S5241 - Biden Set To Effectively Surrender Ukraine To Russia, Admin Foreign Policy DESTROYS Biden Approval
Biden Set To Effectively Surrender Ukraine To Russia, Admin Foreign Policy DESTROYS Biden Approval. The democrat's foreign policy failures have precipitated a collapsing approval rating.
While it may be necessary to avoid ground conflict with Russia, considering Biden's past dealings with Ukraine its hard to believe these are noble decisions. Earlier in the year Biden waived sanctions on the Nordstream 2 pipeline. Many called this a major prize for Vladimir Putin.
Media in the meantime is working overtime to cover up a failing economy, inflation, and Biden's sinking approval.
#Ukraine
#BIden
#Russia
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is December 9th, 2021, and our first story, Biden is losing the Ukraine front to Russia.
Administration officials are actually suggesting that Biden will tell Ukraine to cede eastern territory to Russian-backed separatists, an effective surrender.
But I gotta be honest, if this avoids a ground war, it's probably a good thing because Ukraine's borders are none of our business.
In our next story, Alec Baldwin's story is just getting weirder, claiming he didn't even know he shot Helena Hutchins for 45 minutes.
Now that just doesn't add up.
And in our last story, Pfizer's CEO says 4th COVID vaccine may be needed due to Omicron, and finally, many regular people are waking up saying, wait a minute, something doesn't make sense.
Now if you like the show, give us a good review, leave us 5 stars, and if you really like the show, please tell your friends about it.
Now, let's get into the first story.
In August, Joe Biden absolutely botched the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, something many of us had been celebrating as a good move, finally getting out of the region.
We shouldn't have been there.
But Biden did insane things, or at least his leadership did.
Well, under his leadership, his command did, abandoning Bagram Air Force Base.
And this precipitated a major decline in Joe Biden's approval rating.
Right now, I have a story that is one of the most absurd That I've ever seen from the AP, Biden administration officials are suggesting they are effectively going to cede Ukraine's eastern front to Russia.
Now, I suppose that may be a good thing if it means we avoid a ground war.
When Russia started building up troops on their western border, the eastern border of Ukraine, there was fear that the US would send boots on the ground or more weapons to Ukraine, sparking a larger conflict.
And we don't want that.
But even Republicans, a Republican senator out of Mississippi, said boots on the ground, on the table, nuclear preemptive strike on the table, all of that bad news.
It is bad.
Considering we don't want to go to war with Russia, perhaps this is the best thing that Joe Biden can do.
It is said that he will tell Ukraine to effectively cede some autonomy to the Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
And this to me is absolutely insane.
I was on the ground at the start of this conflict, the Euromaidan movement.
I was there for about a month or two, and I got to see a lot of what was going on.
It was very different back then.
But eventually, this boiled over into what many people were saying may be a civil war in Ukraine.
Eventually, however, things kind of simmered down, and people started saying it was just a separatist movement.
But that was during the Trump years.
Things kind of got quiet.
Once Joe Biden gets back in, things start ramping up.
Now, here's where it gets absolutely worse.
Joe Biden recently waived sanctions on a gas pipeline, the Nord Stream 2.
And many people were wondering why Biden was effectively giving this up to Russia.
While Donald Trump was president, we kept hearing in the media that Putin had kompromat on Donald Trump.
And what what is it?
Nancy Pelosi tweeting several times.
What could he possibly have on Trump that is allowing Trump to just ignore Russia?
Well now, based on what Joe Biden is doing, it seems more like Putin has compromised on him.
Or it may just be that once again, Joe Biden's leadership is a disaster for the United States.
Now, I don't know.
Why the U.S.
cares all that much about Ukraine?
It seems like they care about it more than they should.
The bigger threat we face is in the South China Sea.
It's Taiwan.
It is Vietnamese fishing boats being sunk.
It is the militarized atolls from China.
It is China sending their fleets along Hawaiian and Alaskan waters.
But the media wants you to believe that it's all Russia, Russia, Russia.
So maybe it's not the worst thing in the world that Biden's basically walking away from this, but this does have a lot to do with Western power, NATO, and what Russia does represent.
Russia is not an ally of the United States, and as Steve Bannon told me, they should be.
Instead, the U.S.
is pushing them away and leading them to start working with China, which just means if China does rise up, and they are, and it comes to a kinetic war, Well, then the U.S.
is going to be left holding an empty bag.
The U.S.
needs allies.
It needs allies in Russia.
It needs allies in India.
But instead, it's floundering.
And now we've got China moving into Afghanistan.
Joe Biden screwed that up.
And it seems like Joe Biden is once again screwing this up.
It's bad.
At the same time, I can point this out.
Yesterday, I covered a story.
It was reported that the White House had been secretly meeting with members of the media trying to garner favorable coverage.
And lo and behold, now we're starting to get it trending on Twitter.
The Biden boom, things are better than ever.
No, it really feels like Biden is extracting this country and burning it to the ground.
And what's happening is that China is rising up and will eventually displace the United States.
So congratulations, Americans, you voted for this.
Not everybody I know, but some people did.
Just like those in big blue cities who keep voting for their own destruction, they do it.
So I look at what's happening with a bit of pessimism.
I don't think it's all bad.
I certainly think come 2024, there can be a major shift.
But it's only if people pay attention, wake up, get active in their local elections, get active in the Republican primaries and get some real leadership in our government.
For the time being, this is where we're at.
I want to stress before we get started, if what Biden is doing does avoid a war, a ground war, maybe it's a good thing.
Maybe this is the best they have.
So I don't want to be overly critical because I do not want to see conflict escalate in the region or the U.S.
have to enter.
But if they're going to cede autonomy to the Russian back separatist movements, then Ukraine is basically falling and Biden's basically backing off.
Russia should not have the ability to do this.
At the same time, I don't know if we're the country that should be doing anything at all to try and prevent what's happening in the region.
Let's read the news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments of all of our shows, including the TimCast IRL Podcast.
We had Jack Murphy on the other day, Steve Bannon the other day, and we were talking about censorship and what was going on with YouTube and why we do what we do.
You definitely want to check that out.
As a member, you're helping support my work here with these segments, as well as all of our journalists.
We just hired a new journalist.
We're going to be hiring more.
We've got more boots on the ground.
We want to expand.
We want to make more.
Good factual news, real news.
We need your support as a member, so go to timcast.com to become a member.
It's the only way to do it, but don't forget to like this video right now, subscribe to this channel, and share the video if you really want to help.
Let's read the first story from the Associated Press.
NATO, Ukraine autonomy pose diplomatic challenges for Biden.
The AP reports, President Joe Biden said this week the U.S.
would take a more direct role in diplomacy to address Vladimir Putin's security concerns over Ukraine, part of a broader effort to dissuade the Russian leader from a destabilizing invasion of its Western neighbor.
But any negotiations to peacefully resolve Europe's tangled East-West rivalries will present minefields for the U.S.
president.
Biden made his offer of American diplomacy during a two-hour online session with Putin on Tuesday.
He offered joining the Europeans in negotiations not just to settle the conflicts in eastern Ukraine, but to address Putin's larger strategic objections to NATO, expanding its membership and building military capacity ever closer to Russia's borders.
Biden spoke by phone Thursday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, although no details were available immediately after the discussion.
Administration officials have suggested that the U.S.
will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy to eastern Ukrainian lands now controlled by Russian-backed separatists who rose up against Kiev in 2014.
An undefined special status for those areas was laid out in an ambiguous European-brokered peace deal in 2015, but it's never taken hold.
Biden also will have to finesse Ukraine's desire to join NATO.
The US and NATO reject Putin's demands that guarantee Ukraine won't be admitted to the Western military alliance.
But senior State Department officials have told Ukraine that NATO membership is unlikely to be approved in the next decade, according to a person familiar with those private talks who spoke on condition of anonymity.
I want to stress this point.
When I was there on the ground, The reporting I saw, this is late 2013.
The reporting that I saw, and that was being conveyed to me, is that this conflict was basically Russia's fears that if Ukraine joins NATO, Russia now has a NATO nation right on its border.
Also, Crimea.
Russia's only warm water port.
They needed access.
They have military operations there, and if Ukraine went to NATO or the European Union, it could threaten their ability to access the Black Sea, go out through the Suez Canal or through the Mediterranean, all of that stuff.
I think Suez Canal.
Could be getting my geography wrong.
So Russia, what do they do?
Start staging on the eastern front of Ukraine, on their western front.
Eventually, they move into Crimea.
Quote unquote, elections are held.
And then the region of Crimea is annexed by Russia.
And they say, see, everybody loves this.
The US, NATO, the EU effectively did nothing.
But what can we do?
Many people in the United States do not see a reason for us to engage in war over Ukraine.
And I have to say, I agree, as much as I don't like what Russia is doing, I don't see how it's any of our business.
There's questions, though.
We can provide Ukraine, as you know, NATO or the United States, with weapons, like Donald Trump did.
He sold them weapons.
And he said, look, this is your thing.
Buy the weapons, do your thing.
But Ukraine can't stand a chance against Russia.
To be completely honest, Russia's not that big of a threat to us either.
They have great hackers, cyber capabilities, but they're a relatively small nation compared to Western powers, NATO countries, the European Union, United States, etc.
But this is still bad for Joe Biden, because across the board, Joe Biden has proven to be a weak and ineffective leader.
This didn't happen during Donald Trump's tenure.
When Donald Trump had his one term, what did we get?
All of this slowed to a halt.
I think Vladimir Putin was genuinely concerned.
Trump was pulling troops out of the Middle East, and Putin was probably thinking, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna engage with this hothead.
But the media kept saying Trump was the one who was compromised by Putin.
That's insane.
Trump was the one who sold the weapons to Ukraine.
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.
Now, Joe Biden is urging, his administration is going to urge Ukraine to cede that territory.
And what about Nord Stream 2?
Look, I'm not saying that there's actual compromise on Joe Biden.
I'm just saying it seems like he's doing a relatively bad job on the surface.
I want to stress this.
If Russia is adamant on staging a war in Ukraine, and Joe Biden's only option is to tell Ukraine to stave off war, cede autonomy to this region, it's probably the best we can do.
Or at the very least, it seems that way.
I absolutely do not want to rag on Biden if this is his best option for avoiding ground war.
That being said, it's part of a larger trend, and there was no discernible reason why Biden gave up Nord Stream 2, waiving sanctions on Russia.
Now he's claiming its leverage.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, for Biden, the challenge will be encouraging Kiev to accept some of the facts on the ground in eastern Ukraine without appearing to cave to Putin, a perception that could embolden the Russian leader and unleash a fresh line of condemnations by Republicans as Biden's popularity is already in decline.
Ukraine may be asked, can you make some step forward on these areas?
Said Steven Pfeiffer, a former U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine.
Quote, But I don't see Washington pushing Ukrainians to take steps that would compromise their sovereignty or the ability of the national government when it came to making decisions.
The Biden administration has repeatedly stated its unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
They're going to say Ukraine, a former Soviet Republic with deep cultural and historical ties to Russia, has in recent years sought closer integration with the West and membership in NATO.
The alliance has held out the promise of membership, but has declined to set a timeline.
Even before the current crisis, Ukraine was a long way from joining.
They're going to mention National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stressed at a White House briefing after Biden's call with Putin that there was a delivery of defense assistance to Ukraine just very recently, and that will continue.
If it is true, and I want to stress if, administration officials have suggested the U.S.
will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy to eastern Ukrainian lands now controlled by Russian-backed separatists, granting them an undefined special status, This is the U.S.
faltering, effectively giving up on the conflict.
Russia is building up on the border.
There were concerns that Ukraine would not be able to handle what would happen if Russia invades.
And if Ukraine now starts pushing back, saying, OK, we're going to give you guys some control, that just means Russia has the ability to move in with influence, not militaristically.
Perhaps Biden is just trying to sweep this under the rug.
Perhaps he's thinking, look, We don't want troops entering.
That will look really bad for me.
How about we just cede some of that control already to Russian influence?
And they criticize Donald Trump.
Take a look at this from the BBC.
Nord Stream 2.
Biden waives U.S.
sanction on Russian pipeline.
Critics say the pipeline is a major geopolitical prize for the Kremlin.
This is back in May.
Why did Biden do this?
The Biden administration has waived sanctions on a company building a controversial gas pipeline between Russia and Germany.
There you go.
This is the Nord Stream pipeline from Viborg going down.
Nord Stream 2 is from Usluga into Greifswald.
What's the world reaction?
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia and the U.S.
had a series of serious differences but should work together in spheres where interests collide.
Okay.
So Biden, the Biden administration says, we're going to waive sanctions on this.
Where are we now?
Just a couple days ago, New York Post, U.S.
says natural gas pipeline is leverage against Russia offensive in Ukraine.
Maybe.
Maybe Biden was playing 4D chess.
Maybe he said, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to set them up.
We're going to get them construction on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline so they're invested in it.
Then we will have leverage over them because if they try to do anything with Ukraine, we can always say, ah, look how much money you're going to lose if we now interfere with Nord Stream 2 and shut her down.
But I think it's an absurd proposition.
I can't believe that's true.
I think Biden is just screwing this one up.
Russia's attitude has to be that Ukraine is substantially more important than one gas pipeline.
They've already got the Gazprom pipeline going through Ukraine in the first place.
So if they're going to defend a pipeline, they're going to be like, look, we'll take the Eastern Front.
We'll take Ukraine.
We need it.
And we don't want NATO moving closer to our borders.
Pipeline to pipeline.
I think it's silly and absurd.
And they want to criticize Donald Trump.
Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine back October 1st, 2019 was reported.
They say the Trump administration first approved the sale of javelins to Ukraine in 2017.
Trump immediately started arming these guys.
Look, I don't know what's going on, but I can tell you this.
When it comes to Ukraine, I don't trust Joe Biden.
So if they come out and they say that they're telling Ukraine to cede, I do not trust Joe Biden because I investigated to in depth, not like I didn't dedicate a year of my life.
I dedicated several weeks covering the story of Joe Biden and Burisma and what he was doing.
And he is crooked.
He went to the president.
Fire the prosecutor, he said.
The prosecutor had open investigations into my cola, my cola's lot.
Chesky, the founder of Burisma, Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was on the board of Burisma.
If Burisma got it, if the Zlochevsky investigation turned up information that implicated Burisma, it would have been bad for Hunter.
And now we get all the information from the laptop.
It's being reported that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden shared bank accounts, or at least one.
So Hunter Biden's getting 83 or whatever thousand dollars per month.
And that money's going into a bank account that what?
He shares with his dad?
Joe Biden shows up to Ukraine and says, fire the prosecutor or you're not getting a billion dollars or whatever in aid from the U.S.
government.
Quid pro quo.
Now Joe Biden's telling them cede to the Russian-backed separatists?
I don't trust this guy, sorry.
I do not trust Joe Biden to be doing the right thing for the Ukrainian people or the American people.
Tucker Carlson comes out.
I love this.
And what did Tucker say?
On his show, he said, why do we care more about Ukraine's border than our own border?
Tucker's right!
You know what?
There's a really funny story right now.
Doug Ducey in Arizona was giving a press conference on the border crisis, and as he's speaking at a podium with a bunch of press, illegal immigrants walk right through the border and stand there and watch.
That's how screwed up our border is.
That's why I'm going to say for the third or fourth, whatever time, if Joe Biden's basically like, Ukraine, we ain't helping you.
You are not our country.
We can't do anything for your border.
Maybe you should give up some of this territory.
Give it some autonomy to the Russian back separatists.
Okay.
Maybe we shouldn't be dealing with it.
It shouldn't be our problem.
Look how the media handles this.
Independent.
Now there, a left-leaning source says, Tucker Carlson defends Putin over Ukraine troop movements, saying he just wants to keep his border safe.
Quote, at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin, who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe, claims the Fox News host.
I don't know if I agree with Tucker that Putin does not want to invade Western Europe.
I certainly think it's fair to say, but at least he wants to get close, invading Eastern Europe.
So, would Vladimir Putin like full control over Europe?
I'd imagine, same way the EU or, you know, NATO would like to have influence over the sphere as well.
Does that mean that Putin is actually planning on doing anything as crazy as invading Western Europe?
No, probably not.
But I'll tell you this, how do you think Russia feels that NATO is encroaching on Ukraine and Eastern Europe?
They're probably like, hey, we don't like it.
And then what?
You're gonna make the argument that the West, that NATO and the US doesn't want to invade Eastern Europe?
I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Biden did.
We have this story from Forbes.
Tucker Carlson accused of promoting Russian propaganda as Putin masses forces on Ukraine border.
This is silly.
It's absolutely silly.
I really, really am stressing the point about the decision Biden's making being, I think, just showing his lack of leadership.
But I stress this point because I'm not going to pretend like I have better answers.
I mean, many of you may have stronger opinions or better answers.
Maybe the issue is literally just arming Ukraine to the teeth and saying, look, we'll sell you weapons, do your thing.
But I really don't want war.
I agree with Tucker.
We shouldn't be worried about this.
We should be focused on our own border.
I just don't believe that Joe Biden has good intentions because of the Burisma scandal.
And I especially don't believe Joe Biden will do anything for our own border.
I certainly think he's got ulterior motives, especially with with waiving the sanctions in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Now, let me show you where the news is at today.
Stop being mean to me, says Daily Mail.
White House holds secret meetings with news organizations to demand better publicity for Biden, as Washington Post columnist claims President is being treated worse than Trump.
I covered this in greater detail yesterday.
It's amazing how this is all basically being proven to just literally be happening.
So the Biden administration has private meetings with the press urging positive coverage.
And what happens?
The media obliges.
CNN's Don Lemon is blasted for literally singing Biden's praises over 5-cent drop in gas prices after White House had secret meetings with journalists begging for better press.
It's incredible because CNN's the one who exposed this.
You ready for the good stuff?
Here's the good stuff from the Hill.
Biden is delivering the fastest economic recovery in history.
Why hasn't anyone noticed?
I don't know.
Maybe it's because my food prices are way up, gas prices are way up, property prices are way up, and people are struggling.
There's more COVID deaths this year than last year.
So what'd you get?
Now, to be fair, it's an opinion piece from The Hill.
They say it doesn't reflect their views, but come on, here we go.
This op-ed says, Democrats are faced with a sticky problem.
The economy is nearing full employment after businesses added 210,000 jobs in November.
Those numbers are abysmal!
Geez.
Labor force participation climbed to its highest level since the pandemic—since the pandemic—and wages are rising across many industries.
Yet most voters are increasingly pessimistic about President Biden's economic stewardship.
How are they claiming that 210,000 jobs are good?
There are, I think, what, double the amount of job vacancies as there are people looking for work?
One of the problems here with that number is that these people can't take any job.
Let's say you're a petroleum engineer.
You can't go and be a school teacher.
So there could be school teacher openings and you can't find work.
The economy is fractured and broken.
And they want to say, but it's the best.
It's the best.
Oh, here we go.
I love this one from the Washington Monthly.
It's a Biden boom and no one has noticed yet.
Amazing!
If the current high levels of economic job and income growth continue, the 2022 midterms could look different than most are predicting.
What is this, an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Convince everybody that everything's better than ever, and they'll just go along with it and believe it's true and be like, I guess Biden is good.
While many people are uncomfortable communicating bad news, Democrats have a problem these days talking about the good news, especially on the economy.
Based on the data, President Biden and the Democratic Congress are set to preside over the strongest two-year performance on growth, jobs, and income in decades, so long as the current cycle of inflation eases.
In 2022, companies plan to give biggest raises in more than decade.
Higher salaries for new employees will help push payroll costs up an average of 3.9%.
Conference board research shows inflation plays a role.
Let me simplify this for you.
People can't afford to eat or drive.
So when they go to jobs, they say, you've got to pay more than that.
That's it.
And so the companies are like, I guess so.
And that means they're gonna have to raise prices across the board.
Now, I'm not a big fan of a hard minimum wage.
I'm not a fan of necessarily just getting rid of it.
We'll have to... I'm not gonna pretend like I know the answers to that problem.
What I can say is, artificially increasing wages doesn't work the way these people think it does.
So right now, on the left, they're saying, just crank up wages.
Okay.
I'll tell you what happens.
They don't want to admit it because they look at places like Denmark and Finland and they're like, they have a $20 minimum wage for their fast food restaurants and a burger only costs $1.80.
And they have healthcare and blah blah blah.
Sure, small countries, I get it.
Well, I actually, this is, I'll use an anecdote, an anecdote isn't, the plural of anecdote is not data, but I was talking to an accounting firm who said that when New Jersey raised their minimum wage, They lost like 30% or some ridiculous number of their clients because many of these small businesses can't afford it.
Driving up the minimum wage may negatively impact Walmart, who can afford it, but it's devastating for small businesses.
You know, even Walmart's gonna be like, okay, we're gonna lose X dollars.
But a mom-and-pop shop, where the owners are making like $40,000 a year, and their employees are getting paid $12 an hour, all of a sudden I have to pay $3 more per person, per hour.
All of a sudden they're like, we are no longer able to survive.
So what do they do?
They shut down.
Where do they go work?
I don't know, maybe they retire?
Or go work for the big box stores.
Here's what I find funny.
You can certainly find stories in American mainstream press that are negative towards Democrats on the economy and otherwise.
It's just funny to see that there are stories popping up now after this Biden push to try and claim the economy was doing well.
But what happens when you go to Canada?
This one I like.
Fortune.
This one is from November 30th, apparently before the Biden meetings.
Food prices are already at a 10-year high.
There's no relief coming in 2022, a grim new report says.
Okay, well that's American press.
But, uh, what is this?
It's a Biden boom?
What about the fastest economic recovery?
How come only two weeks ago they were like, food prices are already at a 10-year high?
Alright, let's throw to Canada.
From CBC.
We'll all be paying a lot more for food next year, says Canada's food price report.
2022 expected to see the biggest annual increase in food bills on record, new report says.
We got this one from globalnews.ca.
Canadians are about to face more sticker shock at the grocery store.
December 9th, 6am.
That's this morning.
Incredible.
So in Canada, they're in serious trouble.
I mean, it's not the end of the world, but people are gonna be facing sticker shock as prices skyrocket.
I suppose the good news is that if the cost of food goes over $950 in San Francisco, it'll stop all the mass looting, because then they can finally prosecute these people.
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 and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
But you've got media that's trying to lie to protect Joe Biden.
That's the game.
It's hard to know what the right moves are going to be in foreign policy.
But it is shocking to me to see that Biden's basically just saying, like, yo, we out.
We got nothing here.
We're not going to even, you know, have any diplomacy.
We're just going to tell Ukraine, back off.
Let them have it.
Meanwhile, in the United States, more bad leadership.
I gotta say, I really don't have all the answers when it comes to foreign policy.
Okay, there's just some things I think are absolutely wrong.
When it came to Afghanistan, I felt like the U.S.
presence there was ridiculous and we shouldn't have been.
It was like remnants of the Cold War.
People were like, should we pull our troops out of South Korea too?
And I'm like, that's a great question.
Yeah, maybe we should.
What are the justifications for us being in South Korea?
North Korea?
Alright, well, I like South Korea.
It's a very modern place, and a lot of people believed that's what we could do with Afghanistan.
The problem is, South Korea, the U.S.
partnership with South Koreans wasn't, for the most part, I'll say, you know, because I don't know every aspect of history, an invasion on false pretexts.
There was an actual war.
There was the spread of communism, and the U.S.
came in to protect the people from the communist expansion, and they were able to preserve South Korea, provide them aid, Now South Korea's got one of the biggest companies in the world, Samsung, and they're doing great.
I think Samsung is like the majority of their GDP, it's crazy.
Now, with Afghanistan, we invaded because we were looking for some, you know, because of 9-11, we were looking for these terrorists, but then it ended up becoming this weird occupation to try and shape the nation, nation building.
And people said, you know, given a long enough period of time, it could turn out to be like South Korea.
Maybe it could have been.
Maybe it could have been.
I don't blame Trump for this.
I felt like we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and it was a disaster across the board.
The problem is Joe Biden's withdrawal was just botched on purpose, like they wanted Afghanistan to fall.
Abandoning the Air Force Base in the middle of the night, not telling the Afghan Army so that looters would just come and smash it up.
It's almost like the Biden admin wanted Bagram to fall.
And then in turn, the Afghans, you know, national forces, defense forces.
It's kind of sad.
The Afghan commandos actually tried to defend themselves from the Taliban.
But the U.S.
gave no advanced warning, didn't give any logistics, just literally was like, we out.
Pulled the rug out from under them.
It didn't have to be that way.
You know, talking to Kash Patel and Peter Navarro, you know, working in the Trump administration, they had a plan for Afghanistan.
They had worked out a great plan.
Biden botched the whole thing.
And I think that's why his approval rating tanked so much in August.
Not to mention the economy, of course, like I said.
Is that what we can expect?
If that's the case, expect to get real bad.
There's good news for everybody!
Is that what they say?
here are the predictions for 2022. Is that what we can expect? If that's the case, expect to get real
bad. November 11th, inflation pushes income tax brackets higher for 2022. There's good news for
everybody. Is that what they say? They're like, inflation's actually a good thing.
You're in a lower tax bracket now.
Great.
The cost of cereal just went up 20%, or it's about to.
Food is through the roof.
Milk, bread, and eggs, that's expensive, but I'm gonna save 50 bucks on my taxes.
Great.
I'll use that money towards, you know, three days worth of groceries, now that it's super expensive.
Maybe three days is a bit much.
We went shopping.
We went to the grocery store out here, and it was shocking to me because we had about a third of the cart full, and it was like $700.
And we're just buying like basic necessities like some lunch meat.
We are getting like whipped cream and strawberries.
I can certainly say that American energy independence is extremely important for our economy to make things better.
I would not be surprised if Biden is doing this intentionally.
I'll tell you why.
Under Donald Trump, we saw a major economic boom.
I don't believe that people like Biden want that to happen.
I think they want tapered and controlled economic growth.
They want us to not be able to grow too fast because they want economic normalization.
Now, I'm not going so far as to say there's a grand globalist conspiracy for a one-world currency or anything like that, though I'm sure some people fantasize about that and they have power.
What I'm saying is that Joe Biden wants to make it easier for corporations to move and make money.
Corporation wants to go from the U.S.
to China.
You know, it's easier if there's economic normalization.
Different and better laws.
They can make more money.
They don't necessarily want to pay more money so it can't have its detriments.
But economic normalization is a good thing.
That basically means a unit of currency in the U.S.
is more equal to a unit of currency in other countries.
So it's easier to exchange things.
Faster, I guess.
Donald Trump's attitude was, nah, America first.
There are a lot of people that believe, and I genuinely think it's true, they want a one-world authority.
They already exist.
There's the International Monetary Fund, there's the Swift payment system, there's the UN, there's NATO, etc.
So we're already inching that direction.
But they're not people who believe in American values, and therein lies the big problem.
I, for one, actually would like to see a functioning one-world government.
I know, I can already hear a lot of people who are national saying that's wrong, but hold on.
I'm not saying that we would lose our borders.
I'm not saying that we would lose our values.
I'm saying that we would be like, hey, we have an international court system to prevent war from happening.
Like, when Russia pulls something like this, every country in the world says it's going to be adjudicated in a courtroom.
More importantly, our values—individual liberty, freedom, inalienable rights—must persist.
We cannot allow foreign countries or corporations to come and intervene and cause those problems.
So I'm okay with grand-scale international efforts and a unified authority dealing with international conflict, but internal conflict will be resolved among the people and our rights will be preserved, and more importantly, I think the rights that we have here should be You know, to a certain degree, extended to people in other countries.
That is to say, I would prefer to see other countries have similar values to the United States, not the other way around.
The problem is, the globalists, as they're called, are more about Chinese state communist values.
That's the problem.
I don't have all the answers, my friends, but I can tell you this, I think Joe Biden is screwing everything up.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Become a member at TimCast.com.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
Things have not been going well for Alec Baldwin.
The other day, reporter John Levine was walking through New York and saw Baldwin and decided to ask him some questions, particularly that Alec Baldwin had claimed in an interview that he didn't pull the trigger.
And this reporter said, did you really not pull the trigger?
And Alec Baldwin turns around.
Starts walking towards the guy at an accelerated rate.
I don't want to say he charged at him, that's what some media outlets have said.
But he walks up to John and he's like, you can't take photos on private property!
And then Hilaria, I think it's Hilaria, you know, pushes him back.
And this became a big story in and of itself that Alec Baldwin had lashed out at a reporter when questioned on street about fatal rust shooting.
The dude seems to be breaking down his interview.
And statements made by other people on set, I believe, have just further incriminated him.
So we have a bit of an update across the board on what's going on here.
We have this story from last week.
Rust AD agrees Baldwin didn't pull trigger, but Sheriff's not convinced.
Baldwin may actually get criminally charged.
Most people say involuntary manslaughter.
It's hard to know exactly what happened, but Baldwin's story is that he pulled the hammer back, and it just went off.
And as you probably have heard, but in a recent interview, he gave details where he was like, I was pulling out the gun and I was showing Helena, who's a cinematographer, she was telling me where to point it, she told me to pull the hammer back, and then it went off.
I don't believe that for a second.
But interestingly, as much as we do have Washington Post and CNN bringing in experts which call into question Alec Baldwin's version of events, we have what may be one of the funniest stories I've seen written about this.
It's a listicle from BuzzFeed.com.
23 eye-opening details Alec Baldwin revealed in his first interview since the Rust Prop Gun accident.
This whole thing is a strange, is a creepy defense of Alec Baldwin when, as far as I can tell, The current circumstantial evidence and statements we have so far does implicate him in at least involuntary manslaughter.
But when you read BuzzFeed, they're really trying to protect this guy.
Surprise, surprise.
Many people have said, well, you know, look, Alec Baldwin is a party member, so he's not going to face any repercussions from this.
Let me just break this down, and I want to show you this BuzzFeed story, because most of you probably know the story, but for those that don't, Alec Baldwin claims that he never pulled the trigger, he was filming a movie called Rust, the cinematographer got shot.
Now, let me wind this all back and explain to you some context before we read what BuzzFeed is saying, which is insane.
Alec Baldwin's story, what it would have to be, that he knew he wasn't supposed to be receiving the gun from somebody who was not supposed to be handling the gun.
He said, I didn't check it because if I manipulated it, they would take it away from me.
But he receives the gun from the AED, someone who's not trained to be handling it, and that's okay with him.
Then it would have to be that someone accidentally put live bullets in the gun AND That the single-action revolvers, I believe they have a sear, most, I believe all firearms do, it's what holds the hammer back, would have had to have been broken.
Now here's a big revelation.
The Rust AD associate director, or assistant director, claimed that, yes, Alec Baldwin said he didn't pull the trigger, and he's correct, he didn't.
That was a mistake.
What he actually says was that, I think he said that his finger was off the trigger and was actually never in the trigger guard.
That actually is incriminating.
And a big mistake.
If the argument was that Or potentially, we'll see what happens with the investigation of the gun, but I think this actually does incriminate this statement.
Because the only way that gun's going to go off is if Alec Baldwin had his finger on the trigger already when he pulled the hammer back, so the hammer was just freely moving.
That's the only thing that really makes sense, other than an insane series of coincidences occurred, and the gun's sear had been damaged for some reason, even though people had just been using it, they said?
Now, it could be, could be.
There are reports that there were misfires, they say.
Well, misfire's the wrong term.
Negligent discharge, perhaps.
It actually could be that the sear was damaged, so I'll give that one to Alec Baldwin.
And that means when they pull the hammer back, there was no mechanism to stop the hammer from going forward.
So while a lot of experts have come out and said the only way that would have happened is if Alec Baldwin had the trigger depressed and not realizing it, and he pulled the hammer back and it would just go off. I
kind of don't believe that they're filming a movie, it's a Western, and while Alec Baldwin's
holding the revolver, he has proper trigger discipline. That doesn't seem like something movies
do. When movies are showing someone with a gun, their fingers are always on the trigger
when they pull the hammer back, always.
Now, in modern movies, when they have rifles, they're doing proper trigger and muzzle discipline, guns pointed down and their fingers off the trigger, depending on the character.
But if we're talking about an old Western, he'd have his finger on the trigger.
That's just Hollywood.
Just think about it for two seconds.
Imagine a Western where a guy's holding a revolver with his finger out of the trigger guard when he pulls the hammer back.
I just can't see that.
But I saw this article from BuzzFeed.
Absolutely had to bring it up.
Check this out.
23 eye-opening details Alec Baldwin revealed in his first interview since the Rust Prop Gun accident.
We're gonna break this down and fact-check BuzzFeed's strange framing.
They're going to mention that, you know, on August 21st, this thing happened and Helena Hutchins was shot.
They say, one, Alex said he and Helena were new friends and collaborated frequently during the filming of Rust.
When I met her, I knew she had the spark Alex described.
I knew she had that flint to her that she was going to get that day's work done and get the shots she wanted.
This is an insane start to this article.
Alec Baldwin initially said, we were friends.
We were friends.
But then in the interview says that he had actually just met her for the first time.
So they were new friends.
That's what BuzzFeed says.
Think about what he just said.
I knew she had that flint.
She was gonna get the day's work done and she got the shots she wanted.
It doesn't sound collaborative.
It doesn't sound like they were friends.
If you actually listen to the interview, he says she was intense.
It doesn't sound like someone who's at work.
You don't know this person and they're intense.
Let me just put it this way.
You get a new job.
You meet Bob for the first time, and someone asks you, uh, so are you friends with Bob?
I just met him.
Really?
What do you think about him?
He's intense.
That's not a compliment.
That is not saying a good thing about someone.
But I love how BuzzFeed says they're new friends.
Right.
This framing has it seem like Alec Baldwin would never have hurt her.
Look at this one.
Look what they do next.
This was only the second film that the set armorer 24-year-old Hannah Gutierrez-Reed worked on.
Hannah was also the assistant prop manager.
Her attorney now says that she was stretched in an inappropriate way because she had two jobs she was responsible for.
However, Alex says he never heard any complaints from Hannah or the prop department.
I said this, you know, last month.
Why would we start this conversation assuming it was the one person trained to handle the weapon who made the mistake of loading live rounds into it and then Giving it to the AD who wasn't supposed to be handing it to Alec Baldwin, and then accidentally went off, even though Alec Baldwin's finger was not in the trigger guard, and he was told by Helena to aim the gun at her and pull the trigger back.
Yo, this story, their version of events, gets crazier every step of the way.
And that's what BuzzFeed is alluding to, essentially.
It was only her second film, I mean...
So what?
What does that mean about her training with firearms?
Now, I will point out, Helena Hutchin, I'm sorry, I keep mixing their names, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, in this image, holding these guns, has her fingers off the trigger.
So perhaps, perhaps, I want to point out this though, look what BuzzFeed even does in the title of this, Prop Gun Accident.
It's not a prop gun, that's a manipulation, it's a live firearm with real bullets in it.
They say it was a prop gun, it was an actual functioning single action revolver.
Here we go.
The first time Alex said he heard about the dysfunction on set was when Lane Looper, the first camera assistant, resigned, citing dangers on set.
How would Alec Baldwin not know that someone resigned?
Some of the concerns Lane wrote about included misfires on set.
Wrong.
Misfire typically implies the round does not discharge.
They're talking about negligent discharges.
said, quote, During the filming of gunfights on the job, things often played very fast and loose.
So far, there have been two accidental weapons discharges, Lane said in his resignation letter.
Now, to be fair, two accidental discharges could imply that there was damage to this firearm and
particularly the sear.
I can believe that.
And I think that's important to point out that potentially evidence does lead to that conclusion.
But then there's several questions to be asked.
How did a live bullet get in the gun?
Why did Alec Baldwin not check the gun?
If it is his understanding that manipulating the gun would result in it being taken away from him, why would he assume that the assistant director was a firearms expert?
This was, at the very least, involuntary manslaughter.
And there's a lot of legal experts who have come off that opinion.
I think it probably could go further than that.
The story is that... This is what Alec Baldwin has to claim.
That Hannah Gutierrez-Reed made a mistake and loaded live rounds into the gun that had been damaged, and the sear mechanism wasn't working.
I never pulled the trigger.
In fact, the AD says his finger wasn't even in the trigger guard.
But he was told by—he was then given the gun by someone who wasn't supposed to give it to him.
He was then told by Helena to point the gun at her, pull the hammer back, and then it just went off.
But that would also mean that Alec Baldwin pulled the hammer back and released it.
Now, look, I'd assume a guy who's got decades in the industry, especially with firearms, would know how to properly release a hammer without accidentally discharging it.
Perhaps the gun could have blanks in it.
Either way, it'd still be dangerous.
After you pull the hammer back, you want to release it, you slowly lower it.
If his finger wasn't on the trigger, and Baldwin did not feel the latch of the sear, I'm calling BS on their whole stupid story.
Assuming the sear is broken, that means that Alec Baldwin pulled the hammer back, but did not fire.
Check this out.
They say, During the scene, Alec was shooting with the gun.
The first assistant director allegedly declared this was a cold gun on the film set.
We've heard that before, and that's irrelevant.
In the scene that Alec was performing when the incident happened, he was supposed to pull out the gun, point it, and cock it right as the scene cuts.
He says he was never instructed to do more than that.
And so this is interesting because we had previously heard that he was not supposed to have fired the gun.
And so perhaps, I think it's fair to say, correction on previous statements and videos, perhaps it did call for him to pull the gun out and pull the hammer back, but he was not supposed to fire it.
Baldwin saying he didn't pull the trigger, Okay, let's go back to this they say Alec said he was when he was rehearsing the shot Halina Halina was looking at the monitor and telling him which direction to point the weapon in She's guiding me through how she wants to hold the gun for this angle Alec claims he pulled the guns hammer back as far as he could without cocking the actual gun as Instructed by Halina when he let go of the hammer the gun went off incriminating statement
The single-action revolver, or single-action revolvers, have a locking mechanism, and it's very, it's within millimeters.
If you're holding it, watch the video from, there's several videos of weapon experts showing you gun safety.
You pull it back even like 10%, it locks in place.
It's a safety mechanism.
You pull it back again, it clicks.
You pull it back again, it clicks all the way back.
If Alec Baldwin said he pulled the gun's hammer back as far as without cocking the actual gun, So, the sear was broken, he pulls it all the way back?
No.
If he were to pull it back even slightly, it would go back.
In fact, we've got some old Civil War weapons.
I've got a Civil War antique rifle, percussion cap, and I'm assuming this wasn't a percussion cap weapon, but they're similar.
And then I've got some flintlock stuff.
You pull it back slightly, it locks.
You try pulling the trigger, nothing happens.
At least on those weapons.
I'm not saying they're the same weapon.
Alex said it was neither in the script for the trigger to be pulled, nor did he pull it.
The AD, the AD's attorney, told ABC News that he witnessed the whole thing and agrees with Alec that he did not pull the trigger and that his finger was outside the trigger guard.
Alright.
So maybe it was a broken gun.
Still the question of why was live ammunition put inside of it?
This is an extraordinary sequence of events.
Alex said the gun was supposed to be empty and that this accident never should have happened.
I was told I was handed an empty gun.
Even if there were cosmetic rounds, nothing would have charged at all, he explained.
Alex said he initially thought Helena fainted when she fell down after being shot.
The notion that there was a live round in that gun did not dawn on me till probably 45 minutes to an hour later.
What?
Yo.
When a gun goes off, you hear it.
We call it Eye Pro and Ear Pro.
It's Eye Protection and Ear Protection.
So you go to the range, and everyone will tell you, eyes and ears.
You can't even walk into a range unless you have both of those on.
You walk through, so at least out here, you'll walk in, there's a massive heavy door.
You open it, and there's signs everywhere saying you must have ear protection and eye protection.
You walk in without it, they'll be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, and they'll stop and they'll push you out.
If you're in an outdoor range, they might say, you know, get back, get back, because a lot of the sound travels forward, so depending on where you're standing.
But typically, you gotta wear ear protection.
You do not want to be standing next to weapons when they go off.
For Alec Baldwin, to have no ear protection, fire a live round in the back.
I didn't even realize she got shot for 45 minutes.
I thought she fainted.
You didn't hear the bang of the gun?
Dude, I'm just gonna say, when I weigh all of these facts, and it keeps getting worse for Baldwin, I will say this.
I don't want to believe that he put a bullet in the gun, and then intentionally shot this lady.
You know, people have pointed out, with a single-action revolver, there's a latch on the right side, you flick it open, you slide the bullet in, but then the cylinder has to travel around before it'll fire.
I don't want to believe that Alec Baldwin did this, because it sounds crazy.
But just thinking about all the things he said and all the things that had to have occurred for this accident to have happened is just downright absurd!
Not on- Okay, so we've added a couple more to the mix.
Not- Okay, let's do this.
The armorer accidentally puts live bullets in the gun and then leaves it unattended when the assistant director picks up the gun without checking it and declaring it cold, handing it to Alec Baldwin.
Alec Baldwin, who knows he's not supposed to be given the gun by anyone but the specialist, the prop master, decides he won't check it even though it was manipulated by another person, is then told by the cinematographer to aim the gun at her and pull the hammer back, firing the gun and killing her Because the sear had been damaged, his finger was off the trigger guard, there was no depressing of the trigger, it just fired because the locking mechanism was busted, and then Alec Baldwin, not realizing there was a gunshot in the bang, thinks she just fainted and doesn't say anything or realize it.
I'm sorry, doesn't realize anything for 45 minutes to an hour later.
Yo, Alec Baldwin, Keeps incriminating himself.
Or I should say, this is incriminating.
Let me just stress that last point again.
After all of the insanity of the circumstances that led up to Alec Baldwin having shot this woman, he went on to claim the notion that there was a live round and not a dawn on me till probably 45 minutes to an hour later.
And Alec Baldwin didn't realize the gun went bang and there was recoil?
For 45 minutes to an hour later, the notion that I was alive.
So what?
She drops to the ground.
Think about this for two seconds.
She was my friend.
BuzzFeed says they were new friends.
The lady who was just standing feet in front of you collapses to the ground after the gun goes off and you walk away.
Is that his claim?
He didn't stop and say, oh, she fainted.
Is she all right?
Almost immediately after she fainted, she was there in distress, unable to move.
People were pointing that out.
And Alec Baldwin didn't realize this for 45 minutes?
Sounds to me like he pulled the hammer back, the gun fired, hit her, and then he walked away.
Now, why would he do that?
Why would Alec Baldwin just walk away after a gun went off in his hands and a woman collapsed?
Because he knew?
Because he knew that was going to happen.
He wasn't friends with her.
He didn't care about her.
Let's operate from the assumption that they were friends.
They were friends.
And as BuzzFeed put it, they were new friends.
If you're holding a gun, and you pull the hammer back, and there's a bang in your hand, and the person in front of you collapses, would you just walk away?
How would you not know they were shot for 45 minutes?
Alec Baldwin may be misunderstanding, maybe, you know, he had no sense of time.
But wouldn't you immediately then be like, oh, are you okay?
Even if she just fainted.
Let's assume everything Alec Baldwin said was true.
Alec Baldwin's standing there, the gun goes off, and she faints.
Wouldn't, within a second, he be like, Halina, are you okay?
Halina, Halina, did you faint?
What's happening?
Wouldn't he be like, can I get some help?
Medic, medic!
45 minutes.
So what does that mean?
Does that mean he walked away, and then someone was like, Alec, she was shot, and he went, oh my stars and garters, I didn't realize!
I mean the gun went off in my hand, they told me it was cold, but I didn't even think for 45 minutes, dude!
I am sick of everyone making every assumption to lead this down the path that Alec Baldwin didn't do anything wrong.
And I will shout out those analysts, Andrew Branca and Viva Frye, for talking about this and saying involuntary manslaughter.
But guys, let me ask you this.
That question right there, doesn't that escalate it?
I mean, maybe it doesn't, but the idea that the gun went off in his hand and then he did not even realize he fired a live round into the chest of him for 45 minutes, isn't that kind of an insane statement?
Shouldn't an investigator or prosecutor say, how is it that your new friend Was hit by a round.
In fact, they have the gun.
Check the sear.
Check to see if the hammer locks back.
Yo, I think this dude... I think there's real criminal charges here.
Because he's put out statements that are incriminating.
His finger wasn't on the trigger guard.
Well, if the gun works, if the sear locks the hammer in place, this guy lied.
That right there is the most incriminating thing I've seen so far because I don't know how you walk past that one.
He shoots a woman and then doesn't realize it for 45 minutes.
The same bullet went through her.
They say, allegedly, no one told Alec what had happened until he was at the police station hours later.
It was like seeing aliens.
It was utter disbelief over the idea.
It was unacceptable, the idea that it was a live round.
Bro, she was standing in front of you.
She was standing in front of you and you shot her.
And you were like, I didn't even know until I was at the police station.
What?
So what do you think happened?
She fainted and was unconscious?
Did you not stop and check?
So perhaps, perhaps it's fair to say Baldwin fired the round and she dropped and he thought she fainted and he did stay and help and say, are you okay?
How would they not know that she was shot?
She would have a bullet hole, an entry wound, right there in her chest that you'd be able to see and you would need to tend to.
So unless Alec Baldwin did not actually watch anything happening, maybe.
I love how BuzzFeed does this.
Okay, you don't need to put the zero in front of it.
It's a .45 caliber bullet.
We get it.
It was a 0.45 caliber bullet, was pulled from Joel's arm, a real bullet.
Okay, you don't need to put the zero in front of it, it's a .45 caliber bullet, we get it.
You could probably just write .45.
Alec claims he had no idea that Helena's injuries could be fatal.
At the end of his interview with the Sheriff's Department, they reportedly informed him she
had passed away.
Alec said he was embraced by Helena's husband, Matthew, when he came to town.
He was as kind as you could be.
Alex said he is most confused about why and how the gun was loaded.
I don't know how that bullet arrived in that gun.
But I'm all for doing anything that will take us to a place where this is less likely to happen again.
Okay.
Some people are saying sabotage.
Maybe.
Maybe, but look, I look at all of this, and Alec Baldwin's behavior after the fact, I don't believe that sabotage is the more likely outcome.
I believe sabotage is possible, but if I'm looking at probabilities, I'm like, 28% Alec Baldwin did it, and you know, 21% chance that someone sabotaged the gun's sear and put a live round in it so that when he pulled the hammer back.
But you know, the issue there is, How many times was he supposed to be doing this?
Alec Baldwin said he kept doing it over and over and over again.
She was saying, show me, show me, show me.
Alright, let's think about this for two seconds.
Many people have pointed out to me that with a single action revolver, when you open the latch and put the bullet in, when you open the latch on a single action, you see one chamber.
You put a bullet in, and then you have to manually rotate the cylinder clockwise, loading round after round.
If you only put one bullet in, and you pull the trigger, you pull the hammer back, and pull the trigger, it'll click, hitting nothing, or hitting a dummy round.
It will have to go around until finally it hits, right?
Until finally the live bullet is hit.
That means, if Alec Baldwin was the one who put the bullet in, and then did not rotate the chamber, but kept pulling the hammer back, when every time she said, show me, you'd pull the gun out and pull the hammer back and let it go.
Pull the gun out, pull the hammer back, let it go.
Pull the gun out, pull the hammer back, each time rotating the cylinder, until finally the round he put in reaches that mark, hits her, and then Alec Baldwin walks away.
I'm not saying that's definitive.
I'm not saying I know for sure.
I'm just saying, you know, it's possible.
George Clooney says he's always checked these weapons himself.
Now the issue is, it is interesting with a single action revolver, he would have to open it up and take out every round, and I don't think Alec Baldwin would be able to tell the difference between a cosmetic round, a squib, or a live bullet anyway.
They say, Alec said he's not very worried about being charged with a criminal offense.
I've been told by people in the know that it's highly unlikely that it would be charged with anything criminally.
That, to me, is insane.
The armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, said she filled the gun with dummy rounds and does not know where the real bullet came from.
Her attorney suggested that someone may have mixed live rounds in a box of dummies in an act of sabotage.
Alec admitted he often has vivid nightmares about the incident.
I have one question for all of this, right?
And I understand, you know, like him getting in the face of John Levine, it's a tense moment.
But this, not knowing he put a .45 through the chest of a woman that severed her spinal cord, that to me sounds like utter bullcrap.
Someone is standing in front of you.
You point a gun at him.
You pull the hammer back.
And it just goes off.
They collapse to the ground.
People are panicking.
Reports are that she couldn't move.
She was paralyzed.
And Alec Baldwin, what, walked away?
She fainted.
She fainted?
She can't move, bro.
Are you there helping her?
Are you standing nearby?
Are you asking what's going on?
What happened?
That to me is very strange.
He didn't realize until he was at the police station?
Why?
Did he not accompany his friend to the hospital?
Did he not ask everyone what happened?
Everyone else seems to know she was shot but him.
So he's either lying... Well, he's lying either way.
I mean, he's lying about not knowing she got shot, or he's lying about them being friends, at the very least.
And then when you talk about he was describing her as an intense woman, I think there was motive.
But it's also possible the gun was bad, and someone did put, you know, sabotage it or whatever.
Maybe it was the AD.
Maybe the AD handed it to him, and put a bullet in it, knowing what was gonna happen.
But I really doubt somebody manipulated this weapon in this way.
I mean, look, let me be reasonable.
Final thought on this.
It's possible that sabotage happened.
I mean, we've got to believe.
It's crazy to believe Alec Baldwin was like, I'm gonna kill this lady.
But we know he's got a temper.
But it is still crazy to believe it.
But what's crazier?
Honestly, I don't know.
I don't.
But based on everything I've heard so far, I lean at the very least towards Alec Baldwin did this.
How did the live bullet get in the gun?
How did, you know, the claims he's made, I think, it just makes me believe slightly more that he may have, that he did intentionally do this.
Arguments with the crew on set, his description of the woman, his, his, she's my friend, well actually I just met her, she was an intense woman who got what she wanted, I'm showing her, I'm showing her, I'm showing her, sounds to me like a frustrated man who knew what was going on.
But is it really worth it?
You know, to kill this woman over being frustrated and angry?
It doesn't make sense.
I mean, it can.
It's just, it seems like a long shot.
But then you look over all the other details, and I gotta be honest, it's just way more of a long shot.
I don't know if we'll find anything out.
I don't know if we'll be charged.
But the sheriff says, you know, he doesn't believe him that his finger was off the trigger.
So, we'll see.
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.
Just about a week after the Chief Medical Officer at BioNTech said, you know, we're gonna need three shots for the Omicron variant, the CEO of Pfizer says, actually, we're gonna need a fourth COVID vaccine dose sooner due to Omicron.
And you know what I gotta say?
Finally, people are starting to realize that this is never going to end.
I mean, of course, we saw the New Zealand Prime Minister saying, I don't think we're going to be ending the vaccine mandate.
I can't really do a New Zealand accent, but you get the point.
She was like, so long as there are people who need to be vaccinated, they're just going to keep going forever.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand said, well, you know, we're rolling out a booster program, so it's time to keep everybody locked in their homes.
This is where it gets really funny and fascinating, is that despite all of the evidence, we are not seeing a shift in Democrat politicians positions, and not all Democrats, but there are some Republicans, but mostly there is that divide.
The Democrats are basically on board with locking things down, except for Whitmer, Whitmer, surprisingly, is like, hey, this is kind of a problem.
Eric Adams in New York, the mayor-elect, is actually saying the Vax Mandate's a big F you to me because these things are unpopular, people don't like them, they're bad for the economy, they're bad for schools, but for the most part.
It is the rule among Democrats to want lockdowns, and it is the exception among Republicans.
Now, that's not necessarily true, but it is fairly balanced that way.
Democrats tend to be for the stuff Republicans tend not to be.
So now we are starting to see regular people start to go, hey, wait a minute.
Last week, they said get your booster.
Now they're saying a fourth shot.
Yo, they cranking out the big bucks, baby.
Government contracts?
The more they push this, the more terrified people demand it, the more they will mandate it.
But you take a look at what's going on in Florida, huh?
And everything seems to be going pretty well.
Now, I want to show you what people are saying on Reddit, because we have two articles.
Pfizer says three doses neutralizes Omicron, and then, well, actually the CEO is saying a fourth dose.
There are actually people who are like, well, I'm all in.
I'm ready.
Ryan Long has a video where he's walking around saying, you know, he's Team Pfizer.
He's an Occupy guy who hates Big Pharma, but not Pfizer.
And he actually talks to a guy in the street who's like, I got them all.
I got all the boosters.
I'm going to keep getting them.
And it's just like, all right, look.
I don't know about your health.
I don't know about it.
But I will say, at a certain point, when there is government-mandated private products, you've got to have some consideration for the political implications of why this may be... the political reasons this could be happening.
And that being said...
Tim, Tim, talk to your Dr. Poole here.
Yeah, talk to your doctor about it.
Talk to a doctor about it.
I can't tell you the science.
And, you know, the reason I often say this is that one of the most frustrating things for me is being in a position where there's nothing for me to argue and someone could be wrong, like having a discussion.
So here's the way I put it.
Imagine you're sitting down with a bunch of people.
And you've got a friend who's like, Donald Trump was trying to collude with Ukraine, you know, he was quid pro quo to get Joe Biden elected, and you're sitting there knowing it's not true, and you're like, that's not true at all.
Man, I love getting into the Burisma stuff.
Hunter Biden was on the board of directors, so was a former CIA director, and Victor Shokin, the prosecutor, had opened investigations into Mikhail Zechevsky, and then Biden shows up and says, fire him!
Yeah, you get it.
But what happens when someone's sitting across from you and they're saying things that are just overtly wrong, you're gonna be like, no, listen, this is what's actually happening.
It's frustrating, right?
What's frustrating for me is, I don't know!
There's so many studies, it's so hard to parse through this stuff.
And the problem is, too often, you know, we get into these conversations on TimCast IRL, and it's like all of a sudden we're having medical debates about scientific research, and I'm like, dude, That particular study said X and someone said Y about it.
I don't know.
I'm not a doctor.
I can't parse through that stuff.
But we only need to talk about freedom.
We only need to talk about big business pushing a product.
They advertise drugs on TV.
I don't know about whether or not you should get four vaccines because I'm not a doctor.
I would certainly say at this point people are starting to get skeptical because they're like, the for-profit multi-billion dollar international company keeps telling me to inject myself with this thing.
But maybe you'll talk to your doctor and they'll say, ah, you're fine.
I also think it's fair to point out that there's a lot of data and it's hard to know what is or isn't.
So the only thing I can do is rely on, to the best of my ability, what the scientific narrative is within reason.
Certainly there are some things we can dispute.
But the way I see it right now with the vaccines, what's likely happening is that there's waning efficacy.
And the reason why we're seeing places like New Hampshire and other places have an outburst of cases or whatever is simply because there's a waning efficacy.
And that's something you could consider, should consider, when you're talking to your doctor like, listen, How long is this going to be good for until they tell me to get another one?
And should we just start focusing on natural immunity and herd immunity?
But I want to show you the responses from people because it is a good wake-up call.
But first, I need to show you a tweet here.
We have this video from Jimmy Kimmel.
Tom Elliott says, he tweets the video.
Jimmy Kimmel, quote, Florida yesterday reported their first case of Omicron.
And Omicron reported its first case of Florida.
Ha ha ha!
But rest assured Governor Omicron DeSantis will do everything he can to make sure as many Floridians get infected as possible, uproarious laughter.
Governor Omicron DeSantis?
Wasn't the first Omicron found in like Massachusetts or California or something?
Florida reported their first case, other places have already reported it.
Why is Ron DeSantis, Governor Omicron, when if you actually look at the CDC's website, here we go, covid.cdc.gov, we can see Florida's doing the best out of any place in the country!
Except, of course, this is Puerto Rico.
Yeah, Puerto Rico's doing pretty well, too.
And Hawaii's doing pretty well, alas.
I think it's funny that Alaska's doing well, but it may just be that no one lives there.
In Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area.
That's all it's called.
There's probably not a lot of people there, so I'm not sure there's going to be infection, but I believe it's also based on infection rate.
So if we look at Alaska, we can see that it's not necessarily about climate.
Now, it may be, to a great degree, because it is the Gulf region and Florida that are doing the best.
Or it could just be policy.
Because Texas has relaxed their policies, not to the same degree as Florida.
And Florida is open and free.
Monoclonal antibodies, no mandates, no mask mandates.
Everybody's doing their thing.
And it could be, in my opinion, They're probably they've probably reached herd immunity.
That is enough people have it now where it's difficult for the virus to actually keep spreading because of natural immunity.
But the more we lock everybody down across the country, it doesn't seem to be having a positive impact.
Here we are now nearly two years into this.
And this past year, there have been more COVID deaths than there were in the previous year.
And Joe Biden is president.
So tell me.
But here's here's what we got now.
From CNBC, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Wednesday that people might need a fourth COVID-19 booster shot sooner than expected after preliminary research shows the new Omicron variant can undermine protective antibodies generated by the vaccine.
Pfizer and BioNTech released results from initial lab study Wednesday that showed a third shot is effective at fighting the Omicron variant, while the initial two-dose vaccination series dropped significantly in its ability to protect against the new strain.
However, the two-dose series likely still offers protection against getting severely sick from Omicron, the companies said.
I don't know.
What I can tell you is today there was someone on my Facebook feed who said that they were triple-vaxxed and they got really sick.
And we've heard that from people like Dan Bongino.
I don't know if he was triple-vaxxed.
He might be double-vaxxed.
And LeBron James was vaccinated.
It could be based on when they got the vaccine, waning efficacy.
But it's weird to see people say that they've gotten three shots and they're severely ill.
On my Facebook, that's what I saw.
It's anecdotal.
Breakthrough cases happen.
But I think these are things you need to consider as you weigh this when you go and talk to a medical professional.
I gotta say though...
That stuff is going to snap people into a position where they're just like, I've got friends and there are celebrities who got really sick even after getting vaccinated.
I'm not saying it doesn't work.
I'm certainly saying that needs to be addressed and talked about.
Well, here's what's happening now.
This is from one day ago, one day ago on Reddit.
BioNTech Pfizer say test shows three doses of vaccine neutralizes Omicron.
Now you've got the top comment, he says, what about for people like me that got two Pfizer and one Moderna?
And someone says, other research has said that mixing and matching creates a more robust response, so I'd assume you're just as protected, if not more.
Here's a good news, everyone.
Professor Farnsworth.
Good news?
That what, you get a third shot?
The next person says, so four doses will neutralize the next variant and five doses will neutralize the next after that?
One response is, yep, because COVID is endemic now, it'll be necessary to get one or more shots every year for the foreseeable future.
I disavow any pro-COVID idiots who choose to reply to this post.
We have the flu.
The flu is bad.
The flu kills.
It's contagious.
And it seriously, it harms the elderly and children.
But flu shots have always been optional.
You walk in, you get it if you want it.
Now, we've created a system of mandatory vaccination.
You can't go to Canada.
You can go to Mexico.
Here we go.
Everyone on Reddit is a virologist.
Part-time lawyer.
Wow.
One person says, okay, now vaccinate poor pre-industrial countries for free so we can stop using them as petri dishes.
Someone then posts, a lab analysis said, someone says, well, it's not peer-reviewed.
You see, with the third dose being a booster, everybody's just talking about like, oh, okay, boosters.
They accept it.
At first, it was just two.
They accepted it.
Now we have this.
Less than... I mean, it was one day ago they posted that article, and this is 22 hours ago.
So, like, how many hours apart did this story emerge from?
On Reddit, it says, Pfizer CEO says fourth COVID vaccine doses may be needed.
The top comment is, calm down Pfizer, let me get my third dose first.
Third, just call it current.
Call it current dose.
Because I'm thinking, if they're moving this fast, I mean, it was two doses earlier in the year, then it was three, and a day later it's four?
Yes.
It's gonna be, by January, your fifth shot.
It's gonna be every three.
In Germany, they were saying after nine months, your vaccination status expires.
So you gotta go get more shots?
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the policy.
Your health, your decision, your life, your risks.
Here we go, you ready?
The next comment says, after 10 doses I get a free bottle of codeine, right?
Now, I gotta stress, a few of these comments have been made, and they stole my joke.
I tweeted this out a couple weeks ago.
I was like, once you get 10 boosters, you get a free yogurt.
Once you get your 10th booster punch, uh, hole punched, you get a free yogurt.
I don't know if I, I don't know if I came up with that, or maybe I, maybe everyone came up with it independently.
I'm kidding, by the way.
Someone's not responding.
Who cares what the CEO of a company says?
His interest is not in public health at all.
His interest 100% lies in making Pfizer as much money as he can.
Ding ding!
Keep in mind, Pfizer is one of the most evil companies in the world.
Oh, wow!
Are people on Reddit starting to wake up to the fact that these companies will never stop recommending their product?
What Pfizer says has no bearing on what your doctor says.
The problem is Fauci has been wrong way too much.
That's why I'm telling people, like, talk to private practice.
There are a lot of stories about people going to the pharmacy and the pharmacist won't fill their prescription because it's hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
A doctor prescribed it.
The only advice I can give you there is, take what your doctor tells you to take, I guess.
Neither of those treatments are FDA-approved, and many people have argued that the pharmacists have no right to do this, but in fact, the pharmacists actually do.
Yeah, so we actually had people commenting on IRL, pharmacists who are like, we actually have a duty to make sure people aren't getting prescribed dangerous things.
And you gotta think about this in the context of, like, opiates and opioids.
Someone could come in and be, like, clearly distressed, and they could be like, look, You need serious help, and the pharmacist can say no.
Not only that, but pharmacists can just say, get out of my store.
I have no right, you know, no obligation to provide you service.
Well, for some reasons.
One comment said, well, why wouldn't he say that?
It's really amazing to see all this.
What leads you to this decision, sir?
Mr. Krabs.
Money.
Here's another one.
After the 10th, I get a free Subway sub.
Here's another one.
Guy who sells things says everyone should have four of things.
Ryan Long tweeted in response to this story something funny.
He said, CEO of Ryan Long Comedy says to buy his comedy tickets.
Yeah, I'm glad to see people are sort of being snapped out of this.
That they're realizing, look, someone said, LOL, for F's sake, this is becoming like a parody now.
But wait, there's more.
Someone said, it's not a parody.
People predicted this was going to happen.
Constant moving of the goalposts.
COVID is a cash cow for all the big pharma companies, and they're going to keep cashing in as long as they can keep the fear going.
It's amazing.
Look at this, someone's like, didn't Pfizer just say the third dose protects against it?
Oh, well, can't wait for my 10th dose.
You know, I read it for the longest time.
People were just saying, like, you're an anti-vaxxer, you're a moron, you deserve it, and really awful things.
But now people are probably starting to wake up.
Bill Maher did.
Bill Maher refused to get the booster.
It was crazy to see.
Bill Maher on his show, he was like, look, I took one for the team, I got vaccinated, now you're telling me a booster?
I'm not doing it.
That was just the first.
But you know what's crazy is how many people were like, eh, one booster, what's the big deal?
Now they're like, well, maybe a fourth.
And people are like, a fourth?
Bro, your vaccine card has four lines on it.
What did you think was gonna happen?
Let me tell you what the Democratic establishment wants to push.
from Occupy Democrats.
Oh, you gotta love Occupy Democrats.
Breaking!
Illinois introduces a bill to force unvaccinated residents to pay out of pocket for their hospital treatment if they catch COVID, saying that they, quote, must assume the risk and, quote, take responsibility for their carelessness.
RT, if you think that your state should do the same.
They said if you're a Democrat who supports the bill that Illinois just filed to force the unvaccinated to pay out of their own hospitalization costs and are looking for the latest breaking news, please retweet and follow our account.
So, um, is healthcare a human right?
Not to the democratic establishment.
I mean, to people like Bernie, but I'll tell you, I'll tell you this.
You know, Schuon had tweeted this out, and she tweeted, Medicare for all those who agree with me.
And I'm like, let me tell you my political position on this one.
In my utopian future, people have universal access to universal health care.
And it's paid for by taxpayers.
Because everybody is distributing their revenue to a certain degree to where That money is used to make sure the system works.
I actually like that idea.
It means younger people will be paying more than they normally would.
That's true.
It means children, pregnancies, birthing, all that stuff, will be easier to do.
People don't have to worry about the bills for it, because they can be hefty, like 20 grand.
And elderly, you can age knowing that there is a safety net for you.
It sounds great, doesn't it?
Here's the problem.
The problem is, for one, there needs to be some kind of competition.
So a voucher system probably would be the better way to implement it.
A bunch of private hospitals, and then everyone gets like, you know, they can choose which hospital to go to, and then it's billed to the government or something.
And, you know, I don't know how that would work exactly because how do you create incentive?
Perhaps people get healthcare vouchers, they sign up with certain hospitals, the hospitals are better, and then the hospitals are incentivized to provide better coverage.
I honestly don't know how we would pull that off.
What I can say is, The idea of universal health care is, it's a pipe dream.
It's utopian garbage.
Why?
Because when the government has the power, they will simply say, if you want access, you must do X. That's it.
When the Occupy Democrats comes out and say, you don't get your treatment taken care of unless you get the vaccine.
That's the quid pro quo we're going to see.
We're going to see government health care where they're like, based on race, we're distributing X. Nah, not a fan.
Not a fan.
Don't care.
The idea that people can go and get treated and everyone's going to be smiles and it's going to be handshakes, it's just not reality.
It's not true in other countries.
It's not true here.
It wouldn't be true here.
A lot of people like to point to these other countries like, oh look, you know, look what they offer.
Yeah, and there's stipulations.
It's not as crazy as I fear it would be in some places, but look what's happening now.
You're going to go to the hospital, and they're going to say, well, because of X, you didn't comply with Y, and you're out.
There's actually, I think it's in Maryland, they were saying that monoclonal antibodies are only available to people who aren't white.
They tried distributing the vaccine based on race initially, and I'm like, I don't want to have anything to do with that.
Far be it from me to support a system where the government is going to say, free healthcare for all, and we will distribute it based on race.
And then someone jumps to a hospital, And they're like, I am bleeding, and require help.
And they say, okay, but you're the wrong race, so we're gonna let someone else jump you in line, as if that should play a role in triage.
Sorry.
I don't think it'll work.
I think we can have something like universal basic healthcare, which is like, physician's exams, or like, you break a bone.
You get the flu, you need Tamiflu.
But then, for more serious ailments, you will need private supplemental insurance.
I think what we can see here from Occupy Democrats is they don't care about helping people, and they're the worst of it.
Look, I would accept one of two scenarios.
I would be fine if they were like, we're going to do a universal system, there would have to be checks on it, there would have to be a way to maintain some kind of competition in the market, and there would have to be private supplemental insurance.
That, I think, is feasible.
Or I will take pure, private, unregulated health industries.
Because then you go to the doctor and you pay what you can pay.
Someone comes in, they're like, my leg is broken.
The doctor's like, well, it costs ten grand.
And they're like, I don't have it.
And they'll be like, well, get out.
Good luck, Doctor.
The challenge with this is that people don't break their legs all the time.
And so, it's an issue of like, if you get one broken leg per month, how do you support your practice if people really aren't that sick or aren't coming in for all that serious stuff?
So then you get this whacked-out, regulated, semi-private system that's just completely broken and doesn't really make sense.
But ultimately, I'll say this.
I actually think that our medical system isn't all bad.
There's a lot of things that need to be changed.
It's ridiculous when, like, an ibuprofen is billed $100.
I went to the hospital once for a few days, and it was like, it was like a 40, it was like 20, 27, no, no, I think it was like $40,000 for, like, an overnight stay.
And then when I told them, I was like, oh, I don't have insurance, because it was right when I left Vice, and I was like, this week, I have no insurance.
They went, oh, um, we'll drop the bill.
It's $4,000.
And I was like, what?
And they're like, yeah.
It's like, What is this?
Like, how could you just do that?
Yeah, it's broken.
But I don't think I have all the solutions.
What I can tell you is that major pharmaceutical companies' best interest is their bottom line, their private companies.
There's no solution here by making them public utilities or anything like that.
It doesn't solve the problem either.
I don't know what the problem is.
People who make money off of whether or not you are living or dying, and the more you are dying but still being alive, the more money they make, hey, there's a perverse incentive model here.
And the left likes to say socialism or communism or something like that.
That's not going to solve the problem either.
Because then you're going to have ideologically driven government officials being like, did you get on your knees for the government today?
You didn't?
Well then we're not giving you health care.
So ultimately that doesn't solve the problem either.
Perhaps we need to just realize that there's no perfect system.
That maybe we have a pretty good health care system.
We should seek to improve it and make it better and make an idealized form of it.
But we're never going to have some utopian future.
It's just not going to play out that way.
But far be it from me to pretend like I have all the answers.
What I can say is, as much as you trust any other profession, you're a plumber.
You got a good plumber, you got a good carpenter, you get a good doctor.
