Pastor Warns Democrats Will Be "Hunted" As Voters Fear We Are Close To Second Civil War
Pastor Warns Democrats Will Be "Hunted" As Voters Fear We Are Close To Second Civil War. A New poll shows that the average voter feels that we are more than two thirds of the way toward "the edge of civil war." When asked about the political divide and division in the US the mean response was just over 67% toward the edge of civil war.While this may be shocking its actually good news as a previous poll had a mean rating of just over 94% toward the edge of civil war.But while many people may feel it is not as bad as it was before there have been some major news events and warnings showing we may actually be closer now.Politics is downstream from culture. Everything we we see in the culture war will take a while to reach the halls of our government. Donald Trump was a symptom not the cause.Now we are seeing incivility and tensions erupting in the halls of congress when Republicans stormed into the impeachment hearing led by Democrat Adam Schiff. Reports said that one Republican was yelling in the face of Schiff showing that the tensions are starting to reach government.Outside of government however, a pastor has warned of civil war in the event that Trump is impeached, and an Umpire for MLB is under investigation for a tweet insinuating 'cival war.'
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump tweeted a quote from a pastor who said that if he's impeached, there will be a civil war-like rift in this country that can never be mended.
And Trump was mocked for this because people thought the idea of a civil war was ridiculous.
It became a meme.
It became a national trend.
But the reality is, experts have been talking about the potential for a second American civil war for a long time now.
A Princeton professor recently said, we are in a cold civil war.
Well, now we have more data.
According to a new poll, the average voter in this country believes we are already two-thirds of the way to, quote, edge of a civil war.
Now, this is a really weird phrasing.
It's a complicated story.
Because they're not saying we're two-thirds of the way to a civil war, but just to the start of one.
Now that should be alarming, because it means we're getting close to potentially starting a civil war.
I want to make sure it's clear, because I've talked about this many times, that whatever we end up seeing in civil conflict, urban conflict, civil war, whatever, it's not going to look like what we've seen in the past, and it's entirely possible the Princeton professor is correct.
We are already in the civil war, and it's YouTube channels like this, it's the media, it's lies, deception, and politicking, That is making up the information war.
It's possible the culture war doesn't get overly violent beyond what we've seen with Antifa, the Proud Boys, and the street battles.
I disagree, however.
I think based on what we saw the other day in Congress, with Byrne screaming in Adam Schiff's face, we can see now that the culture war is moving into the realm of politics.
You see, politics is downstream from culture, as they say, and that means if the culture war is in full swing, it's only a matter of time before it becomes a political war.
And to me, that's scary.
There's a couple more stories that we need to consider when addressing this poll.
A pastor, potentially the same one, I'm not sure, has also called, has said that there may be a civil war, that people may go out and hunt down Democrats.
It's actually terrifying rhetoric.
We also have the story about an umpire for Major League Baseball who tweeted he was going to go buy a weapon and prepare for civil war if they impeach Trump.
It's entirely possible that we are heading in a direction and we can't stop.
But I do have some good news.
While I tend to be bullish on the idea that something might be happening, that it's more likely than not, this poll is actually a reduction in how far we've gone.
Previous polls showed that people thought we were literally on the edge of a civil war, And things have kind of simmered down a bit.
So, a lot of people are getting this story wrong.
I'm seeing tweets.
I think Bill O'Reilly tweeted about it.
Maybe it was a different study.
But they seem to believe this is showing that 7 in 10 Americans believe we are going to experience a civil war.
That's not the case.
The average voter is saying two-thirds of the way, okay?
So there is a belief that civil war is possible, but we've actually gone down quite a bit.
Let's get started and read this before we get into the more worrisome aspects, because there's a lot of news in the potential for civil war that we need to talk about.
Let's read the story from the hill.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can give.
The best thing you can do is share this video.
I have no way of competing with CNN, MSNBC, Fox News.
If you think I'm doing a good job, then please consider sharing this video to help my channel grow and allow me to keep doing the work that I do.
The Hill reports, the average American voter believes the U.S.
is two-thirds of the way to the edge of a civil war, according to a new Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service poll released Wednesday.
The poll showed that when voters were asked to rate divisions in America on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the edge of a civil war, the mean response was 67.23.
Now that's the mean response.
This could mean that many people put 100.
It could mean that many people put 0, and, you know, most people put 10 or 20, so it leans into 67.
It's hard to know for sure.
They say, the survey also showed a majority of Americans believe that political, racial, and class divisions are getting worse, including at least three quarters of men and women, and three quarters of urban, suburban, and rural voters.
At least 70% of voters in all age groups, as well as white, black, and Hispanic voters feel the same.
Well, hold on, hold on, I gotta stop there.
How is it that basically every demographic believes racial class tensions are getting worse?
You'd think with the massive spike in social justice activism and diversity in media and movies, people would be saying it's getting better, right?
I mean, we have female superheroes, we have Black Panther, we have all of these cultural moments that are supposed to be milestones.
How could things be getting worse?
Well, I can say one thing.
No matter what the cause is, be it psychological or actually getting worse, the social justice activists and what they've been pushing clearly has been ineffective.
That's not a judgment call on whether they should or shouldn't do it, but I think it's an important point to be made, that if most people feel this way, you're not doing what you think you're doing.
They say, while voters agree that societal divisions are growing, they do not appear to agree on the source of the incivility.
Majorities of Republicans say Democratic political leaders, social media, large newspapers, CNN, and MSNBC are very responsible for the political division, while majorities of Democrats say Republican political leaders, social media, Fox News, wealthy special interests, and Trump are the culprit.
It doesn't matter.
It's actually the point.
I think it's funny that they say, while they do think divisions are getting worse, they don't agree on who's causing it, well, that's quite literally evidence of the division.
You have two sides blaming each other.
And that should show you more evidence of the potential for civil war than whether or not anyone thinks a civil war will occur.
If people believe we're 67% of the way towards the edge of a civil war, that's just their opinion, and they may not be following the news, who knows what they really know.
But if it's clear That the overwhelming majority of both sides blame the other side for causing division, well then division is increasing and potentially could be getting worse.
Now there is some good news though.
While they go on to talk about the parameters of the poll, we can take a look at this.
In the actual PDF, we can see that things are actually a bit better.
Check this out.
On a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is there is no political division in this country, and where 100 is political division on the edge of a civil war, where would you rank the level of political division in this country?
In April, it was 94.2.
I missed this story and I talk about civil war quite a bit.
In April, people, most people thought we were literally at the starting point, we were standing on the edge of a civil war.
That's basically a hundred.
It's gone down.
So this is good news at least in the perception that Americans have.
But there's a lot of stories to suggest this is not the case.
The first thing I want to do is show you that this is not a fringe opinion.
I am not making this up.
Don't ascribe that opinion to me, and you know they're going to.
This is from Newsweek.
First, Russian official cancels U.S.
visit, saying Second American Civil War is underway.
Many of you probably already saw this.
I referenced it before, or like I mentioned earlier.
Princeton professor, we are in a cold civil war.
This is rhetoric coming from academics, from foreign government actors.
This is a serious thing that needs to be talked about, and the polls show people are worried about this.
So let's continue the conversation.
Check this out.
Major League Baseball is reviewing Umpire's reported tweet threatening civil war if Trump is impeached.
The reason why I think this story is significant is that Major League Baseball is supposed to be regular pop culture, not the political sphere.
See, here's the sad truth.
Us politicos, we're in a niche, esoteric space.
Most people aren't paying attention to politics.
They have no idea what's going on.
And when I talk to my friends, they have no idea who anybody is.
I'll be playing video games, I'll mention Kavanaugh, and they say, who's Kavanaugh?
Because regular people don't care about this.
They're watching Game of Thrones or, well, Game of Thrones is over, but, you know, Westworld or something.
In this instance, we can see that an umpire for Major League Baseball is paying attention heavily and is now actively tweeting about how he will go and buy a weapon.
The tweet was quickly deleted.
And the individual is now being investigated.
I'm not here to pass judgment on the individual, just to point out that in popular culture, these individuals are speaking up and it's leaking out into Major League Baseball.
But there is still another story.
In this story, Pastor warns, if Trump is removed from office, guys that know how to fight will hunt down Democrats.
Now, I do believe that Newsweek is a bit unfair to this individual.
They've referred to what he said as a threat.
No, I think he was warning there are dangerous people and we have to be careful.
The story reads, Christian church leader Rick Wiles threatened that there's going to be violence in America if President Donald Trump is removed from office.
That is not a threat.
That is a warning.
In fact, Right Wing Watch, which is more critical of the far right, called it a warning.
And that's the fair assessment.
This man in no way threatened anybody or called for anything.
Simmer down now, Newsweek.
You're inflaming tensions.
Wiles, the senior pastor at Flowing Steams Church in Florida, made the remarks on his right-wing True News program Tuesday evening.
He claimed that cowboys, mountain men, and guys that know how to do violence would start attacking and hunting down Democrats, saying, If they take Trump out, there's going to be violence in America, the religious leader said.
That's all there is to it.
However, I'm sorry.
However, he leaves, there's going to be violence in America.
I believe there are people in this country, veterans, there are cowboys, mountain men.
I mean, guys that know how to fight, and they're going to make a decision that the people who did this to Trump are not going to get away with it.
He is warning.
Okay.
This is main, this is, this is political rhetoric.
It is a warning, not a threat.
When people talk about civil war, they often reference street violence and things like this, but that is not what is concerning to me, for the most part.
You know, when we saw these major incidents over the past few years with street battles, I said, I think we're heading in a dangerous direction.
But going back to the point I made earlier, that politics is downstream from culture.
And you need to know, you need to realize then, that everything we see in the streets, it will take time to reach the political space.
I believe we are seeing this.
It's starting to happen.
So let's go back to what happened yesterday.
In this story from CNN, Republicans' circus strategy on impeachment, they say, Rep.
Bradley Byrne yelled in committee chair Adam Schiff's face, but Schiff didn't engage.
Other Democrats, including Val Demings, screamed back at both Byrne and Rep.
Louie Gohmert, who were yelling about the process.
This is not the most dangerous or most disconcerting thing in the world, but we are now seeing Republicans entering a closed hearing.
I'm not here to pass judgment on who was right and who was wrong, just to tell you what happened.
You had Republicans go into a closed hearing and you had one rep get in the face of another and start screaming.
If this escalates, and I fear it will, and we get to the point where there's fights or people being arrested, that's when things truly get scary.
Rashida Tlaib on more than one occasion has stated that they are talking about how to arrest Trump officials who refuse subpoenas because they're in contempt of Congress.
When it gets to the point where people in Congress are calling for police to arrest the other side, and vice versa, you know the escalation is getting particularly dangerous.
Now, it's true that Trump has called for Hillary, and Hillary for Trump, and all of this stuff, fine, but we're talking now about Republicans, a couple dozen, entering a closed chamber, asserting that the rules are not being upheld, the left saying, you are violating the rules, people yelling in each other's faces.
Now, here's the thing.
I want to make a few things clear.
A lot of people are acting like the Republicans are on the committee, so it must be a stunt.
This is not the case.
Republicans have stated even the ones on committee who are supposed to have access to this information are not being granted it.
So let's address some of the commentary.
Sarah Mims tweeted, 12 of the Republicans who protested are actually on the committees doing
the impeachment investigations so they could already get in the skiff and have been in the
depositions already. Okay. However, there have been complaints that they're not, they're still
You see, this is where the problem comes in.
I'm not going to tell you they're right or wrong.
Perhaps they could, perhaps they couldn't.
AOC responded.
What's worse?
Since many of the flash mob already sat on the committees, they knew how serious a breach it was to bring devices into SCIF and did it anyway.
Our country is a game to them.
Remember, the next time they use national security as an excuse for their bad ideas, AOC, once again, inflaming tensions.
This is the problem.
Newsweek calls a warning a threat, everybody is slinging mud, and we're only moving in one direction.
I believe the assessment from the poll that we're 67% of the way towards a civil war, going down, I think that's wrong.
I think it's getting worse.
Especially when someone in baseball is tweeting about it.
Especially when AOC refuses to try and calm tensions and instead points the finger again and screams, the other.
Impeachment, in my opinion, based on the data I've seen, is a strategy to drive negative partisanship for voter turnout.
Moody's Analytics says Trump will win.
They're not going to win based off of we have a good candidate.
It has to be either Trump is good or Trump is bad.
Which one is it?
Are you going to vote good or vote bad?
They want you to vote bad, which means they're going to push hatred for the other.
This will lead to extremely dangerous circumstances.
But let's get to the other side of the issue here.
Rep.
Dan Crenshaw made a video where he looks at a book of House rules.
It says House rules and manual.
And in it, it says that all transcripts will be property of the House members.
What he shows makes no distinction about who is or isn't allowed to see the committees or have access to these transcripts.
Dan Crenshaw then goes down to try and get access and he's denied.
I don't know if Dan Crenshaw is on these committees or not, but the point is, at least according to Dan, a Republican, the rules say they should all have access and they're being denied.
If that's wrong, however, Dan points out at the end of the video that there are many people who are on these committees who are trying to schedule their appointments to get information on these hearings and they're being denied.
Not everyone can be at all of the hearings and if it's true that the people on the hearings are not being allowed in or not being allowed to get transcripts, don't be surprised then when Republicans storm in.
Everybody thinks they're the good guy in their story.
The Republicans think they're on the right side, the Democrats do, and I'm not going to pass judgment.
You figure out, you know, what you think, and don't take it from me, read the news, and then you figure it out.
But I'm telling you this because I assure you, the left is going to say, like what AOC said, they all have access already.
The right is going to say, that's not true, we're not being granted access, and you have to figure out who you think is telling the truth.
Here's the problem.
The division is getting so bad that no one is going to trust the other.
What we're learning from this initial poll, it's irrelevant how far along people think we are, and what's more relevant is that the overwhelming majority of Democrats blame the right, and the overwhelming majority of Republicans blame the left.
I want to leave you with a few important thoughts.
It's called optimism bias, okay?
Optimism bias is why people think it would never happen here, and you would be wrong.
I have talked to people who've experienced conflict, crisis, revolution, because I've been to these countries, and they always said, we never thought it would happen.
You know, for 30 years, Egypt was under Mubarak, and they said, it's never going to change.
You know, there's no way a revolution can happen.
The system is structured perfectly.
And I've had conversations with people who say civil war is impossible.
It's impossible because we live in this major security state.
There's no way a bunch of, you know, left and right wing people fighting in the street will ever lead to anything.
And I try to tell people, listen.
What you don't understand is that, for one, you have an optimism bias.
Okay?
Let me tell you a story.
There's a famous story about a security guard at a bank.
And a bunch of masked robbers come in, and they're armed.
And the security guard does nothing.
And they come up and disarm him, and that's it.
And when he was later asked why he didn't do anything to stop them, he says, I couldn't believe it was actually happening.
That's the optimism bias.
This belief that it can never happen to me.
Listen, I don't know the probability.
I don't know if it's a 99% chance, if it's a 1% chance, or whatever.
But don't assume it could never happen here.
And don't assume that if we're already seeing Republicans storm into a hearing that they feel is unjust, whether they're right or wrong in that assessment, and some get in the face of a Democrat screaming, or yelling, I don't want to be hyperbolic too much, but they're yelling in his face, we're getting dangerously close to the point where, let me put it this way, You had this Major League Baseball umpire say, if they remove Trump.
You've had a pastor say it.
You've had another pastor say things will get bad.
You need to understand, okay, what the mentality is going to be.
It is not going to be someone who just blindly defends Trump.
The left seems to think that the Trump supporters don't care that Trump is corrupt.
No.
The Trump supporters will believe that the Democrats are playing a dirty game and cheating and trying to overthrow the election.
And the left believes that the Trump supporters are blindly and cult-like following Trump.
The reality is both sides are not seeing the bigger picture.
Necessarily.
I'm not saying, you know, I'm not here to say who's right or wrong.
This is more of like a, you need to understand what's happening.
But in the end, it's not about whether the security apparatus of this country can prevent it.
What happens the next time a bunch of Republicans show up to a hearing, or what happens when the Democrats vote for impeachment, and then it comes to Trump, and DC police show up because people aren't obeying subpoenas, the Senate is refusing to hold a vote, the Democrats feel that the rule of law is being subverted, and they can't do anything about it?
What happens when there is a court order Right, so right now you have subpoenas for Barr and other White House officials, and they've ignored them.
And the left is now saying they are violating the rule of the law.
Trump is saying don't cooperate with impeachment.
Cooperation and confidence is breaking down.
Both sides overwhelmingly blame each other, and Republicans just got in the face of a Democrat and started yelling, and it was considered a shocking moment.
They violated national security, everyone's up in arms.
Can it get to the point where a Democrat or Republican throws a punch?
I don't know.
If it does, that's what's worrying to me.
What's worrying is, as Matt Taibbi claimed in an article recently, it comes to a point where people start counting heads.
Who's in control of this division?
Who is this individual loyal to?
And if they say, if the Democrats like Rashida Tlaib come out and say, we want the DC police or US Marshals to go and arrest Donald Trump for refusing a subpoena, And then law enforcement says, no.
Do you think many people on the left are just going to sit by and be like, well, they have a legal court order issued by Congress and Trump is refusing to acknowledge it?
There's a checks and balances here, okay?
Congress and legislative branch, judicial, executive, are supposed to be equal.
And if the legislative says, here's your subpoena and you refuse, and now they want to mandate he comes in and he doesn't, at what point does it break down and the system stops?
And then you have people on the right saying, I will not allow you to send in cops.
The question will then fall into the shoulders of law enforcement.
They talk about how the security system, you know, I've had people say, security in this country is way too, too, too tough.
They will never allow the state to fall.
What happens when there's two high ranking officials, one in the FBI, one in the CIA, and the CIA guy says, Trump must be out.
And the FBI guy says, no way this will destabilize.
Who sides with who is where it all comes down to.
There is not going to be a magic moment where everyone in law enforcement just says, yeah, we're going to side with one side.
No.
It'll fracture.
I'd be willing to bet Immigrations and Customs Enforcement don't side with the left.
I'm removing Trump because they've been calling for their abolition and threatening them.
And there have been, you know, very serious moments of terrifying escalation involving ICE.
So what happens when law enforcement splits and the security apparatus of this country is not uniform?
That's when things get scary.
So don't think that everything's going to be okay.
I don't want to be freaky.
I'm not saying panic.
No, by no means.
By no means.
I think we're a long way off.
I don't know if it's going to happen.
But I think people do.
And like we saw from the poll I showed, previous polls, from a Princeton professor, people believe we are already in the Cold Civil War.
And if you have an optimism bias, you'll be sitting here saying, oh come on, Tim, that'll never happen.
I'll tell you what, man.
I've been to many countries.
I've talked to many people who said it could never happen.
And it happened.
We'll see.
I don't know.
But I'll tell you what, man.
Remember when Trump got inaugurated and 200 plus, it was like 300 or 400 people in black blocks, you know, roamed around D.C.
causing violence and smashing things?
What do you think is going to happen when Trump gets re-elected?
Let's say the House impeaches him, okay?
Because they have the majority.
Let's say they impeach Donald Trump and the Senate refuses.
Democrats will now be furious, insisting Trump is in violation of the law and his allies won't hold him accountable.
Then what happens when Trump gets re-elected?
There is going to be a rage scene like none other.
Think of that meme of the woman falling to her knees and screaming no at the top of her lungs.
Now add four years of Trump, cognitive dissonance, anger, fury, and blame of the other side, and have it happen again.
I gotta admit, I'm a bit worried.
But I'm not super worried, okay?
I don't know.
I've seen stuff, so if anything came down, I'd be like, oh yeah, there you go.
Anyway.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter and Mines, TimCast.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m., and I will see you all there.
Well, it's official!
Clapping has been banned at Oxford University to stop people being triggered.
Really?
Okay, we will read through this story, but let me just go off for a second.
What?
If you're worried about people being triggered because of clapping, something so incredibly innocuous, that you ban it, what more will you ban?
Okay, bright lights?
Gone.
Gives people migraines.
Hey, we can't have loud noise, we can't have bright lights either.
How about anything that might feel rough to the touch?
Okay, maybe that's a little too far.
You know what?
You know what?
Let's stop.
that causes static and then people get static shock.
Gotta stop that.
Okay, maybe that's a little too far.
Okay, how about no yelling for any reason.
All audio must be brought down.
Well, you know what, you know what, let's stop, okay.
Oxford, I get it.
You don't want people being triggered.
Let's just stop the- let's just stop wasting time, okay?
I'm triggered by everything.
Therefore, let's just make everybody wear some kind of gray box over their body so we can't see any of their defining features, and then we'll make them wear something over their head so we can't see their face.
No one's allowed to speak, and we'll have everyone communicate via text, and they'll be in big frumpy bodysuits with no pockets and no defining features.
That way, everybody will be equal.
Is that what we're going towards?
Because... Clapping!
I kid you not.
Triggers?
No one.
Anybody who claims to be triggered by clapping, you should then leave.
We're passing rules at a university now, where young people are supposed to be trained, not trained, but to experience, to be taught to think critically, and prepare themselves for the real world.
This is not doing that.
I assure you.
If you're triggered by clapping, wait till you hear what happens on a busy street with a car.
Meep meep!
Ah, you're gonna scream and then fall down and start shaking?
They're not helping anybody by doing this.
So, let's read this, but I do want to rant about China.
And trust me, it makes sense.
They say, this is from metro.co.uk, students at the University of Oxford have passed a motion to ban clapping because it could trigger anxiety.
Clapping will instead be replaced by jazz hands, where students wave their hands in the air.
I'm sorry, jazz hands is triggering.
It's a visual stimulation of all of these people waving, and it reminds me of conflict and crisis.
I'm going to have to ask everybody not to do jazz hands, because I am triggered by it.
I'm kidding, by the way.
The motion to mandate the encouragement of silent clapping was successfully passed by the university's student union officers following their first meeting of the year on Tuesday.
What is wrong with young people?
I blame the parents!
Oxford students had argued that alternatives to clapping already existed in some organizations and institutions and that they should follow suit.
It comes after the University of Manchester passed a similar motion in September last year.
making events more inclusive and accessible to all.
No, I really don't think so.
Notice what she's doing with her hands.
Guns, that's triggering.
I live in America, okay?
We have a serious gun problem.
Who does she think she is making those gestures?
She should be stripped from office and banned.
Okay, fine.
I'll settle with her never being allowed to do that again.
You see where this goes?
Okay, and I know the problem is they'll say, Tim, that's completely unreasonable.
She's just doing a hand gesture.
Oh, are we going to ban the okay symbol?
Oh, Tim, you're being facetious.
You're not serious.
Listen.
If enough people came out and said, Hersh making her hands in the shape of guns is offensive, yeah, that's all that matters.
But think about how many people are actually triggered by clapping.
Like, nobody!
Okay?
Nobody.
I have to imagine so many of these people are lying.
They're just lying because they want to exert authority over other people.
They want power.
They're bullies.
This makes literally no sense.
And I assure you, once you leave the university and you're walking down the street, and then you hear someone clap really hard and go, yo, to get someone's attention, and you go, huh, and you fall down and start panicking, no one is going to help you.
They're going to say, what's wrong with you?
Nothing happened.
Are they dying?
Is he having a heart attack?
And they're going to say, no, someone clapped, and everyone's going to laugh.
But it may be.
It may be worse than that.
Because this is a wave of young people at a university, and they're going to leave that university.
Now, I believe you'll be hard-pressed to find most people in the world agreeing with something like this, okay?
College students, the college-educated, while there are more and more people, they're not most people.
So what do you think is going to happen when you have some rugged tradesman, okay?
Some dude or woman who's a plumber or carpenter or mechanic.
And they're walking around and there's, you know, cars are backfiring and they're banging a hammer, nailing something in, and then this dainty little figure walks in and goes, please, the noise, it's triggering to my anxiety!
Okay, I don't mean her personally, but seriously, she's supporting this?
That's ridiculous.
I'm not trying to be mean to her personally, but they put her photo up, so now she's here.
But what do you think's gonna happen?
Do you think that tradesmen is gonna be like, I'm so sorry, we'll stop hammering and doing things?
No!
They're gonna say, get out, you crazy person!
What is this?
Universities are not teaching young people how to be adults.
They're actually making them babies.
Like, if you can't handle a loud noise... So, you know what?
I'm just gonna go right into China, because I'll tell you what.
I'm not surprised you see someone like LeBron James.
Recently a video came out where they were doing the National Anthem and then he yells, let's go and storms off and everyone got mad.
Listen man, I don't care if you want to sing the National Anthem.
I don't care if you don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
I really don't care.
It's America.
You're allowed to do whatever you want.
But I'll tell you what, when LeBron James came out, In tacit defense of China and then disrespects the National Anthem.
Now I'm scratching my chin like, what's this guy got?
What's he doing?
What's he doing?
Ah, you may think LeBron James is a fool.
You may think that he is simply disrespectful to America.
No, no, no.
I dare say LeBron James has seen the future.
Think about it.
In the West, what do we have?
The Democratic Socialists of America at that event, where they're all like, point of personal privilege, somebody used a pronoun, and now I'm triggered, you know, Tim, he, him, whatever.
You look at that, and it seems insane.
I've shown that video to some progressive friends of mine, and they're like, what is this?
And I'm like, this is what you, the end result of what you are advocating for.
With all the pronouns and all that stuff.
Like, look man, I don't care if you want me to call you, you know, the Banana King.
I really don't care, alright?
I'll call you whatever you ask me to call you.
But when you institutionalize this, don't be surprised when these meetings are jumbled with gibberish nonsense that accomplishes nothing.
People standing up saying, point of personal privilege, Tim, he, him.
And then the guy goes up and he uses a, guys, please.
And then someone's like, don't use gendered pronouns.
Hey man, listen.
LeBron James has seen all this.
And then he looks to China.
China's racist, ethno-nationalist, fascistic, authoritarian, communist, whatever you want to call it.
Locking people up in concentration camps.
And he thinks to himself, who am I going to bet on?
I got all this money.
I got exhibition games in China.
I got games in America.
I'm not betting on America, he says.
He then says, the best thing I can do is defend China because this is insane.
When you have China doing oil exploration, and to an extent, it's a kind of colonization in various countries.
It's not necessarily the same as colonization was with European countries, but yes, you have so many Chinese, they're leaving the country and they're setting up in other countries, and so their culture is spreading, their people are spreading around the globe.
When you take that into consideration, the country is very ethno-nationalist, very racist, And they laugh and mock all of this.
Yeah, who are you gonna bet on?
Alright?
They're expanding their military, they're pressing on the South China Sea.
In the West, in Europe and the United States.
Hey man, I'll tell you what, Russia?
You scared about Russia?
Russia loves this.
Because Russia is also very, very intolerant of this PC stuff.
Very, very.
Very much so.
Now they do have their feminists.
They do have the European influence, you know, coming into Russia.
But think about the end result of our higher learning institutions doing this.
You're going to have Chinese people being cutthroat business, you know, business types.
Look, the Chinese are so intensely fascistic.
They have concentration camps where they harvest organs.
Think about that.
It is a mirror image to what this university is.
Now listen, we don't want to be organ harvesters like the weird communist Chinese.
That's psychotic.
In fact, I think we need to figure out how to stop that for sure.
But we also don't want to be dainty little flowers who are terrified of making noises with our hands.
Think about what the result is.
The gigantic brutish force that is China is looking at us and laughing.
They're saying, look how pathetic these people are.
They're going to steamroll us over time as this kind of mentality, you know, percolates through the West.
What do you think's going to happen?
Do you think the US and Europe is going to survive?
I'm sorry, man.
I'm leaning towards—hold on, hold on.
I was obviously joking about LeBron James looking at all this and making that decision.
I'm trying to make a point that if you were a millionaire, a multimillionaire, and you're trying to figure out where to hedge your bets, where you're going to be safe, yeah, you're going to side with—like, I'll put it this way.
You got one gigantic dude.
He's got a gigantic club and he's banging on the ground and he's like, I will crush you!
And you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
And then the other guy next to you is this nerdy dude with glasses going, excuse me, sir, please don't make loud noises with your hands.
Who are you going to choose for your team?
You're going to be like, hey, giant angry dude who's smashing those people at that club, can I be on your side?
And he's going to be like, all right, fine, get over here.
But don't talk back.
You got it, man.
And then that dude's going to walk over to the dainty nerdy guy, and he's going to be like, you can't swing that club.
And he's going to go, goosh, and just take him out.
You see the point I'm trying to make?
I'm kidding, by the way.
I don't think LeBron James thought that far ahead.
I think he's just looking at his checkbook being like, hmm, a lot of money comes from China, better not say anything bad.
But in the US, I can say whatever I want.
Isn't that, that's actually a really, really great way to wrap this up.
LeBron James has no problems disrespecting America, the national anthem, you know, speaking politically, because no one in the U.S.
can stop him.
He can say whatever he wants.
But he's terrified of China.
It's kind of a funny thing to go from they banned clapping at Oxford into this, but you see what I'm saying, right?
I feel like what I'm saying makes sense, all right?
People are openly disrespectful towards America and what we are and what we represent.
Yes, some of it's bad.
A lot of it's good.
But they're terrified of China.
China is going to... Look, man, if we stay on this track, 50 years.
You think this culture will expand that long?
Man, I think we're on the verge of some kind of civil war.
And it's not my opinion, alright?
It didn't originate with me.
I started talking about civil conflict, war, whatever you want to call it, because New York Mag and other mainstream publications started entertaining it, saying it was likely.
Now we've got a Princeton professor saying it, but I'll tell you what, man.
If this weakness, frailty, fragility expands, and it is.
We're seeing it.
Look, we've got democratic socialists in Congress.
They are pathetically weak people.
I'm not trying to be... I don't say pathetic in a... Well, I'm trying to strike an emotional chord.
I'm saying, in the literal sense, they are fragile, weak, timid individuals.
They get angry and flustered over the wrong use of a word.
Could you imagine a war 50 years from now, where the Chinese just walk up clapping, and then everyone's going like, ahhh, and they fall down and they're writhing in pain?
Like, what do you think's gonna happen, man?
So, I will tell you this.
One of the reasons that I like Tulsi, Dan Crenshaw, excuse me, And even, to an extent, Pete Buttigieg, is because they have real experience in dramatic, traumatic hardship.
They served this country, they were trained, and they're probably very collected.
I think Buttigieg's got a... not... I don't... I think he's wrong on a lot of things.
However, I think Crenshaw and Gabbard are significantly more correct, though I think, you know, I disagree with Dan on a lot of things.
But think about who our leaders are.
When you have urban folk, you know, AOC for instance, who has never experienced real hardship.
I mean, you can talk about her growing up in the Bronx and all that, but come on, let's be real, okay?
I'm talking about people who have seen their friends lose their lives.
I'm talking about true violence in gang territory.
And as far as I understand, and if I'm wrong, forgive me, AOC, and I'll take the correction, but You know, even though there's dispute over whether or not she grew up in like a nice house in this nice area or her mother was cleaning toilets or whatever, that's still not the worst life in the world.
That's still not necessarily hardship.
It is pampered, privileged American elitism that you went to a university.
Sorry, I couldn't afford to do that.
I was too busy being homeless.
But you know what?
That gives you grit.
Because these things roll off my back.
And if China wants to come out and say, bend the knee, I'll laugh.
And I will stand up and say, you know, open arms.
It's like, listen.
Don't take my word for it.
Go watch the video of what happened when I got confronted by Antifa in Boston.
I stood right there, and I was like, come on, what do you got?
You know what I mean?
Like, I'm not playing any games with you, buddy.
And he got in my face, and he hit my camera, and I stood my ground.
You are not going to push me off my path.
You are not going to infringe on my rights.
I will go down with my ship like any good captain.
You want to fire those cannons?
Take it out.
I will stand there and I will salute as I go down because I won't back down.
Unfortunately, these people will.
And the people at the university and in these administrations who are bending to this psychosis are frail, terrified individuals.
So you know what?
I'll tell you this.
It's not just the students.
I almost don't blame the students.
I blame the administrators.
Two big things.
There's this terrible Mentality among an older generation.
I don't necessarily want to say boomers entirely, but a little bit of boomers, a little bit of Gen X. Refusing to discipline young people, okay?
Tell them you can't.
Tell them no.
Instead, they're desperate to be cool dad or cool mom.
Like, oh, you want to jump off the roof with an umbrella?
Okay, just don't get hurt.
Oh, they broke their leg.
Maybe you should say no, stop doing that, you idiot.
You gotta discipline your kids and tell them right from wrong.
But something happened and they didn't do that.
Instead, they just snowplowed everything.
And whenever the kid did something wrong, they'd say, Don't worry, you can never do wrong, my little snowflake.
And now the kids are all... this.
Don't clap.
I said don't clap.
Spoiled.
The other issue is economic incentive.
Let me critique capitalism.
And this is why I am not a laissez-faire capitalist.
You see, you want to talk about capitalism?
Let's talk about what this is.
Economic incentives.
It makes more sense for a business to say, the customer is always right, instead of telling these kids to shut up and start clapping again.
These universities are saying, if we challenge the kids, they will leave and we will lose money.
It is a competitive market, so just give the kids whatever they want.
No.
That's not what a university is supposed to do.
But in the short term, it guarantees that income.
If you truly wanted to provide a service, think about these two things combined.
If some kid at a university started complaining about clapping, the first thing that should happen is the university should say, we're not going to ban clapping, you're nuts.
And then the parents should say, what is wrong with you?
Be quiet!
You think clapping is a problem?
And tell that kid, enough!
We won't tolerate this.
Instead, here's what's happening.
The parents are going to the university and saying, why is my kid not being listened to?
They think clapping is a problem!
I demand you protect my snowflake!
Otherwise, we will pull out of this school!
And then the school goes, we can't lose that money.
We can't, we can't, just give them whatever they want.
And that's what's being developed in our society.
Meanwhile, China is growing, expanding, they're aggressive, they're militaristic, and we're sitting back.
Think about the path we're on.
So you know what?
I can't predict the future, man.
I'm not gonna tell you what's gonna happen.
All I can tell you is that these people are out of their minds, you know?
So, hey.
I'm a pretty, pretty staunch individualist to a certain extent.
Like, I'm... You know, I'll tell you this, man.
I say milquetoast, fat sitter, but I am very, very much so liberty, individualism.
However, I do believe in a greater collective.
So it's complicated, right?
It's not that you're either a collectivist or an individualist.
I believe the United States is our collective.
And I believe, you know, protecting it is important.
However, within this system, we must protect and respect individual rights and civil liberties.
And I do believe that as a community, we come together for a lot of reasons.
This is why policy-wise, I lean left on a lot of issues.
But when it comes to philosophical issues, I'm very much individualist.
And I think this is why it puts me kind of in the middle.
Conservatives are very individualist.
Liberals are very collectivist.
And I believe in individualism, but the importance of the collective to defend our freedom, right?
So I'm kind of right in the middle.
So anyway, I'll leave it there.
Congratulations.
This will continue.
It will get worse.
Welcome to 2020.
We're entering 2020.
Let's see what comes next.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
A viral video moment during Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before Congress is sparking outrage, because Ocasio-Cortez implied that The Daily Caller is a white supremacist-tied organization, and that is disingenuous, okay?
That is a baseless smear that is trying to connect various dots to create a pathway—it's just nonsense.
The Daily Caller is not a white supremacist organization, but you've heard the smear before.
Please.
However, the lie, or I should say, let's be nice, AOC was dead, dead wrong in her line of questioning.
She's basically trying to allege that by allowing the Daily Caller to be a fact checker on Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is allowing a white supremacist organization to check the facts, yada, yada, yada.
Here's the problem.
Actually, let me read this, but let me tell you.
AOC is wrong across the board.
Daily Caller is not a fact checker for Facebook.
Okay?
CheckYourFact is, which is associated with the Daily Caller, but I understand splitting hairs, but Mark Zuckerberg said they don't appoint these people.
Okay?
Pointer Institute does.
And Pointer Institute, as far as I know, kind of leans left in their perspective, like most news organizations.
And I believe they were being fair by saying, Daily Caller disagrees in some ways, CheckYourFact.com is associated with them, but they're a standard, independent fact-checking organization, so they'll be approved.
That was fair.
Well, AOC is wrong, to say the least.
But she wants Mark Zuckerberg to police speech.
She was basically saying, what if somebody lied about this?
Why would you allow that?
And Mark's trying to say, we shouldn't be the ones in control of political speech.
I'll tell you what, man.
Mark Zuckerberg's between a rock and a hard place on this one.
And I will also stress, how dare you, Ocasio-Cortez, force me to defend Mark Zuckerberg.
You know, I'm not a fan of Mark Zuckerberg.
Facebook has done so many things that I think are awful.
I'm not a crazy person, though.
Like, I think most of us who are adults understand that Facebook doesn't solely operate on the whims of Mark Zuckerberg.
Meaning, they have a lot of employees around the world, and a lot of senior-level managers, and, you know, there's a C-suite, there's investors, and Mark Zuckerberg doesn't control literally everything at the company.
That would be impossible.
Which means, sometimes when bad things happen, it's not because he ordered it.
Right?
Like when it comes to Cambridge Analytica, on something he was questioned about, he said, I was made aware, basically when the public was made aware, that they were mishandling data.
So, listen, Mark Zuckerberg, the buck stops with you, and you need to figure out how to solve these problems, but why is AOC making me defend the guy?
I'll defend the Daily Caller, absolutely, they're certified by NewsGuard, but check this out.
AOC to Mark Zuckerberg.
You would say white supremacist-tied publications meet a rigorous standard for fact-checking?
You would.
He didn't approve them.
They're not white supremacist-tied.
It's kind of like the question, when did you stop beating your wife?
It's a loaded question that makes an assumption that he must— You can't answer yes or no to that.
It makes no sense.
Now, here's the thing.
You get the gist of it.
The left is now, mind-blowingly, lying?
I don't want to say, like, the left, but there are leftists, and there are media publications, for some reason, you know, they hate Mark Zuckerberg so much, you know, I think I know why, that they're gonna lie.
And this makes me angry.
Check this out.
Here's one tweet from Judd LeGum.
Zuckerberg's answer to AOC here is disingenuous.
He pretends Facebook had no role in selecting the Daily Caller and it was Pointer that made the decision.
False.
There are many approved sites that are not Facebook fact-checkers.
Facebook's Joel Kaplan pushed for the Daily Caller.
Sure.
Sure.
It doesn't matter, however.
CheckYourFact is not the Daily Caller.
I understand they're associated, but come on.
First of all, you made the leap from CheckYourFact to Daily Caller.
Daily Caller is not a fact-checker.
Second, regardless of whether or not someone pushes for something, Pointer has strict guidelines.
If CheckYourFact follows the guidelines, they get approved.
It's not false, and by saying there are many approved sites that are not Facebook fact-checkers, nobody asked that.
We're asking whether or not it is true that Facebook appointed the Daily Caller.
First, we'll split the hair.
No, the Daily Caller is not a fact-checker.
Next, we'll get out of the semantics and into the fact that Poynter Institute, it's called the Independent Fact-Checking Network, of which there are other members, they ultimately decide which organization is following their guidelines for fact-checking.
I'm sorry to people like AOC who are upset that, unfortunately for them, the Daily Caller is not only certified as credible, to an extent, NewsGuard rates them green, but says there are some significant exceptions, that they have deceptive headlines, and they mix opinion with fact.
But they don't publish false content.
They're responsible, and they do correct their errors.
They're not perfect, but they are rated credible by NewsGuard, and they're not white supremacists, okay?
And that's the concern, right?
The left is angry that conservative news would get taken seriously.
At least AOC is, so they call them white supremacists.
That's absurd.
This is a story from February 15th, 2018.
Pointer accepts the Daily Caller's Check Your Fact site to international fact-checking network.
Are we done here?
Apparently we're not.
There's a lot to go through.
Because the Daily Caller responded to the baseless smears and said, basically, look, this statement from AOC is putting us at risk.
I'm going to read this, but I want to make the bigger and more important point.
Ocasio-Cortez is arguing that Mark Zuckerberg should be fact-checking, that Facebook should be fact-checking political speech.
Okay.
Well, based on that standard, AOC's own line of questioning would be removed from Facebook.
Because the Daily Caller is not fact-checking.
Check Your Fact is.
And it wasn't Facebook who appointed them.
That's misleading.
That's disingenuous.
And to accuse the Daily Caller of being white supremacist is bordering on slander, libel, defamation, etc.
Now, here's the thing.
Whether or not someone is white supremacist tied is an opinion.
And that's the game they play.
Yep.
So I'll tell you one of the things going on with me right now and why defamation, you can't do anything about it.
NBC claims that I pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy.
You know how I did that?
By talking about it and saying it likely was not true.
How about them apples?
I gave a percentage where I said, based on a Fox News story, where they claimed there was evidence.
Eh, 65%.
That turned out to be true.
And then I added, let's be real though, these things never turn out to be true, the likelihood someone comes out with any hard evidence, even if it was, is none, so I told everybody, calm down, back away, stop asserting this, and that's my position today.
The story was retracted from Fox, there's no evidence, you gotta knock it off.
But they wanted to smear me because I went to the White House.
So an NBC News guy writes that I pushed the conspiracy, and guess what?
I can't sue.
Because pushed has various meanings.
Now to the people who hate Trump, they're going to see that and claim that I was asserting it was a fact.
And from there, other news outlets then started claiming I did.
And guess what?
What am I supposed to do?
Hire a lawyer for 50 grand to go and send a cease and desist to literally every publication who parroted fake news?
We are in a dangerous fake news time, and AOC should be ashamed of herself for accusing The Daily Caller of being white supremacists.
Here's what they said in response to AOC's recent comments regarding The Daily Caller from our publisher, Neil Patel.
They wrote, Our reporting has directly contributed to putting four members of the alt-right in prison and sending two more on the run, at great personal risk to our reporters on the ground.
And as a minority-owned and minority-run news company with a diverse staff, including many African-American, Jewish, Asian, and other minority employees, any allegation that our company is in league with white supremacist types is offensive.
We have denounced white supremacy in the past and are happy to do so again.
We share nothing with them and they aren't welcome at our company.
For a sitting member of Congress to knowingly repeat such spurious allegations, especially during these polarized, violent times, is not just despicable, it endangers our staff.
And they link to a story that says the horrors of white supremacy will not go unreported by us.
And this story is them saying white supremacists brutally attack black teen next to Charlottesville Police HQ.
I gotta be careful about what I read.
The point is, the Daily Caller is conservative, but they're certainly not racists, they're certainly not white supremacists, and they are approved as being credible by not just Poynter, but NewsGuard as well.
Okay?
Well, apparently, this is how the game is played.
AOC smears them, and guess what?
The lie gets repeated because nobody knows the underlying claim.
From now on, You will start seeing people say, ooh, isn't the Daily Caller that white supremacist thing?
Where did you hear that?
AOC just basically said it.
Does she have proof?
She didn't assert any evidence.
Welcome to the current, you know, the current world we live in.
This is the International Fact-Checkers Network Code of Principles from Poynter.
Poynter made the standard.
They say, The Code of Principles of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter is a series of commitments organizations abide by to promote excellence in fact-checking.
We believe non-partisan and transparent fact-checking can be a powerful instrument of accountability journalism.
Okay.
Well, I'm sorry to the left that they're so upset that conservatives aren't making everything up.
You know what's fascinating to me?
Is that some of the criticism levied at me is that I've amplified conservative claims of bias against conservatives, but that's a fact.
I didn't make it up.
Gizmodo reported it.
But here's the game we play.
Left-wing activists in media who pretend to be journalists because of the power that journalism wields, and let's be real, there are right-wing activists who do the same thing, claim to be journalists, Act like it's a conspiracy theory on purpose and ignore the mountains of evidence.
It was the left.
It was Gizmodo that broke this story.
Well, they don't like the fact that it's predominantly conservative outlets reporting on it now because they've backed away from it, and they don't like me for talking about it, so they want to smear me, but I'm sorry.
Guess what?
I'm a journalist.
I've been a journalist for a long time.
And you are not exempt from being fact-checked.
But for some reason, you know, for many reasons, media in this country is overwhelmingly left-leaning.
And they'll tell you it's not true, but the polls show it, and common sense should tell you otherwise.
The major media companies, Fox News included, are headquartered in big cities, mostly in New York, where most people who live there and are going to be working for these companies are going to be urban liberals.
Did you know that at Fox News in New York City, many of the support staff are liberals?
Surprise!
Brett Baier is an excellent journalist, anchor, and host.
He's not an opinion guy.
He's apparently writing some books.
What they don't do, right?
Here's the thing about Fox News.
Fox News has opinion personalities that are on the right.
But most of their news reporting is fine.
Credible.
Absolutely okay.
They have their morning opinion show, Fox and Friends, but then throughout the day they have just regular old news.
I have tremendous respect for Brett Baier.
I watched one segment where somebody, he was interviewing somebody, and they tried to get him to push an opinion, and he just shut him down immediately, because, like, that's not who he is.
He is a straight-laced news, I don't know if that's the right word, but he is an honorable news reporter, anchor.
He's not playing this game.
And so the problem everybody has with Fox News is their conservative personalities with their conservative opinions.
You're allowed to have opinions?
I don't care about that.
The left doesn't like the idea that conservative outlets are credible.
In fact, when NewsGuard certified Fox News, a bunch of leftists were angry and a university page, I can't remember which one, wrote an article explaining how could they possibly be credible?
How could Fox News be?
It's all fake news.
And there's the bias.
So that's one of the reasons why I've used NewsGuard, even though I really disagree with some of their assessments, because they fairly and objectively, to a certain degree, rate news organizations, including Fox News, The Daily Call, and Daily Wire, as overtly credible.
Well, the left doesn't like that because media is power.
That's why when I was out reporting Occupy Wall Street, they propped me up saying, see, look what Tim is showing is true and proof.
Support him.
And then when I started showing things and talking about things that weren't good for them, because I'm on no one's side, they immediately said, you're right wing.
How dare you?
You can't.
Calling me a liar and all that stuff.
Sorry!
You can't prop me up for years saying I'm the only honest journalist, but as soon as your dirty laundry is put out to air, you get mad and call me a liar.
Welcome to politics.
I'll tell you what.
There are left-wing credible sites, there are right-wing credible sites, and AOC, you need to grow up and accept that.
But I'll tell you the most mind-numbing thing.
First, they made me defend Mark Zuckerberg.
Not happy about that.
I actually felt bad for the guy when the snooty AOC was... She is the most off-putting person I have seen in politics, okay?
The way she talks with the snooty I'm-better-than-you-and-you-have-to-listen-to-me... So, Mark...
Do you think white supremacists are rigorous, you know, whatever?
It's like, dude, stop, okay?
You want to ask a question?
Mr. Zuckerberg, one organization that's one of your fact-checkers has been accused of having ties to white supremacy.
Whether or not those claims are true, I'm curious as to what you did to certify this and potentially push back on that criticism.
Hey, how about that for a question?
Mark Zuckerberg then responds, we actually don't approve them.
It's an independent fact-checking network.
Thank you, Mr. Zuckerberg.
That's my time.
But this is not what politics is about.
Politics is about winning points.
And they just love that she took down the GOP.
That's why whenever she's faced with criticism, she doesn't address the criticism.
She says, the GOP is doing this.
It's like, dude, I've criticized you, okay?
I'm not a Republican.
Oh, but you have to be.
Anybody who criticizes the great AOC must be GOP.
You know, man, when I praised her for her calling out Big Tech in a less bombastic way, I wasn't called leftist, was I?
You see how the game is played?
It flows in one direction.
If I agree with them, they'll say, you're good.
That was what you were supposed to do.
If I disagree, you're a right winger!
Okay, how many people came out and said Tim Pool pushed a left-wing talking point by supporting Elizabeth Warren's plan to break up Big Tech?
Crickets!
How many people came out before they released the Green New Deal?
I was overly praising the concept of massive government investment into new technologies and infrastructure.
What they released was free healthcare, free college, and all these things.
I'm like, dude, you're trampling over environmentalism.
But when I made that video, did they come out and say Tim Pool is left-wing?
Nope.
When AOC got elected, when she won the primary, I'm sorry, I came out and praised most of her top talking points.
It was like, wow, 60% of what she's running on, I agree with.
Like getting rid of private prisons, things like that.
And did anybody come out and say I was left?
No.
This is how the game is played.
You must be permanently bent at the knee if you want to be on the left.
Well, I don't play that game.
I call it like it is, and I'm honest.
And that means if Mark Zuckerberg was right in this circumstance, then I gotta give it to Mark Zuckerberg, even though I personally don't like him and what his company does.
But you know what?
I actually felt bad for the guy.
And that really makes me angry.
You know what I mean?
Facebook has done such awful things.
With shadow profiles leaking data, spying, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
Facebook is a dirty, dirty beast.
It's not all bad, I know.
Facebook has done a lot.
The democratization of the internet is a good thing.
But Mark Zuckerberg is worthy of a lot of ire and criticism.
In this capacity, though, He's right.
He was correct.
And AOC was snooty and wrong.
So you know what?
Whatever.
I can't stand politics, man.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Different channel, and I will see you there.
Let's get real, and let's get serious.
There's a big story right now.
A Democrat, Katie Hill, in Cal- I believe in California, there are photos coming out showing her in, you know, a relationship with a young aide.
There's a photo of her and she's naked.
And people are using this against her and they're criticizing her.
And now there are many, many more photos being leaked by, being published by the Daily Mail and other outlets.
Intimate photos, text messages, and I personally am disgusted by this.
And you know what?
Matt Gaetz is as well.
You want to talk about ethics violations from Katie Hill?
Let's do it.
You want to talk about criminal behavior?
There is some, yep.
It would seem.
It would seem.
I don't want to say it definitively.
You want to talk about house ethics violations?
I'm right there with you.
But the Daily Mail published photos of Katie Hill nude.
They insinuated that because she has an Iron Cross tattoo near her bikini line that it's a Nazi-era photo.
That is a ridiculous insinuation, and I reject it outright, and I am disgusted by this behavior.
Matt Gaetz came to her defense following publishing of many of these photos, and that is a class act on Gaetz's part.
I fully respect this.
And I am disgusted by the people who are coming out, you know, targeting Katie Hill with her private text messages, her intimate details of her life.
If she wants to have a girlfriend and have a three-way with her husband and, you know, hang out, drink, and do whatever, that's her private business.
These are not policy arguments people are bringing up.
They're targeting her private life to smear.
But you know what?
We all have weird things in our private lives.
And Matt Gaetz brings this up.
I got tremendous respect for this guy coming out in defense of Katie Hill.
Check this out.
So I believe Katie is a Democrat, and she's in a traditionally Republican district.
I'm not going to show you the bulk of this article.
You know why?
They published private texts, they published personal photos, and I even went in to inspect and deleted some of these photos because I was planning on going through this and showing some of these details.
I don't want to talk about her private life, and you shouldn't either.
But it's gotten to the point now where it's escalated and Daily Mail is actually getting this information, it seems.
It seems like Katie Hill's ex, you know, partners, I don't know which one, are upset.
And they're leaking information.
Or somebody is, I don't know who's doing it.
But it's none of my business.
It's none of anyone's business if she's having a relationship with a husband and a girlfriend, okay?
You do you.
We're supposed to be about liberty and freedom.
You don't like her?
Fine.
But people have private lives and they're allowed to.
Now there are a couple points I need to bring up.
We are learning of potential house ethics violations.
Fine.
That's a good thing.
You want to talk about that because of the information that was leaked?
Let's talk about it.
You don't need to publish photos of her nude and insinuate she has a Nazi-era tattoo.
That's ridiculous.
There's another point that needs to be brought up.
In this photo they published, she has a bong, and it appears she's smoking marijuana.
Now, I personally believe pot should be legal across the country, and in California and many places, it is.
According to the metadata, they believe the photo was taken before recreational marijuana was allowed in California, which means she probably broke the law.
You know what?
I don't think it's acceptable for a federal-level politician, a congressperson, to be doing a drug that is illegal federally while there are other people facing federal prison charges for doing that same drug.
So hypocrisy, yes.
Can we talk about policy, hypocrisy, and challenge unethical behavior without violating the privacy rights of individuals or playing into the whims of angry ex-boyfriends and girlfriends?
Because as far as I'm concerned, what we're seeing here is the weaponization of what is tantamount to revenge porn because she had a bad breakup.
It has nothing to do with the merits of policy.
It has nothing to do with moving our conversation forward or bringing people together.
It is a underhanded cheap shot against somebody.
You can tell this makes me angry, you know?
Let me read the end of the story, because Katie Hill is addressing the issue, and then I want to show you what Matt Gaetz said, and I seriously mean this.
Matt Gaetz, class act.
Class act.
You have my respect for coming to her defense.
Let's bring some civility back into this.
Again, she can be called out all day and night for the ethics violations.
But publishing private details of someone's relationship is ridiculous.
And to those who are in the political sphere using this, I do not have respect for you, okay?
In a text to Desjardins, that's the staffer that she was having an affair with, Hill wrote the breakup was maybe partially over the political risk of the relationship, saying, honestly though, it's that I want to be alone, the congressman wrote.
I don't want to be accountable to anyone else.
I want to be entirely focused on this work that I think is so important.
And then, all of a sudden, they use this against her.
I'm disgusted by this, man.
She wanted to get to work.
She was focused on that.
That's what she's saying.
And I feel bad enough having to even read that statement because it was a private statement.
But I think it's important to show that she is being punished for trying to focus on her passion and her career.
Haslip claimed in his July divorce filing that after the breakup, Hill diverted her congressional salary to a separate account and that he was left without money to run a car or feed the animals on the couple's ranch outside of Santa Clarita.
And that is a divorce issue, okay?
Take it up with a divorce lawyer.
I'm sorry that happened to you.
I don't know who's leaking this information, but it is sick to me.
In a text to her husband, Hill writes that she will continue to pay the bills and the mortgage for him.
Quote, I hope you know that my intent was never to leave you high and dry.
I simply was trying to separate things since I was moving out, she wrote.
The House Ethics Committee announced Wednesday that they are investigating Hill's relationship with Desjardins, which could violate congressional rules.
Following the announcement, Hill sent a letter to her constituents admitting to and apologizing for the relationship, adding that she is fully and proactively cooperating with the Ethics Committee.
Quote, I am going through a divorce from an abusive husband who seems determined to try to humiliate me.
I am disgusted that my opponents would seek to exploit such a private matter for political gain, and so am I. Okay, so am I. Absolutely.
I will criticize you based on your politics.
I will call you out based on your bad ideas.
We should not be playing these games.
That's what she wrote.
Distributing intimate photos with the intent to publish them is a crime and the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law.
I have notified Capitol Police who are investigating it.
I fully respect Matt Gaetz.
I can't stress this enough.
You know, at a time when political divisiveness is extreme, the video I just made before this one is talking about the potential for civil war.
That's what people are saying.
Whether it's going to happen, I'm not trying to play that game.
You get someone like Matt Gaetz to come out and defend a Democrat and point pointing out what needs to be said on principle and it is the right thing to do and I wish I want more people to do it.
Matt Gaetz comes to Katie Hill's defense amid ethics investigation.
Daily Caller reports, Democratic California Rep Katie Hill is getting support from an unlikely ally as she contends with an ethics investigation over an alleged affair with a young staffer.
Republican Florida Rep Matt Gaetz called the investigation into Hill's behavior absurd and implied Thursday that she was only being subjected to an ethics investigation because she is bisexual.
I think it's political.
I think, first and foremost, it's a scorned ex.
We all know how that can be, right?
Could you imagine what you would be going through if your ex started leaking your photos and your texts?
Unacceptable.
Okay?
We're supposed to trust people.
And when you break up with someone, you have... there should be... no matter how much you hate each other, when you end a relationship, You should mutually respect that you do not leak private details, and you move on, grow up, and don't be immature.
Now let's be real.
I think Katie Hill's political career is over.
And it is a shame.
Her career should be over because of her ideas, not because of what she was doing with her husband and a girlfriend.
Now I'll stop.
The smoking pot thing is pretty serious in my opinion.
Look, you can't have a federally illegal drug.
Go and do it while other people are paying the price for that.
I understand.
In my opinion it should be legal in California.
It is.
Apparently it wasn't at the time.
That's something to bring up.
And we're learning about it now because of this.
But I kind of feel like it falls into exclusionary rule territory for me.
Basically, that I personally refuse to weigh that as evidence against her because of the malicious and unethical way in which it was released.
I believe that, you know, like the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule, if you're not familiar, I could be getting it wrong, but it's basically that evidence seized in violation of your rights is inadmissible in court.
If you want to prove she's done something wrong, prove it.
But having an ex leak salacious nudes of her and then get published in the press is not the way we go about doing this, and it's not a society I want to live in.
I understand the world isn't fair, and I feel bad that it's happening to her because, once again, I want to win a fair fight.
I want to win politically when we have a real discussion.
Just like so many Trump supporters who have come out recently and said they want the president to win and they want him to win right.
The same is true for this.
Okay, the dirty tactics used by Democrats in impeachment I call out all day.
You want to beat the president, talk to the American people, have a legitimate vote, not some negative partisanship BS.
Matt Gaetz tweeted, He said, this is just absurd.
The only person who seems to have a gripe is Rep.
Katie Hill's soon-to-be ex.
Who among us would look perfect if every ex leaked every photo text?
Katie isn't being investigated by ethics or maligned because she hurt anyone.
It's because she is different.
They say Hill has admitted to engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a female campaign staffer, but has denied allegations that she engaged in an affair with a male staffer.
Hill is currently separated from her husband, and she has blamed the saga on her abusive marriage.
Hill has said that she will cooperate with the ethics investigation.
It is focused on her alleged affair with a male staffer, which would be in violation of House ethics rules.
The 32-year-old freshman representative had already been expected to face a tough re-election campaign in her traditionally Republican California district, and she's expected to be a top Republican target as the party looks to regain control of the House.
I can only assume that she's a moderate individual.
You know what really, really made me angry?
I'm sorry, I don't want to rant on this too much longer.
It made me angry that they tried highlighting that she has an Iron Cross tattoo.
That made me very, very angry.
I understand that there are Democrats who weaponize this and play this dirty game, and I call that out.
But I will give my respect, so far, to at least Matt Gaetz.
Because you have a Republican coming out to her defense, a Democrat, and that does warm my heart.
I feel bad that it seems Katie Hill is going to lose her political career over a scorned relationship.
I want all of us to address these political battles on their merits.
Bernie Sanders recently had a heart attack, and I was upset, very upset.
I want Bernie Sanders to stand challenge to his ideas, to stand the challenge to his ideas.
To stand up and have someone say, here's why I disagree, here's why you were wrong, and have him answer for that.
We do not win, we do not progress when people are knocked into the fight through cheap shots.
See, here's the thing.
When Bernie had a heart attack, if he exited the fight, we wouldn't know, we wouldn't have the public space to debate his ideas.
We need him in the race to present his good ideas and his bad ideas and to knock down what's bad and prop up what's good.
Whether you agree with him or not, I'm not saying his ideas are good or bad, I'm saying that we only progress when we can accept good ideas and listen to them and challenge them and scrutinize them.
The same is true for Hill.
I cannot stand this celebrity salacious style nonsense in politics.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments for you later.
I'll see you in a minute.
Joe Biden's campaign announced an outreach program called Todos con Biden. I believe
that means everybody with Biden. Unfortunately, they didn't actually claim any of the digital
properties that go along with it. And what you're seeing right now is actually Donald Trump's
website. That's right.
totosconbiden.com is paid for by Donald J. Trump for America and it says, oops, Joe forgot about Latinos.
But here's, let's talk about context.
You can see the site.
It links.
Vamos.
Let's go.
Let's talk about what happened and how it came to be that not only did Donald Trump's campaign seize the outreach campaign of Joe Biden, I shouldn't say seize because Biden's campaign never bought it in the first place, but they got Trump one-upped Biden Bad.
But let's talk about context.
Because it's not just about the fact that Trump and his campaign are way more digitally savvy than, say, Biden's is.
It's also about the fact that—well, no.
I mean, that's it.
Biden is terrible at this, okay?
So Trump might not be the best, but he's substantially better than the rest.
Check this out.
Here's the video from Joe Biden on YouTube.
As of yesterday, it has 1,459 views.
That means, even if this video was embedded on a news website announcing the release of his Todos con Biden outreach campaign, nobody watched it.
I mean, look, Joe Biden is a verified YouTuber with 8,000 subscribers.
I don't think Joe Biden's campaign is real.
I'm gonna have to be honest.
Let me just stop for a second, okay?
How much money has Biden raised?
Like nothing.
How much cash on hand does he have?
Basically nothing compared to literally anybody.
Trump's got like 30 times the money.
300 million.
Biden isn't even buying websites.
I'm sorry, man.
Joe Biden is not running for president.
This is something else.
He's not even fundraising.
OK, normally you could say something like, oh, this politician is fundraising, but they know they're going to bow out and walk away with all that money and then use it for something else.
No, no, no, no, no.
But Biden's not even doing that.
I can't tell you what Biden is doing.
I have no idea.
But this is what ends up happening when you have somebody who's not, in my opinion, actually trying to be president.
Now, they said In 2016, Trump didn't really want to be president and all that stuff.
Please.
No, but for real, they did say that.
They said, Trump, Michael Moore claims that it was all about, I think, Gwen Stefani or something, and he was trying to get a bigger salary for NBC.
You are nuts.
The amount of work that Trump put in was substantial, but it wasn't working hard, it was working smart.
Cambridge Analytica, for instance, a lot of the digital outreach stuff they did, Let me just say something in regards to those comments from Michael Moore and others.
If you think Trump won when he wasn't trying to be president, what do you think is going to happen in 2020 when he is trying to win re-election?
If he won on accident, what happens when he tries?
Maybe they're right.
Trump spent very little money.
He raised very little money.
He won anyway.
Now he's trying.
He's raising a record amount.
But we'll come back.
Let's talk about Joe Biden for a second.
Check this out from the Daily Caller.
Trump campaign owns web address for Biden's newly announced Latino outreach campaign.
How did you screw this one up?
They say the 2020 campaign How?
Democratic candidate Joe Biden, the 2020 Trump campaign, trolled Democratic candidate Joe Biden
Wednesday by purchasing the web domain for Biden's new Latino outreach campaign.
The former vice president announced the outreach campaign called Todos con Biden,
or Everyone with Biden, Wednesday, but the campaign did not purchase the web address,
todosconbiden.com, before the Trump campaign got its hands on it. How, how, how?
How the hell are you Joe Biden's campaign and you don't lock up the URL before you announce stuff?
Republican political consultant and President Donald Trump critic Mike Madrid told ABC News.
He added that Biden and his campaign are not looking really strong in efforts to get higher Latino voter turnout than the disastrous operation by Hillary Clinton.
The Trump campaign also secured a Twitter handle for Todos con Biden.
What about Instagram?
I'd be willing to bet someone's already got Instagram.
And if not, by the time I said this, they're rushing to figure it out.
Quote.
They also didn't claim Todos con Biden on Twitter, so we grabbed that too.
Give it a follow, why don't ya?
Trump 2020 Communication Director Tim Murtaugh wrote in a Wednesday evening tweet.
The Twitter page is trolling the former vice president to not only did Biden launch a miserable campaign with no views.
OK, he didn't buy the domains for it.
And now not only did he lose it, it's being weaponized against him.
On this Twitter account, they are showing things, you know, talking about Biden and things he's done.
Look at this.
Joe Biden talks a big game now, but was all smiles with Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro just four years ago.
The best he could do was compliment the dictator's hair.
Meanwhile, the Obama-Biden administration blocked sanctions against Maduro.
Quote, it is no surprise that Trump's campaign would resort to childish antics like this to take attention away from this president's appalling record of separating families and using immigrants as scapegoats, fomenting hatred and white supremacy, and trying to take away health care from millions of Americans who need it.
Biden campaign spokeswoman Isabel Aldunate said in a statement, you know, no, no, no, no, no, I'm sorry, Biden, Biden campaign people.
You seriously, seriously have no idea what you are doing.
This is a level of incompetence I have never seen.
Unless, of course, you never intended to win in the first place.
In which case, keep doing what you're doing!
Wait, wait, let's play 4D chess here.
Joe Biden purposefully didn't buy it because he knew Trump would, and then Trump doing it would generate press to which Biden could then highlight what Trump is doing.
Biden is playing 4D chess.
I'm just kidding.
I'm totally kidding.
This is a major screw-up.
Trump campaign deputy communication director Aaron Perrin said Latinos are thriving under Trump's administration and touted the Todos con Biden web domain in a statement to ABC.
The Biden campaign continues to be inept with a deeply flawed candidate.
She said, Latinos are thriving under President Trump, and now thanks to the Biden camp, people can find out more about that success at todosconbiden.com.
The Biden campaign launched its Latino Outreach Campaign Wednesday with the goal of immigration and education reform for Latinos, ABC reported.
What do you think you're literally doing right now, Joe Biden?
Diversity is our strength and as president, he will continue to ensure that all Americans
are treated with dignity, not scapegoated or used to score political points.
What do you think you're literally doing right now, Joe Biden?
Come on.
Biden campaign national Latino vote director Laura Jimenez said, according to ABC, Trump
won 28% of the Latino vote in 2016 and Republicans won 29% in the 2018 midterm elections, according
to exit poll data.
So here's what we can do now.
We can look at some of these tweets and see what, you know, they're basically targeting Biden with in this Twitter account.
But I do want to show you what happens when you go to the actual website.
So I know I started with this.
We can see here at the bottom, paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
Joe is all talk, they say.
It says, oops, Joe say olvido de los latinos.
He forgot about Latinos.
Should we click vamos or let's go?
Let's click vamos first.
So when you do this, this brings you to a Spanish Latinos for Trump website.
It's latinos.donaldtrump.com.
So he's basically weaponized, not only, this is amazing, okay?
Not only did Joe Biden drop the ball in losing the domain, Trump's team was smart enough to grab it immediately.
Seriously, I didn't even know Joe Biden announced this and almost nobody, hold on, look.
Only 1,459 people saw this and the Trump team was savvy enough to get on this, search for domains and social media and find it.
That's good work.
So not only have they taken his thunder, they are redirecting it to promote Latinos for Trump and they are weaponizing the social media to actually smear Biden.
We can see here they've got a few people listed.
Alfredo Ortiz, Katrina Kampens, Monica Yellen, and this is a Spanish language.
I think the other link is the same thing, but in English.
If you click it, it brings you to latinos.donaldjtrump.com.
Yeah, donaldjtrump.com.
And it says, meet the advisory board, Jeanette Nunes, Maggie Paula, yada, yada, yada.
With Latinos thriving, get ready to flip New Mexico to red.
And then there's some Spanish stuff.
Trump launches new effort to lure Hispanic voters, they say.
Oh, interesting.
Well, it's certainly a lot better than what Joe Biden did.
But now they have JoeIsAllTalk, totosconbiden.com, and it says text VAMOS to 88022.
I don't know what that'll do.
So basically now, with Joe Biden announcing this, I will give some pushback.
So Trump is getting a lot of press for having a savvy team.
But I gotta admit, he is, you know, to go back to the 4D chess joke, he is still giving Joe Biden some attention on this platform.
And there's no such thing as bad press.
Here's, wow, this one's got 3,400 tweets.
Joe Biden said, I believe the border fence is needed because people are driving across that border with tons of tons, hear me, tons of everything from byproducts from methamphetamine to, you list a bunch of drugs that if I say I'm gonna get in trouble.
And that's Biden.
And see, this is one of the big problems I've had with the Democrats.
It was not even 10 years ago, they were all for border security.
Hillary Clinton, Bernie, Biden, all of them.
Schumer, Pelosi, you know it.
And because of this weird radical shift, now they're all against it.
I've been sitting in the same spot.
Y'all left me.
So anyway, you know, it is what it is.
There you go.
He's giving Joe attention.
This video gives Joe attention.
Fine.
It's negative attention, but there's no such thing as bad press.
I assure you there's going to be a lot of people who don't like Trump who learn about Toto's con Biden because of this, and it might help them in some capacity, but I will say in the bigger scheme of things, this shows how weak Joe Biden's campaign is, how inept, how they are not digitally savvy.
This is, wow, this was a huge mistake.
I can't say I'm surprised that Donald Trump scooped it up and took advantage of it, because his team has been digitally savvy since the get-go.
Trump's team, they're doing it right.
End of story.
They got the memes, they got the social media, and now they've just one-upped Joe Biden.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Well, surprise, surprise.
Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are facing a backlash from locals in New York following this rally for one simple reason.
They used public housing as a prop to call for justice, but didn't actually give any of the residents time to plan and actually come to the event.
They're angry about it.
They said that the rally wasn't for them.
But Bernie Sanders made a point to call out their plight.
Apparently, at the last minute, Bernie said, oh, by the way, you can come, and the people who are leading this group of, you know, advocating for public housing said, that's too soon.
You know what, man?
It's the same problem I've seen with many on the far left, where they say they're anti-racist, they say they're anti-fascist, and they don't actually support people like me.
So most of you know I come from a lower-income, mixed-race background, and whenever I try and speak up, guess what happens?
I get told by the progressive leftists that I'm the bigot.
That my experiences are irrelevant.
They tell me what I should know, and it tends to be people like Bernie Sanders.
And it's unfortunate that we're here now.
But I don't think there's any excuse to, at your rally, say that it's a shame that they don't have access to heat and hot water at this public housing, but have done nothing to make sure those people could actually be at your rally.
Well, they're mad about it.
We got this story from the New York Times.
Backlash against Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez in Queens, they say.
It's Wednesday.
There will be a curfew on Halloween in Yonkers for children 16 or younger.
They report the crowd in Queens on Saturday was large and enthusiastic, packed into a park across the street from the nation's largest public housing project to watch as Representative AOC endorsed Bernie Sanders.
In his remarks, Mr. Sanders called for investment in public housing, and Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez and the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore echoed his progressive agenda.
But in the days since, the rally has sparked an unexpected backlash from some public housing leaders who said the Sanders campaign did little to include in the event the roughly 6,000 residents of Queensbridge Houses, the housing project across the street from where the rally was held.
The Sanders team pushed back.
Mike Koska, a spokesman for the campaign, told the Times that it reached out to the Queens Bridge Tenant Association president days before the rally and that it provided flyers for distribution among the development's mostly black and Hispanic residents.
Still, the reactions further exposed the race and class tensions in this gentrifying slice of Queens.
These people were coming from near, far, but they weren't from Queensbridge, Lieutenant Association President April Simpson told a reporter for Patch.
That rally wasn't for us.
I'm not surprised by this.
It is common.
Here's the problem with these identitarian progressives, okay?
Look, I can give AOC and Bernie their praise when they do things that are right and that are beneficial, but when they do this, you call them out.
I don't care what your tribe is, okay?
I rag on Trump substantially more than I rag on Bernie Sanders, for sure.
Though I am very critical of Democrats.
I'm not blind to that.
But here's the thing.
These upper-class, privileged elites, be it AOC or Bernie, don't even think about what people need to do to come to this rally.
Oh, they say they shut up days before.
You know what, man?
Perhaps you should have gone well before the rally was planned.
Talk to them and say, how can we best accommodate you?
Because we're going to have a rally across the street from you.
Well, guess what?
People have jobs.
People have meetings.
People have kids to take care of.
You show up days in advance and say, here, you can come if you can make it.
And they're going to say, dude, what?
But guess what?
The privileged elites who don't have to work, who can take time off, who can hire a sitter for their kids, they're the ones who can come to events like this.
Not all of them, but this is what happens when you set up an event like this.
Ms.
Simpson, who did not respond to requests from the Times for comment, told Patch that the Sanders campaign reached out only on Friday and that the time of the rally conflicted with the Tenants Association meeting.
There you go.
At the event, Mr. Sanders called it absolutely unacceptable that the largest public housing development in North America, right across the street from us, lacks decent heat and hot water and is in urgent need of repair.
Convenient that they didn't give them ample time to schedule a way to actually come to your rally, but they will be used as a prop.
Look, I'd be willing to bet Bernie and AOC and more, they set up this event across from public housing on purpose to use them as a prop as they preach to the wealthy donors and the upper-class privileged elites who get to come to these rallies.
Listen, people in New York don't realize how privileged they are.
I swear to God.
You know, there are people in Brooklyn who spend $1,000 plus on rent, who work jobs where they get $40,000 to $50,000 a year, where they write blogs about Brad Pitt's junk.
These are the people I'm specifically critiquing.
And these people are overwhelmingly progressive far left.
We know that the progressives, you know, according to the poll, according to the studies, make over $100,000 a year on average, tend to have college degrees.
So what do you think this is?
Do you think Bernie's rally is the poor people?
Nope.
It's the privileged elites who think they know better than we do.
Ray Normando, who has lived in Queensbridge houses since 1973, said he and his wife attended the event.
By his estimation, a few hundred of his neighbors were there, so that's good news.
He said the website he runs about Queensbridge featured information about the rally about a week before it occurred.
To live in Queensbridge houses and not know about the rally, Mr. Normando said, sounds specious.
He added, obviously, if 25,000 people show up, it wasn't kept a secret.
Bishop Mitchell Taylor, a community leader, said the people in the park looked like tourists.
In the Patcher article, he called the event a pretty white rally.
Why is that not surprising to me?
This is the exact problem.
And it's really frustrating.
I have some friends who are very progressive, and it's so frustrating when they keep telling me what I should feel, what I should want, and what I should experience, and then I just stop and say, listen to yourself.
You are a white, upper-class individual telling me, a high school dropout from the south side of Chicago in a mixed area to a mixed family, that I should be following your lead?
I'm sick of it.
It is hypocrisy at its finest.
And this is exemplified exactly in when I started to sour on Bernie Sanders.
When he said on the debate stage that if you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor, you don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto.
Full stop.
That is wrong, that is racist, and that is offensive.
Now listen, am I going to lead a campaign saying cancel Bernie over it?
No, of course not.
I actually still support the guy for a little while after that.
I said, hey, pencils have erasers.
But that means something when you see this.
Bernie, I understand, for his career has fought for civil rights.
But you have to understand that what he does comes from a blind perspective, and I'm not going to look to him to tell me what I should or shouldn't do.
If he's going to disparage the 99%, I use 99% specifically in reference to when he says white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
I assure you.
I believe the data shows that most poor people are white.
It doesn't mean that relatively there are more white people of wealth than other minorities.
We get that.
But this is the problem when they segment people based on race.
They don't actually reach out in an adequate way to make sure that the people who live here would know when and how to attend.
Now, of course, it's contentious, right?
There are some people saying everyone knew, some saying they didn't.
Well, then, there you go.
Am I supposed to believe that, you know...
Everybody is not going to know about it.
It sounds like they should have gone above and beyond if they're going to use this housing unit as a prop for their political campaign.
Bishop Mitchell Taylor, a community leader, said the people in the party looked like tourists.
Okay, so I read that.
A pretty white rally.
Corbyn Trent, a spokesman for Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez's 2020 campaign, said he was proud of the Sanders team outreach effort.
I was also very proud to see public housing highlighted in both of their comments and their legislative agendas.
The Patch reporter, Maya Kaufman, wrote on Twitter, The Sanders campaign said it called to schedule a meeting between Mr. Sanders and Queens Bridge leaders, but that Ms.
Simpson said that wasn't true.
Who am I going to believe?
Listen, I give people the benefit of the doubt, but Bernie Sanders is an older, Millionaire individual.
He's capitalized off his success.
He's become a wealthy individual selling a book, buying extra homes.
You're allowed to do that.
Okay?
I'm not saying you're not allowed to do that.
So congratulations to Bernie on all your success.
But who am I supposed to believe?
The poor person seeking help and assistance to improve their community, going to a tenants association meeting to deal with the problems they face, or the wealthy man, you know, the wealthiest individual who is traveling around the country to campaign for being the president.
Look, Based on the logic of the left, you should not believe Bernie Sanders, the old white male of privilege, you should believe the woman of color who lives in public housing, right?
I'm just gonna have to say, based on my experience, I wanna be fair, right?
I don't think it's the biggest deal in the world, but I just, I really, really am, this exemplifies what I find detestable about the left.
They put on this act like they care about you.
They say that they want to fight for me, they want to fight for the poor.
And in the end, it does not seem to be the case.
It seems like my experiences, my life, and the life of my friends and where we grew up on the South Side of Chicago is used as a backdrop.
A prop to convince other wealthy white liberals why they should support this guy.
Because he pretends to care about me.
I do believe that Bernie, in many ways, is much, much more genuine than most politicians.
And even though he's had gaffes and he's said things I completely disagree with, you know, when he was on the debate stage and Elizabeth Warren refused to answer the question about taxes, Bernie straight up said, taxes will go up!
Okay, let's be real, your costs will go down.
I respect that a lot.
I don't think Bernie is perfect.
I lean towards thinking he's more genuine.
But this is one of the events where it shows me you can't just blindly trust the people who claim to be fighting for the poor and the minorities and all that.
I just don't believe you.
I don't believe you because you do things like this.
Now, look.
Pencils have erasers.
Bernie's campaign is, hey, we made a mistake.
We tried.
I'll tell you what.
Apparently they're claiming they called, set up a meeting.
Well, the residents say that's not true.
Who am I going to believe?
All right?
I'm going to believe the poor person who feels dejected and not allowed to be, or wasn't informed about this event, or that the rally was taking place at the same time as their meeting.
I don't think, like, I'll put it this way.
Who's got more to lose?
Bernie.
He's gotta make sure he keeps up this air that we're fighting the good fight, we're taking care of everybody.
The people who live there don't have a fight after this.
They just point out, like, these people are using us.
I know a lot of Bernie supporters are gonna get mad that I said all this, but you know what, man?
This is how I feel, okay?
I can be wrong, fine.
And if you want to defend the guy, by all means, comment below and defend the guy, right?
But that's... I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Of all of the people to get a visit from the Secret Service, I didn't think it would be Eminem.
But here's the story from BuzzFeed.
The Secret Service interviewed Eminem over, quote, threatening lyrics about Trump and Ivanka.
These docs prove it.
And this is coming from FOIA master artisan, Jason Leopold.
This dude is a FOIA beast.
For those that aren't familiar, the Freedom of Information Act allows people to submit requests to the government for documents.
And this dude is probably the best and most prolific getter of documents.
Apparently now, He has uncovered that the Secret Service interviewed Eminem over threatening lyrics.
It says documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show the Secret Service interviewed the rapper about his Trump lyrics after an email from a TMZ staffer.
In August 2018, Eminem announced the surprise release of his new album, Kamikaze, in a tweet, delighting his fans with 13 fiery new raps just eight months after he dropped his last album, Revival.
Kamikaze's lead track, The Ringer, immediately attracted attention on social media due to
the lyrics in which Eminem, a fierce critic of President Donald Trump, claimed he was
visited by the Secret Service, saying, "'Cause Agent Orange just sent the Secret Service
to meet in person to see if I really think of hurting him or ask if I'm linked to terrorists,
I said only when it comes to ink and lyricists."
So apparently there was speculation that because of this song, it actually happened.
But now I guess the proof is in the pudding.
They got the documents.
It really did happen.
At the time, the Secret Service refused to say whether agents had indeed visited M&M, citing their policy of not commenting on or confirming the absence or existence of specific investigations.
So last year, BuzzFeed News filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Secret Service to find out if agents really were sent to speak with M&M.
Don't you love this timeline?
Wow!
You know, I wonder what happened in 2016.
I think, as I was sitting there in Washington, D.C., looking at that, there was a meter on the New York Times showing Trump's probability of winning, we were actively phasing into a different dimension where everything just went off the rails.
Either that, the 12-year-old who's playing whatever video game this is, because we're in a simulation, half-kidding, I'm kidding by the way, decided to enter like a crazy scenario.
They say, This week, the agency turned over 40 pages of documents that prove they did, in fact, interview the rapper.
It turns out their interest in speaking with him was based on threatening lyrics from his rap, Framed, that appeared on Revival.
The Secret Service characterized Eminem as, quote, exhibiting inappropriate behavior, and noted that he, via the rap, threatens protectee.
So now we have this document here.
It says, Mathers Tavis.
What does that mean?
It says, Eminem, case status is closed.
Marshall Bruce Mathers.
I didn't know his middle name was Bruce.
Now I do.
According to the documents, on December 15, 2017, the day Revival was released, a concerned citizen reported Marshall Mathers, the rapper Eminem, had a song called Framed with an inappropriate comment towards President Donald Trump and a threatening comment towards Ivanka Trump.
The concerned citizen was a TMZ employee.
That's crazy.
According to the documents, they sent the Secret Service an email with a link to an article in The Hill about the song,
saying, I want to know if your agency is investigating Eminem for
his threatening lyrics about first daughter Ivanka Trump, the person wrote.
So this is not TMZ necessarily telling them to investigate, but you always got to pay attention to these weaselly
things journalists do, where they're like contacting the Secret Service and say,
are you going to do it?
Are you doing it?
But I will admit, in this case, this may be just a standard journalist question saying, hey, this is big news, we're seeking a comment.
It appears the TMZ employee was seeking comment from the Secret Service.
The documents do not reveal the agency received correspondence from any other individual about the song.
Hours before the email was sent, TMZ had published a story about Eminem's lyrics criticizing Trump.
TMZ did not respond to a request for comment for the story.
I'm gonna have to say, this seems like phishing to me.
This seems TMZ was trying to spark something to report on.
If there was no reason to cover this, if there was no prompt, if there was no one talking about it, why contact the Secret Service in the first place?
But again, this one's not so cut and dry, right?
Maybe they were genuine, like, this is huge, right?
It's an Eminem album.
The Secret Service investigative documents, which are heavily redacted, go on to say, the song was about a murder that he could remember and must be framed with the specific lyrics.
They say Donald ducks on as the Tonka truck in the yard, but dog, how the F is Ivanka Trump in the trunk of my car?
Because I feel somewhat responsible for the dumb little blonde girl.
I'm not going to read too much of it because I do not want to repeat any potentially threatening lyrics.
The documents also note, This is not the first time Mathers made threatening comments toward POTUS and his family.
In June 2017, Mathers freestyled comments that were threatening in nature toward POTUS.
That's crazy, I didn't know that.
Included as background evidence to support Eminem's hatred of Trump was a December 18, 2017 interview Vulture conducted with the rapper, in which he said Trump makes his blood boil.
The Secret Service documents show the agency's Protective Intelligence and Assessment Division conducted a background check on Eminem and started to arrange an interview with the rapper through his attorneys on December 20th, 2017.
I think it's interesting that Eminem's gonna be upset about this.
Like, dude, seriously, man.
You don't gotta like the president, but when you make statements like this, don't be surprised when a knock comes on your door.
On the afternoon of January 16th, 2018, with Eminem and his legal team, two pages of documents summarizing the discussion were entirely redacted, but shows that it centered around Eminem's BET freestyle rap and the lyrics in Framed.
During the interview at the Secret Service, when agents began to read the lyrics of his freestyle rap, Mathers was familiar with the song and began- Familiar with the song.
Copy editor, guys.
Wait, what?
Oh, okay.
This is a quote from the documents that are poorly written.
It says, Mathers was familiar with the song and began rap along with the interviewers as the verse was read, according to the documents.
At the conclusion of the interview, agents again offered to answer any questions.
It was also explained that any additional questions about the investigation should be directed to the United States Secret Service, Office of Government and Public Affairs Counsel, M&M and Slim Shady.
agents from Mather's office. The documents say, the interview was
discussed two days later at a Secret Service meeting. The documents say, quote,
and it was determined that the case will be non-referred to a federal prosecutor.
Elsewhere in the documents, which refer to the rapper throughout, throughout by
his real name, Marshall Mathers, Marshall Mathers, there is a section that lists
his aliases, Eminem and Slim Shady. I never quite understood why he's
simultaneously Marshall Mathers, Eminem, and Slim Shady, but that's, that's on him.
But I will say, I don't know if the lyrics themselves warranted this kind of
Secret Service follow-up.
However, there have been many circumstances in which high-profile individuals have made allusions to violence and threats against our government officials.
I am not a fan of the president, for a lot of reasons.
And I'll give you the one right now, because I always do, whenever there's news, okay?
Saudi Arabia?
Sending troops to Saudi Arabia?
No.
Bad.
Orange man, bad in this capacity.
I have no problem praising him when he does good.
You know, taking our troops out of Syria, in a certain light, I lean towards we should probably do it.
It's complicated.
Saudi Arabia's a big no.
So whenever I have to do this, people always say, Tim, why do you always throw this in?
Because, listen, otherwise they're gonna claim I'm defending the president in everything he does because people don't understand nuance.
Not the case.
I'll tell you this.
Don't threaten the president.
Okay?
Don't threaten people, period.
We're not here to play these games.
But we just had a billboard ad in Times Square of the president hogtied.
We've had Snoop Dogg do the music video.
I don't even want to describe it because we're already in murky territory.
You had Kathy Griffin.
Come on.
And they get mad that someone not associated with the president made a meme video of the movie Kingsman.
First of all, I don't know if you guys saw this ridiculous controversy.
It was the Kingsman film, but Trump's face, and then all the pundits, and he's killing them all.
And it played in a side room at an event on a tiny screen that nobody paid attention to and nobody saw, and it became a New York Times story.
But where is the outrage over this?
Like, I understand social media lit up, alright?
And again, I don't really know a lot about his lyrics and whether it was warranted.
But we did see news about the billboard, we did see news about Kathy Griffin, she actually lost her job in a lot of ways.
But why does it keep happening?
Why is it ever acceptable?
And maybe people should knock it off.
That goes for the meme, too, that was about Trump.
But here's the thing, Trump didn't make it!
They act like it's Trump's fault, some random internet person makes this meme.
This is Eminem, this is Kathy Griffin, this is a major brand doing these things.
It's Snoop Dogg.
Guys, everybody, chill.
Stop acting this way, man.
We do not want to get like... So my main channel video is about the fears that people have over civil war and this is the kind of stuff that fuels it.
I was thinking of including this in there to talk about like when you have celebrity rappers getting visits from the Secret Service, things are getting bad.
Chill out.
Man, go bowling.
Go chill down by the water.
Turn off your phone.
Get off Twitter.
I mean, look.
People say this to me all the time, too.
But yeah, I know.
I'm not a rapper, alright?
It's my job to be paying attention to this.
And I do think I'm a rather middle-of-the-road milquetoast fence-sitter.
I think most of you would agree.
But why is Eminem involved in this fight?
Why is Kathy Griffin?
Why are clothing brands involved in this fight?
Chill, dude.
You know, I used to be very much in favor of people getting active in politics.
Like, man, if only everybody cared.
And now I'm kind of having a change of heart.
Like, no, no, no.
Everybody needs to calm down.
Pay attention enough.
But don't get too crazy about this stuff.
We're already seeing video games, movies, rap music.
Everything's going nuts.
I long for the days where people just played video games.
And video games are just video games.
But now everything is politics.
So whatever, man.
I don't know if you're an Eminem fan or not, so I'll leave it there, but I will add one more thing.
You know, really good job to Jason Leopold.
He's amazing.
Foy a master.
This is amazing confirmation showing that in the newest song, Indeed, the Orange Man did in fact send his Secret Service agents to check out.
