Facebook Has SUSPENDED Me For Reporting on CIA Whistleblower Calling It "Crime Activity"
Facebook Has SUSPENDED Me For Reporting on CIA Whistleblower Calling It "Crime Activity." Recently it was announced that Facebook and Youtube will be banning any content naming the whistleblower. Youtube force privated my first video on the matter and confirmed to me they will not be reinstating it.Facebook has taken down a series of my posts providing reporting and evidence that the named person may in fact be the CIA whistleblower. One post praising the new york times for outing the whistleblower was removed and this led to my suspension from Facebook.As it was the first time I have ever been suspended for posting something on Facebook it was only a temporary ban. As of the filming of this video I had 6 hours left before I could post again.Facebook told me that reporting on this person was a "crime activity" that could cause harm even though Fox news has already named the individual twice and many other high profile personalities and news outlets have done so as well.We are entering dark times. Journalism itself is corrupt or banned completely. ABC News is exposed for spiking possibly the biggest story of our generation and now big tech is banning people and content that provides vital context in the Trump impeachment inquiry.Democrats are refusing to allow Republicans to call the whistleblower to testify so it is more important than ever to report on who this person is and what is currently going on.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This is the first time I've ever been suspended from the platform for posting something they deem to be against the rules.
I don't swear.
I disagree with hate speech.
I regularly say we should do better, but I do support free speech.
Well, Facebook has suspended me for an overt act of journalism.
I shared a link to a story from Politico, a mainstream website, discussing why it's important we share the identity of the whistleblower.
Specifically, that the New York Times was right to out the whistleblower.
Now, I want to make sure this is clear.
What the story of the New York Times did was gave us all of the key background details on the individual, short of providing their name.
But imagine if someone said, there's a particular beanie-wearing journalist on YouTube, And we're not going to name him, you'd be like, you're talking about Tim Poole, right?
So that's essentially what happened.
In response to the Times, many people started circulating the name, saying this is an individual who's been in the public, who's made public statements, we know who this person is, and it started being reported on.
Eventually, the president's son tweeted out a story naming the individual.
Not only have I been suspended from Facebook, but my video discussing the individual and their work history was blocked by force, and YouTube confirmed to me they will not allow my fact-based reporting talking about the individual and their work history.
They won't allow it.
So I can't say the name.
The name has thus been censored from this video.
We are entering dark times.
About a year and a half ago, I did a story debunking fake news from the mainstream media.
My video was taken down with a community guideline strike.
They said the person I was talking about, I was bullying!
No.
I fact-checked the Associated Press, talking about an individual, and I was right.
A day or two later, the AP issued a retraction and correction, and then YouTube released my content.
At this point I said, listen, we must defend free speech because they will use all of this coordinating harm and hate speech as a guise to open the door and start taking out journalists.
And that's what they are doing now.
I am going to walk you through what's happening here, but I also want to stress, I am going to show you exactly why you need to know who this whistleblower is.
This time, I'll have censored the information.
But let's talk about what's going on with censorship, and I want to start you by explaining to you what we're seeing right now.
Before we get started, it has never been more important for me to tell you this.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
I'm standing on the edge of the precipice.
I have been suspended from Facebook and YouTube has blocked my video so no one can watch it.
Because I reported on public information.
Information that was already reported on, and I wanted to bring the context to you.
This is the precipice.
I believe it is very likely, soon, I will be permanently banned from these platforms.
Twitter, of all places, is allowing people to say the name, so if you follow me on Twitter, you will see me tweeting about this.
Also on Mines, minds.com slash timcast, the videos are all there, unredacted, uncensored, YouTube can't block them.
If you want to support my work, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
Let people know what's happening right now, and I will explain to you exactly why we should have this information.
Right now, there is a name circulating.
Somebody who worked for the CIA, who worked with Biden, who is connected to a lot of people, and that's relevant.
But more importantly, the name was already public.
You can thank the New York Times for the most part.
Yet they are telling us, as individual journalists, independent creators and journalists, we are not allowed to say it, even if Fox News does.
And they have, twice.
And what's even more terrifying, in my opinion, is watching Brian Stelter of CNN on TV call the censorship of news articles responsible.
I kid you not.
And I'll show you.
What you're seeing on your screen.
And for those listening, it says, you can't post right now.
You may have used Facebook in a way that our systems consider unusual, even if you didn't mean to.
You can post again in six hours.
I said this was a mistake.
Certainly, they're not going to be suspending me over posting an article.
They did.
They said you recently posted something that violates Facebook policies, so you're temporarily blocked from using this feature.
For more information, visit the Help Center, yada yada.
It's my first suspension!
I've never been suspended from Twitter, nor Facebook, for anything I have ever done.
And this is it.
But I tell you this now.
This was a legitimate post, and I'm going to show you it.
The post I put up, it says the New York Times was right to out censored according to Politico.
It is a Politico opinion piece titled the New York Times was right to unmask the whistleblower.
In the story they explain the role of journalists is to quickly and correctly disseminate factual information to the people to put intelligence into public ownership.
I believe that.
I believe in transparency.
So here's what's happening.
Let's go back a couple years.
BuzzFeed decides to publish the Steele dossier.
This was a collection of conspiracy mumbo-jumbo accusing Donald Trump of ridiculous nonsense.
BuzzFeed published it and they said the reason they did is that journalists and politicians had access to this information and it wasn't fair that the people were not entitled to see the same thing they were.
I agree with that to an extent.
For the most part, I probably would err on the side of transparency, though I understand it resulted in a wave of further nonsense.
But the truth is, we can't live in a world where journalists have access to information they won't share with the public and politicians have access to special information
pertaining to our democratic institutions and they won't share it.
Now, now, hold on.
I understand we have clearances, we have top secret, we have national security, fine.
This individual though is causing a massive fracture in our country.
We went through years of Russiagate.
We now have information that this may be a political, as I described it in my first video,
a political hit job.
This person worked with Democratic officials, was invited to their parties.
His friends worked with Adam Schiff.
He met with Schiff's people before filing the complaint.
And assuming this is the correct person, based on the corroborating details, I think it's important we know who this person is.
And the details are corroborated.
When we talk about this person, we essentially corroborate the New York Times along with the work history to determine who this person really is and why it matters.
We as a country are on the precipice.
Donald Trump may be impeached and removed, probably unlikely.
But more importantly, journalists should be telling the public exactly what is going on.
But I'll one-up you.
They said this.
Your post goes against our community standards on coordinating harm and promoting crime.
I kid you not.
And I said to myself, surely they're not saying that journalism is a crime.
Maybe they're talking about coordinating harm.
No.
You see, I got another notice.
Our standards on coordinating harm and promoting crime.
We don't allow people to facilitate or coordinate crime activity likely to cause harm to people, businesses, or animals.
We do allow people to draw attention to harm they witness or experience.
We define harm as things like physical harm against people or animals, theft and vandalism, fraud and voting interference.
Is this not voting interference?
No, not technically, but it is political interference.
But I kid you not.
They clarified, saying that essentially what I posted was a crime activity that was likely to cause harm.
So when they say releasing this individual's name could cause harm to the person, they are saying you're a criminal.
Facebook, yes.
Now, it's also YouTube, and I'll show you the YouTube stuff.
Well, I did show you the YouTube stuff.
My YouTube video is locked, you get the point.
I want to move on, okay?
And I want to show you this post from Brian Stelter.
This may be, in my opinion, Brian Stelter crossing the Rubicon into authoritarianism.
You can't turn back at this point.
Now, Brian has complained about Trump's attack on the press.
He's complained about the press.
But this shocked me.
A lot.
Earlier today, I was composing a tweet.
And I was going to CC Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter, the media reporters for CNN, asking them why aren't they standing up for press freedoms.
Of course, I said, I'm not going to tweet this out unless I actually go and look through his tweets to see what his opinion is on the recent bans.
He called it, in this video, responsible.
That Facebook and YouTube are being responsible by deleting news stories from mainstream news organizations.
Why?
That's not responsible.
That's restricting public right to knowledge, and it's a violation of fundamental press freedoms.
I think it's worse.
Brian Stalter says, the whistleblower is a distraction.
If someone notices a fire on the horizon, we're not going to come back and ask who the first witness was, what happened.
Well, let's be real here.
The whistleblower isn't just... Is it refreshing?
The whistleblower isn't just somebody who is standing miles and miles away who saw something happen.
The whistleblower is deeply connected to the politics.
So let's do a better analogy.
First, ignore the horizon part.
Guess what?
When people call 9-1-1 or any other emergency service because they've seen a fire, do you know who the first person to be questioned is?
It's the person who called.
So, I reached out to an expert, who I will allow to remain anonymous, to put a little jab at them, but it's somebody I know who's an expert in how this stuff works, and they told me that they believe there is a decent amount, maybe around 10%, of people who call who have purposefully started the fire themselves.
And the investigators, while they're not necessarily going to be investigating the person who blew the whistle on the fire, they absolutely will be looking for signs that person caused the fire.
You see, there are fire investigators.
The analogy that Brian Stalter uses, if someone sees a fire and calls it in, you don't investigate them.
You do, actually.
You do.
In fact, when many people call in crimes, they're questioned.
What happened?
Who do you know?
And depending on the circumstances, it is extremely relevant.
I'll put it this way.
Let's say somebody called in a... Let's do the one part removed.
Let's say the whistleblower was on the horizon.
But he says, I noticed there were people playing with matches.
Wouldn't we then want that person to testify and say, who did you see playing with matches?
The analogy is all wrong.
It is the job of journalists to make sure the American people, or the people of their country, know as much as they can to make informed decisions about who they're going to vote for.
Facebook and YouTube are taking an extremely, extremely authoritarian stance here.
And I gotta admit, it's shocking.
Let me remind you, I'm suspended from Facebook for posting a story from Politico saying why journalists must do this.
This is not Infowars.
This is not Breitbart, okay?
For whatever your opinion is on those outlets.
This is mainstream, high-profile Politico talking about how the New York Times unmasked this person.
Unfortunately, us here, the plebeians, we are not allowed to talk about matters of political interest.
You see, it's a big club and we're not in it.
So Facebook will suspend me and insinuate it was crime activity.
And now here we are.
Strangely, Adam Schiff tells the GOP he will not allow the whistleblower to testify.
How odd.
You see, the whistleblower, they wanted the whistleblower to testify, up until around the time the New York Times article came out, providing us with enough details to figure out who the person was.
And there was a big wave of outrage on the left.
They said, they said, cancel New York Times.
And a lot of people were angry that the New York Times would provide these details.
Well, now we know.
It is presumed we know who this person is.
In fact, I believe it was the DOJ that determined the whistleblower had a pro-Democrat bias.
That's very important.
It's very, very important.
I understand the analogy between the fire and politics.
It's not perfect.
But I tell you this.
We have two political factions that are very angry at each other.
And one of them, who started all of this impeachment stuff, Apparently, according to the DOJ, and even the New York Times, has worked with Democrats and has a Democratic bias.
I think it's really important to know who this person is and have them testify under oath to make sure we get the details correct.
But Adam Schiff doesn't want to do that anymore.
You see, right around the time we realized this person made contact with Schiff before filing the complaint, his people, all of a sudden now it's, no, no, no, maybe it's a bad idea.
Maybe we shouldn't do it.
I gotta say, I've never won to believe in coordination, but you make it really hard for me when all of these news outlets, Fox News included, refuse to say the name that everyone knows, and then social media companies at the exact same time start censoring people who say that name.
How strange.
But there's more.
The DC Examiner has noted that a couple days ago, a Fox News guest named the alleged whistleblower after Network Warn's host against it.
This story from November 7th, 2019.
I was suspended, what, I think 12 hours ago maybe?
I don't know how long these suspensions are.
But at the time I noticed, there were six hours left.
So if it was a 12-hour suspension, then it happened sometime last night.
It's the 10th.
This story was the 7th.
The name is public.
It was aired on Fox News.
The name appears unredacted in the transcripts.
It is now a matter of major public debate and was tweeted out by the President's son.
Why did Facebook suspend me for saying I agree with Politico?
This story was 7th.
Well, there's more!
Because Molly Hemingway, apparently just now, or earlier today, said the name and made a very important point.
Real clear investigations named the individual.
We know who they are.
We could be talking about the veracity of this reporting.
Instead, they're censoring the name.
And boy, were they shocked!
Oh no!
It was like they saw a ghost when she said that name on TV.
Not the first time.
Maybe the second, maybe more, I don't know.
But the name's public.
You'd think after the president's son tweeted out a major story naming the individual, we'd be allowed to talk about it.
What is the goal, then, of censoring me, of shutting my content down, of blocking my YouTube video?
I have no idea.
Now, I want to do one more important thing before we move on to who this guy is and why it's important.
A lot of people have said a legend, Whistleblower.
Okay, I think it's fair, up until someone in the government says it was this individual.
However, on the 6th of November, Yashir Ali, a reporter with New York Mag, Huffington Post, I believe he's got like 400,000 followers or so, he said, Redacted has been tweeted out by Trump supporters repeatedly in the past month, but now for the first time the President's eldest son has tweeted out an article with the name.
Redacted, according to three sources, is indeed the whistleblower.
Some folks may criticize my tweet above, but the decisions made by the President and his family around these issues are newsworthy, and it would be inappropriate to avoid these topics.
There's just no way around it.
I believe Yashar deleted these tweets because Twitter does allow you to say the person's name.
So the question then arises, why would Yashar do it?
I reached out for comment.
He did not respond.
I reached out more than once.
He didn't respond.
I don't know why.
And I don't know why he deleted it.
Maybe it's because people started yelling at him?
You will lose your job over this?
I have no idea.
I have no idea why they're trying so hard to hide this name.
I can't even say it.
You can Google it.
You'll find it.
It's not hard.
In fact, Google has cached a lot of the private information about the person.
It's all there.
They can't get rid of it.
It's the internet.
But here's my question.
If Yasher was wrong and he was... Wouldn't he issue a correction?
I didn't see one, and he didn't respond to comments, so maybe I'm wrong, maybe he did.
But he also said that he got three sources.
According to three sources, this is the whistleblower.
Okay.
So, did Yasher jump the gun and publish false information and then panic and delete it?
Or, as a respected journalist, who's represented by a big agency and got hundreds of thousands of followers, did he do the legwork, get three sources, and then verify?
I'm gonna go ahead and lean on the latter.
Until he issues a comment and explains it, he can't really say anything.
I will infer, to the best of my abilities, that Yashir, having been correct on many stories in the past and being respected by left and right, was correct.
And I believe the only reason he took it down, it was likely due to public pressure.
As you can see, I was suspended from Facebook over this.
Well, it turns out, Heavy.com did a pretty good story breaking down why it's important we know who this individual is.
Politico reported on the 26th, the New York Times was right to unmask the whistleblower.
Journalists are supposed to report the news, not suppress it.
Okay, Brian Stelter, you called it responsible for this article to be deleted from Facebook.
Incredible.
We are now months, months away, or a month and a half, from this person being unmasked by the New York Times.
And the Politico story was removed because I agreed with them.
The name's public.
It aired on TV more than once.
Why the censorship?
I can't tell you.
It's insane.
I can't tell you.
It is insane.
So they say, five facts you need to know.
See, Heavy.com is certified by NewsGuard across the board for its credibility.
Look at this.
Green check marks.
Heavy.com, legit news.
And they ran a story breaking down who this person is and why it's important.
I'll be particularly careful, but they say the whistleblower is a Ukraine expert for the CIA, whose background matches details listed in the New York Times.
They go on to say that They mentioned where the person grew up and all of these things working for the World Bank.
Detailed National Security Council at the White House in 2015 after joining the CIA as an analyst focusing on Ukraine and Russia.
Listen, they remained the NSC during the earlier months of the Trump administration and an email sent while he was still assigned to the NSC was cited in the Mueller report.
This is all very important.
Connections to the person who helped spark some of the conspiracy rumors around Russiagate.
This article, as of right now, updated on the 7th, has over half a million views.
And these are facts you should know, because everyone knows it.
Instead, what do we get?
Well, Fox News apparently issued a mandate to its hosts not to say the name.
News organizations are all saying they refuse to say the name.
But there are many who have no problem doing so.
Heavy.com, for instance.
Politico praised it back in September.
You need to know who this person is.
And I mentioned it before.
That YouTube is essentially trying to social engineer you.
Telling me what I can or can't cover.
Basically deleting my videos when I say the wrong thing.
I covered a Project Veritas video a couple months ago.
YouTube deleted it without notice.
Gone.
And I complained.
And basically the choice I have is keep what platform I have so I can tell you it's happening or just break the rule and say no.
You can't make me do it.
It's a challenge, but I will tell you this.
I have no problem.
You want to talk about hate speech laws?
Rules?
I'm opposed to the laws.
You want to talk about hate speech rules on social media platforms?
Okay, fine.
I'll be respectful.
I'm not a fan of hate speech.
I do not agree with that.
And I think we can do our best not to swear.
Okay, fine.
But now we're at the point where Facebook has implemented a rule that you are not allowed to report the news.
And so did YouTube.
You know what?
I'm suspended from Facebook.
There's a certain point where I have to make that choice.
And I will say it's extremely frustrating and irksome when people email me telling me to burn down everything that I'm doing just to make a point.
I gotta tell you, it's a tough decision.
But here's my ultimate decision.
I was surprised Facebook suspended me.
I didn't think they would.
I thought they would just keep removing the posts.
No, they actually issued a suspension and a warning.
If I do it again, it gets worse.
So I'm going to stop to an extent, but I will still tell you all the details and you can just Google it yourself.
It's a choice I have to make between shutting up or shutting down.
But in between that, I can talk to you about this, I can tell you what's happening, and I can tell you to prepare and check out other platforms.
On Twitter, I'm free to say the name, so follow me there.
But at least as long as I'm here, here's what I intend to do.
If they ever tell me I can't say something, I will tell you exactly what they're saying and why.
And then I will tell you where to follow me on social media.
It's the best I can do.
Because the alternative is, you just wouldn't know about it.
You wouldn't know about the whistleblower.
You wouldn't know about them working for the CIA and going to Schiff before filing the complaints.
Schiff's people.
You wouldn't know about any of that.
So I'll take what I can get while still... Look, man.
We're beyond them being like, don't say mean things.
Because people would say, alright, fine, you shouldn't be mean.
Some people would say, I can be mean if I want.
No, now they're saying, don't say a phrase, don't say a name.
But this name is crucial, crucial information for the American people to know how their country is being run.
Well, YouTube has said, we don't care about how, what you know.
The ivory tower stands strong.
They're inside of it.
Twitter, wow!
Surprise, Twitter's allowing it.
They said it doesn't break the rules, you can say it all you want.
But Facebook and YouTube, this is evil.
Literally evil.
They have asserted a political position.
And more importantly, it doesn't matter if you think Trump is right or wrong.
It doesn't matter if you think the whistleblower did the right thing.
If Trump did wrong, so be it.
The point is, the information, it is a right for the public to know.
Welcome to the dystopia.
It's coming faster and faster.
So I'll leave you with one final thought.
If you're listening on the podcast, if you're watching on YouTube or wherever, Facebook, please consider sharing this video.
This may be one of the biggest turning points in political censorship, political interference that these platforms have taken.
This is journalism.
Heavy.com.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all in the next segment at youtube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
What are we on, like five?
Six?
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, I'm getting tired of this.
Fool me four times, I don't think we're fooled at this point.
I think we get what you're doing, but the fifth time!
Okay, enough!
Ilhan Omar, accused of dog whistle antisemitism after she posts tweet implying billionaire businessman Leon Cooperman is only supporting Michael Bloomberg's presidential run because he is Jewish.
Leon Cooperman says he will support fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg for president.
She said, I wonder why.
Do you know why this is anti-Semitic?
They're both Jewish.
Here's the thing.
Leon Cooperman isn't supporting Trump.
Trump's a billionaire.
What about Tom Steyer?
He's a billionaire, right?
I don't know.
The point is, you want to act like... Is that the joke?
I think the best defense they had is that, no, it's because they're billionaires!
Yeah, I just don't think so.
I think Ilhan Omar's been waving anti-Semitism in your face non-stop since before she got elected, when she was tweeting about Israel, and for some reason, Not for some reason.
We know why.
They don't want to accept that they elected an anti-Semite.
And she, like, come on, man.
You know, I've referred to it in the past as crop-dusting anti-Semitism.
You see, what Ilhan Omar does is she doesn't say what, like, these, you know, you got a lot of memes that are very overt.
No, she doesn't do that directly.
She said, Israel is hypnotizing the world.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
What do you mean by that?
That's literally an old anti-Semitic trope about Jewish people hypnotizing, okay?
And she said, no, that's not what I meant.
Uh-huh.
Tell me more, Ilhan Omar.
The first time you did it, I said, nah, I don't know about that.
That's an awfully specific thing to say about a Jewish country.
Okay, but fine.
Then she tweeted, it's all about the Benjamins.
She's tweeted about, like, in a sense, the dual loyalty, or the loyalty to money.
And now she says, I wonder why?
Did she wonder, like, if the argument is that she's claiming billionaires support billionaires, did she not think for a second that Leon Cooperman didn't support Donald Trump?
You see where this is going.
Let's read.
We got a bunch of angry tweets.
Ilhan Omar has come under fire and been accused of antisemitism.
Again, you don't say.
After sharing a tweet implying that American billionaire investor,
Lee and Cooperman is backing Michael Bloomberg for president simply because he is Jewish.
The Democratic congressman from Minnesota was slammed after she retweeted a news post
announcing Cooperman will endorse fellow billionaire Bloomberg if he runs for president.
She shared the tweet saying, I wonder why with a thinking face emoji.
The tweet reignited accusations of anti-Semitism against liberal congresswoman.
She's not a liberal, please.
Give me that word back.
She's a lunatic.
I don't know what she is.
With critics saying it was thinly veiled jab at their Jewish faith rather than their status as billionaires.
Right.
Because if it was about being a billionaire, she would have talked about Steyer or Trump.
Which she didn't.
Makes you wonder what the other commonality between these two people really is.
She was slammed for this tweet where she said, I wonder why.
There's the thing.
I can't stand the thinking emoji.
And Ilhan Omar has adopted the Charlie Kirk method.
And I'm just like, oh, man, you know, listen, you can have your opinions, Ilhan.
Totally fine by me.
I think they're awful.
Charlie Kirk, his opinions are substantially less awful.
I disagree with a lot of them, but he's an all right dude.
I know a lot of people like him.
He's nowhere near as bad as this.
But, but, I will absolutely denounce Charlie Kirk over that thinking emoji in literally every tweet he does.
You know who he is?
Charlie Kirk is the, I believe he's like the founder or like one of the highest up dudes at Turning Point USA.
And in every tweet, he puts the thinking emoji.
It's like, okay, I get it.
It works for him, I know.
I'm just, I'm half kidding.
But Ilhan Omar has been saying, let that sink in, and doing the thinking face emoji.
I think they realized that conservatives know how to meme better than they do.
They know how to do these cultural kind of like, I don't know.
It just works.
The thinking face and the let that sink in.
And she's been adopting a lot of that.
But anyway, I digress.
I just had to do that because every single tweet now from certain people is the thinking face emoji.
Charlie Kirk, I named, you know.
And I'll let that sink in.
And it's like, okay, okay, it sank in.
I get it.
Cooperman said he will support former Mayor Bloomberg if he enters the 2020 Democratic primary for presidency.
However, Bloomberg has not yet to formally announce his presidential campaign.
Reports say he is actively preparing to enter the primary and is expected to file the paperwork this week.
I suppose you'd think it's all about the Benjamins, Michael Dickinson, the executive director of Stand With Us, a group that fights anti-Semitism, said in response.
We get your insinuation true to form— Yes!
Dude, listen, man.
I'm gonna be serious right now.
You wanna argue?
She just made a mistake!
Here's the way I put it.
Oh, that's right.
Ilhan Omar just slipped on a banana peel and performed a perfect round-off back layout.
Flips land, perfect form.
No, dude, she's not slipping on banana peels over and over again on accident.
After how many times are you gonna say you're not fooling us, dude?
We get it.
We get what you think about these people.
We get it.
Listen, you can argue all about the Benjamins thing.
It was like, well, you know, a lot of people came to her defense saying, look, come on, she probably meant this.
We're stacking grains of sand in a heap, and the pile is right in front of us, okay?
I love this analogy.
How many grains of sand make a heap?
Let's call that heap anti-Semitism.
How many times does she have to do this till we're finally like, there's a huge pile of sand right there with anti-Semitism written all over it?
Omar very carefully making an anti-semitic tweet with just enough vagueness to claim that, actually, she meant it was about the Benjamins and not about religion.
But everyone knows what she meant, which is why she continues to do it, Twitter user Josh Jordan wrote.
Yes, we get it.
Because she's not praising Trump.
She's not talking about billionaires supporting Trump.
She isn't saying that.
Isn't it weird, then, if the commonality about why he's supporting them was a billionaire and it was about money, he'd certainly be behind someone else who's wealthy, and Trump has given tax cuts to corporations and to the rich.
Wouldn't that make sense?
This, in my opinion, is the definitive slam-down.
If you want to claim a billionaire is going to support Bloomberg, but Bloomberg is progressive to an extent, and arguing for taxes, and Trump is doing the tax cuts, sorry, I'm not buying it.
We know you're giving a wink wink nudge nudge every other day to these freaky weirdos with insane conspiratorial beliefs who just don't like Jewish people.
We get it.
But you know what?
People on the left.
It's tribal.
They refuse.
I mean, look at Virginia, right?
You got a governor who did blackface more than once.
And did they, did they, were they outraged?
No, they swept the state with Democrats.
They don't care.
And I'm not trying to pick on Democrats.
Republicans are the same.
People are going to vote for Trump because they believe in Trump and they want to win.
I understand there are people who genuinely support Trump, but a lot of people genuinely oppose the Democrats.
And it's all about Trump.
But a lot of Democrats genuinely just oppose Trump, so they're gonna vote Democrat no matter what.
No matter what their side does.
You know, I'll tell you this.
People do not hold their own communities accountable.
Fact.
Now, sometimes they do, but for the most part, they don't.
It's why activists say, snitches get stitches.
It's why police say, don't cross the thin blue line.
And it's why wealthy elites say, don't report on this story about Jeffrey Epstein because we don't want to hurt our friends who are billionaires.
Yes, we get it.
To an extent, you could argue that the billionaire elites are, you know, birds of a feather who flock together.
However, in this regard, let's break down what we know.
This guy's endorsing Bloomberg.
Or he's gonna stand behind him.
They're both billionaires.
Mmm, Steyer.
I think Steyer's rich, right?
You could argue he'd endorse him.
Donald Trump is giving benefits to the rich.
That would make way more sense.
No.
The commonality is Jewish.
Isn't that funny how they do that?
However, many were quick to come to Omar's defense, saying her critics were honing in on the wrong facts.
She shared a tweet defending her saying, oh for God's sake, stop this ridiculousness.
This obsession with every word says, or you know, this is the problem.
Omar very, look Josh, some of these people are not, these are not right wing people.
Ilhan Omar doesn't tweet alone.
She has a media team whose job is to prevent her from saying offensive things.
Either she can't find anyone that is knowledgeable about antisemitic dog whistles, despite Jews begging her to educate herself, or they know what she says hurts us.
Is that another antisemitic slur?
What do those two gentlemen have in common?
I wonder what it could be.
That's what she was saying!
I looked up, and I guess he is Jewish.
I think Martina is over it.
There is no effort to twist anything, and you know this.
Dog whistles are called like that on purpose, and have meaning behind it.
At the same time, there are news on Bezos, who chatted with Bloomberg, but she picks another billionaire, who happens to be Jewish, and makes a pretty vague... He probably goes on, but that's exactly my point.
There are a ton of other billionaires.
There's Donald Trump.
But no, this guy is choosing to support the Democrat who's probably going to be more progressive.
Why wouldn't he support the guy giving him a tax break if it was about being a billionaire?
Oh, it's because Ilhan Omar doesn't like Jewish people.
Extremely this.
The latest effort to twist Omar's words and impute anti-Semitism to what's obviously a pretty standard observation about billionaires sharing similar political views is outrageous.
No, it's not.
And this is them running defense.
Because I can say the Donald Trump thing over and over again, but you get the point.
One critic responded saying, there is no effort to twist anything and you know this.
Yeah, we get it.
In March this year, Omar was accused of anti-Semitism at the Council of American-Islamic Relations in D.C.
when she downplayed 9-11, saying some people did something.
You know, like, we get it, man.
She does this all the time.
They say, throughout her time in office... Oh, oh, oh, oh, let's tack on a little bit more.
How about the fact that she's in favor of BDS, boycott, divest, and sanction of Israel, and then when it came to sanctions on Turkey over the attacks, impending attacks on northern Syria and the Kurds, she says, but sanctions could be devastating and have unintended consequences.
I can't back that.
Oh!
You know what, man?
Here's the way I see it.
If you think sanctions are bad, then sanctions are bad.
And you'll probably be opposed to sanctions.
However, if you don't like Jewish people, like Ilhan Omar clearly doesn't, you will support something that's damaging to them, but pretend it's about something else.
Otherwise, you'll get called out, probably not get elected.
Well, I mean, depends how many people in your district agree with you.
If you are not doing this on principle, you will say, Turkey, we can't hurt Turkey, and you'll make it about something else.
But Israel?
Oh, it's a different story.
So it's not principle.
It's tribalism.
It's you saying, my tribe is immune, will not be held accountable.
And she does this all the time.
In February, she shared a post saying, anti-Semitism is real, and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes.
My intention is never to offend my constituents.
You know what it is?
Let me just make it really simple.
It may not be that she's sitting there laughing at Happy Merchant memes.
It may be that she grew up with a family and a culture that was deeply anti-Semitic.
Okay?
Her family was probably... And so her worldview is shaped by that.
She doesn't even realize That she's doing this, right?
All she knows is ingrained in her personality are deeply anti-semitic tropes.
And so to her, it's normal to say these things.
In her community, it's normal to say these things.
And when she gets called out for it, she's like, why is everybody mad?
You know, I didn't do anything wrong.
I'm just saying what people think, you know?
No, that's not true.
You're not saying what people think.
You're saying awful, horrifying things.
And people are telling you to stop.
Here's the problem.
She apologizes for it, saying, oh, I didn't realize.
You know what it is?
When she says Israel hypnotizes the world, when she says all about the Benjamins, she genuinely didn't realize that that is not a common view that people believe Jewish people are doing these things and it's deeply offensive.
So when she was called out, she was probably shocked like, oh heavens, I just thought people believed these things.
Every time they call her out and she's shocked, she could be lying.
Or it could be that it's ingrained in her personality, so now when we have this, you know, tweet, where she's looking at two Jewish guys being like, of course they support each other, she once again, people are gonna say, dude, that's ridiculous, man.
Their politics are more important than their personal background.
Now we can talk about tribalism, and are there people who are Jewish who will probably defend Jewish people?
Well, of course!
There are Christians who will defend Christians!
But this idea that, you know, these two people are somehow part of the tribe.
I mean, there are people who are Jews.
They call it the tribe.
But the idea that that supersedes policy is completely ridiculous.
Okay?
We know what she's saying.
We know exactly what she's saying.
You want to know why this guy is backing Bloomberg?
They're probably friends.
That's the most important thing.
Okay?
You can have friends from all different backgrounds, all different cultures.
That's probably it.
And he's probably not friends with Donald Trump.
It's simple.
You know, she's going to keep doing it.
And they're going to keep defending her.
And Bernie Sanders hired Linda Sarsour.
So don't give me any of that.
I'm just, I'm just, I'm not, I'm not playing it.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Donald Trump recently went to an LSU game in Alabama.
My understanding is he got a big applause.
Everybody's been ragging on Trump because when he went to New York and D.C., people booed him.
Well, yeah, this country is split between urban and rural, and there are red states and there are blue states.
I get it.
But outside this game, there were angry people.
They did not like the orange man.
In fact, they claimed the orange man was bad.
They brought with them a giant inflatable baby Trump balloon.
Some dude, who was angry, showed up with a knife, charged the balloon, slashed an eight-foot gash in it, destroying the balloon.
And he was arrested.
And according to a GoFundMe, my understanding, he was arrested on a felony charge.
Now let me say this.
In the UK, there was a woman who walked over to the Trump baby balloon, and I believe she used a pen or something to puncture it.
Now, that small hole was likely easy to patch.
I don't know what they ended up doing.
And at the time, I said, hey, don't do that.
It's the UK, it's very different than the US, but yeah, come on, don't do that, right?
This is a lot worse.
This is likely permanent damage.
It's gonna be very, very difficult to repair.
And I gotta say, if you show up to someone's protest and destroy their property, as far as I'm concerned, you're playing Antifa's game.
You are using the tactics of Antifa, okay?
I can criticize them all day and night.
They don't like me.
And yeah, they get violent.
They destroy property.
They steal people's signs.
They try and bully people out of protesting.
So if a bunch of Trump supporters go to DC to hold a rally because they want to talk about censorship and Antifa shows up, you better believe I will criticize them for trying to intimidate those protesters.
If somebody shows up to an LSU game because they want to protest the president, you better believe I will defend their right to do that.
So dude, Don't do that!
I will try and be fair and say these kind of stories are few and far between, but come on, man.
People in the United States have a right to protest.
It's their private property.
You destroyed someone's private property for their political speech.
I don't play that.
Not cool.
Let's read the story.
They say baby Trump balloon slashed at Alabama LSU game.
Hoyt Hutchinson charged.
They say a protest against the president at Tuscaloosa's Monash Park ended abruptly after a man slashed a large baby Trump balloon.
Witnesses said the incident happened shortly before kickoff of the Alabama-LSU game.
President Donald Trump attended the game at Bryant-Denny Stadium.
Officers observed Hoyt Doe Hutchinson, age 32, of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, cut into the baby Trump balloon and then attempted to flee the area.
Officers apprehended the suspect and took him into custody on a charge of criminal mischief first degree.
Hoyt was transported to Tuscaloosa County Jail, where he was held on $2,500 bond, a statement from Tuscaloosa Police read.
We have a few tweets here.
Someone said, just watched a guy get arrested for stabbing the balloon.
LMAO.
Here's video.
And in the video, you see the guy being arrested.
It's very, very straightforward.
Hutchinson posted a video on Facebook shortly before the incident, saying he was going down here to make a scene, y'all.
Watch the news.
I'm shaking.
I'm so mad right now.
I'm fixing to pop this balloon.
Stay tuned.
It should be interesting.
I'll tell you what, man.
Sounds an awful lot like the I'm literally shaking Antifa types who show up to Trump rallies and cause trouble.
Attempts to reach Hutchinson through social media were not immediately successful.
Jim Girvin, an organizer of the balloon protest, told the Associated Press Hutchinson charged the balloon with a knife and cut an eight-foot-long gash in the back.
A GoFundMe page organized by Hutchinson asks for money for restitution for the balloon, saying he was charged with felony criminal mischief after deflation of the disrespectful Baby Trump balloon.
Hoyt made sure our beloved president didn't have to see this disrespectful balloon on the streets of T-Town today.
You know what makes America great?
I said it once, I said it twice, I said it three times, I will say it a million times.
This country is great because I can give the middle finger to any politician I want because I have a right to free press and free expression and free speech and y'all can't do anything about it.
We don't live in a dictatorship.
Guess what?
Too bad.
If I want to insult the president, I'm allowed to.
If somebody wants to spend their hard-earned money to buy a stupid-looking baby balloon, they're allowed to.
If somebody wants to wiggle a sign in here that says Morans, they are allowed to.
Antifa should not be shutting down protests, and people like this should not be stabbing the baby Trump balloon.
Now, the only reason I'm particularly angry about this one, in this instance, is because it's happened twice now.
And I'll be the first to admit, you guys know I will, that the scales are heavily, heavily shifted here.
Antifa does this all the time.
Showing up and protesting American citizens.
And instances of vandalism against the left are significantly more rare.
But I'll tell you what, man, when it happens, I'm going to call out all the same.
Because the reason why I align this with an anti-action is because what we're really talking about is violence and vandalism towards legal protest and protected speech.
Typically, it's Antifa who does it.
So I rag on Antifa for this stuff all the time.
And so to get my point across, that's the point.
You know what?
I'm gonna rag on them when they throw a brick through a window, when they bash a progressive over the head, when they attack Trump supporters, and I'm absolutely gonna speak out when some dude gets all angry, says, I'm shaking so mad, and then goes and slashes a balloon.
You just sound like a triggered, angry, you know, Antifa.
You want to be offended they're disrespecting the president?
Well, I feel you.
I hear you.
You really love this guy.
I get it.
But guess what?
The Trump balloon.
Burning a flag.
Those are symbols.
Those actions represent the freedom this country grants us.
And you cannot simultaneously be mad at Antifa on the left for breaking those rules and violating our rights and then support somebody who goes and does this.
And that's the big issue.
I'll tell you what, man.
When I saw this story at first, I was kind of like, yeah, you know, what, does a guy slash a balloon?
Is it big news?
I mean, not really.
You know, protesters, they get into fights, people steal signs.
It's the one time some, you know, right-wing dude did it.
But this dude attacked, he vandalized, this is violence, this is an attack on private property, private protest, okay?
They are allowed to do that.
They have their free speech, same as anybody else.
And wanting free speech means you must protect speech for even those people you dislike.
Even if it means they're burning the flag.
And I've heard people say, burning a flag is not speech.
Listen.
There are special caveats with flag burning.
Fire is dangerous.
You can't just go into a bale of hay and start, I'm gonna burn the flag, it's free speech, no no no, dude, you're gonna start a big fire.
But you can cut it up into pieces, you can destroy it, and yes, if it's safe, you can burn it.
Because we are allowed to express ourselves, we're allowed to speak freely in this country.
They say in 14 hours it had raised more than $16,000, surpassing its goal of $6,000.
After he was released on bond, Hutchinson posted another Facebook video with the game playing on TV behind him as people cheered and laughed.
He said, Some liberals tried to come to my hometown and start some trouble.
That ain't happening.
I did get arrested.
I got charged.
That's all right.
I'd do it again if given the opportunity.
This is why I don't play the tribal game, okay?
Because I'll tell you what, during Occupy Wall Street, when I watched cops cross the line and start hitting protesters and pepper spraying them, I called it out.
And they all cheered, thank you, Tim, for shining a light on this injustice.
And then when I called them out for breaking the rules, for committing crimes and vandalism, they were outraged.
Haram Faisay!
How dare you, Tim!
Yeah, rules for me, but not for the... I don't... I'm not playing that game.
Okay, you had a cop at Occupy walk up to four women who were not in... they were not in the protest march.
They were standing on the sidewalk going like, what's happening?
Cop Tony Bologna just sprayed him in the face.
And that sparked a massive outrage and helped...
Uh, Propel, Occupy Wall Street.
And I said, yeah, you can't do that.
Okay?
That is a violation of civil rights for people to be standing on sidewalk.
There were people who were arrested for simply walking around downtown.
The cops grabbed him and said, we don't care what you're doing here.
One dude was apparently livid in court.
He was wearing a suit and he was going to grab like a Fanta from a, from a grocery store, like a Duane Reade or something.
And the cops grabbed him, assuming he was at the protest.
And he was like, I'm just gonna break from work.
Didn't care.
Locked him up.
Called it all out.
I said, that's wrong.
I even got a guy exonerated.
They was falsely accused.
He was charged by a cop.
Didn't break any rules.
So I tell you this now.
This is how things... It comes and goes in waves.
I get all these people on the left cheering, thank you for highlighting our plight, up until the point where I'm like, yeah, you can't break the rules either, man.
So this is what's mind-blowing to me.
I would do it again?
Yeah.
You don't deserve my respect, and you don't deserve, you know, and this is a violation of people's fundamental rights.
You shouldn't do it again.
So you're probably gonna get convicted because you just admitted to it, and you're refusing to accept that you've done wrong.
They say Hutchinson then asked people to contribute to his GoFundMe, promising that whatever was left over from having to pay to replace the balloon would go to the Republican Party.
I'm glad y'all enjoyed that better than this game right here.
A group of about 40 protesters were on the scene about two hours before kickoff with signs reading Roll Impeachment Roll and various anti-Trump slogans when the balloon was slashed.
You know what, man?
I don't typically do this, but I'll tell you what.
If Antifa showed up and committed a bunch of violence, like there's an Antifa guy who got charged for attacking somebody outside of a Cernovich event.
I understand there's a big difference between attacking people, which is why I have no problem saying Antifa is substantially worse than this one dude who slashed a balloon and bragged about it.
But I tell you what, man, on principle, if these Antifa people start raising money and then promise to give it to Democrats, I would expect the Democrats to reject that money.
And if this dude raises a bunch of money after violating the fundamental rights of protesters, and then he wants to give that money to Republicans, I would expect the Republicans to reject that money.
I'm not surprised people are donating, because I get it.
To some people, tribalism is more important.
But I'm talking about principle.
And I will tell you this.
You know the media is biased against the right.
Heavily.
Come on, man.
Look at the censorship we're seeing over the whistleblower's name.
All of that nonsense.
My video's getting taken down.
We know the system at play.
That means if you're on the right, yeah, life's not fair.
You gotta make sure you're on the up-and-up.
And I'm sure there's going to be a lot of Republicans and high-profile conservatives who realize how bad this looks.
Because this will be used as the example, as proof, to make sure everybody who's not paying attention to politics on the left, when they initiate that conversation, will say, look what these violent people do.
They attack us.
They come to our protests and they attack us.
There you go.
Congratulations.
That's what you've done.
That's what you've done.
You've given them fodder to prove they were right the whole time.
The reality?
Antifa does this, what, every other week?
And some Trump supporter conservative has done it like three or four times in the past couple of years?
There have been instances.
Some pretty high-profile ones.
I'm not going to include the Proud Boys versus Antifa because that's a long-standing conflict between two groups.
But there was a dude in New York who was wearing a Trump hat who attacked somebody.
It happens.
It'd be stupid to—why would you pretend it doesn't?
But it is substantially more rare.
But I tell you what, they'll put this on the list and say, see, we can prove it.
Look what just happened.
They go on and talk about the baby Trump balloon.
I don't care about the baby Trump balloon.
They say it is unclear whether Hutchinson has an attorney who would comment.
Kennedy said he's accompanied baby Trump to many appearances and never witnessed an attack on it.
Although someone did stab one of the balloons in London earlier this year.
It is rare to get that kind of anger.
See, even they accept it.
Even the people protesting say it is rare that people come and attack us in this way.
It's rare.
We know it.
But you know what?
It will be used against you.
And so I was... I'm let down.
I am disappointed to see that people are $24,000 for this guy who attacked the free speech of people he didn't like.
Nah.
You'll never see me get behind that.
No way, dude.
In fact, there was a woman who wrote a book.
And it was like some social justice identitarian book about her experience being a marginalized woman of color or something.
And it was like, it's embellished.
And apparently a bunch of like young college students got angry because it was offensive to white people and so they burned the books.
You know what I did?
I went and bought one to make sure that the book they destroyed gets replaced.
Smart people don't burn books, they buy them.
You read the books of the people you disagree with so you understand why they think the way they do, and you can then prove you know exactly why they're wrong.
You know what?
I understand when it comes to politics.
Sometimes winning isn't about what's right, it's about who feels the right way.
And if you can make someone feel good, Or feel bad.
That's more powerful than knowledge.
But you know what?
For me, I live in a world where truth, reality, and understanding are important.
Where principle is important.
Where I want people to say, you know what?
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
That includes the Trump baby balloon.
That includes the Trump supporters.
That includes burning the flag.
That includes sticking up a bunch of the blue Lives Matter flags all over their lawn.
You're allowed to tell people how you feel, and we should never restrict someone's feelings.
Do I think the Trump baby balloon is stupid?
Oh, you better believe it.
That balloon is dumb.
It's representative of nothing.
But hey, man, yeah, do your thing, you know?
If you want to put up Trump baby balloons all over your property and at your protests, everybody wants to carry one, do it to it.
With my blessing.
But the moment you make little, like, little dense lead Baby trumps?
And start chucking them at people?
Okay, that's... You don't hurt people, okay?
You can tell me how you feel.
And I'll tell you you're dumb.
Alright?
Or I'll agree with you or disagree with you.
This is not... This is not cool.
What... Man...
Hey, but it is what it is, you know?
People are gonna get mad and they're gonna do what they do, and that includes Antifa.
At least in this instance, it was property destruction.
Which I completely, completely detest, denounce, and disagree with.
But I will say it's fair to point out, you know, Antifa bashing Skulls, substantially worse.
And Antifa does it a lot more.
And it's typically Trump supporters who are getting splashed and hit and, you know, spit on.
And a story after story about it.
But there's no reason ever to accept this.
And you know what, man?
Anybody who donated this?
Nah.
Not okay.
Not okay.
And I do expect Republicans to reject that money if he tries giving it to him in the future.
Making money off of physically destroying property and targeting protesters over their free speech is antithetical to what it means to be American.
I get it.
People fight.
I get it.
And people have political fights.
Yup.
But you shouldn't be the one starting it.
If you want to defend yourself and you want to speak your mind, I can understand that.
But you show up to someone else's event, that's exactly what Antifa does.
I think that in 2016 in November, two universes collided and a bunch of us accidentally got thrust from Earth Prime into the universe where Donald Trump won, and everything has just been crazy ever since.
But I believe it must have happened again, because Tariq Nasheed tweeted, I actually agree with Trump here.
For those that don't know who Tariq Nasheed is, he's an individual whose Twitter account says, I bait racists and expose them.
He's literally accused everybody of being a white supremacist.
He had a website about it, or I'm sorry, suspected white supremacists.
And he, I believe he used to call himself a black identity extremist.
I don't know if, you know, I want to be careful about how I phrase this, so I believe that to be the case.
May not, it doesn't say it now.
He says, I'm the world's number one race baiter.
And he tweeted, I agree with Trump, of all of the people to come out and agree with Trump, not necessarily support him, but hold on, hold on, there's more.
He tweeted then, Trump is actually talking about providing specific tangibles to foundational black Americans.
Yet the Democrats, who black Americans have been so naively loyal to, are adamant about not doing anything specific for black Americans.
So why should we honestly support the Democrats?
What?
Tariq Nasheed!
This dude accused me of being a suspected white supremacist when I was agreeing with him!
Like, so I don't know what happened, but like, he tweeted something, and I tweeted, like, something about agreeing with him and wondering what could be done, and his response was like, how dare you, you suspected white supremacist or something like that.
And I was like, wait, what?
I was like, dude, I'm agreeing with you.
I don't care.
Okay, dude.
He just tweeted that Trump is actually talking about helping Black America and he agrees with Trump.
Now he goes on to say, I want to make sure this is clear, he's not supporting Trump.
He says, I'm not supporting any of these candidates at this point.
The question is, what makes Trump different than almost all the Democratic candidates?
In the tweet, Trump was talking about setting up opportunity zones, notably in Atlanta, which I could be wrong.
My general understanding is it's kind of like a tax incentive.
It makes it cheaper and easier to invest in certain properties and grow them.
Some people have said, Trump's talking about gentrification.
It's going to hurt the black community.
Well, don't take my word for it.
I don't know.
Tariq Nasheed, however, Tariq Nasheed set up a website for suspected white supremacists.
Like, this dude is very... I don't know what you'd call him.
For him to come out and be like, yeah, Trump's talking about doing real things for us, why should we support Democrats?
That's kind of crazy, if you were to ask me.
But at the same time, I tell you, BuzzFeed publishes this story.
The Black MAGA faithful think Donald Trump tailored his 2020 pitch to black men, and they're kind of feeling it.
I thought Donald Trump was like, everybody hated him, you know, and especially the people who thought he was racist.
Oh, I'm sorry.
That's the progressive white bunch.
Yes, that's right.
The progressives are overwhelmingly white and making six figures with college degrees.
They do not represent actual minorities as much as they'd like to claim to.
I think they basically just use that because they want to get votes for their side.
But here's the thing.
Depending on which poll you read, they will tell you that support for Donald Trump among the African-American community is, like, really, really bad or historically high.
There's one poll from, you know, a couple months ago that it was around 26.
There's another one from Esmussen in August that was like 32.
And BuzzFeed, of course, BuzzFeed chooses to highlight the poll that says it's like 10% or some really low number.
Or that 85% of the black community will vote for literally anyone other than Trump.
I'm not going to tell you, man, because for one, I'm not black, you may have noticed.
So I don't know what their community experience is, what they're feeling.
You know, but I can say, as an outsider who's curious about, will there be a big shift pro-Trump from the black community, seeing Kanye West was kind of a shocker.
And even Kanye said it was a big joke, that putting on the red hat had all the liberals, it was a practical joke from God on the left, with all the liberals saying, oh no, not Kanye, no.
So it was surprising when Kanye West came out and went full MAGA, walked back a little bit, but then came out and said, you know what, I'm doing it.
And I'm like, well, hey, you know, good for him, you know, doing what he wants to do, but not Tariq Nasheed!
That's... What is Trump doing?
Trump's breaking everything.
Like, things don't make sense anymore.
But hey, you know, change happens.
Let's read a little bit of this BuzzFeed story.
Now, I want to say that the story itself is written by Darren Sands, who I believe is an African-American reporter over at BuzzFeed.
So I gotta admit, you know, I'll defer to Kanye, Tariq, and their take on it for an opinion on this.
Because I can't tell you.
I will say this, though.
Not the biggest fan of Candace Owens in terms of her character, the kind of persona she has.
I think she's a little bombastic, but it's okay.
I'm not saying she's doing anything wrong.
I'm just saying, not for me, but I do respect her in a lot of ways, particularly...
You know, when she talks about how the black community is told who they have to vote for and why, I feel you, right?
Not in the same way, like, not in the sense that, like, I know what the black community is thinking, but I can tell you as somebody with my family history being mixed, it feels similarly.
Like, what she says, I'm like, yes.
Like, you're describing it.
Like, who are these people?
To come to me and tell me how I should be feeling about the people who threaten my family and who have insulted me and who tell me that they refuse to watch my videos or my journalism because they know that I'm a dirty race mixer or something.
Yeah, I don't care about those people.
They can do whatever they want.
They can say their stupid things.
But I hear you, man.
I am not gonna sit here and take it from the progressives who are mostly white people telling me what I'm supposed to be thinking while complaining that white people have white privilege.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
And you know, everybody experiences things that are different, right?
That's one thing I think intersectionality kind of understands correctly, is that people of different backgrounds intersect in different ways.
So I'll tell you this, I don't only get the, you need to vote for this because of the bigots, I get the, you need to only vote for these people because of the bigots, and when I say, I'm not feeling it, they say, that's because you're white and you're a bigot.
So it's like, I get to be negative no matter what I do.
They say, President Donald Trump brought some of his best-known black supporters to Atlanta to launch the Black Voices for Trump coalition on Friday, lavishing praise on his allies and decrying the Democratic Party as being corrupt and disloyal to black voters at a rally in a mid-sized ballroom.
His first question was, he said, should we call it African Americans for Trump or blacks for Trump?
And they all started yelling blacks for Trump.
Now, for the most part, you get the gist.
He had a big rally.
He had a lot of support from... Well, I don't want to say he has a lot of support from the black community, because that's what's being disputed.
I will say, Trump's got a lot of really loyal and high-profile Trump supporters.
In fact, some of the highest-profile individuals, like Candace Owens and... Man, who's that other guy who's really, really funny?
I feel bad I'm forgetting your name, dude, because he does these really funny videos.
And there's a handful of black people who are some of the most... the highest-profile Trump supporters.
So let's read.
They say this.
Trump, though, is deeply unpopular with black voters.
A recent poll showed that only 10% of black voters approved of Trump's job performance, with 88% disapproving.
85% said they disapprove strongly.
82% said they believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office.
Only 10% of black voters in the same poll said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party as a whole.
So this comes from a poll that I believe was last month, October 23rd.
But I got another poll for you.
It's a little bit older, so I'm not saying it's a direct comparison.
But, and this is highlighted from Zogby, and the date on this one is August 15th.
They say, uh, 28% of African Americans and 49% of Hispanics at least somewhat approve of the president.
Both are very good numbers, historically, for Trump.
I can't, I'm not gonna pretend like I know exactly what's gonna happen.
I can tell you this, man.
You know, I got mad respect for Kanye for being himself, for resisting that mob, you know?
Because you can see that he was conflicted, and he stood up for what he believed in, and though I may disagree on some things, I agree on his character and his principle.
He's bringing jobs back to America, I definitely agree with that, so I can respect that, you know, 100%.
And when it comes down to the voting booth, hey, we'll disagree on some things, and I'll vote my way and you vote your way, and at the end of the day, we'll go grab a beer and listen to some good music.
How does that sound?
Sounds great, right?
That's called living together, compromising, and trying to make a better future.
So Kanye West comes out, and I'm like, wow.
I mean, I gotta be honest.
I feel like that's gonna drive a huge wave of support, I would imagine.
Don't take my word for it, though.
I'm not gonna act like I know.
But Kanye West, man, he's huge.
He's huge, period.
For everybody.
Kanye is just one of the biggest celebrities in the world.
Here's what's crazy to me.
So we see Candace Owens come around, we see a bunch of these other supporters, they come to Trump's events.
Trump really is trying to make sure he's speaking to them.
What's crazy to me is, I agree with Tariq Nasheed on this one.
And I view him as kind of like, he's kind of out there, right?
But he's making a really good point about what the Democrats are doing.
Every four years they say the same exact things, and what really changes.
I mean, for me, I don't live in that community, the black community, so I don't know.
But I can tell you this.
Every four years, the Democrats say the exact same things and nothing changes.
They talk about reparations every four years.
Candace Owens talked about that.
So I'll defer to her.
She said it.
She said every four years, the Democrats come out and they offer these programs, reparations, and all these things.
Nothing gets done.
And then they act like, oh, all these things are, like, they ignore everything.
And then four years later, come back and say, here's what we're going to do again.
So it's interesting to me that Tariq Nasheed, so look at it this way.
If 80, 82% of the black community do not like Republicans, Tariq Nasheed may not be a Trump supporter, but he just put a big crack in that armor where he's like, why would we support the Democrats or Trump?
I'm like, dude, I don't agree with you for the same reasons as you do, because I don't know your life experience, but that's kind of how I feel.
Why should I support any of these people?
Like, what are you really going to be doing that I like?
Now I understand the arguments from both sides.
And I kind of think the 2020 Democrats have gone completely off the rails.
But I'm always a person who votes on principle, not against somebody.
I'm not going to vote against Trump.
I'm not going to vote against Elizabeth Warren.
I'm going to vote for who I like.
And that means usually I'm not voting.
But I'll tell you this.
It's going to be pretty big if it turns out these polls are wrong.
So here's my opinion, right?
Candace Owens, I believe, was probably a big influence on Kanye, because he tweeted about how he liked what she was saying.
Kanye is changing the game.
I think Kanye stepping up is going to be a huge... You're like, man, home run.
It's just massively influential.
Tariq Nasheed, however, I'm not saying he's super influential, but he's what you see here with someone as like ardent and adamant in their views as him.
If even he's not stepping out and saying, I agree with Trump on this one, you can see that, you know, I don't know what you'd call it, but I think.
Something's happening where people are no longer just going to immediately assume Republican, bad, Democrat, good.
They're actually thinking about it.
They're actually talking about it.
And some of the most ardent critics of Republicans and the right is saying, Oh, I'm listening to Trump and even Kanye.
I don't know, man.
I kind of feel like politics is changing very, very dramatically.
We'll see what happens though.
I think 2020 is going to be, it's going to be really interesting.
If Zogby is right and Trump's support in the black community is up to like, what?
Nonetheless, the point I brought up in the beginning of this video, I'm kidding, I don't think we're in a parallel reality, but it's just so nuts.
It's like everything that's happening is, I don't know, kinda weird and exciting, I guess?
Eh, whatever, I'll leave it there, stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.
I made a video the other day talking about how I think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, they must be lying about wealth tax because they don't understand what net worth means.
And there are a lot of things I do not like about these two individuals.
I used to be a big fan of Bernie.
But I will tell you this.
You know, back in 2016, Bernie wasn't talking about a lot of these things.
And really, in 2016, on the debate stage, when he started saying white people didn't know what it's like to be poor, that was a huge souring moment for me.
And you know, I've never been much more than just a milquetoast fence-sitter.
But now we have this.
Border Sheriff warns Bernie Sanders' plan to abolish ICE would be a disaster.
You know, I'm not an expert, but I'm gonna have to agree, based on what I've read about Bernie Sanders' plan, it would be a disaster.
He wants to put a moratorium on deportations, immediately allow 50,000 climate refugees into the country.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, hold on, hold on.
I got absolutely no problem with bringing in all of the refugees.
All of them.
Every single one from all over the planet.
Bring them all to the United States.
But, They apply, we figure out how many we can handle in terms of the economy, where they can be placed, whether or not they actually qualify for refugee status, and then by all means, yes, I think we're a wealthy nation who can help people.
There's an interesting point that came up in my discussion with Sam Seder where he said, I think everybody who should be allowed to be a refugee should be allowed in and all that stuff, and I think what was missed in the conversation is, well, yes, yes, I actually think Most Americans, even the staunchest Trump supporters, who are concerned about the migrant crisis, would agree.
If you're a refugee, a legitimate refugee, and you apply, and we can see, yeah, bring them on in.
The problem is, most of these people I'm gonna say it.
They are not being forthcoming entirely, or they just don't qualify.
I think for the most part, most people don't qualify.
And we've seen some of the interviews where they genuinely believe they can just come here for no reason.
There was an interview with one guy, and he said that he was told by non-profits that Americans were welcoming people in to get jobs.
Trump, apparently there's something about, you know, Trump wants to make people pay a fee to apply for asylum.
Now, that's questionable, because I will say, first, if you can, then it does make sense to pay, to apply, because what, do we have to pay for every single person who applies and the 90% who get rejected?
But, ultimately, I think it's impossible.
Come on, man.
You know, if somebody's actually, say, in Mexico, and they're really fleeing violence and terror and stuff, you can't expect them to have the money if they're up and fleeing.
So I think, ultimately, that falls out.
It doesn't work.
Let's read the story, though.
Let's read about Bernie going off the deep end.
Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, running for president in 2020 has a brilliant idea.
Get rid of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency that enforces America's immigration laws and counters transnational crime.
Yes, because I remember that one time that I stopped a bunch of traffickers.
Can't be having that, can we?
Guess not.
That's a terrible idea, according to one law enforcement official on the border.
Sheriff Mark Daniels, who protects the border between Arizona and Mexico, said if the Senator's plan were enacted, it would lead to disaster.
If we don't have a secure border in this country, we will have a different country.
We need to stand united, and the plan that Senator Sanders is putting forward is a disaster for this country, he said on Fox News.
You know what I'm gonna do?
Because one of the criticisms I got is that Tim Pool often agrees with conservatives on immigration.
No, no, no, no, no.
No.
Let me just say for the record, I 100% disagree with every single conservative.
Every single one.
The only person I agree with on the border is Barack Obama.
Deporter-in-chief.
That's right.
What did he deport?
Like 3 million people in his tenure?
Barack Obama, who wanted more border security.
And I also agree with Bernie Sanders, who recently said, Bernie Sanders said we can't have open borders because there's too many poor people.
I'm sorry, none of it makes sense, does it?
Because now Barack Obama's a Republican.
You had Hillary Clinton talking about a border wall.
You had all the Democrats talking about a border wall.
Now all of a sudden it's a conservative position.
What is going on?
My position hasn't changed.
And I think Obama was going a bit too harsh.
But now I am agreeing with conservatives?
Okay, you know what, man?
I don't have to tell you.
Y'all are nuts.
The media is like, who's left, who's right?
You know what?
I'm just gonna say, if I agree with Hillary Clinton on building a secure border barrier, does that make me conservative?
I mean, I guess, because no one likes Hillary.
But what about Bernie Sanders a few months ago when he said we can't allow all these people in the country?
I guess he changed his mind.
Danil said Sanders' plan would be like a state governor abolishing all sheriff and police chiefs.
It's no different at the federal level.
The sheriff's comments came after members of a powerful drug cartel in Mexico massacred nine Americans, including women and children.
I gotta say, like, bad timing, Bernie.
But you know what, man?
Bernie could.
He could do this.
I mean, he runs the executive branch, so he absolutely could break down ICE.
I don't know exactly how it works, but I believe Bernie could snap his fingers, essentially, and be like, okay.
You're done.
Open the gates.
Now, of course, whenever Trump tries to do it, you know, they say, Ninth Circuit Court, we're going to challenge you, we're going to block you, and then Trump ends up losing.
So they say, on the campaign trail for the Democratic nomination, Sanders touts a plan to break up ICE and all deportations of those illegal in the U.S.
and grant full welfare access to illegal immigrants.
He also wants to allow at least 50,000 climate migrants into the U.S.
Okay.
We already have a hard enough time paying for our veterans to get healthcare, to get taken care of, right?
Wasn't that a big, big fiasco where it's like, our veterans are not being taken care of?
I know, I got an idea!
Let's extend all welfare benefits to non-citizens, invite 50,000 non-citizens into the country, and give them welfare too!
We can't afford that?
You know what's crazy to me?
The deficit's insane right now, and they're proposing plans while criticizing Trump over the deficit.
Let me say that one more time for you.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, I think it was him, I could be wrong.
If I'm wrong, forgive me.
Said something like...
The Republicans have doubled the deficit.
They don't actually care about, you know, small government and a balanced budget.
And I'm like, are you criticizing Trump over running up the deficit while simultaneously advocating for allowing illegal immigrants access to welfare benefits and creating a $52 trillion Medicare-for-all plan?
What do you think's gonna happen to the deficit?
And I actually had someone on the left argue to me that we can do Medicare-for-all through deficit spending, and I'm like, What?
That's gonna drive mass inflation.
No one will be able to retire.
They're gonna keep pumping money non-stop.
Look, man.
It sounds nice, but I'll tell you what the truth is.
Back in the day, maybe even 10 years ago, Bernie Sanders would have got away with this.
Bernie Sanders could have gone to a Latino rally.
I'm sorry, Latinx rally.
That's the word the progressives want me to use, right?
And he could have said, I'm going to do all these things.
No more deportations.
Healthcare for non-citizens.
Because it's a human right.
No one would have known he said it.
The people in the community would be like, wow, and they'd go home, and then they'd talk about it with their friends, and that was the end of it.
Now we all have smartphones.
Remember in 2016, something happened where like Hillary Clinton was in Alabama or Arkansas, and she started talking with a Southern drawl?
Like a little light one.
She's like, I'm here, y'all.
Gonna be campaigning for y'all.
And it's like, dude, Hillary, you're a New York, you know, liberal.
We know how you talk.
See, back in the day, you could do this.
You could go to these communities and say all these beautiful things.
So Sanders goes to these communities and says, we're going to end deportations.
Your family will not be separated.
And it speaks to people who are actually like, yeah, I'd like to bring my family here.
Bernie then walks away.
How much you want to bet if Bernie gets the nomination, which I don't think he will, because they do not want it.
Because regular Americans aren't gonna vote for that.
It's a fact.
And I'll tell you this, man.
There was a... The video I did the other day... Sorry, I have allergies.
It happens.
Um...
They're bragging now, a lot of people on the left, about how Virginia is flipping blue because Trump is off-putting.
And it's like, sure, whatever, but those blue districts that voted Democrat, they're moderates, man.
So you think Bernie's going to win on this message?
No way, Bernie's going to do a complete 180.
He's going to be like, no, no, no, I didn't mean it.
The problem with the activist base of the Democrats is they've been driven insane by the media.
The media has really tainted the mind of the left because they're chasing after this woke rage bait, creating a small sect of extreme activists of the far left who say that when they walk up to you, they're like, hi, my name is Bill, he, him.
Please don't clap.
It's off-putting.
That's the weird fringe element that's being grown.
And some of these people are getting elected, but regular Americans ain't all about that.
Regular Americans do not care if you clap.
They care about if their kid's going to have food, go to college, make something of themselves.
So I tell you this, what American is sitting here going, why?
I completely agree with ending deportations.
No, you're not offering anything to an American.
To some, I guess, maybe an American with family that's here illegally, but the average person is going to be like, dude, When you campaign for doing things for not Americans, why would I vote for you?
Let's rewind.
You see the video I did just before this, the segment previous, where I talked about Tariq Nasheed?
He said he agreed with Trump.
Trump's offering something to the black community.
What does this offer to the black community or to the American community at all?
My understanding is Bernie has done really, really bad with the black community as well.
So my question is this.
It's kind of like what Bill Maher was asking about.
He said, why are you offering up these crazy positions?
Are you concerned about losing the illegal immigrant vote to Trump?
Guess what?
They don't vote!
So why are you pandering to them?
You're not going to gain anything from it.
The reality is it's a virtue signal to the activist base of the left.
He doesn't actually care about these people, these climate migrants.
No!
He's trying to get all the far lefties to vote for him so he wins the primary.
Come the general, Bernie is going to walk this back hard.
He has to.
Could you imagine a regular middle American being like, uh, I'm not going to vote to give my money away.
That makes no sense.
Like when we, when we pay into the government, we pay taxes.
First of all, people hate doing that.
People don't want new taxes, even when it goes to their own programs.
You know, Americans...
Americans barely want to pay taxes, okay?
But at least they're willing to when it comes to funding their local communities and programs they know will benefit them.
People begrudgingly pay taxes because they're like, well, you know, we got to pay for this, that, and this.
What do you think is going to happen if you're like, we want to raise your taxes to give that guy over there money who's not actually American.
He's going to be like, well, hold on, dude.
I already don't want to pay this much in taxes.
Now you're going to add more people?
Nah.
So, so I probably should have read this, but we'll keep it short.
The point is, our system can't sustain endless growth.
I'll quote Bernie Sanders.
There are too many poor people in this world.
Our system couldn't handle it.
Something that of a paraphrase.
Okay?
That was Bernie.
What is this?
Here's the thing.
I'll tell you exactly what it is.
The Democrats know to maintain attention, they have to keep one-upping each other.
So Bernie comes out rather reasonably, but then Beto comes out and just— Beto O'Rourke was the Leroy Jenkins of the Democrats.
Tear down the border wall!
Take everyone's guns!
It's like, dude, dude, dude, stop.
Beto tried to charge full speed in front of everybody, and he just— he made everybody white.
If you understand what I'm trying to say.
He got the whole party of Democrats negatively impacted by Leroy Jenkins-ing into the arena.
And now Bernie has no choice.
If he wants to up the ante and get that press attention, he's gotta go even crazier.
Yes, we'll abolish ICE!
No, dude, you are losing it, man.
So I think, you know what?
I think we're seeing a blue wave at the local level, and I actually think it's not all bad.
I'm pretty upset with the Democrats for a lot of reasons, but I'm not thrilled with one-party control, you know what I mean?
So I take a lot of issue with a lot of what the Democrats are doing, but I kind of do like the idea that there will be a struggle within government between opposing factions, because it means no one person can just have unilateral power.
However, Big, however.
It seems like the power struggle we're seeing today is destructive and not productive and will likely just result in a collapse in some capacity or a giant scar on the system that can never be mended.
So I'm worried about that.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
And there it is.
The Weasley action of Ocasio-Cortez.
She is in violation of the Constitution, and she was facing real ramifications in a lawsuit.
So she gave in.
However, As I stated, when the story first broke, she apologized.
She was trying to win a battle, but the war is still on.
So let me break this down for you.
A bunch of anti-Trump individuals sued him for blocking them.
And somehow, they won.
And my understanding is that Trump even lost his appeal.
Everybody was shocked, saying, whoa, whoa, whoa.
They sued him because Trump blocked them on Twitter?
But Twitter's a private service.
Well, you know what?
In my opinion, If the President is using Twitter, and Twitter is the only place to get this kind of content, then people should be allowed access to it.
Of course, Twitter still bans people.
It's a bigger issue.
But the result of this ruling was interesting.
It meant that AOC couldn't block people either, but she did.
So what did she do?
Ocasio-Cortez, they say, is still blocking critics on Twitter despite recently settling a lawsuit saying she violated the First Amendment by preventing people from engaging with her.
This is amazing.
She settled a lawsuit with Dove Hicken.
She acknowledges it was wrong.
It's a violation of the Constitution.
She is still doing it.
Boy, do you want power.
What did Lindsey Graham say?
Boy, you want power and I hope you never get it.
Not that I'm a big fan of Lindsey Graham, but hey, that comment was apt.
These people want power, and only when pressured, she was about to testify in federal court, settles.
But only with one person, thus avoiding having to ultimately concede the war.
You know what, AOC?
You want to violate the Constitution that bad?
Wow, you must really not like this country.
They say the firebrand Democrat from New York, after publicly apologizing earlier this week for having blocked former Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hickad, unblocked him, but not others.
As of Saturday, four conservatives were still being blocked from the Congresswoman's account.
Man, think about all of the things they say about Trump.
Trump won't comply.
They said Trump wouldn't accept the results of the 2016 election when he lost.
And then they didn't.
AOC complains about Trump violating the Constitution.
I don't want to put words in her mouth because I can't give you a specific example.
But these are the kind of people who are claiming Trump is destroying the Constitution.
And where are you coming out talking about Ocasio-Cortez doing the same thing and defying court precedent?
She settled the suit just so she could get away with it.
And she's still doing it.
She's trying her hardest to keep violating the Constitution.
There should be no safety and comfort for those who want to violate the Constitution.
And even after apologizing and settling the suit, still do it?
No, no, no.
She deserves all the scrutiny in the world.
The right-wing news outlet Daily Caller also was prevented from looking in on posts made by Ocasio-Cortez, more commonly known as AOC.
Now, as for the caller, I don't know if... I'd be interested if they ruled a company, you know, couldn't be banned.
We're talking about individuals, but I guess at the end, it doesn't matter what your profile is called, you know, if you're banning people from engaging in conversation.
And actually, yeah, Daily Caller's a news outlet, so they're protected under 1A as well.
While AOC was forgiving of Hicken, she apparently wasn't willing to unblock Harry Cherry, a 20-year-old conservative and former journalist who uses the Twitter handle TheHarryCherry, Neeraj Antani, a right-wing Ohio State lawmaker.
Now that, now that to me is extremely egregious.
We're talking about politicians who want to engage with the policy you're proposing and you refuse to unblock them in violation of the Constitution?
What do you think happens when someone like AOC gets more power?
Do you think she'll just be like, you know, the abuse of power was incorrect.
I know that I was in violation of the Constitution, definitively under court precedent.
You know what, man?
Trump made a phone call.
He made a phone call and said, do us a favor, though.
I want you to look into these things.
Turns out the Ukrainians were already doing it.
Was that the worst thing in the world?
Well, the left is trying to claim that Trump was leveraging this to withhold aid.
The Ukrainians said they didn't know.
The whole thing's ridiculous and confusing.
And that's the most important bit here.
Confusing.
You know what, left?
You want to argue Trump abused his power?
Let's hear the argument.
Right?
You want to argue he was acting normally and trying to weed out corruption against Joe Biden?
Let's hear the arguments.
What Ocasio-Cortez did?
We already heard the arguments.
We already know she's violating the Constitution.
Is anybody clamoring to impeach her for willfully violating the First Amendment?
No!
They're advocating for her re-election.
I hate politics, man.
You know what?
I absolutely detest politics.
Because I see it... You know, the video I did at 1pm has a higher ratio.
It was about a Trump supporter slashing the baby balloon.
And I said, listen, man, you can't destroy someone's property.
They have a right in this country to express themselves.
And most people who watch are principled good people.
But I can't help but notice that dislike ratio is higher than normal.
And a lot of people were talking about Katie Hill having a World War II German tattoo.
And, no, she didn't.
But a lot of them were like, well, they started it.
You know what, man?
I don't play these games.
Okay?
You want to argue about Trump making that phone call?
I'm listening.
I am listening to these people on the left.
I disagree.
But, hey, they're having their impeachment inquiry, and we all know where it's headed.
But what about AOC?
Why aren't they— It's just fake.
It's all fake.
They don't care that she's doing this.
They care that Trump did it.
Dov Hicken, however, is principled here, saying he called on her to unblock these people.
I understand it's kind of silly, it's like you're blocking someone on Twitter, but the point is, this is what we can expect if we allow people like her to get power.
Trump did unblock most of the people.
I don't know if he unblocked everybody, because some people said they're still blocked.
I don't care if you're Bernie, I don't care if you're Tulsi, I don't care if you're Yang, I don't care if you're Biden, Warren, whatever.
or of court precedent, I'm sorry.
So maybe she just needs to be sued more, but to act like she's any different,
it's, I don't want to hear it, man.
They're all the same.
I don't, I do not care.
I don't care if you're a Trump supporter.
I don't care if you're Bernie.
I don't care if you're Tulsi.
I don't care if you're Yang.
I don't care if you're Biden, Warren, whatever.
I don't trust any of these people.
That being said, I have smidgens of trust for some, okay?
So, I don't trust Donald Trump.
I do trust Andrew Yang.
I'm mad at him for making disparaging comments and playing the stupid reality TV con—we made fun of Trump for being fat.
I do trust Tulsi Gabbard to a degree, but I have been critical of her stance on nuclear energy and minimum wage, for instance.
I get it.
But also, I like Dan Crenshaw.
I trust him as well.
I trust Rand Paul.
There are a few people.
So when I say all, I'm being hyperbolic.
There are a few people that I do have confidence in, even if I disagree with them on policy issues.
Some I disagree with a little bit more, so I lean a little bit more to the left on a lot of issues.
But AOC is not someone to be trusted, okay?
The point is, she's knowingly and willfully violating a court ruling, but you have people on the left who Can rail on Trump all day and night about blocking being unconstitutional.
And what happened?
The Knight Foundation, they tweeted out saying AOC you need to unblock people and then deleted the tweet.
Now I think they did come out again realizing we have no choice but to say this.
But you know what man?
Let me give you another example.
It's just all hypocrisy.
Project Veritas today has done some of the most amazing journalistic work we've seen in a long time.
That ABC News video is possibly one of the biggest stories of the year, and it's mostly because it's on top of what is already the biggest story of the year.
So Project Veritas hits it out of the park, and they get smeared relentlessly in the press.
I looked back at some old Daily Show videos, and even though Jon Stewart would give, like, an eye roll at Veritas, like, conservative, you know, activist group uncovered, you know, injustice or whatever, he wouldn't smear them.
He'd say, you know, they're more right-leaning.
And I think the worst thing he said about James O'Keefe was that he was the conservative Ashton Kutcher, or the Ashton Kutcher of the conservative movement, something like that.
Which was just a silly joke.
Wasn't disparaging.
And then Stewart went on to criticize the substance of what O'Keefe actually produced, criticizing the
organizations who are exposed for wrongdoing.
Today, you have the ACLU coming out and defending the left no matter what they do,
even if they're in violation of the Constitution. Very few people are willing to say enough and
call out either side when they act without principle. I tell you what, man,
we are in a world now where principles don't exist.
It is tribalism.
You've got Republicans who think Trump did nothing wrong.
You've got Democrats who think Trump is the worst, most corrupt individual ever.
And you cannot change their minds.
Okay?
Now, I'll admit, I have my perspective as well.
And I'm more inclined to believe, based on the evidence I've read, that what Trump did was likely inappropriate on the phone call.
I think Trump's strategy was bad.
But that phone call he made, it's, it's, listen, I've read it all, you know, and we have a story about the Ukraine was, the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt and ineffective.
So Biden used a quid pro quo for political gain.
What's the US interest in Ukraine?
It's really, really complicated.
But the argument, you can see from the evidence, is that it looks like Joe Biden was intervening because he had familial gain.
And then they argue that Trump did the same thing for his political gain.
I don't think Trump did it for political gain.
Well, actually, I'll put it this way.
I think Trump's motivations were highly personal.
He's offended and angry about Russiagate, so he wants to investigate the origins.
But I do not see it as being political.
I think when you look at the facts, that's clear.
But the point I'm trying to make is not that Trump is right or wrong.
There is an objective reality.
Someone is right or wrong.
But I tell you this, man, you will never convince the left, and you will never convince the right.
Now, I will end with one important point.
A lot of people on the left say there's no point in talking to Trump supporters because you'll never convince them.
I think the big problem is that I found many people on the left don't actually watch the news and don't know anything.
I talk to people, you know, my friends and family who are adamant that Russia is manipulating our elections to an extreme degree and doing all these crazy things that are proven false.
Even BuzzFeed said, stop talking about Russian bots, it's dubious.
But they don't watch the news.
So yeah, I think that's fair.
The reason why you'll find a lot of my content is closer in alignment to what conservatives are saying is for two reasons.
The first, it's because the left has swung so far left they're outside of reality at this point.
Okay?
Bernie Sanders, he called for a border barrier, so did Hillary Clinton, so did Schumer, they all did.
All of a sudden now they don't want it?
Look man, I didn't move anywhere, okay?
I'm where Obama was.
But the other issue is, As I pointed out in that Reuters story, if you watch Fox News, you think the economy is good.
If you watch MSNBC, you think the economy is bad.
Most sources say the economy is good.
So if you're watching that and you're on the left, you are not in the same place as literally everybody else.
That makes you the odd person out.
In the end, I think if you actually read the news, you'll find that the moderate conservative types are more likely to be correct.
Not always, just slightly more likely.
You'll find that it's Antifa typically being violent.
You'll find it's rarely Trump supporters.
You'll find that Trump lost a suit and unblocked many people, and AOC is resisting, still in violation of the Constitution.
So when they come to me and they say, Trump is violating the Constitution, I say, oh great, yeah, let me know when you want to file impeachment against Ocasio-Cortez for doing the same, for also violating the Constitution, and I'll take you seriously.
