Democrats Engaged In SHOCKING Corruption, Spying On Republicans And An American Journalist
Democrats Engaged In SHOCKING Corruption, Spying On Republicans And An American Journalist. In the Democrats impeachment report they published private phone records for their chief political opponent in the impeachment inquiry Devin Nunes and a private American journalist John Solomon.The impeachment inquiry in Trump is failing and Adam Schiff has become so desperate that he has resorted to somehow obtaining private phone details for his rivals and an American journalist. In response a media that loves to bend over backwards for Democrats pushes the narrative that Schiff asks for. That the journalist is corrupt and lying for Trump and that Nunes was involved in the Ukraine Scandal with Trump.Devin Nunes has launched a 435$ Million suit against CNN for publishing a false story that he met with Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Nunes published photos showing him in other countries including Malta.Media companies have continually hired former intelligence officials and even Democratic operatives. Their allies in media know exactly what to say and how to say it.Impeachment backfired on Democrats so now they are pulling out all the stops to spin absurd stories smearing republicans and journalists. This shows us a dark future as norms and rights are being violated in the name of political power
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Adam Schiff and the Democrats have gone beyond corruption.
This is a whole new level of insanity, a violation of civil rights and social norms and privacy rights.
I'm furious.
I'm shocked.
This has been a really hard segment to put together.
Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Democrats have published the private phone records of an American journalist of prestige with many awards.
They have published private phone records of their chief political opponent in the impeachment fight, Devin Nunes.
You don't have to like either of these people.
But this is a shocking level of corruption and desperation.
And I've got to admit, I'm furious.
This is terrifying.
I don't know what this means for our future.
These Democrats not only know that they have allies in media, but they know that with or without them, they can publish misleading information, violate the privacy rights of American citizens and the civil rights, and the media is just going to parrot whatever that narrative is.
Because journalism has truly died in this country in two ways.
For one, take a look at this story.
Schiff says phone records show Nunes may have been complicit in Ukraine affair.
Yes, Adam Schiff was spying on Devin Nunes' private phone calls and published them in a report to discredit the Republicans.
There's no merit to this.
There's no context.
There's no proof he did anything.
And there is absolutely no grounds for Adam Schiff to be spying on private phone records of Devin Nunes.
Okay, fine.
You want to argue the House has subpoena power and so they can look at whoever they want?
Sure.
What about John Solomon?
He's a journalist.
He's nothing to do with this.
He wrote some stories that were cited by Republicans.
He didn't start the Ukrainian scandal reporting.
That was Politico.
Yet sure enough, Adam Schiff also published the private phone records of John Solomon.
And the media is not only smearing Nunes, but CNN is smearing John Solomon as well, claiming Democrats obtained phone records showing how Trump allies coordinated false narratives.
Excuse me.
There's no proof and there's no justification as to why the Democrats were spying on a journalist.
There is no justification for this.
Recently, CNN ran this overtly fake story.
Giuliani associate willing to tell Congress Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden.
Absurd.
Why would CNN publish hearsay from someone they claim is corrupt?
So Associate wants to claim that a corrupt Ukrainian, a corrupt guy, is claiming another corrupt guy, claims he met with a Republican, he's smearing an American politician.
You might as well talk about that conspiracy theory involving Ilhan Omar, you know, as well.
No, it's absurd.
But CNN runs the story.
This is on par with any absurd conspiracy theory, but for some reason CNN does it.
Devin Nunes published photos in a lawsuit against CNN showing he wasn't there, he wasn't in Vienna.
It's fake news.
So you may be thinking, perhaps there's, you know, I don't know.
I don't know what to think.
Seriously, it's hard to even explain.
Why is it that CNN And Yahoo just parrot the psychotic fake talking points and not criticize the fact that government officials are publishing the private details of their chief political opponents and American citizens.
Let me show you why.
Let me show you why.
Take a look at this story from Deadline.
What I'm gonna show you should be obvious.
It should be obvious to everyone.
Vice News adds Paola Ramos as correspondent in first major Jesse Angelo hire.
Seems like it's completely unrelated.
Who cares if Vice News is hiring Paola Ramos?
Who's that?
Well, she's done some reporting for Vice News before, but I'll tell you this now.
These media companies aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
You see, they say, A regular contributor to Telemundo and MSNBC.
Bias much?
Ramos is the former deputy director of Hispanic media for Hillary Clinton and a former political appointee in the Obama White House.
Media is corrupt.
The media has been corrupted by partisan interests.
I'm not saying there's a coordinating council pushing a grand conspiracy.
I'm saying that the media is overtly being run by operatives who used to work in Democrat White Houses, who previously worked for Hillary Clinton, and are now joining other savvy millennial digital media outlets.
Look, what you need to understand about what a conspiracy is, it's a top-down effort.
I'm absolutely rejecting that premise.
I'm saying these people are hiring each other because they're friends.
Because their interests align.
Adam Schiff doesn't need to coordinate with anybody.
He can violate your civil rights and your privacy all on his own.
And he knows CNN will use that because their interests are aligned.
What you need to understand about conspiracy theories is that people often say that so-and-so
directly worked with so-and-so.
That's not what's happening.
What's happening is worse.
A group of individuals know, they know that they can put out this information, violating
the privacy rights of an American citizen.
And rest assured, the people who share their tribal alignment will weaponize that.
There is no conspiracy.
It's worse.
It is a group of political partisans joining these companies, hiring their friends, and then they all are just playing the same game with each other.
They know what they're doing.
It is not a cabal of people who are spreading around plans, who have this top-down plan.
No, it's worse.
Political interests have infected the media and destroyed it.
John Solomon.
Let me stop now, okay?
I'm getting carried away because this is one of the most shocking stories I've seen and it's terrifying.
I will tell you what I'm seeing.
There are two interests.
When you have Adam Schiff, Pulling up the private phone records of Devin Nunes, rest assured there are two factions in our government fighting with each other and stopping at nothing to violate our institutions and our norms.
And I will not stop with just Adam Schiff.
I get it.
Donald Trump wanted an investigation into Biden for whatever reason.
They're pointing the institutions at each other.
Fine.
It's not leading us anywhere safe.
Before I go on, though, if you want to support my work, go to TimCast.com slash donate.
You can donate there.
You can share this video.
I also run this as a podcast on all podcast platforms, so subscribe.
It's on iTunes, Apple.
If you're on that platform, subscribe and follow there.
It's an hour and a half.
I usually stop early and do it, but this has been just so absolutely insane to me.
This story from Deadline is showing us that they're not even trying to hide it.
These media companies are hiring Obama White House appointees, okay?
Former staffers for Hillary Clinton.
That's who is working at these companies.
CNN is telling you not to listen to other news outlets.
That should be a red flag enough, but people buy it.
My question.
How did the Democrats get access to these phones?
Let me show you.
Let me show you.
It's public, okay?
Normally, I wouldn't want to do this, but here it is.
John Solomon, private phone record.
Devin Nunes, private phone record.
Rudy Giuliani, private phone record.
That's right.
They pulled the phone records for the Office of Management and Budgets.
They pulled the phone records for the President's private attorney.
That should be protected.
But look, you can argue all of it.
Why they're going after a private journalist, a private citizen, is shocking.
And once again, they're using it to discredit him.
Did you also know that CNN and MSNBC have been hiring former spooks?
These are people who worked for the intelligence agencies who are now getting top-tier jobs working for the media.
I'm not saying there's a president of the media company laughing, saying, you know, yes, sir, thank you, sir, and conspiring.
No, I'm saying they all hate the president, and they don't care about the media.
They are not the government.
They are not politicians.
They are not journalists.
They are something else.
They're ideologues.
They are zealots.
They don't need to collude with each other.
I'm sorry.
They don't need to coordinate anything.
They're all aligned in their interest of subverting our democratic institutions, violating our civil rights, and targeting those who stand in their way.
I know it's frustrating when people say, Tim, you're talking about conspiracies.
No, it's worse.
It's two different factions, and one of them is stopping at nothing.
And they're getting jobs in media.
And it's scary.
Let me read this one from the Examiner.
Schiff spying on Nunes with call records.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff spied on the top Republican on his panel by obtaining his phone records and publishing them in an impeachment report, Minority Whip Steve Scalise said on Wednesday.
It raises a lot of serious questions.
I want to know all of the people Adam Schiff is spying on.
Are there other members of Congress that he is spying on?
And what justification does he have?
He needs to be held accountable and explain what he's doing going after journalists, going after members of Congress, instead of doing his job.
The records show calls between Nunes and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and calls between Nunes and Lev Parnas, a Julian associate now under indictment for funneling foreign money to U.S.
political candidates.
I find it deeply concerning at a time when the President of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence of members of Congress complicit in that activity.
Schiff is beyond corrupt.
This is beyond corruption.
And I don't think anything will be done to stop it.
I think the Republicans are too pathetic to do anything about it.
How long did it take for Lindsey Graham to finally demand documents pertaining to Joe Biden's involvement in Burisma?
And then they said, well, he's the leader of the party now.
What about the Democrats?
Hillary Clinton, the DNC, they did cheat.
We know they did.
It's record.
They were providing information to CNN.
CNN was working with the Democratic Party to push out Bernie Sanders.
And now what can we see?
Adam Schiff is spying on a private citizen, a journalist no less, and his chief political rival.
Let me stress that for you.
You want to complain about Trump trying to get an investigation to dig up dirt on Biden?
Fine, by all means.
Let's talk about it.
Unfortunately for you, the Democrats didn't ask a single question of their witnesses as to whether or not Donald Trump actually was concerned about Biden.
They talked about quid pro quo.
Didn't prove that either.
But Adam Schiff pulled up the private phone records of his chief political rival in the impeachment fight.
The red flags shouldn't be shocking to anybody.
John Solomon, who's being smeared.
Not perfect.
He's had some stories that were incorrect.
He quoted a guy who turns out to have been incorrect.
John Solomon is not always getting every story right, nor does every journalist.
And with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that some of his stories turned out not to be true.
That's fine.
That's normal journalism.
He has won a number of prestigious awards and now CNN is taking this information that was obtained by violating his rights and weaponizing it against him.
Devin Nunes was accused by CNN with this highly dubious nonsensical story a couple weeks ago of meeting with a corrupt politician.
They are trying to smear with fake news the guy, their chief political rival.
Noon has now filed a $435 million defamation suit against CNN and published photos that he was in Libya and Malta at the time.
He never met with this guy.
It's a shocking level of corruption.
They're not even trying to hide it anymore, guys.
I don't know what to tell you.
These political operatives are getting in media and they're using this to target their political rivals.
All right?
The media is corrupt.
The Democrats are corrupt.
That's all I can say.
But I will tell you this, the faction wars, whatever you want to call it, whatever is happening, it's not one-sided.
Let me show you something else.
From the Department of Justice, apparently Bill Barr is targeting Clinton, or Clinton allies I should say.
California CEO and seven others charged in multi-million dollar conduit campaign contribution case.
It turns out somebody apparently funneled, I believe it was 3.5 million dollars in campaign contributions to a presidential candidate in 2016.
Now they're not saying who, but reporting suggests it was Hillary Clinton.
Politico reports.
Lobbyist known for Trump ties charged with steering illegal contributions to Clinton.
George Nader, a witness in the Mueller investigation, has acted as an informal conduit between the president's top advisors and Middle Eastern interests.
First, what do I find interesting?
The Ukraine meddling story started with Politico.
In 2017, they said a DNC operative Was trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign and got aid from the Ukrainian embassy.
Yes, a court ruled in Ukraine that was meddling.
Was it a top-down Ukrainian government effort?
No.
Did Ukraine hack servers?
No.
But Ukraine was meddling.
We've then seen several stories from Politico attempting to discredit this report, their own reporting.
Now, when Politico is forced to admit that Hillary Clinton was receiving illegal contributions, they open it by saying a lobbyist known for Trump ties?
What does Trump have to do with this?
It's Trump's appointee Bill Barr who's going after the corruption.
Why is the media doing this?
Listen, I'm sick and tired of the conspiracy theorists.
I'm sick and tired of the—it's—it's—listen.
There are people who work at media who are trying to steer a narrative.
Some of these people work with each other.
To an extent, there is collusion.
Conspiracy is criminal.
We don't know to what extent it's going on.
And I do not believe that Adam Schiff is coordinating with anybody in this.
There's no conspiracy between Schiff and other people in media.
There are aligned interests.
People at Politico who hate Trump, and instead of doing journalism, weaponize information and frame it to hurt people they don't like.
It is not journalism.
It is political operatives using the media to their advantage.
But to suggest their coordinating is absurd.
We don't have that.
What we do have is a step in that direction.
And I want to make this clear.
The reason why I'm repeatedly saying stop with the conspiracy We're trying to investigate, to figure out how deep it goes, and we're starting from point A to B to C. If you jump to Z, you look nuts.
We have evidence to suggest media companies have hired Hillary Clinton staffers and White House appointees.
We know that former intelligence agents and officials are working at media.
That's where we're at so far.
Stop.
We can then go from there and question why CNN and other outlets are parroting information that was obtained through the violation of a person's civil rights.
That's where we're at so far.
Not a conspiracy.
What we need next is evidence of communications between these Democrats and these media companies.
And we do have that, so we're getting close.
When in 2016, Donna Brazile was feeding information to the Clinton campaign.
Close, but not quite there.
And I want to make sure that's clear, because when you jump the gun and assert, yes, a conspiracy, before we can lay out the documents in front of us, they will accuse you of making things up, and they're already doing it.
The reason why they're going after John Solomon is because he filed freedom of information requests Showing.
Some of this information stands up to muster.
And that means he is a particular threat.
Now listen, I'm not surprised the U.S.
government would go after journalists.
Of course they would.
But they're not going after journalists.
They're going after their political rivals now.
There is no unity here.
It is breaking down.
Schiff targeted Nunes, and he targeted the journalists who were backing up the claims of Republicans.
Somebody who did everything right, who has awards, and they are trying to destroy his career by every means available.
So when CNN comes out claiming John Solomon is pushing unfounded conspiracy, debunked conspiracy, look at this.
Many of these calls occurred in April.
According to the Democratic report, the same time Solomon pumped out columns in the Hill, the stories were filled with discredited conspiracy theories, etc., etc.
We have the benefit of hindsight.
We can look back and say some of John Solomon's reporting was imperfect.
But John Solomon provided documents that need to be questioned, scrutinized, and answered for.
They are now using Adam Schiff's violation of civil rights to justify or to accuse an award-winning Decorated journalist of being a conspiracy theorist.
It makes its way to his Wikipedia page, where they then try to discredit him, saying that he's pushing fake news.
Politico then, you know, backs these claims up, and they smear him relentlessly.
But let me remind you, John Solomon did not start this story.
It was Ken Vogel of Politico.
For some reason, it's John Solomon facing the brunt, perhaps, It's because he's the one doing the digging.
They then leak his private phone records, which is shockingly insane.
I'm at a loss for words.
Right now, Bill Barr is going after Clinton associates.
It is not one-sided.
I don't know where this ends up, but civil war is something that people have said over and over again.
I'm sorry.
I really do.
I'm sitting here thinking, like, how do I explain the severity of Adam Schiff publishing this information?
Because you can claim they have a right to subpoena, but to publish it for it to be weaponized by their allies in the press is a level of corruption I have not seen in a long time.
What we need now is evidence of coordination between Democratic operatives and these journalists.
And I get it, man.
It's coming to a point where you can argue it's just a conspiracy theory.
And I'm trying to be very careful and meticulous before asserting there's overt collusion in particular cases.
But let me tell you what we have now.
Former intelligence agents work for CNN and MSNBC.
As reported by the Daily Caller, it's a fact.
It's been known for a long time.
I think Clapper has a contributorship.
Vice News hired a former Hillary Clinton staffer and Obama appointee.
Fact.
We know it's true.
Adam Schiff publishes information that is then immediately weaponized by these outlets that employ these individuals.
We get to a point where you can say we don't have the evidence, but we have a preponderance of the evidence.
And it stands to reason that these media outlets are acting in alignment with these interests.
And the corruption is there.
So what happens then, when the DOJ finds out that $3.5 million were illegally funneled to the Clinton campaign?
Politico says, known for their Trump ties.
I'm sorry, why is it relevant?
This guy may have, look what they say.
He's indirectly, I'm sorry, he has an informal conduit between Trump's advisors and various Middle Eastern interests and he literally funneled millions of dollars to Clinton.
We're in trouble, man.
This is... I'm gonna wrap it up.
Let me just clarify my previous points about conspiracy collusion.
One of the biggest concerns I have is that a lot of people jump the gun with absurd conspiracy theories, asserting things that are just not true.
Aliens, lizards, whatever.
To claim that there are elements of the media that are aligned with political interests is obvious.
To claim that there's coordination between them is a bit of a leap.
But we did see Donna Brazile in Hillary Clinton's campaign.
To claim that in instances of elections, impeachment, and imprisonment, and the FBI, now you gotta prove that these former government agents and current government actors are directly coordinating with each other.
We're not there.
We do know that former operatives are hired.
We know that certain elements New Knowledge, for instance.
This organization was creating fake bots in the Alabama election, and then the media just parroted it.
We need to make sure we can find definitive evidence beyond just a stupid, inept media.
And I'll tell you where we're at so far.
They're hiring former operatives.
They're hiring former intelligence agents.
There you go.
We're getting to that point.
I don't know what to say.
I don't have an optimistic outlook for the future.
I don't think that the Republicans, the right, and whatever this independent space is trying to find truth, I don't know where this all goes.
But I will say that, boy, do I think Adam Schiff is truly a despicable individual.
To publish the records of Nunes, his chief political rival and a journalist, is just... There's no excuse for it.
You will never justify that.
I'll see you all in the next segment.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6pm.
I can remember the famous saying.
It goes something like this.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
A phrase that literally means nothing because literally everything has consequences.
But now maybe these people on the left will start learning their lesson that in the real world, you can't harm the business where you work.
There's a big difference between your college gender studies class and a place of business that has to service everybody.
There's a famous quote.
I believe, I could be getting it wrong, but I believe Michael Jordan was asked something about why he's not more political and he said because conservatives buy shoes too.
Something like that.
People who run businesses know we can't let politics get in the way of servicing, you know, our customers and our country.
If we're going to make a product, it's stupid to tell someone they can't use it simply because you disagree over an issue that can be solved at a ballot box.
Well, you may have heard the story about a police officer who went to a Starbucks and, excuse me, the barista put pig on the label.
I believe I have a photo here in this article.
That's right.
See, the police officer was apparently trying to get a bunch of coffees for 911 dispatchers on a cold winter's day.
And this person thought it'd be funny to call him a pig.
Well, Starbucks apparently fired the guy, but now it gets worse.
You see, when this story happened, I didn't really care to cover it.
I'm like, yeah, you know what, man, these things happen.
But now, the manager has been fired as well.
This should be a lesson.
It probably won't be.
It should be a lesson, though, to all of these kids.
They go to college.
They think that, you know, in college, where they complain and say whatever they want, and the administration bends over backwards to accommodate them, They think they can get away with it.
Well, in the real world, where money has to exchange hands, you have to adhere to the customers.
See, here's the problem.
What these people don't realize in college is that they're customers of that college.
And the colleges are going to tell you whatever you want to hear because you're giving them money.
So they grow up in this institution.
They spend their whole lives here.
Now they're 24 or whatever.
Every time they complained, someone gave them what they wanted.
Well, now they have real jobs.
Now they're the administrators, and the customer is complaining.
And you think you're justified with your moral indignation to call the cop a pig, and you get fired.
How about that?
They say, Daily Mail reports, a Starbucks manager at an outlet where a cop was given coffee cups with the word pig printed on them, claims she was wrongfully fired from her job.
Now, maybe the manager should not have been fired.
But, the guy should've.
I mean, you're hurting the business, but let's see what they say.
Lola Price, the former manager at Starbucks in Glenpool, Oklahoma, said she was called in by management on Thursday and was let go from her role.
It came after an officer with the Kyfer Police Department did a Starbucks run for emergency dispatchers working on the holiday and was shocked to find the word PIG printed on the labels for all five drink orders.
Both Price and the barista responsible have been fired over the incident, which happened last Thursday.
The officer reported the labels to Police Chief Johnny O'Mara, who shared a picture of one of the offensive coffee cups on Facebook, where the incident went viral and led to public outrage.
Listen, man.
There are bad cops.
And there are a lot of them.
But you gotta understand that there's a larger amount of regular cops.
And good cops.
And I'll tell you this, man.
There are cultural issues.
People of every background.
They don't want to hold their own accountable.
So I can understand why you might be upset with certain legal institutions and how our courts are run.
And certain police officers.
But come on, man.
You really want to risk your job?
Or do you think you have a right to cause... Listen.
Let me stop there and rephrase this.
Starbucks provides coffee for everybody.
When you do this, you are hurting Starbucks.
Now, of all the places that I'm concerned about, Starbucks is the last.
I'm not super concerned about one local Starbucks losing business.
But the fact remains, there are other people who work there, who rely on that income, and it's a business.
Now, me personally, I prefer smaller cafes.
But this is one of the craziest things about the callousness of these far leftists.
In DC, during the inauguration, they were smashing windows.
And I've brought this argument up all the time.
They smashed bank windows, they smashed Starbucks windows, McDonald's.
And I always talk to these people and ask them, like, why would you do that?
And they say, you know, we're sending a message, it's a symbol, you know, we want to bring down these corporations.
And I'm like, listen man, all you've done, first of all, The corporate managers, the regional managers, the executives will never even know the window was broken.
They don't care.
It's not even a rounding error.
It doesn't even appear on their balance sheets.
They won't know what happened.
You know who will know what happened?
A minimum wage barista who's trying to put themselves through college so they can get a better job and move up in this world.
Or they're trying to figure it out.
Maybe they're trying to pay rent.
And they show up one day and there's a shattered window and they stand there scratching their head.
What do I do now?
And the manager calls him up and says, hey, we can't open today.
We gotta have a crew come in and board up that window, so, you know, come back tomorrow.
Oh, lost wages.
Or better yet, they walk in and they say, we can't open today, but we're gonna need you to clean up the glass and do this work.
And now this person's sitting there, you know, shoveling glass and doing work, and they're like, why would they do this to me?
What people don't seem to realize, especially the left, excuse me, is they seem to think everything is the fault of some other.
They don't realize that we are all people and we all contribute.
You see, you look at France, right?
France wants to do something about climate change.
So France did the right thing to reduce carbon emissions.
They taxed petrol, gas.
And sure enough, people started rioting for like a year.
Yes.
Okay.
I don't mean it was the right thing in terms of morality.
I'm saying if you want to reduce carbon emissions, you have to recognize that each individual is a contributor to these problems.
So when you blame the institution of the police, those are people, and there are other people who support these systems and these institutions, and they disagree with you.
When you blame Starbucks, more people like Starbucks than people who hate it.
And when you shatter a window, when you target these people, you are targeting regular people, not some imaginary figure floating in the sky.
Not some guy behind the curtain talking into a microphone with a giant head.
No, you're targeting real people who work at these companies.
Now, I get it, man.
You know, you don't like these big corporations, these systems that run out of control, but there you go.
Now Starbucks is fireball.
Let's keep reading this story.
Starbucks issued a company-wide apology, as well condemning the label and announcing that the barista was fired.
The manager of the outlet was also fired, but Price claims she did not write the offensive term and believes the company were looking for someone to take the blame.
Stop working for Starbucks!
They did this last time, remember?
Remember when those two guys got kicked out because they didn't buy anything?
And then every Starbucks did racial awareness training?
Maybe y'all should stop working for Starbucks.
She told ABC Tulsa, I was terminated from my position because Starbucks was looking for someone to take the blame for this and to save some face from their company.
Just still kind of in shock about it all.
Price was a manager at the outlet for nine months and claims one of the other baristas was responsible for writing the offensive term.
Yes, and we know that.
So I don't know if she should have been fired, but I'll tell you what, again, let it be a warning to all these kids.
They go to college and they think they can do whatever they want.
They, to make it seem like they were right on top of everything, which they are, but they terminated me from my position with no cause.
No sort of disciplinary action that I've ever received or any of that.
I have no idea why they would terminate me from my position.
Price said that she tried to rectify the situation with the officer before he left the store.
She explained, he laughed it off and it was cool, Price said.
I handed him his blueberry muffin and I went back off the floor to continue doing my shift manager duties.
So maybe that's why you were fired.
Because you knew Pig was written on his cups.
He left and it became a massive PR blunder.
And it never should have happened.
So yeah, the buck stops with you.
Police Chief O'Mara was on vacation when the officer called to flag the Pig labels.
Omara then called the Starbucks location to demand an apology, and the Glenpool store manager offered to reprint the cups, but it wasn't enough for Omara.
He shared the pictures of the cups on Facebook, saying, So one of my on-duty officers decides to do something nice for our dispatchers.
What irks me is the absolute and total disrespect for a police officer who, instead of being home with his family and enjoying a meal and a football game, is patrolling his little town.
This cup of coffee for a pig is just another little flag.
It's another tiny pinprick into the heart of men and women who are asking themselves more often, why am I doing this?
And apparently, and I could be wrong about this, but I was reading some cities are having police shortages.
Nobody wants to do the job anymore.
It's decently high risk, it's frustrating, people hate you, and you don't get paid enough.
So nobody wants to do it.
He added, Just pour the coffee, please.
Are we at a point where a task as simple as pouring an exceptionally overpriced cup of coffee is so complicated that it cannot be accomplished without expressing oneself?
I mean, listen, your job at Starbucks is not to pontificate race.
But guess what?
Let me stop right now.
Remember when Starbucks said they wanted to encourage their baristas to talk about race?
Well, Starbucks is the problem.
Listen, man, I don't care if you're left, right, up, down, religious, not whatever.
Starbucks is awful.
So don't go there.
You know what I mean?
First of all, whether or not you should have been fired, Starbucks has repeatedly played this game.
And now they're recoiling because their employees believe the same BS many of these far leftists do.
I, of all people, have criticism for police.
I have been falsely arrested, accused.
I've had tons of BS.
I've had cops kick my door and enter my home.
I've had cops start planting drugs in my car.
And I'm not stupid enough to think that literally every cop is a bad person.
Or more importantly, Even if every cop was bad, I'm not gonna write pig on their drink.
Why would you initiate that?
It's just immature, emotional satisfaction that does nothing but cause problems for everyone around you.
So to that barista who wrote pig, congratulations!
You got the manager fired.
More importantly, Starbucks is trash for a million and one reasons.
First of all, their coffee doesn't taste good.
I don't like... I like Pete's.
I do.
I like Pete's a lot.
One of my favorite, you know, coffees comes from Pete's.
We'll see what Pete's does in the social justice culture war space, but I'm half kidding.
But Starbucks is not that good.
Overpriced, burnt.
I just don't find it good.
I'm not trying to play any tropes.
I really don't like Starbucks.
Look at everything they're doing culturally, okay?
They are a giant corporation that is cold, callous, doesn't care about you or their employees, yet they still keep pushing these silly narratives.
So to this cop, listen man, I don't know you.
I would never call you a pig.
If you're a bad person, I'd just call you a bad person.
But I don't know if you are.
Apparently his daughter came out and said he was.
I don't care about that.
I don't know you, man.
So I have no reason to say anything disparaging about a person I don't know.
Cop or otherwise.
But I will say this.
I'm gonna now say something bad about you.
How dare you go to Starbucks?
You could have went somewhere else.
I'm half kidding, you know.
But no, for real, in the future, just don't go to Starbucks.
You know, they don't deserve your business.
No Starbucks deserves your business.
If you're on the left, if you are a far leftist, don't go to Starbucks!
They're a massive corporation that doesn't care about you.
They'll fire you in two seconds for, you know, If someone else calls someone else a pig, they don't care about you.
They don't care about what you need.
And if you're on the right, they don't care about you either.
Let's be done with Starbucks, right?
So they show a bunch of posts.
They say, there was further controversy when police chief Omara's daughter, Lauren Omara,
claimed in a tweet that he is absolutely a pig and has no business being a police officer.
Lauren told DailyMail.com she tweeted the missive because she thought her dad was being
a dramatic a-hole.
They were just two teenage girls at Starbucks.
It was a dumb joke.
So it was two young women.
She wrote on Saturday, this is my father and I'd like to say that he is absolutely a pig.
And I'd like to thank the brave men and women from Starbucks for their service.
Where are you?
What is this?
First of all, most people aren't going to rush to the defense of Starbucks, be it left, right, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.
I recognize they sell coffee and fraps.
Some of it tastes good, fine.
But who's going to rush to the defense of Starbucks?
You?
Over your dad?
Man, I tell you what, I don't care how much you hate your dad, this is stupid.
She said, in another tweet that also included a pig emoji, she added, For the record, my father has zero business being a police officer.
He was blatantly, proudly racist when I was a kid, said things I would never repeat, he treats women like dogs, including his own daughter, oink oink.
Sure, I don't care.
She then said she hoped her father, who she had not spoken to in years, saw her post about him.
She added, I haven't talked to my dad in years lol this is awkward I hope he sees it though.
Yesterday she then added, update, he has seen it and had someone call my mom to get that s off twitter lmao he is upset.
This is so dumb.
You know, I'm over this.
Let me just, the reason, look.
When this story first came out, I just laughed.
I didn't care.
I'm like, whatever, man.
But it's mind-blowing to me that anyone on the left would work for Starbucks.
If you think cops are pigs, what are you doing working for Starbucks?
Oh, you gotta make ends meet.
That I can respect, right?
You need to find a job.
This is what they have to offer.
Okay, great.
Well, now you've learned an important lesson.
You can't just do or say whatever you want because there are real-world consequences that don't exist in your fairytale world of social justice, anti-patriarchal, cis-heteronormative combating the system.
It's not real life, okay?
The people at Starbucks, they're there to serve the community.
Now, they're there to make money, and, you know, they do it by providing coffee and drinks and food.
Guess what?
You hurt the business.
Bye-bye.
You're gone.
Now, I will say, though, I don't care about- I don't like Starbucks.
Don't go there.
Nobody go there.
I'll leave it there.
I'm done.
You get the point.
I'll see y'all at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
Boys, we were wrong.
The social construct postmodernism is the greatest gift to mankind.
You see, an expert claims that the condition is fabricated by Western culture, and that women's anger usually has nothing to do with their hormones.
It's exactly the truth.
I will not argue with it.
I will print this out and I'm going to keep it in my wallet with me.
And if at any point any woman either tries to claim that she's upset because of hormones or Or if she is upset, I will simply point out to them that PMS is in fact a social construct, and therefore, by default, I win any arguments.
That will certainly play well.
I can just imagine it now.
All of them just saying, you know what, you're right, I didn't realize this.
No, but in all seriousness, we actually do have this story, the Daily Mail, about a professor of women's health psychology, Jane Usher, claiming that PMS is, in fact, a social construct.
There's a really big problem here, okay?
PMS is a thing.
It's, as far as I know, due to an imbalance in hormones.
And, yeah, it makes people, women, menstruating women, or before, whatever, Uh, irritable, or upset, or just uncomfortable and frustrated and whatever.
I'm not an expert on this, so I typically just defer to the females when they're, you know, I'm like, hey man, you know, let me know what you need, I'll go get you chocolate milk or something, or hot cocoa, whatever makes you feel great.
But I'll tell you what, the reason why this is so, in all seriousness, really, really bad for the left, this is like, you cross the line, I'll tell you what, You start telling women that the pain and frustration that they're feeling is a social construct, and you will see them flip off of this ideology.
Could you imagine going to an angry woman who's going through a hormonal imbalance or PMS, and you try wagging the finger at her saying that you do not respect her experience, she's wrong, and what she's going through is in fact a product of Western society?
The fastest way to get slapped in the face, okay?
You're supposed to respect people when they talk about their experience, but this is completely undermining the female experience.
Actually, so listen, I'll be the first to say, man, I don't know what...
I don't know much about this, and I'm gonna tell you, all you gentlemen watching, neither do you!
Some of you probably are doctors, and maybe you do, and some of you maybe got bored and read a ton of articles on the internet, so maybe you know a little bit about it.
I think it's fair to say most guys don't understand what this is like, this experience, and that's why I believe true feminism would respect the female experience, saying, hey man, if you're uncomfortable, if you're feeling distressed or whatever, I'll take your word for it, because I'm not you, I'm a dude, right?
And so guys typically would respect that and try to accommodate females who are going through this.
And that if you want true equality, we need to recognize the biological differences between men and women and accommodate women for these things.
It says, Premenstrual syndrome is a myth, according to an expert who said that social conditioning in Western society makes women falsely attribute their emotions to their hormones.
Speaking on the Clue Hormonal podcast, Jane Usher, a professor of women's health psychology at Western Sydney University, said that women from other cultures do not report many emotional signs of PMS.
I got a reason!
I can explain it.
Is it possible that in Western cultures where women are free and equal, to a great degree, They're allowed to express their discomfort, and in other cultures in the East where women are told to be subservient and in some cases forced to not show their faces, they better keep their mouths shut about how they're feeling.
Perhaps the reason you think it's a social construct is actually the inverse.
If it's true that Western women experience PMS and Eastern women don't, is it possible that in the Eastern countries where women aren't allowed to speak up or hold positions or are not considered equal, they just keep their mouths shut because they know if they get angry or they express it, they'll get slapped or beaten or oppressed, literally?
Maybe you have it backwards.
Maybe it's the social construct holding women back.
That's my bet.
I think the West has done a pretty good job of expanding civil rights.
I know this personally from my family's history.
So I do take offense at you trying to claim that we're in the West making this up.
No, if women are going to come to me and say, this is what I experience, and we have science to back it up, I'm going to say, hey man, yeah, you know, let me know what you need.
I'll try and help you out.
I'll do my best.
If you need space, I'm going to go away.
I'll go do that.
If you want hot cocoa, you want, you know, some chocolate candy, just let me know what you need, man.
I'm here to accommodate.
We're always trying to make everybody feel better.
We're trying to do right by each other, right?
Imagine what's going to happen when you walk up to your spouse, your girlfriend, or a family member, and you go, no, no, you're making it up.
It's a social construct.
You are not really feeling that way.
You're gonna get smacked in the face.
Not really, I'm kidding, but let's read on.
She said that a long-standing pathologizing discourse dating back to the 20th century is the reason many women believe they're having symptoms.
Okay, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
It just really feels like these people are trying to take civil rights away.
I'm sorry!
You just invalidate the experience of women, fine.
According to Jane, all women experience emotional distress throughout their cycle.
However, they will attribute it to their periods, if they are premenstrual, rather than blaming things like their relationship or work life.
And she added that those in caring relationships are less likely to report symptoms than those in more one-sided partnerships.
What we know is that symptoms and illnesses are always culturally located, she explained.
So if you go to different cultures, differing points in history, we have symptom complexes, which is what we see as legitimate illnesses and ways that we report distress.
So you know what?
I gotta stop here.
I admit, I am not a scientist.
I am not a woman psychologist.
And I could be wrong about all of my opinions.
You know, maybe she's right.
Maybe you just have women culturally being told that they have a pass.
That if they act badly, they can just say, oh, don't worry, it's, you know, it's hormones.
So maybe she's right.
Maybe it's true that Western women are... Look, man, I think we've got a big problem here.
Think about the alternatives.
Think about our choices here.
Either this woman is trying to tell women they're not really experiencing these things.
Prepare for a slap.
Or, women are lying about experiencing these things.
I'm going to have to go with the one person is wrong on this one.
But I admit, I'm not a doctor.
And far be it from me to tell the academic what is true or not.
Because it may be.
It may be that women in the West just really are, I don't know, snooty, elitist, and they weaponize this.
Imagine if you were with a woman who was experiencing PMS, and you said, no, listen, it's a social construct, and you don't realize you're falsely attributing your feelings to your menstruation.
Yeah, you'd get smacked in the face for that one, too.
She explained that PMS first entered discourse in North America in 1931, when women were diagnosed with hysteria, which was associated to the reproductive system.
Prior to that, there was no mention of the condition in medical history.
unidentified
Could it be because women weren't allowed to talk about these things?
Maybe women started complaining more, and that granted them more civil rights.
I don't know, man.
You know what?
I shouldn't even be in this fight.
I should bow out, because this is one of those things where no matter what you say, you're wrong, and people are going to come after you.
So I don't even know.
Let's keep reading.
These notions that women would have psychological disturbance were happening in the UK and US, and really had little impact anywhere else in the world.
You really see this legacy today.
In the UK, US and Australia, we have taken up this pathologizing discourse around the menstrual cycle.
We expect women to be mad or bad or dangerous, and women take that up and feel irritable and feel angry, and then they blame it on their bodies.
Oh, that's what it is.
It's internalized misogyny.
She said that women in other cultural contexts don't report emotional signs of PMS at that stage in their cycle, but begin to if they move to Western countries.
unidentified
Maybe it's because when you come to the Western countries, you all of a sudden have civil rights!
What we also know is that when women come from cultures where there isn't a discourse around it but move to the UK or the US, they begin to report symptoms.
Again.
Maybe it's because you're allowed to now.
Maybe it's because—you know what?
She's arguing against civil rights.
Fine.
You want to go to a country where women are told to cover up from head to toe and not to speak?
Where their religious texts say women should not be heard?
Then you're never going to hear about it.
Did you know?
That it wasn't until the early 90s, we passed a law in this country that made it so that if you wanted to test a pharmaceutical drug, you needed to have a male and female version.
Yeah, because for the longest time, we just assumed drugs would work equally on both sexes.
Not true.
And so it was in the 90s, we finally said, hey, maybe women should, you know, we should test it on them to make sure that the drugs function, you know, beneficially.
And it turns out, painkillers, for instance, affect men and women differently.
And that was the 90s.
So yeah, here's the thing, man.
I think we have a long way to go in terms of literal equality of opportunity.
And I think it's being muddied up by these people who want equality of outcome.
Something that doesn't make sense.
And in this fight, they begin taking away the rights of women and quite literally advocate for some kind of social or cultural context in countries where there aren't civil rights.
How does that make sense?
Fine.
If you want to argue that women are just pretending or falsely attributing their feelings to menstruation, fine.
Then what ends up happening is women can't talk about it anymore.
So if you're suffering, suffer in silence.
Nobody wants to hear it.
And we're not going to make any treatment to help you get through it.
Because you shouldn't talk about it.
Is that what you really want?
Look, man.
I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but like with Bill Cosby, with Matt Lauer, with Weinstein, when it comes to a point where you've got like 50 women coming out and being like, you know, I'm going to be like, let's look into this.
I get it.
Sometimes groups of people lie.
They get in on it.
They think there's a path to success.
Hey, if they're doing it, I can make money off this too.
I get it.
It's not always true.
But what are you supposed to do?
Okay?
If all of these women are saying we experience this thing, and they're in a society where they're allowed to express their discomfort and challenge the system, stands to reason it's a thing.
She says, it's a culture-bound system because it's a way of attributing anger and distress to their body.
Women actually experience anger, depression, and distress across the whole cycle.
What we know is that when they are premenstrual, they will attribute it to their bodies, but at other points in their cycle, they attribute it to other parts in their lives.
Fine.
You're literally saying women are lying and they're just, when they're acting poorly, they just say, oh, it's because, you know, this reason.
Fine.
Then you know what?
Let me defer to the expert and just say women are pretending to be, you know, PMSing so they can act poorly and you can't blame them.
It's an excuse.
Is that what you're saying?
I don't know, man.
I don't know.
I know no matter what the left is going to get angry at this video, though.
Like, I mean like the intersectional leftists.
They're going to be like, how dare you, eh?
She revealed women often tell her about an argument with their partner or children when asked about PMS rather than their hormones or physical symptoms.
Giving a classic example of an interview, Jane recalled, she said, I was standing at the kitchen sink.
I was doing the dishes.
I had the dinner on the stove.
The kids were arguing.
I was trying to get them to do homework.
And I looked out into the garden and my husband was sat drinking a beer.
She told me that that was her PMS and she was feeling really, really angry and yelled and felt really bad about herself.
That's just typical PMS.
I would say that's more about what's going on between her and her partner and less about her cycle.
Jane explained that although women are less likely to self-silence when they feel they have PMS, those in supportive relationships report fewer signs of emotional stress.
That may be good evidence to her side.
I can argue the cultural thing, right?
That makes sense.
But if you're a Western woman in a relationship where you have a supportive relationship and you're not complaining, then perhaps But also, it could be that if you're feeling bad, and you're getting angrier, and someone says, I'm gonna go buy you some chocolates that might make you feel better.
So maybe it really does exist.
I don't know, man.
You know what?
Everything's a social construct.
I have no idea what's going on anymore.
I'm just gonna flip my table over and say, you deal with it!
She's, uh...
She told, quote, Well, there you have it.
Whatever, man.
If the scientist says it, it's true.
less likely to self-silence and be cranky with him.
But actually, what's useful to do is think maybe it's about asking for support and getting
the partner on board.
In fact, what we saw that in those relationships where women have that support, they're less
likely to report signs of premenstrual stress.
Well there you have it.
Whatever man.
If the scientist says it, it's true.
So just keep this in your back pocket and remember if any woman ever complains, just
Oh, people are going to come to my house and egg me.
Whatever, fine.
Hey, look, the story's real.
I'm not going to tell you what to believe, but she's an academic.
So I'll take her word for it, I guess.
I will see you all at 4 p.m.
on the main channel.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
Thanks for hanging out, I guess.
A suburb of Chicago is going to be offering reparations to black residents by taxing marijuana.
And the story is, it's not so straightforward.
One of the big problems with reparations is always the question around how do you prove that you are a descendant of a slave.
One of the big challenges is like, you know, somebody could have moved here Their family could have moved here, you know, 60 years ago.
Still face some discrimination, but reparation's supposed to be because of slavery.
So, on the surface, like, I generally think the idea of reparations can make sense.
The problem, however, is I think that time has long since passed, and it doesn't really make sense anymore, because you can't really track, like, how do you know somebody really was the descendant of a slave?
Some people, absolutely.
But a lot of people, not really.
And then it creates an imbalanced system.
That's why, for the most part, I'm not in favor of race-based programs like this.
I think it should be class-based.
You know, right now, if we've got a problem of a lack of education and poverty, then we should focus on, you know, impoverished communities.
Because, like, imagine... We'll put it this way.
Let's say you have an area that's over... Like, one of the things they're going to be doing with this reparation is, like, business development, right?
Well, are neighborhoods that are predominantly black only black?
No, not really.
There's probably some Latinos and probably some white sometimes.
In which case, it doesn't make sense to affect a community this way that only people of one race get something.
It's complicated.
Let's read the story from the Washington Post, see what actually is going on.
In Evanston, Illinois, city officials are hashing out a plan for racial equity with emphasis on the hash.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Very funny, Washington Post.
That was terrible.
As Illinois prepares to legalize recreational marijuana, that's cool, the Chicago suburb has voted to tax the sale of cannabis, expected to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, to fund race-based reparations for its black residents.
Our community was damaged due to the war on drugs and marijuana convictions, which affect people of all races.
This is a chance to correct that.
Robin Rue Simmons, a black alderman who represents the city's historically black 5th Ward, told the Washington Post.
post. Our disadvantage and discrimination has continued beyond outlawing Jim Crow and
beyond enslavement. And I actually can agree, there was a lot of discrimination and racism
that went on long after slavery.
But those things don't answer the fundamental questions of our existing communities and what they need to strive.
If somebody came here, you know, 40 years ago, and they're living in poverty alongside you, it's not going to make things better if only you get the rewards, build up your business, get schooling, and the other poor people are left behind.
The plan stems from the idea that African Americans should disproportionately benefit from the sale of cannabis, Simmons said, because they have been disproportionately affected by the policing of marijuana, both nationally and locally.
In the past three years, nearly three-quarters of those arrested on marijuana possession charges in Evanston were African American, according to city officials.
Now, I'll stop here and say this.
It's also possible Evanston has some nice areas, some poor areas, and it's more likely it's the poorer areas that are going to be smoking pot, not the wealthier areas.
And then because of historical disparities, you're going to see, you know, racial communities, or like black communities, non-white communities, more likely to be impoverished.
So it's a complicated problem.
But I think because of the perception of more black people go to prison on marijuana charges, therefore it's racism, I think that's inherently, that argument fits too well with the more far-right racist arguments.
The problem I have is to imply that it's simply because they're black as opposed to the fact that Poverty breeds crime.
Police take issue with poor areas too.
Look, I get it.
There's a lot of data to support this.
I just think if you want to truly end racism, we need to make sure that we're not creating more racial policies that entrench and codify racism.
Okay?
Racism isn't just about some people believing they're better than you or wanting a country just for one race.
It's about institutions and how they perceive and interact with different races.
So when it comes to the argument about institutional racism, one of the big problems of the left
is they try and argue incorrectly that it's like an institution will look at a brown or
black person and say, ah-ha, you, you can't be here.
No, no, no, no, no, that's not the case.
It's that there's redlining, there's blockbusting.
There are different institutions that overwhelmingly affected particular groups of people.
Race was not necessarily relevant at a certain point.
It was, and then things started to break apart.
Now we're at the point where...
We don't want to make sure that the government codifies race policy because then racism will be entrenched forever.
Okay?
You'll have resentment.
You'll have poor people in your community saying that's not fair.
You will have resentment.
If we want to bring everyone in this country together, we want to rectify the problems of the past, sometimes the solution isn't the simple one.
You know, everybody says, well, if African Americans were enslaved and they have disproportionate access to wealth, let's give them wealth.
That doesn't solve the problem.
And it's not always about what's fair and what's not fair.
It's about can we solve this so we never experience it again.
And if we're going to, this is not the way to do it.
The way to do it is to make it based on class.
That, according to the left, should overwhelmingly support black and brown communities.
But it will also make sure that we don't leave anyone behind, be that, you know, assuming
they're Asian, Latino, or whatever other minority, religious minority.
We need to make sure we're going to say to everyone, right, we are not going to leave
you behind.
So let's read on.
They say the city's reparations plan will benefit not only the victims of the war on drugs, rather, it focuses on all African-American residents who Simmons said have suffered from the city's history of redlining and more recently from the recession and the foreclosure crisis.
As black Evanstonians are pushed out by high property taxes and predatory lending practices, the reparations plan looks to give them the money to keep living and working in the Lakefront suburb, about 14 miles north of downtown Chicago.
But what about the people who aren't black, who live in the same area, who are facing the same problems, who then start getting angry, saying it's not fair that Chicago's got a big Hispanic population, that they would be forced to leave?
Because as you start giving this money and these benefits to the black residents, prices are still going to go up.
Gentrification is still going to happen.
Is it fair that we can tell those Hispanic individuals, you don't deserve to live here, but they do?
I don't think so.
Just because they may have come from families victimized in the past.
What about Chinese people who are victims of the railroads and things like that, or Japanese internment?
We did pay reparations to the Japanese, so not the perfect example, but there are other groups of individuals who have been historically marginalized, insulted, and battered down.
So again, I'll say it for the millionth time, It's not the solution, man.
Besides being home to Northwestern University, Evanston is one of the largest black communities in the metro area's affluent North Shore suburbs.
About 22.5% of residents identified as black in 2000, according to the census.
That figure fell to 16.9 in 2018.
The city has long been heralded as a local pioneer for equity, and in 2002, its council voted unanimously to support a federal commission to study reparations, which had been introduced in Congress by then-Rep.
John Conyers, Jr.
Is he the guy who got forced to leave because of impropriety?
I could be wrong.
Since then, it also created a Chief Equity Officer and a Commission on Equity and Empowerment and passed a resolution committing to end structural racism.
As interest spread in race-based reparations, largely ignited by a 2014 essay in The Atlantic from writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, Evanston began exploring the idea on a local level.
A commission hosted town hall meetings to hear what reparations might look like.
Officials and residents drafted dozens of possibilities.
Then in June, Illinois became the latest state to legalize recreational marijuana, following 10 other states and the District of Columbia.
Amid the vote, state lawmakers included a social equity provision that expunged criminal records and favored licenses in areas they deemed disproportionately affected.
I actually think that's fine.
I think all these states that are passing recreational laws should start releasing the prisoners who are convicted under recreational, under marijuana laws, right?
If you're somebody that was caught with a certain amount, you should be let go.
We should commute, expunge, and say— Look, there's one argument that they still broke the law, they still acted against the interests of the U.S.
Yeah, but you know what, man?
I think we're at a point now, if we're going to make something legal, we shouldn't keep someone locked up.
So they served time, you know what I mean?
I think that works.
And if we're going to expunge all these records, let everybody out, well then wouldn't that affect disproportionately people of color, based on your argument?
So they're getting a benefit, they're getting help.
These problems are being reversed.
I do think It would make sense to use the tax money from recreational marijuana towards programs for those who were imprisoned on marijuana charges.
That makes sense.
That could be for anybody of any race.
And again, if you think that it's black people that are being disproportionately affected, then they will be the ones who disproportionately benefit.
It's simple, isn't it?
I think it makes sense to release people on marijuana charges if you made it legal.
Now use those taxes to help those who spent time in prison and need to re-enter, you know, reintegrate into society.
They say like the U.S.
as a whole, Evanston had disproportionately policed African Americans on marijuana charges, compared with other populations.
Over a 36-month period, 71% of those arrested for possessing cannabis and 57% of those issued citations were black.
However, this is bad data.
This just shows that perhaps African Americans are more likely to have and smoke marijuana.
But it also could show they're more likely to be targeted by police, which again, doesn't support a race argument.
It could be a poverty argument.
It could be a cultural argument.
That's why I think, while I understand the arguments that There is better data, by the way, that stop for stop, for every white person stopped, there are more black people arrested for marijuana than white people.
That is in New York, right?
So that's a fact.
And that's why I think they might extrapolate and say that's true.
But again, I'll say it for the 50th time.
And I'll wrap this up, I promise.
I think the real answer, then, is instead of creating more racial codification and animosity between people, just say, you know what?
It doesn't matter who you are, what you look like.
If this is what the marijuana laws are doing, we're going to use that testimony to help you out, regardless of your race.
So, you get the point.
I think I made my point.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all there.
I have a serious question with this story.
It's titled, by the Tampa Bay Times, We Should Hang Ilhan Omar, Florida Congressional Candidate, Writes in Fundraising Letter.
I do not believe Republican George Buck should have said this.
I think the conspiracies around Ilhan Omar are just that.
You want to investigate?
Fine.
It's a complicated story.
I'll give you the backstory to this.
But basically, what this guy is saying is that if you're a traitor, Then the law states you'll be tried and if found guilty you will be hanged or you will be put to death.
In which case we have kind of a conundrum.
I think it violates civility to start calling for hanging your opponents because you think they're traitors.
I think if he wants to say we should investigate whether or not they're traitors, fine.
I'm on board with that, okay?
But jumping the gun and saying you should hang people is dangerous talk, okay?
We got a really contentious politics going on right now.
You got the left and the right at each other's necks.
Adam Schiff spying on Devin Nunes?
What's even going on?
The last thing we need is rhetoric about hanging the traders.
But I'm concerned we're going to move in this direction, and it's going to get to that point.
It's kind of scary.
But I will say, the reason why it's a discussion is, It's in the law.
It's not an exaggeration to say that if you're a traitor, you'd be hanged.
So there's a challenge in, yes, if someone is accused of being a traitor, and we prove it, you can hang them.
That's part of, like, there's a law.
It's traitors, you get this.
So, personally, I think it's crossing a civility line, but also, are we really going to punish people because, like, you know, someone, Ilhan Omar's opponent got banned from Twitter, and now this guy's being booted by the Republicans, and it's kind of like, Man, how do you deal with this?
Look, I'll say this.
Here's the story.
It was reported.
There is a deposition that in a Florida court, this guy Alan Bender, who's a Kuwaiti-born Canadian businessman, said that Qatari officials bragged to him Ilhan Omar was on
their payroll and that she was funneling information to Qatar and Iran and pledged
allegiance to Erdogan of Turkey.
That's just hearsay. That's one guy saying, I heard from other people. No proof. However,
it was a sworn statement in a U.S. court alleging a conspiracy to commit treason, in which case,
wouldn't the reasonable response say, if this is true, this person will be, you know,
hanged or whatever or tried?
The problem with this story for me, you know, first is, get some real evidence, get away from the hearsay, I don't want to hear it, and I'm concerned this escalating rhetoric is bad news, and it's going to escalate tensions, which it is.
But a lot of people do have concerns that, you know, look, if somebody's going to testify under oath in a U.S.
court, We don't just ignore that.
And I think then it would be fair to say we should investigate Ilhan Omar.
Not call for, you know, trying of treason.
If we get to that point.
We investigate, if we get to that point.
So, let's read this story from the Tampa Bay Times.
They say...
A fundraising letter sent last week by the campaign of George Buck, a Republican running for Congress in St.
Petersburg, suggested a member of the House of Representatives and other Democrats should be executed.
Yeah, he did.
The lengthy email, dated November 26, repeated an unsupported accusation that U.S.
Rep.
Ilhan Omar, a Somali-born Democrat representing Minnesota, secretly worked for the country of Qatar.
And should be gravely punished for it.
We should hang these traitors where they stand, the email said.
It is unclear who the other traitors are, but the email spotlights the man Buck is challenging, U.S.
Charlie Crist, as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman U.S.
Reps AOC Hannah Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, along with Omar, the three men of color are often singled out by President Donald Trump as political enemies.
Yes, but come on.
First, Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have been accused of anti-Semitism.
And all of them have been accused of making inappropriate statements.
There's a bunch of campaign violence violations between them.
And they're far-left, bombastic, and yes, high-profile.
So, sure, people are going to point them out.
When reached for comment Tuesday morning, Buck said he didn't write the email and that fundraising pitches are sent by his campaign manager, whom he declined to name.
That was not me.
I did not see that, Buck said.
I would never talk like that.
The email was in the format of a letter signed by Buck.
Later in the day, Buck sent the Tampa Bay Times a lengthy statement that appeared to stand by the fundraising email.
The statement included the constitutional definition of treason and the federal punishment.
Quote, "...death or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.
Anyone who commits treason against the United States should be tried to the full extent of the law," Buck said.
He declined to elaborate further.
So here lies the big problem.
Whether or not we should investigate.
So first, the Daily Caller and several right-wing journalists, like right-leaning journalists, and I normally don't like to, you know, claim people are journalists of one persuasion or another, unless, well, that's not true.
You got your leftists, you got your right-wingers.
So these right-wing journalists said they found no evidence of this.
However, the Jerusalem Post published a story saying a federal court heard this.
We then saw Daily Caller, which is Tucker Carlson's publication, attempt to push back
on it, saying, come on, we, you know, this is a fake story.
It's, it's dubious.
A reporter for the Jerusalem Post said, listen, if somebody testified in US court, then they
did.
And if the story says Florida court hears Ilhan Omar did X, well, then you've got a
a conundrum because you can't just ignore it. If someone tells under oath, this happened.
If you want to start making assumptions that this person lied, what do we do?
Are we then going to investigate literally every single person who makes a claim to a court because you don't like the direction they're pointing or what they're saying?
If a Republican testifies under oath, is the immediate reaction from Democrats going to say, he lied under oath, therefore investigate him instead of investigate their claims?
This is a challenge.
If Ilhan Omar is being accused, and it's by someone willing to say that, albeit they're not an American citizen, well, I think a cursory glance is required.
I think in both directions, but for the most part towards Ilhan Omar, especially considering her strange past and the campaign finance violations, I think we have grounds to at least look into it, right?
Let's read on.
The fundraising email uses the same kind of violent language that prompted Twitter to permanently suspend from its social media platform Danielle Stella, Omar's Republican challenger in Minnesota.
Like Stella, Buck referenced an unverified story that Omar is an asset of Qatar who passed information to Iran.
Omar has denied the report, which was circulated by the Jerusalem Post, but has not been corroborated by American news outlets or the U.S.
government.
Not true.
The story is that a court heard the claim.
That's a fact.
The deposition exists.
Some people don't trust it.
Fine.
But the story's legit.
Now whether or not the hearsay is legit, that's another issue.
That's why I said it merits looking into, right?
They say the positions and statements of Omar, who is Muslim and often speaks critically of Israel, are frequently chronicled by the newspaper.
Yeah, it's the Jerusalem Post.
Buck describes himself as a conservative, America-first Republican, and a veteran on his campaign page.
He is one of six Republicans in the Pineus County running to challenge Crist for Florida's 13th congressional district.
Buck was the GOP nominee in 2018, but lost decisively to Crist, a St.
Petersburg Democrat and former governor, in the general election.
The fundraising email accuses Crist of being responsible for this, meaning Omar, because he voted for the current House leadership.
It falsely says Democratic leadership includes Ocasio-Cortez, the New York congressman who has become a frequent recipient of Republican ire, and goes on to claim Crist declared himself a Democratic socialist, which is also untrue.
But if you want to argue that AOC is leadership, colloquially she is.
So I get it.
If he's making false statements, call him out.
But Ocasio-Cortez, as far as anyone is concerned, is the highest-profile Democrat at this point.
Sorry, it's true.
Maybe Bernie Sanders.
But AOC's got 5-plus million followers.
She may not be in an official leadership position.
But everybody knows where the Democrats stand.
In his 2020 campaign, Buck has raised $180,000.
He is listed on the National Republican Congressional Committee's website as one of the party's young guns, although he's kinda old.
A distinction reserved for those running in competitive districts who have met certain campaign organization thresholds.
The Republican Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
After the story published, Pineas County GOP Chairman Todd Jennings wrote on Facebook, There is no room for this kind of inflammatory rhetoric in either political party.
And I agree.
No one should ever condone a candidate's call for violence.
Disagree.
I agree with saying, hold your horses.
We do not want to escalate tensions.
I do not agree with saying he was calling for violence.
The US death penalty is not violence.
It technically is, right?
But I think it's absurd to say, follow the law and its penalties, and you're being violent.
Now, I, for one, oppose the death penalty to a great degree, philosophically, ethically, every fiber of my being, but I recognize there's a big difference between my personal views and moral philosophies and what the law is, and I don't think it's calling for violence if you say, uphold the law, even if it means, you know, being hanged.
It's the second time in a week that a Tampa Bay Republican has suggested Trump's political opponents should be hanged.
In a Facebook post, first reported by the Alt Weekly publication Creative Loafing, Hillsborough County Republican Party Chairman Jim Woryshuk wrote, Trump has lately accused those working against him of treason, and Trump is wrong.
Treason is when you provide aid to an enemy of the United States.
It's complicated, I know.
Maybe there's some more criteria, but basically, The people who are trying to subvert Trump, that's not treason.
That's something else, okay?
If somebody broke the law to hurt Trump, that's not treason.
If somebody gave private classified information to Russia or Iran to hurt the United States, that is treason.
Actually, it might not even be, but it probably is.
We right now have some dude who spoke at a conference in North Korea about cryptocurrencies, and he's being charged by the FBI.
I don't think he's getting charged with treason.
I don't think so.
Anyway, whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Journalists have been reviewing Jordan Peterson's new social website, ThinkSpot.
And of course, they're smearing him that it's the stupidest thing I ever heard.
First, I do not believe Jordan Peterson's ThinkSpot is all that great.
I mean, no offense.
So far, I haven't seen too much that says to me it's really going to be anything special.
And I will also say that when it came to Peterson's official policy about censorship, I completely disagree.
It was stated earlier, maybe they changed it, that they would only remove something if they had a court order to do so.
I disagree with that.
If somebody posts a think spot, my personal information, I would much prefer it if you took that down.
I can understand that policy for Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or anybody else.
Doxing is no dice.
Don't do it.
But the law is, it's free speech.
So no court is going to order you to take it out.
I disagree with that.
I don't want some wing nuts going and posing my private information.
So, the other issue too is, it's really difficult to actually launch a functioning sustainable platform.
And I felt like what we saw with Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin, Was kind of jumping the gun.
However, Dave Rubin also announced a different platform.
See, Dave Rubin's not with ThinkSpot.
That's my understanding.
So this is locals.com.
So far, I actually think it looks kind of better.
I don't mean no beef.
I don't know what's inside just yet, because I don't think it's live.
But we do have images of ThinkSpot, and of course Gizmodo wrote a snarky smear.
It's kind of stupid.
They gave $10 to get access to it, now they want a refund.
It's like, what are you doing?
You paid money to get access for your stupid story.
So, I'm not gonna read the stupid... I'll read a little bit.
I'm sorry, I'll read a little bit.
Peterson specializes in a type of pop psychology largely centered around his rambling, authoritarian
insights on immutable cultural archetypes and ability to pose as a father figure for
disaffected young men.
He's been described as one of the renegades of the intellectual dark web, which is more
or less a swath of popular internet commentators that specialize in comparing social justice
warriors to Soviet secret police.
Wow, no bias there.
Peterson himself has claimed to make over $80,000 a month in donations from fans.
In December 2018, he and fellow IDW goon Dave Rubin responded to news that Patreon had banned Sargon of Akkad by leaving and creating an alternative site.
That brings us back to the subject of ThinkSpot, Peterson's attempt at doing that and my $10 that I want returned.
There's a free speech statement, which I'm not going to read.
I'm just going to show you some of the images and talk about what we have here.
They say, ThinkSpot offers two types of subscriptions.
Platform, contributor plus platform.
They say.
So I guess the platform is to see people?
Whatever.
He says, the second option, contributor and platform, is more obviously based on Patreon and allows users to pay for a specific contributor on the site.
Clicking it brings up a list of seven pre-selected contributors who charge for access to exclusive content, such as live Q&As, newsletters, annotations, and subscriber-only events.
This section features Peterson's feed at the supposedly low price of $120 a year.
Here we can see Björn Lomborg, Akira The Don, Michael Shermer, David Pakman, Jordan Peterson, Stephen Hicks, and Bettina Arndt.
Admittedly, I was asked to speak with the ThinkSpot people, and it kind of fell through, and I did not feel like being involved in ThinkSpot.
I do not believe this is the path forward.
I just don't see it.
And I'm very untrusting of people who don't know tech, who try to propose tech solutions, because I know tech a lot.
Part of my success on social media comes from me understanding how these systems work, and I don't believe that most of these people complaining about them actually know that, so I don't really want to be involved in anyone's program or club or tribe.
And you know what, man?
I don't want to be in a tribe.
I don't want to be in any one of these, you know, groups.
So I can appreciate, you know, there's that researcher woman.
Who wrote that smear piece about a bunch of YouTubers?
I'm forgetting her name.
But she worked for that data and society.
And she recently, like last month, tweeted, you know, so-and-so's reactionary and far-right and whatever Tim Pool is.
I'm like, thank you.
Whatever Tim Pool is.
I certainly don't know either.
Thank y'all for hanging out and watching.
But that's another reason why I don't want to be involved in these tribal things.
What I see here with ThinkSpot, it's cool.
I got respect for Jordan Peterson.
Not to launch a social media site or a Patreon-like site.
And while I can respect the competition that, you know, people are challenging these networks like Patreon, I just don't think the solution is to constantly run back and forth and try and find new platforms.
Nah, I backed out.
You know what, man?
If we face a true crisis of a breakdown between companies that are not affiliated in the culture war, then we have bigger problems.
And we do have big problems.
I don't think the solution is to try and make... I feel like, you know, honestly, it's not really a solution to anything.
Let's jump away from here.
We have, uh, The Guardian wrote about it.
What is Jordan Peterson's new anti-censorship website like?
Once again, another smear where they claim all these things about Jordan Peterson.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Who cares?
They talk about his diet.
It's not getting to the substance of anything.
Okay?
So of course everybody's smearing Jordan Peterson with fake news because, you know, they don't like him, I guess.
But I want to show you this, right?
I mainly want to show you what ThinkSpot looks like.
I don't know if I have access to it. I went to the website, it's ts.today, and it says it's in beta,
so I just said whatever. I didn't bother with it. It looks okay. It's black and white. Like,
literally, the colors are black and white. It looks pretty cool. It's kind of like medium,
in a sense. It looks a little bit... So I guess when you pay 10 bucks a month or whatever,
You get to access to the feed and then you can pay for premium access, which is kind of like a lot of platforms.
But I will tell you something right now.
I don't think ThinkSpot is a solution.
I don't necessarily think Locals is either.
For those that are also curious, I have another platform.
This is Dave Rubins.
Co-founded by Dave Rubin, Locals allows me to connect directly with my supporters without big tech algorithms getting in the way.
The day of giant platforms is over.
Small is the new big, and that starts by creating your own community and finding meaningful connections with Locals.
None of these things solve the real problem.
The way that people gain subscribers is, unfortunately, an algorithm.
You see, My podcast, right now, gets around 20,000 downloads per day, per episode.
So it's actually like 25 to 30,000 downloads per day total.
That's nothing.
Nothing compared to YouTube.
On YouTube, I'm getting a million.
Why?
Most people don't seek out my channel for the content.
It's delivered to them via algorithm.
YouTube is a massive platform.
It provides marketing services and incentives.
It promotes your content if you play by their rules and, you know, you make consistent content.
It's allowed me to grow exponentially and say, hey guys, while you're watching, don't forget, I mean this literally, this show is available as a podcast every day on all podcast platforms.
Go and subscribe.
If you've got an iPhone, do it.
It really does help.
But the truth is, if I were to monetize my podcast, like doing ads like many people do, I wouldn't make that much money.
Not enough to justify the amount of work I do every day.
And I work a lot.
YouTube does make it justifiable.
Because YouTube promotes the content.
So the problem then, with ThinkSpot and with locals, so far, Is that the real incentive for YouTube is access to their audience.
Otherwise, you have to figure out how to promote yourself, sell yourself.
Not easy.
In fact, most digital platforms, digital creators, manipulated Facebook and YouTube to get where they are.
So, here's the big challenge.
First, personally, I don't want to be involved in anybody's tribe.
I think Dave's great.
I think he's a good dude.
He's not perfect.
I would never pretend he, I, or Peterson, or anybody else is.
They're all worthy of criticism.
I did a nice sit-down with Dave where we talked about some of the criticisms.
I'm not perfect either.
I don't know why everyone hates the guy.
But I tried to address him, and we had a good conversation.
And I think Dave spoke well for himself.
I think he's a good dude.
However, I don't see small communities as a solution.
It may be a safe plan B, but the reality is, you know, all of these people got really big for the most part through press attention and YouTube.
Jordan Peterson's got a million subs.
Dave's got a million subs.
I can't get a million subs on your platform.
YouTube promotes me when my content does well, and I gain subscribers, and I make money, so it works.
Unfortunately, YouTube has that monopoly.
There is, however, a better alternative.
And this is where I assert my allegiances in the platform wars.
With all due respect to Jordan Peterson's ThinkSpot, Dave Rubin's locals, tremendous respect for both those individuals.
I think they're going to do well, and I look forward to seeing what they produce.
I must turn your attention to a platform that already exists.
That launched monetization.
And that's minds.com slash pro.
No!
I'm not being paid by any of these people to promote these, to plug these.
I just want to let you know.
We need to defeat the monopoly that is YouTube.
So I can absolutely respect Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin for what they're doing.
However, MINDS.com already has over a million users.
I already get ten plus thousand views, downloads, whatever you want to call it, per day on my video content.
And I only upload one.
One video as opposed to YouTube, which is six.
So I'm not even doing my full library.
But they've launched a partner program just like YouTube.
Now let me tell you why this is so important.
The reason YouTube owns.
There's an audience, and you get paid by them.
It's streamlined.
So here's how it works on the podcast.
I got to contact an ad agency.
Here's how many downloads I get.
They then go to advertisers and say, here's someone you can sell to.
They then provide money to me.
A portion goes to the manager.
Then I read the ads.
It's complicated.
There's no way to promote the content to expand the audience unless you have word of mouth.
And even that's challenging.
It takes time.
YouTube has an audience and promotes you to new viewers if they think people will like your content.
That's becoming harder because YouTube has changed the algorithm to punish our channels so I can understand these alternatives.
Mines has substantially less users than YouTube, but they are one of the only platforms to tell you, if you get a thousand views, we're gonna give you a buck.
YouTube doesn't even do that for everyone.
Not everyone gets ads.
Steven Crowder would make more money on mines because they took him out of the partner program.
But Crowder has access to an audience on YouTube.
So here's the point.
I want everyone to know about this.
Because if we're going to defeat the tech monopoly, there needs to be a real pro and partner program.
Minds Pros.
Minds Pro is a partner program.
It is.
And the only way we break YouTube's monopoly is if people commit to using something.
You want to know what frustrates me to no end?
When I was younger, I went to all my friends.
Chicago has cold winters, and I wanted to skate in those winters, but you can't.
There's snow everywhere.
I said, guys, if we all pool a hundred bucks a month together, we can get a small warehouse, build a little mini ramp, and skate through winter, have our own hangout spot.
And guess what every single person said to me?
Let me know when you do it, and then I'll think about it.
They wanted access to my private park after I build it?
No, no, no, no, no.
If you want a private park, we come together.
Here's the game.
Mines did not ask you to pitch in to start the pro program.
They did just make it.
You don't gotta do anything.
All you gotta do now is walk on over.
And if everybody starts using this, and we can create a critical mass, you are going to have a much better platform, at least for now.
There's concerns that Mines will eventually...
You know, start censoring people?
Fine.
But at least it's not YouTube today.
And if it gets to that point, we switch to a new platform.
Go to Dave Rubins, go to Jordan Peterson's, we'll figure it out.
But for now, we really need market competition for YouTube.
Here it is!
If you're a new creator, make a Minds channel.
Guess what?
You will at least make a couple bucks, okay?
If you're somebody who launched a new YouTube channel today, you're gonna make nothing until you get a thousand subs, until you get six thousand hours, or whatever the weird criteria is.
If you make legitimate content on Minds, And you say break the rules.
Mines sends you to jurors.
Users will be asked to review your content to see if it should be banned based on the rules.
Maybe there's overzealous people who might do that, but at least it's not an authoritarian, unelected council banning your political content.
It has to be a jury to do so.
More importantly, If you start a new channel and you only get 1,000 views on YouTube, you make nothing.
On mines, you get a dollar.
If you break 100,000, your CPM goes up to $5.
Five bucks.
That is the average YouTube pays out.
I'm hoping, and knowing Mines isn't perfect, that we can get enough people to actually start putting pressure on YouTube to make positive changes.
At the very least, I would much prefer two platforms, where I knew that if YouTube banned me, at least I'd make money on Mines.
If Mines banned me, well, I got YouTube, I got the podcast, but I'm fairly confident Mines is not gonna be in the business of censoring and banning people.
The worst thing that happens, my understanding is, let's say you're like the worst bigot in the world, Mines puts you in a not-safe-for-work category.
Which, in my understanding, I don't know if that removes you from the monetization program.
I don't think so.
I think Mines said no demonetization.
Period.
Go to there!
I'll leave it there, man.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10am.
You can tell my voice.
I'm losing it.
And I got bad news.
Tomorrow, I'm getting a root canal.
That's gonna suck.
So I will have regular videos tomorrow, but we'll see what happens Friday.
