S5137 - Trump Launches MAJOR Class Actions Lawsuits Against Big Tech over Censorship, Democrats Mock Attempt
Trump Launches MAJOR Class Actions Lawsuits Against Big Tech over Censorship, Democrats Mock Attempt. Trump is also suing the Ceos Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar pichai
Republicans are also launching antitrust legislation to break up big tech and stop censorship.
Democrats meanwhile say this is doomed to fail and they may be right but it takes the effort to make the change and eventually the courts may side with those fighting against big tech censorship.
#Trump
#Democrats
#Censorship
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In our first story, Donald Trump has launched major class action lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, claiming the courts will find that their censorship is unlawful.
In our next story, Vice claims that the journalists at the Capitol on January 6th are survivors.
One journalist nearly cries thinking about what happened, saying they don't know if they can go back.
These people are pathetic and weak.
I'm sorry.
And in our last story, Joe Biden announces they will be going door to door to meet with people who have not been vaccinated to help them.
If you like this podcast, please leave a good review and give us five stars.
But if you really like it, share it with your friends because word of mouth is the number one way to help a podcast grow, and it would be greatly appreciated.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Donald Trump has announced he will be joining a class action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, working with the America First Policy Institute over censorship, which he says the courts will find to be illegal.
At the same time, Republicans are introducing legislation to go after big tech, potentially to break them up because they're too powerful.
It's strange that this has to come from conservatives who have typically been on the side of big business, but there was a big shift over the past decade which, well, many people can't seem to comprehend.
In a recent conversation I had with Charlie Kirk and Will Chamberlain, conservatives, Charlie Kirk said that the conservative movement wasn't ready to address a lot of the issues brought up during Occupy Wall Street.
Perhaps there's been a big shift—I think it's fairly obvious there has been—that conservatives are now recognizing their movement is being destroyed by big tech censorship.
In reality, social media sites and their CEOs aren't just getting rid of conservatives and purging them—they're mostly doing that—but they also are targeting anti-war leftists and some anti-establishment left personalities, who in recent time have seen censorship as well.
Here's a really good example of what happens when you allow a powerful government or anyone, really, to censor ideas.
And it's coming out of China.
WeChat, a popular Chinese social media app, has just banned the accounts of tons of LGBT creators because they want to clamp down on LGBT content.
This is the cultural control the Chinese Communist Party exerts.
It's how they expand, and this is what happens when someone or something or some entity has too much power.
Now, the left, for too long, has been accepting of this censorship, saying, but you broke the rules, but my private platform.
Some leftists have pointed out Trump should have regulated these big tech companies, and you know what?
They are correct.
I don't know if they should be viewed as public utilities, but there is, in my opinion, a similarity between a phone company where I call someone and say something, and I can even do a multi-person phone call, a conference call, and big tech platforms, where I connect to a network and
espouse some idea, opinion or communication. These big tech companies are exploiting our
laws for political gain and power.
And I'll tell you this, mark my words, the left will regret it if they don't get on board with
these suits, because sooner or later they will come for them.
The progressives will be censored, and the control will only get worse.
We've heard that in some instances, this may actually, there may be a real case here.
Twitter, for instance.
There's a potential lawsuit, I believe there's a lawsuit coming out of California, where the government was making direct recommendations to Twitter on who to ban, and Twitter did.
Just because it's a private company doesn't mean they don't act at the behest of government, in which case, it could be a 1A violation.
I find strange.
What I find strange, many of these prominent—well, okay, I shouldn't say that.
It's not strange at all.
The establishment, of course, wants to retain this power for the big tech companies, and they're saying Donald Trump will fail.
He's grifting, and the purpose of this is just to generate attention.
It's doomed.
It will never work.
No.
This right now from Trump is one of the most important things anyone could be doing.
Now, perhaps a class action is the wrong way to go about it, but I'll tell you this.
Anyone who has been banned, whether it is frivolous or viewed or whatever, don't- whether someone's opinion is that it's frivolous or whatever, ignore them.
If you think you were wronged, file the suit.
The reason we don't make progress on ending the censorship is because there's not enough legal challenges.
Sometimes there are some, and they don't get anywhere.
And I've wondered this about websites like Wikipedia.
They claim Section 230 protections while they literally publish articles that say, quote, from Wikipedia.
Just because a user provided a comment doesn't mean you aren't publishing it.
And it's about time we got more lawsuits.
Let's see where this one goes.
Yes, Trump may fail in this regard, but you never know.
You never know.
Until the arguments are made, until good arguments are made, and the judges rule on them, we won't know.
The only way to get progress is to keep challenging unjust rules.
And perhaps it goes to the Supreme Court, gets struck down, and it's over?
Then we're gonna rely on legislation.
But for the time being, it's about time people started fighting, and finally Donald Trump is.
Let's read the story, but before we do, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member to help support our fearless journalism.
You'll get access to members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.
The reason we set up TimCast.com, to be completely honest, is, well, look.
You know, part of me didn't want to.
I was content on just being a YouTuber, being moderately successful, having a decent podcast, and just doing my thing.
But YouTube threatened that.
YouTube told me there was things I could not say.
YouTube said, we will ban you if you talk about certain news stories that are in the mainstream.
YouTube took down a video from Senator Rand Paul on the floor of the Senate discussing a very serious political matter.
So good for Trump, good for the America First Policy Institute, and good for all the others who are challenging these things.
But this is why we set up Dimpcast.com.
Because YouTube will eventually come around to deleting us.
This year, right now, 2021.
It's a bit of a lull year.
Everybody knows it.
The presidential election just happened.
Everybody's exhausted.
Oof, we are politicked out.
My next year's gonna be a midterm.
Republicans are expected to sweep.
We'll see if that plays out.
One thing that will contribute to a shift in power will be channels like mine.
So you think YouTube's gonna sit back?
Now, they already banned Jones and Yiannopoulos, Laurel Loomer, et cetera.
They ban all, well, okay, YouTube didn't ban Milo, but they did ban Alex Jones.
Facebook purged a bunch of these individuals as well.
Many of them are facing getting removed from YouTube, notably Steven Crowder, one strike away.
What do you think 2023 is going to be like?
Now we're after the midterms.
Now we're in the presidential cycle.
In 2024, it is going to be nuclear.
They will try to shut us down.
So we set this website up.
So go to TimCast.com.
Become a member.
We are adding more journalists.
We are adding fact-checkers.
We are producing more shows.
We are going to do everything in our power to make sure that these stories, these conversations, keep happening in the face of the oppression of big tech.
And perhaps, should anything happen, you'll see us joining certain lawsuits as well.
Now I'll tell you this.
I can't scroll down on my own website.
There is a members-only podcast we did with Dr. Chris Martenson.
I can't even show you the title.
The title is enough to get us banned on YouTube.
We cannot allow this.
This is why Trump's lawsuit is so important.
Here's the story from Politico.
Oh, first, first.
Like the video.
Subscribe to this channel.
Share this video.
For the time being, I will not cede ground, okay?
If YouTube's banning people, we gotta fight to stay on these platforms because they control everything.
They're effectively the public square.
Whether they like it, believe it or not, I say they are.
So long as we are in the public square, I will not leave.
They can try and kick people out and I will stand my ground and say, we're going to keep standing here and yelling our ideas.
That's why sharing is so important.
YouTube might not ban me, but they're certainly trying to suppress me, along with all of your other favorite creators.
So it's not just about me.
Don't just share this video.
You should be sharing the videos of every single channel that you like.
Help them grow and defy YouTube's algorithms, which prop up mainstream drama podcasts.
And don't let people hear important conversations.
Here's the story from Politico.
Trump filing class-action suits against Twitter, Facebook, and Google.
The former president was kicked off social media in January following the Capitol riots.
They say former President Trump said Wednesday that he has filed class-action lawsuits against the leaders of Facebook, Twitter, and Google after he was booted off their platforms in January, including their CEOs, mind you.
The American people's birthright of freedom must prevail against big tech and other forces that seek to destroy it, Trump said at his private club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
Through his lawsuit, we are standing up for American democracy by standing up for free speech rights of every American.
Trump said he plans to sue Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive officers of Twitter and Facebook, respectively, as well as Sundar Pichai, who leads Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube.
The cases were filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
Quote, we are demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.
Our case will prove this censorship is unlawful, it's unconstitutional, and it's completely un-American.
Trump's political operation issued fundraising appeals almost immediately after the announcement, a sign that his team believe the effort will animate and excite members of his base.
And that's one of the biggest problems with Trump.
He had four years Four years, he could have made this his lead issue.
It's quite incredible.
The Republicans didn't realize that should they be censored, there will never be Republican campaigns.
They thought, well, you know what?
Let's focus on these other issues.
Immigration, for instance.
You cannot win a culture war if people can't hear you speak.
And thus, the Republicans lose.
Now, they made tremendous gains in the House, for sure.
We'll see how things play out in the coming years if the censorship persists, and of course, it will.
Now, here's the important point that needs to be made about all of this.
While I can hear these establishment lefties saying Trump's grifting, it's a violation of the First Amendment rights of this corporation, it's un-American, blah blah blah, insulting Trump.
You go on Reddit.
You go into these political debates, and what will you see?
A British flag, an Australian flag, a New Zealand flag, a Canadian flag.
People who are not American, weighing in on American politics, influencing Americans on how they should vote, and American citizens with opinions these companies don't like are removed from the conversation.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet and greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Someone from Australia should not have more rights to communicate in American political
discourse than American citizens.
Laura Loomer ran for political office and she's banned on everything.
And she tried suing.
I believe her suit was to get herself reinstated.
She's a politician.
Twitter says no.
In what world does that make sense?
That American politicians don't have a right to speak on a platform with other politicians.
So you have Democrats, and they're allowed to say whatever they want, to a certain extent.
They're given that access.
Republican candidates aren't.
Yet an Australian citizen can then come in and agree with a Democrat, retweet them, and generate more influence.
We can't have that.
If you are someone who complained four years about Russian influence in the United States, certainly you must be concerned about all of the foreign influence that we see.
You've got Chinese ministers tweeting.
You've got Iranians tweeting.
Threats, even.
And American citizens who say, learn to code, are banned.
This is bad, bad news for America.
I could only say, look, I think many on the left just don't like this country, so what would they care?
The rest of us, we gotta pay attention.
They say Trump was permanently banned from Twitter and suspended indefinitely from Facebook and Instagram in response to posts on January 6th, as we know.
There is no better evidence that Big Tech is out of control than the fact they banned the sitting president of the United States earlier this year, a ban that continues to this day.
If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone, and in fact, that is exactly what they are doing.
The suits allege that the former president's First Amendment rights were infringed by the company's actions.
and that they have exceeded their protections granted under Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act of 1996. The lawsuit is being supported by the America First Policy Institute,
a newly established non-profit, stocked with ideological allies and former Trump
administration officials, to advance the former president's agenda after he left office.
The litigious former president has a decades-long history of both suing and threatening to sue,
dating back to his career as a New York City real estate developer.
Trump was accompanied by Brooke Rollins, AFPI's president and CEO, and board chair Linda McMahon.
McMahon led the small business administration under Trump, and Rollins served as a top White House domestic policy advisor during his administration.
You know, I find it fascinating that there would be people to argue Trump's rights were not violated.
There was a lawsuit by the Knight Foundation arguing that Donald Trump's tweets were public discourse, was a public forum, and thus he wasn't allowed to block people.
Trump lost the suit.
This court argued it is a public forum.
And then Trump had to unblock many people.
Now, there were still some disputes around that.
AOC did something similar, and she refused to unblock people, which was amazing.
She defied the court order.
But the court makes an interesting point.
Now, many conservatives said that the court order ruling was bad because it infringed upon the rights of these platforms.
But I think the argument has to be had.
When the left says, it's a waste of time and it's a grift, What they're saying is that precedent hasn't been set yet.
The judges haven't even decided whether they will hear the case.
So, no.
I mean, you can assert whether it's right or wrong, but the judges have to weigh in.
Well, they don't have to.
They can decline.
But the point is, that's them weighing in, in my opinion.
I think Twitter has created a public forum.
I think when they allow politicians to speak, they're creating a public forum.
And as soon as they've done that, you cannot deny people the right to come in and engage in that speech.
That's what I think.
If these courts are saying Trump's tweet is a public forum, how could Twitter deny people access?
Imagine this public-private partnership and what it would lead to.
You get a big arena, and you have the president speaking there, and the person who owns the arena says we're banning anybody we don't like.
Can we do that?
I mean, within reason, but what if the president wasn't able to speak anywhere else?
What if there were a bunch of small arenas that couldn't accommodate people, and most people weren't there?
You gotta consider scale in this.
What will happen to our country if people can't actively engage with politicians?
Bad things.
What would happen to our country if only one faction of politicians are given preferential access?
Can't have it.
Sooner or later, Jack Dorsey will not be the CEO, whether he does anything.
Sooner or later, you may find that an ideological opponent of yourself has control over Twitter.
Perhaps someone initiates a hostile takeover.
You want them to have this power?
They shouldn't.
The problem is the left is milking it.
It's working for them.
They say Trump has bitterly complained about losing his social media megaphone, this we understand.
Despite the popularity of right-wing figures on major social media platforms, Republicans have become increasingly animated around the idea of big tech censorship and sought ways to rein in these companies.
Florida lawmakers pushed through a law that would bar platforms from banning political candidates or risk hefty fines.
But a federal judge last week issued a preliminary injunction blocking its implementation.
That's right.
Florida was trying to say, you gotta play fair, here are the rules, and a federal judge said no.
But you see how they say, despite the popularity of right-wing figures?
Yeah, that's in spite of their rules.
There's a meme that any social media forum or platform will become right-wing over time, without sufficient moderation.
With sufficient moderation, it'll become left-wing, because left-wing ideas can't exist without moderation.
Perhaps it's because the right is inherently meritocratic and the left is inherently cooperative.
And it makes sense.
On the right, they say the best of the best will win, the cream of the crop that will rise to the top.
On the left, they say we know what's best and we should work together to implement what we want.
When these big tech platforms are all run by the left, of course they're going to suppress people on the right.
They don't even realize it half the time, or they do when they're lying.
Jack Dorsey was completely unaware of any of the arguments being made.
What caught Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadai off guard in the Joe Rogan podcast I did was that they didn't actually know any of the arguments from the right.
Notably their misgendering policy, in which I stated, if half the country, more than half the country, thinks your idea of misgendering is wrong, you do not represent anyone outside of your fringe bubble of like 10% of the population.
They didn't realize that.
Why?
They never actually listened to an argument from the right because they live in their own bubbles.
They're being burned by the fire of their own creation.
They go on to say, Several copycat social media platforms have sprouted up in the market as friendlier turf for MAGA faithfuls.
What did we see when Parler came around?
Big Tech colluded to shut them down.
What about Gab?
Big Tech colludes to shut them down.
It is mafioso.
It's got to be some kind of, what, racketeering.
They need to be shut down.
Coordinating the way they're doing.
It's brutal.
Trump said he was unsure if he would rejoin the social media platforms, even if he was allowed back on.
Reps for each of the three companies declined to comment.
Well, we have some statements.
Jamil Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said,
Trump's destined-to-fail complaint, alleging that Facebook as a public forum borrows liberally from
Knight Columbia's successful complaint, alleging that Trump's social media accounts were public
forums, not sure whether to be flattered or outraged. Here's what's really amazing about this.
Lindsay Wajert said, knew this section sounded familiar.
Trump's Twitter complaint versus our complaint.
Arguing that Trump is copying their complaint.
How are you going to argue?
That Trump is creating public forums and that he can't deny people to it, but that other politicians are creating public forums, but private Twitter is allowed to bar people from these conversations, from these forums?
You see the problem there?
If there is a Democrat and they're being mocked by a conservative, The Democrat can, and this has happened in the past to my understanding, go to Twitter and say, that should violate the rules, or it does.
Twitter then removes the individual.
If a Democrat had a public event that was deemed by a judge a public forum, And then hired private security guards to remove people from the crowd who are booing or heckling.
Would that make sense?
What if somebody was protesting the event?
There's a conundrum here.
Perhaps you can argue, look, Trump's had private events before and all over the place and they remove people.
Okay.
The problem here is Twitter invites you on.
Twitter says, please come to this place and you will hear these things.
You can't then say all are welcome and then kick someone out or ban them when they engage in this behavior.
It's a bit different from Trump saying it's a private event with tickets and Twitter saying it's a public event open to all.
Or more importantly, the difference is there are ways you can see Trump speak.
There are ways you can engage with him.
Sometimes they're private events.
How about this?
Twitter creates a platform where they say it is not a public space and we must approve everybody who tries to sign up.
You have to pre-register, then we'll go through and issue your tickets.
Or, they say, Twitter is a public space, but we'll create some private spaces.
Like, you have the ability to block people.
Oh, you do.
It's not a one-for-one argument, because social media is different from, say, physical space.
But there are similarities that are important to bring up.
Now, House Republicans are also fighting big tech.
In this story from the Washington Examiner, House Republicans unveil legislative plan to break up big tech and stop censorship.
The Examiner reports, under pressure to come up with a conservative approach to holding big tech companies accountable, House Republicans announced on Wednesday an agenda that would make it easier to break up tech companies in court and challenge unfair censorship.
House Judiciary Committee Republicans, led by Jim Jordan of Ohio, said their agenda would speed up and strengthen antitrust enforcement, hold big tech accountable for censorship, and increase transparency around tech companies' content moderation decisions.
The proposals in the agenda will be introduced as legislation— oh, we lost it.
Let me just keep going there.
They say, hold Big Tech accountable for censorship and moderation decisions.
The proposals in the agenda will be introduced as legislation in the coming weeks by House Judiciary Republicans after they consult House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and other top Republicans.
Big Tech has targeted conservatives for far too long.
House Judiciary Republicans have had enough, Jordan told The Examiner.
We believe that this agenda will serve as the Republican platform to take on Big Tech going forward and unite our party to reject Big Tech's cancel culture practices.
The Republican agenda is meant to provide an alternative to the six bipartisan anti-Big Tech bills passed in June by the Judiciary Committee that many Republicans, including Jordan and McCarthy, oppose.
They claim the bills, six sweeping antitrust bills aimed at reigning in tech companies, such as Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook, failed to address the censorship of conservatives.
Instead, the House Judiciary Republican agenda suggests proposals to make it easier to seek legal remedies against big tech companies' content moderation decisions by allowing individuals to sue the companies for censorship and overhaul the tech companies' tech liability protections.
Republicans want to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the controversial law that gives online platforms legal immunity for third-party content, to ensure content moderation decisions are done in good faith, based on objectively reasonable criteria, according to the Big Tech Agenda document obtained by the Washington Examiner.
I want you to think about the problems of Section 230 right now.
Wikipedia is the example I like to cite.
On Wikipedia, it says, from Wikipedia.
It doesn't say from, you know, UFOman996.
It doesn't say it from the Reptoid391, like just random usernames.
It says, from Wikipedia.
So Wikipedia, sure, they're getting user comment, but they're publishing it under their name.
Certainly they have chosen to publish this.
Let's think about that for two seconds.
Is Wikipedia protected from lawsuit?
Okay, here's what I can do.
I can have everybody comment on an article.
I can make a blank article for my website, TimCast.com.
Open to public comment.
Or I'll say this, I'll title it, The Truth About Joe Biden.
Open to public comment.
Then once all of these comments come in, I just take them all and publish them as a fact-based article and say, From Timcast!
Or how about this?
From Tim Pool!
And it'll say, Joe Biden is a dragon alien monster who is a vampire, is a werewolf.
Or how about it just says, Joe Biden is a corrupt criminal.
Joe Biden did steal from the poor to enrich himself.
Joe Biden did engage in corrupt acts.
Very specific claims, too.
Like, Joe Biden did beat up, you know, some child in front of a venue.
Some absurd claim that no one would believe.
Well, you can't sue me over it.
I can make claims that Joe Biden did all these things simply because a user commented them.
Does that make sense?
No.
Trump isn't suing Wikipedia.
He's going after Twitter.
But there is a real problem here in that Twitter has created editorial rules You can and can't post certain things.
So how about I do this?
I say everyone's allowed to write an article for my website.
I publish all of them instantly as soon as they're written, but then go in and ban every article I don't like and put up only five articles on the front page.
Here's the front page of the New York Times.
Articles written by our users.
We didn't write them.
We just selected them and put them on the front page.
How does that make sense?
That I could create a server that hosts articles and then choose to put some on the front page?
No, come on!
At a certain point, 230 needs to be challenged.
I'll tell you what you get.
Take a look at what China is doing.
ABC News reports Chinese social media giant WeChat shuts LGBT accounts.
They say, the most popular social media service has deleted the accounts on LGBT topics run by university students and non-government groups, prompting concern the ruling Communist Party is tightening control over LGBT content.
Well, of course they are.
That's it.
Why would we sit back and watch something like this and then think it's good for us?
We believe in free speech.
I'll tell you where we end up.
The disingenuous leftists.
Not like the actual leftists, like the American left.
Probably should just call them like establishment liberals.
They're saying that banning critical race theory is actually banning free speech.
That's the argument they play.
They are outraged that the government would be constrained.
Think about that for two seconds.
Let me pull up some of these tweets here.
Let me see if I got these.
James Lindsay responding to this Spitzer law.
A Spitzer IMM law.
The relevant debate isn't CRT versus anti-CRT.
It is liberalism and free speech versus crackdowns on speech and censorship.
Good for the authors for their principles.
Anti-CRT crusaders don't want open debate.
They're happy endorsing authoritarian suppression when it suits them.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating If it was actually about debate, then these leftists wouldn't have lied when asked about critical race theory in schools.
They did.
with Josh Hammer. Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts. It's
If it was actually about debate, then these leftists wouldn't have lied when asked about
critical race theory in schools. They did. And now we know it is being taught there because
the largest teachers union said they wanted to teach it and defend it. So what... James Lindsay
responds.
The state doesn't have free speech.
He says he's a lawyer and doesn't know that.
The state does not have free speech.
The First Amendment constrains the government, not the individual.
So if we want to say we must constrain government, that's literally what the Bill of Rights does.
If we then say we also want to constrain massive multinational corporations, that is not the government suppressing people's rights.
We have this across the board.
Gun stores can't sell certain things.
Walmart can't sell certain things.
Some things are literally illegal to sell.
Some things are literally illegal to say, but we still have free speech.
You can't incite violence.
And there are questions I have about that for sure.
This is where we're at.
The establishment left says telling the government it can't indoctrinate kids is violating their free speech.
No, sorry, you don't get free speech like that.
The government is constrained.
That's what we're trying to do.
Meanwhile, they defend private corporations' right to free speech.
Well, that's amazing, isn't it?
This is why I say, you know, fascism maybe isn't the right word, but they're very close to it.
They're very close to being fascists.
They believe in the maximum power of the state and the corporation.
Don't you dare tell the government what they can't say, and don't you dare tell the multinational corporations what they can't do or say.
You can't constrain the corporation, but you can constrain the little guy?
Now how crazy is that?
Someone wants to say that government institutions shouldn't be allowed to run amok and say whatever they want and indoctrinate our kids.
Makes sense to me.
We're trying to constrain massive power and keep it relatively decentralized.
These people then come out and say massive multinational corporations can say whatever they want, you can't violate their rights.
But they can violate yours.
Who are these pro-oligarch, pro-authoritarian individuals?
Mainstream journalists, I suppose.
So I bring it back to China.
When we mention what China does, this should be perfect evidence for the left as to why what they're doing is dangerous.
But they don't care.
They would use the current power structure to their advantage, not realizing that because of the insanity they're engaging in, it's entirely possible in 2022 Republicans sweep.
In 2024, a Republican wins the presidency, and now they will use all of that power against you.
I hope they don't.
But this is what they do.
Because conservatives now are saying, hey, if that's the game they want to play, we'll play the same game.
And I can't blame them.
These are people who believe the ends justify the means.
So they engage in insane tactics, unethical behaviors, because one day they'll find their utopia.
If you engage in these authoritarian behaviors, there will never be a utopia.
Because you will keep using the authoritarian practices to maintain your power.
Why should I believe that anyone would ever just give up their power?
That's why we want it to be decentralized.
That's why it's important that Trump and anybody else files lawsuits.
If you feel like you have the ability to fight and you've been wronged, you should sue.
Now what do we hear from the left?
Oh, it's doomed to fail.
It'll never win.
It's a waste of time.
Yeah, it's doomed to fail because people need to challenge them.
I'll put it this way.
Imagine there is a great fortress with a door and it is barricaded.
And there are thousands of people across the bridge saying, we'll never get in.
If you ran into that door and slammed your shoulder into it, you would never break the barricade, the barriers, the barricade.
You'll never break the support arm keeping the door stuck shut.
But what if every single person started running full speed and slamming into that door?
Better yet, what if they had a tool?
Like a gigantic log for ramming that door?
And they heave, ho, all their power combined, one at a time, chipping away and breaking down that barricade.
That's how it works.
So of course, just Donald Trump may not be enough.
But maybe Trump is the battering ram.
Maybe it's now incumbent upon the individual to start filing challenges as well.
We saw something interesting in California with Patreon, over Patreon's obligation to bring claims to arbitration, which is very expensive.
There are ways to win these battles, and it requires people standing up and saying no.
If everybody tried smashing through those fortress doors, eventually the doors would come in, they would cave in, eventually a judge will say, I agree, you can't do this.
Eventually it'll make its way to the higher courts, eventually laws will get passed, but the fight has to happen.
So stand up for yourself.
Stand up for what you believe in.
Otherwise, they're going to keep indoctrinating your kids.
They're going to shut down the water cooler, the churches, the bars.
And the only way to get news will be through big tech and social media, which will be filtering information, lying to you, and censoring things they don't like.
We can't have that.
We got to push back.
So good for Trump.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
It's like the Joker says, right?
It's meant to be funny!
Like this story from Vice, where they say survivors of the riot at the Capitol, or insurrection, whatever they call it, and they actually have a quote from a journalist who nearly cries because some crackpot with a horned helmet walked inside a building.
It's truly incredible.
We live in a reality TV trash hell world.
There's no serious debate.
The left, the mainstream, the establishment, they have gone completely insane.
And right now, the only thing that matters is owning the libs or owning the cons or whatever.
Quite literally, we have this story.
It went viral yesterday.
And I didn't care to talk about it, but we really got to trash CNN and the New York Times and Vice News.
And this one hits close to home.
Why?
I was the founding member of Vice News.
Employee number one brought on to make Vice News a thing.
So, so angry.
Reporters who survived the Capitol riot are still struggling.
This is real life.
My favorite, though, I have to be honest, is the guy who nearly cries because he's scared to go back to one of the most secure buildings in the world that was surrounded by security fencing and National Guard members, and has Capitol Police setting up field offices around the country to hunt down Many of these dottards who were bumbling around confused inside the Capitol building.
Let's get one thing straight.
It's not all.
You know, there's a lot of people saying, oh, the cops let everybody in, it wasn't an insurrection.
Okay, well, let's be reasonable.
There was violence.
A lot of it.
These videos were crazy.
There was tear gas in the rotunda.
There were people, you know, pulling barricades away.
There was violence.
And you see, what CNN does and what Vice does is that they show everyone these videos and they say, oh no, democracy is under attack.
What they don't show you is the cops opening the door and saying, right this way, sir or madame.
Because it was a riot.
That's about it.
It's funny that they call it an insurrection.
At the same time, Joe Biden's like, come on, man, if you want to go up against the government, you need F-15s or nukes.
Yeah, that would imply that if these people actually were able to take the Capitol building, Joe Biden would nuke them or call in an airstrike with some F-15s.
That's stupid!
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
But let's be real.
These people never had any chance of taking power in any way.
This is not the 1600s.
You do not assert political dominance by simply occupying a building.
It doesn't work that way.
And even back then, you'd still have to subdue the enemy forces.
A bunch of unarmed dudes with flags walking in a building does not an insurrection make.
So for these journalists who are crying, Wow, dude.
You need to find a different line of work.
Quote.
It's my office.
The building I love most in the effing world.
I used to call the capital my girlfriend.
I've devoted 15 years of my goddamn life to that building, said freelance reporter Matt Laszlo, choking up now.
I don't want to be there.
Bro, wow!
Fire this guy immediately.
Matt, you will never, never, not that you'd want to, but I would never offer you any kind of meaningful work.
Dude, seriously?
Riots.
Real ones.
Where the far left is smashing windows, where they brutally beat Andy Ngo.
That I understand.
A consistent threat and problem, where you say, I can't go out there anymore.
Did I cry and choke up saying the streets used to be my office?
I used to go out on the ground and travel the world, but now I can't anymore.
No, I say, well, you know, sometimes it gets too dangerous and people start to recognize you too much and it becomes impossible to actually do the job.
This guy's crying because one time a bunch of unarmed people walked into a building.
That's it.
Crying.
Man.
Let me show you this tweet from Lindsey Snell.
Lindsey actually covers serious conflict and has been kidnapped in the past.
This is in response to a tweet from Glenn Greenwald, which is a quote from Brian Stalter, but oh boy!
Oh boy.
Vice News tweeted.
I love this image.
Reporters who survived the deadly Capitol riot are still struggling.
Some won't go back in the building.
Several have sought therapy to deal with trauma.
Many still aren't sleeping well.
I just gotta pause.
If that is our country, we don't deserve to preserve this name.
I'm sorry.
If our journalist class And our average person is scared to go in a building because they're traumatized.
Yikes.
We have truly become a nation of soft, pathetic weaklings.
As they say, weak men make hard times.
Hard times make strong men.
Strong men make good times.
So perhaps this is the fourth turning.
Perhaps we're in the crisis.
Things are gonna get bad because a bunch of weak, doughy men, people like Brian Stelter, who responded with, I wish I'd thought to write this story by Cam Joseph.
Don't miss it.
People like him are the ones who are in the mainstream media.
Now, Lindsey Snell, who actually knows conflict, said, I feel like Western journalists who cover real conflict sometimes milk the trauma danger card, but this is absurd.
Perhaps these reporters are just in the wrong line of work.
Wrong line of work, indeed.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that I've been in full-scale warfare.
I have not covered... I was not on the ground in Syria.
I was on the ground in Egypt, as most of you know.
I was in Ukraine.
I was in Venezuela.
I've been in Brazil.
I've been detained by plainclothes cops in undisclosed locations where we thought we were going to get beat up.
I was chased out of Venezuela after being accused of being a spy.
I was briefly detained by a bunch of Ukrainian activists who were demanding to know who we were.
I've had Molotov cocktails held to my face by Turkish anarchists fighting with cops, threatening us with immolation.
I've been in danger, and a lot of people say it was stupid.
It was parachute journalism.
Perhaps.
By all means, criticize parachute journalism.
That's the idea that you, as a reporter, enter a place you know very little about and start talking about what's going on.
Literally, well, for the most part, what I did.
Of course, we'd always have fixers and guides, and the idea was that I would be a relatable conduit so that these experts on the ground, the fixers, I mean, somebody who's there was guiding us, could be explaining, and then I could be relaying my experience.
I think it's a good thing.
Some people don't, but I respect that argument.
I really do.
You have people who live in an area.
They'll move there, live there for years, and start reporting.
And then you'll have locals who live there and report.
That I respect.
Even within these own conflicts, I never broke down and cried or choked up.
I've been in vehicles with extremists armed to the teeth, where we thought we were being kidnapped and had to jump out of the vehicle.
These people Freelancer in a building and some guy with horns and a flag comes in and now you're scared to go back in?
This is why journalism is dead.
It is a bunch of spineless, doughy, jellyfish.
That's what I can say.
Let's read a little bit of this.
Oh, I love it.
So, so angry.
Reporters who survived the Capitol riot are still struggling.
Struggling?
From what, dude?
Wow.
Josh Bresnahan spent January 6th watching a pro-Trump insurrection ransack the building he's worked in for decades.
Okay, okay, hold on, hold on.
I just gotta say this.
Everything I just explained about the threats I faced was at vice.
We were constantly joking about who was going to die first.
I'm not kidding.
So many people were sent into insane, dangerous locations when I was at Vice that we would be like, how long do you think it's going to be until someone dies and who do you think it's going to be?
And some people are like, it's going to be you!
Because some of these people are just going and meeting with, you know, drug lords and cartel members to interview them.
You're actually going into the fight.
And I'm like, haha, how about that?
Yeah.
Now Vice News is like, they're still struggling.
Vice, you are so pathetic.
You know what, man?
I don't know what happened to Shane Smith.
I know the guy, the CEO of Vice.
I remember being there.
I remember him being one of the most, like, brutal, no BS businessmen.
But I guess that's it.
I guess you would like to see your name become this pathetic level of garbage.
I mean, they went to North Korea, these Vice guys.
Shane himself went to North Korea, they went to Ukraine and fired at radioactive warthogs.
Wild hogs, whatever you want to call them.
Now this is what they produce?
Talk about failed legacy, man.
You know, I can't blame them, though.
Look, at a certain point, I suppose, you lose control of what you build.
And some people say, Tim, you're building TimCast.com.
What's to stop it from turning into CNN?
And I'm like, I have no idea.
I don't know.
I know that we're gonna build it upon certain principles, but I mean, Breitbart sort of... I don't know the early stages of Breitbart, but they still do their thing, you know?
So we'll see, but talk about a whole new level of pathetic.
I want to point something out, too.
The journalists who survived.
Yeah, what about Richie McGuinness?
The New York Times had to issue a correction on January 11th.
They labeled Daily Caller journalist a Capitol Hill rioter.
It's amazing.
And instead of issuing an apology, saying, this was in fact a journalist we called a rioter, they said, he works for a right-wing website.
I think they called him a videographer, too.
What did they say?
Shirtless man, he was a videographer working for the Daily Caller.
Amazing.
They won't say journalist.
Why?
Because we are in a culture war.
Vice, the New York Times, will not give you the semantics you deserve.
They will not call you a journalist.
They'll call you an activist.
Or an extremist.
Or, if they have to, correct, a videographer.
But heaven forbid, you get the J-word.
Journalist.
That's their title.
Only they can say it.
Here we go.
The congressional reporting veteran was in the House gallery when a colleague texted him that the Capitol's exterior security fence had been overrun.
As soon as he stepped into the hallway, he heard the roar of a crowd as they warred with police officers trying to protect the Capitol's perimeter.
He then saw MAGA-clad assailants try to smash open the east doors of the Capitol into the rotunda before officers with M16 rifles screamed at him to clear the area.
Bresnahan moved to a perch on the floor above Statuary Hall, watching for an hour.
As rioters flooded through an entrance door, they had broken open.
At one point, he ran downstairs to help an officer back to his feet who'd been knocked down in a scuffle with rioters.
He said he only felt personally threatened once during the insurrection, when rioters briefly cut off his exit route.
Richie McGinnis was crammed in the fray.
A journalist.
We've had him on the IRL podcast.
He was in the fray, smashed between police and protester, rioter.
And he was filming it.
And the dude ain't traumatized.
He's hanging out.
He's laughing.
He didn't cry.
Who are these pathetic losers?
We're gonna do this.
We have to name and shame.
John Bresnahan.
Well, he's not saying he felt very threatened, so let's just say Vice may be hamming it up.
It was unlike anything Bresnahan had seen in his nearly three decades on the Hill, but what stunned him most came hours later, once the riders were dispersed.
As tear gas still wafted through parts of the Capitol with broken glass and blood staining the building, the House reconvened to certify Biden's Electoral College victory, and a majority of House Republicans voted against confirming his wins in Arizona and Pennsylvania.
That was the thing that surprised me most of this entire day.
They'd just gone through this, and they were still effing objecting.
You know, you may have heard me tell the story about when I was wrongly arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.
I told this story on the IRL podcast recently with Michael Malice.
They wanted me to plead guilty.
And they said I could walk, basically.
Just plead guilty and we'll give you 21 hours of community service.
And I said no.
I did nothing wrong and I refuse.
Give me the maximum penalty on principle.
I refuse to plead guilty to a crime I did not commit.
The judge was shocked, and he said, why won't they just plead guilty?
And our lawyer responded, your honor, because they're innocent.
Maybe the reason I refused to back down was because I was innocent.
Maybe the reason the Republicans refused to vote to certify had nothing to do with them being scared of rioters.
Maybe they were standing on principle, rioter be damned.
You see how that works?
Or, you know, I guess some of them were probably just scared of their constituents.
That's probably fair to say as well.
Bresnahan, a Navy veteran who has covered Congress since 1994 and co-founded the DC newsletter Punchbowl News, said returning to the Capitol after the riots was difficult.
Okay, now we get to make fun of you for being a loser.
The next day, I was so angry, so angry.
It was difficult!
Seriously?
I went back to Berkeley several times, even after they threatened me and posted pictures of my mom.
I went back to Portland a couple times.
Eventually, I said, I can't keep showing up to these things because it wasn't just the far left that was recognizing me.
It was also, you know, everyone else.
And it became impossible to do the job.
Reporters have discussed their personal experiences in the days immediately following the Capitol Insurrection, but few have publicly talked about the lasting effects in the months since.
The toll that day took on them, the difficulties some have faced in returning to a site where they experienced trauma, and what it's been like covering a Congress still deeply divided on the events of that day.
I gotta pause and say, you know what?
I get it.
These guys are wads of cookie dough.
They are, they are, they are jiggly little soft blobs.
They're scared.
They say, oh please, oh no!
I guess when you grow up on the south side of Chicago and gunshots ring through the night in your sleep, this kind of thing doesn't phase you all that much.
But let's be real.
You don't need to have grown up with gang conflict all around you to be a normal person not scared by a bunch of unarmed rioters carrying flags.
You can say it was annoying or whatever, but what are these people thinking is happening?
They're nuts.
This guy's a Navy veteran?
Then I can only assume he's lying to ham it up.
Otherwise, wow, the Navy really is trash, isn't it?
They say, though the physical reminders of the Capitol riot are slowly being erased.
The 26,000 National Guard troops who flooded the building for inauguration are long gone.
The heavy-duty security fences down and the final perimeter exterior fence will begin to come down on Thursday.
Small details remain.
A shattered plastic guard sits on one of the officers' desks.
And a few broken windows haven't been replaced.
House members still have to go through metal detectors to vote.
And the emotional scars are still there.
Wow, I want to give a round of applause to Vice News.
For historically sending people with no security or even inoculations into extremely dangerous areas and then being like, oh, when people are like, are they going to die?
And what are you going to do for them?
And now complaining that someone's fee-fees were hurt because a guy with horns walked in a building.
Wow, some reporters who were there won't go back in the building.
A number have sought therapy to deal with the trauma.
One long-time Capitol Hill reporter opted for early retirement.
Shortly after living through the riot, many still aren't sleeping well.
Good.
Y'all are insane, spineless, and pathetic.
Let's get some real journalists back on the beat.
Let's get people who actually can withstand loud noises and a riot.
Talk about pathetic.
I was shot at on more than one occasion in Ferguson.
Let me clarify.
Bullets were shot that traveled in my general direction on more than one occasion when I was in Ferguson.
At one point, everybody just dropped to the floor.
You didn't have time to crouch.
There were moments during Ferguson where we heard gunshots and we get down.
Within a split second, we're down on the ground.
No, no, no, no.
There was one point where the bullets were flying over our heads, so I literally belly flopped on the ground.
Just smack straight to the ground.
You don't have time to think.
You get down and you can hear the whiz crack past your head and smack that building.
Somebody got shot in the stomach.
The police at one point ran up as we heard bullets flying in our direction.
Go, go, go!
I had to jump a fence, breathing in tear gas.
I started to pass out because I inhaled too much tear gas.
Displaced the oxygen.
Tunnel vision.
I fell down.
Some dude, some young kid splashed water on my face.
Inhale reflex from the water on my face.
It was an experience to say the least.
Did I cry?
No.
At the end of the day, I said, we did it.
We got the footage.
Who are these losers?
This is a problem we have when you have such weakness in a country.
You have no leaders.
You know what?
Imagine it this way.
You've got a circle.
And let's say there's a hard shell exterior.
Strong.
Defensive.
Powerful.
These are the hardened men and women who defended this country both on principle and physically for a long time.
Within it are the soft doughy cookie dough people.
And they're only allowed to...
Have all this luxury, freedom, and security because of those who stand up in defense of them.
It's like that meme where you have, it's like a man and a woman and they're holding hands and it's a beautiful field, but it's actually a cliff with a bunch of soldiers holding up the ground that they're standing on.
To make the point that you are entitled to this luxury and this comfort because people are defending you and your right to live that way.
But because of this, the doughy people have become doughier.
Weaker.
And the outer exterior shell that protects our community is breaking.
And now the dough cookie dough people around the border scream at the top of their lungs like banshees because some guy with horns kicked in a door.
I mean, I don't even think he kicked in the door.
I'm being, you know, making a metaphor, I guess.
Because he walked in the building.
I'm still not sleeping like I used to, said PBS NewsHour correspondent Lisa Desjardins.
I became kind of an insomniac.
I'm sorry, man.
Look, maybe I'm spoiled.
Maybe I'm arrogant.
But I... I just... I don't relate to these people.
I think we are in serious trouble as a country.
If these are the people that we have that... Doughballs.
Pancake batter.
Funnel cake.
Whatever you want to call it.
I sleep like a rock.
People like to say, sleep like a baby, but babies wake up crying at night.
So, I don't know.
I don't sleep like a baby.
I sleep like a rock.
I lay down, I close my eyes, boom!
I wake up in the morning.
It's that simple.
Have some crazy dreams sometimes.
How about that?
I don't know what it is that these people are so pathetic and terrifying.
It's eerily back to normal, but sometimes it feels like one of those horror movies.
Like the end of Jaws.
Everything feels copacetic on the beach, but you wonder if there's anything out there.
That's amazing.
I've gone back to many areas after the riots, when they burned down the entire city block in Ferguson, when I was in Baltimore and someone threw a bottle glass bottle at me.
We go back.
We film.
This is amazing.
Here we go.
The harder part for me is to know how emotional the lawmakers are, said Desjardins.
It's like when you know your parents are bitterly abusive, abusively fighting, and you go into a room and can sense their hostility, and can sense nobody's figured a way out.
This isn't all new.
The Trump years have exacerbated tensions between the parties, blah blah blah.
At the moment, rioters broke into the Capitol, filing reports for the pool of reporters who had banded together to share information during the pandemic.
He realized something was wrong when lawmakers nearby got text alerts of a possible threat.
Minnesota Democratic Rep.
Dean Phillips jumped to his feet and yelled down to Arizona Republican Rep.
Paul Gosar, who was speaking to object to certifying a state's votes, this is all because of you.
Oh.
How long until someone canes someone else in Congress?
Officers barred the doors and told reporters and lawmakers, trapped in the gallery, to put on gas masks because tear gas had been deployed.
Then the rioters started banging on the outside.
When they busted through the window of the House floor with flagpoles, he thought they had guns and dove to the floor.
Thinking that the rioters were going to start shooting shortly afterwards, he ordered a shot outside, what later turned out to be the officer's bullet that killed rioter Ashley Babbitt.
Uh, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect.
He was on the house floor.
The room that Ashley Babbitt was trying to enter was a large hallway, not the house floor.
I think they're lying.
There was a photo, initially, of people, of security guards, police, Capitol Police, at the doors to the house floor with aiming guns through the window.
And many people thought that's what Ashley Babbitt tried climbing through.
They were wrong.
It turns out she wasn't, we don't know if she was trying to climb through, but she stood up and looked through the window of a long hallway.
Then we were like, very early on, oh, she wasn't trying to break into the house floor.
So who is this guy?
What's he saying?
Is it possible he's making it up?
I think it is strongly possible this man is lying and making up a story.
I'm gonna tell you something.
When I was younger, a plane crashed at Midway Airport.
It was winter, and I believe it was a Southwest flight landing at Midway, and it skidded off the runway.
Now you gotta understand, Midway Airport is about a square mile.
Which means their runway is diagonal, so it's not even a mile and a half.
Because they have to land over the wall, slam the brakes on.
Taking off from Midway is actually really interesting, because they have to, like, maximize the engines, and then slingshot into the air.
There's very little room at Midway Airport for takeoff.
It's surrounded by residential areas.
So this plane skidded off the runway, crashed through the wall, and smashed into the street, bounced up, and slammed onto a car.
Someone I knew.
Who was not there, ran full speed to there, and then told the news he witnessed the whole thing.
And then just made it up.
And they believed it and said, here's a witness.
Is it possible this guy is doing just that?
It seems like it because this story doesn't seem to be making sense.
I shut my emotions.
If I went down, I was going to go down fighting.
I was going to do my job.
He was back the next day, pressing house speaker now.
Brian Stelter saying, he wish he'd thought to write this story.
Molly Hemingway.
All right, let's talk about this.
From the Federal Ascendant.
People who call the few-hour riot at the Capitol by unarmed protesters an insurrection are bad people who are harming the country.
That's a fact.
Particularly so if they don't use the term for months-long violent coordinated attacks on White House, federal courthouses, small businesses, etc.
Good point.
Brian Stelter quotes, Brian Stelter is one of the most awful, deceitful, evil people you will find in media.
There's no reality to what he's saying.
Listen, the left, leftists, we can have arguments, we can disagree, we can think that they're wrong about things, but Brian Stelter purposefully deceives.
When he says things on his show like, this is fake news, a conspiracy theory, or don't watch Fox News, his goal is to deceive you.
To purposefully make you think wrong things.
Because, come on.
We know Brian is savvy enough to Google search things.
This is what we get.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
I'm sure you've seen some kind of video or promo, commercial, or rap song telling you to go get vaccinated.
The latest comes from Vulture.
Just listen to Juvenile and vax that thang up already.
The problem I have with all of this is that these people don't know about your health.
And I don't like pharmaceutical commercials either.
I've actually complained about them.
And strangely, the left used to.
They don't really do that anymore.
We used to complain that you get these commercials where they're like, is Sonafonil right for you?
Go to your doctor.
And it's like, no, no, no, no, no.
I mean, at the very least, at least those commercials tell you to go talk to your doctor.
But you get these pharmaceutical companies advertising medications like... I'm not going to name any of the medications.
But they do these commercials.
And we hear from all these people in these countries with universal healthcare saying that's absurd.
That their countries would never do that.
They don't have this industry.
The advertising goes to the doctors, I suppose.
Now all those arguments are gone.
The left doesn't care about any of that.
And here's where I stand.
You should talk to a medical professional about your medical history and make determinations to get advice and make determinations on what you should be doing.
We should not have people going door-to-door or making rap songs telling you to take some kind of medication when you don't even know if it's right for you.
That includes commercials.
That includes this weird propaganda.
And that includes where we're at right now.
From TimCast.com, Biden says they'll be going door-to-door visiting Americans who have not been vaccinated.
Now y'all getting creepy.
Look, I understand the arguments for getting everybody vaccinated, but I think a lot of the conversation is not being had because of censorship.
And one of the important things that needs to be said is, we've seen polling showing that many people got the first dose and did not complete their second dose.
That means they're not fully vaccinated.
Some people haven't gotten any doses at all.
And this may be very, very simple.
You go to the doctor and they say, based on your medical history, they're going to give you specific medical advice that doesn't include the vaccine.
I recently spoke with someone who said they went to the doctor, the doctor advised them to get it based on their history, they got it, a little bit older individual, and had a bad reaction.
The doctor said, don't follow up.
Is it possible that we see this polling about people not following up because their doctors told them not to?
The problem I have with these big campaigns is that they're ignoring the fact that you should not be getting advice from juvenile of all people to vax that thing up.
It's just absurd.
I'm sorry.
It is.
Here's the latest news.
Cassandra Fairbanks writes, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced on Tuesday that the White House is organizing an effort to go door-to-door and visit unvaccinated Americans.
President Joe Biden also discussed the new educational campaign while giving a speech on Tuesday.
The administration missed their goal of getting 70% of adults at least one shot by the 4th of July.
We are continuing to wind down the mass vaccination sites that did so much in the spring.
Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oftentimes door to door, literally knocking on doors to get help for the remaining people protected from the virus, Biden said.
Yahoo News reports that the Biden administration will redouble its efforts to chip away at doubt about the vaccines by partnering with about 42,000 local pharmacies and primary care physicians' offices, where people feel most comfortable receiving medical advice.
The administration will also boost access to the shots at pediatricians' offices for children 12 to 15 needing physical exams before returning to school in the fall.
Saki said, they will be doing targeted community-by-community, door-to-door outreach during Tuesday's press briefings.
Now, I want to just stress, they say they want to redouble their efforts to chip away at doubt.
I think a lot of people just haven't gotten the vaccine because they don't care.
I mean, that's really it.
I guess the idea of these propaganda campaigns, these PR campaigns, these ad campaigns, is to at the very least get you to go and talk to a doctor about this, or a medical professional.
I think you should.
I absolutely think you should.
I think you've got to be careful about partisan plays in the media and it's tough.
I can't pretend to have all the answers and I can't pretend to give you anything other than the basic advice of talking to a doctor.
This is why I fall on the side of you can hear something in the media Be it for the vaccine or against or whatever, but really it's got to come down to you talking to your trusted advisors and making your decisions for yourselves.
I say that because I genuinely mean it.
I also want to add YouTube basically mandates it when talking about this stuff.
But let me explain something about the media.
The Jerusalem Post has four cases of Delta Plus coronavirus strain found in Israel.
Scientists are still investigating if the mutation is more contagious or deadlier than its Delta predecessor.
Delta Plus.
Here we go.
Here's what I'm worried about.
The media is driven by fear and rage.
The media wants to get you whipped up into a frenzy.
Maybe not intentionally.
I don't think the writer of every single article is saying, like, how can I make people lose their minds?
They may just be seeing a story and saying, like, whoa, this is really important.
We should probably tell people about it.
Delta Plus, they say.
How much of what's going on is rooted in media frenzy?
They see these stories, they sound bad, they report it, other outlets pick it up, a game of telephone is played, and then the story gets all mangled up.
How much of it is legitimate and real?
This is the challenge that I think we're facing, especially.
There are a lot of people who don't trust the media.
I'm one of them.
I don't trust the media.
I try very hard to make sure I'm looking at a variety of sources to figure out what's true and what isn't.
But you also need to understand that there are people who hate the media and that bias will translate into telling you things that might not be true.
And there's an argument between Bret Weinstein and Claire Lehman of Quillette over ivermectin and the vaccines that I think it's important to go through.
Of course, I run the risk of getting banned whenever I talk about this, so you should just know that.
And when it comes to the Delta Plus variant, there's two things to consider.
The media may have found some small story that they're running with to get clicks.
It may be a serious threat, honestly.
How do we find out?
How do we know?
The challenge with the pandemic over the past year has been the rapidity, the rapidness, whatever the word is, by which this has all taken place.
So when we're hoping that our medical institutions can stay up to date with the current literature and know exactly what to do in the event of this pandemic, we're hoping that our information is traveling faster than developments with the virus.
You see the challenge here?
When news breaks of the Delta Plus variant, and they say the Delta strain was already more infectious, What research do we have?
Will that travel to the medical institutions?
Will that go through some kind of review process?
And will we get certified information that can be used in a clinical process?
I don't know.
That's the challenge.
Because if the information is coming out in the press, and then doctors are reacting just to the press, well, that's a problem, isn't it?
The Jerusalem Post says, four cases of Delta Plus, a new and potentially more dangerous variant, have been discovered in Israel.
Delta Plus is a variant of the Delta strain, which is already known to be 50% more infectious than the previous Alpha, British variant, and is responsible for the majority of new cases in the country with an additional mutation.
I do think it's funny that they're not using Alpha, you know, Delta, etc.
Quote, If the original strain was contagious after spending 15 minutes near a sick person, now it is theoretically even less.
Professor Cyril Cohen, head of the immunology lab at Bar-Illin University, told the Post.
The Delta Plus variant could be even more contagious than its Delta predecessor, he said, though he said that it is still unclear whether the variant causes more serious disease or evades the vaccines more than other strains.
Quote, It is a bit early to consider it worse than the original Delta, which is already problematic enough.
In India, they are saying it is a bit more contagious, perhaps only to certain populations, but we still don't have any strong evidence.
He said that as of last week, only a few hundred cases of Delta Plus had been reported worldwide.
You see, that's my point.
There's only a few cases.
Is it really something that we should be worried about?
This is a challenge I can't tell you yes or no.
I really can't.
Did we find something early?
Can we preempt it and do something about it?
Perhaps.
Are we overreacting too early?
Yeah, perhaps as well.
Would locking everything down potentially make things worse?
Really?
Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
I will tell you.
The CDC has said that if you are vaccinated, you don't need to be wearing masks and worrying about the Delta variant.
But in Israel, they did a study and found that with the Delta variant, the — I believe it's Pfizer — is less effective.
I think in the U.S.
it was around like 90 or so percent.
Israel found it to be about 64 percent effective.
And many people who have been vaccinated are still getting COVID, but they're not getting symptoms.
So it's still spreading.
They say, Cohen said, one can think about the spike protein being built with thousands of small bricks.
A mutation causes a change to one or more of the bricks and impacts the way the spike protein functions.
Sometimes, the changes are minimal.
Other times, they give the virus an evolutionary advantage, such as allowing it to attach to our cells better, evading the immune response of someone vaccinated or recovered, or it could cause more severe disease.
Look at that.
Someone who is vaccinated could still get a variant.
Until now.
Mutations have occurred on a limited set of bricks, meaning there have only been about 5 or 6 changes of consequence and various combinations of those changes, something that Cohen said is good news.
When thinking about updating the vaccine, we don't need to work on many versions of the vaccine, but only versions that can cover most of the mutations because there are not a lot.
But he admitted that Israel might not always readily detect new variants now.
As more people are diagnosed with COVID each day, that's because the standard PCR tests that are used at the airport or by the health funds do not check for variants.
They simply supply a positive or negative answer.
To see what strain of COVID someone is infected with requires genetic screening, which he said takes longer and is more expensive than standard testing.
When there were only a few new cases per day, the health ministry was sequencing all positive cases.
However, with so many new people being infected, the ministry has had to be more selective.
On a personal level, sequencing might not always be needed, but it is important to see what variants are circulating on a public health level, Cohen said.
Well, look, like I said, it's gonna come down to you talking to a medical professional.
Forgive me for saying it so often, but I do think it's important.
Because I'm trying to counteract all of it, okay?
There's propaganda in the media, there's propaganda online, and everybody's muddying up your view of facts.
Don't just think that, you know, your side is the right side.
You want a neutral view, which means you probably want to get a couple of different opinions from medical professionals.
Let's take a look at where we're at right now.
Claire Lehman of Quillette has been arguing with Brett Weinstein.
Brett Weinstein, of course, has advocated for ivermectin.
Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA.
It's not recommended in any official capacity in the U.S.
as a treatment of COVID-19.
But there is right now an Oxford study that's promising An Oxford study says that it may be effective, however, I must stress, it is not approved, and I actually, again, I'll say it for the 50 millionth time, bro, we've talked to people who mentioned like eating horse paste from, no, come on, come on, come on, you don't want to do any of that stuff.
You need a trusted medical practitioner who knows your history.
What worries me is, you know, I interviewed Dr. Chris Martinson, he mentioned, you know, horse paste, which is ivermectin, and I'm just like, bro, You don't know if you have an allergy.
You don't know if there's something that counter-indicated for taking this medication.
That's why I'm very much like... I'll put it this way.
I went and got some antibiotics a while ago, like a year or two ago, and one of them I looked at, and I'm just like, look, I'm gonna ask the doctor for their best recommendation because I'm not an expert in this, and one of them they gave me had like some side effects I didn't like, and I told them, and they said, okay, don't worry about it.
We'll give you something else.
It was like that.
The side effects were... they were just side effects, I'll put it that way.
And most medications have side effects, including vaccines.
So I just... I talked to a couple different clinics and got their opinions, and their opinions varied a little bit.
The point is, you can still assume responsibility for what they're handing you and say, hey, I don't like this, is there anything else?
Right now, when it comes to ivermectin, there's a lot of people who are saying it's, you know, Brett Weinstein, for instance, has taken some, he's tested it.
I'm not gonna tell anybody, I'm not gonna recommend anything.
I absolutely don't think so.
My fear is that, even though there have been studies on this, and it's used in animals, and it's for, like, deworming, Like, let's say that you're prescribed a medication that might have an adverse reaction combined with something.
That's why you go to a doctor.
Because they might be like... When you go to a doctor, they ask you, are you on any medication?
It's like, yes, I take this allergy medication.
They might be like, oh wow, you can't do this then.
You really gotta know that stuff.
That's why I'm not a fan of anybody coming out and being like, just go to the 7-Eleven, get a vaccine.
I'm like, bro.
And that's why I'm not a fan necessarily of, you know, anybody saying alternative treatments or whatever.
I think it's got to come from a prescription.
I don't like this, you know, this stuff.
But here's what we got, right?
So let me show you this statement from Claire Lehman on vaccines and ivermectin.
She posted this to Quillette's forum saying, I just don't see... Okay, let me just read.
I just don't see how this is such a complex issue.
It's just about quality of available evidence.
We have randomized controlled trials with huge sample sizes which demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the vaccines, and the mRNA vaccines have been proven safer than the others.
We have a range of RCTs which demonstrate the efficacy of IVM, but they are not highly powered and are of mixed quality.
I interviewed Dr. Chris Martenson.
He told me that one of the studies on ivermectin, so there was a study on ivermectin that said it was not effective, that it didn't do anything.
He said that was a flawed study.
Now, I think he's a smart fellow, I respect him.
And I said it's a flaw, so okay.
Then I pulled up another, he mentioned a study that was done that said good things about ivermectin.
I pulled up another fact check saying, it was a clinical review, saying that the methodology was bad.
And he said, oh, well, of course they'll say that.
And I'm like, but you said that about the other study.
So, perhaps there is a grand conspiracy, or perhaps the only thing I can do, when I pull up the literature, I see some says no good use, some says some positive use, and I say... Now here's... I just shrugged.
I'm not a doctor.
I'm not a scientist.
Here's what I can say.
They're different.
Ivermectin and vaccines are different things.
Claire is kind of acting like they're the same thing, and I think it's...
Strange.
I think she's right about the vaccine.
The trials have shown that they're safer.
There are issues.
There are things reported in VAERS.
That's gonna be up to you to review and determine what is right for you.
If someone says, go bungee jumping, and you're like, well, they told me I'd be fine, and then they measure the bungee wrong, it's like, well, dude, ultimately, you make the choices.
But Claire's right about this.
At least in terms of the argument.
I'm concerned, however, that there is suppression of the actual debate.
I also think there's absolutists and maximalists on certain issues that I don't agree with.
You might say, Tim, you're being a milquetoast fence-sitter, and I'm more just like, bro, give me the evidence.
That's all I need.
I need hard proof of things.
And if I see a study saying ivermectin no good, and ivermectin may be good, then I'm like, okay, we shouldn't censor that conversation.
And it's very difficult for me to even get into this stuff, because I could get banned for even saying what I said.
Right now, Oxford has a study saying may be effective.
That's the best I can do.
There's a few other studies that have said something similar.
Until there is an official confirmation and more data on this, I don't know what else to tell you.
I can tell you that we are in an interesting position where, I mean, vaccines are brand new as well.
So right now you have emergency use authorization, and this is what's kind of sparking up a lot of the controversy.
If the vaccines are new, the mRNA vaccines are new, and there are potential risks, many people are wondering why they can't just take other medications.
And I'll tell you this.
If you have a doctor who prescribes you something, you're good to go!
I'll stress that last point I made.
You might have an allergy.
You might have a medication that's stopping you from getting the vaccine or taking any other medication, be it hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, whatever.
That's why you go to a doctor and you ask for their advice.
And you can't come and say, oh, but my doctor is dumb.
It's like, then talk to a different doctor who's not dumb.
Alright, but let's read a little bit more.
Claire says, I don't see any evidence of suppression of this data.
If one looks up clinicaltrials.gov, one can easily find dozens of studies investigating ivermectin for COVID.
That is true.
That is true.
Google Scholar is not suppressing anything.
All of this is easily searchable on academic databases.
This recent review takes a look at the currently available evidence and concludes that, as of this writing, there are at least five large placebo-controlled clinical trials on the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 underway that should be powered to allay residual concerns about the available data.
Until those data are released, Ivermectin might be best considered an extremely promising therapy, but not one quite ready for public use.
Otherwise, there is a real risk that the scientific community will once again be bitten by over-enthusiasm and forced to answer to a public that will not be shy about holding us to account.
Claire says I have no problem with advocating Ivermectin as a stopgap in the countries where the vaccines are not available.
The problem is advocating it as a substitute to the interventions that we know work and are, according to the available statistics, safe for most people.
I agree with that.
Absolutely.
But ultimately, I just put it this way.
You can't come to me and expect me to know all the research.
You can't come to me and expect me to read 53 research studies.
That's why you're allowed to say, Tim, you are dumb and don't know what you're talking about.
Guilty as charged.
I am not a scientist, I am not a doctor, and I will not give anybody advice or recommend anything.
I think the problem we're facing, though, is that there is a political block in terms of people just talking about it.
I can respect YouTube saying people shouldn't be giving medical advice.
I can't respect them banning people like Crowder taking his video down for talking about CDC data.
That makes it very difficult.
I know.
I run the risk of getting banned simply for bringing this stuff up.
Now here's what I can't defend Claire on.
Brett Weinstein said that the vaccine strategy could make the pandemic worse.
I don't know exactly to what he's referring to, but I think people are saying that because not enough people are getting vaccinated, there's variant strains that are possible.
They're emerging because some people have vaccines and some people don't.
The people who don't are transmitting COVID-19, and then as it mutates, it latches onto somebody who's got the vaccine, and then propagates, and then it causes a problem.
Claire claimed that Bret Weinstein said the vaccines themselves make the pandemic worse.
I think that's wrong.
That is numening to the 10th degree.
Bret Weinstein did not say that.
However, here we go.
Claire Lehmann says, Science isn't conducted over podcast.
Neither of us is qualified to even have an opinion on the issue.
Seriously.
Brett's response, Science is a method, Claire.
It works in forests, labs, classrooms, space stations, wherever it is applied.
I'm an evolutionary biologist.
This is not a requirement to have an informed opinion, but if you are going to insist on such a standard, then yes, I am qualified.
Claire says you are not qualified to contradict the public's research via podcast.
If you are so sure of your expertise and the veracity of your claims, then follow the normal scientific process.
Write your hypotheses down, test them, and share your method with the world.
Once again!
A bit duplicitous.
That is not the normal scientific process.
When a study emerges, it goes to peer review.
Which means, individuals in the scientific community in a similar field are given the research to review and then give their opinions on it.
They don't all do a bunch of experiments.
Perhaps they do, but I'm not familiar with that.
I actually looked up the peer review process.
Peer review is people looking over the research and checking to see if it makes sense.
And there you go.
Asking Brett himself to propose a hypothesis, test them, and then share his method would be for him to do an outright new study.
If Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist, wants to assess the available data, he is allowed to.
Granted, I think there are many studies that say good things and many that say bad things, so I don't completely agree with Bret Weinstein, although I have to admit, I'm not an evolutionary biologist!
So you know what?
Hey!
Take it up with your family practitioner or whatever.
My response was, that's not the normal scientific process.
Brett isn't engaging in typical peer review, but I would say an evolutionary biologist discussing his review of existing research is well within the bounds of acceptable.
Why does YouTube ban some studies, but not others?
That's right.
I, as I mentioned, run the risk of getting banned.
I've reached out to Google and they said, here are the specific things you have to say in order to be allowed to talk about this.
Here are the specific things you just can't say, period.
I'm like, okay, well, you know, I don't need to, I don't necessarily want to say the exact same things as Brett anyway.
But there's a problem.
I can't even tell you what Brett said, for the most part, and I think that's stupid.
And I have a tweet about it.
I don't even know if I can read you the joke tweet.
I don't think I can.
But just think about this.
People are getting medical procedures, albeit small ones, to vaccine, done by strangers, in bars, while they're drunk, in order to win a million bucks!
That is insane!
Sorry, I'm gonna say it.
You want me, YouTube, you say in the rules, make sure you don't discourage people from seeing their doctor and you advise them to go see a doctor?
Oh, absolutely!
But could you imagine, can you imagine, the absolute psychosis of being drunk in a bar and someone walking up to you with a needle and saying, you ready?
I'm gonna inject you with this.
They're not doctors, in some instances.
Some of them are doctors.
But they're not your doctor.
They don't know what you've been through.
They don't know what medications you're on.
So this is my problem.
That you have this double standard.
Where juvenile can come out and tell you to vax that thing up.
That the Biden administration will go door to door.
Yet you cannot question in any way.
That you actually are allowed to talk about the advocacy of strangers injecting.
There's a video of some guy in a 7-Eleven and there's these like army guys walk in and they ask the 7-Eleven guy to get vaccinated and they do it right there on the spot.
I'm like, yo, how is YouTube allowing that?
How is YouTube allowing people to advocate for that?
That blows my mind.
That's why I advocate for one thing.
I legitimately and genuinely believe it.
I ain't gonna go to a plumber and ask him to build a house.
I'm not gonna go to a carpenter and ask him to fix my toilet.
And when it comes to my health and issues, I can only hope that the doctors I go to are good at what they do.
That's about it.
This whole thing is dumb.
Mostly the censorship, that's what I mean.
That we can't have these real conversations that need to happen.
The censorship of Brett Weinstein is wrong.
Even though I don't think he's a medical doctor, and he shouldn't be recommending medical treatments to individuals, I think in this instance he's talking about the research.
