Democrat Katie Hill RESIGNS Amid Growing Scandal, So Ilhan Omar Should Resign Next Right?
Democrat Katie Hill RESIGNS Amid Growing Scandal, So Ilhan Omar Should Resign Next Right? Amid an expanding scandal involving Democratic Rep Katie Hill she has announced her resignation from congress. Hill was accused of having an affair with staffers in violation of House ethics rules and was placed under investigation.Following her announcement many Democrats, far left, and leftists praised her decision as it was "the right thing to do." But why is this right and not right for Ilhan Omar?Ilhan Omar has made many shocking comments, paid a fine for a campaign finance violation, and is currently being accused of another all while it is reported she is having an affair with a contractor for her campaign, Tim Mynett.Why does Katie Hill stand out and why ignore Omar's repeated ethics complaints against her?it seems democrats and the left want to act like Katie Hill doing the right thing is about integrity when it is admittedly about fear of more leaks coming about. Democrats claim that republicans, the GOP, conservatives would never resign amid wrong doing but that's not true. Just last month a republican resigned amid charges.In the end it seems like political posturing and I don't expect Omar or anyone else to resign over political mudslinging.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Last night, Democratic Rep Katie Hill announced her resignation from Congress amid a growing scandal.
She was accused of being in a relationship with a male staffer.
She denies this.
But she admitted to having an affair with a female staffer.
A news publication published some photos of her in the buff, and she said this was revenge from an abusive ex-husband.
And that's the main story here.
This is the official confirmed story we have, and most likely, it is just the relationship as to why she is resigning.
Now, there have been some insinuations that she was improperly paying her lover through campaign funds up until last month, but there's no investigation, no official complaints.
Now, we've seen some high-profile individuals on the left, as well as many leftists on Twitter saying, Katie Hill, you've done the right thing!
You should resign amid this inappropriate relationship.
And we've even seen now Nancy Pelosi saying it's the right decision.
Okay.
If this is the right decision to resign amid an inappropriate affair with someone you're working with, your campaign is, well then it stands to reason Ilhan Omar should have resigned a long time ago.
Not only has she been fined for campaign finance violations, she's had to reimburse her campaign for the campaign finance violation.
According to the Daily Mail, she is having an affair with someone she worked with and there's a potential ethics violation some people are alleging.
That the bulk payment she made to this man she's accused of having an affair with wasn't itemized and is a finance violation.
With all of these accusations against her, why hasn't she resigned if it was the right thing for Katie Hill?
And not only that, Ilhan Omar has made extremely offensive comments several times.
Now, you can argue whether it was or wasn't offensive, and the left does.
It doesn't matter.
Some people were offended.
It resulted in major press.
Certainly, if Katie Hill should be resigning, shouldn't Ilhan Omar?
Why the double standard?
Here's what I want to do.
Let's take a look at this story from Politico and read about what Katie Hill said and how Nancy Pelosi reacted, saying it was the right decision.
But then I want to go through the actual facts of what Ilhan Omar was accused of, and that's the main question I have.
Why should Katie Hill resign?
Why are Democrats saying she should, but not Ilhan Omar?
It's weird, right?
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do, and I really mean it, share this video.
I don't have a big marketing budget to compete with all these big companies.
The best thing I have is word of mouth.
If everybody who watched this video shared this video, it would have infinity views.
That'd be awesome, right?
So it really does help.
Let's read from Politico.
Rep Katie Hill to resign amid allegations of inappropriate relationship with staffers.
Politico reports, Freshman Rep Katie Hill is resigning from Congress after facing allegations of inappropriate relationships with staffers in her office and on her congressional campaign.
It is with a broken heart that today I announce my resignation from Congress.
This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do, but I believe it is the best thing for my constituents, my community, and our country, Hill wrote in a letter announcing the news after it was first reported by Politico.
Quote, this is what needs to happen so that the good people who supported me will no longer be subjected to the pain inflicted by my abusive husband and the brutality of hateful political operatives who seem to happily provide a platform to a monster who is driving a smear campaign built around cyber exploitation.
Hill added.
Now I want to stop because the story is Katie Hill used Wife Swapping website to post photos of herself.
So, you know, she's claiming this is an abusive husband, but we've got reports saying the photos are on the internet because she put him there.
I mean, I think it's unfortunate that her campaign and her career will end because of what she was doing in her private life.
But there are some important points.
Listen.
The world of politics is full of dirty people with dirty games, and they will remove you from the system in any way they can.
It's politics, man.
If you're gonna post photos of yourself this way, don't be surprised when they re-emerge later.
In fact, I'm surprised the Republican running against her didn't do opposition research and find these photos.
More importantly, the photo shows her doing something illegal.
Whether or not you agree with whether it should or shouldn't be illegal, I'm not gonna get into what it is because YouTube will get mad at me.
Suffice it to say, as of today, what she's doing in the photo, she's holding some, you know, she's holding a bong.
It's legal, okay?
It's legal recreationally in California, but it wasn't when she did this.
In which case, there are some ethics concerns about whether or not she should be held to a higher standard.
So, no, it's not just about her abusive husband, but she's gonna paint it that way.
Now, here's the point.
The people who are saying she did the right thing are agreeing with her narrative.
If that's the case, Ilhan Omar should have resigned a long time ago.
I'm genuinely confused.
After all of the scandals involving Omar, this is the right thing?
But Katie Hill hasn't even had a chance.
It's only been 10 days.
Let's read a little bit more.
Hill did not specify a resignation date in her letter, but multiple people with knowledge of her plan said she could step aside as soon as November 1st.
Hill's announcement capped a tumultuous 10-day episode that shook the Democratic caucus.
Hill was a prominent figure in the historic Democratic freshman class, and her resignation was a blow to the colleagues who defended her as the 10-day episode unfolded.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has taken a hard line in harassment cases, said in a statement that Hill had made the right decision in stepping down.
Hill has acknowledged errors in judgment that made her continued service as a member untenable.
Pelosi said Sunday night, we must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the Congress and in all workplaces.
Hill was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations of an improper relationship with a male congressional staffer, a claim she denied.
Hill admitted to and apologized for an inappropriate relationship with a female campaign staffer earlier this week.
In a statement earlier this week, Hill blamed the ongoing scandal, which included several nude photos of a lawmaker, published in conservative online news outlets, on an abusive husband, whom she's in the middle of divorcing.
Now, I want to stop and mention, there's also the delegate from Guam, a Democrat, he's a non-voting member of Congress, who is also being investigated by the House Ethics Committee, who has not resigned as of now.
If it was right for Hill to resign, shouldn't he?
Shouldn't Omar?
Why just Hill?
I mean, I seriously, I'm asking this question.
Is it possible they're only saying she did the right thing to save face?
I think, and many others have agreed with this, it's my opinion that Hill is resigning because there's much, much worse that could come out from her husband or whoever and other stuff floating on the internet that will make her look really, really bad.
If it's true she was illegally or improperly paying her lover, and she was, but we don't know why, then maybe she has some legality issues she wants to avoid.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, source with knowledge of Hill's resignation said her decision to step down was prompted in part by hopes of stemming the flow of embarrassing and defamatory reports that have popped up in multiple outlets, starting with the conservative site redstate.org.
Ilhan Omar's been accused of marrying her brother, and she didn't resign!
Maybe it just comes down to Katie Hill not having the strength to withstand the bad press.
If that's the case, Ilhan Omar's got guts of steel because nothing has fazed her.
She's made offensive comments, and the Democrats wouldn't even call her out.
She's in photographs with Daily Mail saying she is having an affair with one of her campaign contractors, and there are complaints that she didn't itemize the expenses to him, so that may be a violation.
Actually, they're saying it literally is.
If you don't itemize the expenses for travel, then it's a campaign finance violation.
And she's already been fined for campaign finance violations before, yet for some reason she is not moving and no one is calling her out.
I don't believe they're genuinely saying it's the right thing to do.
I think they're trying to use this to claim Trump wouldn't do it, the Republicans wouldn't do it.
That's not true.
We have seen some Republicans resign.
It's a story I have.
We'll get to in a minute.
So let's do this.
Hill said the publication of personal and intimate photos was an appalling invasion of my privacy.
It is also illegal, and we are currently pursuing all of our available legal options, she added.
However, I know that as long as I am in Congress, we live fearful of what might come next and how much it will hurt.
Okay.
So I think my assumption that she's resigning now out of fear of what's coming next, well, she literally said it.
Perhaps she knows there are much more damning photographs.
I mean, look, you got one photo of her with a bong.
And that's legal in California now, but it was illegal at the time, and she is a federal representative working in D.C., where it is still illegal.
I mean, these are serious ethical considerations.
I wonder what else could have come out.
Now, here's what I'm gonna do.
Not that I want to highlight this next individual because they're kind of offensive and bombastic.
I'm going to.
Because I want to show you this from Tom Arnold.
Tom Arnold is a very, very anti-Trump personality.
He said, Katie, you're doing the right thing.
Protect yourself.
Deal with the overwhelming trauma of your abusive ex-husband.
Many women understand what it's been like to walk in your shoes.
Connect.
Amazing you've lasted this long.
Own mistakes.
Imagine what you'll do as your best self.
Should Ilhan Omar own her mistakes?
Oh, I think she should.
Let's move on.
I just want to make sure you can see that there are some people, this person says, Katie
Hill's resignation is a reflection of her integrity, it is the right thing to do.
That the president has serious allegations hanging over his character and does nothing
is the issue.
That's the point they're making.
That Katie Hill is being honorable by stepping down, and Trump would never do this.
Do any of these people think Ilhan Omar should step down?
By their own logic, she should.
Don't take my word for it.
Let's move on.
So first, I do want to make sure I point out this, just as we pass through, because I have all these things lined up.
Katie Hill used a website to post photos of herself with the bong, okay?
So she's claiming it's revenge.
A journalist could have just found it.
So, but let's carry on.
This is the official announcement, the tweet posted by Katie Hill.
But here we have this.
Katie Hill paid female lover thousands of dollars in consulting fees.
This is not a part of why she's resigning.
But maybe this is what she's really scared of.
That up until last month, her campaign, Katie Hill for Congress, was still paying her lover.
Some people are suggesting this was inappropriate considering it's, you know, it's the middle of the season, her campaign isn't active, what's she doing, why is she paying her lover?
I think, you know, we can make insinuations and accusations, but for now, we're not there, okay?
Next year is the election for- it's re-election, so yeah, maybe she's just consulting with this individual.
I do think, however, based on the fact she was having an affair with this individual, she shouldn't have been paying her.
So at the very least, we have a personal morality issue.
And these are the kind of stories that are coming out that may be really, really bad for the Democrats as a whole.
But let's do this.
First, Omar fires back after Trump calls for her resignation, saying you have trafficked and hate your whole life.
So they say Omar apologized Monday after she ignited a firestorm with her tweet suggesting U.S.
support for Israel is motivated by money.
We'll leave it there because it's a very dangerous issue to talk about on YouTube.
She made an extremely offensive comment, people called for her resignation, and she said no.
And many people defended her in this.
Okay.
Well, now we have this from the Daily Mail.
Exclusive!
Ilhan Omar lives a double life of secret hookups and romantic vacays to Jamaica with her married aide as they live together on and off and even talk of marriage.
She was accused of being in an affair with Tim Minette.
He's a campaign consultant.
They both denied it.
Mynette then started a divorce with his wife.
His wife came out and said, yes, they're having an affair.
Ilhan Omar denied it, but then she announced a divorce from her husband.
Then they're seen in photos together, in which case many people believe, at least I could say the Daily Mail is definitively stating, they have sources on the record, Ilhan Omar is having an affair while they were both married, or presumably while they were married, maybe they weren't, I don't know.
They're saying that they're definitively having an affair and that sources tell them they need to own up to it and be honest.
Now the bigger issue, one of the bigger complaints, is that she made bulk payments to Tim Minette.
It was like $12,600.
The first complaint is that you have to break that down, itemization showing what was spent on and why.
Many people believe she was just paying him a bulk amount of money so he could romp around with her because they were having an affair.
That's the accusation.
At the very least, she should have itemized, and she did not.
In which case, look, she's already had ethics complaints, ethics violations.
It's beyond investigation, okay?
If you're gonna say Katie Hill should resign because she's under investigation, Ilhan Omar was found to be in violation.
It's not even about an investigation.
They said, yep, you did it.
Pay the money.
She paid a fine, and she had to reimburse her campaign for a campaign finance violation.
Why no resignation?
Now I will touch on some of the more absurd, you know.
She was accused of marrying her own brother.
And the Star Tribune said, and here we go because the far left hates it when I mention what the Pulitzer winning Star Tribune said, that they said this, new investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man, Dash, possibly her own brother, to skirt immigration laws.
Why is the Star Tribune saying the man she married may have possibly been her own brother?
First, just because you can't prove it's true doesn't mean it is.
And so I think this on its own is the Star Tribune saying it's a possibility.
Why would you say it's a possibility?
If there's no evidence, certainly the answer is there's no evidence, right?
When you say there's a possibility, it's because there has been light circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact This guy might actually be her brother.
Statements he's made, who her sister is, who their father is, the name of her father.
The fact that Ilhan Omar has deleted and purged all of these social media posts.
One, where she referred to the guy she married, his dad, as her dad!
Okay?
That's why they say possibly.
With all of these scandals, should she not resign?
Let's move on.
I got more I want to go through.
Check this out.
Ilhan Omar to reimburse $3,500 in misspent campaign funds.
Omar pledged the money to organizations that train rookie political candidates.
Here's what they say.
The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ordered Omar to reimburse her campaign.
She must also pay a $500 civil fine.
So that's conviction, right?
Not only Is she accused of having an affair that's stated definitively as a statement of fact?
Look, if you want to argue Daily Mail is fake news, well then why hasn't Ilhan Omar filed a cease and desist and said, stop, it's not true?
I mean, she doesn't necessarily have to.
It doesn't mean the Daily Mail is correct.
But the Daily Mail is certified by NewsGuard as not publishing false information.
They're asserting that they have sources and they have photos of them sharing, you know, with beers going in and out of the same building.
If she's having an affair, if she's not properly handling her campaign finance funds on numerous occasions, and you think Katie Hill should resign, then so should Ilhan Omar.
But wait, there's more.
I'm not done.
This is August 28th.
I believe this is after the fact, right?
So this story here is from June 7th, and then here we go.
August 28th, Omar hit with FEC complaint, accused of paying alleged paramours travel expenses with campaign funds.
And I did mention this.
But yes, the accusation that she isn't properly itemizing.
So, they say that Omar's campaign paid by net around $230,000 for fundraising, consulting, digital communications, internet advertising, and travel expenses since 2018.
Most of those payments occurred after Election Day last year.
Eight disbursements from Omar's campaign to the E Street Group for travel expenses totaling $21,546.94 were not itemized.
FEC rules, the NLPC said, require that such travel expenses list the individual benefiting from the arrangement as well as the date and purpose of the payment.
An NLPC said that Omar's team instead only listed E Street as the payee and contained no details on the trips.
Although Maynette's formal relationship with Omar's campaign began in July 2018, with payments of $7,000 directly to Maynette, the reimbursements for Maynette's travel did not commence until April 2019, the same month that Dr. Maynette alleges in her filing that her husband told her of the affair amid a shocking declaration of love for Rep.
Omar.
It appears that Minette's travel as reported by Ilhan for Congress may have been unrelated or only partially related to her campaign.
The complaint continued, noting that romantic companionship is not a legitimate reason to spend campaign funds on travel.
Minette's wife said they're doing this.
At that same month, she then announces all of these reimbursements.
Is it possible that the reason she did not itemize those reimbursements is because it would have shown that Mynette was traveling specifically with her on many occasions and would have drawn suspicions?
That's essentially what they're claiming, I believe.
I don't like to claim things without evidence, and I want to make sure it's clear.
There's no proof.
She married her brother, although there is some evidence suggesting the possibility, which is what Star Tribune notes.
And this complaint hasn't been proven, but they do bring up some clear, according to them, some clear and overt violations.
The failure to itemize is simple.
That's a violation.
And she's already paid fines.
Daily Mail said, look, at what point, at what point should she resign?
Okay?
Should Katie Hill not have resigned?
I'll tell you what, I'm sure Republicans are cheering for her resignation because she's in a mixed district.
Katie Hill defeated a Republican incumbent, and now all the conservatives are cheering, saying, great!
They're saying you did the right thing, because maybe she did, and maybe Ilhan should resign as well, but probably more so because now they have a chance to get that seat back for Republicans.
But here's what the left is trying to claim.
They're trying to claim that Katie Hill did the right thing, and that the Republicans would not do this.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
GOP representative Chris Collins resigns amid corruption charges.
Charges.
Not conviction.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I'm a fan of this guy or whatever.
I don't know a whole lot about his case, but I'll tell you what.
He was charged.
He resigned.
Yes.
Because people are people regardless of which tribe they're in.
But I believe right now the reason we're seeing so many people say you're doing the right thing, Katie, is because they want to pretend that they want to use it as a point against the Republicans, saying the Republicans would never have this integrity, the integrity of Katie Hill.
And it's a shame.
She made a bad decision, and now they're ruining her life, so she's resigning.
First of all, according to the Examiner, she published those photos.
Well, what do you want to do?
I mean, you publish photos on the Internet.
People... I disagree with them publishing those photos, but they're on the Internet.
You put them there.
Like, what are we supposed to do?
So, did she do the right thing?
I don't know, man.
I don't know what the right thing is.
Should Ilhan Omar... I'm not saying Ilhan Omar should resign.
I'm saying, by their standards, you want to accuse the Republicans of not doing it?
Well, here's a Republican who did resign amid charges.
He's not convicted.
But Ilhan Omar, who has paid a fine, who has been accused multiple times by various sources of having an affair, of campaign finance violations, of making anti-Semitic comments, is safe?
Double standards.
Complete double standards.
I certainly think there are a decent amount of Republicans who should resign, too.
But I'm not going to advocate for anybody resigning.
But I will point out the hypocrisy, I guess?
Look, man, I think it's awful that Katie Hill was removed in this manner.
But she made her bed and I'll show a lie in it.
She posted these photos.
She had this affair.
Look, man, when you want to enter the game of politics, you better be squeaky clean.
They will find everything about you.
And I'm surprised they didn't find it before the election, but hey, they found it now.
And you know what?
Whether it's your husband's fault or whoever's fault, I can certainly criticize an angry ex, you know, for coming out and trying to damage your reputation.
But, look, if the Democrats on the left want to claim that it was the right thing to do, and that's what they're doing, then I expect them to step up and say the same thing about Omar, but they won't.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
Did you know that there is a bias in the media and that the media tends to favor a left-wing perspective and it's ridiculously obvious to anybody who is honestly taking a look at what's happening?
You see, when the right has a hypothesis Seriously, saying, hey, I think X may have happened.
They'll say, unhinged conspiracies without evidence.
Trump will say something factually true, and they will add, Trump said, comma, without evidence, comma, why?
Do we literally fact check every sentence made by literally everyone?
My favorite is when Trump said on the debate stage that Hillary Clinton acid washed her servers, and NBC News ran a fact check saying false.
Hillary Clinton did not use a corrosive chemical on her servers, as if that's what Trump was saying.
Well now, in the same vein, we have unhinged conspiracy theories about the takedown of al-Baghdadi, and people are claiming that Trump made it up.
Wow.
You know what, man?
I love how whenever the government does something, like the FBI or the CIA, that's bad for Trump, they'll say, oh, we gotta believe the FBI!
And then whenever Trump does something, they'll say, you can't trust the government!
So, right now, You have the DOJ doing an internal review, which is now a criminal investigation, into how the Russiagate thing started, and all of a sudden they're saying, this is a stunt.
It's like, wait, wait, wait.
They have... Every agency has an inter... Like, it can be investigated for wrongdoing.
You know, who watches the Watchmen?
Yeah, cops have internal affairs.
Okay?
The DOJ has its own internal, you know, ways of dealing with these things.
It's normal.
But it's got to be a conspiracy.
Now, here's the big problem.
Look at this.
Obama White House photographer suggests Trump Situation Room photo of unfolding Elbegdadi raid was staged.
Staged, they say.
It's not real.
Now, I highlight this one because my first question is, literally, why?
Are you entertaining a fringe theory that Trump staged a photograph?
Who cares?
You got no proof, and without evidence, they're saying the photo was staged.
Are you kidding me, dude?
Like, they have to stage this?
At the very least, the photographer could have walked in, like, I'm gonna get a photo of you guys.
I'm like, yeah, yeah, whatever.
And so one guy's, like, looking at the camera.
What do you mean, staged?
What do you mean?
It's so ridiculous.
We'll read this, but there's more.
Check this out.
This is from News One.
People think Trump is lying about taking out al-Baghdadi to deflect from impeachment inquiry.
And there it is.
We've done it.
You see, back in, I think it was like May 2nd, 2016 or whatever, Osama bin Laden was taken out.
And as we now know, there were a lot of lies about what actually happened.
And then they claimed they tossed him out of a helicopter.
Whatever, man.
I don't know.
I can just take their word for it.
Do I trust the government?
I don't care who it is.
I don't care if it's Pelosi, Trump, Comey, whoever.
No!
I don't trust the government.
You take everything with a grain of salt, man.
Everybody lies.
Like, when it comes to PR, when it comes to government, when it comes to policy.
I get it, man.
Sometimes there's truth.
You gotta figure it out, what's real and what isn't.
Now, I gotta stress, man, as much as I do believe Trump lies, I gotta say, most of the time, they're taking him purposefully out of context to accuse him of lying when typically Trump might just be wrong.
Like, okay, Trump said build a wall around Colorado.
Come on, man.
Just admit you misspoke.
It happens to all of us.
He meant Arizona.
That's fine.
Instead, he claimed it was a joke.
It's like, dude, chill, man.
Just say you meant Arizona.
It's not a big deal.
But hey, Trump likes playing that game, so whatever.
I can't say I blame him.
Look at this!
Could you imagine what would happen if when people came out and said Obama was lying?
I don't need to.
I remember exactly what happened.
They said it was a fringe conspiracy theory, and anybody who doesn't believe Barack Obama is nuts.
So there I was.
True story, by the way.
It's a true story.
I was at a bar with a bunch of journalists in New York.
And I have a decent amount of respect for a lot of these journalists, so I'm not going to name them because I think they're good people.
But I'm going to show you the hostility.
We were talking about this, and it was shortly after Osama Bin Laden, you know, all that stuff happened, the helicopter.
And I said, you know what, man, that whole thing plays out like a bad action movie.
And one journalist gets really, really angry and goes, I am sick and tired of these conspiracy theories.
I just said it played out like a bad action movie.
Why did you immediately jump to I'm claiming it didn't happen?
I never said that.
I was saying the story about how they went and did it sounds like a bad action movie.
And then he was like, well, yeah, it does.
And I'm like, great.
Can we move on?
That was really weird.
The hostility.
How dare you challenge Obama?
I was like, dude, I didn't.
The story that came out was a bad action.
It turns out now that the initial details were wrong.
They claim to use his wife as a human shield or whatever.
Yeah, it was not true, okay?
Most of it was.
We assume.
I can only just trust the government.
But you know what?
I do, typically.
So let me recharacterize or reframe what I'm trying to get across.
Most of the time, I do not believe that what they're saying is absolutely true.
Typically, I think you're getting the gist of it and confidential details are kept under wraps for security reasons so we don't know the full story.
But if the government says, we did a raid and this happened, and you've got an international community kind of saying, like, yes, okay then, we're done here.
Because what are you supposed to do?
Just put on a tinfoil hat and run around claiming the whole thing was made up?
No, you can't live that way.
Okay, so here's the problem I have with media.
How is it that you... So news wasn't good for calling out these crazy people who are like, he's lying, he's trying to deflect from impeachment.
The photo was staged.
Look, it's so ridiculous.
Here's one, here's one.
So it only took 15 minutes to dig body pieces out, get DNA tests to prove it was Baghdadi?
I don't want to go through all of them because some of them are probably obscene.
I'll get in trouble.
Listen.
Trump said he did a DNA test or whatever.
I immediately think, that probably is not true, okay?
Trump, but is he lying?
Okay, you're jumping the gun here.
Okay, the question of whether or not Trump doesn't fully understand the process by which they identify a body, you know, maybe, I don't know, teeth, or dog tags, or whatever, I don't know.
You know, something to literally identify them.
I actually believe US military intelligence is capable of identifying someone like Baghdadi.
I'm gonna lean towards, yeah dude, come on.
We got crazy technology.
And I bet you don't even know what the military technology we have is.
So yeah, they probably did.
But Trump comes out and he says something that's kind of off the cuff and loose and vague.
And they immediately say, it's too vague, therefore Trump is lying.
No, no, dude.
Trump is not the guy who runs the process.
And someone probably said, here's the gist of it.
And he goes, OK, OK.
And then he runs off like a game of telephone.
Does it mean he's lying?
No, it just means he's trying to explain something he doesn't fully understand.
And I'm fine with that.
They act like Trump must be an expert on literally everything all the time.
No, dude.
This happened, okay?
Get over it.
Is it possible it didn't?
Yeah, sure.
But, come on.
You're really going to think that everything Trump did, they staged a photograph and then pretended?
Come on, dude.
Look at this.
The raid, as reported, took place at 3.30 p.m.
Washington time.
The photo as shown in the camera IPTC data was taken at 17.05.24.
Oh, no!
Is it possible that the camera they used wasn't accurately set?
What's the bigger... Like, listen, man.
This is why I hate conspiracy theories.
The simple solution tends to be the correct one.
You got... I have a ton of cameras.
Okay, let me tell you a story.
I got a ton of cameras, right?
We do documentary.
I'm looking at a camera right now.
I got two more in the other room.
Some are small.
Some are cheap.
Some are big.
Some are expensive.
And we don't go into all of them and manually set all the cameras.
All the clocks, I mean.
I got one camera.
It's decently expensive.
It's nice.
I just turn it on and I just mash the buttons.
I'm like, I don't care about setting any of this data.
It doesn't matter to me.
So yeah, the calendar is all wrong on it.
It's not an internet-connected camera.
Is it possible?
That one of the photographers, with a bunch of different cameras, has a camera where the internal clock is not set properly?
Yes, it is entirely possible.
Is it possible they staged a photo?
Sure, but what makes more sense?
That a bunch of government officials staged a photograph to make everyone believe they actually took this guy out and re- Listen, man.
You gotta chill out.
You don't have evidence.
That's it.
The simple solution A lot of photographers I know have many cameras.
They're not always accurately set up.
I mean, I would assume they would be.
But you know what's the simple solution?
It happened.
Baghdadi's gone.
Baghdadi's gone.
And the camera guy just turned his camera on and didn't care to set the actual time and date.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm missing something about the internal data.
But I'm also interested in where was the photo published that had access to that data?
I can only assume not Twitter, right?
Here's another funny bit.
I don't know where this guy Pete Soza got the original photo.
But he's linking to Dan Scavino Jr., who posted on Twitter.
Now, I could be wrong about this.
And I've done a lot of work with digital media.
I have an app called Tagly, actually.
It's deprecated.
Twitter and Facebook and other social platforms strip out, they create a new compressed version of the photo and give you new data.
Is it possible that the 170524 has to do with, you know, not, actually let me try something.
I can't tell you exactly why that would be, but to jump to it being staged.
Now I will say, maybe this guy Pete Sosa never actually claimed it and Newsweek is stretching it.
They say.
Let's read this.
Wait, wait, wait.
After a remark on Twitter Sunday, he was replying to a tweet from White House Director of Social
Media and assistant to the President, Dan Scavino Jr.
The situation picture was taken Saturday by chief official White House photographer for
President Donald Trump.
Shalaya...
Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
Wait, wait.
Wait, wait.
Is it possible?
Is it possible that there was a time difference?
Is it possible that the photographer's camera was set to a different time and they went through a different time zone?
For real.
Like if it was at 3.30 p.m.
and this person's camera was set to 5 o'clock, then is it possible that they were in a different, I don't know, Brazil or something where the clocks are at?
I think Brazil's only had like an hour though.
So, what are they trying to imply here?
And the bigger question, the bigger problem I have is, why does this get play?
Why is Newsweek running this story?
Why are they not being, you know, slammed as conspiracy theorists?
Here's the original photo.
It was posted at 9.44am.
Why was the photo taken hours after the raid?
Technically, if they posted this at 9.44am, it wasn't.
Maybe... There's just so many reasons why hours after the raid... It's what, two hours after the raid supposedly took place?
Is it possible that the photo was edited and it was exported two hours later?
Oh no!
I just thought of a very simple solution.
The photo was taken on the camera, it was run through Photoshop for some touch-ups, and it was re-rendered and exported two hours later.
And now you have a conspiracy theory.
This is why I hate conspiracy theories.
And this is what I can't stand about the media.
Perfectly exemplified.
Look at this story.
Look how big this story is.
It's ridiculous.
So here, check it out.
Another Twitter user said, it didn't seem unreasonable that Trump and his generals were still there two hours later, waiting on the crew to return to base.
Oh, and there it is.
But the raid took place at 3.30, and this photo was at 5.
And?
And the troops had to leave.
They had to bring out evidence.
It probably took more than, like, what do you think?
Trump walked in the room, and they were like, play the video, and we're done.
Have a nice day.
And it was two minutes?
It was probably seven hours.
So, I'll say this.
Good on Newsweek for actually getting into the details and talking about why it's absurd, but why are they entertaining conspiracy theories anyway?
And why isn't anyone calling them out for this?
Why is it acceptable that if you're criticizing the president, you can have all the conspiracy theories in the world and nobody bats an eye?
Check it out.
In response to another now-deleted tweet, Sosa continued acknowledging that at the very least, it is possible the raid was still ongoing when Trump was photographed Sunday.
It's entirely possible that the raid was still ongoing at 5.05 p.m.
Before drawing definite conclusions about the photo, reporters need to nail down the actual timeline of the raid.
Daily Kos, which Newsguards rates as factually incorrect left-wing propaganda, Jennifer Hayden's training news manager says that a Trump golf outing tracker shows the president was golfing at 3.33 p.m.
Washington time as the raid was happening.
But is that fact?
And why are you—this is literally a conspiracy theory, but the golf tracker says he was golfing.
That proves it!
Why wouldn't we?
Trump's frequent supporters took to social media to gloat about the successful US special
operations.
Why wouldn't we?
I'm not a frequent supporter of this guy, but it's mind-numbing to me that, you know,
they're playing all of these ridiculous conspiracies and then they're acting like people are gloating
that Trump did this thing and it's like, oh, come on, man.
I can't stand partisanship.
And it's so apparent that the media is brazenly left.
I'll give you one really solid piece of evidence.
It's gonna make you laugh.
You guys ever hear of a little organization called Project Veritas?
I love this.
Project Veritas has done exposés on big tech, And on the media, among other things.
But in the past couple years, or the past year or two, the big, big stories they've been doing have been big tech, media.
And they're accused of having a right-wing bias.
So wait a minute, I have a question.
If you think James O'Keefe is biased towards the right, and I think that actually is a fair assessment, I'll explain in a second, but then you look at what he's targeting, what does that say about media and big tech?
If he's targeting CNN, I thought CNN was nonpartisan.
I thought they were just objective journalists.
But then you claim that his targeting of CNN is evidence that he's going after left-wing organizations.
Are you claiming that Google, Facebook, CNN are left-wing organizations?
You see, the bias is palpable.
It's obvious to anybody who watches news.
I sit here all day reading all of these different outlets.
And this is why I'm sick of the media.
They can play this ridiculous conspiracy story for no reason that does nothing and proves nothing.
Listen.
I'll give you one bit of evidence as to why I think James O'Keefe is biased.
But bias isn't the worst thing in the world.
I'm not saying this to be disrespectful, and that's the same for CNN as it goes for O'Keefe.
But there's something we can talk about.
When O'Keefe uncovered the banning of live action from Pinterest, What he highlighted was live action.
What he didn't highlight was anti-media.
And anti-media is left-wing, anti-establishment, anti-war.
And I thought that was very significant.
And I highlighted that specifically when I covered the story.
Now, I don't expect James to know what that is.
But you can see there is a perspective gap in that regard.
I think, admittedly, I think Veritas is doing something resoundingly unique.
And it's good that, you know, him and his team Are going after major institutions, and I don't care if you want to criticize them for only going after the left.
Fine, whatever.
The media goes after right-wing organizations all the time.
The Southern Poverty Law Center targets right-wing organizations all the time.
Fine, I get it.
It exists.
So does the ADL.
Okay, so then you have Veritas.
What am I going to complain about?
They're doing the same thing everybody else does.
But they get smeared and slammed all day and night.
I don't want to go into a big thing about Veritas, though.
I think they do good work, for the most part.
I don't think they're perfect.
But I think what you see, then, is the proof of the bias in the media and how it leans in a certain direction.
The fact that Newsweek would run this story, the fact that you could have high-profile Twitter users saying a bunch of fringe conspiracy nonsense, the fact that you could have a bunch of celebrities Effectively defending this guy, the Washington Post, the austere scholar, or Bloomberg, a religious cleric leader.
It's like, dude, are you nuts?
The Trump derangement syndrome is so thick that they have to make every minor detail a fringe conspiracy.
But why?
Why do they entertain this nonsense?
I'm glad they called out Hillary Clinton for it.
But you want to talk about where my bias lies?
My bias lies in the lies.
Okay, they say Tim Pool's conservative.
No, no, no.
Listen, let me explain something to you, man.
I work for these companies.
I have seen them overtly lie.
I disagree with that.
It is against my moral philosophy.
I believe committing a moral harm to an individual is wrong.
You can't do it.
It's complicated.
I'll tell you what.
These organizations, they lie.
They falsely frame things, and they get away with it.
You know, one thing I've been railing on for a little while now, sorry to rehash it, but It's a really good example of what's happening is my Wikipedia page right now is being inundated by people trying to add conspiracy theorists because out of the thousand plus hours that I've made content traveling the world, reporting for Vice, reporting for Fusion, an hour-long documentary on institutional racism,
In one moment on a live stream, for about 30 seconds, I was asked specifically about a Fox News story and Seth Rich, and I gave my opinion based on a story that was developing.
Fox News later retracted the story.
Hey, that's normal.
Okay?
When we're commenting on breaking news stories, we say, eh, maybe it's not true, we need confirmation.
That's basically what I said.
But what happens then is, some activist clips that to make it seem like I'm praising InfoWars, hating on the New York Times, and believing conspiracy theories, and then NBC ran it on the Today Show as fact.
And that's what we deal with.
And then what ends up happening is this story says Tim Pool pushed a conspiracy theory.
It's like, dude, I made a passive comment to a live stream of 200 people four years ago where I said it wasn't definitively confirmed and we needed more information.
Too bad!
It's the game the media plays.
And then the NBC guy, who was mad at me because I publicly called him out for ethics violations, uses that to smear me.
And then activists go on Wikipedia and try and set historical precedent.
They go into these articles, and they're going to write this now.
I assure you, with stuff like this, you're going to see, Donald Trump was accused of staging the moment, whether or not it was real, blah, blah, blah.
Why is that?
Why?
Because one guy noticed a time disparity that could be explained by a million things?
I'm so sick of the media, dude.
You have no idea.
It is all false framing.
It's manipulative.
And I'm not saying it's on purpose.
I assure you, I despise conspiracies.
What I'm saying is, you have a culture where people want to fit in, so they frame stories in a specific way.
You have Newsweek knowing people hate Trump, so they want to talk about the story and say, well, someone claimed it was true.
I'm not going to blame Newsweek for necessarily covering the story, because a high-profile individual, a verified Twitter user, tweeted about it.
But you see how the story goes nuts.
And now, in my opinion, Newsweek should not be entertaining us in the least bit.
You want to criticize me over the Seth Rich stuff?
By all means, you're free to.
But to claim that I pushed a conspiracy because Fox News wrote an article stating that Seth Rich had connections with WikiLeaks, that's ridiculous.
Criticize Fox News, they later retracted the story, and I fully accept that.
But I, even after all that, never said it was true.
Nobody's perfect.
Newsweek's not perfect.
But it's not so much whether or not Newsweek is right or wrong to do this, but it's the bias.
That they can, and everyone says it's fine.
We can talk about a fringe conspiracy idea, the Russia bot stuff.
Buzzfeed even wrote an article in 2018 debunking the Russia bot stuff.
We know it's fake, yet for some reason, they still publish it as fact.
And no one calls them conspiracy theorists.
I'm sick of this, man.
Anyway, this is long.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
You wanna know why real communism has never existed?
It's because it can't exist.
Claiming we should have a government where everybody owns everything equally would be the same as saying we should have a government which magically creates perfect food out of thin air and hands it out to everybody so no one's hungry ever again.
Yeah, you can't do that.
Now it's possible with technology, eventually we can come to a point where we have a machine that just fabricates food out of thin air, but it's fantasy.
It's science fiction.
And communism is also fiction.
It's actually quite simple.
See, the thing is, Every single time some country has tried to create communism, the first thing you have to do is kill a ton of people because they dissent and don't want to live this way.
Once you get rid of all of those people, you then realize that, first of all, you're getting rid of thought leaders, people who run industries, expertise, but you clarify You exemplify exactly what the problem is.
You assumed command control, and thus, it doesn't matter what other people say or do, you have created an authoritarian command system, a command economy.
It can't exist.
Now, I believe regulated capitalism makes a lot of sense, where we do kind of a hybrid situation, right?
And there are varying degrees.
You know, you have Scandinavia, which lean much, much towards welfare states, but are very capitalistic.
Here's the bad news.
I think, man, I'm not going to be optimistic about the future.
Seven in ten millennials say they would vote for a socialist.
Socialism is a soft way of saying we're walking towards communism.
Now, I will tell you this.
I think it might be possible to create a system as close to socialism as you could probably get by walking people towards it instead of trying to just, you know, kill the people who refuse.
But in the end, you have to realize the system makes literally no sense.
Having a group of random people just decide whatever they do without any kind of barrier, as I explained the other day, I explain this all the time, you end up with literally everybody just wanting to be a singer, a comedian, or a rock star.
Okay?
Well, not everybody can do those jobs.
That's why socialism makes no sense.
In capitalism, where the basis of it is that the individual is free to trade their labor as they see fit and own private property, we have a distributed system which solves for problems using the free market.
Now, the free market isn't perfect, and that's why I believe a mixed economy makes the most sense.
Well, here's the bad news.
7 in 10 millennials say they would vote for a socialist.
Oh, there's more, though.
A story I covered the other day.
Majority of Americans want to change the First Amendment, and they want jail time.
For offensive speech.
Congratulations, America!
I believe the fault lies with educators.
Because communists are, as far as I'm concerned... Communists and fascists have so much in common.
What's the point?
Okay?
Sure, fascists, their end goals are completely different.
But communists, as far as I'm concerned, they're all authoritarians who want to impose their will on others.
And guess what?
There's one simple problem with this.
No individual can plan for everybody.
So I guess maybe an AI-powered communist system.
That sounds nightmarish.
You know, we'll see how things develop.
We have this new poll that shows that millennials and Gen Z are very favorable to socialists and communists.
51%, I believe the number is, have a negative view of capitalism.
And it's because they don't know what capitalism is.
And it's because they don't know about the history of communism.
So I blame the media, who for some reason Accept communism?
You know, it's really mind-blowing to me when you see left-wing activists out waving a communist flag.
I'm like, that's no different than waving, like, the fascists or something.
Like, you're literally bad, evil people.
And what happens?
The media says nothing.
Nobody complains.
Well, there you go.
So here's what you get.
You get a younger generation that not only believes in socialism, doesn't believe in free speech, and paradoxically, there's something else that's kind of strange.
Well, they're not having kids.
Millennials aren't having kids.
And we know this is true.
And the question is, well, they talk about why, but think about what the result is going to be.
You have a bunch of communist socialist kids who want to change the government.
Yeah, but guess what?
You're gonna grow up, okay?
And there's gonna be more opposition to what you believe, because the majority of people don't like this, and you have no kids, there's not gonna be a future genera- Like, listen.
If you're a communist socialist climate change person, and you don't have any kids, guess who is having kids?
Christian conservatives.
What does that mean for you?
You see what the point I'm trying to make is?
But I can't predict what's gonna happen, just that this is...
Kind of nightmarish.
Let's read.
The Hill reports.
70% of millennials in a new poll say they are somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist candidate.
The YouGov and Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation poll released on Monday found that 50% of millennials, defined as between the ages of 23 and 38, and 51% of Generation Z, or those 16 to 22, have a somewhat or very unfavorable view of capitalism, an increase of 8 and 6 percentage points respectively from last year.
Only 44% of Generation X, 33% of Boomers, and 33% of the Silent Generation said they were somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist candidate.
Hey, Gen X, what are you doing?
Bernie Sanders, a Democratic White House hopeful, is a self-identified Democratic Socialist who advocates for left-wing policies like the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and increased tax rates on wealthier Americans.
Now, a lot of people have tried to claim, Bernie is not a Socialist, he's a Social Democrat.
And that's fair.
And I've said that too.
But in the past few weeks, Bernie Sanders has announced a new plan that turns over 20% of private companies to a fund to pay out dividends to their employees.
Ah, there it is.
There's the Democratic Socialism.
The goal of democratic socialism is to implement communism without, gradually over time.
And it's actually the only way it could ever really be done.
If it could be done.
I don't think it can be, because I think you're trying to make, like, it's a magical fantasy that can't exist.
But I always defer to the story of eBay.
This may be an urban legend, but the legend has it that when eBay first launched, it was a yellow website.
They eventually, one day, changed it to white.
And everyone revolted.
The users were angry and said, this is terrible, change it back, I hate it.
So what they did was every day they incremented the color by a tiny percentage point towards white.
And eventually a year later the site was white and no one noticed and no one cared.
You make the change slowly and gradual over time and eventually no one cares anymore.
However, the problem is that, in my opinion, eBay is a functioning website and the color is irrelevant.
Communism, on the other hand, doesn't work.
It has nothing to do with whether or not they're going to wipe out all the dissidents.
Because if you're going to build the system over time, what matters is You're trying to create a system.
Here's what happens when I tweeted to the British Socialist Party or whatever.
I said, what if I want to build a car?
How do I do that?
And they said, you just go to the factory and get the parts.
And I said, why would I get priority on those parts?
How do you determine who should or shouldn't have parts?
No answer!
And therein lies the big problem.
You see, in capitalism we do have a lot of problems.
We have crony capitalism.
We have people who extract power and wealth by doing nothing.
And those are the biggest complaints people have about capitalism.
But they're not talking about what capitalism really means.
They're complaining about a corrupt system that should be regulated.
At its core, capitalism is, I decide to sell my labor for what I see fit.
In a socialist system, you don't.
The government and the collective assign priority whether or not you deserve it, and that creates a serious problem.
You will have people undeserving of certain materials getting access to them, and people who are deserving of them not getting access to them, because you can't differentiate who or why someone should have access.
It's true.
There are some people who are really good at building bicycles, but they hate it, they don't want to do it, and they would rather not be alive if they were forced to.
There are a lot of people who get really, really good at something, and they talk about how much they don't like doing it, and they stop.
I know people who are extremely good at certain sports, winning medals, potentially Olympic, and they said it made them miserable, they hated their lives, and they chose this is their life, and they're going to do what makes them happy, and they stopped, and they gave it all up.
It's crazy, right?
You see these big famous bands making all this great music, and then all of a sudden they break up, and you're like, why would you do that?
Why would you throw away everything?
Because they weren't happy.
It's that simple.
People know what's best for them as individuals, and from there we create a distributed system where people are choosing what they find to be the best.
Now, in that system, in a free market system, you end up with runaway businesses, monopolization of power, and those things are dangerous.
So we regulate for them.
But in the end, You could have somebody who's really, really good at, say, selling widgets.
I'm just giving random word, okay?
But they're also pretty good at building cars.
They can't build enough cars to make a living off of it, but they do buy parts, and over the span of a few years, they restore an old classic car and they sell it for a decent profit.
That means they've created something, they've restored something, but they couldn't do it as a profession.
There are some people who play video games on the side.
They have a regular job, and then they stream video games and make a little extra cash.
What would happen in your system?
Well, that wouldn't exist.
You'd literally just have an army of Generation Z being like, I want to be a YouTuber, and not wanting to do the work.
Doing YouTube, streaming, gaming, it's not all easy.
People assume that it's like, you know, I've had a lot of people act like being a YouTuber, making YouTube videos is this really, really easy job.
Have you seen all of the burnout videos?
These people struggle to do this job.
No, it is not a perfect scenario.
It is not this dream job.
What would happen?
When you implement communism.
This is why it doesn't work.
But I think the big problem is when you take a bunch of kids and you don't discipline them.
And I don't mean beat them.
I mean discipline.
Teach them how to survive, how to earn, how to validate.
They end up becoming spoiled.
And they think to themselves, I should be a... They're all narcissistic.
It's the easiest way to explain.
Check it out.
You know why so many celebrities are narcissists?
Because fame... Narcissists are attracted to fame, right?
So it's actually quite simple.
You have a lot of people who are probably really good at music, okay?
I actually think I'm pretty good at playing guitar.
Guess what?
You probably have rarely seen me play.
I got my guitar right here.
There you go.
You can hear it.
I'm actually pretty good.
I'm pretty good.
But I don't publish music because I'm not a narcissist.
Well, for the most part.
I think I'm kind of arrogant sometimes.
But I don't play my music.
I play it for myself.
I think my songs are pretty good.
But narcissists are the people who go, everyone must hear my song.
They must know.
And so they do everything in their power to make sure everyone can hear what they do and see what they're doing, and so you end up with a disproportionate amount of narcissists who are famous.
But now we have this younger generation that had all of their troubles swept away by their parents, and they're narcissistic.
They're precious snowflakes who got a medal for participation.
Well, they think they should have it all, so what happens then?
When you create a generation of arrogant narcissists, the me-me-me generation, well, they become socialists.
They think it's not fair that other people are rich.
I should have all of that and do nothing for it.
Because that's what their life has always been.
Think about it.
It's that simple.
I'm somebody who went through hardship, struggled, and tried to find a way to succeed.
I've been homeless several times when I was younger.
I fought to survive.
And I realized, not everything, most things are not given.
They have to be earned, even respect, right?
What do you think happens when you take these young people, where every step of the way they were given something by their parents, they were told what to do by their institutionalized learning facilities, they leave college and say, I'm ready for the authority to tell me what to do now and to give me my things.
That's literally what happens.
These kids who go to college, they go to school their whole lives.
They're completely institutionalized.
You know, people talk about how schools indoctrinate.
They say college is indoctrinating young people.
No, no, no.
Here's the thing.
Technically that's true, but it's not because- I don't think it's because there's this nefarious group of individuals and a conspiracy.
Although many people believe that.
Here's what I think actually happens.
You take somebody who grew up working on a farm, and they're gonna be like, I only got my apples when I grew the apples intended to them, therefore if you want something, you must work for it.
You then take somebody who goes to school.
They're handed the loans.
They demand the loans be paid back by the government.
Someone else pay for it.
I shouldn't have to.
I signed the agreement, but so what?
They start school.
The teacher says, here's your assignment.
Go do the work.
They say, okay.
They go to lunch.
Here's your food.
They don't know where the food comes from.
They don't know where the games come from.
The authority just keeps telling them what to do.
Eventually, they go to high school.
Same thing.
College, same thing.
Now they're adults in their 20s, mid-20s.
And their whole lives, everyone has just handed them what they needed and told them what to do.
And I have tried hiring these people, and man, it is a nightmare.
They say, what do I do?
And I say, I need you to do X. How do I do it?
I don't know.
That's why I hired you, because I don't know how to do it.
So I hired someone who knows how to do it.
I swear to God, this is the world we're in.
I recently announced I'm going to be hiring a vlogger because we're expanding the space and we're going to do, we got a bunch of projects in the works, a lot of expansion happening.
And 90 plus percent are people saying, I have no experience, I've never done this before, I would like the job anyway.
And I'm confused by this.
I'm like, listen, there's a job I need someone to do, okay?
And I'm not trying to be disrespectful to those who want to work with me.
I really do appreciate everybody's interest and it means a lot.
But there are a lot of people who want to do a job they can't do.
Well, listen.
If I was going to hire somebody who didn't know how to do a job, I would just go to the local supermarket and put up a flyer saying, here's a job, no experience required.
I wouldn't specifically look for a specialist.
I need somebody who knows how to do, and has the energy and time to do, what I can't.
So we've got a couple of projects we're expanding on.
We're doing this Mysteries podcast, right?
So I need somebody who can research and explore mysteries, the paranormal, and these crazy stories that can't be proven, so we can have a skeptic versus idealistic vision or fantasy version.
Basically, we want to talk about these things, and I'll say, look, we can't prove it.
We've got another person saying, man, but what if?
And it's going to be a fun conversation.
If I knew enough about paranormal research, and I know a little bit, I'd just do it myself.
No, I'd hire somebody because I need somebody who knows about this stuff.
Now back to the main point.
You end up with all of these people.
Their whole lives have been told what to do and how to do it.
So what ends up happening is I've experienced this, my friends have experienced this.
You get somebody who says, I have a college degree.
I'm here for that job.
I have a degree in, you know, literature and folklore.
And I say, oh, that's perfect.
And they say, okay, what do I do?
And I say, find some stories and write some stuff up.
How do I do that?
Well, I don't know.
I hired you because you were supposed to know how to do it.
Think about it this way.
Could you imagine if somebody went to college for plumber school, and then you hired someone to be your building maintenance guy, and they said, okay, what do you need me to do?
Shower's acting up, can you fix it?
Okay, yeah, just tell me how to fix it.
What do you mean, tell you how to fix it?
You're the plumber, you go fix it.
I don't know how to fix it.
Well, you gotta tell me what to do!
And that's what we're getting with these kids.
You go to school, and they say, here's your test.
And they say, okay, how do I do this?
Here's your book explaining how to do it.
Okay.
Then when they get out, instead of having skills that they can contribute to society, they have none.
They expect you to tell them what to do.
And then when they can't make money because of this, they demand the government pay off all their student debt, which, to an extent, I'm still in favor for, but it's complicated.
I do think there's an air of arrogance in this.
They demand the government pay off all my loans!
They have no marketable skills, they studied folklore and liberal arts, and then they get mad that they can't live this way, so they demand other people contribute.
Well, what do you think happens?
When you take a bunch of people, okay, with no marketable skills, that don't contribute, and are just experts in philosophy, and then start extracting resources from people who are working to give to them to support them.
The joke is, or the famous quote, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
But let's break that down.
The problem with socialism is that there are people working and producing, and the only way to support the other side who isn't is by extracting the value from their labor, and eventually those people get angry and say, I worked so hard to feed my family, and you took it all away from me.
And that's why it doesn't work.
And that's why I think a mixed economy makes the most sense, because there is predatory capitalistic systems, and I think we are long overdue for a lot more different types of regulation.
I gotta admit, I do like the idea of partial ownership for employees.
But that's something a company needs to implement.
If you think a company should do this, start a company and do this!
Instead of trying to pass a law mandating all of these companies give away their private property.
That's a major overhaul, you can't do it.
Anyway...
The point of this video is, young people are communists, communism doesn't work, they hate free speech, and it's because they're spoiled brats and everything was handed to them and they have no idea what they're doing, and we are in for a heck of a ride, but there's one thing that will change this, and it's bad news for the left.
Listen all you Green New Deal types, if you don't have kids, What do you think happens in 20 years when all of the Christian conservatives had four or five kids, and now they're 20 years old, or, you know, 18, 20, and they're voting?
You're gonna get voted out!
So I guess that's technically the good news for the Christian conservatives, but it is a weird circumstance to have all of these millennials not having kids.
But the Christian conservatives are having tons.
Where do you think that leads us?
It's probably why we're seeing Kanye West go all Christian-like, because I think we're gonna see a resurgence in Christian conservatism.
There's been data to show it might happen.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on youtube.com slash Tim Cassett is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
We gotta start this video off very serious when I say it's time to get out of California.
Not all of California, but a decent amount of it.
When the power gets shut off out of a fear of spreading wildfires, it would probably be smart to get out.
Go somewhere safe for several reasons.
One, without power, you are at risk.
And this is especially for people with medical conditions.
More importantly, there's a fear Of wildfire.
Now, I'm not gonna say just because the power's out you should go, but if it were me, I would leave in that circumstance.
But we've also now, we have 200,000 people being evacuated, 2.4 million without power, and a 3.3 magnitude earthquake rocking the area as firefighters are struggling to battle this flame.
This is a series of pretty bad disasters.
So listen.
I don't want to be dickish, but first and foremost, I want everybody to be safe.
If you're in California, earthquakes tiny, I don't think that's going to be a big factor, but with the wildfires that are consistently sparking up, you need to evacuate, especially if they're telling you to evacuate.
You need to take care to protect your home.
There's a lot of things you should be doing right now for a lot of different reasons.
Outside of these disasters, which I will be reading about, I want to talk about just Man, it's time to leave California.
Period.
You've got soaring gas prices.
You've got a homeless crisis.
You've got raging wildfires.
The power is being shut out.
All of these things are stacking up.
Drugs, human waste.
California is a mess.
It is not getting better.
It is getting worse.
And these fires are escalating.
And they're escalating for a reason.
Now, there's a very well-respected meteorologist who has pushed back on some of the far-left claims about climate change, who's come out and said, these dry weather patterns are attributed to climate change.
The jet stream is acting weird.
Hey, I take his word for it.
This guy's been correct, and he's pushed back on the far-left.
He's even pushed back on AOC.
So now he's saying, listen, OK?
That being said, maybe it's time, regardless of the weather and the fires, to look at the other problems California is being rocked by.
You've got homelessness across the state.
It's not just LA.
It's SF, Sacramento.
You've got people coming out, closing their businesses.
The problem isn't being solved.
And in fact, it's being made worse.
Now you've got Newsom.
People want a recall of this guy.
He's a Democrat.
Gas prices went up.
They approved a new tax.
The prices are ridiculous.
I gotta say, man, if you have made it through this far, you have my respect.
How you were able to stay in this place, I left a long time ago, because a lot of these problems.
Not entirely, but there was a lot going on, and I realized California is not all it's cracked up to be.
That, you know, basically, Los Angeles in particular, they romanticize what this place is really like, and you get there and you're like, man, this is actually kind of bad.
There's a lot of bad stuff, I couldn't deal with it.
In fact, I actually had my apartment burned down.
It's a whole other thing!
But, uh, I stuck around for a bit.
I decided to leave.
Because... Yeah, there was a lot of weird and bad things.
Venice was not this fun, exciting place I thought it was gonna be.
There was a lot of problems.
I don't wanna get too negative on this, because I know it's a rather serious issue with these wildfires.
But you've got natural disasters, and now you've got governmental disasters.
You combine the drought over the past several years, okay, with these wildfires, with the power being shut down, I don't know how anybody is staying in California at this point.
And I will stress, you know, they are going to Austin.
A lot of these Californians are going to Texas.
They're going to Colorado.
Maybe this is when people start, you know, fleeing the West.
And here's the thing.
I mean the West and the U.S.
The East Coast gets more than half of the rainfall.
More than half of the population lives on the East Coast.
The Western Coast is not very dense.
You know, it's just these big cities.
But let's read, actually.
Figure out what's going on.
And then we'll talk about California.
They say, wildfires are continuing to ravage California as they force 200,000 people to flee their homes and threaten celebrity mansions and L.A.' 's Getty Center, which houses historic artwork.
Northern California, which has been hit hard by the Kincade Fire, also reported a minor 3.3 magnitude earthquake on Monday, just after 1 a.m.
local time, not far from the wildfire that has forced 80,000 residents in that area out of their homes.
There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage from the quake.
I think it was like a year or two ago.
I was in L.A.
And I was in Pasadena, actually.
It's basically L.A., but it's Pasadena.
And I looked up as I was leaving early in the morning, and there's a fire on the hill!
It is a crazy thing to see with these wildfires, because most people don't think it'll happen.
You know, one day, you've got this beautiful, lush greenery all around you.
You give it a couple weeks, snow, rain, drought, weird weather patterns, dry air, and all of a sudden it's brown, and fires are sweeping across where you live.
They say the state has been plagued by at least nine wildfires since last week, with the latest blaze to break out on Sunday near the Getty Center.
Flames were seen raging along the 405 freeway near the museum, which displays pre-20th century works of art by artists including Rembrandt and Van Gogh.
Celebrities have been fleeing their homes, and dramatic footage showed flames rapidly spreading towards 8-bedroom Brentwood mansion of actor Josh Duhamel Monday.
He bought the 8,232-square-foot sprawling property with then-wife Fergie for $5.2 million in 2007.
Kate Hudson was seen getting into her vehicle in the upscale Pacific Palisades neighborhood to evacuate early Monday morning as the threat of fire loomed large.
And NBA star LeBron James also evacuated, tweeting, Had to emergency evacuate my house.
And I've been driving around with my family trying to get rooms.
No luck.
There's not even hotels, dude.
I don't know how you stay in here, man.
My heart goes out to all the people who have been affected by this.
But let's be real, man.
It's not the first year this has been going on.
It's only getting worse.
The state is horribly mismanaged.
And look, you know what, man?
You know all these rich people?
Not in my backyard.
They have a democratic supermajority in LA.
They can't solve their homeless crisis.
And one of the big problems is all the rich people living up in the hills in their mansions where they don't see the problems.
But I'll tell you what, man.
You cannot escape this.
Because now the fires are sweeping through the hills and you're forced to evacuate and there's nowhere to go.
Man, you've got people sleeping on the streets.
You've got human waste in the streets.
You've got drug problems.
The homeless problem is only getting worse.
Gas prices are skyrocketing.
How much more can these people take, man?
But it's true.
California is draining in population.
And it's actually kind of surprising.
But I think one of the big factors, as I've mentioned in the past couple videos on this issue, is the digital economy.
You don't need to live there anymore.
You can make movies in the middle of nowhere.
You can make low-budget indie films if you have the skill, the talent, you do it right.
You can go into Nebraska.
Film that video on the cheap.
So now there's opportunity for you to get out.
You know, there's a joke in LA.
There's a sticker on Amoeba Music, which is near Hollywood.
I think it's in Hollywood.
And it said, welcome to Los Angeles when you leave, take someone with you.
Everybody keeps coming.
And it's just not...
It's not gonna work.
I know a lot of people who moved to California, specifically to Los Angeles, because they wanted to be actors, musicians, and be famous, and they ended up... dregs, to say the least.
They ended up in very, very... just... not good situations, if you know what I mean.
Drugs, prostitution, and that's what this place breeds.
Sure, there's success, but I'll tell you what, man.
LA is the city you go to when you're already rich and famous.
Then you get your big old mansion.
But nah, this is what you can contend with.
Nah, it's not worth it.
We have to break the hypnosis that this state has on people.
It is not... It's got great weather, okay?
Like, it's always 69 degrees and sunny with decent humidity, and it's great.
You can go outside any day.
But I'll tell you what, man.
It has got so many problems.
It is not a paradise.
You'd be better off in the middle of the country working and surviving and getting away from these problems.
And I'll tell you what, part of what makes these problems worse is more and more people keep coming.
So I think it's really important we sort of break that hypnosis they have on the rest of the country where they pretend to be this great place where everyone's got to be.
You got to be a star.
That's their marketing job.
They want you to come there and spend money because there's very few cities on the West Coast relative to the East Coast.
You know, it's a couple hours from New York to Philly to D.C.
Los Angeles, five hours to SF.
Yeah, there's some small cities in between, but you've got corruption, you've got crisis, and now an earthquake and a fire at the same time and they're shutting the power off on you?
Dude, it's time to get out!
Look at these photos.
It's amazing.
I mean, it's horrifying.
I don't mean amazing in a good sense.
Like, this is nuts.
It's only getting worse.
Like, at what point do people just say, no way, man.
Finally found a place to accommodate us crazy nightmen.
He also added, I'm praying for all the families in the area that could be affected by these fire emojis.
Pretty please get to safety ASAP.
Look at those photos, man.
I gotta tell you.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the movie star and former governor, also tweeted that he evacuated his Brentwood home at 3.30 a.m.
If you're in an evacuation zone, don't screw around, the Terminator star tweeted Monday.
Get out right now.
Man, there's some heartbreaking stories.
But I just want to... They say... I'm not going to read this.
Night-flying helicopters have made water drops.
I think you get the point, man.
With the mismanagement, with the poverty, and now even the rich people are being inundated.
You know what?
You want to play life on hard mode?
Fine, go to LA.
There's resources few and far between.
You head east, you get nothing but Mojave Desert.
Until you can make it up to like... I mean, Vegas is still in the desert.
I don't know, man.
I feel bad because I feel like there's a lot of young people who are being told this is the place to be.
I cannot tell you how many times I've talked to some young YouTube star, or YouTuber, not star, but somebody who's like, you know, rising in YouTube, and they're like, I'm gonna move to Los Angeles!
And I'm like, don't!
Don't do that!
It's the last thing you want to do, man.
I moved out of New York.
I'm in the suburbs, okay?
In South Jersey.
I got away from all of that.
You don't have to do that anymore.
But as much as people keep thinking, like, this is the place you gotta go to make it, man, it's only gonna get worse.
Don't do it.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, I will see you all shortly.
Today in I am sick and tired of left-wing conspiracy mumbo-jumbo nonsense being pushed through the internet, we have this story.
Accusing Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, but specifically Ben Shapiro as its founder, of breaking Facebook's rules and getting away with it by pushing a conspiracy theory.
This was promoted by CNN's Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter, as well as some New York Times personalities.
And you know what?
Instead of just tweeting at them constantly, stop spreading conspiracies.
I decided to make a video about it.
Here's the accusation.
They say Facebook allows prominent right-wing website to break the rules.
This is the online version of the Popular Information newsletter, whatever.
Okay, popular.info.
Here's the question.
Is Ben Shapiro, founder of the Daily Wire, using a coordinated inauthentic network to promote the Daily Wire?
The answer is, I don't know.
And this doesn't prove it.
But you can be sure they assert that as fact.
Here's what we do know.
They are 14 pages.
They appear to be posting the same content at the same time.
Does that prove there is inauthentic behavior, which would be a violation of Facebook's rules?
No, it doesn't.
Does it prove that Ben Shapiro or Daily Wire in any way are involved?
No, it doesn't.
Yet, they are still making that claim and CNN is pushing this out.
Stop.
Is it possible?
It is.
Is it likely in my opinion?
Can't say for sure.
Would it be a good strategy to do?
There is a good reason to do this to promote The Daily Wire.
So what I can tell you right now is, they have a half story that is not conclusive, nothing is confirmed, it's interesting to say the least, but you cannot make a statement of fact accusing The Daily Wire of doing this specifically on their own, and then they try and reframe Facebook's rules to make it seem like The Daily Wire is doing something wrong, when they most likely aren't, even if it's the case!
But you know what?
Because it's CNN promoting it, it's not a conspiracy.
Okay, Brian, thank you for promoting conspiracy theories while simultaneously constantly complaining about far-right conspiracies.
Nothing in this is confirmed, and you promoted it, and so did Oliver Darcy.
Why does CNN get a free pass to promote unconfirmed information from an ideological standpoint to smear a page simply because they don't like it?
Yup.
And I'm telling you they don't like it, not because I'm making that up.
Because the people who wrote this are left-wing activists, and CNN's promoting it.
I'm so sick and tired of the double standard, where they can say, you promoted a conspiracy theory.
Dude, you literally wrote this huge conspiracy nonsense accusing Daily Wire specifically of coordinated inauthentic behavior, and then accused Facebook of working with them to allow it.
I kid you not.
Some of these tweets are like, Mark Zuckerberg just met with Ben Shapiro, and now they're allowing this.
Dude, you didn't even prove this!
You didn't even prove this was real, and you're already jumping to Mark Zuckerberg as defending them and allowing them to break the rules?
I am sick and tired of the fake news conspiracy nonsense trash, and this was promoted by Brian Stelter of CNN and Oliver Darcy.
Bravo, guys!
Thank you for promoting this insane nonsense.
Let's read this, and I'm gonna break it down, because I know a ton about how this works, and I can tell you definitively why they're not being banned, and it may be Daily Wire, maybe not, we don't know.
The Daily Wire, the right-wing website founded by pundit Ben Shapiro, is a cesspool of misogyny, bigotry.
Okay, we get it.
You're on the left and you don't like The Daily Wire.
They say a popular information investigation reveals some of this success is attributable to a clandestine network of 14 large Facebook pages.
Okay, hold on.
Clandestine?
Seriously, dude?
You can just search for them.
They're not hard to find.
Clandestine.
Full stop!
Okay, hold on.
Clandestine?
Seriously, dude?
You can just search for them.
They're not hard to find.
Clandestine.
This kind of inauthentic coordinated behavior.
Full stop.
In order for this to be inauthentic, you have to prove a few things.
Is it really being run by the Daily Wire?
We don't know.
Secondly, what's inauthentic about the Daily Wire having a bunch of different pages and
promoting things?
That's not what the rules are about.
And it's such weasley conspiracy trash.
They say Facebook has taken down smaller and less coordinated networks that promoted liberal content.
And I know why they did, and it's because they actually broke the rules.
Okay, but let's carry on.
But Facebook told Popular Information that it will continue to allow this network to operate and amplify the Daily Wire's content.
First, It is not against the rules to have different pages.
Imagine you had, like, five Twitter accounts, and one was called, like, the Meme Master, and then one's called, like, the Master of Memes, and they post a lot of the similar stuff.
That is coordinated.
Is it inauthentic?
Define inauthentic.
Facebook's rules on coordinated inauthentic behavior are specifically and typically about foreign actors pretending to be American, which is inauthentic, and then promoting politics for a political reason.
If The Daily Wire created a series of pages that are called... One's called, like, Lady Patriots.
One's called, like, Don't Mess With America.
And I went and checked them out.
You know what the first thing I noticed was?
They have no traction whatsoever.
That's right.
The articles have zero engagement.
So they're trying to contend that, but why does The Daily Wire get so much engagement?
It's because of this inauthentic network.
Okay.
There's a lot to break down.
And I must stress the first thing is we don't know who's running this.
Some of the pages claimed to be run by particular individuals may be true.
And you can have a bunch of different pages, and they can promote the same articles, and it can come from one website, especially if they're actually Americans.
And guess what?
Facebook knows the location of where these things are being posted.
Now, it is fair to say, there is reason to believe Daily Wire may be doing this on their own.
No problem saying that.
But this is a half story.
It shouldn't have been published without a comment from the Daily Wire.
Or definitive proof.
So here we see several pages.
Conservative news.
Don't mess with America.
Fed up Americans.
Lady Patriots.
I looked at a couple of these pages.
They have very few followers.
They have relatively few followers.
In the tens of thousands.
I think bigger, higher profile personalities on Facebook tend to be in the millions.
My Facebook page has like 70,000.
So these are about as, they're not particularly big.
They do simultaneously post, typically, around the same time, the same content.
Well, here's the thing.
First, Conservative News posted 8 minutes.
Don't Mess With America posted 12 minutes ago.
Okay, hold on.
If you want to argue they were all posted at the exact same time, I would say they're using something like HootSuite to automate, schedule the posts, and have them pop up.
However, these are not all posted at the same time.
This says 5 minutes, 12, and 8, which means somebody manually went in and started dropping links.
Okay, you can also see, based on the photo, these have no engagement!
Listen, there is a benefit to doing this, and I'll explain that in a second, but to act like these are somehow very powerful, they're going to get a minor benefit off doing this, if it is true that Daily Wire is doing this.
More importantly, however, it doesn't look like they're automating the posts.
It looks like there may be a moderator who goes in and explicitly does this.
Now, let me tell you why some of these other networks got banned.
These other networks got banned because they created a big spider web where they shared pages with each other so that they could all promote their own individual websites to all these different pages.
And Facebook saw a spider web of different network admins controlling all of these different pages.
It's very, very different.
Now, I believe Facebook should not have gotten rid of them.
However, the outrage was because of the left.
Facebook deleted this network because of the constant barrage of left-wing demands to get rid of inauthentic behavior.
That was very specific.
In this instance, you may have one person, and Facebook knows this, running multiple accounts, which you're allowed to do, manually posting the same article.
And guess what?
You want to know why all these posts probably happen around the same time?
Maybe it's because that's when The Daily Wire publishes them to their website.
So let's stop here.
The question is, they specifically assert, and not only that, one of the websites doesn't even line up what they're trying to claim, that the Daily Wire is doing this.
They say, the engagement the Daily Wire receives from this network could expand the reach of posts with the same content shared from Ben Shapiro's Facebook page on the main Daily Wire Facebook page.
Except it doesn't.
And you can clearly see it.
This is an unhinged Conspiracy theory.
They're literally believing a conspiracy that this network is controlled by the Daily Wire.
They directly and overtly claim the Daily Wire is doing this.
And they say, look at this.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently invited Shapiro, the Wire's founder, to his home for dinner.
The purpose of the meeting, to talk about issues like free speech and discuss partnerships.
Shapiro's, okay, okay.
You see what they're doing?
And this is getting promoted by, this is getting mainstream play.
So let me tell you something.
Actually, let's read this right here.
I want to make sure we get to the gist of it.
They say, Facebook's community standards prohibit inauthentic behavior.
Define inauthentic behavior.
That is defined by Facebook as the use of Facebook or Instagram, assets, accounts, pages, groups, etc., to mislead people or Facebook about the identity, purpose, or origin of the entity they represent.
So you're saying you have proof that the person behind these accounts works for Ben Shapiro and isn't just some person who wants to build pages?
Clearly Facebook knows something you don't, right?
It's possible the Daily Wire has nothing to do with this.
It's also possible we're looking at an inverted correlation.
Could it be that there's an individual who knows that because Daily Wire is so popular, they created multiple pages unaffiliated with the Wire and they manually upload these links whenever the Daily Wire publishes because it builds up these pages and generates followers.
Could that be the case?
The point is, we don't know.
We know that someone runs multiple pages because they're posting at the same time, that's fair, and that's about it.
So why did Brian Stelter promote this?
Why did Oliver Darcy promote this?
Why is CNN's media reporters pushing a baseless conspiracy, making accusations and statements of fact?
They say this.
That is exactly what the Daily Wire is doing with these Facebook pages.
Whoa!
Prove it!
Well, how do you know the Daily Wire is doing it?
You don't.
And you know what?
I understand you might say there's a good probability they are.
First, you said their engagement could be coming from this, but these posts get no engagement!
Let me tell you something.
Facebook gives weight to links, at least they used to, if they were posted a lot by a lot of people.
That means the only real benefit I could see from this, if the Daily Wire was doing it, was to give weight to the story itself and the algorithm by having the same link appear multiple times.
Considering that we don't see any engagement from these pages, I think that's not what's happening.
And I think they've jumped the gun and made a statement of fact saying the Daily Wire is doing that with these pages.
Dude, I really doubt the Daily Wire will ever bring this up, but come on, man.
When CNN's media reporters are posting an unhinged conspiracy with no facts, with no proof?
At some point, you've got to call them out for this.
The Angry Patriot Facebook page, for example, says it is run by a frustrated American tired of the establishment taking away our rights and treating American citizens like third-class citizens.
In reality, it is centrally run as a part of a network that exists to promote content from the Daily Wire.
You don't know that.
You don't know what it's doing or why it's doing it.
You just know that it- it- it- okay.
Saying it exists to promote DailyWire is jumping the gun.
What we know.
These pages post very close to each other at the same time DailyWire content.
First, is it possible the Daily Wire is running these pages for promotion?
It is.
What is the likelihood?
I honestly don't know.
They say, look at all of these pages, posting around the exact same time.
Oh my, oh no!
What if that's because it's when The Daily Wire publishes the article?
And fans of The Daily Wire then post the article once it goes live.
And that's why they're not published at the exact same time, because if it was one person running this, they would use HootSuite and schedule the post to go onto every page.
Instead, what you get is slightly off, meaning Daily Wire writes a story.
Presses publish.
The different people who have these pages see the post, go live, and immediately share it, hoping it to get engagement, which they don't get.
Listen, I can't tell you what is more likely, but in my opinion, the simple solution is that this is an unhinged fringe conspiracy that's angry that people like sharing the Daily Wire.
They've made statements of fact without evidence, and you, Brian, and CNN are pushing this.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
This is not news, okay?
You know what they do?
They then try and go on and play this game like, and Mark Zuckerberg invited Ben Shapiro to his house.
Wink, wink.
What does that mean?
Oh my, you know what?
Thanks for your double standard.
The CNN has lost the plot.
You know what?
I don't even know why I'm bringing this story up.
How about we go to Don Lemon and asking about a black hole swallowing an airplane?
For shame, okay?
I fully understand.
It's possible.
Something may come of this in the future and it may turn out to be true.
The Daily Wire was running this and they were posting these things to these pages.
Facebook says, according to them, that it was deceptive.
Yeah, I'd be interested to see the full quote from Facebook before I take their word for it.
They're activists who don't like the Daily Wire, who have accused them of all the bigotry and trans-whatever-phobia.
I get it.
You don't like them.
But you don't have any proof.
So why the New York Times and CNN is promoting it?
Yeah, well, we get it.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
Donald Trump went to the World Series and got booed by many, many people in the crowd.
Maybe the majority.
It's hard to know how many people were booing.
There are some photos of people waving to Trump all happy like.
And now we are getting the partisan fighting, and I had to talk about it.
So we'll read the story, but I have to point out how everybody is getting it wrong.
And I think it's because the right is trying to defend the president.
The left wants, you know, they hate the president.
And the reality is simple.
Many of the conservatives take it as right.
It's D.C.
D.C.
was 90% for Hillary Clinton.
So yeah, the people in D.C.
are going to boo Donald Trump.
Now, but here's his thing.
You've got the left.
There's this viral image.
It was number one on Reddit.
Oh, I can't stand Reddit's echo chamber.
And it's Donald Trump smiling and waving, and then he stops smiling and just looks somber.
And people are like, the exact moment when Donald Trump realizes that people are booing him.
It's like, dude, Or the camera changed and so he's like, I'm smiling, I'm waving.
Okay, anyway, we're done.
It's like they insert a frame of mind to Trump.
Some Republicans, some Trump supporters are saying Trump knew they would boo him because he wants people to see how much the swamp hates Trump.
Oh, come on.
You know what?
First of all, Trump is not depressed and sad because the crowd was booing him.
He deals with this kind of thing all the time, and he rails on it all the time.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't care.
Actually, I take that back.
I think Trump cares if people boo him, but I don't think that he was like, oh no, they're booing me.
I'm rump, I say.
No, he was just smiling and waving and then looked down.
And now they're trying to claim that he didn't bring his son.
How dare he not bring his son to a baseball game?
It's like, dude, calm down.
Nothing.
Here's what happened.
Trump got booed.
Is it significant?
Kind of, but he's in D.C., so yeah, liberals gonna boo him.
I don't think Trump did it on purpose.
I do, however, think it's a good point that some conservatives are saying that whether it was intentional or not, having a crowd of people in D.C.
boo the president, I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people in middle America who like that.
You know, Trump said he was going to drain the swamp.
He's in D.C.
That's a good point.
But to act like Trump did it on purpose is a step over the line.
So I'll give you this.
To the conservatives who say that Trump booing might actually work out in his favor, might actually.
Okay.
I respect that.
To the ones saying that Trump strategically went to a Nationals game knowing he would be booed, I'm like, no, no, no, no, that's not Trump.
Trump's not that kind of guy.
But then, to the left, saying he's a bad father for not bringing his kid to the baseball game.
What are you talking about?
You have no idea what they're doing.
Like, Barron was trending on Twitter, and there's like this viral tweet where they're like, a father who won't even take his own son to a baseball game.
It's like, what?!
That's so dumb!
Let's read what happened.
Politics is so stupid.
Listen, Trump gets cheered most of the time by his supporters.
He got booed this time.
I looked at that tweet and I was like, huh, how about that?
That was it.
And then all of a sudden now it's this big international story where everyone's like waving their arms and they're shrieking like, oh!
And the left is now saying, this is proof that people hate Trump.
Oh, man.
It's like, dude, he was in D.C., man.
Like, what do you think's gonna happen?
He went to Minnesota, and people got into fights.
Antifa showed up and started beating his supporters.
Like, yeah.
So, a baseball game isn't a Trump rally.
So, you know, I'll point out two things.
For one, it could have been... I don't know how many people you need to boo to make that kind of noise.
It could have been most.
I just don't know.
But there are photos of people waving, like, yeah, go Trump, whatever, right?
So the Daily Mail reports Trump and Melania are booed by crowd chanting and they also chanted, lock him up.
And here's another funny thing, you know, chanting lock him up, I think is wrong.
I think chanting lock her up is wrong.
I get why people are doing it on both sides.
And I've always read, I'm a milquetoast fanciter, right?
But I've criticized Trump several times for the, for the lock her up rhetoric.
I'm not like the most egregious Trump derangement syndrome being like, Trump's a dictator!
I'm kind of like, eh, it's probably inappropriate to do.
Is it appropriate to chant lock him up with the president?
Nah, probably inappropriate to do.
But I love how, you know, politics in today's day and age is a mirror image.
Like, both sides projecting on each other.
No, I gotta admit, I think the media is biased against conservatives, and I think the left has a huge double standard in their bias for sure.
But look, you know what Trump did with Ukraine?
What Biden did?
You've got these parallels happening where everyone assumes that their side is good and the other side is bad.
So what you end up getting is these leftists saying, listen, an authoritarian dictator saying lock her up to his political opponent is very different from a bunch of people rising up against an authoritarian dictator.
You think Trump is bad, so you want him locked up and you think you're right and you're the resistance fighting back.
Dude, no.
You're on the side of that crony neoliberal lady who wanted to go bomb the Middle East.
I don't think you're right.
I don't think, you know, I think it's very dangerous to go around chanting, lock people up, for sure.
But I'm kind of like, whatever, man.
It's being bombastic.
I'd prefer if he didn't do it, and I'm not a big fan of the guy.
So there you go.
But then you're going to have a crowd in a baseball field start chanting, lock him up.
And then they try to defend that behavior.
Well, he started it.
Oh, yeah, okay.
Two wrongs make a right, apparently.
You know what happens when a fight breaks out between two kids, and then one kid goes, he started it!
The principal says, I don't care who started it!
Yeah, it's unfortunate, like in those things, because, you know, self-defense, like if you're defending yourself, but I'll tell you what, man...
Double standards across the board.
You can't defend people chanting, lock him up in a baseball stadium at the same time be angry that Trump supporters chanted, lock her up at their rallies.
And they go, Trump allowed these things to go on too long.
He should stop them.
It's like, okay, where were you at?
Oh, but they're rising up.
They're the resistance.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Wearing a dark suit and tie, Trump arrived at Nationals Park just before the first pitch of the Houston Astros-Washington national matchup.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They say hours earlier he had announced that the U.S.
forces had captured Baghdadi.
A military success against a most wanted enemy.
Now, you know what?
A lot of people have said, you can see a lot of people are booing.
That's like, that's a lot of them.
Flicking them off, too.
It appears Morgan actually came to his defense saying, on this day where Trump took out the leader of one of the most dangerous, like one of the most wanted guy on the planet, they're booing him.
That's disrespectful.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't boo.
Oh man, did you see that video of the rapper YG or whatever?
He brings the kid on stage and says, I want you to yell F Trump.
And the kid's like, no.
And he goes, get out of here.
You're a Trump supporter.
Welcome to, welcome to the world we're living in, man.
I don't know if you've seen it.
It's gone viral.
I don't have it pulled up, but it's, it's in the same vein.
You're never going to see me screaming F Donald Trump or anything like that.
I'm not going to do it.
You know why?
I want to calm everybody down.
I want to bring people together.
This is not how you do it.
It is not how you do it.
All of these people should be ashamed of themselves.
But you know what?
It doesn't matter.
Because nobody cares.
Because everybody's the good guy.
Everybody wants to make sure they're slinging mud back and forth to the point where fighting just breaks out.
I have absolutely no problem giving praise to politicians when they do something good.
Unfortunately, right now, there is no Democratic Party.
Like, I'm sorry, man.
And I know people are going to take that and they're going to be like, Tim's crazy.
The Democrats clearly exist.
There's a bunch of them.
They're in the House.
No, listen.
There's no cohesive messaging.
There's no cohesive policy.
There's very little to cheer for.
When Ted Cruz and AOC come together for, you know, the lobbying bill they want to do, I'm like, you guys, good, both of you.
Never been a big Republican fan, but I'll give Ted Cruz praise.
Not a big fan of AOC's far-left weird socialist, you know, identitarian whatever, but if they're talking about good stuff, I'll give him praise.
Right now the Democrats don't even have a cohesive message.
They're not campaigning on anything.
They're saying healthcare's not good enough.
Who asked?
Like, you guys got Obamacare.
They say, oh well, the orange man should be impeached.
And I'm like, okay, now you're not even talking about policies.
Now you're just pointing at the orange guy.
You know what I mean?
So, I think, it's just, I'm so sick and tired of politics in this country, in this way, right?
There was a period a few weeks ago where I felt like that snap.
Uh, where, all of a sudden, we entered rerun territory.
I kid you not.
There was actually a viral meme, I don't know if it's true, where they show two CNN articles that are nearly identical, where it says something about, like, the Russia scandal, and then the Ukraine scandal.
And it's a similar photo of Trump shaking hands, and it says, like, putting Trump underwater or something.
And there's this moment, like, it was probably about a month ago, where all of a sudden, the same story started popping up, saying the exact same things they said six months ago, and I was just like, Yeah, I think there's nothing left.
Like, what is there left to complain about?
So now what do we have?
We quite literally have a defense, a double standard, the booing of Trump, this is big breaking news, and there's just so little to talk about.
And they end up having to defend Baghdadi because what can they complain about?
Trump did something and it's a historical moment.
Taking out this bad guy.
So they have to defend him.
Austere scholar, the Washington Post said.
Bloomberg praises him.
A bunch of people then start attacking Trump for his rhetoric, and it's like, what are you doing?
Like, are you really that desperate to be mad at Trump?
That's what you do?
That you complain about all of the rhetoric for locking, you know, locking, when the crowd says, lock her up, but then you do it too?
Everybody is so full of it.
I just, you know, I got halfway through this and now I'm just, they've got, I mean, not only that, but it looks like there was, they planned protests.
They knew Trump was coming.
So why should I consider any of this authentic?
They probably had a bunch of people who knew what's going to happen and they were going to boo the president.
You know what, man?
If we want to bring people together and the divide, I don't know what it takes, honestly.
Because people like fighting each other.
They like hating each other.
Maybe it'll be China, a common enemy.
Maybe that'll be the factor that drives Americans together, but you know what?
Everybody gets this one a little bit wrong.
But as per usual, let me end with this.
I love this story.
Look at this.
Watch Fox News?
You likely think the U.S.
economy is great?
MSNBC viewers, not so much.
This story tells us something very simple.
If you're watching MSNBC, you believe fake news, which is why the truth is leaning on the right side right now.
But it's not just that it's leaning on the right side.
I'm a moderate leaning to the left, but they will call me conservative.
Therefore, if you believe the truth, If you have the facts on your side, because the truth is the economy is great, they will call you conservative.
