S593 - DOJ SLAMS Arizona Election Audit, Say It May VIOLATE Federal Law, Democrats Demand GOP Stop Recount
DOJ SLAMS Arizona Election Audit, Say It May VIOLATE Federal Law, Democrats Demand GOP Stop Recount. Democrats are claiming that it could be voter intimidation and leftist media sources oddly frame the audit.
Republicans in AZ finally got their audit but the democrats have been fighting tooth and nail. Democrats asked the DOJ to intervene and in response the DOJ sent a letter warning that the audit may violate federal law.
#Democrats
#Republicans
#AZAudit
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Department of Justice sent a letter to Arizona arguing that the election audit for the November presidential election may violate federal law, arguing that they're not securing data properly, and in fact, it may be racist voter intimidation.
Of course, Democrats don't want the audit to happen.
Republicans in the state do.
In our next story, the FBI raided the wrong woman's home because she looked like someone who was at the Capitol riot.
They apparently were searching for Nancy Pelosi's computer and made a very serious mistake.
In our last story, a leftist YouTuber who once mocked people fighting for free speech now finds their content is being censored as well, and they're quite upset about it.
It's a bit frustrating, isn't it?
Before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the show, give us five stars, and if you really like the show, please share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
But there are still many people in the mainstream press who cannot let this story go, because they're obsessed with Donald Trump.
January 6 is their go-to.
They need to maintain the presence of this conflict, and that is giving space to a lot of people who believe things that are just not true.
Every month, every day, every week, there are people claiming that some big thing is going to happen.
There are people posting about a storm.
These things aren't happening, but there are still legal battles underway.
Now, many people have been waiting to see what the Supreme Court would do in reference to some challenges to election laws.
And for the most part, the Supreme Court said they wouldn't take these things up.
But in Arizona, an audit has been underway.
The Republicans there have been fighting for a long time, for months, Going back to December, to get a hard audit.
According to mainstream media, there have been two different audits already that found nothing, and now we are entering the third.
But if you ask many conservatives and prominent Trump supporters, they'd say, well, the first two weren't hard audits the way they wanted them.
They wanted a hard forensic look at some of these ballots, and the Republicans won the right to look at these ballots, so this audit has been underway for some time.
There are live stream cameras, and everyone's getting all excited!
But a lot of people are making assertions that are still not yet founded.
We don't have anything.
There are people saying, oh, big announcement's coming, and then, you know, it's just like, here's a legal team.
So we haven't had any hard evidence of anything.
I don't care about an audit.
I suppose the Democrats do, and they're filing lawsuits.
They recently settled one with the Republicans.
And they're trying really hard to stop this, and the mainstream media is putting out weird narratives, in my opinion.
If a Democrat came to me in 2016, or I should say 2017, and said, we want a hard audit of the election, I'd be like, okay, I don't care.
Yeah, do it, great, fantastic, have an audit of the election, why not?
For some reason now, there's demands that the federal government intervene and shut down this audit.
Nothing's been found yet, nothing's been done, it may just be a big waste of time.
And I'm gonna be completely honest with you guys, I don't think anything's gonna come of this, I don't.
Maybe.
That's just it.
I have heard too many conspiracy theories.
You know, every week after the election, they're like, this is going to be it.
This is going to be it.
And then I keep hearing it and nothing is ever it.
Joe Biden won and a lot of people are unhappy about it.
I get it.
But let's let the audit happen because I'm a man of evidence.
If they want to have their audit, so be it.
It's only one state.
It wouldn't change anything.
I don't even believe there's a mechanism by which they could do anything if they did find anything anyway, so I don't know what the Democrats expect.
I can tell you, though, regardless of whether or not you think there was impropriety, regardless of whether or not you like Joe Biden, This shows that there is an irreconcilable split between political factions in this country.
The left will not accept an audit, and the right will not accept anything short of one.
So I don't think anyone will be happy with the results, no matter what it is.
Now here's where it gets weird.
The DOJ is intervening, and normally I wouldn't care to cover something like this.
I'd say, look, wait till the audit's done.
It's supposed to be done in about a week and a half.
It might go longer.
And then we'll talk about what the news is, if it's newsworthy.
But the DOJ actually sends a letter, and they're like, oh, this could violate federal law.
So I read that, and there's an interesting assertion.
There's a bunch of weird stories coming out where both sides are trying to undermine or boost confidence.
But why is the DOJ pulling that racist argument?
Now, there is one very important point.
Concerns that the ballots are not being handled properly and are outside of the custody of election officials.
And it looks like even a Republican is saying, yes, someone took some of their data off-site.
They don't know where.
So maybe there is a real issue here, but you know what?
I'm going to put it this way.
I don't know.
I'm just going to sit back and wait and see what they find.
Because I got to be honest, like I'll say it again, I kind of think it's going to be nothing.
Now you can disagree with me all you want.
I think a lot of people are probably over this at this point, but a lot of people are seriously invested.
And we've got this letter being sent by the DOJ that I think is particularly newsworthy.
So how about we read this?
And then I want to show you what I find just strange.
Look, any reasonable person can look at what the Republicans are doing and tell you what they're claiming to do.
But I look at these leftist media outlets, and the framing is just weird.
They're acting clueless and befuddled as to what the Republicans are trying to do.
No, we know what they're trying to do.
I personally just don't think they're going to find what they think they're going to find.
It's been months.
These lawsuits have all flopped.
Many of them have been thrown out because they were poorly filed.
Some were just not taken up, which I think there are certain issues over election laws.
But why the weird articles from like Vox or some of these other outlets?
I just think the framing is strange.
So let's read the story and see what the Feds are saying and why they are now intervening.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and click that big ol' beautiful Members Only button.
I got good news.
You now can become a member at TimCast.com using Stripe instead of PayPal if you so choose.
Once you become a member, you can go to the members area and get access to a ton of really amazing exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast.
Amazing guests.
I gotta say, shout out to our conversation with Charlie LaDuff, a journalist who talked about the corrupt reporters, the really crooked journalism.
During 9-11, and also our conversation with Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire talking about religion.
It was really, really fascinating.
Tons of comments.
People really loved it.
So go to TimCast.com, become a member, because in the event that we get censored or purged or removed or whatever, especially talking about stories like this, you can find us over at TimCast.com.
But don't forget to like, share, and subscribe if you like the work that I do.
And I will stress the share.
I'm not going to tell you what to believe or what to expect.
I'll give you my thoughts, and I'll show you what the news is saying.
And then, if it's something you agree or disagree with, you know, it's up to you to decide.
Here's the story from NPR.
Justice Department.
Arizona Senate audit recount may violate federal law.
In a letter to the President of the Arizona Senate, an official with the U.S.
Department of Justice expressed concerns that an audit and recount of the November election in Maricopa County may be out of compliance with federal laws.
Pamela Carlin, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney, Attorney General with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, wrote Wednesday that federal officials see two issues with the election review ordered by Republican-led state Senate.
Ballots, voting systems, and other election materials are no longer in the custody of election officials, a possible violation of federal law, which requires state and local election workers to store and safeguard federal voting records.
The nearly 2.1 million ballots cast in Maricopa County include races for federal offices, such as the presidential and U.S.
Senate races being recounted.
Those ballots and other election materials were subpoenaed by Republicans in the Arizona Senate.
First, in December, and again in January, after a judge upheld the state's subpoena's authority, Senate President Karen Fann turned the election materials over to private firms led by Cyber Ninjas, a Florida-based cybersecurity company critics say is unqualified to review the 2020 election.
Sure, fine, there's critics.
I think that statement is irrelevant to this story.
If there's a concern about the security of the ballots and the data, that's legitimate.
And I think that's something the Republicans should be very careful about because I think even they're starting to complain about a loss of custody of this data.
But let me show you the quote.
They say, we have a concern that Maricopa County election records, which are required by federal law to be retained and preserved, are no longer under the ultimate control of election officials, are not being adequately safeguarded by contractors, and are at risk of damage or loss.
Plans for door-to-door canvassing may also violate federal laws aimed at preventing voter intimidation.
Now, this is ultimately why I decided to do a segment on this.
What do you mean going to someone's house and asking them about their ballot is voter intimidation?
That's just weird to me.
Why even make the argument?
I think everyone, especially Republicans, should be concerned if the data they're trying to audit is in an unknown third party's hands.
But claiming that asking someone if they actually cast a ballot is voter intimidation?
That's a weird argument.
But I want to stress, they say county election records are required by law to be retained and preserved.
Well, let me show you this tweet from Dr. Kelly Ward.
Dr. Ward is the chairwoman of the AZGOP, mom, military wife, family physician, former AZ state senator.
She tweeted, and this tweet is from just last night at 9pm.
These are the servers for Maricopa County elections.
The external drives that were loaded with nightly early vote totals are circled.
Scott Jarrett said that they were taken to an off-site undisclosed location nightly for safety by an employee or a Dominion contractor working for MC.
I'm assuming that means Maricopa County.
The feds are upset, or I should say concerned, that this data is not being safeguarded.
Then who is the individual who took this data?
Republicans should be very concerned with this.
And I gotta say, I see all these, you know, staunch Trump supporters talking about what they think is going on.
Can I just ask something of the people staging this audit?
It is now six months out.
They want their audit.
I believe they should be allowed to have it.
I believe if Democrats want an audit, they should be allowed to have it as well.
But why aren't you guarding any of the data?
Why are you just putting these things in a room and then leaving?
That's what is making me angry about all of this.
Now what?
Now we're gonna get another story.
It's gonna go who knows which direction and there's going to be holes and it's not going to solve anything.
Someone's gonna come out and be like, look what we found.
No, you left the data lying in a server room with no one guarding it.
So the whole thing's compromised.
How were you supposed to have an audit if you are not protecting the data?
So that's why I ultimately I'm just like, look, We'll see what happens with this story.
But it's the voter intimidation thing that I just don't like this argument.
Here's what they say.
The Senate's contract with Cyber Ninja states the firms plan to identify voter registrations that did not make sense and then knock on doors to confirm if valid voters actually lived at the state address.
Auditors also plan to ask voters about their voting history to determine whether the individual voted in the November 2020 election.
Past experience with similar investigative efforts around the country has raised concerns that they can be directed at minority voters.
Let me just stop you there, federal lady.
Civil rights.
Can be?
If they are, then file a complaint or take up issue with it.
You're complaining about something that could happen, not did happen?
Nah, I'm sorry.
By all means, write your letter, but I don't think it should interfere with any legal process for auditing.
They're going to say, this can potentially implicate the anti-intimidation prohibitions of the Voting Rights Act.
Such investigative efforts can have a significant intimidating effect on qualified voters that can deter them from seeking to vote in the future.
Carlin asked Fan to provide details on what steps the Arizona Senate will take to ensure those federal laws aren't violated.
The spokesman for FAN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The letter followed a request by the Brennan Center for Justice and Voting Rights Organizations, which wrote to the DOJ on April 29th and requested they send federal monitors to observe the audit and recount process.
If the Republicans want to have an audit and they want to claim it's on the level, they need to be guarding their data and federal monitors should be allowed to be there watching.
We went through this after the election, when people were complaining that Republican monitors weren't allowed to observe.
Perfect solution.
You guys can have your recount, your audit, and federal observers should be coming down to make sure there's no impropriety.
I got no problem with that.
And I gotta be honest, I think most people wouldn't either.
The recount effort has fallen behind schedule.
It's not clear when their work will be complete.
Ken Bennett, a liaison for the election review appointed by FAN, previously told reporters their work would be finished by May 14th, when firms are contractually obligated to vacate Veterans Memorial Coliseum, where the recount and audit are being conducted.
Bennett now says there's no deadline for the recount to be completed and that the firms involved will take their time to get it done right.
That work will likely have to finish somewhere other than the Coliseum, a state official told the Arizona Republic that it's not feasible to extend the Senate's rental agreement.
Okay, well, we have the full letter from the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
But NPR really did get to the crux of what they were arguing.
Again, I think the voter intimidation thing is stupid.
I guess you're allowed to raise the concern, fine.
But I do think security needs to be upheld.
I don't like seeing this.
I don't know what people are trying to claim with this tweet.
People are posting it around that these servers were taken to an undisclosed location.
If you're going to be having a recount, you need to have visible monitors tracking stuff.
Look, they got cameras all over the place.
I respect that.
You gotta have cameras on this stuff.
The whole thing's compromised, if that's the case.
Sorry.
And I think, at this point, it's a waste of time.
I do think we should have more election monitors.
Democrat, Republican, Independent.
Bring them all in.
Let them all stand there and watch.
Because if the Democrats truly believe that the Republicans are all wrong, Then they should welcome a hardcore audit in which they can observe and Republicans can observe because then we can finally put this behind us.
I genuinely believe that while there may have been some, you know, issues like, you know, Bill Barr mentioned there were issues.
What happened with this election?
Let me put it this way.
Let me slow down.
I have friends who have no business whatsoever in politics.
They don't pay attention to the news.
They don't know anything about Joe Biden.
They don't know anything about war.
And they came out and voted for Joe Biden.
I've said it over and over again.
Donald Trump got Oceans 11.
What does that mean?
It means the year leading up to the election, the Democrats were on the war path, and they did everything they could.
Even Republicans in Pennsylvania agreed to change the law on mail-in ballots.
They pulled out all the stops.
And then we saw that Time Magazine article, the shadow campaign.
It's not what Republicans think.
And I got to say this, I really don't think they're going to get anything out of this audit.
I know staunch Trump supporters probably don't want to hear it, but I don't think they're going to get what they want out of it.
And now with this tweet from Kelly Ward, I don't know what you expect to happen.
This says to me the data has been compromised.
I will point out The media really doesn't want the audit to happen, and that's stupid as well.
And it is, to many people, suspicious.
Look, like I said, I don't think they're going to find anything, okay?
Fine.
But Vox is writing these articles that are bizarre.
Here's what they write.
What's behind Arizona's bizarre, haphazard, and highly partisan audit of the 2020 election?
No one can figure out why Republicans are shining UV lights on ballots, among other things.
Why lie?
That's what I don't get.
Look, I'm a man of the evidence, and if Trump supporters really do believe they'll find something, great!
I disagree, but sure, I have no problem with investigations or audits.
None.
But why is Vox writing this obviously hyper-partisan nonsense?
No one can figure out why Republicans are shining UV lights on ballots?
It's because people believe that Donald Trump put watermarks on ballots.
That's it.
That's why they're doing it.
They probably won't find it.
And some reports are already saying they didn't.
I'm seeing a lot of people claim that they found the watermarks simply by virtue of them using UV lights.
No.
Somebody reported in the news they were watermarks.
So then people said, let's use UV lights.
Then they did.
And then people are like, aha, that proves it!
No, it doesn't.
I know there's a lot of people who are probably watching these videos and believe things.
All I'm saying is, I got no problem waiting until the GOP comes out and presents any real evidence.
It's just a weird way to frame an article instead of just being like, here's what happens, here's the concerns, here's what we think.
Instead, a lot of framing devices being used here.
Vox says, Donald Trump's effort to overturn his loss in 2020 was a cocktail of equal parts ridiculousness and menace.
On one hand, a sitting president actively encouraged efforts to destroy American democracy.
Slow down there, Vox.
Seriously, calm down.
Donald Trump is particularly Narcissistic?
Is that the right word?
He's full of himself.
So of course he's going to be pushing these things, and he's going to fight tooth and nail.
He's not somebody who's just going to give up.
They're going to say Arizona's Republican-controlled Senate does not have the power to overturn the election.
Indeed, the Constitution provides no mechanism whatsoever to contest a presidential election once the victor has taken office.
But the state Senate is able to subpoena the 2.1 million ballots cast in Maricopa County, which Biden won by more than two points.
The terms of this audit appear designed to destroy confidence in the process.
How?
They say, the lead company conducting the GOP's audit is a Florida security company called Cyber Ninjas, which has no experience with elections.
I don't see that as an argument that merits any... I don't see why it's being brought up.
They often do that, like, you know, when Joe Rogan made a comment.
They're like, Joe Rogan, who's not a doctor, made a comment about vaccines.
Like, so?
Neither is Bill Gates.
A bunch of people who aren't experts in elections or have any experience are weighing in on all this stuff.
They say CyberNinja's CEO, Doug Logan, however, does have a history spreading pro-Trump conspiracy theories.
After a state court ordered CyberNinja to disclose how it is conducting this so-called audit, a subcontractor revealed that the process involves weighing ballots, examining them under a microscope, and examining the thickness or feel of individual ballots in order to identify questionable ballots that need to be examined by a lead forensic examiner, and then removed from the batch and sent for further analysis.
What's really interesting about this, to be completely honest, is that it shows there's actually a particularly rigorous process that makes it harder for Republicans to challenge the results.
I mean it.
That's why I don't understand the framing.
Just point it out.
I don't think Republicans are going to get what they think they're going to get out of this.
This honestly, to me, feels like they're trying to calm down staunch Trump supporters and buy time.
Look at what happened on January 6th.
People were angry.
So what I see from this is Donald Trump lost because the Democrats were changing election laws.
They were campaigning ridiculously.
They were doing things like vote in the park.
Those things all happened.
And they got more people to vote.
The media was incessant.
There were highly, you know, activist campaigns.
People weren't getting their entertainment from sports anymore.
They were just watching politics.
Now you have a bunch of people who are angry and won't accept the results.
They don't want to believe it.
And maybe, you know, look, we'll do the audit.
I think an audit should happen.
I think we need this so people can calm down.
But I really do believe what this will accomplish for them is buying time so that Trump supporters who are really mad will sit back and wait and simmer down.
I really believe it.
But there are some interesting things here.
Check it out.
And I'll back up what I'm saying because there's an interesting Actually, let's jump down.
Let me show you what they're doing, which is interesting.
There's a policy apparently where there's like three different groups that will go through a set of ballots and then if two of the groups don't agree with like, so they'll take like 100 ballots.
They'll weigh them, they'll do these things, and then they'll have two other groups count it, and they'll try and determine whether or not all three groups agree with the total count.
If the count deviates to a certain degree, then there will be a challenge, but it's really difficult.
That's why I said I think this is mostly just slowing things down.
They go on to mention, this is really funny, as part of the audit, according to the document laying out the process, they're required to place ballots under UVB and UVA lights to compare the eliminated ballots to representative specimens.
It's not at all clear what exposing the ballots to UV light is supposed to accomplish.
A coalition of election experts wrote the Justice Department asking to send observers to monitor the quizzical audit, and one of their concerns is that ultraviolet light causes not only paper to deteriorate, but also leads to deterioration of marks on paper ballots.
That's true, but I really don't think a quick scan under a light will do that.
It's true that if you leave paper out in the sun, the UV damages it and bleaches it.
I just think it's a strange argument to make here.
What's really strange is we all know exactly why we're doing this.
Why is Vox acting like they don't know when later on they actually mention watermarks?
What's up with the UV lights?
Perhaps the biggest mystery surrounding them is... What?
They know that there has been rumors circulating that there were secretly watermarked ballots.
So why are they acting like they don't understand what the point of the UV lights are?
The point of the UV lights are for a variety of reasons, they say.
To check creases and probably to look for watermarks and people believe it.
Well, I believe we have a couple different outlets.
We have Austin American Statesman saying, is an election audit in Arizona confirming the rumors that Trump put secret watermarks on ballots?
They say their ruling is false.
Why?
Nothing's been concluded yet.
I guess people saw that they were doing the scan, and then said that they're scanning for watermarks, and people assumed that there were some.
So far, it doesn't appear to be the case.
But I'm more than willing to sit back and say, let them do their audit.
And we'll see, if anything, what comes up.
Now, I'm not sure if the Vox article... Okay, so the Vox article breaks down what they're doing.
Check it out.
Under the recounting process used by the GOP audit, three different counters are assigned to each ballot.
Each ballot is shown to a team of three counters, who then make their own tallies of how many votes were cast for each candidate.
Once 100 such ballots have been counted this way, the three counters' tallies are compared to see if they match.
If the three counters agree, then the stack of 100 ballots is counted.
But if one counter disagrees with the other two, The ballots apparently will still be counted so long as the dissenting counter doesn't disagree with the other two counters by three or more votes.
For example, if two counters agree that 48 of the 100 votes cast in a particular stack of ballots were cast for Trump, then Trump will apparently be credited for 48 votes even if a third counter thought that he received only 46.
Though in fairness, ballot stacks where one of the three counters disagreed with the other two are marked to indicate the disagreement.
To be fair, they said the press has at various points been excluded altogether, blah blah.
The point is, that shows you that it's actually harder for Trump.
Harder for the GOP to make any claims.
Now Vox is trying to frame it like, they might actually say Trump got more votes!
If Joe Biden got more votes, and they're looking at ballots, trying to determine which ballots are real or not, and you have three different groups weighing them and scanning them, it's likely that what's going to happen is they're going to get very similar results, and if a third person disagrees, it won't matter for the most part, because they'll have to disagree to a greater degree and then mark it down they did.
In all likelihood, they will likely find what was already found in the initial scans and ballots.
You want to disagree with me?
Be hopeful.
You're allowed to be.
I'm just giving you my thoughts.
I don't think it'll be the case.
What I do find just kind of funny is just the media's, I guess, weird, I don't know, framing of all of this.
I can't stand it.
It's simple to me.
We're going to have a conversation about what happened.
It may be a long-drawn-out waste of time, but these are things that need to happen for healing.
If people genuinely believe there was impropriety, then we need to prove to them there wasn't.
If people are gonna say, why are they doing an audit?
I know a lot of people who believe a lot of this Q stuff.
A lot, I should say.
Count them on one hand.
Okay, so maybe not really a lot.
But I've talked to some people who believe this stuff, and they're like, the real date is this, the real date is that, and like every week the goalposts change.
You know what's gonna happen?
I'm like, at what point do you just say, okay, yeah, maybe we were wrong about all that?
Maybe it is just the typical election process.
It's arguably dirty as it is, with billionaires coming in and dumping money across the board, and partisans at the state level changing rules.
You want to make an argument about changing election laws?
You're there.
That's the argument we should be having, and that means moving forward, we need to make sure we secure our elections.
You want to talk about what we do in Florida?
Right now, Ron DeSantis, he's passed a foreign bill in Georgia, passing these bills for voter security.
That's what we should talk about.
And the Democrats are mad about it because they're arguing that they're trying to suppress the vote.
Dude, every political party is going to enact voter laws they think will benefit them.
Otherwise, they would not do it.
Now, of course, they may say it's for voter integrity.
It's to ensure that people have the right to vote.
Yeah, they'll say it, but really, I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, people are passing laws because they think it will benefit them.
And the Republicans weren't smart enough, or I should say, I think most Republicans wanted Trump out.
So while these laws were getting passed, an example is Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania legislature, Republican-controlled, passed a bill allowing universal mail-in voting.
It wasn't until several members of the GOP realized they circumvented the Constitution of the state, they filed lawsuits.
And the court said no, and the Supreme Court said no.
Or I should say, they said they wouldn't rule on the merits.
One judge said they thought that it was actually, you know, that it would actually be overturned, this universal voting law.
What do you do then, though?
Overturn the entire state's ballots?
What I think happened is people actually voted.
And this is what I explained to Republicans before the election and after.
You get mail-in votes universally, right?
The Democrats pushed for this.
Mail-in ballots went out.
Then you get some, you know, mom who hates Trump.
She walks up to her kids and she's like, did you vote yet?
Here's your ballots.
And they're like, no.
And she's like, come on, just vote.
They say, okay, fine.
People who normally wouldn't get up and get out to vote, voted because it was extremely easy to do so.
The Democrats cheer for this.
They implemented these policies.
Republicans in Pennsylvania helped them do it.
Now people don't want to believe the results.
There are a lot of people who are still angry and fighting and I think we need to have this audit and more, to be honest, do a total national audit because then we can come out and say, do you understand what happened?
There's a lot of people who point out these spikes in, um, there's a meme where you can see like Trump's vote count and then Biden's and then Biden does a big jump.
That's not unusual to me.
A lot of people are like, see, look at that.
It can be explained.
I mean, I'm not saying it's definitive proof, I'm saying, but there is a simple explanation.
Mail-in ballots, universal mail-in ballots, went out in big cities.
I lived in the Philly area.
Ballots just showed up at my house.
It was so easy to vote.
So what happens is, you have a batch of urban mail-in ballots.
The data across the board from liberal and conservative outlets showed that mail-in ballots were overwhelmingly Democrat and in-person votes were overwhelmingly Republican.
By sending out these ballots, they made it very, very easy for people who don't normally vote to vote.
And these people voted.
Then, when they counted these ballots, at the end of the day, it was 93% or whatever for Biden.
Why?
Because not only were they mail-in ballots, but they were also from urban centers.
I am not saying it's definitive proof.
I'm saying there's a simple explanation.
I'm then saying, by all means, let's do the audit and figure out if that's the case, because I think it is, and if I'm wrong, well then I'm wrong, whatever.
And I think at the very least, the honorable and honest approach to the people who believe that there was some impropriety is to say to them, well, do your audit.
I think I'm right.
If I thought I would, if these Democrats, this is what's driving a lot of the skepticism, is that Democrats framing things this way and trying to shut things down is actually just making people suspicious.
Like, why would you do that if you think you're right?
And I'm like, I kind of agree.
I think I'm right.
I think they're not going to find anything.
Honestly, I've heard so many conspiracies about this.
I just... At what point do you say, okay, we're done?
Now, that's one argument from the left.
That even if they do this, it won't be enough and it'll continue.
Then, keep doing it.
I mean it!
We're gonna spend money?
Fine!
If it stops people from freaking out, if you can keep doing it, maybe there will be a breaking point.
But at the very least, it's better to do these audits.
They should bring in federal observers, absolutely.
Democrats should have observers down there all the same, watching what's going on.
And then if it doesn't, if it's not favorable, you say, see?
When it comes out and you get the results, and it shows Joe Biden, when you say, see?
And if they say, no, I don't take it, say, okay, we'll do it again.
We'll do it again and again and again.
Because doing an audit, to me, is preferable to people fighting in the streets.
At a certain point, I guess things simmer down.
Now, there's an interesting post here because as much as Republicans might want to claim, maybe not Republicans, but staunch Trump supporters might want to claim that it's on the level, someone pointed out that there was a former AZ lawmaker who was reviewing ballots, and the problem is that this guy lost his seat in the 2020 election.
He was slated to be a member of the Electoral College if Trump had won in Arizona.
Why would you put that guy there?
If Republicans, I shouldn't, again, I shouldn't say Republicans because the Republican Party, I think, doesn't like Donald Trump.
But if these Arizona Republicans want everything to be on a level, why didn't you secure the data?
You've already screwed everything up in that regard.
Why are you having someone who's gonna be in Electoral College actually there reviewing ballots?
This guy should have said, conflict of interest, count me out.
Now you are raising doubts, no matter what happens.
That's why I'm just, at this point, you guys need to stop We'll do the audit fine, but we need to focus on culture.
We need to think forward.
I think the audits are a good thing.
I think it would have been a good thing if the Democrats audited 2016.
If these audits prevent chaos in the streets, I'm all for them.
If they find impropriety, I'm all about saying, okay, well, there you go.
I don't think that'll be the case.
But regardless, it doesn't matter what I think will happen.
I think it's fair if people want to have it happen.
There you go.
I'm going to focus on building culture.
I want to focus on talking about current events and not, you know, I don't know, six months ago.
It's interesting that as much as the Democrats are obsessed with January 6th, some people are just obsessed with November 3rd, and they won't let it go.
I think Trump got oceans leavened.
They planned ahead.
They were seriously preparing.
They wanted to make sure Trump didn't win.
Trump narrowly beat Hillary Clinton.
It was like 77,000 votes between three states.
And so they said, we need to make sure.
We absolutely do not Let him win.
But Trump still was able to bring in another, like, 12 million votes.
It was incredible.
More votes than any sitting president in history.
Unfortunately for him, Joe Biden got more votes than any candidate ever in history.
And there's population growth, but Biden wins.
And I think it's because uninitiated, traditional liberals were driven mad by Trump and most—not really Trump, but the media—and Trump derangement syndrome.
And people who had no business being in politics, what I mean by that is people who, like, everyone has a right to be in politics, for sure, but what I mean is, people who don't know anything about it came out and voted, and there you go.
Now again, I'll stress, if someone comes to me and they make a bunch of claims, I'll be like, alright, let's do an audit.
I'm not scared of the results.
I'm not.
But maybe Democrats are, I don't know, and whatever.
The DOJ's intervening is weird.
I'm bored of all, I'm tired of it.
We'll see how it plays out.
How about that?
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
It was not that long ago, a pole rope at a garage was called a noose, and the FBI sent in a squad of like a dozen people, a dozen agents, to go see what happened with this noose.
It was a garage pull rope.
It was the NASCAR thing.
You remember this?
It's amazing how quickly the FBI can mobilize for nothing.
Maybe it's because they're lazy.
Maybe it's because a lot of these guys are like, look, it's just easier to deal with the nonsense than it is to deal with actual crimes.
And I've seen this of police officers as well.
Does a cop really want to go somewhere dangerous?
Or do they want to go pull someone over and give them a ticket or something?
You see?
The FBI searched the wrong woman's home because someone sent them a tip, because we live in a paranoid, delusional country.
But more importantly, I don't care if someone wants to give the FBI a tip, but Antifa, the far left, the Black Lives Matter rioters, they get cut loose.
People know who they are.
People post photos.
Andy Ngo, for instance, will just report on publicly available information, and they say he's doxing.
Ryan Reilly for The Huffington Post does the exact same thing for the conservatives on January 6th, and they say he's doing great journalism.
We have the story from the Anchorage Daily News.
Tipsters social media post led FBI to search Homer woman's home for links to Capitol riot.
This is up in Alaska.
It wasn't the correct woman.
They went to the wrong house simply by virtue of being in DC and looking like someone because sometimes people look like, you know, have similarities.
She gets her home raided by the FBI.
Where's the FBI to raid the home of the extremists who have been organizing ongoing riots for the past year?
Well, nowhere to be seen.
Nowhere to be found, I guess.
You know, a lot of people have talked about Black Lives Matter being communist.
I had a conversation with Kimberly Klesik over at TimCast IRL.
Go to TimCast.com, become a member.
You can see this conversation in the members area.
And there are, surprisingly, a large group of Chinese individuals donating to Proud Boys because they're scared that Black Lives Matter is communist and they're going to take over.
And these are people who fled communism.
I'll tell you something funny.
There's something called the Red Salute.
You know what that is?
It's when you raise your fist.
You ever notice that Black Lives Matter does the same thing?
The same thing the Chinese Communist Party does when they're being sworn into a political position?
I want to show you what's going on with the FBI.
I want to talk to you about what's going on with these schools.
And I think this story right here from Anchorage Daily News just shows how the FBI will go above and beyond to break into your house, to go after you, If you're on the wrong side of the political battle.
So I think it's, as some conservatives have said, you're a second-class citizen.
If you are anti-woke, if you're a Trump supporter or voter, you're a second-class citizen.
It's time to realize this.
You won't get justice.
And I guess it's important to point out, while it may seem hyperbolic, this is a communist push.
We are seeing actual communism.
They disguise it.
They call it other things.
But I'm going to show you some of the evidence and break down for you the basics of the subversion.
First, take a look at this story.
They say two anonymous tipsters, an Instagram post, and a photo comparison led the FBI to break down the door of a Homer couple's home last week, according to a search warrant unsealed Wednesday.
The FBI had hoped to find a laptop stolen from the office of U.S.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the January 6th riot at the U.S.
Capitol by supporters of Trump.
I don't think they're supporters of Trump.
I don't think so.
I think you can maybe say the people on January 6th were passively Trump supporters, but Trump literally said not to do it.
Like, on more than one occasion, he said, be peaceful, go home, go in peace, and people ignored him.
So they're something else.
They're Trump supporters, second.
But fine, you know, they do support the president.
They say rioters invaded the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification of Biden's win.
We get it.
Paul and Marilyn Hooper, I think it's true and kind of obvious.
They have photos.
the riot and went to the Capitol, but never entered the building, they said, attributing
the FBI search to a case of mistaken identity. And I think it's true and kind of obvious.
Well, they have photos. The FBI search warrant says its interest in the Hoopers, who own the
Homer Inn and Spa, begin in February when an unarmed tipster informed the FBI about an Instagram
post by Paul Hooper. The post made on January 10th shows Marilyn from behind walking up the
Capitol while wearing a puffy black coat.
Paul's caption said in part, Now, I'll admit, when I saw this and I see this photo, I'm like, sounds like this lady was in there.
revolution to take back our country keep praying we are only getting stronger and
will not quit till our country is restored to be there was a once-in-a-lifetime
experience now I'll admit when I saw this and I see this photo I'm like
sounds like this lady was in there sounds like they were well they're
actually fairly far away they're going to say on Wednesday Paul Hooper said by
no means do I condone the bad players who went in the Capitol
He said that when he referred to a righteous revolution, he was referring to his hope that the country allows more individual freedoms.
I was excited to see a million people there protesting the results of an election.
The photo was taken around 3.30pm.
We were told we could go in, but that sounded like a really bad idea, Marilyn Hooper said.
She said she was surprised when she arrived at the Capitol and was told by fellow Trump supporters that they could go into the Capitol.
I'm like, what?
They're like, yeah, you can just get in that line over there.
There's a line.
That's the line.
Just get in line.
I'm like, I don't think so.
I don't think we're going to do that.
There's people coming out with blood on them and stuff.
The tipster contacted the FBI on February 24th in connection to a February 17th incident in which the Hoopers were banned from flying on Alaska Airlines because they failed to follow masking rules.
Quote, we can confirm the Hoopers were banned in February due to non-mask compliance.
Alaska and federal policy requires all guests to wear masks throughout their journey.
As a policy, we do not comment on the status of individual passengers related to federal investigations, according to a spokesperson.
The unnamed FBI tipster said Marilyn Hooper looked like the woman seen in surveillance camera video and third-party video from within the Capitol.
In those images, an unidentified woman is seen entering Pelosi's office and disconnecting cables from a laptop, which is then removed from its desk by an unidentified man.
Now, it would seem The Anchorage Daily News doesn't want to just come out and say it, but they posted this photo.
They have these photos.
In one, it says the ellipse.
There's a woman here wearing my usual uniform.
They say the composite photo illustration shows a photograph of Marilyn Hooper left that was taken on January 6th, 2021, and provided by Hooper, next to two images published by the FBI on the right, showing an unidentified woman in the U.S.
Capitol on the same date.
You'll notice they're not the same woman.
It's kind of amazing.
They do kind of look similar, I guess.
Maybe it's just the coat.
But the woman on the left has different hair, and she's wearing a different shirt.
And she's wearing a scarf.
The woman on the right isn't wearing those things.
This is what I find terrifying.
The FBI had no problem going to this woman's house on a hunch, on a tip, from a random person.
Breaking the door down with a search warrant, looking for a computer in Alaska.
They had no problem going to a NASCAR garage over a pole rope.
But apparently they have a very big problem with going and tracking down the extremists who literally killed people and burned down buildings.
Now, of course, you had the incident with Bill Barr sending federal agents to track down Michael Reinold, the guy who killed Aaron Danielson in Portland, and that guy lost his life, and the left was freaking out about it.
So, it's not like it's absolutely one-sided or anything.
But I will say it's scary when you have schools, when you have mainstream corporations all supporting overt communism.
And maybe the regular people just don't realize it.
I tell you, if I see a bunch of people doing the Roman salute, I'm gonna go ahead and assume they're neo-Nazis.
They can tell me otherwise.
I don't care.
They're gonna go do that.
They're gonna say a bunch of Nazi stuff.
Yeah, sorry.
You're not gonna change my mind on that one.
We get from the media this narrative about white supremacy in the far right over and over again, and it's not real.
I mean, there are some, you know, fringe far-right neo-Nazi white supremacists, but not that many.
The left comes out and says the entire system of governance here in the United States is white supremacist, even though we've already had a civil rights movement, we've had the end of anti-miscegenation laws.
But that works.
It works because regular people don't care, don't fight back, and At a certain point when federal law enforcement is politicized to go after random people simply just for being in D.C.
I mean, that's scary, ain't it?
At what point do the feds just say, well, you know what?
You're the best approximation of this person, so we're going to charge you anyway.
They're going to say the woman was wearing a black puffy coat similar to the one Hooper wore, and she had a similar hairstyle.
She said, I have a black puffy coat like that.
That's the only thing I had that resembles hers, and somehow they managed to not to take that.
When questioned during the FBI search of her home, Hooper said she noted that the woman resembled her but pointed out key differences in their appearance in multiple photos.
The warrant says the woman in the Capitol was wearing a distinctive metallic thumb ring.
Hooper said she doesn't own one and doesn't wear one.
According to the warrant, the FBI compared the surveillance images to the photo of Hooper's driver's license and confirmed it was her.
A second tipster who said they knew Hooper personally contacted the FBI on March 23rd confirmed she is the person in photographs 225A and B, the warrant said.
The warrant does not include any cell phone location data showing them inside the Capitol.
Other FBI warrants related to the January 6th riot have included such data.
Is this not scary?
The FBI has used cell phone location data.
They've bragged about it.
They've used facial recognition.
They've bragged about it.
In this instance, this woman had her home raided.
For what?
They didn't use cell phone data.
She clearly had it.
They were taking photos and posting them to Instagram.
The FBI didn't use that.
Because... I don't know what to tell you, man.
Maybe it's a bit pessimistic.
There are some things to look forward to, I guess.
There are some things that may give me hope in terms of seeing a pushback against wokeness, seeing people speak out about these schools.
But when you have the FBI using the power of the DOJ to go after people, I mean, I don't know, I'm just a bit pessimistic.
Now make no mistake, this is a communist push.
I don't know if I want to say takeover.
A lot of people will say that it's hyperbolic or conspiratorial.
No, no, no, hold on.
Let me show you what's going on, okay?
It's racist and Marxist teaching.
Parents who homeschooled their child in California and left the state over its woke curriculum now fight to keep critical race theory out of schools in Utah.
That's good.
But I am sick of hearing critical race theory over and over and over again, ignoring critical theory in general, which is, as they say, Marxist teaching or cultural Marxism, whatever you want.
What do they call it?
The Frankfurt School of Thought.
Whatever the ideology is they're using, you need to understand that they might take actual literature and arguments, but there's no rules.
For a month or whatever, we were going through this anti-Asian hate campaign, Stop Asian Hate.
Well, now that the hate crimes are ramping up, and it's black people attacking Asian people, I don't see them coming out anymore.
Do you?
It's manipulative.
It's a manipulation.
It's an excuse.
And there are a lot of regular people who are too stupid and don't care, and they support this.
And it'll only become worse for them.
Now you have people who are opposing critical race theory in schools.
Good.
Critical theory in general, the woke ideology and leftist identitarianism, needs to be targeted specifically as the umbrella, not just one aspect of it, but better than nothing.
We're seeing in a bunch of different states critical race theory being banned.
Tennessee bans, Texas is considering banning it.
There's, I believe, Utah, Idaho governor signs bill to ban critical race theory.
These are good things.
Because what we're seeing with this stuff is, it's communism.
Now, I guess communism has become relatively nebulous in terms of what it actually represents, but it's authoritarian command economy structure, and there's a bunch of different names for what you can call these things, right?
I just say authoritarianism is the easiest way to describe it.
But in many ways, what we are saying literally is communism.
I'm gonna prove it.
Let me show you some stuff.
First, let me point out what they're teaching in these schools.
Critical race theory.
This is a core component of the Black Lives Matter ideology.
It's a core component of intersectional feminism and leftist identitarianism.
They talk about white privilege, for instance.
You have Donald Trump banning critical race theory, Joe Biden supporting it.
A core component of what Black Lives Matter is trying to do is implement critical race theory in government.
Why?
These theories Maybe have some interesting points.
There's writers who make interesting points, but they're twisted, and some of it is taken out of context or used in ways to gain power for fringe, far-leftist authoritarians.
They know that in America, we don't tolerate racism.
Or we did for a long time, and we had a cultural reckoning with it well before I was born, and our reckoning with it allowed me to literally be born.
So this country is not a fan of it.
At a certain point, you know, you look at the Civil War, people didn't like racism.
You look at Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era, people said no to this and they pushed back and they stopped it.
At a certain point, somebody realized this was a point of contention, a weak point in this country, and I believe it was probably fringe far-leftists who knew they could exploit the system by pitting people against each other in ways that made no sense.
How do you preserve the power of the ultra-elite?
Well, I'll tell you one thing that actually scares them is literal Like leftist policy.
This is why the dirtbag left isn't particularly prominent and why many leftist anti-war activists get banned.
They want woke leftism because communism requires the elites to maintain power.
Communism doesn't actually believe in distributing wealth.
It's a myth.
There is a fair difference between socialism and communism.
If you want a nitpick, I suppose.
Maybe it's pedantic.
But socialism is just an economic system.
It's basically the people control the means of production.
It doesn't really work because you need to be an authoritarian to do it, which eventually makes it all turn into communism.
Communism is typically where you... It's supposed to be, mind you.
Where a bunch of people, you know, everything is evenly owned or equally owned and everybody is just like working, I don't know, a decentralized manner, sure.
But it only works, you can only implement communism with an authoritarian system.
So what we So what do we get?
would call communism is what the left is fighting for, which doesn't seem to make sense and is
utopian, and what you actually get with communism is authoritarian command economy where they just
tell you what you can or can't do and then, you know, put people in prisons who defy the system
because it's the only way they can maintain that power. So what do we get? Black lives matter. The
things they advocate for.
A white homeless guy is an oppressor, and Oprah Winfrey is oppressed.
Serena Williams, an extremely wealthy and world-famous athlete, is oppressed, and that disabled white veteran is the oppressor.
It makes no sense.
It's because they don't actually want the elites to lose their power.
They want to just solidify their power.
So the ultra-wealthy individuals need to find a way to get people to fight each other in such a way that they can implement an ideological system that puts them in power indefinitely.
They can now wield the FBI as a tool to go after anyone who dares oppose them.
So let's talk about critical race theory and Black Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter is a communist organization.
Period.
Hands down.
No questions.
I mean, they say this themselves.
Now a lot of people might not know that.
A lot of stupid people march around raising their fists.
But you ask yourself this question.
Many people do.
How was it that so many people in Nazi Germany just went along with the Nazi party?
Do you think the average person who was doing these salutes had any idea what the government planned on doing or was going to do?
No.
Do you think these people who went around on Kristallnacht smashing things cared?
Where regular, traditional libs, people who don't pay attention to news at all, are marching around, raising their fist?
Do you know what the raised fist is?
I think it's hilarious.
It's kind of funny.
It's like sitting back, just watch this stuff.
Just go Wikipedia.
Raised fist, Wikipedia says.
Here's what they describe it as in terms of a salute.
Different movements sometimes use different terms to describe the raised fist salute.
Among communists and socialists, the raised right fist is sometimes called the red salute.
Whereas among some African American activists, especially in the US, it's called the black power salute.
No, I think it's funny.
Because I posted this on Twitter, and then you get a bunch of people saying, like, did you even read the other sentence?
It's actually the Black Power salute.
Yeah, just like the Roman salute is the Roman salute appropriated by Nazis and used by white power groups.
What's the difference?
If you want to raise that salute, I think I know where your politics lie.
They're going to say, the Ratfront Kampfverband, paramilitary organization of the Communist Party of Germany, used the right hand fist salute as early as 1924.
By this time, the Soviet Union had already established the use of a traditional Russian military salute.
During the Spanish Civil War, it was sometimes known as the anti-fascist salute, just like the Berlin Wall was called the anti-fascist protection rampart.
A letter from the Spanish Civil War stated, The raised right fist, which greets you in salute, is not just a gesture.
It means life and liberty being fought for and greeting of solidarity with the democratic peoples of the world.
Let me show you.
The raised right fist is used by officials in mainland China when being sworn into office.
It's incredible.
Psychologist Oliver James has suggested that the appeal of the salute is that it allows the individual to indicate they intend to meet malevolent massive institutional force with force of their own, that they are bound in struggle with others against common oppression.
I don't care what you call your stupid Weimar Germany communist or fascist salutes.
You can say it's a black power salute, but it was first used by the Soviets and the communists.
You can say it's a white power salute.
Yes, and it was used by the Nazis and the Romans.
Still a bad thing.
They're both bad.
So it's funny how they try and differentiate.
Because they're lying to you.
If you see a man walking around doing a Nazi salute, it doesn't matter if the guy's literally a member of the Nazi party or believes in the system of governance of fascism.
They may just be white supremacists.
Does it matter?
They're still doing the salute, and it's still a bad and crooked and corrupt ideology that we must oppose.
But here in the U.S., It's not being opposed.
It's being supported.
It's being propped up on TV.
It's being propped up by mainstream corporations.
And we can see the seat of government is slowly becoming deferential to it.
There was a viral tweet.
Somebody apparently is a former FBI agent saying that the FBI is now just a tool of the Democratic Party or whatever.
Now, I don't want to say the Democratic Party is necessarily far-left.
I think they're more authoritarian than anything.
But I think they use wokeness because communism is not really about being far-left.
If you want to talk about the core of actual economics, far-right being laissez-faire and far-left being cooperative, it's competitive versus cooperative markets.
A competitive market is where I try to convince you to trade with me instead of him and my product is better.
And a cooperative market is where everyone sits down and shares the bounty of their labor, which is really hard to scale up.
Capitalism is really easy to scale up.
Communism purports to be far left to a certain degree, but when a bunch of elite party members are fat and bloated like in Venezuela, I guess Venezuela doesn't claim to be communist, It's not communism.
Communism is a utopian, nonsensical worldview where everyone's holding hands.
If communism was ever actually going to be implemented, it would be more like the Borg.
But hey, I guess even the Borg had a queen.
And therein lies the real problem.
The Democratic Party, it's not communistic in an academic sense.
A communist will tell you that the Democratic Party is not communist.
But as far as I'm concerned, moral authoritarian, despotic authoritarians who will tell me what I can or can't do and strip individual liberties, they're all the same.
Now, they use different symbolism.
Whether it's a fist or an open hand, I don't care.
It represents authoritarianism to me and it's bad.
But for some reason today, communism is allowed, even though it killed a hundred plus million people over the past hundred years.
It's allowed, it's tolerated.
Imagine if the, you know, Black Lives Matter walking around with a fist.
Imagine if they were doing that with a swastika.
I'm sorry.
Authoritarianism is authoritarianism.
Extremism is extremism.
And the scary thing now is that it's in law enforcement.
Whatever, man.
I guess it is what it is.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
For years, we have been complaining about big tech censorship.
We have been complaining that people's opinions are being stifled, that YouTube is manipulating politics in this country, and it is a bad thing.
Just recently, Facebook's oversight board announced that Donald Trump will remain suspended, and it's up to Mark Zuckerberg to determine if Trump should get his Facebook account back.
Censorship is bad, because we have a small group of Silicon Valley oligarchs who determine what opinions are allowed.
They think they're being reasonable, but as we've learned from the Joe Rogan podcast episode I did with Jack Dorsey and Vijay Aghate, they live in such an extremist bubble, they think that moderate liberals are far right, and that a conservative or someone center-right should be banned because they're dangerous.
Now, while all of this is going on, I love How the left repeatedly rejects the fight, insults the conservatives, call them free speech warriors.
They're not neutral.
They don't actually care about free speech.
Meanwhile, the actual people who care about free speech have been begging you.
Are you going to stand up for the people's right to speak their opinions, or will you sit there until you get banned?
And of course, once you do, you'll come crying, please, this is not fair.
We must fight for free speech.
Oh, that's what's happening today.
Natalie Nguyen, ContraPoints.
You may be familiar with her YouTube channel.
I think Natalie does a decent job, makes excellent quality content, and has some really good arguments.
Some of the best, actually.
In some of her videos, she actually explains the nuance with Antifa and their opinions, and even is critical of some of the more far-left violence and their poor tactics, which are actually bad for the left.
I can respect that.
But in the past, while certainly not the worst person in terms of tribalism, Natalie Wynn has made posts about free speech warriors as others, instead of just saying, I agree with free speech, you're right.
Why is it that every single time, okay, not every single time, but typically, when I see a leftist get censored or suspended, I'm right here to say, no, it's wrong.
How about the BDS movement?
Boycott, Divest, and Sanction of Israel.
We saw a lot of people on the left saying, see, we're being censored because we're critical of Israel.
And I'm like, you shouldn't be allowed to criticize anyone you want.
I agree, you should have free speech.
They shouldn't ban you.
When Occupy Wall Street accounts got shut down, why was it that I immediately spring up and say, I agree with your right to speech.
Twitter should not remove this.
Why is it that when Destiny, the leftist Twitch personality, When he got banned from Twitch, I said, this is wrong.
It was wrong that Destiny got banned.
He got booted from the partner program on Twitch for defending Kyle Rittenhouse.
You see, I understand the importance of free speech.
I will defend it for the far right, the far left, up, down, whatever, because I know if we let them erode these cliffs, eventually we are the ones who will fall off and come tumbling down into the ocean.
But I guess the left is more interested in tribalism, and you can really see it.
Natalie Wynn tweeted, 3 years and 4 million views after upload.
Today, YouTube has age-restricted my video incels.
Age restriction significantly reduces a video's visibility, requiring viewers to be logged in and over 18 to watch, and suppressing it in the recommendation algorithm.
That, I think, is wrong.
I think it's wrong.
I think if people are going to be treated equally on YouTube, then somebody who has an opinion, especially ContraPoints, who's made a video which is just an explainer from a leftist perspective on incels, it shouldn't be age-restricted.
However, There's a big difference between taking away someone's ability to speak and actively promoting them.
I think it's important that if YouTube is going to be saying, we will actively promote content, then people should be treated equally.
But I also think it's important to point out, YouTube does not owe you marketing.
YouTube does not owe you advertising.
When Steven Crowder got kicked out of the Partner Program, I said this, when you're out of the Partner Program, you can't make money on ads.
YouTube is under no obligation to be an ad sales division for you.
You can run your own ad sales division.
I actually have more than one manager for different ad sales.
YouTube ads, which appear, is an automated system that YouTube uses, which is effectively selling ads for my content, and they're giving me the majority cut.
I gotta tell you, YouTube takes a lot relative to any ad manager, but I also understand they're losing money on the video.
So, listen.
People should be allowed to speak.
People should be allowed to use YouTube to speak their minds.
But I just find it hilarious that all of a sudden now you're gonna start seeing these leftists say, we must defend free speech!
And of course, like clockwork, people like me will come out, the free speech warriors, as they say, defending Natalie Wynn and her right to have her content and not be suppressed.
But I want to point out, just before we read more of her tweets, she said, suppressing it in the recommendation algorithm.
Welcome to the party.
This happened to tons of political channels because leftists were lying about all of us.
And where were you to stand up for our free speech?
You weren't there.
In fact, you were mocking the others, and you're mocking free speech advocates as others, as free speech warriors, and criticizing their motives.
Meanwhile, we all saw our numbers take a hit.
Now I can complain that YouTube will prop up the left and diminish the right, and anybody who dare challenges the left, because these researchers refer to channels like mine as exclusively critical of the left.
Maybe there's something wrong with the left in this country, when they don't have principles, when they mock you when you're down, and then demand you come to their defense.
Well here's what happened.
YouTube sends a message to Contra.
We want you to know that our team has reviewed your content and we don't think it's in line
with our community guidelines. As a result, we've age-restricted the following content.
We haven't applied a strike to your channel. Your content is still live for some users on YouTube.
Keep reading for more details. What age-restricted means is they don't think it's suitable for
younger audiences. It will not be visible to users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age,
or have restricted mode enabled. You won't be eligible for ads. You're under no obligation
to have them be promoting your content for you to new users.
Recently, something similar happened.
happened to me.
I tweeted, YouTube has claimed our vlog is violent and inappropriate.
Amazing.
What is this team, YouTube?
We are riding bikes and skating around.
Now, there's nuance here.
See?
My video on my vlog was literally us just walking around and skateboarding and that was it.
And we got age-restricted.
Now, if YouTube wants to legitimately claim that content isn't allowed, so be it.
I personally thought it was unfair, as I'm sure ContraPoints thinks the age restriction of her video is unfair.
I think you're entitled to complain and say, hey, I take issue with this.
I want to appeal this decision.
My point, right now, is just that they don't owe me, or her, or anyone else anything.
If YouTube wants to lock down my stupid vlog, fine.
But let's be honest about what they're doing.
The main issue I take here, as I'll show you some of the tweets from ContraPoints in the past, is this ignorance and tribalist behavior which results in their own downfall.
Now, ContraPoints is correct on many issues.
Check it out.
She goes on to say, YouTube's community guidelines are supposed to make it clear for creators what content is allowed on the platform.
But the guidelines are enforced very arbitrarily.
Actually, worse than arbitrarily.
Video restriction removal is often triggered by an easily abused flagging system.
Hey!
I remember talking about this three years ago!
Randomly enforced restrictions are more restrictive than ones that are consistently enforced.
If enforcement is consistent, you know what the rules are and you can work around them.
But arbitrary enforcement forces you into superstitious neurotic self-censorship.
100% true.
You don't know what exactly you can get away with, so you start bleeping, blurring, and omitting anything that could possibly be evocative of sex, drugs, violence, profanity, hate speech, or bullying.
It's bad for art.
It absolutely is.
There was a period where I would put up a video, and then there would be like a small thumbnail from an article that referenced something.
I would get demonetized, and I would email Google, because I have a content manager, and I'd say, why was this video demonetized?
And they'd say, oh, because for five seconds, At minute 9, there's a thumbnail that references a guy streaking at a football match.
And I'm like, I didn't even see that!
And they're like, you gotta be aware of what you're showing in your videos.
I said, that's a good point.
So I started just blurring everything.
And there was one video, I think I blurred literally the whole video.
And I was like, at least I can talk about it, but I can't show you what I'm reading.
Eventually, YouTube relaxed a little bit and released this.
I think that's insane.
Okay?
I mean, we don't have as... I gotta be honest, broadcast standards are a bit more strict, but the politicking is what's freaky.
There's certain political opinions you're not allowed to have.
Tucker Carlson can say whatever he wants about vaccines and they'll yell at him.
On Fox News, on YouTube, you can't even reference certain scientific studies done by prestigious universities.
Natalie goes on to say, Suppose you're a history YouTuber.
Can you show images of Nazi Germany for educational purposes?
Images often shown in school to under 18s?
According to the community guidelines, yes, but in practice, such videos are often restricted or removed for hate speech.
That's true.
Suppose you're a feminist or an educator.
Can you say the words pedo, rape, clitoris?
YouTube is often the only chance to educate teenagers about these topics before Pornhub does.
But on YouTube, this kind of content is very often age-restricted.
We'll see what happens to this video because I quoted Natalie Wynn.
Because most of my funding comes from Patreon, I'm in the fortunate position of not being financially reliant on the erratic whims of this broken system, so I can afford to take risks, but most creators aren't so lucky.
Free speech should be reclaimed as an essential leftist issue.
We should not surrender the most fundamental civil right to Google LLC in the name of deplatforming rightists and curtailing harassment.
It's not worth the cost.
I agree with that.
If only you had spoken up years ago when my channel and other people's channels were being targeted, when I would speak up for the Occupy Wall Street activists getting censored and the conservatives getting censored, when I did an interview with Oliver Darcy, now of CNN, where I said it's dangerous the alt-right is being censored.
They have nasty opinions, but this is a slippery slope, and look where we are today.
And we've warned all of these leftists over and over again.
I think it was Glenn Greenwald who said, if there's one group of people that has a complete inability to learn, it's liberals who keep cheering on censorship, thinking that it will never come back to haunt them and they'll be censored.
So here we are.
Now, Natalie had a response from YouTube who said, thanks for bringing us to our attention.
We passed it along to our team.
It's in an email.
So I didn't get the email.
They said, that's strange.
We'll inform the team.
You know, stay with us.
Sorry for the confusion.
It should be in your inbox.
Let us know if you have any questions, whatever.
I don't know.
They're saying they're not going to reverse the decision.
And they've sent more information explaining why they did it.
So you know what I decided to do?
ContraPoints is a leftist YouTuber and heavily promoted by the mainstream media.
ContraPoints was able to grow her channel massively with features.
In large prominent publications.
Good for her.
ContraPoints makes excellent content.
I really enjoy the videos from ContraPoints.
They're really, really good.
And they're well thought out.
I think I disagree with a lot of the arguments, a lot of the opinions, but you can't say for the most part that it's in bad faith or they're bad arguments.
They're interesting arguments.
I just think you need ContraPoints to ContraPoints.
So, uh, with that being said, of the leftist YouTubers, I think Contra is absolutely one of the best.
I'm just frustrated when you do a search for, you know, free speech from ContraPoints, and you can see... just... the othering.
This whole rhetorical move of responding to criticism with, stop attacking my free speech, needs to stop now.
The number one reason conservatives like Milo is that he's the best piece of evidence supporting their leftist war on free speech story.
So SJWs are part of a victim cult, but every time someone criticizes you, you complain about your free speech being taken away?
I don't know.
Maybe when people were tweeting Learn to Code, maybe if you were actively paying attention to what the concerns were, maybe when I had videos removed for saying the name of a newsworthy individual, you would actually pay attention.
I don't think ContraPoints is the best example of leftist hypocrisy in this regard.
It's just frustrating because this is more of an example of, I don't know, tribalist ignorance.
Ignoring the real argument and focusing on the straw man.
Oh sure, it's easy to call out a bigot on Twitter who said something racist and got banned and then say, you're just being criticized!
No one's attacking your free speech!
and ignore prominent figures or people like Noam Chomsky who have made the same arguments for decades.
We must protect the speech even of those who are most opponent.
Here's one thing Natalie said.
Free speech warriors are not neutral advocates.
They have a very specific set of sympathies.
That's a straw man.
So instead of ignoring the actual principled positions of people like Noam Chomsky and the academics and individuals and journalists, the real ones, who are actively saying we should not allow big tech platforms to funnel people in certain directions, to shut down certain opinions, people should be allowed to speak, you criticize the straw man, you take the straw man approach.
It's hilarious.
Natalie Wynn said, since 2010, Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki's lectures have been censored by Google by order of Congress.
How many times have I done videos complaining about what the U.S.
government did to Anwar al-Awlaki and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki?
This is duplicitous.
It's just, you know what?
This is what I can't stand.
Because people like us, of principle, are willing to defend the free speech of hypocrites, liars, and sophists, we lose!
Because they will not defend free speech when it's the free speech of people they don't like or their political rivals, and we will!
Now I'll criticize Candace Owens and Donald Trump when they both said you shouldn't be able to burn the American flag.
No, I said you should be able to if it's your property and it can be done safely.
You can do what you want with your property.
I believe burning the flag is free speech.
In fact, I agree with Penn and Teller that burning the American flag is one of the most... What's the word they described it?
It is the epitome, the perfect exemplification of free speech.
The fact that you can burn the flag which represents the free speech, the burning of that flag truly represents the freedom that the flag represents itself.
I personally will never burn an American flag.
I will fold it properly.
I will treat it properly.
We'll never touch the ground because I think this country is fantastic.
But I'm just sick and tired of these people coming out and ignoring the facts, hyper-focused.
Maybe it's just me.
Maybe there's like ten real people on the planet.
What do I often say?
Leftists love guns.
Leftists are not anti-2A, they're pro-2A.
They quote Karl Marx all the time.
Fake leftists, I guess, and liberals, neolib corporate democrat types.
I try to make sure that I represent the left properly in their arguments.
When they say they're in favor of workers' rights and socialism, they're not saying communism.
Their genuine belief is that the workers control the means of production.
They're just not mature enough to understand how power dynamics works, and what ultimately happens when there is a system where a party is in control.
But they are in favor of guns because they want a revolution.
They don't like liberals, and they call me a liberal, and I respect them for doing it.
There was a funny post on a far-left Reddit forum where they were like, Tim Pool is a liberal.
F him.
And they were like, yeah.
And I'm like, thank you.
It's the neolibs, it's the faux-progressives who call me conservative.
But I'm sick of it, because I can stand up and defend the free speech of, say, ContraPoints or any one of the other individuals on the left, and they will hyper-focus on strawman arguments.
And I can say the same thing for many on the right when they'll hyper-focus on the left.
That's the point.
So the issue is, as I've stated a million and one times, conservatives do not control cultural institutions.
Conservatives complaining about Antifa and saying they hate guns doesn't really have an impact on anybody because they're not at CNN or MSNBC.
They have a right to be wrong, and I'll say they're wrong.
I've been saying abolish the police for some time and now even the left, I love it!
A bunch of leftists are tweeting at me saying, your opinions on abolishing the police are wrong!
And I'm like, so I agree with you and you say I'm wrong?
These people only care about tribe.
What's really fascinating in my response to what Nataline was saying, what's truly fascinating to me is you can see the thought process of these individuals.
My thought process is based on systems, logic, and principle, for the most part.
And their arguments are based on people and power.
So, an example.
I said, in response to this, to Natalie Wynn, YouTube doesn't owe you any marketing.
Which I've said for years.
Like I mentioned, when Steven Crowder got kicked out of the Partner Program and is spat with Carlos Maza, I said, You know, I think it's ridiculous, it's a double standard, but I don't think YouTube owes anyone running an ad division for them.
I certainly think he should be treated fairly and equally and have access to ads same as everybody else because the reason he got banned was incorrect.
It was out of context.
But the point is, should people be treated equally?
Yes.
Should YouTube not be the arbiter of morality?
Yes.
Does YouTube need to be promoting my content?
No.
Do they?
They do.
So people are like, you complain all the time that YouTube won't promote you.
No, I don't!
YouTube promotes me like crazy!
I do complain that there are many things I can't say.
So what did I do?
I created my own website where I can post whatever I want.
I don't like what YouTube does.
I think YouTube should be fair and neutral and not an arbiter of neutrality.
And I think they should treat the right and the left equally.
The problem is, there's this, I forget what it's called, it's like 4chan's law or something, that any social media network free of moderation will inevitably become a right-wing platform.
For whatever reason.
And that only with moderation can the left maintain some kind of power.
I think that's true.
And I think that's why you don't see, when you search ContraPoints Twitter, all of the times she fought for free speech.
Only, when you go from, look at this, if Breitbart fires Milo over the pedo thing, do we get to accuse him of waging war on free speech?
God, I hope so.
And then, from 2017 till today, over four years later, free speech should be reclaimed as an essential leftist issue.
We should not surrender the most fundamental civil right to Google LLC in the name of deplatforming rightists and curtailing harassment.
It's not worth the cost.
I just cite Noam Chomsky.
Big fan.
He has this really great speech.
He was talking, they were arguing them.
He was pro-free speech, even for the far right.
He's like, we have to, otherwise they'll come for us.
And I'm like, you are correct, Noam Chomsky.
But four years of nothing, Natalie Wynn mocked those fighting for free speech, now all of a sudden realizes it.
So I'll say this.
Welcome to the fight, and thank you.
Even if I'm frustrated with the circumstances, I am not personally frustrated with Natalie as an individual.
I actually think Natalie does a great job and makes excellent content, and has made good arguments that I respect, though I disagree with.
It's just frustrating that the left who mocks the fight over free speech, the ability for us to challenge massive multinational corporations, is pooh-poohed, mocked, frowned upon, insulted, lied about.
But now, once they get censored, oh no!
We must reclaim free speech!
Sure.
See, it's about power and tribe.
The people coming out and defending Natalie are tribalists, and there are certainly tribalists on the right.
Ron DeSantis isn't so much a free speech kind of guy, even though I like some of the things he's been doing.
And there are a lot of conservatives who are not pro-free speech, and they're only saying they're pro-free speech because their opinions are being censored.
Sure, they're no different from Natalie at this point.
However, at the very least, when I see conservatives being censored, I say that's wrong, they shouldn't be.
When I see the left being censored, I say that's wrong, they shouldn't be.
When people say Donald Trump is a fascist, I say, that's not true.
You're insane.
When the right says Antifa is anti-gun, that's not true.
They're very pro-gun.
And I think it's very important to point out when they say that Antifa is the militant wing of the Democratic Party, I say, eh, they hate the Democrats.
But there is a creepy alliance between the two.
I think accuracy is important.
But maybe there's just very few people who actually feel that way.
So, here's what I say to people like Contra and people on the left.
Thank you and welcome to the fight.
Please do not let these massive multinational corporations silence our speech.
I believe that Contra's incel videos should not be age-restricted.
I think it was very well done, as most of her content is.
And I oppose the restrictions.
I don't think YouTube needs to be recommending anything to anybody.
But how about this?
If you're gonna choose what gets recommended, just get rid of all of it!
Go back to the neutral timeline.
Make it so that when people go to YouTube, they just see the latest posts from the pages they subscribe to.
No more recommendation.
No, no, what do they call it?
Suggested user lists.
None of that stuff.
If they're not going to be doing that, then people should be treated equally.
The problem is algorithms will never be equal because they're always going to be favoring something or another, and therein lies the big problem.
I just wish they didn't mock the free speech fight when it was going down.
