Ocasio Cortez And Far Left Are Sabotaging Democrats Reelections On Purpose, Democrats Falling Apart
Ocasio Cortez And Far Left Are Sabotaging Democrats Reelections On Purpose, Democrats Falling Apart. AOC recently endorsed a primary challenger to a sitting House Democrat which is what we all expected based on her past statements. But you'd think the Democrats would rally behind those most likely to win reelection.AOC has protested Nancy Pelosi and repeatedly obstructed Democrats plans, even voting in line with republicans in some instances, though for different reasons.The far left Democrats plan is to "shred the establishment" and to attack it to its core, at least that how TYT host Cenk Uygur described it in 2016.Moderate and centrist Democrats did the best in 2018, yet they seem to think they can work with the far left in good faith. Kyrsten Sinema is currently under threat of censure for only voting against Trump 81% of the time. Apparently overwhelmingly supporting Democrats is not enough, they want total submission.The result won't be what the far left thinks. Moderates stand the best chance of winning but if the far left democrats disrupt and sabotage incumbent Democrats then they will only weaken their party. Republicans and Trump will keep winning while the left is busy dealing with the far left.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Democratic Party is going to be purged and destroyed.
At least, that's my preliminary prediction.
We can see how Nancy Pelosi tries to cozy up to the far-left squad, desperate to hold things together and try and push back on Republicans.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work.
And you know why it doesn't work?
Ocasio-Cortez and the other far-left Democrats have no intention of acting in good faith and working with the Democratic Party.
And we've got more than enough evidence to show it.
This first story, Ocasio-Cortez endorses progressive primary challenger to House Democratic lawmaker.
You would think a Democrat would endorse a Democrat in a flippable district.
Find a Republican seat, endorse the Democrat, and hope the Democrat can win, and you can expand the tribe that is the Democratic Party.
That's not what they're doing.
Their intention is to destroy the Democratic Party, and don't take my word for it.
This is coming from Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
We're going to shred the democratic establishment.
And we'll get into the story.
But it's not just this.
Even Kirsten Sinema is being slammed and threatened with censure because she only voted with the Democrats 81% of the time.
I kid you not, we'll read this story too.
The intention of the far left is to purge or destroy the Democratic Party.
They're not going to take it over.
They're not going to gain power.
They're going to destroy it.
And this is one of the things I've been so angry about.
There is no principled left anymore.
There are the desperate moderates who just want to stay in power, the corporatists, and the far left that seeks to eliminate them.
When it comes to actual policy, what do we have?
We have Donald Trump laying down his plans, changing rules, appropriating funds.
We have a media that's obsessed with his tweets.
And we have a Democratic Party embroiled in a civil war.
What will come of this?
In my opinion, Donald Trump's re-election and the collapse of the Democratic Party.
Now, maybe by 2024 or 2028, we'll see a new Democratic Party emerge, a new coalition form.
But as the data has shown us, and I've highlighted this over and over again, the Democrats are splitting between the far left and the center.
And the far left is younger, and more vibrant, and seeking to destroy the establishment, as I've just shown you.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to go through these stories, talk about what's going on with AOC, Curse In Cinema, but I can show you that it's not going to work for them.
The far left is not going to win this because Americans don't like them.
We have another story.
AOC is vulnerable to a primary challenge, survey fines.
So even if they cause enough damage to shred the democratic establishment, in the end they will not succeed either.
This may be, in my opinion, the complete fracturing And at least for a long time, the end of the Democratic Party, or at least... I don't know how to describe it.
I don't want to say they'll be wiped out completely.
I think it's too strong of an establishment.
But I think they're going to be crippled for a long time and struggle to have any kind of coalition or vote.
Let's get started with this story from CNN, but before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can donate, PayPal, crypto, physical ads, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
You may notice I'm highlighting a CNN story on purpose, but I want to stress, YouTube will prop up the big channels and derank independent political commentary.
If you think what I'm saying is important, Then please consider sharing this video wherever you can, because there's one thing YouTube can't derank, and that's your ability to share a link.
So if you like the content, please share.
But let's read.
From CNN, Ocasio-Cortez of New York on Tuesday threw her support behind a progressive primary challenger to Rep.
Dan Lipinski of Illinois, a lawmaker who is considered to be one of the most conservative House Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez called Mary Newman, who is challenging the congressman in 2020 after unsuccessfully challenging him in the 2018 midterm primary, quote, a grassroots fighter for working families in a statement on Twitter.
It's going to take a bigger, stronger Democratic Party, one that's returned to our FDR roots and fights for working people, to change our future in 2020, she tweeted, adding, We can't afford deep blue seats fighting against healthcare and equal rights.
We need Mary for Congress.
But here's the thing.
I think the problem with the Democrats is we have wrong centrists.
Joe Biden is not the centrist we want.
He's a remnant of the old guard, and neither was Hillary Clinton.
These far leftists try to claim that moderate policies don't work because, well, look at Hillary Clinton.
She lost.
But Hillary Clinton was a Goldman Sachs corporatist internationalist.
There's so much wrong with what Hillary Clinton represented.
Bernie Sanders at the time was being a bit more moderate.
He's now endorsed the far-left establishment.
There's like two establishments, the cultural and the political, on the left.
And Bernie's gone full swing into the identitarian nonsense, calling for a moratorium on deportations.
He's lost it.
That is not a moderate position.
That is an extreme position.
And I'll get into all of that.
Oh, I've got some wonderful data to show you how nuts the Democrats have gotten.
But the point is, These are not the candidates that we as moderates and left-leaning individuals are looking for.
Not AOC, and not Joe Biden.
Which means, you know, someone like me, who is very much in favor of Tulsi Gabbard, who has been more moderate on key social and cultural issues, they're keeping her out.
And so it's very likely that... Actually, no, let me say it this way.
You have progressives, you have moderates, you have establishment, and we're not unified.
Okay?
I'm looking for a Democrat someone like Tulsi.
They don't like her.
Ocasio-Cortez is looking for a Bernie.
Or a Warren, perhaps.
And then you have the establishment looking for a Biden.
There's no unity here.
It's falling apart.
And AOC's attacks on the Democratic Party are just evidence that it's only going to get worse.
They say an endorsement from Ocasio-Cortez, who has quickly established herself as a progressive icon, currently in her first term in Congress, and has a massive following on social media, could give a boost to any candidate.
The New York Democrat also recently endorsed Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts in his 2020 re-election bid.
Lipinski is viewed by many liberal Democrats as out of step with his party.
He voted against the Affordable Care Act, is one of the only congressional Democrats to identify as anti-abortion rights, and did not endorse then-President Barack Obama's re-election bid in 2020.
I'm sorry, 2012, not 2020.
They go on to say that Newman, in contrast, is running on a progressive platform, including supporting the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.
She is backed by Justice Democrats, the progressive organization that supported Ocasio-Cortez when she ran a successful primary challenge to veteran House Democratic lawmaker Joe Crowley.
Now, here's the important point.
I'm not going to get into too much of this.
You get it.
AOC is endorsing someone to challenge a Democrat.
Why might this be?
Take a look at this story from 2016.
Cenk Uygur, we're going to shred the democratic establishment.
He says, quote, we just elected a madman, an incompetent monster as president of the United
States. He said, I did see this coming, but it gives me no joy. The reason I kept telling the
Democratic Party that there was an iceberg ahead is not that I wanted to hit it is I wanted to
avoid it. But here's here's what he says. Who's responsible?
The losers at the DNC and Hillary Clinton and her entire staff. That's who's responsible. We
were right and they were wrong.
We said pick Bernie Sanders who had a lead over Trump. But in their incompetence and corruption,
they said no. More importantly, the end.
Uyghur said the Democratic establishment, in a way, like the Republican establishment, needs to go down.
We are going to shred the Democratic establishment.
We are going to attack it at its core.
Because if they do one more election like this, where they support corporatist politicians, they will destroy this country, and we're not going to let them do it.
We're going to take over the Democratic Party, Uyghur said.
They've endangered the entire world with their incompetence.
So I believe Cenk is sincere.
I believe his intention is to take over the Democratic Party.
Now, he was outed from Justice Democrats—I believe that was the organization—because of, well, he got canceled.
Someone found old posts or something he made that were offensive, and they booted him from the organization, which I think is patently absurd.
But Cenk doesn't understand one thing.
The result of civil conflict in any capacity is massive collateral damage to both sides.
You can stop the establishment, but at the cost of democratic victory.
This is why Democrats for so long have embraced the establishment.
They don't want to lose.
So I think it's fair to be upset and say something needs to be changed.
But perhaps now that you have progressive Democrats, you should use the power they wield with their influence to go after Republicans and not Democrats.
But they're not done.
You see, the real vendetta these people have is not against Republicans.
And to an extent, I can understand that.
To me, the Republicans are engaging in business as usual in many ways.
Mitch McConnell held up Obama's potential appointee to the Supreme Court.
I believe it was Merrick Garland.
And I think that was wrong.
I believe it was absolutely wrong.
He's also held up legislation.
I get it, though.
This is how politics operates.
You can look back at quotes from Democrats and Republicans and see they play the game.
Donald Trump is very different, but he's playing it smart.
A lot of people want to act like he's dumb.
You can criticize him for bad behavior and for bad policy, but when it comes to political strategy, it's working for him.
Regardless of that, though, the Democrats are fighting each other.
And here I am on one side of that fight.
Now, they'll call me conservative.
They'll say, Tim, why are you coming after Democrats on the left so often?
And I'm going to break down exactly why by highlighting Obama positions to prove, to state on the record, once and for all, what everybody who's a moderate, regular American already knows, as long as they're paying attention.
The positions adopted by Democrats today are so out of sync with Obama, they act like he's a Republican.
But take a look at this story before we move into that.
Also from yesterday.
Arizona progressives seek to censure Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
Why?
Because she only agrees with Democrats 81% of the time.
I kid you not.
They say, Cinema built a moderate political brand during her three terms in the House of Representatives, which has extended to her early days in the Senate.
According to FiveThirtyEightTrumpTracker, she has opposed Trump while in the Senate 81% of the time.
In the House, she supported Trump's agenda 54% of the time.
She's actually moved more progressive since joining the Senate.
They say, while Sinema's political centrism has earned her Republican support, it has graded on progressives, some of whom silently protested her during a state fundraising dinner in downtown Phoenix.
Democratic state committeemen will consider the resolution on Saturday at the Arizona Democratic Party's quarterly meeting.
So let me make this point.
Cinema.
I believe she flipped a seat.
She's a Democrat, okay?
She has done something great for the Democrats.
Voting against Trump 81% of the time is better than every Republican got in Arizona.
So what do they do?
It's not enough.
Bend the knee to the far left or else.
So they're gonna vote to censure her.
I don't know what that'll actually do, but you can see they're coming for her.
Someone who actually won them a Democratic Senate seat.
That's, to me, completely absurd.
Here's the thing.
As I stated, it's not going to play well for them.
They're not going to come out on top.
They're not taking over the party.
They're destroying it.
When they're engaging in conflict against the people who have a chance to win because they don't realize, although there are many people polled who might say, yeah, that's a good idea, that's a good idea, they don't vote.
Or they don't vote for you, the regular person.
That's who you need to win to get elections.
The left-leaning moderates and even the right-leaning moderates who are willing to move over to the Democrat if you're offering them a real position.
Instead, the far left is targeting Democrats.
And here's what we see.
From the New York Post.
Now, admittedly, this survey comes from Stop the AOC PAC.
Let's absolutely call them out for political bias.
It doesn't necessarily mean their data is wrong.
The framing may be.
But let's read.
They say, the survey commissioned by the decidedly anti-AOC Stop the AOC Political Action Committee found that 47% of Democrats in the 14th congressional district view her favorably, and 29% unfavorably, with 24% unsure.
Asked if they supported Ocasio-Cortez's efforts to ruin the Amazon deal that would have created jobs, 37% said yes, 35% said no, with 28% unsure.
That's a very loaded question.
Take all this bias into consideration.
I'm going to call it out, but let me just read more data.
Anger directed at Ocasio-Cortez over Amazon's decision to back out of a deal for a headquarters and campus in Long Island City has created an opening for a challenger to run against her as anti-jobs and anti-business, said Dan Becker, founder of Stop the AOC.
They go on to say this, however.
Respondents were—let me back up.
Voters were asked if they believe AOC spends more time focusing on social media than helping New Yorkers in her district.
The results found that 40% said AOC is helping her district more.
22% said she's focusing on social media more.
38% were unsure.
Respondents were mixed on whether they would support a primary challenger to AOC.
26% said likely or somewhat likely.
43% said unlikely or somewhat unlikely.
Now, I want to make sure I get this right, because my understanding is they're talking to Democrats specifically.
What this finds is that 26% of those polled, which I believe they're Democrats, again, yes, Democratic homes in the district, 26% of Democrats are willing to support a challenger.
Now here's the important part about their bias.
That's not a big number, okay?
So they're saying she's vulnerable to a primary challenge.
It's true, there is a decent amount, but it's 43% that support her, that would not, are unlikely to support a challenger.
So she does have the bigger faction of Democrats on her side.
That's why I want to, you know, I want to highlight this.
Although the PAC is biased, they're still saying more people support her than oppose her.
The point is, going to war with Democrats will result... 26% is not negligible.
That is a decent amount of people who want to see a change.
And you may see Republicans flipping and supporting a Democratic primary challenger just to get AOC out.
Now think about this.
There are Republicans who live in this district.
I believe her district is like D plus 30, but that still means you have 20 or more percent of the people who live there as Republicans who might actually come out now and say they'd be more willing to vote Democrat if it gets rid of AOC.
That's just my speculation.
Take it for what it is.
All I really want to highlight is that AOC is contentious, although she does have a lot of support in her district.
I don't want to make it seem like she's on the verge of being ousted or anything like that.
Just that she is not a guaranteed favorite, and as she continues to declare war on Democrats, she will generate enemies in the Democratic Party.
That's obvious.
But let's move on.
Let's talk about why.
It's all just a big bad idea.
Phase 2.
Act 2.
From the New York Times, Nate Cohn, the upshot on September 10th.
Moderate Democrats fared best in 2018.
A North Carolina election is also a chance to think about what kind of candidate might do best against President Trump.
Now, I don't need to read too much in this.
The headline is enough for you to get the gist of it.
I frequently highlight a study, a poll, from The Economist showing that Democrats have been spreading out further and further left with no cohesive, with no unity.
That's an Economist poll.
The story in question talks about how progressive Democrats overwhelmingly failed.
I believe the number is something like 79 progressives ran and something like 8 won.
Then we see it again from the New York Times.
The moderates are the ones who did best.
Do you think you can win against Donald Trump with the party as fractured as it is?
Unfortunately, you can't.
Okay, Bernie Sanders is crazy Bernie.
Joe Biden is, you know, old Joe Gaff, you know, the Gaff King.
You've got 30% or so of people, 28, who like Biden.
The progressives won't vote for Biden.
And the moderates are probably not going to vote for Bernie.
Now, it's possible.
Here's the thing.
If a progressive gets the nomination, moderates might bite their tongue and vote for the far left.
I'm going to have to go ahead and bet that's not the case, though.
Some people believe that to be the case, and I'm going to show you why.
First, here's a story from the Wall Street Journal.
Bernie Sanders touts immigration plans, but his record is complicated.
Vermont Senator wants to pause deportations, but he has also argued that too much immigration could hurt American workers.
What could this mean?
Perhaps Bernie Sanders has changed his opinion.
See, only a few months ago he said there are too many poor people in this world, we can't let them all in.
Maybe Bernie Sanders had a revelation, an understanding.
You know what?
We can't be deporting these people.
Or maybe it's completely separate issues.
Maybe he's saying, stop where we're at now, no more people can come in, but we're not going to deport people.
A moratorium on deportation is extreme.
It's well beyond what any regular person would probably want to support.
And I'll tell you why.
It has nothing to do with American workers.
It has to do with criminals.
Deportations often involve people who have committed crimes.
If Bernie Sanders is saying, don't deport anyone, pause all deportations, he's taking one of the most extreme stances on immigration we have ever seen.
And what about Obama?
Check out this story.
Now let's talk, I want to get into the Obama stuff.
I want to talk about why they will likely lose and how, and here's evidence they've lost it.
August 13th, 2010, Obama signed $600 million bill to boost U.S.
border security.
Is it the same as Trump?
No, not really.
But a thousand new border patrol agents, they called Barack Obama the deporter-in-chief.
My understanding is that Obama deported substantially more people than Trump.
I did have a story from the Wall Street Journal, unfortunately it kept crashing, and it said if Trump is running on being tough on immigration, why is he deporting less people than Obama did?
It's a good question.
But they're calling Trump the extreme one.
How about this?
September 9th, Obama offers compromises to get healthcare bill passed.
I kid you not.
He was embracing ideas floated by Republicans.
Respectable.
Granted, this was 10 years ago.
I was much, much less involved, but I did follow this a bit.
Obama promised universal healthcare.
He then compromised and we got Obamacare.
Not perfect.
A lot of problems.
But here's what I want to say.
Barack Obama ran on universal healthcare, and that I understand.
The Democrats today, what did they say?
How many people raised their hand when asked if they would provide taxpayer-funded healthcare for non-citizens?
It was all of them.
And it was so shocking to the DNC, I assume this is why they did it, they changed the rules and said no more asking people to raise their hands, because they looked nuts.
Castro says decriminalize border crossings.
Bernie says, you know what, just stop all deportation altogether.
Combine those two, what do you think you get?
What did Obama run on?
Strong borders.
Universal healthcare for American citizens, but he did compromise.
Let's talk about Second Amendment.
What did Obama run on?
Or actually, what did Obama support?
I don't have this pulled up, so he definitely fact-checked me on this one.
But I did read through a few different articles about his positions, and Obama was pretty much on the left on the gun control issue.
And he said, local restrictions make sense, but we must protect 2A.
Okay.
Obama compromised.
He was a rather moderate left-leaning individual in a lot of ways, and he was pretty far left on many issues, but he did compromise.
Okay?
And I wasn't even a big fan of the guy because of his foreign policy stuff.
And where are we today?
Beto O'Rourke dominating social media because he is calling for a complete confiscation of ARs.
Now, here's the thing.
He can call it mandatory buyback.
We know what that means.
It's confiscation with a smile.
You're gonna hand somebody a check.
It doesn't matter.
You're mandating they give up something they have a legal right to possess.
He is then called on duopolies, the credit card firms, to stop legal transactions.
That is so extreme compared to where Obama was.
So let's talk about what's frustrating.
Obama compromised in a lot of ways that many Democrats didn't like.
But he's still one of the most popular Democratic presidents ever, at least in this generation.
Why are they attacking him?
And why aren't they embracing his positions?
The reality is, Donald Trump pulled Republicans slightly to the left.
That's from New York Times data.
Based on statements made by Republicans.
That's what we can see.
It's a fact.
Now, Donald Trump has been a bit more extreme rhetorically, in a lot of ways.
But he's deported less people.
He supported gay marriage before entering office, more than any other Republican.
I'm not saying he's better than Democrats.
I'm just saying, better than Mitt Romney was, and McCain.
So, yes, absolutely.
To a tiny degree.
Donald Trump has moved the Republicans slightly to the center.
And that is coming from New York Times data, which I've showed so many times, I don't have it pulled up.
That's why I often show the same thing again.
For a lot of people who watch my videos, you'll see repeated data, but it's important because someone might not believe me.
But go fact check me.
The Democrats have moved so far left now, Obama is far right.
And it's just that provable.
Okay?
Obama boosting border security.
Bernie called for border security.
Chuck Schumer did.
They all did.
Now what?
Obama compromised with Republicans and embraced ideas floated by Republicans.
Now what?
Healthcare for non-citizens.
So I'll tell you what's going on.
AOC is not going to bring about a great resurgence in the Obama era.
Nor will Cenk Uygur, nor will these progressives going after Kirsten Sinema.
Kirsten Sinema seems to be closer on the Obama track.
So let me just make this really clear for everybody.
People say, Tim, you don't talk about the Republicans enough.
You don't talk about Mitch McConnell enough.
Oh, dude, I do not like Mitch McConnell.
Come on.
But what do you want me to do?
Politician lied today.
News at 11.
No, I'm sorry.
It happens all the time.
But I'll tell you this.
There's a relativity thing going on.
What are the big stories that are happening?
And more importantly, what do I care about?
Okay?
I don't care that Trump tweeted about people being wet.
I don't care, or he didn't actually do that, but I don't care Trump said people were soaking.
I don't care that Trump used a sharpie.
None of that matters to me.
What matters to me is the complete destruction and the cannibalization of the Democratic Party by people who are angry at Hillary Clinton.
They're willing to sacrifice everything, but maybe, maybe, maybe Cenk is right.
Maybe there needs to be a long-term investment.
I will say this.
I believe in the long term, they will just cripple the Democrats for the next decade or so.
But perhaps something will come out of it.
Perhaps there will be a stronger populist rational base that says cancel culture is bad, these extreme positions are bad, mass confiscation of people's legal property is bad, giving healthcare to non-citizens is bad.
Maybe that's going to happen.
Maybe there's now a shock to the system to get rid of the corporatists, the crony establishment Democrats, and bring in more moderate, sane, rational, middle-of-the-road types that will lean against the Republicans, present principled opposition to Republican policy, and actually speak to regular Americans.
I'll tell you this.
It is not Ocasio-Cortez.
It is not Bernie.
It is not Beto.
It was Obama.
That's why he won twice.
And that's why Trump won, and Trump will probably win again.
Yeah, people don't like his attitude.
Trump is a mirror image to Obama when it comes to, you know, candor and character.
Policy-wise, though, they're not too dissimilar.
They're different, don't get me wrong.
But I'm basing this relative to where the Democrats are today.
If you were to compare Trump and Obama, say, in 2008, you'd be like, wow, Trump is more moderate than every other Democrat.
That's what you'd say.
Today the Democrats have veered so off the rails, they think Trump is far right when all data points to the fact that he's actually moved slightly to the left.
And you know what?
It's probably part of the strategy to attract left-leaning independents so that he could win.
You need that coalition.
Obama knew it, and Obama won a second term.
And he compromised.
He compromised on a lot.
So I'll tell you what, when Bernie says moratorium on deportation, People are gonna be like, dude, what?
When Beto comes out and says, you know, we're gonna take your, I can't say the words that he says, it's YouTube, don't get me wrong.
I'd love to, but I can't.
And when Beto says things like that, then, yeah, don't be surprised that people are gonna say, what?
And they're not gonna vote for it.
The people I've talked to about the Democrats say they're not voting.
They don't wanna vote for Trump, but they're not voting, because the Democrats have lost it.
When you go after Kyrsten Sinema because she's only voting with you 81% of the time, and that's not enough, you've lost it.
But I can say it a million times and I'll say it a million times more as the stories continue to pour in.
And it's almost like everything I said was happening, you know, a year ago is continuing to happen.
These are all new stories.
These are all stories from yesterday and today.
There it is.
I said a month ago, I said two months ago, three months ago, every time I say they're getting more extreme, they're embracing ridiculous policies, they're destroying the party, they continue to do it.
Thank you for this.
Stick around for the next segment at youtube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all there.
Ed Buck, Democratic mega-donor, has finally been arrested for running a drug house and for injecting people with methamphetamine.
How did it get to the point now where I think, what, when the third person who has overdosed from drugs, I believe being injected, at this guy's house and they are just now finally arresting this guy?
You'd think after the first time, they'd say, hey, something's weird here.
Somebody overdosed in this dude's house.
Perhaps we should investigate.
No!
Well, maybe they did.
I don't know what they were doing.
But then it happened again.
And then finally it happened a third time, and it's like, OK, OK, we'll arrest the guy.
People have been complaining for a long time that this dude has been running drugs out of his house or whatever and people are getting hurt, and it's only now, years later, they're actually arresting this guy.
So here's the story from the New York Times.
Ed Buck, Democratic donor, is charged with operating drug house.
A third man suffered a methamphetamine overdose at the Los Angeles home of the longtime activist this week.
So I just have to wonder why.
You have so many people overdosing and they're only now being like, oh yeah, we're going to charge him with running a drug house.
Not the first time.
Not the first time.
He just keeps doing it.
It makes me wonder about how law enforcement works in this country when you have a high profile guy like this.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Apparently the dude's rich.
Now we get it, right?
Well, let's read the news from the New York Times.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
YouTube's gonna derank this video.
They derank independent political commentary, but they can't derank your willingness to share it if you think I do a good job.
So, please consider it, but let's read the news.
New York Times writes Ed Buck, a Democratic donor and activist whose West Hollywood apartment was the scene of two methamphetamine overdose deaths since 2017, was arrested on Tuesday after investigators said a third man suffered an overdose in his home last week.
So wait, they arrested him when?
Tuesday?
And the guy overdosed last week?
Wow.
Even a delay on that.
Now, I have to be fair.
A lot of people think that the cops can just storm in and lock somebody up, but it may just be that since the first overdose, they've been investigating and trying to get evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this guy was doing something wrong, and maybe it just took that long.
Maybe the dude does a good job of cleaning up his tricks.
I kind of don't think so, because there are photos of people going in and out of his house, and you could probably prove they're on drugs, but far be it from me to tell law enforcement what they should or shouldn't be doing.
They say, Mr. Buck, who has not faced charges for the earlier overdoses, but was subject to a wrongful death lawsuit, was charged on Tuesday with battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine, and maintaining a drug house.
He faces up to five years and eight months in prison.
Is that all?
You know what, man?
If he's facing five years and he's super rich, I bet you he's going to plead down and he's going to get probation or some kind of slap on the wrist.
This is, you know, Democratic mega-donor.
It's hard for me to say right now with a straight face, I don't think there's corruption in the Democratic Party, or at least in certain elements of it.
Because when you see a story like this, you hear stories about people who commit petty offenses on the South Side of Chicago get locked up for 10 years.
Gang offenses, locked up.
Not only that, Gun offenses.
I know people in Chicago who get a mandatory minimum for having drugs or having a weapon, and here we have a dude who is implicated in what, in my opinion, could be wrong, multiple deaths!
Or overdoses, I'm sorry, not deaths.
A couple deaths, I think, and overdoses.
And that's it.
Five years.
Wow.
Three people.
But I guess, if they're only charging him for the one person, the others can't be held against him.
The charges relate only to the most recent incident.
There it is.
On September 11th, when the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office says Mr. Buck injected a 37-year-old man with methamphetamine in Mr. Buck's home.
The man, who was not identified, survived the overdose.
Families of the two men who died in his apartment, Timothy Dean, 55, died in January, while Gemmel Moore, 26, died in July, 2017, have accused Mr. Buck, who is white, of preying upon black gay men.
Letitia Nixon, the mother of Mr. Moore, said in the wrongful death lawsuit that Mr. Buck has had a, quote, well-documented history of isolating black men for predatory encounters.
That's a censored word.
I can't read.
It's YouTube.
And crowds of protesters have gathered outside his home this year to demand justice for the men.
And this is all they get.
It's funny, isn't it?
You can have the worst case, and you know what?
I'm not gonna get into it.
There are a bunch of stories where we wonder why justice wasn't delivered.
Okay?
Especially when it comes to issues like Black Lives Matter.
And I wonder now why.
When you have black community activists coming out and saying this man is targeting them, he is targeting these young men, they are getting hurt, nothing gets done for years.
It's mind-blowing, isn't it, really?
I gotta admit, while I don't want to jump to conclusions, and I'm not much of a conspiracy person, I do, you know, kind of side-eye the circumstances when a wealthy Democratic donor continually gets away with doing drugs, running a drug house, and having these people come and go, and they overdose two different people.
And protesters show up demanding justice.
Nothing happens.
Nothing.
And then finally, it's like, I imagine there's some cop who's like, we really don't want to go after these Democrats, but man, after three people, what do we do?
Yeah.
unidentified
That's, that's, I'm not, you know, I'm just saying.
Quote, I remain deeply concerned for the safety of people whose life circumstances may make them more vulnerable to criminal predators, Jackie Lacey, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, said in a statement.
With this new evidence, I authorized the filing of criminal charges against Ed Buck.
Now, I want to stress, I don't want to blame the cops or law enforcement necessarily, because if there is something nefarious going on, we don't necessarily know where it's coming from and why it's happening.
It's entirely possible that The DA was just saying we have to have a rock-solid case, because the dude's wealthy, and he's got connections, and if they don't have hard evidence, they could lose everything, and the dude could get away with everything.
So I don't know, you know, I do think it's trying to... I don't want to lay accusations against anybody for not doing their job, because we don't know.
To be honest, we just don't know.
And it would be... it would be kind of mean.
If it turns out law enforcement has been desperately trying to go after this guy, but he's got political connections, which he presumably does, And they were having trouble with it.
So, assuming the cops actually want to get this guy, you know?
I don't know.
I don't know.
You know, I'm just imagining being a law enforcement officer and really, you know, you really want to bring this guy to justice, but you can't because of his political power and his wealth.
And then all of a sudden, some guy pops up on YouTube ragging on you for it.
I don't know how or why.
I know a lot of people believe there's, like, looking the other way going on.
So I don't know where it's coming from.
But I will stress, you'd think this guy would have been arrested a long time ago.
Three people now overdosing?
Man.
Fortunately, the third guy survived, so that's great news.
But at least now they've got this guy arrested.
A lawyer for Mr. Buck Seymour I. Amster could not be reached on Tuesday, but has previously denied that Mr. Buck had any role in the two deaths.
He just lets people into his house to do meth, I guess.
Mr. Buck was scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday, with prosecutors recommending a $4 million bail.
Yeah, which he can probably pay.
The longtime activist has given more than $116,000 to Democratic candidates and groups over the past decade or so.
It's actually not that much money, to be honest.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told Fox News in January it donated Mr. Buck's contributions to the NALEO Educational Fund.
A national bipartisan Latino group, while Representative Ted Lieu of California said he would donate $18,000 in contributions to civil rights organizations.
Oh, so good on them.
Good on them.
Admittedly, you know, look, I understand $116,000 is a lot of money, but over a decade?
That means he's donating $16,000 a year, which is a lot of money to the average person, but I'm basing this off the fact the dude's wealthy.
It's not like he's spending millions of dollars.
Maybe.
They say end group, so it doesn't sound like that big of a donor, to be honest.
I've seen way bigger organizations, but perhaps as an individual, that must be a lot.
Mr. Buck first rose to prominence in the 1980s when he led the Mecham Recall Committee, an effort to remove from office Governor Evan Mecham of Arizona.
Mr. Mecham would later be impeached, accused of fraud and perjury.
Mr. Buck was also a prominent member of LGBT political circles.
He was considered a suspect in Mr. Moore's death, but the police could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that suspect Buck furnished drugs to Gemmill Moore or that suspect Buck possessed drugs, according to court documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
After Mr. Dean's death in January, Lieutenant Derrick Alfred of the L.A.
County Sheriff's Department told KTLA-TV, a local television station, that it was suspicious that this has happened twice now, so we're going to conduct a thorough investigation to determine if it is criminal in nature.
You'd think after the police came out and said, we want to investigate this, we're looking for evidence, you'd stop.
You'd be like, hey, you've got too much heat on us.
You can't be injecting methamphetamine in the house.
And then he kept doing it.
The wrongful death lawsuit said that Mr. Buck had introduced Mr. Moore to the drug.
Wow.
I have become addicted- uh, so, this is a quote.
Mr. Moore said in a journal that he had become addicted to drugs, and the worst one at that.
Ed Buck is the one to thank.
He gave me my first injection.
Mr. Moore added in the journal, If it didn't hurt so bad, I'd kill myself.
But- wow.
But I'll let Ed Buck do it for now.
And how is he not charged?
That's- that's- that's- that's amazing.
Well, he's charged now.
So, you know, I'll stress this point.
You know, it doesn't sound like he's that big of a donor if he only gave 116k.
I mean, he's a consistent donor over the past decade.
But keep that in mind.
So what does that mean?
He's making like four or five max contributions per year, if that.
Which, yes, you know, is a lot of money for the average person.
But I'm thinking, like, this guy's a multi-millionaire who's probably donating, you know, hundreds of thousands Yeah, I get it.
It's a lot of money, but I think, you know, I think the bigger question is, why did he keep doing it after the police announced they were going to go after him?
And why couldn't they go after him with this journal where you had a statement from one of the victims?
But I'll leave it at that.
Stick around, next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Well, I couldn't believe it when I saw the headline, And I saw that and thought to myself, cultural appropriation isn't a crime, and very well would be protected by the First Amendment, How is this story true?
The first thing I saw was a screenshot.
And I assumed somebody was making a joke.
A joke about how insane California is.
So I did a Google search, as I often do, trying to dig into this story and figure out what the source of this misinformation was, because people were claiming the story was real.
And there it is.
It's real.
They're up on Yahoo.
In fact, green checkmark from NewsGuard.
News Guard giving the OK does not publish false content.
So then I see this story, and they claim the Santa Monica Police Department has stated he will be charged with cultural appropriation.
We can see in the story they even have a link to the Santa Monica Police Department Facebook page with a press release.
And they say in the press release, use of a Day of the Dead mask during a robbery can be a separate offense or an enhancement.
They go on to say that he violated the rights of the indigenous.
The only problem?
The story is fake!
This is one of the most obvious and ridiculous stories I have ever seen.
Trust in the media is at an all-time low.
And you want to know why?
Because of this.
Now.
It is my understanding, and it's been a while so I could be wrong, that Elise Soleil, the one who wrote this, at one point, I believe, wrote fake news about me.
I could be wrong.
It may have been somebody else.
There was something pertaining to... I can't remember which story it was.
Maybe the White House summit.
Yeah, I think it was the White House Summit, where they claimed that I was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy, of which I've repeatedly said is likely not real, that, you know, people think that Seth Rich was murdered, and I've always maintained it is likely not true.
What they like doing is taking this clip where I was referring to a Fox News report saying I didn't believe it was true, giving it a 60% chance or so, you know, chance of being true or something.
What I was saying was, Fox News definitively said he did a thing.
And I was like, nah, I don't know about that, man.
You know, I'd put it around like 60% because Fox News doesn't repeatedly publish false content.
They're certified by NewsGuard, but this story was just too out there for me.
The same with this story.
I fact check everything.
I dig in.
And even when I see a story reported as true, I'm going to dig into it and figure out what's really going on.
And what happened?
Well, the people over at Yahoo who publish fake news, and this is fake news, didn't fact-check anything.
What they found was a website called the Santa Monica Observer.
The Santa Monica Observer receives a red exclamation point from NewsGuard, saying they do repeatedly publish false content.
Now here's the funny thing, and the inherent flaw with something like NewsGuard.
Let me explain something.
A lot of people have complained, saying, Tim, you use NewsGuard, but they repeatedly are giving a green checkmark to fake news, like we see right here.
Let me just make sure I can clarify for the record.
As far as I can tell, there is no crime of cultural appropriation.
I actually called the Santa Monica watch commander and asked for a comment.
And I had to explain what cultural appropriation was because the watch commander seemed a bit confused.
And I don't blame him.
It's an absurd question to ask.
He said something to the effect of, you know, we're looking for the bank robber.
We're not charging him with cultural appropriation or anything.
And I said, basically according to the story, you're stating it's a violation of indigenous rights.
In this case, the suspect is sought for violating the rights of indigenous peoples, and for bank robbery, and the cop laughed.
It is such an absurd thing to read.
How did this get published on Yahoo?
And here's the problem.
It's still up.
I kid you not.
So I tweeted about it.
This is from yesterday.
I tweeted about it this morning, getting a comment proving it wrong.
They've not fixed it.
There's no one to contact at Yahoo.
This was written by someone who, it's my understanding, works for Yahoo.
Congratulations.
And they smear us.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
They knock my channel down, and here I am fact-checking a story that was even certified as green by NewsGuard.
Now, let me be fair.
NewsGuard certifies the organization, not the individual stories.
But this is how people launder fake news.
Go to a fake news website or run it yourself.
Who knows?
Write absurd and obscene garbage.
It's obviously not real.
Come on, people!
Then, NewsGuard will say it's a fake news website, but so what?
Yahoo!
cites them over and over again.
I saved an archived version of this on purpose because I was waiting for the point at which they would actually delete the story.
They didn't.
It's still up.
Everything they do is citing the Santa Monica Observer.
This is not just a problem of fake news, but this is evidence.
This is the perfect window into how our media system functions.
Yahoo News did zero fact-checking, found a random article from a fake website, and just cited it over and over again, and they didn't even call the watch commander.
They said, A representative for the Santa Monica Police Department did not respond to Yahoo Lifestyle's request for comment.
Did you try calling them?
You see what they do?
It's on purpose.
If you ask me, it's on purpose.
They know the story's bunk.
The story is ridiculous and makes no sense.
And they want to get those clicks.
They want to get stories like this from me.
They know it'll work.
They know it'll generate traffic.
And Yahoo has not been doing too well, in case you haven't been aware.
So what do they do?
They send an email out, write the story, and publish, and say, they didn't respond!
I've gotten requests for comment within, like, 20 minutes of somebody publishing a story once, or something like that.
And many other people have as well.
They will send a request for comment to, like, I don't know, a friend of mine, and be like, we couldn't get in touch with him.
They did the same thing with Steven Crowder.
There was a story not too long ago.
Where they reached out through his, like, sales desk or something instead of actually calling him or messaging him personally.
And this is what we see.
But here's the best part!
They actually got a statement from Wells Fargo on this!
Check this out.
A spokesperson from Wells Fargo tells Yahoo Lifestyle, quote,
We are working with law enforcement and are unable to provide more details,
as this is an ongoing criminal investigation.
Wells Fargo values and promotes diversity and inclusion in all aspects of business at all levels.
We do not tolerate racism, cultural appropriation, or discrimination of any kind.
While I'd like to believe that quote is real, the whole story is built on a lie, and I'm going to have to assume none of it is real.
Yahoo is fake news, and this is the media.
You can see this, right?
Here's the thing.
I look at this story, and the first thing I thought was, there's no way this got past their editors.
This has to be real, right?
And then I started researching statutes in California.
Did they actually make cultural appropriation illegal?
How would that get past the First Amendment?
If you have a right to freedom of expression, you can wear whatever you want.
And so I ended up finding out.
So what I ended up doing is going back to the story and saying, okay, wait, hold on.
What is their source on this?
This is clearly not illegal.
And we have this, the Santa Monica Observer.
And when I opened it up, Here we see the NewsGuard fake news warning.
So look, to go back to the comment I was making about NewsGuard, I use this because they're a third-party fact-checking agency.
I'm sorry, a ratings agency for news outlets.
I still have to fact-check everything.
But the green checkmark is just the first layer of resisting my personal bias.
If I used sites that had a red exclamation point, and I do in rare circumstances, like Project Veritas, for instance, because I can verify their work, If I were to use the Observer as a source, when it's got a red exclamation point, the first thing, you know, people would say is, you ignored a third-party rating agency, clearly you're biased.
I won't do that.
In the instance of Project Veritas, those are very special circumstances in which you can actually see the recording and see what people are saying, the media just doesn't like them, I get it.
So there are rare circumstances where I'm willing to use a red exclamation point from NewsGuard Granted, I'm still very, very careful, even with Project Veritas, but I do think Veritas, for the most part, does a fine job, you know?
One of the points I've made in the past is that the undercover journalism they do is on par with what, you know, Channel 4 in the UK does.
It's just that people don't like the politics of it.
That's besides the point.
When James O'Keefe goes after the media, of course they're gonna be unhappy with him.
So in this case, though, The Observer is fake news.
Yahoo republishes the fake news, laundering it into a green checkmark.
That doesn't mean the stories are true.
I fact-check these stories every single day.
I will use the New York Times, the green checkmark, and I will call them out for fake news every single day.
The point is, it's a check against my bias.
You can't accuse me of being biased if I'm using a third party, which I do not work with, to certify whether these organizations are legit or not.
I gotta admit, the story's hilarious, if it were true.
They say, uh, a spokes- a representative for the Santa Monica Police Department didn't respond.
Uh, however, quote, use of a Day of the Dead mask during a robbery can be a separate offense, I read, and they say this is from a press release per the Observer.
It's interesting.
This- you know what, man?
I looked up the press release.
Let me see if I have this right.
Okay, so here's the actual press release from santamonica.gov.
Nowhere does it mention any of this.
Let this be a reminder to you.
It doesn't matter who it is.
The New York Times, The Washington Post, or Yahoo.
Now, I get it.
Yahoo is not the bastion of great journalism.
They don't fact-check.
They don't employ fact-checkers.
I believe the New York Times does, but I think my next story may be specifically calling out a fact-checker who is overtly racist, but that's besides the point.
It's something else.
In this instance, this writer, this reporter, this is what they do.
You want to know why trusted media is down?
Look at this story.
What do you think happens when you get a bunch of conservatives sharing this story, shocked that this could be true, and they're like, It's from Yahoo!
Like, we trust this.
We believe this is legit.
Like, it's got an editorial process.
Why?
Why do we believe it?
Well, most of us don't anymore.
Here's the problem.
YouTube deranks my content.
I'm not exaggerating.
David Pakman, a progressive, pulled up the data, made a video about it, showing that he gets deranked, I pull up the data, I get deranked, and CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc., they get propped up.
Why would Yahoo be considered more credible than me when I'm the one who has to go into the weeds and pull out the fake trash?
I'm the one who has to dig into this.
And they say derank Tim Pool.
Independent commentary, independent journalism, is not as credible as a corporation who has money.
That's the question I've always wanted to ask.
Every time you talk about whether or not something is credible or not, they ask you, how much money does your business have and how much does it pay its journalists?
They don't ask about ethics.
They don't ask about character.
They don't ask about whether or not you employ fact-checkers.
They just say, if you're a big corporation, it must be true.
That is ridiculous.
And I've dealt with this my entire career, being an independent individual on the ground working only for myself.
You know, in between I worked for Vice and Fusion for a few years.
Overwhelmingly, in the past eight or so years, I've worked for about three and a half to four years for a big company.
So just a bit of the majority of the work I've done has been completely independent.
And it's been the same thing every single time.
They put me on the side stage.
They say, you're independent because you don't have a big corporation behind you.
We don't trust what you do.
But we have to entertain it.
Here we are.
I'm gonna go after the New York Times next.
Right?
I've been going after the New York Times.
But their partisan bias is so absurd and obvious.
And they have another employee in Meltdown.
So stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
There's a different channel from this one.
And I will see you all there.
The story about Ilhan Omar's marriage and potentially marrying her brother is a really weird story indeed.
It emerged from an anonymous blog post on some forum, and since then many people have started digging into it.
There have been a lot of strange circumstantial bits of evidence, such as the guy she married claiming her daughter is his niece, which would imply their brother and sister.
The general story, which the mainstream media What I won't really tell you is that the allegation is that Ilhan Omar married her brother to expedite a visa to the U.S.
so that he could go to school or do something here.
What they repeatedly try to say is it makes no sense for her to marry her brother because her brother could come here as a sibling, yes.
But doing a simple Google search reveals that sibling requests can take up to 10 years, but marriage requests are almost immediate.
So, it depends.
You can bring someone here as a spouse very, very quickly, within months.
As a sibling, it could take a very, very long time, for obvious reasons.
You know, it's like, what priority is more important?
The parent to your children, or potential?
Or a relative?
So naturally, spouses get priority.
At least, that's what I've read.
All that matters is that the core of the allegation is that Ilhan Omar for some reason staged a false marriage to benefit someone else.
Whether or not they're brothers I think is actually kind of jumping the gun.
However, It seems that a new bit of circumstantial evidence has emerged.
Ilhan Omar presumably panics, deleting the evidence, and then issuing one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen in an attempt to explain why.
Her father, the man she says is her father, has the same last name as the guy she married, which would also imply it's her brother.
The whole story's confusing.
There's no definitive evidence.
But I think, at this point, we're seeing the smoke and wondering where the fire is.
I don't know what the fire was started by.
Is it really her brother?
I don't know, but something is going on that's weird and should probably be investigated with this much evidence floating around.
A story.
From Pluralist.
1997 document appears to shatter Omar's explanation for why her husband and dad have the same name.
Ilhan Omar has denied that she deleted a tweet as part of an effort to hide her alleged marriage to her brother, but the congresswoman's alternative explanation seems to be contradicted by the evidence.
The Minnesota Democrat removed a 2013 post from her Twitter account early Tuesday morning.
The previous evening, Shaikh Tawhidi, Imam Tawhidi, Who goes by the name Imam of Peace resurfaced the tweet and noted that it apparently revealed that Omar's father has the same name as her ex-husband.
He deemed the tweet proof of long-standing allegations that Omar's second husband, a British citizen named Ahmed Nursed Elmi, is her brother, and that she married him to help him fraudulently gain a U.S.
green card.
To expedite.
Expedite is the key phrase.
When you look at the actual story from the real reporters, they're not accusing her of trying to get him into the U.S.
like a blanket statement, because they know you can do a sibling request.
They're saying the allegation is to expedite his move here.
Okay, I don't know if it's true.
I'm just saying that's the allegation.
So here's the tweet from Imam Tawhidi.
And I did look into this a bit.
It's very interesting.
So he said, Most Americans don't know that in most Muslim countries, the surname is actually the father's name.
said, and you married Ahmed, Nur said?
You married your brother.
Most Americans don't know that in most Muslim countries, the surname is actually the father's
name.
He then says resign, and links to a tweet from Ilhan Omar which reads,
Happy Father's Day to my Abo, Nur said.
I am forever grateful to Allah for giving me the best father, and we can't see what
else she said because the Instagram post has been deleted.
Delete the tweet as well.
The tweet has been archived and I can confirm it does exist.
Not only that, actually, let me see if I can pull this up.
So this tweet here, this is a website called Politawoops.
Explore the tweets they didn't want you to see.
And we can see this tweet from Ilhan Omar.
Happy Father's Day to my abonur, said.
I am forever grateful to Allah for giving me the best father.
Deleted after 326 weeks at 5.23 a.m.
on 17 September.
Yes, it exists.
It's real.
It's tracked.
You can't get rid of it.
She called some guy named Nursed her father.
So let's read on.
In Omar's tweet, which was preserved.
Okay, so we saw that.
Omar, a Somali-American immigrant, was born in Somalia before taking refuge in the United States with her family in the 1990s, according to the St.
Cloud Times.
Somali children are usually given their father's first name as a middle name, and their father's father's first name as a last name.
However, later on Tuesday, New York Post reporter Jonathan Levine tweeted a statement from Omar's spokesperson saying that she had not deleted the Father's Day tweet for the disturbing and hateful reasons that are being implied by conspiracy theorists.
Rather, the unnamed spokesperson claimed that the tweet had to be taken down because it attracted too many vile replies.
Let's talk about conspiracy theories.
No, I'm sorry, Ilhan Nerset.
I'm kidding, by the way.
Well, I don't know if she said her dad was Nerset.
The conspiracy theory at this point is that all of these social media posts and all of these statements by you aren't, in fact, you admitting this guy's your brother and this guy's your dad.
That's the conspiracy.
The conspiracy is not that you married your brother.
I mean, it is a conspiracy.
The conspiracy theory at this point, the simple solution, is that you're covering it up.
So I did some looking.
And it turns out, don't take it from me, if Imam Tawhidi, who understands the, you know, Arabic naming system, or the Muslim naming system, says it, I defer to him, but I did Google it just to be sure.
I did some fact-checking, and sure enough, there are numerous posts where you can see people talking about the patrilineal naming system.
That would make Ilhan Omar Ilhan Nur said, absolutely.
So, let's read on.
The spokesperson also said that Nur Said is not the name of Omar's father, but rather a nickname he has had since childhood.
No mention was made of what Omar's father's real name is, if not Nur Said.
John Levine tweeted, A spokesperson for Rep.
Ilhan Omar sends me the following statement on her deleted tweet from 2013.
You've got to read this, you've got to hear this to believe it, I kid you not.
It says, Rep Omar and her family are subject to constant threats.
When people write vile things on posts about people she loves, including posting disturbing doctored images of her father, she takes them down.
Nur Sed means happy light, and it's been her dad's nickname since he was a kid.
He has a public page with the same name.
She isn't deleting it for the disturbing and hateful reasons that are being implied by conspiracy theorists and legitimate media outlets shouldn't be spreading conspiracy theories.
Well, I can't tell you what the contextual meaning of Nur Said is.
I can tell you that's not what Google says.
I don't know what Google's got going on with Translate.
I can only assume it's not correct.
But at least according to their definition of what Nur Said means in Arabic, it means free membership.
Which I have to assume is totally incorrect.
Unless free membership is a, I don't know, contextual statement.
I also decided to look up Abo, and Abo doesn't come up with anything.
Actually, let's do this.
Maybe she's speaking Somali?
Is Somali in here?
There it is, Somali.
Yes, in Somali, Abo means security.
Okay, let's see what Nur Said means.
It doesn't mean anything.
So I don't know.
I don't know.
Saying, you know, abo security to me makes contextual sense, like your father provides you with security or something.
But maybe I'm just the translate.
Ignore the translate stuff, because I don't know how to speak the language, so I'm just probably wrong.
But it gets better!
It gets even worse.
Skeptics pointed out that a woman who is allegedly Omar's sister, Leila Elmi, listed her father's name as Nur Sed Elmi on a 1997 marriage certificate.
Andy Ngo tweets, if it is just a nickname, why did Ilhan Omar's sister list that as her father's name on a legal marriage document in 1997?
Also, the one person whom Omar has publicly recognized as her sibling in the U.S., Sarah Noor, has identified, Ahmed Noor said, as her father, according to screenshots published in 2016 by Alpha News.
Now, the problem with screenshots is they can be doctored.
And a lot of journalists have tried to verify this, and you just, you can't.
It's very difficult.
But, I think suffice it to say, Sarah Noor with Noor Said, I love my father.
Okay.
Sarah Noor is Ilhan Omar's sister.
That's a fact.
They have different last names.
What does that mean?
I don't know.
But I can say, if this is her sister, and I did look into that, and that's what I found, and she says Noor Said is her father, Then, well, actually, this doesn't disprove that Nurse Ed is, um, a nickname.
But it would also call into question why she married a guy whose name is the same as her dad's nickname?
Come on!
That's just crazy!
With the campaign finance violations, with the weird circumstances, the weird addresses listed, the fact that the dude called Omar's kids his nieces and nephews or whatever, it's like, at what point do we just say, dude, the circumstantial evidence is pointing to Ilhan Omar married her brother?
It's a conspiracy theory.
It's all a conspiracy.
Nothing to see here.
Walk away.
Look, let's be rational.
So far, we have only proven weird circumstances.
Like, her dad has the same name as the guy she married.
Or a guy she says was her dad.
Now she's claiming it's a nickname.
That just seems really strange to me.
It is much more likely if she says the guy's name is Neuroscience.
That's his name, not a nickname.
She says he has a Facebook page of the same name.
That doesn't prove- What do you think it proves, Ilhan?
It proves his name, as Noor said!
Facebook doesn't allow nicknames.
You have to use your real name.
So no, you're not hiding from anything.
At this point, I think it warrants an investigation.
Now, what do you do?
You got refugees, it's hard to prove.
I don't know.
I don't know, man.
But I'm surprised anyone supports this woman at this point.
She's an anti-Semite, as far as I'm concerned.
And it looks like... I mean, she deleted the tweet!
I'm done!
I'm gonna walk away from this one while I still have some sanity left.
I am not making any definitive statements.
I'm not saying she married her brother.
I am not saying anything other than it's all very weird.
Okay?
Okay.
Stick around, a couple more segments to come in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
The Toronto Star published an op-ed that claims, you ready?
Chick-fil-A is ideologically opposed to my existence.
I actually think you're talking about an individual with strong ties to the top of Chick-fil-A, but no, the chicken restaurant itself doesn't care at all.
And I have a simple solution for those of you who don't want to support Chick-fil-A.
Don't shop there.
Don't buy chicken sandwiches.
It's literally a chicken sandwich shop.
You don't see everybody marching around protesting the guy from Burger King who made a donation.
What about the guy from McDonald's who made a donation?
Or Wendy's?
Look, we get it.
Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays.
But to show up in protest of a chicken restaurant Go and protest the organization itself which opposes gay marriage.
Instead, you show up to the chicken restaurant and people think you're nuts.
It's just a chicken restaurant.
Nothing is happening in that building that will hurt you.
I'm sorry.
Take that back.
Gotta walk that back.
Too much fried food.
It's a bad thing.
But let's be serious.
If you go inside that building, they're gonna say, how do you do?
Would you like a chicken sandwich?
That's it.
No one, and not the chicken restaurant itself, is opposed to your- is ideologically opposed to your existence.
It seems like a handful of individuals might be, and I have no problem for you boycotting Chick-fil-A and not eating there because of it.
Me?
I don't care, because I don't track the political donations of every restaurant I go to.
You ever go to, like, a small family restaurant in, like, Staten Island?
Uh-oh!
Staten Island!
Republicans!
Trump supporters!
You may be inadvertently supporting somebody who donates to the same organizations.
So don't eat there.
You can't stop other people from eating there.
If they want to do it, they're gonna do it.
But in the end, it's just waffle fries, chicken sandwiches, and that sauce is so good, isn't it?
Like that, what is that, orange Chick-fil-A?
I have no idea what it is, but man, it's super good.
It's really sweet.
It's probably just a lot of sugar.
But, I mean, the food's pretty good.
I always do that because it's just so insane.
You know, you could actually look up organizations that are actively doing things that harm you, politically.
I mean, like, you know, harm your ideology or, you know, what you want to do with your life.
If they oppose, you know, same-sex marriage and you want to get married, well, that's a bad thing for you, and I fully commend you if you go up and you stand up to those organizations and say, hey, I don't like what you're doing, I disagree.
In fact, you could also raise money to counter the money they raise.
But you don't.
You show up to the chicken restaurant.
Okay.
Well, let's read what this person has to say.
They write, This past weekend I saw something that made me unexpectedly queasy.
A young woman slurping soda out of a fast food cup.
It upset me because it was a Chick-fil-A cup.
Oh, that is not satire.
That's real.
This is a real story.
Somebody actually said that they got queasy from seeing someone drink out of a styrofoam cup.
Dude, you could be walking around with a sign, like, saying, you know, mixed race high school dropouts from the south side of Chicago are bad people and shouldn't exist, and I would laugh!
You could walk around, you know, protesting whatever it is about me, and I'd laugh, no beanies!
Ban the beanies!
Beanies, and I'd be like, this guy doesn't like my, I don't care.
I get it.
It's different because it's something more about you.
That's the point I was making about being, you know, mixed race.
If somebody was walking around protesting that, I've sat down with the alt-right and talked to them about this, where they've told me I shouldn't exist.
To my face!
And I didn't get queasy.
I just said, you're wrong.
And we argued about it.
This is a person walking down a street, getting queasy from seeing someone drink out of a cup.
We're doomed.
Well, hey, hold on.
That's Canada, okay?
Canada, you're in trouble.
Chick-fil-A is an anti-LGBTQ2 organization.
No!
Chick-fil-A is a chicken restaurant, and it just so happens that one guy who's like a high-level dude, I don't even know if he's a founder, they say he is, he donates to a certain organization.
You don't know why!
You don't know why.
The organization does more than oppose same-sex marriage.
Not just because the founder publicly opposed same-sex marriage.
He believed in a biblical definition of marriage.
Okay, so there you go.
Which doesn't exist, but because company profits are donated to charities that oppress and marginalize queer people, especially queer youth.
Okay.
I would ask, please go protest every single business ever.
All the time.
Because many of them support this.
It's not just Chick-fil-A.
Now, we know Chick-fil-A is overtly Christian.
They're closed on Sundays, but still.
It's, you know, it's selective.
Young queer people are unusually vulnerable.
Oh, here we go.
He's jumping.
He's jumping so far.
Listen.
Now he's talking about young queer people being vulnerable, especially queer youth.
It's just, it's okay.
He's strawmanning it.
He's setting up the weakest possible thing to knock down.
They often struggle to find support in their own communities and even in their own families.
I get it, man.
And I agree, it's tough.
And you have my support outside of you protesting a chicken restaurant.
Okay?
I actually used to fundraise on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign, which is the HRC, LGBT rights organization.
I was sitting down on phone calls listening to them talk about campaign plans and what they wanted to do.
And we went out to Pride events and we raised money on their behalf.
But protesting a chicken restaurant is ineffective, a waste of time, and it makes you sound nuts.
You want to do something?
Get rid of this whole article and write, please donate to the HRC.
Do that.
Going out and protesting a chicken restaurant is the opposite of productive.
You could literally go out and solicit donations for an organization that supports gay rights or LGBTQ2 rights.
They're not miserable because they're queer.
They're miserable because the stigmatization of queerness by family, church, and society has left them lonely and ostracized.
They're miserable because people will not accept and love them, and because the people they should be able to turn to are often most likely to harass, harm, and abuse them.
Well, nobody should harass, harm, and abuse anybody.
But I have to say this.
The world is not all candy canes and lollipops, skittles and rainbows.
The world is a harsh beast that will beat you down.
Other people are cutthroat.
You don't know who you can trust.
Sometimes people do good things.
I think usually people try to do the right thing.
But sometimes interests conflict and people don't like other people.
It happens.
I think, I wish there wasn't hate.
I wish people said, hey man, you do your thing.
That's what I do.
I say, you wanna go around dressed like a clown juggling bananas?
You got my blessing.
Just don't throw the bananas at other people.
So I can't, I can't tell you that we'll ever end people being mean.
It's gonna happen.
You're gonna have to get over it.
People won't like you.
That's a fact.
LGBTQ2 activists protested Chick-fil-A's opening on Friday.
But people were happy to cross the protest line.
Yeah, because you're...
Yes, because you're nuts, okay?
You have every right to love who you love and express yourself how you express yourself.
But you have to understand, when you protest a chicken restaurant, people will think you're nuts.
You're not protesting the organizations that are oppressing you.
You're protesting the chicken restaurant.
Because somebody who works at the chicken restaurant, at a high level, donates a lot of money to groups you don't like.
I get it.
But seriously, reduce it a little bit, okay?
Go to those organizations.
Some also tried to tell the protesters that they weren't bad people.
A lady yelled, You think I'm homophobic?
I have gay friends.
One man told me he voted for Trudeau.
A smirking guy hiding behind large sunglasses insisted that McDonald's is just as bad.
It is!
Come on!
I've devoted much of my life to advocating for media that allows queer kids to see themselves represented.
It's important to me as someone— See, you see what they've done?
And this is what disgusts me.
They've changed it to queer kids.
You know, now we're not just talking about Chick-fil-A.
We're not talking about the organizations and what they believe.
We're talking about, oh, won't someone think of the children?
That is a manipulation technique to shift the argument onto something vulnerable to manipulate your emotions and take advantage of our goodwill.
Children are not getting married.
You want to talk about this guy opposing same-sex marriage, fine.
But when you shift the argument now to be like, but think of the children.
Oh, the kids.
I'm done.
I'm done with the manipulative BS.
I am here for the rights of everyone.
Everyone.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no matter who you love and what you want to do, how you want to dress.
I get it.
But this is manipulation.
To target a private business that you don't like.
You're not targeting anybody who's actively protesting you.
You're targeting a chicken restaurant, and then trying to deflect and act like Chick-fil-A has anything to do with kids.
So let's play the game.
From Chick-fil-A.
To the founder of Chick-fil-A.
To the organizations that he's donated to.
To the organization's actions which may eventually harm kids.
To your definitive statement that children are being harmed because of a chicken restaurant.
Spare me, okay?
They make chicken, they turn a profit, and most of the businesses are franchises.
The folks at Chick-fil-A took a different lesson.
Buy a meal from them and they'll use your money to increase the suffering of queer kids.
You see the game they play?
This is evil.
Okay?
Manipulation.
Kids are not a part of this equation.
Or you can say, 10 steps down the line.
The argument is, you are protesting a chicken restaurant because profits from the chicken restaurant go to the pocket of a founder who disagrees with same-sex marriage and donates to organizations which also oppose same-sex marriage, which in turn stigmatizes queer behavior, making queer kids feel vulnerable.
All from someone selling a chicken sandwich.
I'm just so sick of it.
Be honest.
Don't protest a chicken restaurant.
It doesn't make sense.
Go and protest every other restaurant that's donated to religious groups.
I don't see it.
They're going after Chick-fil-A because Chick-fil-A was in the news one time like seven years ago.
It's just absurd nonsense.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you shortly.
I saved this story for the last segment of the day because I'm just sick and tired of talking about the New York Times and publishing fake news.
But once again, here we are.
The Kavanaugh story is an ending, but I'm going to start with the New York Times racist reporter because I'm really tired of talking about the Kavanaugh smear.
This story from the Daily Wire.
Trump Jr.
blasts the New York Times after more bigoted tweets revealed.
I can't show you the tweets.
I can't.
A reporter for the New York Times, let me see if I can scroll down just enough to see her name, because if I show you what she tweeted, if I show you what this woman tweeted, I am going to get in trouble on YouTube.
So maybe it's homophobic and racial slurs, as well as animus toward other racial groups dating back several years ago, even a year or two ago.
Another day, another bigot exposed at the New York Times.
Are they even going to do anything to address the rampant hatred at their paper?
The answer is no.
I can't show you what she's saying.
Her name is Gina Sheraloose.
She recently issued a tweet where she said, I have deleted a series of tweets going back a decade.
I'm sorry if I was offending anybody.
Yup.
Here it comes.
Recently, a guy at the New York Times was outed for anti-Semitism.
And you know what?
You're probably going to see the tweets.
I'm just going to go through this, okay?
Because I want to talk about how the media defends this hate, and then acts like they're the ones fighting against it.
It is manipulation, and it's one of the most frustrating things ever.
So, here we have Robin Pogrebin.
Robin Pogrebin said how Fox News twisted the Kavanaugh scandal into a way to attack the New York Times.
This is one of the women who wrote the story that smeared Brett Kavanaugh recently.
She's now sharing a story from Vox claiming Fox News is twisting the scandal to attack the Times.
No, they omitted information on purpose.
They are liars.
They are cheaters.
They are smear merchants.
It's what they do.
And here's the story.
Let me explain something to you.
They're claiming that Fox is twisting the Kavanaugh scandal because they said over the past 24 hours, Fox News hosts and reporters have described changes to the New York Times made to Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly's story as a correction at least a dozen times.
This supercut illustrates how the network is framing things.
Let's talk about framing.
What is a correction?
What does correction mean?
Does it mean you've fixed something?
Does it mean you've applied something to something else to alter it in a way that is more likely true?
Correction is relatively subjective, because what they're doing is saying a correction is literally when you make a false statement and change it to a correct statement.
No.
There are lies by omission.
And if the New York Times added an editor's note to correct the record, do you understand?
Correct the record?
This is what they do.
So I was going to go through this big, long thing, but I just stopped and I said, I do not want to go through this anymore.
The main story I want to highlight is that a New York Times reporter posted a, you know, let's just do it.
Let's just do it.
Let's go through it.
I'm going to get in trouble, but whatever.
There's a homophobic slur.
I'm gonna get in trouble for showing this.
This is the New York Times, okay?
And I know this video will be deranked into oblivion because I just showed that.
I kid you not.
I can't show that on YouTube.
But I think it's important, and I'm willing to take that risk, to show you a New York Times fact-checker Using homophobic slurs.
And there are other ones.
It gets worse.
I think that's too much.
I really do.
I'm sorry.
I can't show you the rest.
She goes through a series of slurs.
This is the New York Times.
And when someone calls them out, they smear Fox News and try and reframe the argument because they were called out for being trash.
Don't forget.
The Washington Post passed on that story, smearing Kavanaugh in the first place.
But let's do this.
Let's move on.
We'll pull up some more tweets, and I'm gonna get in trouble here.
John Cardillo says, Stop lying, Gina.
You were posting racist tweets as recently as this July.
And the ones he showed, he's showing right here, it's safe.
She said something about, I am ready for her to just snitch and blame, and the blame to fall on the white women, but we know that won't happen.
That was just a month or two ago.
The recent tweet she said is, I have deleted offensive tweets from when I was in college nearly a decade ago.
I am truly sorry.
No, apparently she deleted other tweets.
Alright, I think we're not getting in trouble.
Okay, we're good.
Arthur Schwartz tweeting.
Anyone else noticing a pattern with New York Times staff?
Why?
On August 22nd, Tom Wright Piersanti said, I have deleted tweets from a decade ago that are offensive.
I am deeply sorry.
A series of anti-Semitic tweets.
Then we see this a month later.
Gina, I have deleted offensive tweets from when I was in college nearly a decade ago.
I am truly sorry.
The same thing.
Almost basically the same tweets.
The only problem is, that's not true.
She was tweeting offensive things not even that long ago.
I can't, I can't, I can't go through everything.
I really can't.
And it's frustrating.
Here's the story from the rap.
New York Times senior editor Tom Wright Piersanti apologizes and deletes past offensive tweets.
The New York Times staff are overtly racist, bigoted, and they're being caught.
The response from the New York Times was to slam and smear Trump supporters for digging this up.
The cancel culture rules weren't created by Trump supporters.
It was created by woke outrage.
They point out things you've done a long time ago and they get you in trouble for it.
One of the best points brought up recently, at least in my opinion, is that Beto O'Rourke has a criminal history.
Apparently there was like a DUI hit and run or something to that effect.
That was not even that long ago, relative to what we're seeing about Kavanaugh.
The worst claims about Kavanaugh are that he may have, you know, exposed himself at a party and someone pushed him into a woman.
Or that 30 years ago he pushed a woman out of the bed and groped her and then she ran away.
Those have no evidence, no corroboration, no records.
There's been no proof.
No one can prove any of it.
Many of the stories were recanted, but to them, on the left, it's a fact.
And this is the problem.
When I call this out, they say, why won't you talk about the Republicans?
Okay, show me Mitch McConnell falsely accusing somebody of assault.
I don't see it.
Instead, Beto O'Rourke's crimes, which are documented, free pass.
Nobody cares.
Brett Kavanaugh's alleged crimes, of which in several instances there's no victims and there's been several stories recanted, good enough.
Good enough.
The New York Times.
Then tries to pass the buck.
They published fake news.
Listen, there's more than one way to publish fake news, okay?
If you publish something and omit a key detail, the victim doesn't remember it and won't go on the record, and their friends say that she has no recollection of it happening, you'd think that'd be enough.
Leland Kaiser, a friend of Christine Bozzi Ford, you'd think that'd be enough.
No.
I believe the New York Times does all of this on purpose.
They have racist reporters, they have racist articles, and they try and blame conservatives for calling them out.
What's really frustrating about this video, I'm gonna say it, is that I can't show you.
Isn't that screwed up?
This is the problem we face here on YouTube as independent political commentators.
Big story!
Trump Jr.
blasts New York Times after more bigoted tweets are revealed.
I've shown one and I'm probably already gonna get in trouble for it.
I'll have to blur it.
I'm gonna have to blur it.
I'm not exaggerating.
The slur, I can't say it, will get me a channel strike.
Just for showing it.
You know what?
I'm not gonna blur it.
No, screw it.
If I get a strike, I get a strike.
The New York Times said it.
If the New York Times can say it, I should be able to criticize them for it.
But YouTube is propping up big corporate channels and deranking channels like mine.
You hear me say it all the time.
And this is the problem.
The New York Times hired Sarah Jong, an avowed and overt racist.
Avowed and overt.
They've hired numerous people with histories where they've tweeted racist and homophobic things.
And there are now people finding out about it now.
Where was the vetting process?
This is a fact checker.
Only now do they care.
Listen.
I don't care if people made offensive comments in the past, but I do care that the New York Times is continually embracing these racists.
The New York Times is not Twitter.
It's not Facebook.
It is a private company that is choosing to platform these people.
The argument from the left is that Twitter, YouTube, Facebook are private companies, yes, but they're monopolies.
The New York Times doesn't have to hire you if you want to say these things.
The New York Times is choosing to have these people on board.
Now, if these people delete their tweets and apologize, fine, I get it.
I think cancel culture is bad, and let people move on.
These are the rules they made.
The New York Times has done the same thing, calling out people writing stories about past tweets, even recently.
Mainstream media does this all the time.
Now that it's being wielded against them, they're freaking out.
Well, if you want to write fake news to smear Brett Kavanaugh, and then you get called out for it, You can't turn around and then blame conservatives for calling out your lies.
And that's what they're doing.
This is the reporter for the New York Times tweeting out Vox defending their fake news.
Defend the bigots.
Defend the racism and the homophobic slurs.
Do it.
How can you defend the fake news you write that has to be corrected, then publish a defense from another left-wing organization saying, oh, it's not really a correction.
It was just a note.
I can't.
I struggle with this video.
You know, I gotta be honest.
I really wanted to do something breaking down the things that they were saying and showing you what Gina Sheraloo said.
And I can only... I've shown you that one thing and it's already gonna get me in trouble.
Because YouTube is a protected place where we can't call out the powers that be.
So think about that structure.
The New York Times can employ these people.
They can write fake news.
They can change the news cycle.
And when I try and call out for doing it, YouTube would take me down.
That's the power they hold.
That's true privilege.
That's the New York Times getting away with making everything worse.
But I'll end with one more point at least.
The book by Molly Hemingway, Justice on Trial, which calls out the fake news, is doing remarkably better than the education of Brett Kavanaugh, the New York Times fake news nonsense.
So, whatever, man.
I apologize if this video is kind of all over the place, but I'm trying to highlight these things the New York Times does, and I know that if I show it, I'll get in trouble, so I'm just like, I'm stuck.
I'm stuck.
Just, there it is.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast at 6.30.
