search for its name on YouTube and consider if there is a match in the first page of results.
Some of the channels were not considered because they had too many videos, 15,000 plus, and we were not able to retrieve them at all.
Okay, so...
It doesn't actually explain how the control channels have anything to do with any of these channels.
More importantly, it actually appears to show that people who watch intellectual dark web channels have the exact same response to the alt-right as the control channels.
Why then do they make this... How do they make this claim of radicalization?
What they're saying is that some people may find the alt-right, and then many people in the alt-right find the alt-right.
But again, Whole thing falls apart when you realize Sticks, Hex, and Hammer is not alt-light.
That literally makes no sense.
You find the Thinkery is literally Sargon in the other category.
They have made fake categories to draw a fake line.
They can show the data where it's like, you know, John Doe 1 commented on Sargon, then a month later commented on the Thinkery, and then a month later commented on Black Pigeon Speaks.
There you can see that path, see?
Because they've defined what is Intellectual Dark Web, Alt-Left or Alt-Right.
In fact, let me take a look at how they define Intellectual Dark Web.
They say...
The IDW is a term coined by Eric Ross Weinstein to refer to a particular group of academics and podcast hosts, I guess.
The neologism was later popularized by the New York Times.
They say it's a collection of iconoclastic thinkers, academic renegades, and media personalities who are having a rolling conversation about all sorts of subjects.
Touching on controversial issues such as abortion, biological differences between men and women, identity politics, religion, immigration.
You mean the intellectual dark web is literally people talking politics?
This is what they're trying to do to get my channel deleted.
Tim Pool dares to talk about Nancy Pelosi?
Are you kidding me?
Come on, man.
They say, The group described in the New York Times includes Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, and also mentions a website with an unofficial list of members, of which I am not included.
Members of the so-called IDW have been accused of bigotry, Islamophobia, transphobia, and sexism.
Moreover, a recent report by Data Society, a research institute, has claimed these channels are a pathway to radicalization.
They would act as an entry point to more radical channels.
It's actually not true.
The data we've actually looked at shows the inverse response, and that was in the New York Times fake story.
So it was fake, whatever.
They say, such as those in the alt-right, broadly members of this loosely defined movement see these critics as a consequence of discussing controversial subjects, and largely ignore, dismiss the report.
It lied and claimed I did work with people I've never met before.
This is the dirty game they play.
Similarly to what happens between Alt-Right and Alt-Light, there's also blurry lines between the IDW and the Alt-Light, especially for non-Core members like those listed in the website.
Here again, we take a conservative approach, considering borderline cases to belong to the Alt-Light.
Well, I've already shown you that they've labeled News2Share, which is Ford Fisher, who is, like, being—he gets tweeted out by Kathy Griffin, okay?
You want to make a claim that he's alt-right, you've lost the plot, and your data is trash.
And they do.
They show it right here, alt-right channels, and there's News2Share.
I'm pretty sure Kathy Griffin You know, she blocked me!
It's not sharing alt-like content.
Now, they do have, interestingly, TimCast listed as an IDW channel, but not Tim Poole.
Nor Subverse.
They don't actually know what they're talking about.
Alt-like they define as, like, civic nationalist.
So, The Blaze, The Daily Caller, that's mainstream politics.
That's Tucker Carlson, The Daily Caller.
So, I can show you that the path they've drawn is real, but only because they've chosen arbitrary definitions of what these groups really are, which makes no sense.
I could say something like, people who eat vanilla ice cream are being radicalized into eating, you know, horse waste.
And I can just draw a path, because people who eat chocolate ice cream, some of them eat horse waste, and therefore it proves vanilla chocolate horse waste.
It makes no sense.
Makes literally no sense.
The other thing that I want to point out, however, is that they don't understand the concept of, for one, argument in the political sphere, but the more important point here is that people comment on subject matter.
That's it.
It doesn't mean you are pro-nationalism or against nationalism.
I am not a nationalist.
I should say I probably lean more towards it, but I'm very much in the middle.
My opinion has always been we will move more towards internationalism, And international relations is a good thing, but I believe we can't have legal border entry.
So it's a very milquetoast opinion in the middle, exactly.
I'm probably less of a nationalist than the IDW.
Here's the thing.
Let's say I make a video, and I call it something like, Trump Talks About Immigration.
And I make a point where I say Trump is going too far or whatever, but I understand the policy, and the Democrats aren't doing a good job countering that, which is like a typical opinion of mine.
Like, okay, Trump wants to build a wall, maybe a big beautiful border barrier 30 feet high makes no sense.
Where are the Democrats and what's their argument?
I don't really put forth much.
So somebody comments, and they comment BUILD THE WALL in all caps.
They then get recommended a video titled, Build the Wall, and they comment the same thing, Build the Wall.
The point is, what they've really found is there is a subject matter branch.
That's it.
Their path to radicalization makes no sense because they've arbitrarily drawn those lines, and just because someone comments on Black Pigeon Speaks' videos about Star Wars doesn't mean they're for or against the alt-right or being radicalized.
In fact, he points out, Many of the comments are not critical.
They're not negative.
They're positive, he says.
Okay.
Well, what if they're not even talking about the video?
You know what I've found?
You know, I used to actually reply to a lot more comments.
I don't anymore.
It's because most of the comments, I mean this, like most of the comments have nothing to do with the video, nothing to do with my opinions.
They have to do with the title of the video.
So if I made a video called Immigration, you'll see a bunch of comments about immigration that don't talk about what I said.
Certainly many people do address the things I say.
I get it.
But a lot of comments don't.
You know what that means?
Trying to track whether or not someone is being radicalized based on a comment means literally nothing.
Especially when the groups are drawn arbitrarily.
But I will show the story and show their final point.
They say, Hilariously, the study failed to categorize these outlets in any rational manner, since Crystal is hardly in the same category as Shapiro, and the Heritage Foundation is a more mainstream conservative organization.
They go on to say, uh, the IDW was more likely to lightly infect users than the control channels were, but the study admitted, those that only watched IDW content were just as safe as those who watched the control channels.
You know what that means?
It means someone who believes in nationalism might actually engage in content with white nationalists.
It doesn't mean they agree with an ethnostate.
It means they talk about nationalism.
Why?
Because the alt-right is equally likely to talk about strong borders as the alt-right.
They share an opinion on borders.
But guess what?
So does Bernie Sanders!
You know what, man?
I'm gonna end here to keep these videos short.
It's another smear, it's more fake news, and it is just so damn annoying.
I got a couple more videos coming up.
Stick around, I will see you shortly.
Everything is always about race with Trump.
And I don't mean from Trump.
I mean from the left.
It's like the only play they have.
I saw this story from NBC and I was like, whoa, is this shirts from the other day last night?
It says Trump campaign attacks AOC Democrats.
This is our country, not theirs.
The language used in the email is similar to the racist attack by Trump on four democratic congressmen of color known as the squad last month.
Guess what?
It's a lie!
It's fake news.
It is complete fake news.
And I saw this headline, and I was like, oh no, did Trump say this again?
Because listen, I'll tell you this, man.
When Trump said they should go back to whatever country they're from and fix it and then bring it, you know, come back here and tell us what they did because they need their help, people were like, that was it.
That was racist.
And I was, I slammed it.
I said, this is ignorant, blah, blah, blah, called up the president for it.
Then I made a video where I was like, he played us like, you know, he was trying to play this game and manipulate the media.
So I fell for that for sure.
But I still disagree with what he said.
I still think Trump is boorish.
Here's the thing.
This is a lie.
This is a lie.
Let me say it one more time.
This headline and their framing from NBC News is nightmarishly dystopian.
Trump did not say the country is not AOCs or the Democrats.
He didn't make a racist attack against the Squad saying it's not their country.
He said the country isn't the coastal elites.
He said this is a country for all people of every zip code.
Isn't that amazing?
Check it out.
Not even an exaggeration.
They give you this headline, which most people will just read and say, Trump said it's our country, not theirs, to AOC.
What a bigot.
He didn't.
Now, he was making a reference to the calls to abolish the Electoral College, and said this is not a country for the coastal elites.
He said, Socialist Rep AOC recently called for abolishing the Electoral College.
Remind her, this country belongs to Americans from every zip code, not just the coastal elites and liberal megadonors.
This is our country, not theirs.
Oh, what does theirs refer to?
What group?
Liberal elites in coastal megacities or whatever.
That's what he was saying.
Think about it.
He said, This is a country for all Americans, not the elites on the coast.
It is our country, not theirs.
Referring specifically to extremely wealthy urban individuals with tons of money.
And what does NBC say?
It parrots a racist attack.
Well, let's read the story, and I will continue to drag it.
But before we do, in the description below is a channel, TimCastIRL.
Subscribe.
Because I'm going to be producing a behind-the-scenes and on-the-ground vlog, field reporting.
There's going to be a lot of boring stories.
Well, I shouldn't call them boring.
But you're going to see videos of me, like, talking to a small-town grandma eating a slice of apple pie.
I want to go on the ground and meet real Americans and talk to them about issues like this.
Do you really think Trump is racist?
What do you think he meant with this email?
I want to hear what they have to say.
It'll be pretty political, but admittedly there might be a lot of small-town economics.
I want to get away from the national stage and bring it back to the American people.
Go down and talk to someone and say, how's the economy going for you?
Ignore Fox News and CNN and MSNBC.
They're gonna tell you one thing, that's fine.
But how do you feel as an American?
That's what I want to do.
Subscribe to this channel, because we are getting ready to go on the road, and it's going to be a lot of fun, and there's going to be vloggy travel stuff.
You know, there's going to be, like, me walking to a gas station and, like, meeting a small-town dude, and there's going to be me eating a cheeseburger at, like, the famous burger stop in this small town in the panhandle of Oklahoma or something.
I'm thinking of the right place.
Anyway, let's read the news.
So, that's in the description below.
Subscribe.
And stay tuned, because it is about to ramp up.
President Donald Trump's re-election campaign attacked AOC in a campaign email on Tuesday for her calls to abolish the Electoral College, telling a supporter that this is our country, not theirs.
You see how evil this is?
They don't want you to understand the truth.
They want you to just believe fake news, and then they blame everyone else for fake news.
And if you watched the segment before this one, you can see how they're trying to get me deleted.
They want to lie about channels like mine, and include me in the intellectual dark web, like, please, dude, I'm not an academic.
I guess, fine, when you use the New York Times definition of literally people talking politics, sure, I'm that.
I'm not an academic.
And I'm nowhere near on par with the academics who are having these conversations.
But this is what they want to do.
They don't want me to show you that Trump didn't actually say theirs in reference to AOC.
He said theirs in reference to the rich people.
To the rich urban people who donate the liberal megadonors.
The attack was prompted by comments from Ocasio-Cortez last week when she called the Electoral College a scam and said the constitutionally mandated way the U.S.
picks its presidents dilutes the voting power of people of color.
And there it is!
The Electoral College is racist!
Yeah, okay.
Listen.
We are a country of states.
The states are sovereign, at least that's my understanding, and there is a union, the United States of America.
The reason why the Electoral College makes sense is because the states choose who they want to represent us federally in the executive branch.
There are a lot of other reasons why the Electoral College makes sense.
You've probably heard me rant about it.
But it makes sure that big cities don't strip the resources of small towns.
It gives them weight in this election.
Heaven forbid we have a popular vote, and then you get a politician going to LA, New York, Chicago, and then maybe like 10 smaller cities, and they ignore all rural areas.
Some people will say, yeah, but they still campaign in Iowa.
They only campaign in Iowa because of the Electoral College.
Oh, but even though they campaign in Chicago, they still go to smaller towns in Illinois, right, because Chicago on its own isn't enough to win all of Illinois.
Go federal, do a popular vote, and they don't need small-town Illinois.
They just need the bulk of the votes.
They say the language used in the email is similar to the racist attack by Trump on four Democratic congresswomen of color known as the Squad last month, in which he tweeted that the group should go back and try to fix the crime-infested places they originally came from.
The group includes Ocasio-Cortez, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'll give you the rundown of the squad just because there may be some people who aren't familiar.
AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.
So Tlaib is in Michigan, Omar is in Minnesota.
Three of the women are U.S.
born.
Omar, a Somali refugee, moved to the U.S.
when she was 12 and is a naturalized citizen.
They say Trump won the presidency in 2016 with 304 electoral votes against Hillary Clinton's 227.
Trump won the presidency in 2016 with 304 electoral votes against Hillary Clinton's 227.
However, he lost the popular vote by 3 million.
After losing the popular vote to Clinton, he called the Electoral College genius and far better for
the USA.
But in 2012, he called the system a disaster in a tweet after Obama won re-election.
Now here's the thing.
Trump absolutely has a history of tweets that are just darn hilarious.
They are.
But I gotta admit.
Look, we can rag on Trump for his past comments, because many of them reflect his own presidency, but it's also important to point out people change.
They want to dig up old tweets and act like Trump can't change his opinion on something.
How about this?
Trump thought the Electoral College was bad, then ran for president and realized it was good.
Why?
Well, it helped him win.
He now understands why it made sense.
AOC tweeted, I'm so glad the President and I agree the Electoral College has to go.
Sure, but this is a tweet from 2012, man.
And it's Trump being off the cuff and being boisterous and boorish like he always is.
I don't care.
I don't care.
Look, I'll criticize Trump for saying the Electoral College was bad for democracy back then, but he's saying it's good now?
Well, he's right.
It is good now.
Ocasio-Cortez would like a world.
Where big cities who don't understand how rural folk live can dictate how they live.
It would be the collapse of the Union faster than you could say collapse of the Union.
There are small towns in California, for instance, where they don't have a county-based voting system, right?
And the big cities outvote the small cities.
And guess what happens?
The small cities lose access to surface water.
That's one of the best examples I've seen of why the Electoral College makes sense.
Let's say you live in... I'm going to do a tidbit on the Electoral College because I've got to push back on this.
Maybe I should just rag on the fake news, but...
Look, I'll wrap up the EC stuff.
If you live in a small town in North Dakota and you discover vibranium, okay, I'm joking on purpose, a rare metal no one's ever found before, well, they'll come and steal it from you.
However, with the Electoral College system, you at least have more weight in that election.
It may not be enough, but at least the states can push back.
Without this, everything falls apart.
But let's get to the crux of the problem here.
First, they try claiming the Electoral College is racist.
Please spare me.
I am so sick and tired of hearing the word racist.
It means literally nothing.
Nothing.
You are saying nothing.
The Electoral College is racist?
Okay, so then Trump says this is a country for all Americans, not just coastal elites.
And NBC jumps to the line to bow before AOC and provide her that defense.
From classism?
What?
And they claim Trump is being racist for pointing out class problems?
How did we get to a point Where Tucker Carlson has a segment where he says, this is an attempt to distract you from class issues.
Tucker?
Fox News?
He's right!
I've been talking about class issues the whole time since Occupy Wall Street!
And they've changed the narrative.
And they want you to believe now that simply, you know, look, the Electoral College protects poor people in small towns in this country.
So now they're claiming it's racist.
And now NBC is publishing fake news to defend the squad.
I'm not surprised.
I'm gonna sneeze, so I'll stop here.
Stick around, one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
They almost admit it.
They almost admit that The Last Jedi was a massive screw-up that damaged Star Wars.
First of all, why does that sentence need to exist?
Why was there a question asked in the first place?
And secondly, what does it didn't really derail anything mean?
It means it did!
He wouldn't say it didn't really, which is like saying it kinda did, right?
The Last Jedi was so bad, I am totally off Star Wars.
Everything about the next series and getting rid of the Extended Universe, I'm just done with it.
So, I made a video recently about Dark Rey, and I hate rehashing some of these things from older videos, but I want to make sure there's context.
There was a new trailer for The Rise of Skywalker.
It shows Rey in a dark cloak with a double red saber.
Marketing.
It's fake news.
I think it's a big trick.
Here's the thing, though.
Rian Johnson took over and then apparently didn't use any of the notes for the actual series.
And you can even hear it in the movie when Kylo Ren says, let the past die.
It's like, I know what you're doing, dude.
You are sabotaging Star Wars.
Change my mind.
Rian Johnson threw away the notes, had Kylo Ren express it over and over again that he's trying to destroy the past.
It was on purpose.
Change my mind.
You're not going to be able to.
You won't.
And I'm not gonna go see any more of these movies.
But let's read this, and I want to get into the meat and potatoes here about how, uh, look.
I just want to stress.
There are a lot of people who claim The Last Jedi was like an SJW movie.
I don't- I don't care to talk about that.
That's silly.
I don't care if there's a Holdo with purple hair.
That's not the issue.
And they do play up some tropes.
It's whatever.
The problem is the story was trash.
It was trash.
It was painful.
It was like...
A two-year-old playing with toys.
Now I'm gonna save you, Finn!
Ooh, I crashed into you!
And then you wrote it down.
So let's read this story about how it didn't really derail anything, but it kind of did.
Before we do, however, in the description, I have a new channel.
We are ramping it up.
I'm gonna be on the ground, in the van, field reporting.
Subscribe to this channel if you want Behind the scenes, small town conversations, videos of me eating apple pie with little old grandma in central, in the middle of the United States, in like, you know, Nebraska or something.
And just asking her, how are things going for you?
How do you feel about politics?
Let's get, let's bring things back to the people and get away from the national stage.
And that's what I'm gonna be doing.
Subscribe to this channel.
There, there'll be a lot of silliness, probably drone flying and like hang gliding and skydiving.
I don't know.
It's gonna be travel vlog first and foremost, but you know me, I'm all about politics.
So that'll be a big aspect of it.
Let's get back to the Star Wars though.
Cause some of you probably are only watching this for Star Wars and you have no idea what I'm talking about.
But hey, subscribe to that channel anyway if you like vlogs.
From Bounding into Comics, they write, J.J. Abrams appeared at Disney's D23 Expo
to promote the upcoming Star Wars, The Rise of Skywalker film,
where he revealed that Rian Johnson's The Last Jedi didn't really derail anything.
I love that.
Abrams spoke to Entertainment Tonight Canada, where he discussed The Rise of Skywalker.
He stated, The story that we're telling,
the story that we started to conceive when we did The Force Awakens,
was allowed to continue.
Episode eight didn't really derail anything that we were thinking about.
Oh, it didn't really?
It kinda did.
Is that what you're saying?
Abrams would go on to discuss the fun of The Rise of Skywalker, which I will not go see, by the way.
I'm gonna wait until the reviews come in from trusted sources before going anywhere near that film.
You know what, man?
I kinda feel like everything they've done with the new series is just so dumb.
Why is there a Resistance?
The Empire fell.
The Resistance is back, and they build a bigger Death Star!
Okay, dude.
He goes on to address Rise of Skywalker, saying, But I will say the fun of this movie is that these
characters are all together on this adventure as a group.
That's the thing I was most excited about.
To see the dynamic between these characters that these amazing actors play on this desperate
seat of your pants adventure.
That to me was the thing that was most fun, having the group together.
Abrams had previously told Vanity Fair that he was taking a much different approach to
the Rise of Skywalker than he did with The Force Awakens.
Why?
Because The Force Awakens was a shot for shot remake of A New Hope?
Working on 9, I found myself approaching it slightly differently.
Which is to say that on 7, I felt beholden to Star Wars in a way that was interesting.
I was doing what the best of my ability I felt Star Wars should be.
Doing to the best of my ability.
He then detailed his approach for The Rise of Skywalker.
It felt slightly more renegade.
It felt slightly more like, you know, F it.
I'm going to do the thing that feels right because it does, not because it adheres to something.
There it is!
You know what they're saying?
They're saying The Last Jedi was trash, we know it was trash, and we're gonna do it again.
That's why I'm not gonna go see this movie.
They didn't stick to Star Wars canon.
Nothing made sense.
The story was trash, plasma bolts arcing in space.
Seriously?
A plot point for The Last Jedi was...
We- I secretly told the First Order to look out the window!
I'm not exaggerating!
The guy was like, look, and he points out the window and they see the escape pods like, are you kidding me?
Oh, that was just trash.
And what is J.J.
Abrams saying right now?
You know what?
F it.
I'm gonna do what feels right, not because it adheres to something.
So what you're saying is, you're not gonna make content for fans, you're not gonna stick to the lore, you're not advancing the story of Star Wars, you're screwing around with some fun project you wanna do.
Listen.
I used to like Star Wars a lot.
It's cool to have this sci-fi fantasy adventure.
Lightsabers are a cool idea, the Force is a cool idea, and you have to earn your power.
You know what I want?
I want the story to progress.
They're not doing that.
They're retconning everything.
They purged the extended universe.
And that's what I've been... You know what really bothered me about Star Trek?
After Deep Space Nine, what do they do?
unidentified
They do prequel, prequel, prequel, prequel, prequel.
Discovery I have no interest in because I don't care about your universe-breaking retcon prequels.
That's what they're doing with Star Wars now.
Not a prequel, but they kind of did do that.
I hate prequels.
I want to know what happens to everybody.
And here's what they did.
Luke Skywalker, as Mark Hamill said, one of the most optimistic guys in the universe, in the galaxy at least.
He works hard, he becomes a Jedi, he becomes powerful.
What did he accomplish later on?
This is a guy, for many people, was something to strive to be.
A hero.
A regular old farm boy, thrust into adventure, aided by magic, and eventually became a great Jedi.
Where is he today?
What great things has he accomplished?
Oh, a midlife crisis followed by his own death.
Great!
That's what I was hoping for, right?
How many people, and you guys can probably answer this because it probably resonates with you a little bit, How many people grew up looking at Luke Skywalker being like, I want to be a Jedi.
I want to be a hero.
Only to find out the dude was a loser.
A complete loser drinking weird giant monster titty milk on some island because he gave up and he was just a middle-aged loser.
And Rian Johnson's thing is like, well, that's the way it is.
Some stories, you know, let go of the past, defy expectations.
Oh, come on, dude.
I don't go to the movies to get a glimpse of reality.
I don't go to the movies to hear a story about how people grew up to be failures.
How that dude you knew in high school was so cool, well, now he sells shoes.
No, I go to movies to see that dude who struggled, and defied all the odds, and 30 years later, he has his own temple, his own domain, and he's helped make the world a better place.
Because I want to believe that I can do the same thing.
That I can grow up from humble means, and become a master at a temple, and reinvigorate the lost order.
Instead, what do we get?
Eh, he abandoned his post, went to go live on an island, drinkin' titty milk, and then he dies.
Congratulations!
You've destroyed a childhood icon.
The Last Jedi.
Boy, do I hate that movie.
And that's why I'm doing a Star Wars video right now.
I hate it so much.
I love talking about how much I hate it.
Here we go, I'll read a little bit more.
Of note, Abrams was not supposed to direct The Rise of Skywalker.
He came on board the project back in September 2017, after Lucasfilm parted ways with Colin Trevorrow, who was originally supposed to direct Episode IX.
Abrams' comments are even more interesting, given that Rian Johnson and Daisy Ridley have stated concern in the creative process on the new... considering...
Given what they stated on the creative process.
The Last Jedi director, Rian Johnson, previously described Abrams' role in The Last Jedi, saying, What do you mean?
The blank slate?
Star Wars has been around for decades!
The starting point was the Force Awakens script, which is quite a big, expansive, wonderful starting point.
In that way, we are drawing directly from his work, but from that point forward, it was a blank canvas.
They say Daisy Ridley, who plays Rey, revealed her take on the continuity between films in a French interview.
Here's what I think I know.
J.J.
wrote episode 7, as well as drafts for 8 and 9.
Then Rian Johnson arrived and wrote The Last Jedi entirely.
I believe there was some sort of general consensus on the main lines of the trilogy, but apart from that, every director writes and realizes his film in his own way.
Rian Johnson and J.J.
Abrams met to discuss all of this.
Although episode 8 is still his very own work, I believe Rian didn't keep anything from the first draft of 8.
So none of it made sense.
What an awful movie.
I've not seen it a second time.
I wanted to walk out of that theater.
They say one has to imagine that Abrams believed he was done with Star Wars following The Force Awakens.
He reportedly gave Johnson a blank slate to work with, and Trevorrow was supposed to pick up the pieces following The Last Jedi.
Now Abrams is claiming he's continuing the story he had outlined since The Force Awakens, it's kind of hard to believe, especially of Johnson throughout the first draft of episode 8, and didn't use Abrams' notes.
It's possible Abrams might ignore Johnson's The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker, similar to how he ignored pretty much all of Star Wars canon in The Last Jedi.
Yep.
Uh, oh yeah, I guess, you know, it's also possible Abrams might be trying to pay lip service to the idea that Lucasfilm and Disney had a plan altogether, despite all the statements to the contrary.
What do you make of Abrams blah blah blah?
Okay, I'm gonna keep this one short.
What did I hear?
For one, Rian Johnson screwed everything up.
Then he says, I'm just gonna do it my way.
Yeah, he's saying Star Wars is dead.
Okay.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all next time, and I won't be seeing this movie.
We'll see what happens with the reviews, but I really doubt I'm going to see this movie.
