Democratic Candidate CAUGHT On HOT MIC Calling Out The Left, Praising Fox News
Democratic Candidate CAUGHT On HOT MIC Calling Out The Left, Praising Fox News. Marianne Williamson had no problem calling the left mean and saying they lie in the past week. But recently in an interview she was caught on a hot mic saying that Fox News is nicer than the left and that conservatives in general are nicer to her.She goes on to say that she is very much a lefty but the left is very mean. She responded to the hot mic comments caught off guard explaining that it was just how she felt that day but I think what she said resonates with many people especially me.The far left has been actively pushing people away from the left and the democrats almost as if they want republicans and conservatives to win.If even Marianne Williamson can see it than it must be bad.So long as cancel culture and far left wokeness continues to move into the mainstream left we will see the "right wing" side grow and opposition to the meanness, the lies, and the ideology will grow faster.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Caught on a hot mic, Marianne Williamson said that Fox News is nicer to her than the lefties, and then went on to say, what does it mean that, or something to the effect of, conservatives are nicer to her than the left.
I wouldn't necessarily call it a hot mic.
She was doing an interview after they wrapped.
This is what I understand.
We'll read the story.
She said something to this effect, and they said we're not going to air it, but then decided they should for journalistic reasons, and it's a tough call.
Again, not necessarily a hot mic, it kind of is, but I really do feel it's important that we heard this candid statement from Marianne Williamson because she's learning a very important lesson.
Whatever is going on on the left, they're very mean.
Now, I have talked about how the media is going to tear the Democrats to shreds.
Look, Trump is the Republican nominee.
He's the incumbent.
No one—like, there's people challenging him, but come on, it's gonna be Trump.
But on the Democrat side, they have to defeat each other.
So here comes the lies and the smears.
You know, take a look at 2016.
Trump called Ted Cruz Lion Ted for lying, but now Trump supporters call him Lion as in, like, L-I-O-N.
They've changed it.
In the primary, Trump was very, you know, mean.
He battled with the other Republicans.
Then he won.
Now he's softened up a bit.
He's friends with a lot of these people.
Marianne Williamson is getting beaten down.
The left is not happy.
They're going after everybody.
And she's learning they lie.
In another story, she said just that.
I didn't think the left was so mean.
I didn't think the left lied like this.
Here's what we're going to do.
Let's read this story about the Hot Mike incident, and she did respond, which is interesting.
She's kind of pushing back.
We'll talk about the controversy, but I want to get into why people think the left is mean and what's happening with media, kind of following up on what I did last week.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical option.
The best thing you can do is just share this story.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
By sharing this video, you help me grow my channel and business.
If you like what I do.
If you don't like it, then don't share it and leave a comment telling me why you don't like it or why you just hate me.
But let's read the news and learn a little bit.
From Newsweek.
Democratic 2020 presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson was caught on hot mic after an interview claiming that right-wing cable network Fox News and conservatives are nicer to her than the political left.
But I do have another story where she was on Fox and Friends talking about corruption.
What does it say that Fox News is nicer to me than the lefties are?
What does it say that the conservatives are nicer to me?
Williamson said after an interview with Eric Bolling on Sinclair Broadcast Group's America This Week last week.
It's such a bizarre world, she added.
I didn't think the left was as mean as the right.
They are, the activist and author asserted.
Bowling played the previously unreleased clip ahead of a follow-up Wednesday evening interview with the presidential candidate, confronting her over her criticism.
Williamson was clearly caught off guard, explaining that she had previously been told the clip would not be played.
Now we're getting to murky territory.
Was it morally and ethically right to release her candid, off-the-cuff statement following an interview?
Well, we'll talk about this.
Well, what I was told was that if I came on your show, you wouldn't blast it out.
And you just blasted it out, she said in response.
I don't even know where to go with that.
Bowling defended his decision to play the clip, despite allegedly saying he wouldn't.
Williamson then attempted to explain her candid hot mic remarks.
I think that there are things that happen just in people.
It's not a left-right issue, and I have found it's tough out there, she said.
And I was just talking about the fact that that day, you were certainly very kind to me.
And listen, many people on the left are kind to me, the presidential hopeful continued.
I'm running for president.
It's not a walk in the park.
Although the hot mic remarks were particularly candid, Williamson has gone on the record multiple times in recent days criticizing the Democratic Party and the established political system.
Now, I want to stop here and make a point.
I believe she's trying to push back to defend herself, because someone running as a Democrat criticizing the left is probably going to lose.
But let's analyze what she actually said in the candid statement.
She said, Fox News is nice to me.
Conservatives are nice to me.
And then what did she follow up with?
She said, you were certainly very kind to me.
Here's what I think happened.
I think she knows the truth.
Was it moral and ethical to publish this?
I honestly think the answer is yes.
It's difficult.
I don't know if I would necessarily publish someone's recording like that.
If I'm doing an interview with someone and they say passively something that may be off the cuff and emotional, there's a lot of circumstances where I would consider publishing it, but in almost all I probably wouldn't.
But it is tough.
You know why?
If Marianne Williamson can see this, and we know the problem is expanding, it's very important that people know what's happening on the left.
While I certainly, again, will state, of course the left is going after her.
They're trying to take each other down.
Trump did the same thing.
What we're seeing isn't unique to her.
We have another story where this guy, Virginia Lieutenant Governor Fairfax, is suing CBS over accuser interviews.
The point is, Everybody is going after everybody and it's not just going to be, you know, one side or the other.
It's the media and it's, you know, it's a strategy.
There could be political bias in the media.
I don't want to allege that because I actually want to show you some instances where the Democrats are being hurt by all this.
But let me bring it back to the main point.
I think it's important to hear from Marianne Williamson.
And I think there's, you know, if I was presented with this information, I may very well release it in the same context.
A lot of people might try and claim it's just 2020.
But we've been seeing this for a long time, that the media and the left have been extremely vicious.
It's why we have stories about Bill Burr and Dave Chappelle, you know, coming out and pushing back.
Because mainstream comedy is saying enough.
Even Saturday Night Live did a segment called, Can I Play That?, where they were pretending to be actors, joking about how they can't play any characters.
And that's the left.
Let's read on.
Quote, I've learned that the system is even more corrupt than I knew, she said in an interview with Fox News morning show Fox and Friends on Tuesday.
Williamson also criticized both Democrats and Republicans, saying they should facilitate the process of democracy, but not in any way dictate the process.
In a September 3rd interview with The New Yorker, Williamson took aim at the progressive, saying, I didn't think the left was so mean.
I didn't think the left lied like this.
It's a really, really amazing story.
Williamson, along with more than half of the Democratic presidential candidates, failed to qualify for the third primary debate taking place in Houston on Thursday evening.
The Democratic National Committee issued stringent requirements to qualify.
I'm not going to read through that.
We get it.
We know what's going on with the DNC.
Here's what I want to show you.
In this story where she said, from just last week, I didn't think the left was so mean and I didn't think the left lied like this.
I want to give you the full context.
I did talk about this last week.
She said, I know this sounds naive.
I didn't think the left was so mean.
I didn't think the left lied like this.
I thought the right did that.
I thought we were better.
The host pushed back.
What did you mean by that?
She said, oh, come on.
You just mentioned crystal gazing.
There is no crystal in my home, David.
There's never been a crystal on stage when I've talked.
I've never told an AIDS patient not to take their medicine.
I've never told anyone not to take their medicine.
I've never told anyone their lovelessness created their disease.
All of these hit pieces emerge, and it's the media.
That's the point I was trying to get to earlier, and I'm gonna show you all this.
Somebody in media posts a joke about her being a crystal lady, and it becomes a legitimate question?
How does that make sense?
Why would he ask her about crystals?
And she said, you just mentioned crystal gazing!
Something someone made up as a joke turned into a legitimate question on a news program, and now she is feeling the brunt of how the media machine churns.
She is not the establishment, so they come after her.
I believe it was Crystal Ball.
I'm not trying to be mean, but that really is her name.
She's a correspondent for The Hill.
She wrote an op-ed about how the establishment doesn't like Yang and Tulsi and Marianne Williamson.
People can see, you know, even these pundits, even these journalists can see that if you are not part of the DNC establishment, you're fair game.
Are they going to smear Elizabeth Warren?
Conservatives will.
No, but the left will treat her like a serious contender who can do no wrong.
But when it comes to Marianne Williamson, they mock and belittle her.
And now she's learning an important lesson.
And this is why it's crucial we heard what she said on that show with Eric Bolling.
I feel bad that her privacy was violated.
I really, really do.
And that's a serious ethical dilemma.
But think about the importance of hearing from a 2020 Democratic contender to say over and over again, they're being so mean to me.
The American people need to hear this so we can understand what's happening.
So I do have the story pulled up where she went on Fox & Friends and talked about corruption.
So we get it.
I kind of went through all that stuff, but let's move on and talk about some other issues.
In this story from Politico, Democrats decry double standard in fact-checking.
The Democrats are starting to feel the heat from the press.
It's tough when we say the left, but the real issue, I think, is the cultural Hierarchy, I guess?
That media is so powerful, tech and media, and essentially social media is a combination of the two.
You have these woke journalists on Twitter, and now they're just looking for a hot take for personal gain, and now Democrats are starting to feel the brunt.
They don't like it.
Marianne Williamson can come out and say it.
She's not an establishment candidate.
Well, we can see this kind of thing happening, like I mentioned.
This is a complicated story, Lt.
Gov.
Fairfax suing CBS over accuser interviews, but we can see that Democrats are not enjoying being in the hot seat.
But here's what I want to highlight.
This is from Beauxpar.
I'm not super familiar with what it is.
But apparently, whatever this is, is a study from 2009.
Take this one with a grain of salt, because I don't know too much about the organization, and I want to make sure it's very, very clear.
But it was sent to me, and admittedly, based on my own confirmation bias, I think it's very interesting and worth reading.
Let's read it, and we'll take it for what it is.
They say, nearly all Americans are troubled by the current state of the media.
Americans believe ethics in journalism will be worse during the 2020 presidential campaign.
Bospar, the boutique PR firm that puts tech companies on the map, has released the results of its Ethics in Media survey.
The new data comes as Bospar hosts its Ethics in Media panel with a San Francisco chapter of the Public Relations Society of America and the San Francisco Press Club on September 19th at 6 p.m.
The event will take place at Workwise on 149 Montgomery.
We get it.
They say.
ABC veteran anchor Sheryl Jennings will moderate the discussion.
Panelists include former Wall Street Journal reporter and Message Lab CEO Ben Werthen and former Kron executive producer and BoSpar principal Curtis Sparrow.
And yes, now I'm just pushing out their press release for them, but they have some data here.
They say, BoSpar and Propeller Insight surveyed 1,010 American adults and discovered that more than 95% are troubled by the current state of media.
The reasons for their concern include the following.
I was, I was read the celebrity opinions, but number five is left-wing agendas.
Number six is gotcha journalism.
And number seven is right-wing agendas.
So left-wing agendas outpace the right.
But I think reporting on gossip may be a really important point here as well.
Why would someone accuse Marianne Williamson of having crystals?
Of crystal gazing?
It's gossip.
It's someone making a joke.
It's stupid celebrity nonsense.
Trump knows this.
He manipulates it.
It benefits him.
But the people don't seem to like it.
Now, again, I'm not familiar with Post Bar.
They seem to be a PR firm.
They go on to say, uh, puff pieces in exchange for access, blind items being reported in the news, hit pieces.
The rise of independent contributors versus staff media is really low.
They say, An overwhelming majority—67%—believe ethics in journalism will be worse during the 2020 presidential campaign.
When asked about the impact unethical journalism has on this country, Americans cited four chief problems.
64% It creates division and partisanship.
It fuels inaccuracies.
It incites hate.
It creates fear.
I'm not going to read through everything, but I want to highlight why this is so important and the media issue.
I'm stressing the media issue.
Because going back to the issue of Marianne Williamson, one thing she said that's very important, I didn't think the left lied like this.
I had an interesting thought.
You may be familiar with Project Veritas.
James O'Keefe.
He is certainly a controversial figure, though he probably isn't trying to be.
James O'Keefe does undercover journalism.
One of the criticisms of Project Veritas is that they target left-wing institutions, that it's a partisan, you know, attack on the left or something to that effect.
It's interesting.
People say similar things to me, but every so often something Apt slips through.
They say, Tim's actually a media critic.
That's a really good point.
It's not so much that, you know, I do talk about, you know, the woke identitarian stuff, but a lot of my content is media criticism.
And so I was thinking about this.
Marianne Williamson said, I didn't think the left lied like this.
She must be talking about the media to a certain extent, right?
The reason I bring up James O'Keefe is that when they accuse him of being a conservative, you know, attack dog going after liberal institutions, The biggest targets he's had in the past year or two or longer has actually been the mainstream media.
I think it was a year or two ago, the New York Times, mainstream publications, he had the nothing burger thing with Van Jones.
That's CNN.
What about Google, Facebook, Pinterest?
Are those left-wing institutions?
The mask slips.
When people criticize me or more importantly Veritas for being biased against the left and then call out and claim that by targeting mainstream journalist institutions and big tech we're targeting the left, they're admitting what most of us have been saying.
That big tech and the media are biased in favor of the establishment left.
Marianne Williamson.
She is feeling the brunt of that, as are many other Democrats.
That's the point I wanted to make.
Democrats decry double standard in fact-checking.
It's not necessarily—I mean, you know, I want to act like there are some candidates that are getting a pass.
They're not all getting a pass.
I think Biden gets a little bit, but they do go after them, these woke blogs.
Elizabeth Warren seems to be getting propped up.
She seems to be having, like, everything in front of her is being paved by the establishment.
We can tell who they like.
I think it'll be Kamala Harris.
But Bernie Sanders gets it a little bit, even though they still kinda like him.
Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, they're feeling the brunt of this.
So, what happens when we live in a society where the media establishment is lying, is mean?
Well, I'm glad we got to hear that candid statement from Marianne Williamson.
I know she has to push back, but I believe her candid statement was the true statement, that conservatives are nicer.
Listen, you don't need her to say that to know it's true, because I've been talking about it for two years.
I said even a couple weeks ago, or a week or two ago.
That the left's strategy is get out, and the right's strategy is come on by for a beer.
That's how it's been.
I said this maybe two years ago, that politics flows in one direction.
The left is trying everything in their power to get rid of things, the problematic people, the offensive comedy, and the right is having a good time posting memes and having a party, and willing to accept anybody who's been booted out.
We end up with this.
Okay, so this next story.
In his Netflix special Paper Tiger, Bill Burr echoes Dave Chappelle.
Now admittedly, I think it was good.
I think Dave Chappelle was a lot better.
But Bill Burr goes after a lot of the same woke nonsense.
I think we're seeing something potentially good with Bill Burr and Dave Chappelle now two Netflix specials attacking this weird cancel culture, wokeness, whatever you want to call it.
And even Marianne Williamson on the hot mic recognizing it.
If you're going to be a democratic 2020 You know, if you're going to attempt to be, you know, the presidential nominee for the Democrat side, and even you can feel the heat from the lies and the smears, that says a lot about what's happening.
The point I want to make, you know, highlighting that even Democrats are getting hit by the smear machine now, is as I've explained it before, is like whatever this weird culture is, it seems to be in this vortex that's spinning faster and faster and ejecting people.
When that happens, they eventually lose their cultural power.
If you've got Democrats now slamming you for lying, eventually no one is gonna like you.
Listen, if the Democrats are decrying a double standard in fact-checking, whatever the media has become is not fun for anybody.
And then the comedians come in.
Sensing an opportunity to provide humor to those who don't like this and seeing it's a major market, things become popular.
It was back in March that Saturday Night Live did that segment called, Can I Play It?
You know, Can I Play This?
You know, or whatever.
Something like that.
The premise of the skit was they would say, you know, there's a white guy.
Who can you play?
And the guy would be like, um, a white guy who gains 50 pounds.
The point was, you have all of these woke nonsense cancel culture stories where they're like, you know, Scarlett Johansson was going to play a trans man, so they stopped the movie and the movie was canceled.
Something like that.
Why?
But when regular people feel like this is a bad thing, the market expands.
When people like Marianne Williamson get ejected, now all of her followers, Tulsi Gabbard's followers, many people on the left are going to start rejecting this.
When you see enough people there complaining about it, then you'll end up with comedians saying, there is now a mass market for this.
It's not so much about money.
I don't want to act like Bill Burr and Dave Chappelle are doing it to make money.
But Netflix propping them up is hilarious.
And I think Netflix is certainly doing it because they think they're going to make money.
But here's what I think is really happening.
Why did Dave Chappelle come out and do the special?
Why did Bill Burr echo similar complaints?
It's affecting them.
They're now witnessing it.
This outrage cancel culture, the lies from the media, have expanded so much that nearly all Americans are now troubled with the current state of media, assuming this poll is true and correct.
When most people feel that way, don't be surprised when Dave Chappelle, who is included in most people, feels that way too and uses his massive influence to push back.
I want to wrap this up going back to the ethics question with Marianne Williamson because it is challenging.
I do everything in my power to protect the privacy of those that I talk to.
I would never do any kind of like secret courting of somebody.
That's not me.
I know I mentioned Project Fairtrust in the video.
That's what they do.
They uncover corruption.
And I think There's a challenge.
Does the public have a right to know that Marianne Williamson is feeling the heat from lies?
That she thinks conservatives are being nicer?
I think it's very important.
Because conservatives are smeared and decried all the time in media.
Trump supporters are accused of being the worst of the worst.
And it's important that you have a Democratic candidate who's willing to say that's just not true.
I respect Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang.
They cross over.
They do different shows.
Now Marianne Williamson is going on Fox & Friends!
What does that say?
I'll tell you this.
It says bad things for the Democrats and good things for the Republicans.
Because the Democrats are spiraling out of control.
There's infighting, the media is now smearing them too, and what can they do about it?
They can go on Fox & Friends.
And they can speak to the conservatives, who are standing there with open arms and a beer in hand while the left says, get out.
If the left keeps saying, get out, they'll get smaller and smaller.
And we've come to the point where the spiritual, you know, I don't know what to call Marianne Williamson, but I think it's fair to say she's very spiritual and new-agey.
I'm not saying it to be disrespectful.
I think it's a shame what the media has done to her.
But when she is being ejected now, I think we're at a point where the hippy-dippy new-age types are gonna start being like, we gotta do something about this!
Because I will end with what she said, the one quote.
What did she say?
She said, What does it say that conservatives are nicer to me?
It's such a bizarre world.
That's a question I have to ask.
That I can have a calm and reasonable debate, but not with the left.
They shut my event down.
We did an event in the Philly area called Ending Racism, and far-left protesters got our venue cancelled.
They didn't want us to talk.
It makes no sense.
We still had the event.
It worked.
But to end with the quote again from Marianne Williamson, what does it say that conservatives are nicer to me?
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
And I will see you all there.
Major victory for Donald Trump and a bit of a breaking story.
The Supreme Court has handed Trump a major victory on immigration, this from the Daily Wire.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration a big victory, terminating a nationwide injunction that had blocked the White House's ban on giving asylum to immigrants crossing the southern border who had crossed through a third country without seeking protection there.
It makes sense.
I mean, at least to me, it's a simple idea.
If somebody is claiming their home country is dangerous, and they go to a third country where they don't have any ties and there's no one really threatening them, why wouldn't they apply for asylum there?
You can take a look at the people coming from South America, or even from Africa, spending thousands of dollars flying to South America, and then passing through all of these countries and not seeking any protection.
At the start of the migrant crisis, or maybe at the start, but, you know, about a year ago or earlier this year, Mexico offered asylum to many of these migrant caravans.
Actually, I think this was last year.
And there's a video where they yell in rejection of accepting asylum from Mexico.
How does this make sense?
The Democrats aren't answering this question.
They're ignoring it.
If these people fear for their safety in their home country, and Mexico is offering jobs and a safe place, and they say no, well then why should the U.S.
respect them?
It makes it seem like they don't actually want asylum.
They just want to come to America.
And I understand.
I've mentioned this before.
This is a great country.
It's wealthy.
It's prosperous.
And they want to come here.
I get it.
But we can't just have porous or open borders.
Well, apparently the Supreme Court agreed with Trump.
People should apply for asylum in the country they pass through, not just skip over and come here.
I mean, you think about what's happening with Africa.
They spend thousands of dollars to fly themselves to Brazil and then come up here.
How does that make sense?
It doesn't.
And I think if you ask any rational person in this country, even a Democrat, they're going to say, yeah, that kind of doesn't make sense, does it?
Why should the U.S.
take in literally everyone?
Even Bernie Sanders himself at a rally said there are too many poor people who can't do this.
Let's read the news.
Before we get started, though, head over to TimCast.com slash donate to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address you can donate to.
But of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video Subjects like this are controversial, whether they should be or not.
I mean, this is major mainstream news, but YouTube and other platforms still... You know, it's a lot harder for this content to get out.
YouTube particularly deranks this kind of stuff, so by sharing it on whatever platform, you help me overcome that obstacle.
But let's read.
They say...
On July 15th, the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice issued the following statement.
They said a joint interim final rule issued by the Department of Justice and Homeland Security will publish in the Federal Register.
Specifically, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are revising... I'm not going to read the code, you know, numbers.
To add a new bar to eligibility for asylum for an alien who enters or attempts to enter the U.S.
across the southern border, but who did not apply for protection from persecution or torture where it was available in at least one-third country outside the alien's country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which he or she transited en route to the U.S.
So basically, let's skip over this.
They say, as Fox News noted, on Monday, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ended the nationwide injunction against the Trump ban, but only did so partially, leaving California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon, and Washington, all within the province of the Ninth Circuit, immune from the Trump ban.
In July, Obama-appointed U.S.
District Judge John Tigger in San Francisco blocked the White House ban.
He wrote, While the public has a weighty interest in the efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border, it also has a substantial interest in ensuring that the statutes enacted by its representatives are not imperiled by executive fiat, adding that the injunction would vindicate the public's interest, which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate, in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors.
This is interesting.
I don't think Trump should be able to overturn law, but I also feel like the implication that we would be handing over, you know, aliens into the hands of their persecutors is just misinformation.
It's completely untrue.
It is an extreme circumstance that doesn't exist here.
The point of the rule is to say, if you are in a different country, then you are away from those threatening you, for the most part.
Apply there.
If it's safe and available, that's part of the rule.
To act like United States denying someone asylum would send them back to, you know, a country that's further away, it makes no sense.
Because if it is available to them, say Mexico, well, then they're not being put into the hands of their persecutors.
Now here's the thing.
You know, they go on to talk about, you know, the decision.
I think it was a 7-2 ruling.
I'm not entirely sure.
But in the end, SCOTUS sided with Trump.
Trump wins.
Now, here's another thing I find very, very interesting.
Way too far to the left, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary skewers Democrats on immigration.
He basically... Look, I gotta read these quotes.
This is fascinating.
He says, Look, or actually let me read the whole story.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson cautioned Democrats on pivoting too far to the left on immigration issues, warning that it could cost them the 2020 election.
Yes, that's what I've been saying and many others.
He said, quote, Look, most Americans want to be fair and treated in a humane way.
Those who have migrated here who are desperate, who are fleeing really bad conditions, we want to take care of the dreamers, but Americans also want secure borders.
They want to get control of illegal migration.
Johnson, who served as DHS secretary during the Obama administration, said Wednesday on MSNBC's Morning Joe, So when we talk about deprioritizing the deportation of those apprehended at the border, or decriminalizing illegal immigration, I know that we're going way too far to the left of the American consensus on where we should be on this.
And you just cannot have a policy where a Border Patrol agent arrests someone at the border and says, in effect, you get to stay here unless you commit a crime, Johnson continued.
Johnson identified himself as a loyal Democrat who wants to see his party win in the next election.
But he suggested that the positions taken by many Democratic presidential contenders do not appeal to a wide consensus of Americans.
And they don't appeal to me.
You know, I was recently on Louder With Crowder, and he asked me about the platform of the Democrats, which is overtly pushing open borders and no limits on abortion and all this stuff.
And I gotta say, I can't push back, I can't argue with him.
I agree that the Democrats have embraced absurd and far left, and not even necessarily far left, because typically, you know, people might think that it applies to socialism or economics, but it's this weird ideological extreme version of what the Democrats used to be.
Basically, The Democrats used to kind of be like, okay, let's help out the Dreamers.
Women should have a right to choose, but there should be limits.
It's not so much far left in that the Democrats are adopting extreme positions on the positions they held in the past.
No limits to abortion.
Open borders.
And then they say, open borders is a right-wing talking point.
Well, here's the thing.
Tulsi Gabbard on Dave Rubin, she mentions this.
It's not a right-wing talking point.
Americans want secure borders.
I don't know what the Democrats think they're doing, but I don't see them winning at all.
And I think when you see stories like this, there was a story I covered a while ago, it was an op-ed, they said, when did Obama become a Republican?
Yeah, that's what I want to know.
How is it a right-wing position to say, secure our borders, when Trump isn't even going as hard as Obama did?
And especially in foreign policy, a lot of the things I'm mostly critical about, Obama was worse!
I didn't like that guy either.
But there's a lot of domestic policy issues.
And admittedly, you know, I know when it comes to Trump, I do think character and charisma are important for leadership.
But I have no problem pointing out that Trump did this, I'm sorry, that Obama was doing worse or doing the same thing.
So it's no surprise to me to see Obama's DHS secretary saying this.
Because we know what Obama did.
We know he built the... I shouldn't say built, but he used these facilities for the same reasons.
And the Democrats keep putting out these photos saying, oh, Trump is caging children.
And those are Obama era photos!
It's like Democrats go to sleep when a Democrat president gets elected.
And that bothers me!
You know, I think people maybe put too much weight in the fact that I'm in favor of certain Democratic candidates and have been looking for a moderate Democrat because I've never been a Republican.
But the reality is I don't care for the right and I don't care for the left.
I care about who I think is closest to my values.
And when you see Tulsi Gabbard on Rubin Report, Basically agreeing more so with the right than with wherever the hell the left has gone, then it's not about left or right or Democrat or Republican.
It's about the fact that you have sane, rational Americans saying what Trump is doing isn't absurd.
Saying that if you're going to come here for asylum and you've got to apply in the country you pass through, well, that makes sense.
We're not just going to tell everybody you can move to America for no reason.
I gotta stress this point, man, with the African migrants.
You know how expensive it is to go from Congo to Angola, then fly across the Atlantic to Brazil, and then make your way from Brazil all the way up to the US?
That is insane.
They are spending a ridiculous amount of money to come to our borders.
And personally, I'm offended by this.
I've seen these videos of the people coming to the southern border and then screaming and like banging on the fence.
And it's like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You don't get to manipulate our emotions.
You don't get to take advantage of us.
We know how much money you've spent.
We know your trip was hard, but we know you are not coming here because you're scared of what's happening in your country.
Because if you were, you would have stayed in any one of those other countries.
Brazil is beautiful.
They could stay in Rio or Sao Paulo.
And you know what?
If Brazil says no, why didn't they stay in Angola?
Okay, maybe the people who are persecuting them can also move into Angola.
Okay, well now you're in Brazil.
What about every single other country on the way there?
Why would the U.S.
be the one that has to be responsible for every single person in the world?
Not only should the U.S.
not be the world police.
You know, Trump said something to this effect where he said he was elected to lead the United States, not the world.
But the United States isn't a piggy bank, and it's not the safe space for the world.
It's a country.
It's a community.
It's people who contribute.
Like this guy said, Jake Johnson, we want to take care of people.
We want to help the dreamers, but Americans also want secure borders and they want control of illegal migration.
No, you can't just come here.
You can't come here and extract, like, you know what really bothers me is we've got pension crises.
We've got retirement problems, we've got student loan problems, and we want to get people out of debt when it comes to student loans.
We want to provide cheap and affordable health care to people, but we can't do that if we have porous borders.
I'm saying porous because we don't have open borders right now, but the Democrats are pushing in that direction.
That's the problem.
The 2020 Democrats are all about the porous borders.
Well, we can't have that.
Now, the latest report is that border apprehensions are down, so perhaps Trump's reinforcement of key points has done some good in reducing the amount of people who are illegally entering the U.S.
But it seems like a simple mathematical equation.
We've already got high taxes in a lot of areas.
New York has a budget crisis.
Small towns are dying because there's no jobs there.
People are moving to big cities.
There's a lot of problems.
Now, admittedly, the economy is doing better, which is good news.
But if we want to maintain this, we can't simply be like, oh, hey, the economy is doing better now.
It was doing really bad for the past 10 years.
Everybody, come on in.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Let me tell you how a smart business is run.
When you start making good money, you don't go out and just spend it.
What you do is you save it and you make sure you have a certain amount in the bank to hold you over for a certain amount of time.
Some people say three months, some people say six.
Personally, I think the more you have saved to weather a storm, the better.
So if the economy is doing great, people are finally saving.
And we can start reversing some of the economic damage of the past 10 years, which seems to be happening.
Good.
But we can't open up the borders, we can't start taking care of everybody else, we can't start overspending.
And I gotta say this too, Republicans have not been doing a good job on keeping track of the deficit, which now seems to be a non-issue when the Republicans used to campaign saying we need a balanced budget, and now it's just deficit spending.
Look, things are going well.
This issue could make that worse.
Simply, like, you know, I put it this way, like, if you own a business, and you finally pay off some of your debt, but you still have a lot of debt, like, let's say you own a business, and you start generating enough revenue to start paying down your debt.
But instead of saving money and paying down debt, you just start spending all of that money, and inviting more and more people in to occupy your space, and it costs you more, and then people start, you only have a certain amount of money to go around.
Okay, so there are arguments that migrants who come here and work will provide supply and demand for the economy, which will cause economic expansion.
In the short term, it's going to displace low-level, you know, low-skill workers in this country.
And the best example is the raid that took place in, I believe it was Mississippi or Alabama.
They raided these chicken factories.
700 about people deported.
And you had all these people saying, but no one wants these jobs.
What American wants to work in a chicken factory?
And guess what happened?
The companies were forced to have job fairs.
And who showed up?
A bunch of Americans who wanted jobs.
Okay?
One guy was interviewed and he said it pays better than fast food.
This is the myth.
The myth that is pushed by people who for some reason want all of this migration or just don't care, I think it's tribal.
I think they're like, it's my side, we're gonna win.
I'll tell you what.
If these factories could not find someone to work there, they would offer more money.
That's how the economy works.
And this is good news for unions, and it's good news for low-skill workers.
It is not good for unions when they want to shut down the, you know, the Green New Deal has already pissed off a ton of unions, and when they want to depress wages with an influx of low-skill workers.
It's very, very simple.
We're in a delicate, complicated system.
Trump just got a major victory.
The Supreme Court agreed.
If you need asylum and you don't apply somewhere else, why should we believe you actually need it?
That's the big question.
Now look, I'll admit there are certain circumstances where somebody might go from Africa all the way to the U.S.
because they wouldn't be safe in any of these countries, but I think the overwhelming majority of people are just coming here because, what was the quote?
Vox ran a, V-O-X, this is a left-wing site, ran a quote from one of these migrant caravan people who said, I miss buffalo wild wings.
I'm sorry you missed your Buffalo Wild Wings.
I love B-dubs, man.
Garlic, parmesan sauce, boneless wings.
It is amazing.
In fact, I think I'm going to go to B-dubs later.
And I understand why you like the place.
It's a great place.
Chicken wings are awesome.
Here's the thing.
We can't just give B-Dubs to everybody else.
We can't just say, you're free to come to the United States because you want to shop at Buffalo Wild Wings.
That's absurd.
I know it's one person.
I'm being a bit hyperbolic.
But here's the other main point.
They were traveling from Central America through Mexico to the U.S.
There's Buffalo Wild Wings in Mexico.
So it's not even about that.
They just want to come to America.
And you know what's really, really funny about all of this?
It's proof the American Dream is real.
It's proof this country can provide you with wealth and opportunity.
And then you get these lefty, socialist college kids who complain the American Dream doesn't exist anymore.
I'm sorry, if that were true, people wouldn't be crawling over each other to get into the United States.
The American Dream is real.
If you work hard, you work smart, you can succeed in this country.
But I guess at the rate things are going, if they open up the porous borders, there's only so much American Dream to go around.
You know, in the end, I think one of the contributing factors to the American Dream is the protection that we have, the safety and the security we have.
You know, you could go to a foreign country and start a business and work really hard, but somebody might rob you, steal you, or kill you.
They're less safe.
So in the United States, we have safety and security, and we have opportunity.
That's what people want, and I can respect that.
But, there's only so much to go around, and you've got to secure your own oxygen mask before putting on the mask of the person next to you.
You know, they tell you that.
It's safety and security 101.
You're on a plane, the mask comes down, put yours on before helping someone else.
Why?
Because if you don't, you'll pass out from oxygen deprivation, and so will they, and then everyone's hurting because of it.
The United States provides so much in aid to foreign countries, okay?
It's as if all nuance is out the window.
Everyone thinks America is... I don't understand what the progressive left really wants to do.
They say America is imperialist.
They say America is evil and wrong and racist.
But that America should open its borders.
I just... They say the American dream doesn't exist, but all these people are trying to come here anyway.
I'm sick of it, man.
So you know what?
What Trump is doing is not even on par with what Obama had done.
So it's no surprise SCOTUS sides with him heavily.
I could be wrong.
I think it was 7-2.
There's a lot of reasons to criticize the president.
The problem I have is that when Trump does things that are similar to Obama that, yes, I don't like, everybody loses their minds.
Well, you can do a Joker meme about it.
Obama deports half a million people and nobody bats an eye.
Trump deports 150,000 and everyone loses their minds.
How does that make sense?
I can be critical of the president the same as I was for Obama and Bush, but what bothers me is Trump is doing a lot of the same things as Obama, things that I don't care to criticize because it's just par for the course.
And the left acts like it's the end of the world, and they're freaking out, oh no, SCOTUS hands Trump a victory, stack in the courts, dude.
I get it.
I'm happy that you're awake to what's going on now, and many of them weren't there when Obama was doing it, but I know it's just tribalism.
I don't think they actually care about the policy.
It's just, I'm gonna complain about it.
I'm not gonna name names, but there was one recent celebrity who's been railing against assault weapons, which includes handguns, and apparently they own several.
I'm just sick of it, man.
So you know what?
I'll wrap this one up.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all there.
I hate talking about this guy because he's such an irrelevant nothing, he shouldn't even be running for office, and I have no idea why he's still in the debates.
He is not relevant culturally, the media propped him up, and now he's just a nothing nobody who sounds generic and has nothing to offer.
What he has said on Twitter should disqualify him from any public office from this point forward.
We have problems with big tech.
We have problems with monopolies.
We have laws to break up monopolies because they are bad.
Beto O'Rourke is trying to circumvent the Constitution by using private monopolies and financial technology to shut down the sale of legal goods and services in this country.
It is disgusting.
It is authoritarian.
And boy, after I saw this tweet, do I absolutely despise, and dare I say it, hate this man.
It was one of the most evil things I have ever heard espoused.
The most authoritarian, nightmarish, dystopian things that could have ever been espoused.
Listen.
There was a story where Mastercard told Patreon to ban someone.
Now, apparently it's disputed, like Mastercard didn't say it.
It was this guy, I believe his name is Robert Spencer.
He tracks Islamic extremism or something to that effect.
I don't know the full details, but Mastercard apparently said ban him.
Now, whether or not that story's true, it should be a warning, because assuming it is, and we have reason to believe it is, I mean, Patreon said so, we are entering nightmarish territory, where financial transactions are being controlled by private companies.
We then see what happens with certain individuals and their banks.
Banks shutting down people for their political opinions.
We cannot live in a society where technology is oppressing people, and then to make it worse, Terrible, idiotic people like Beto O'Rourke think they can call on the power of a private monopoly to restrict the constitutional rights of Americans.
I am so disturbed and angry over what this man tweeted.
From the Daily Wire.
Beto expands his anti-gun platform, takes aim at credit card companies.
But let me just do this.
Let me pull up his tweet and we'll come back to this story and see what they say.
He said, Credit cards have enabled many of America's mass shootings in the last decade.
And with Washington unwilling to act, they need to cut off the sales of weapons of war today.
Calling on unaccountable private corporations to shut down the legal purchase and the constitutional rights of an individual because you can't get a law passed is one of the most nightmarish, dystopian, and authoritarian things I have ever seen.
And you got me swearing now.
I have been so bothered Angered by big tech trying to suppress constitutional rights.
But here's the thing.
You see, when they say it's not free speech on a private platform, well, I still have the ability to speak my mind in some capacities.
But here we can see he's saying directly to a big tech monopoly.
Do it.
Circumvent the Constitution.
You know what's scary?
Is that there are businesses popping up that don't take cash anymore.
There are businesses popping up that require you to have a credit card.
You go to a cafe in New York and say, sorry, we don't take cash.
And then if those financial institutions determine you aren't allowed to use their product, how do you buy food?
You might not like the Second Amendment.
You might have a disagreement over how the law should be enacted in this country.
But this, this is evil.
This is him saying, I don't care about the will of the people.
I don't care about 63, 60 million Americans.
And you know what?
Most Americans don't believe in banning assault weapons, at least in its current iteration.
They believe in universal background checks.
Things that are, you know, allowing people to have guns.
What does Beto O'Rourke say?
You know what?
Instead of going through the democratic process, instead of winning hearts and minds, just use the unaccountable corporate power to shut down Americans.
What a scumbag.
He said, banks and credit card companies must.
Refuse to take part in the sale of assault weapons.
Stop processing transactions for gun sales online and at gun shows without background checks.
Stop doing business with gun and ammo manufacturers who produce or sell assault weapons.
Let me tell you something.
According to the law and what Beto O'Rourke is saying, a handgun, a standard semi-auto handgun, that means like the same gun you see a cop wearing, one trigger pull, one bullet comes out.
That's an assault weapon to these people.
Beto O'Rourke doesn't care for the Constitution.
Look.
I think times change.
I think we have a Supreme Court for that reason.
The Constitution says freedom of speech.
Well, the Supreme Court says we need to consider X. And that's how we evolve as a society.
We come to decisions.
We vote.
There's democratic institutions.
There are representatives who pass laws.
And then we can, you know, in some places they have referendums.
There's a process where we work together to try and figure out the right thing to do.
Over time, corporations become extremely powerful.
They centralize authority within their own ranks, and they operate like authoritarian regimes.
Big tech.
The way these corporations work is inherently authoritarian.
Somebody owns it and they can fire you or hire you.
Now, there are checks because there are regulations and laws on how you can hire somebody, how you can spend money and do these things.
That's why it's so important to have government and, you know, we need competition, right?
We need marketplace competition, but we also need a sort of referee in the government to stop evil.
Because corporations will just keep churning whether they think they're doing the right or wrong thing.
Beto O'Rourke is one of the scariest things we've seen emerge as of late.
A government actor who wants to bypass the will of the people by calling on massive corporations with international interests.
Get this, MasterCard and Visa operate in, what, 100 plus countries?
They're all over the world.
These big tech firms, be it in Silicon Valley or FinTech, They have interests in foreign countries.
The last thing we need is a company determining that an American citizen can't exercise their right.
Twitter, for instance.
They received, you know, investors from foreign countries.
Google, I don't even think is headquartered here, technically.
I think they're based in like, you know, Dublin or something.
What would happen?
If Mastercard just decided they were going to limit transactions on, I don't know, milk, they could destroy industries.
And who would stop them?
Well, we do have a government that would step up and say you can't do that.
But Beto O'Rourke is one of the slimiest, Weasley pieces of trash I have ever seen in my life.
Every single step of the way, I'm saying we need to stop corporate power, unaccountable power, from, you know, infringing the rights of American citizens.
And you can say, oh, but it's a private business.
You don't have to be on YouTube.
You don't have to be on these platforms.
Well, you know what, man?
When they start dominating town hall, when they start taking over the commons, we have to push back.
And that's never been the conservative position.
Where is the left on this?
Beto O'Rourke represents what the left is today, calling for a dystopia.
He said, if enough of us make our voices heard now, we will force banks and credit card companies to act.
Add your name to this petition we're sending via MasterCard and the big banks.
Amazing.
Could you imagine a world where you want to, I don't know, buy medicine, but your credit card says you're banned and now you can't buy medicine?
No.
We need to have restrictions on monopolies like, you know, I don't want to say necessarily monopoly, But MasterCard and Visa, what other game is in town, right?
There's basically two companies that are running financial transactions.
And that's what they've discovered.
Beto says, don't need to pass a law.
Don't worry about it.
We'll just call on big tech to shut down people we don't like.
That is not a world I want to live in.
Let's go back to the Daily Wire.
They show his tweets.
They say, after facing mounting pressure to drop out of the presidential race, O'Rourke instead relaunched his campaign in August with a primary focus on his anti-Second Amendment platform.
Days later, the former Texas congressman revealed his support for a nationwide government-run gun confiscation program for all so-called assault weapons.
Boy, do I absolutely hate this guy.
There are very few people I hate, but I will say this.
Beto O'Rourke is evil, and I don't use those words lightly.
Calling for outright confiscation is one of the most insane authoritarian things I've ever heard.
Now calling on private companies to stop the sale of a legal product in this country is also getting absurd.
You know, there was a point.
Where Google was blocking any combination of the letters G-U-N.
So, the funniest example was if you went to Google Shopping and searched for Gundam Wing.
If those aren't familiar, Gundam, G-U-N-D-A-M, is an anime, a Japanese cartoon show about giant fighting robots or something like that.
You couldn't search for toys because those words.
Google was trying to suppress the ability to search for guns.
They started deleting channels on YouTube that were showing or advocating or selling firearms.
Beto O'Rourke is calling on big tech to continue to suppress your rights.
Listen, man.
I grew up in Chicago, we had a lot of gun problems, and I think we need to have a conversation
about things like bump stocks and guns.
And I think there are a lot of, you know, I went and interviewed a firearms instructor
who said he thinks it's important that we do have a legitimate conversation about a
nationwide program that, I can't remember, I don't want to say exactly what he was calling
for, but this is a top-ranked professional shooter and instructor saying he thinks in
many ways it's too easy, and it's probably due to each state having different laws.
And there's actually a lot of good pros and cons, right?
If I get a permit in Connecticut, I might not be able to drive to a certain state because
not all states allow you to use different state permits in different places.
And so there's an argument for universal background checks and national level permits that can work in, you know, in all states or something.
But I'm not going to sit here and talk about solutions, proposals.
I'm just going to say whatever we end up doing, whatever we end up doing In, you know, the Second Amendment argument, it's going to be through conversation and the democratic process.
Not for Beto O'Rourke, though.
Beto thinks he's better than you.
He's smarter than you.
He wants to take your guns away, with or without your consent, and he wants big tech authoritarian monopolies to do his dirty work for him.
I really, really hate this guy.
And that's saying a lot, because there's no other Democrat I feel this strongly about.
I don't even feel that strongly about Donald Trump.
And I find Trump to be a gross, boorish old man.
There's a lot of things I don't like about the guy, but a lot of it I look at and I'm like, well, you know, what Trump does, it's similar to Obama.
It's the office.
You know, I get it.
I don't like his character.
There's, you know, policy positions.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
All that stuff.
Beto O'Rourke.
Like, this is mustache-twirlingly evil of him.
It is the most absurd... You know what, man?
I'm done.
You got me swearing, and I don't... I'll see you in the next video.
YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4 p.m.
I'll see you then.
You get the point.
PewDiePie has announced he is rescinding his offer to donate to the Anti-Defamation League after a fan backlash.
I thought PewDiePie was selling out, and no, he just doesn't understand, I guess.
I guess that's kind of, uh, fair.
But, uh, he's gonna backtrack.
A lot of people were outraged.
I'll give you the quick context.
They alleged a conspiracy that he was being blackmailed.
In the past, the Anti-Defamation League has tried to get PewDiePie censored, and so the fact that he would give them money was a huge mistake.
Not only that, The ADL has caused massive collateral damage to tons of smaller YouTubers, including myself.
I say smaller, I know this channel is like, it's not the smallest channel in the world, but I'm not 100 million subscribers like PewDiePie.
The ADL, while it's, you know, cause sounds noble, does a lot of really messed up things.
And I disagree with their actions.
Well, I can certainly agree with going after, say, anti-Semitism.
I don't agree with censorship.
That's what they advocate for.
But they also have been accused of using mafia-like tactics.
I'm gonna show you what's... There's this story going around where apparently the ADL has overtly claimed that they will falsely accuse someone of being a Nazi Because they know it will destroy them.
And it has to do with Iceland.
It's complicated.
That's my opinion.
I have to be very careful.
I'll read and I'll show you what everyone's talking about.
But first, let's read the story about PewDiePie NOT giving money to the ADL.
The YouTuber said he didn't know a lot about the ADL.
Forgive me, I have a sneeze coming on.
Felix Kjellberg is pulling his $50,000 pledge to the Anti-Defamation League after his initial announcement drew backlash from parts of his fanbase.
In a video uploaded today, Kjellberg said that he didn't know much about the ADL when he made the pledge.
It was only after uploading the video and seeing feedback about the organization that he admitted he didn't know a lot of things that surfaced throughout this whole thing about the charity.
He made the original announcement during an unboxing of a special YouTube play button to celebrate surpassing 100 million subscribers.
Quote, I made the mistake of picking a charity that I was advised to, instead of picking a charity that I'm personally passionate about, Shalberg said, which is 100% my fault.
Shelberg previously addressed the criticism against his donation in a recently deleted tweet, which we have, acknowledging that, quote, making a donation to the ADL doesn't make sense to everyone, especially since they've outright spoken against me.
A spokesperson for the ADL told The Verge at the time that they learned about the potential donation when everyone else did, when he made the announcement on his channel yesterday.
The original announcement about his donation to the ADL comes after Shellberg stated he wanted to move past his former controversies.
Okay.
Well, they say he's still going to donate $50,000, which he received as a sponsorship from Honey.
He hasn't announced which charity will receive the money, but he said he plans to take his time with it.
So apparently the Verge reached out.
But here's the original comment.
So I gotta say this.
I think Honey sponsored his video, but additionally, he had to make a donation to the ADL because of the controversies.
When the fans got outraged, PewDiePie tried defending himself.
It wasn't enough.
He backtracked.
Based, excuse me, based on this statement where he said that, you know, he's donating to the ADL, which doesn't make sense.
You know, he wanted to show people that he was moving on.
It says to me that he knows, you know, what the controversy was, and he knows about the ADL.
Now he's claiming he didn't know a lot about it?
I kinda don't believe it.
But you know what, man?
If your fans are mad, and you decide you're going to... Okay, I can't do this, I didn't realize... I think it's fair to say he didn't realize he'd get a backlash, otherwise he wouldn't have done it in the first place.
That's fair.
Here's what I said, initially.
The ADL has caused collateral damage to tens of thousands of small creators' livelihoods.
PewDiePie is not being a bigger man.
He's taking a paid-in, a milestone he reached, thanks to the YouTube community.
He then funds an organization that will get people in that community banned.
The ADL has gone after some channels that they do have bad opinions, but they didn't break the rules of YouTube, and YouTube has then gone and deleted them.
Well, if you want to make an argument about hate speech and breaking the rules, I'm hearing.
I hear you.
Even though I disagree, I believe free speech is more important.
However, when my channel gets demonetized and deranked, and I actually agree with the ADL on fighting hate by just disagreeing with their tactics, well, that's a problem.
If the ADL doesn't care about the smaller channels and the individuals, then they're not doing good.
They're hurting the innocent.
17,000 channels were recently deleted by YouTube, in part because of the Anti-Defamation League campaign.
While some of these channels, yes, are probably overt hate speech, again, different argument if you think they should stay, a lot of them are comedy.
A lot of them are jokes.
Some of them probably push back on hate speech, but the algorithm can't tell.
And worse still, some of them are probably educational and historical channels, because we've seen that too.
That's the kind of recklessness we see from the ADL.
But it's not just that, because listen, I'm not going to blame the ADL mostly because YouTube can't police things properly.
Take a look at this story though.
It says, uh, well, actually, hold on, hold on.
I'm gonna do this first, because I got a couple stories.
ADL calls on House leadership to take action after Rep Omar's anti-Semitic tweets.
I want to highlight this because this is something I think the ADL has done good.
It's not just black and white.
Some people got angry with me before.
I don't care.
I believe this is fair, important, and rational.
The ADL has called out Ilhan Omar.
That is respectable.
They have called on House leadership to take action against her.
That is respectable.
You want to praise the good behavior and criticize the bad behavior.
Telling people to denounce Omar's statements, I think, is the right thing to do.
She can still make offensive comments if she wants, fine.
They're just saying, hey, say something about it.
But when they go after Iceland, this is where things get really weird.
Iceland's proposed ban on circumcision rattles Jews and Muslims.
This is a story.
It's from 2018.
This is just some NBC news to give you context.
Iceland wanted to ban male circumcision.
Okay.
Banning is a bit strong, but I probably lean towards agreeing with it.
It's a complicated, complicated issue.
I'm not going to come out like some, you know, men's rights person and be like, you know, end the, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
I definitely lean towards you shouldn't be doing this.
So... Actually, I should say I heavily lean towards that, but I'm not... I'm not... I don't know enough.
That's the real issue.
I understand the arguments to an extent.
This is not my battle.
I don't know much about this.
What I can say is, I think we probably should not do this anymore.
It seems a little archaic, but there are religious people who are upset, okay?
And I understand they're upset, but I still disagree with them.
Here's the thing.
The Anti-Defamation League doesn't want Iceland to ban male circumcision.
This is back in March 23, 2018.
They said ADL urges Iceland drop bill banning male circumcision.
Now, you may be asking, Tim, what does any of this have to do with PewDiePie?
Listen, PewDiePie gave money to an organization that has caused harm to YouTubers.
These YouTubers told all of their friends to subscribe to PewDiePie.
By turning around and donating to the ADL, he's not just hurting YouTubers, he's promoting mafia-like tactics.
Perceived mafia-like tactics.
Look at this story.
How do you think the ADL tried to get Iceland to stop?
It says, in a letter addressed to the parliamentary committee discussing the proposal, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said, This is why I say it's not so cut and dry.
circumcision is contrary to basic principles of religious freedom and deeply offensive
to Jews and Muslims.
The commandment of Brit Milah, circumcision on the eighth day, is a fundamental religious
right in Judaism and universally practiced by all families who identify as Jewish across
the broad spectrum of practice.
This is why I say it's not so cut and dry.
I can actually respect a religious argument to an extent.
Though I am not a religious person and I tend to disagree with things like this.
You've got to be careful about how you approach progress, you know, in that sense.
I'm talking about the left in this regard.
It's complicated.
And admittedly, I can't say I know enough to actually engage in this conversation.
What I can point out is there's a link.
I'm going to now click this link.
It says, in a letter.
There you go.
You watched me click the link and the letter loaded up.
I didn't believe this was real.
I kid you not.
I saw this and my reaction was, it must be fake.
You know why?
In this letter, they say don't ban male circumcision, but how do you think they try and entice Iceland to not do it?
Here's what they say.
ADL has studied the pervasiveness of anti-Semitic content on social media, and we know that a relatively small number of extremists are able to amplify their message quickly and broadly through social media.
ADL regularly reports on such phenomena, and we will report on extremist praise for Iceland.
We urge you to consider the significant media attention in the U.S.
and internationally paid to ADL reports on extremism.
In the past six months alone, our research and experts have been featured on CNN and other cable TV channels, NBC and other broadcast TV, on 60 Minutes, the most-watched TV news magazine in America, and in leading newspapers including The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Given that 28% of Iceland's tourists came from North America in 2016, Iceland's standing in the U.S.
should be of great concern from an economic perspective.
We are confident that the vast majority of American tourists will avoid a country whose reputation is associated with Nazism, even if that association is not justified.
Individually, any of these Three arguments should convince you to oppose a ban on male circumcision.
Collectively, they should compel you to make the right decision and oppose the proposed ban.
The ADL said, we will report on any praise that anti-Semites throw your way.
And we're confident, even if the association isn't justified, it will hurt you economically.
Doesn't that sound a bit mafioso?
And that's why PewDiePie should not donate to the ADL.
I didn't believe it was real!
I told my friends, I said, it's not real.
It's fake news.
And then I saw this.
ADL.org.
You can see it right up there in the browser.
And this is a page on theADL.org.
It's all there.
And when you click the link they posted, they're straight up publicizing that they will smear you as a Nazi to destroy you economically.
Smart move, backing out PewDiePie.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
Have you ever heard the saying that good times—it's hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make hard times.
It's a cycle.
We're at a point now where we have a lot of weak people.
I'm not gonna... I'm gonna be gender inclusive here.
I don't care if you're a man or a woman.
Millennials are... Millennials have become weak and naive and entitled.
Not all Millennials.
I know most of the people who watch my channel are around the same age as me.
We're Millennials, right?
But men.
There's a group of people in our generation that are just so worthy of criticism.
Empathy, but criticism.
Take a look at this story.
Australian and British bloggers held in Iran named.
As you can probably guess, these bloggers wanted to show people countries that get a bad rap, and they got imprisoned in Iran.
Now fortunately they weren't dismembered or murdered like many of the other people have, but why?
Why do we have young people who think you can go to Iran and just gleefully mill about making your blogs?
These countries are not safe.
They've grown up in a safe bubble that we call America.
The West.
Where you can show up to some of the worst areas and be okay.
And they have a bias.
This is my opinion.
They have a bias that because everything is safe where they're from, certainly the world must not be that dangerous.
And then they go, and then guess what?
You're entering the wild, wild West.
It's a metaphor, not really the West.
I'm saying you're entering an open and lawless place, where people won't respect you, you have no rights, religious extremism runs rampant, and then you go to these countries and what happens?
People get run over, people get kidnapped, and people get imprisoned by foreign governments.
Not only that, you're Australian and British, you're Westerners, I know you're not American, but you went to Iran.
Okay, they're going to use you as leverage.
And that apparently is what's happening right now.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do is just share this story.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary, as I've said a million times.
So getting stories like this over that hurdle is difficult.
If you like the content, think it's important, share it on whatever platform.
Let's read.
They say, two Australian citizens detained in Iran have been identified as Jolie King and Mark Firkin.
King, who also holds a UK passport, Mr. Firkin, were blogging their travels in Asia and the Middle East.
They were reportedly arrested 10 weeks ago near Tehran, but news of the arrest and that of another British-Australian woman came too late Wednesday.
Now, now, hold on.
Why were they arrested?
It's actually fascinating.
They're calling them bloggers.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume they're vloggers.
YouTubers or something to that effect.
Apparently, they were flying an unlicensed drone in a foreign country.
I am so impressed by the arrogance of Americans.
I mean it.
To travel to a foreign country and think you can do whatever you want, and that it's safe, and it's just bad media lies, and now you're in an Iranian jail.
Let's read on.
They say, Australia said it repeatedly raised their cases with Tehran, including a meeting between officials last week.
Foreign Minister Maryse Payne said she had lobbied on their behalf in a meeting with her Iranian counterpart.
She described the detentions as a matter of deep concern on Thursday and confirmed that assistance had been offered to the families of the three detainees.
We hope to see Mark and Jolie safely home as soon as possible, their family said on Thursday.
The situation comes amid growing tensions between the West and Iran.
Several dual nationals have been detained in Iran in recent years, including the British-Iranian woman Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe.
Relations between the UK and Iran have also been strained in recent months by a row over the seizure of oil tankers in the Gulf.
Australia also announced in July that it would join the US and UK in policing the Strait of Hormuz against Iranian threats.
Actually, so I'm gonna jump down.
We'll come back to this.
And here we go.
Let me point something out.
Casey Neistat.
Big famous YouTuber.
Famous guy.
He started using a drone for a lot of his videos.
they had reportedly been flying a drone without a permit.
And here we go.
Let me point something out.
Casey Neistat, big famous YouTuber, famous guy.
He started using a drone for a lot of his videos.
I believe a lot of his drone use was very illegal.
Many people might not know this, but I was at least one point early on,
a foremost expert in consumer and prosumer grade drone and media activity.
In fact, I went down to, I believe it was called the Northeastern Drone Coalition, and actually picked one of the first drone test sites.
Me and like one other person, a guy from the AP, we both showed up and we had a discussion about where the government should be teaming up with universities to test drone technology.
I did all this.
I flew a drone.
I believe I may be the first person to fly a drone for a news broadcast live streaming from it back in, I think, 2011.
Not that I'm saying this to brag.
I'm saying I've gone through all of these motions.
I've looked at the law.
For the longest time, there weren't any.
And the law started coming out.
And you had people like Casey Neistat that just flaunted, you know.
I'm not trying to be mean.
I think Casey's a cool guy.
But he just flew the drone even in places where it was obviously illegal.
The dude's brave, you know.
Some people got in trouble.
But Casey would fly a drone around New York, around these buildings, and that's not legal.
At the time, nobody was really enforcing it.
What's happening now is it's really, really difficult to actually fly drones in most places.
Near an airport or certain buildings that control airspace, it's complicated.
What we see are these media-hip young millennials who grew up in a safe place where they don't have to worry about anything and don't understand how the law works go to Iran and then fly a drone?
I'm surprised it wasn't worse.
So I went across Europe and had a drone with me.
And we flew it.
We got amazing footage.
I checked all of the laws.
I checked with local law enforcement.
I made sure we were doing everything right.
Why?
I understand how the world works.
It's not a big playground of happiness and joy where you can do whatever you want.
When you grow up in the United States, you're safe.
Congratulations!
That's called prosperity.
That's called good times made by strong men.
But these people don't understand how any of that came to pass.
So apparently, they say this.
Our biggest motivation is to hopefully inspire anyone wanting to travel and also try to break the stigma around traveling to countries which get a bad rap.
They spelled rap wrong.
In the media, the pair wrote online.
Congratulations!
Iran gets a bad rap.
Because they're authoritarian, they're religious fundamentalists, they imprison women who don't wear hijab.
You can't just go there and fly a drone!
Miss King, who has dual UK and Australian nationality, Mr. Firkin, were reported to have been traveling on Australian passports.
They say the couple left Western Australia to embark on a major trip driving across Asia to the UK.
They were documenting their adventures on Instagram and YouTube where they had more than 20,000 followers.
And there it is!
You know what?
I jokingly blame Casey.
I would say something like, Casey, this is your fault.
But I'm just kidding.
Casey really inspired people.
And so everyone goes out and buys drones.
And drones are very illegal in many places.
Just because they don't enforce it in the U.S.
doesn't mean you're not gonna get arrested somewhere else.
Now you have all of these YouTubers who are flying drones left and right.
I did it a little bit.
I stopped.
I did it two years ago when I tracked the laws and I was, I, I, I, I've been working and building, I was building drones and hacking drones since 2011.
So I've been working on this stuff.
I knew what I could and couldn't do.
But these people see a YouTube video and go, I'm going to do that.
And then congratulations, Iranian jail.
Man, it's amazing.
They say they are believed to be being held in Tehran's Evin Prison, where Mrs. Zaghari Ratcliffe is also detained.
A source told the BBC that Mrs. King has been told she is being held as part of a plan for a potential prisoner swap with Australia.
Congratulations!
You've now become leverage for the Iranian government so they can get back someone valuable in exchange for you, a YouTuber who flew a drone.
The second detained British-Australian woman is reported to be a University of Cambridge educated scholar who was lecturing at an Australian university.
She has reportedly already been tried on unknown charges and jailed for 10 years.
They say the cases aren't related.
Wow.
While the charges against her remain unclear, 10-year terms are routinely given in Iran for spying charges.
This is why you have to recognize the world is not a safe place.
I think it's hilarious how, you know, these feminists or intersectionalists want to have safe spaces because they're scared of being triggered.
Meanwhile, the United States itself is a safe space.
You want to know it's a safe space?
The fact that I can go out in the street corner and yell, F you Donald Trump, without getting arrested and getting locked up or lashed.
I can give the middle finger to the president of this country!
You want to talk about a safe space?
The United States is the best safe space.
But that means you might get angry when you hear me spitting and yelling and insulting the president.
But that's just the way it is.
I'm not hurting you when I insult people.
You can wave your little sign in the air, but you can't hit somebody with it.
And then they want safe spaces at colleges.
Okay.
Go to Iran and demand a safe space.
See what happens to a woman who's not wearing a hijab in Tehran.
And they'll get locked up.
This country is safe and it's making people, it's making them soft.
It's unfortunate.
It's unfortunate.
We've done, our, you know, generations before us have done such a great job in giving us
this beautiful future.
You know what I think about it is?
If I ever have kids, they're going to think we are poor.
I will not allow my kids to grow up with access and wealth and resources.
Absolutely not.
They'll have a good education.
They'll be taught the right things.
But I believe you get these kids, when kids grow up with money, they don't understand how most people live.
They can't understand what it means to not have.
They become entitled.
And we're seeing this with Americans.
Not in the sense that all Americans are wealthy, but because America is so wealthy in general, They don't realize the rest of the world is not like this.
It's dangerous.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a couple minutes and I will see you all there.
Civil War 2.0 as ICE prepares to train for urban warfare simulating Chicago.
I don't know what this means.
I don't know why ICE would be training for urban warfare in a place meant to replicate Chicago, and I don't really know if it means civil war.
I'm just being hyperbolic to start the video.
But this is a crazy story.
Check this out.
ICE fails to properly redact document, reveals location of future quote, urban warfare training facility.
I think the government knows about what's going on.
I have some sources.
Unfortunately, I do respect the, unfortunately for you, I should say, I respect the privacy of sources who give me information off the record.
I would say that's fortunate for my sources.
I do think there are some things the public has an absolute right to know, but I also believe in standard journalistic ethics.
If someone confides in me and says I can tell you something, I won't repeat it.
What I can say is, someone provided me information that proves the government is well aware of what's going on in the culture war and are deeply concerned about it.
I should stress, too, that saying it this way might make it seem like it's more serious of a story than it really is.
It was more of a passive drama comment.
Someone I know who works at a certain place said a thing to me and said, don't tell anybody specifics, but the government knows what's going on and taking it seriously.
It's really that simple.
So there's your information.
I don't need to give you the names or the finer details, but you get the point.
I want to make sure I keep them safe.
But when I see stories like this, it says to me, They know.
Check it out.
They say ICE has accidentally revealed the whereabouts of a future urban warfare training facility that is expected to include hyper-realistic simulations of homes, hotels, and commercial buildings in Chicago and Arizona.
On Tuesday, ICE published an acquisition form for the procurement of hyper-realistic training devices for a new training facility for its Expanding Special Response Team program on the Federal Business Opportunities website.
The immigration agency had sought to redact the location of the new training facility, but failed to do so properly.
The agency, which has made this kind of mistake previously, appears to have a systemic information security problem.
Yeah!
Can't say I'm surprised.
That's the government for you.
In this case, Newsweek was able to simply copy and paste the document's contents into a word processor and quickly establish that the facility would be built at the Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs, Tactical Operations Complex, at Fort Benning, Georgia, a U.S.
Army post used to prepare soldiers for combat.
That means a U.S.
Army base, Army post, is going to be setting up a facility, or there will be a facility there, For U.S.
federal law enforcement.
I don't know what that means.
You know what posse comitatus is?
I don't- I'm sure there's a ton of people who watch who know way better than I do the gist of it being the armed forces can't enforce laws in the U.S.
So I'm curious how- will there be any challenges to this or is it on the up and up?
I don't know, don't ask me.
All I'm really concerned about is why ICE would need urban warfare training.
That's kind of freaking me out.
Kind of freaking me out, they say.
In addition to revealing Fort Benning as the location of the training site, ICE also failed to properly redact information indicating that the Army Post would be getting an expansion with up to 50 buildings expected to be added to the site.
A Blanket Purchase Agreement vehicle would be competed among GSA Federal Supply Schedule holders for additional training buildings and interior-exterior outfitting in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 20.
I states in a portion, it did not attempt to redact from the document.
We'll read on.
We're gonna come back to this.
Before I get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
It's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
The reason I just jumped over here and did this is because stories like this get hard deranked, and I'd be surprised if this video actually makes it to anybody.
If you like it and think this story is important, please consider sharing it or contributing to my work to allow me to continue.
But let's read on.
They say, in a following partially redacted line it states, OFTP plans to expand the training site at Fort Benning to include up to 50 additional buildings and add additional U.S.
city layouts and designs.
Throughout the document, areas that were meant to be withheld were not redacted properly, including signature lines at the bottom of the document instead of names.
These would-be redacted lines contain what appears to be placeholders, such as, I'm going to try and read this, It's just gibberish.
Ijan inne hejjaj...
It's just gibberish. Okay, and then it says, uh, Hinejam gifur df and
Behem koo. I don't know what they're trying to say with this, but it's just it's just random text jammed into the
thing.
Ice's new training facilities expected to include at minimum a multitude of basic intermediate and hyper-realistic
training devices, a tactical training warehouse,
classroom facilities, and vehicle assault training area.
Why?
What's happening?
What is Ice gonna be doing domestically that they need this training?
You know what, man?
This is freaky stuff, okay?
I believe that if we ever see a rise in a police state or authoritarian system, it will be in response to an escalation from the far left, and then regular people will demand safety from the government.
That's why I think we see this.
People are going to clap and cheer for the police state when it comes.
This is why I think Antifa is the problem.
I get it.
You know, you might argue, but they're fighting against this.
No, they're creating this.
I look out the window and I see a guy walking down the street wearing a button-up shirt with coffee in his hand.
That guy doesn't know anything about politics.
But when he sees a roving band of black-clad individuals with crowbars bashing people and breaking windows, he turns to the government and says, please protect me.
And we get this.
The last thing I want is to have police on the corner of Heavy Street, floodlights, military-grade weapons patrolling the streets because crazies are running amok.
I don't like the idea of government expansion and a police state.
And we're going, we're getting there because crazy people are protesting regular people.
You want to protest the government?
Okay.
You want to protest other people?
I understand that too.
But when you have like Trump supporters walking around and then crazy far leftists show up throwing bricks and bashing people?
Now it's getting scary.
Let's read on.
They say, among those new training devices will be a hyper-realistic prop design that simulates residential houses, apartments, hotels, government facilities, and commercial buildings, along with other training configurations.
ICE is specifically interested in acquiring a Chicago-style replica.
Stay away from Chicago!
As well as an Arizona-style replica with the agency expecting to dedicate a total estimated value of $961,347.75 to the effort.
Check this out.
Labor!
Here's an important lesson for all y'all.
Labor is always the most expensive part.
You know why?
It's actually really simple, man.
Humans Humans do the work.
It's funny when people say that labor is the most expensive thing, I'm like, well, yeah, I value a human more than, like, a piece of metal.
But there you go, look at this.
Chicago, Arizona, and Fishbowls.
I don't know what Fishbowls is, but, uh, the Chicago replica labor is 140 grand.
It's gonna cost $355,000 for both projects.
They say hyperrealism, the agency states, is a critical component to this acquisition as the details provide essential information that must be acknowledged, processed, and acted upon to minimize risk to our special agents, deportation officers, and SRT operators during high-risk search and arrest warrants, fugitive operations, undercover operations, hostage rescue, gang operations, etc.
Now, I will stress, it may sound more sensational than it really is.
Why would ICE need Chicago and Arizona?
Not because they're going to war and there's going to be a civil war, but because they may have to work in gang territory.
It's really simple, man.
They might go into a place where there's two or three guys with guns, and they need to understand and they need to train in these areas, otherwise they could get hurt.
That's probably the simple solution to the story.
They say, The agency goes on to detail how a Defense Science Board task force found that the probability of being a casualty decreases significantly after the first few decisive combats, it adds.
These hyper-realistic devices will allow the teams to have those experiences in real-world conditions without the real-world casualties.
You see, there you go.
Chicago's gang territory, man.
They say new ICE employees had already been expected to receive training at the Maneuver Center of Excellence in Fort Benning, where ICE's Office of Training and Tactical Programs, Firearms and Tactics Division makes its home, according to a May 2017 news release published on ICE's website.
Explaining what takes place at Benning, ICE Division Chief Burt Medina said in a statement included in the press release that ICE trains experienced law enforcement personnel in the use of force and existing weapons in application of force.
In addition, we provide law enforcement instructors with the skills and abilities to teach use of force and defensive techniques with and without weapons so they can prepare ICE officers on the front lines of federal law enforcement to perform these duties safely and in accordance with standards.
I'm going to tone everything down.
Listen, ICE does a specific task.
They're immigration enforcement.
They're going to go and arrest specific targets, many people who aren't Americans.
Police need training.
ICE needs training.
The FBI needs training.
And if you want to reduce casualties for everybody, be it the arrestees or the arresters, it's important they know how to deal with these situations.
Because a scared person with a gun is a dangerous person.
If we can have everybody trained in this kind of stuff, it's probably a good thing.
It's very different to say training equates a police state.
So, again, I don't want to make it seem so hyperbolic.
It's just a fun, sensational story.
But in the end, it's probably just another boring federal training facility for law enforcement.
But we'll keep an eye on it.
You know, I don't want to have an optimism bias.
I don't want to see a police state in an authoritarian government.
I don't like any of those things.
But I don't want to see that in the private sector with corporations either, so come on, can we get some sane people here who believe in liberty to push back?
