Elon Musk Announces He's QUITTING Voting Democrat And Will Now Vote Republican, GOP Red Wave Coming
Elon Musk Announces He's QUITTING Voting Democrat And Will Now Vote Republican, GOP Red Wave Coming. Elon Musk has said the left has gone to far and lost the middle and has criticized joe Biden recently.
The move is predictable as so many of us feel the same way. Democrats have embraced a growing insanity among the left and have changed so dramatically that former liberals are looking to vote Republican for the first time ever.
A red wave is coming with republicans expected to sweep in the 2022 Midterms.
#ElonMusk
#Democrats
#Midterms
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elon Musk has announced he will no longer be voting Democrat.
He will be voting Republican in the next election.
All amid a major Twitter battle, where he says he wants the SEC to investigate.
Well, at least informally, he said.
Come on, SEC, wake up.
After someone called on them to investigate Twitter's bot problem.
Who knows if Twitter will actually get purchased by Elon Musk at this point.
In our next story, Project Veritas has exposed an employee at Twitter, explaining the company is overtly biased and commie as F. In our last story, a scandal once again emerging around Black Lives Matter funding.
This time, accusations that they're funneling money to friends and family to the tune of nearly $1 million or even $2 million.
Now, if you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
He is voting Republican for the first time, saying that he had voted Democrat over and over and for the first time he will be voting Republican.
I don't think anybody is surprised by this, but this is huge news.
And I think it's indicative of the left losing its collective mind and of regular people saying enough.
Elon Musk recently said he's not a right-winger.
That the buyout of Twitter would not be a right-wing buyout, it would be a moderate buyout.
And he is correct, because I am also a moderate.
The news is actually really interesting and we've seen the transformation over the past several months with Elon Musk, or I should say years, posting memes and talking about the left going crazy, as well as that one meme he posted where it shows the left going further and further left.
He's experiencing what so many of us have experienced, what I've personally experienced, which really does represent why we are where we are.
It also represents why it's so important that someone like Elon Musk does complete their purchase of Twitter.
Now initially, I must confess, I had actually put together a segment on Elon Musk suspending his purchase of Twitter because of the bots, with new tweets coming out suggesting there could be more than 50% of accounts on Twitter are bots.
I actually think it's possible, I really do.
The big news being that Elon Musk has called on the SEC to investigate Twitter's claims that only 5% of its users are bots, or 5% or less.
In fact, speaking at a conference via internet, Elon Musk said 95% of people using Twitter, is that your experience?
Now they're kind of different stories, and the through line here is just Elon Musk, but there is something that connects both of these stories.
The official narrative ain't flying anymore.
A room full of people erupting in laughter at the idea that Twitter only has 5% or less bots.
You can't just say it anymore.
No one believes you.
We also had the big expose from Project Veritas, where an engineer said that they actually were they went when they joined Twitter, they became left left wing, effectively radicalized, and that people there are commie as F. If Elon Musk were to get into Twitter, he could fire all of these people.
The generic ballots on the on the upcoming midterm election show the Republicans are favored to win, and it is going to be an insane blowout.
Based on historical trends, and I've long talked about this, Republicans are set to win bigly.
A lot can change from now till then.
But Elon Musk is not only the wealthiest man in the world, he's also one of the most influential.
When he comes out and says this, that he will be voting Republican, you know what that means?
How many people want to be like Elon?
How many people want to be fat cats, big wigs, ballers, have the cash, be successful?
How many young men are like, I don't know about that political stuff, but I want to be rich and successful and run a big company.
How many reach for the stars?
A lot, probably.
A lot of people are going to see this as an open invitation to be publicly accepted for saying, you agree with Elon.
You know, if I'm going to look up to somebody, Elon Musk, you know what?
I got no problem voting Republican either.
Now, for me, I made that leap in 2020.
I said, you know, I supported Democrats in the primary, but Joe Biden was out of his mind.
I still support many left policy positions, but the left itself is just bonkers.
And I've got the receipts to back it up.
Last night, I had a conversation.
With a progressive podcaster.
Matt Binder.
Tremendous respect for him coming on the show.
He's a good dude.
I really disagree with him.
And my personal view is that he lacks knowledge necessary to understand how his opinions would affect greater society.
That is to say, he didn't understand taxation, inflation, how money is made, fractional reserve banking.
He doesn't have to know those things.
I'm not disparaging him for not knowing that.
I just think that's ultimately where our disagreement lies.
But in this conversation, he tells me so many things that I'm just like, if this is the modern left, I'm out.
I said, if you would be in favor of abortion at nine months, elective abortion, Then I would rather stand alongside those who would ban it outright.
I don't completely agree with that position that it should be banned outright, but I would prefer that over what the left is proposing now.
Allow me to show you some of the news stories of just this past week to explain to you why Elon Musk himself would make a transition like this, and why you can now safely say that you too would vote Republican.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL Podcast.
You'll be supporting our journalists, and we are trying to hire more.
There just aren't any.
No joke.
We want people of good quality and merit, and we're looking to hire more people.
With your support we can do that.
You'll also be supporting our infrastructure, and we use Rumble, their cloud services.
So we are supporting direct competition with Big Tech, Silicon Valley, and all that.
So don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Without further ado, from Newsweek, Elon Musk says he'll vote Republican for the first time the next election.
Tesla and SpaceX CEO, who plans to buy Twitter, said he will now vote Republican, having overwhelmingly voted for Democrats in the past.
Musk is a registered independent voter who describes himself as moderate.
He made the remarks while speaking via video link at a tech summit in Miami, Florida, hosted by the All In podcast on Monday, reported Insider.
The World's Richest Man, whose $44 billion takeover of Twitter is on hold pending information on spam accounts, described the platform has a very far-left bias, before saying he would classify himself as a moderate, and he is neither Republican nor Democrat.
I have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, historically.
Like, I'm not sure.
I might never have voted for a Republican, just to be clear.
Now, this election, I will.
Musk added.
It was unclear if Musk was talking about voting for a GOP candidate in the midterms or the 2024 election.
I'm going to pause you right there.
Newsweek, there's no reason to assume he was talking about 2024 when he said, this election.
This election right now, a few months away, six months, less than six months, is the midterm, okay?
Why would he be talking about something else?
Musk also assured people that if he does purchase Twitter, it will not be a right-wing takeover, as people on the left fear, and he plans on making it a moderate-wing takeover.
Oh, I'll just throw it back to TimCast IRL last night with Matt Bender.
You know, we had a conversation on news, and when it came to Elon Musk, the conversation went straight into debate.
I said, they have a misgendering policy.
The progressives agree that you shouldn't misgender.
People on the right, conservatives, don't believe you can misgender, or I should say they have an inverted view.
Misgendering to them would be using preferred pronouns.
Matt said if Twitter were to get rid of that policy, it would be biased for the right, which is just not true.
If Twitter had a policy that said you cannot use preferred pronouns, that would be biased for the right.
If Twitter had no policy regardless of either side, and you could or couldn't, whatever, that would be no bias.
Currently, Twitter has a bias in favor of the progressive worldview.
Matt didn't understand that because he lives in a bubble.
When Elon Musk says it's a moderate takeover, moderates like you or I, although I'm sure many of you may be liberal or conservative, We're, like, good!
No bias at all!
Let the conversation happen, I suppose.
There have been concerns about, uh, that Musk's about to make Twitter a digital town square, where content is not as strictly moderated, and all speech and courage could lead to an increase in hate speech or harassment.
I don't care.
I literally don't care!
Because I can walk outside right now, and the left, right, up, down, whatever can say whatever they want.
Let's keep it that way.
I bring you now to this post from the Daily Wire, which reiterates the same story that Elon Musk announces he's switching to vote Republican, but includes some important context.
On July 27, 2020, Elon Musk tweeted, the left is losing the middle.
You are correct, good sir.
That was the year I voted for a Republican president and down-ballot Republican.
On the same day, he said Das Kapital in a nutshell.
Hungry Santa, aka Karl Marx, says, give me debt for free.
Oh, amazing.
May 17th, 2020, said, take the red pill.
Then we had April 2nd, they wrote peace on the wall at Burghain.
I refuse to enter.
Peace?
Peace?
I hate the word.
Those who do care about peace, myself aspirationally included, don't need to hear it.
And those who don't care about peace, well, Elon Musk has been talking about these issues for some time.
On April 28th, he posted his now infamous meme, which came from our good friend Colin Wright, who's been on the show several times.
Elon Musk tweets a meme about America's political polarization as the left goes further left.
Of course, you all saw it.
This moment was coming.
Many probably predicted it.
In 2008, if you were center-left, you became a centrist in 2012.
unidentified
And now you're on the right, because the left has moved so far left, 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.
We need to analyze policy and positions from these political parties to understand what it means to be left and right.
And then when they do, they're like, the right has become more right-wing.
When I was a kid, Republicans wanted to ban abortion.
Now I'm an adult.
Republicans want to ban abortion.
Oh, heavens!
They've gone so far right on an issue they've always had the same position on.
Imagine if... You want to talk about becoming more extreme?
If Republicans say, abortion should not be allowed, conservatives for the most part, in my lifetime.
And that's the same position they hold today.
They've stayed exactly where they are.
You want to talk about becoming more extreme?
That would be the Republicans coming out and saying, women should be required to get pregnant.
Women by a certain age, that would be more extreme, but they're not there.
They're not there.
Or they would say, ban birth control.
We want to take it up a notch.
No condoms, no birth control.
They're not there.
They're in the same position they've always been.
And so am I. It's the left that's gone further left.
Let me start, before we get into the political polling, with showing you, I'm going to say, it's cheating.
It is.
Because all I did was pull up libs of TikTok, who aggregated a few stories.
But I do have another story I want to talk about.
And we'll get into the conversation I had yesterday, because I completely agree with Elon.
In one of the latest posts from Libs of TikTok, a mom in Clark County School reads from a graphic assignment her daughter was required to do.
Her mic then gets cut off because it's inappropriate for a public discussion.
Adults can't handle hearing this content, yet they readily give it to kids in school.
How does it make sense?
I can't read for you.
I can't play for you the video, because it's pornography.
When she reads it, they say, whoa, whoa, hey, oh, yo, we'll have decorum here, and they bang the little gavel.
And everyone's like, but this is in our schools.
A 15-year-old girl was given this material talking about private parts and genitals and overt adult acts.
And they're all shocked by it.
We got another video for you.
This one from Adams 12, another school district, where a parent tries reading from the book called Genderqueer and gets silenced by board members, once again, because it is adult content that is being given to children.
I can't show you the images.
They had to censor the images.
Because if you actually saw them, I'd probably get in trouble on YouTube.
This is what the left has been doing in schools, when they are grooming your kids.
I want to stress it again.
This parent, she was talking about, in near tears, her 15-year-old daughter being given an adult material, adult activities assignment.
They are grooming your kids.
Not everyone, not everywhere, but in these instances, it is happening.
And when we try and call it out, we get people like, but it's not happening.
That's not true.
Here we go.
A Wisconsin school district filed a Title IX complaint against three middle school students, accusing them of harassment for using incorrect pronouns.
The principal deleted their account.
This happened last week.
Here's another one.
Here is an individual bragging about performing top surgeries on young adults and adolescents.
Adolescents?!
All had supportive parents.
If you are on the left, You're in favor of LGBT rights.
I was with you the whole time.
Until you started advocating for irreversible chemical treatments and surgeries on children.
Yeah, the left has gone too far left.
What does that mean?
Maybe it means nothing because left means tribe.
But I'll tell you what I see.
The positions they've had, they've just rapidly become more extreme on.
Republicans want to ban abortion.
They haven't moved.
That's where they still are.
They're okay with... I mean, many aren't okay with birth control, but they ain't trying to ban it.
The left was like, gay marriage.
And I said, absolutely.
And now they're like, teaching kids about adult activities.
And I'm like, you have gone way off the deep end.
I'm not voting for you.
Which brings me to one of the core arguments that I had with Matt last night on IRL.
I mentioned Colorado.
Well, here's the facts.
The right to abortion in Colorado is now guaranteed under state law.
But what does that mean?
Well, pulling up the bill, it actually has a provision that specifically states fetuses, embryos, fertilized eggs have no rights at all.
Seamus made a good point.
I made a similar point.
Seamus, of course, is a conservative Catholic pro-life.
We disagree.
I'm a traditional pro-choicer, which doesn't really exist that much these days in the political sphere.
Seamus is pro-life.
We have argued intensely on this.
It's interesting.
Seamus brought up that throughout history, every attempt To codify dehumanization throughout history has failed.
He's correct.
In the United States, I should say.
I believe he's correct.
I could be wrong.
So you had Native Americans.
They eventually are granted rights and reparations.
Slavery, of course.
A bloody war where a million, nearly a million Union soldiers lose their lives.
Ending slavery.
I know there's a lot of reasons for the Civil War.
Slavery being the largest component and the moral The strong moral position which caused it, among, you know, the things that broke down around it.
You then had Jim Crow, and 100 years, 150 years fought, and to this day still a fight, over civil rights of individuals.
1964 Civil Rights Act.
Every step of the way, we've expanded rights.
In fact, we've even now seen countries expand rights to animals!
We have rights for turtle shells!
I mean, I'm sorry, for turtle eggs!
Elephants!
Now, they don't get due process or anything like that, but you can't just go kill them.
Colorado here actually says, in this paragraph, a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derivative rights under the laws of this state.
They say, a public entity may not deny, restrict, interfere with, or discriminate against an individual's fundamental right to use or refuse contraception, or to continue a pregnancy and give birth, or to have an abortion in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
It defines abortion, that's important, Let me see if I can make sure I get the... I want to make sure you have the proper... Here we are.
Abortion means any medical procedure, instrument, agent, or drug used to terminate the pregnancy of an individual known or reasonably believed to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth.
Fascinating language they use for that one.
Now let's bring it to the general polls here.
I may have another... I'll come back to the libs of TikTok.
Let me bring it to the individual, the generic polls, and make my point.
Yesterday, I had a debate, discussion, argument, several arguments with Matt Bender.
Again, tremendous respect for him coming on the show.
We're gonna have him on again.
I thought it was actually a really great show.
He told me he believes a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion at any point, and that the baby is only protected after it's born.
To me, that's insane.
I'm sorry.
The traditional liberal approach to pro-choice is that there have to be some restrictions.
That at a certain point, the baby is viable, you shouldn't kill it.
The Democrats proposed a law which I've talked about ad nauseum, but bears repeating in this context, so I apologize, but not everybody watches every video I do or listens to every podcast, so if you're familiar with it, you're gonna hear it again.
And again, I apologize, but it's important.
The Democrats' bill, which was recently struck down thanks to Joe Manchin, said that you could not restrict an abortion after viability if the pregnant patient's health was at risk due to the pregnancy.
So let me break this down.
Matt repeatedly said, the mother's health!
The mother's health!
And I said, okay.
A woman is pregnant with a baby.
Nine months.
And they say, if you go into labor, if the pregnancy continues, you die.
Let's just say that extreme example.
Why allow for an abortion, which is legally defined as actions taken to terminate a pregnancy that does not result in a live birth?
That is to say, it kills the baby in the process.
If the woman couldn't go into labor, if the woman was dying, you have to remove the baby no matter what.
Why kill it?
He didn't have an answer.
He just kept arguing a woman's choice, a woman's choice.
OK.
So I said, if I'm looking at a Democrat and they say and they have we had Eric Adams, I believe we've had Joe Biden say no restrictions at all.
I'm like, dude, look, man, There are serious questions about government overreach.
But if my choices have really become ban the practice outright, or allow people in Colorado to kill a baby seconds before birth.
Yeah, I'm going with banning abortion.
I'm sorry, that's just the case.
Matt kept asking me, he said, what if the baby was born in a vegetative state?
And I said, and?
He's like, would you think you could kill it then?
This was the Democrat position all throughout my life.
Now the left wants to argue, I must be a conservative because I'm a regular person from 2012.
Yo, how did you go in 10 years from safe, legal, rare, to no restriction, up to the point of birth, abortion, at the woman's discretion?
Now you can come at me all day and night and say it doesn't happen, Tim.
It doesn't happen.
Ninety one percent of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks.
I don't disagree with that.
I'm asking you why Democrats want to make it legal and why I should support their efforts to do so.
I don't care if it's 91% of abortions.
If you want to make a bill that says within 12 weeks but after viability none, okay, then great.
I would say that there we go.
Let's enact that one.
That's not the bill you proposed.
So they come to me and say, why aren't you defending pro-choice Tim?
Because you're trying to allow people to make it legal for abortions to be performed at nine months.
I just think that makes no sense.
If the woman's life is at risk, why destroy the baby?
Why kill it?
If you have to remove it, make it live.
So it said after viability.
Now they want to come to me and say, Tim, we're talking about at six months, at seven months, and the woman's got some serious issue and they have to terminate the pregnancy and remove the baby.
And I'm like, if the baby is viable, And the law specifically states the pregnancy is the risk.
Why not just deliver the baby?
Induce labor or perform a c-section.
But wait, they say.
What if the labor is the risk and the mother can't handle labor?
C-section.
Take the baby out.
You have to explain it.
You can't.
Doesn't matter.
That's my position.
There's no answer.
When Matt said to me he believes a woman can choose to have an elective abortion at nine months and he thinks it doesn't happen anyway, I'm just like, well, if you don't think it happens, why make it legal?
No answer.
Well, I'm not going to vote for that.
I won't do it.
It'd be like, you know, people aren't, you know, committing, people aren't buying bags of bricks and throwing them off rooftops all the time.
So why not just make it legal?
And I'm like, why would we do that?
No, you should not be allowed to do something like that.
They've lost their minds.
In the generic congressional vote, we can see Republicans have a 3.5 percent lead.
According to FiveThirtyEight, their lead is 2.5.
It doesn't matter.
This is apocalyptically bad for Democrats.
Democrats lose elections when they're down by 5.
I'm sorry, when they're up by 5.
Now they're down by 2.5 to 3.5, suggesting it is going to be a major collapse.
Let me show you this Project Veritas story.
I covered this this morning.
We'll bring it up in this context.
Twitter does not believe in free speech.
We're actually censoring the right and not the left Twitter employee to undercover Veritas journalist.
It's actually, they're all taking my, I posted the video and everyone's using mine.
Cool, it's got five million views, wow!
That's cool.
It was breaking news, I wanted to post it.
So I'm excited to have participated in reporting of the story.
A Twitter employee said they only work four hours a week.
A Twitter employee says they do ban the right.
Elon Musk is correct across the board, and he represents so much of what many of us feel.
He called on the SEC to evaluate Twitter users and numbers, so we'll see if the deal goes through.
He said, in response to a tweet, That said, the SEC should investigate whether Twitter claims are true.
If it turns out that Twitter lied in the official filing, serious consequences and complete distrust of investors can await it.
Elon Musk said, hello, SECGov, anyone home?
This morning at 3 a.m., he tweeted, the deal will not move forward unless the CEO of Twitter proves their bot numbers.
It's so laughable.
Let me show you this clip.
Elon Musk's epic reaction to Twitter claiming the number of real unique humans that you see making comments on a daily basis above 95%.
Now, as I mentioned, full disclosure, my initial intent was to do a segment on the current purchasing of Twitter and where Elon Musk was when this news broke that he was going to be voting Republican.
But I do believe this all plays a big role in this.
Elon Musk is one of us.
A disaffected liberal.
A now moderate.
Elon was left-leaning.
Voting for Democrats.
As was I. And today, we probably have very similar politics.
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 That you see making comments on a daily basis on Twitter is above 95%.
That is what they're claiming.
Does anyone have that experience?
It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
unidentified
That you see making comments on a daily basis on Twitter is above 95%.
The laughter is... Elon responds, the audience laughter says it all.
They organically erupt in laughter at the idea that Twitter is above 95% real users.
See, They're manipulated accounts.
They're sock puppets.
It's a dirty game.
Elon knows it.
But let's wrap this together.
Elon sees what we see.
The narrative is breaking.
The lies are breaking.
It ain't working anymore.
The left has gone insane.
These people can't tell you how basic functions of government work.
You know what?
I'll do it.
I'll entertain some of the political drama in this conversation.
In talking with Matt Bender last night, I think a lot was revealed to me.
And I've become a bit, um, I've been saying for a while, there's no point in talking to people on the left.
There's no point in the Twitter beefs.
I think conversations are good.
I think having them on the show is good.
But I don't think you're going to convince them of anything.
Posting hot takes on Twitter is stupid.
But people like to do it to me, they like to do it to Elon, or whoever.
It doesn't do anything for anybody.
But something interesting happened with having Matt on the show.
He had no substance behind his ideas.
Now, I hate to put him on the spot because it could just be, look, I am a professional with a large company that's rapidly expanding.
I got a million followers on Twitter and, you know, five or so million subscribers across the board on YouTube.
And he's got a much smaller channel.
So maybe it's just there's a gap in I'm not trying to be mean, but like skill, knowledge, experience.
We're about the same age.
Matt, I believe, has been working in this space longer than I have.
But there is a gap.
I asked him after the show.
We didn't do a member segment, it wasn't live.
I said, I have a genuine question.
You know, because we still talk a little bit after the show, obviously.
You know, humans talk to each other.
And I just said, you don't know what fractional reserve banking is.
You don't know how the money supply is expanded.
You don't know how taxation works for corporations or for the wealthy.
You don't know how the wealthy generate revenue.
Yet you are adamant that your policy positions are correct.
How is that?
He had been saying to me that he believed that we should just have the government print money to pay off everyone's debt for colleges.
And I said, I mean, but why?
I said, why?
Why tax the lower income earners to pay the higher income earners debts?
And he said, it doesn't matter.
The government's just printing the money, so it's all gone anyway.
Nobody's owed that money.
I'm like, well, yeah, I mean flooding the market with this money creates inflationary pressure at the very least.
The money has to come from somewhere or be produced, and when it is, that will have a huge impact on inflation.
We can't just give money away to people.
I was like, my position on student loan forgiveness is abolishing the interest rates, forgiving all interest rates and tax credits to anyone who's already paid into the interest rates, but the principal you gotta pay back.
He said, no, no, UBI, government, you just pay.
And I said, what do you think that would do in terms of inflation?
He said, I don't know.
I said, what do you think that would do in terms of the value, like the currency value or labor market?
He said, I don't know.
He just didn't understand.
I don't blame him for not understanding.
Not everybody is smart enough to grasp how these systems work, and I certainly would not claim to be the smartest person in the world.
I would say I'm smart enough to build a machine.
I'm smart enough to produce a show, to produce several shows, and to build a company.
I'm smart enough to make the business work.
I don't know what that means.
Maybe I'm a little bit smarter than some people, but I certainly don't think I'm all that smart.
I think perseverance is the issue, and my drive.
I also think I have insane amounts of energy for some reason.
Don't ask me why.
I don't sleep.
I don't know, man.
I've been accused of being on Adderall.
Not true.
No, I'm basically straight edge.
Eat healthy, no drinking, no smoking, no tattoos.
But anyway, I digress.
My point here is, I'm having conversations with people about political issues they don't even know the basics of.
They accuse me of not knowing the basics, but it's like, how do you talk to someone who doesn't know?
The abortion question is a good example.
For instance, on Twitter, when I said, I made a tweet about abortion, a woman going to get an abortion, and then she has the baby on accident, what do they do?
The left doesn't know what the word abortion means.
The legal definition, or at least the CDC's definition, involves the death of the baby.
Colorado's legal definition says, an attempt that is not intending to increase probability of live birth.
Meaning, death is either intended or expected.
They don't know that.
So when I said, if a woman is, you know, eight months pregnant, and the baby has to be, you know, terminated for health reasons, people said, you're an idiot, it's not an abortion, it's induced labor.
No, those are different things.
But they don't know this.
So what I was talking to Matt about, I said, It would be like, you're telling me that cars don't need gas because the gas is just there.
Just fill up the tank with gas.
And I said, where do we get the gas from?
He's like, what do you mean?
Just put the gas in the tank.
Like, you can just do it.
And I'm like, the gas has to come from somewhere.
The resources, the food, it has to come from somewhere.
Someone has to make it.
He doesn't get it.
I said, how?
This is my question to the left.
How can you advocate for an action when you don't know the ramifications of that action?
It's like someone, like imagine you go to a mechanic shop, and you have no idea how to put together a transmission.
And as the mechanic is working, you say, I think you should put that screw on top.
And he goes, the screw doesn't go on top.
And they're like, no, I want it there.
You know what?
We all agree, do it.
And he's like, you're going to ruin the car.
I need to use this car too.
I'm not going to do that.
And then they all start complaining.
Why won't you listen to the majority?
We're with this democracy.
We want the screw.
And you're like, that's going to destroy the machine.
I don't think I have all the answers.
I have a lot of questions and concerns, which is why I don't staunchly advocate for a lot of policy.
On issues of freedom, pretty adamant.
On issues of life and stuff, I'm like, I don't know, man.
You know, a lot of people are like, Tim, your advocacy for pro-choice, you know, pre-viability means people are gonna lie.
If you advocate for rape and incest provisions, they're gonna lie.
And I'm like, you're right, they will.
I don't know what to do.
I don't know if there are clean answers.
So, for me, I'm like, I don't know, should we do something?
If all signs point to catastrophe, I'd say no.
If I have insufficient information, I'll say, I honestly don't know.
So, you know, he asked me the other night about Terry Chavez.
He said, what's your position on Terry Chavez?
I was like, I don't have a strong opinion.
He's like, you don't have a strong opinion?
No, I don't know enough about it.
I'm not just gonna have an opinion for the sake of tribal reasons.
I don't know.
And it turns out, at least according to Seamus, There was no signed DNR.
Do not resuscitate.
The husband claimed she didn't want to live.
The parents claimed she did.
It was a legal battle.
And I said, next of kin.
Parents have no say.
It's a clear-cut legal question.
There was a lawsuit.
I can respect the lawsuit.
In this instance, we're dealing with someone who was involved with a serious injury, a TBI, or a disease which resulted in a loss of function, and there's questions over what they wanted.
Do not resuscitate, or to be kept in life support.
The next of kin is the husband, who said she does not want to be resuscitated.
I'd respect the next of kin.
That's what I would want for myself.
I wouldn't want my parents intervening.
I want my next of kin, which is spouse, significant other.
He then said, okay, well what about a baby?
And I'm like, different situation.
A baby who is vegetative but has not experienced traumatic loss deserves a right to try and live.
Ultimately, the conversation yesterday, because Seamus mostly stayed out, was a leftist calling a pro-choice liberal, me, right-wing or conservative because he doesn't realize he's so far gone towards the left that he thinks I'm right-wing.
And he was like, why aren't you advocating for pro-choice?
And I was like, Seamus and I argue this on like every show, especially in the past few weeks.
I straight up told Seamus that if it were me as a woman who got pregnant due to rape and the state said, you must, I'd kill myself.
I consider myself moderate liberal leaning based on the actual political compass and the definitions of traditional and social liberal.
The left, they're purist cultists.
Women should be allowed to choose.
Pro-choice means nine months.
No, pro-choice always meant the woman can choose for herself but not the baby.
When the baby is not viable and dependent, I see it as an issue of if the woman needs to terminate for any reason, the baby dies.
I also said, it's so simple.
If the Democrats just included a provision that said all attempts must be made to save the life of the baby, we wouldn't be dealing with this.
Everyone would be like, okay.
But for some reason, Democrats, they're tribally, I think they want to be able to kill babies.
That may sound extreme, but what I mean to say is, Matt actually argued if a baby has defect, they should just kill it.
I disagree with that.
I think that's wrong.
I don't think, I don't believe in eugenics.
And that's what the left is arguing for.
When they argue in severe abnormality or defect or whatever, we should be able to kill it.
If it's got Down syndrome, you should kill it.
I'm like, that's eugenics, I disagree.
I believe that homogenizing a gene pool is dangerous.
I believe that defects, as they might call them, or Abnormalities are not always inherently bad or do not always mean your life should be terminated.
In the instance that a baby is got a heart on its forehead.
There's been like a heart on its head like not gonna survive.
It's sad, man.
You try to save the baby and give the person a chance at a normal life.
If the baby is likely to die anyway, why would you not just try?
If a homeless person was sickly or bleeding and collapsed in front of a hospital, would we be like, eh, he's dying, let him live, let him go?
No, you'd bring him in to save his life.
The arguments make no sense.
I don't want to keep rehashing the same argument, so I'll leave it there.
Elon Musk hit the nail on the head with the hammer.
Now, depending on what happens with Twitter, we'll see.
But the issue is, when the left claims that he's wrong about Twitter, it's because they're in a bubble.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Project Veritas has exposed a lot in their storied careers.
We have a new story that I think may be one of the most insightful and impactful political exposés we've seen in a long time, an excellent piece of journalism from Project Veritas, where a senior engineer basically exposes the company as Kami AF, is what he says.
He actually swears.
Kami as F.
He says that the people there don't believe in free speech, that people on the right get banned because the left won't tolerate the right, but the right will tolerate the left, so the left doesn't get banned, which is basically what I've said for a long time.
But let me just say, As we get into this story, and talk about how this guy says he works FOUR HOURS PER WEEK!
I wonder how much money he's getting paid, six figures?
These people, wow.
Running the company into the ground.
It all makes sense now, but let me just, let me just say there's a meme.
And, uh, I can't remember who posted it, so forgive me for not giving you proper attribution.
They said, if you're an engineer at Twitter, and a hot woman is very into you, it's James O'Keefe.
I thought that was great.
Like, James O'Keefe in a wig, like, sitting down, like, tell me about the work you do!
And they're like, haha.
Okay, so basically what happens...
with Project Veritas often, I believe, is that they use Twitter, they use Tinder.
So they'll get young, attractive women to go on Tinder and swipe, swipe, swipe.
And then they'll find people who are like an engineer at Twitter, they'll go out for drinks,
and they will record the candid conversations. I think it's fantastic.
This is Siru Murugesan, senior engineer at Twitter.
Seems like a good dude.
He seems like a good dude who's a cog in a machine.
He points out that he's okay with Elon Musk buying Twitter, and he breaks this stuff down.
I respect this.
I appreciate it.
I wish many more people like this would step forward and expose the malfeasance and the manipulation.
They don't.
So I can't give Ciro credit for speaking out when he was caught on candid camera, when he was on undercover camera.
I wish he would just come out and be like, hey guys, here's what is happening at this company that confirms a lot of what you're saying.
Here's a tweet from me.
Breaking from Project Veritas, Twitter employee confirms bias at Twitter.
Seems I was right.
Because conservatives tolerate leftist speech, and leftists won't tolerate the right, Twitter opts to censor the right as balance.
Now that is a business component of censorship.
However, as we can see from the statements made by Siru, Companies actually just call me AF!
Now here's one of my favorite parts I want to highlight right away before we jump into the actual write-up on this.
Take a look.
Jim Hansen says, the best part was work ethic when he said, quote, I work about four hours a week.
Quote, if you're not feeling it, you can just take a couple days off.
Elon can come in, empty about two-thirds of the building, and still have it running better without hiring anyone.
True facts.
People, you gotta understand this, okay?
We'll read through the breakdown here, we got the Daily Mail report giving us some quotes and all that stuff.
And I just want to stress, you need to understand that at these companies in New York, in California, the amount of money people get paid for the amount of work they do would make you vomit into your mouth.
I've told this story before.
Walking into vice.com, their offices, and seeing nobody.
There's actually a funny story once where, like, nobody showed up on a day like some important business guy was supposed to be there, and so, you know, Shane, the CEO, is like, come right this way, sir, let me show you my amazing newsroom, and there's nobody working.
That's what happens.
And then they're all angry, like, why is nobody at the office?
It's like, this is the culture you built.
Paying people $50,000 a year to write listicles about, you know, various celebrities' junk is the go-to example.
And what do you think these people are going to do?
That's why I love the entitlement from urban millennial types.
I would be there every day.
I would show up and I would be like, I'm going to be doing my research, I'm going to be sitting here, I'm going to be talking with people, I'm going to be trying to figure out things to do.
And you know what?
They could have listened to me.
Eh, well, good for them.
Disney wrote down their investment advice to zero.
But let's talk about Twitter.
It's not just these media companies.
People in big cities don't do work.
They don't do work.
Some people do.
The janitors certainly do.
The plumbers do.
The tradesmen do.
Managers, many of them.
But so many of the people who are doing, who are supposed to be doing core functions Just don't do anything.
This is incredible.
A senior engineer who said he worked four hours per week.
How much you want to bet he's getting paid like $150,000, $200,000 a year?
Daily Mail says, quote, Twitter does not believe in free speech.
Undercover Project Veritas recording reveals Twitter engineer saying platform censors the right but not the left.
Everyone who works there is Kami AF, meaning as F.
As Fook.
I can say that.
And they hate Elon Musk.
Kami as fudge.
Cyril Murugesan was recorded saying the company culture is extremely far left where workers
are Kami AF and they hate, hate, hate Elon Musk's takeover.
In a shockingly frank conversation filmed over several encounters, he said the firm does not believe in free speech and even started to turn him left wing when he joined.
His comments come amid a firestorm at Twitter as staff fear they will face the axe or be stopped from censoring certain content when the Tesla billionaire takes over.
Now, there's another story here I'll get into later.
It's a bigger story.
We don't even know if this deal is going to go through now.
Let's continue.
Musk has vowed to return the platform to a safe space for users to post what they want, as well as defeat the spam bots and authenticate users.
Meanwhile, he fueled speculation he could be seeking to negotiate paying less for the social media giant, as he told a Miami conference an agreement at a lower price wouldn't be out of the question.
So here we have this, one of the statements from Siru. The left will be like, no, I'm not going to
tolerate it. I need it censored or else I'm not going to be on the platform. So everyone on the
right wing will be like, bro, it's okay to say it, just tolerate it. And the left will be like, no.
So what happens?
So what I've pointed out so many times, you have two groups of people.
The conservatives and libertarian moderates are like, we're for free speech, let the leftists have their speech.
The left says, I don't want any of them to have speech, ban them all!
So, Twitter will be like, if we don't ban the left, the right doesn't care.
If we don't ban the right, the left will leave, so let's ban a little bit of the people on the right and try and balance.
Can I just point out how bad I feel for this guy, Cyril Murugasan?
Because what you got to understand, James, my good sir, James O'Keefe, as much as this is tremendously important, there is some kind of teen rom-com drama, high school drama storyline here.
And I would love to make the short film.
And it's about an engineer at Twitter who meets a beautiful young woman on Tinder.
And they're talking and he's explaining himself and everything.
And then it's revealed she was a journalist for Project Veritas the whole time!
And he calls her and says, I can't believe you would do this to me.
And then she goes, Siru, wait!
Look, when I started this, it was just about the expose for Project Veritas, but it became something more.
Please, no!
And then they fall in love and get married.
I mean, you've seen movies like that, right?
Where it's like the high school jock dates the ugly girl, and what is his trope?
He dates the ugly girl because it's like a bet, but then he ends up falling for her, and she takes her glasses off and spins her hair, and she was beautiful the whole time.
I feel bad for this guy.
I really do.
Ciro, man, you seem like a good dude.
I appreciate that you're willing to speak candidly about this stuff.
And it really does kind of just... It's such an emotional heartstring pull when you realize, like, this dude was out on a date, and he's, like, trying to find love, you know?
And that's true for so many of the people that Veritas captures in these exposés.
I think it's a clever tactic from Veritas.
And I think undercover journalism, I think the strategies they use, I think they're valid.
But this guy, you know, when you get somebody who's being exposed and they genuinely have issues with these things and are speaking out against them, I would just say you need to be more vocal in the public space.
And that being said, most people probably don't know how to do it and don't know a whole lot about it.
I can't imagine someone like Cyr wakes up and he's like, man, What's happening at Twitter is so bad, I need to find a journalist.
I think they probably are just like, I don't know, I'm just doing my thing, I guess.
And then they go on Tinder and there's a cute young thang who's like, let's talk, asking all these questions and smiling and getting all excited.
And this is what happens.
Lost love, lost love.
But I think maybe we should produce that short film where the Veritas journalist is like, I don't want to do this anymore.
I don't care about the expose.
I love you.
And then they elope.
And, you know, that would be funny.
Anyway, he was going to say they hate it.
Oh, my God.
At least like at least I'm at least OK with it.
Talking about the Elon Musk takeover.
Elon believes in free speech.
He says, so on the right it's true, there is bias.
Murugasan was filmed by a female Veritas journalist spilling the beans on the tech giant's left-wing agenda, including the censored right-wing posts.
Twitter does not believe in free speech.
They hate it.
Asked how his coworkers responded.
They're like, this would be my last day if this happens.
Murugasan said Twitter's office politics were so left-leaning they shaped his own views and changed him.
Like I started working at Twitter and became left, he said.
I think it's just like the environment.
Like you're there and you become this, like this commie.
It's amazing.
He said that right-wingers are openly censored.
Ideologically, it does not make sense, like, because we're actually censoring the right and not the left.
So everyone on the right will be like, bros, okay, so we read that.
Here's the other crazy thing about the expose.
He says we're not running the company like capitalists, it's being run like socialists.
You don't show up for work, you get paid, you can dip out.
Elon Musk could come in and purge the staff and Twitter would run just fine.
That's the amazing thing.
It's like they're subsidizing people.
And where does this money come from?
I'll say it again.
I think Twitter is lying about their numbers.
Elon Musk thinks they're lying about their numbers.
I think they're lying about their numbers to sell ads, ripping people off so they can pump money into the pockets of people who don't do work!
I mean, that sounds like institutional capture, right?
Socialists take over a company, lie, and extract resources from the system to fund people who share their worldview and don't do work.
It's amazing.
It's amazing.
He says employees were worried for their jobs because his company's run differently to Twitter's socialist workplace.
Absolutely incredible.
I'm going to deviate here from this story because I think this confirms a lot of what we know.
I don't talk to you about the ramifications of the censorship, and I want to address a little bit of, you know, we had a show last night where we had some political debate.
Talk to you about the problems of the psychotic left-wing culture that has taken over these platforms.
And I'll give you a really good example with a tweet of mine.
That these two things resulted in me trending on Twitter.
The Project Veritas story, because I posted the video.
I mean, it's breaking news.
Thought it was relevant.
And it's got like 3 million views or something!
Wow, crazy, like 12,000 retweets.
I also posted something about abortion.
And it ended up going viral and getting ratioed by the left, which is fantastic.
I don't know.
It's a weird Twitter culture where they're like, you got ratioed, bro.
And I'm like, thank you for engaging with my posts.
Replies are a function.
Ratioing typically means more people are commenting than sharing the post, and it's not always bad.
But the left took issue with my tweet.
And so, it's kind of a hard segue, but I did want to make sure I addressed some of what we talked about last night, because I think this does kind of come together in a certain way.
Let me explain.
We know that Twitter is biased.
We know that Twitter bans people on the right.
We know that Twitter creates filter bubbles, that people will only see content, they'll only see people they already agree with, and they don't understand basic concepts.
When you see People like this, how they respond to my posts, because they don't know the definitions of words.
Twitter employs people like that to enforce these ideas.
Here's my point.
This guy at Twitter who became left, and he's censoring everything, and the people there are all left.
They have no idea what they're talking about.
It is a cult, where... Let me explain what I mean by cult.
They agree with each other because they agree with each other.
They don't have logical, principled stances behind what they're saying, and they often can't give you detailed answers outside of tropes.
So, this guy ends up working for a company like Twitter.
He says he's becoming left.
They then start banning people who are having legitimate conversations.
Tim Pool, who is moderate, traditional liberal, slightly left-leaning, but for the most part centrist libertarian type, will be called right-wing or conservative by the left because they're in a cult.
Right-wingers and conservatives will call me a liberal or a moderate or a centrist, and typically we can have a conversation we understand.
I'd like to show you this tweet, because I think it provides insight into the conversation we had yesterday, the inability of the two parent factions to come together, and why censorship happens and why it's so bad.
So I tweeted this, and now I'm gonna get into abortion, but consider the abortion thing as an analogy or one example.
I said, what happens if a woman is on the way to get an abortion at eight months, but goes into labor in the lobby of the abortion clinic and accidentally delivers the baby before it could be terminated?
And this tweet gets ratioed because many people on the left were saying things like, that doesn't happen, that won't happen, that can't happen, that would just be induced labor, blah blah blah blah blah.
So I said, oh no, they didn't read the law the Democrats tried to pass which would allow for post-viability abortion.
Why abort the baby instead of inducing labor or a c-section?
Then of course people who don't know English said, how do you induce a c-section?
Inducing labor or a c-section.
Two independent clauses.
And then I had to respond again.
Oh no, they don't know what abortion means.
This is impossible.
This is impossible.
The adults do not have control of the conversation.
Imagine you're running a daycare center and the kids have locked all the doors and have tied up the people running the daycare center.
The inmates are running the asylum.
This is my point.
Not to just constantly rehash the abortion argument.
But, the bill says you can't prohibit abortion after viability.
Viability meaning the baby can survive on its own.
What does abortion mean?
Abortion, according to the CDC, is the termination of a pregnancy that does not result in a live birth.
So you have a baby that's viable, and you perform a procedure that results not in a live birth.
There's only one, that means one thing.
A baby that could have lived outside the womb is terminated.
Its life is over.
Post-viability means up until the point of birth.
So, I, as someone who has always been, you know, effectively in the Roe v. Wade camp of like, you know, at a woman's discretion within a certain timeframe, but viability questions end up being raised.
Why is it that none of these people on the left can understand any of these basic concepts, and they just say things that seem to make no sense?
Like, did you read it, Tim?
It says the health of the mother.
What does that have to do with killing the baby?
Now put it simple.
When I was talking with Matt on the show yesterday, he just kept saying it's the woman's choice.
And Seamus and I, who disagree on the issue, were trying to understand his position, and it didn't seem like he had one.
He just kept saying, it's the woman's choice, it's the choice of the woman, and we're like, we're not, he's like, it's the woman's body, it's the woman's choice.
I said, okay, but when the baby is viable, and the mother's health is at risk, and they have to end the pregnancy for the life of the mother, why kill the baby?
There doesn't seem to be an answer because what I end up seeing with all of these responses on Twitter is the inmates don't understand the concept of abortion, don't know the CDC's definition of it, don't know these things do happen, and I think they're 8 or so percent of cases.
And then I'll give you another example.
91% of abortions happen within the first 12 weeks.
That's data we pulled up on the show.
And if that's the case, Why are they upset with abortions being banned at 16?
Now.
I ask these questions, but the responses I get from people on the left are that they don't understand what abortion means, they don't understand the law the Democrats tried to pass.
Matt, on the show, didn't read the bill, he didn't know they were trying to do this, and he kept saying, because the woman's health is in danger, and I'm like, so you have to remove the baby, right?
Woman's health is at risk, you have to remove the baby, right?
Okay, why kill it?
You could Perform a c-section and take the baby out.
Baby's alive.
Right?
Okay.
Abortion means not a live birth.
That is to say, they would not prohibit a procedure that would kill the baby if the mother's health is at risk.
That doesn't make sense.
It says the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk.
It literally says you can terminate the baby's life if the continuation of the pregnancy
poses a risk to the patient's life or health.
Why terminate the baby when you could terminate the pregnancy and save the baby?
Now if I can't get an answer on that, and these people don't know, and they're running
the rules for Twitter and censoring people, what do you think happens when you give a
a bunch of 12 year olds access to your bank account.
What happens when you give 12-year-olds an iPad and it's linked to your credit card?
They start buying up all the little widgets in their dumb video game because they don't know how it works.
This is the point.
These people, I find, don't know the basic definitions of words or the legal arguments.
And I mean, another example is, and with all due respect to Matt, I appreciate him coming on the show.
We're definitely gonna have him back on the show again.
I disagree with him.
And I take issue with his understanding of these provisions.
But he said, when it came to Twitter's policies on misgendering, conservatives are denying the existence of trans people.
That doesn't mean anything.
It conveys no idea.
He couldn't even articulate what he meant by it, other than if you don't use someone's pronouns, you're basically saying they don't exist, which just doesn't make any sense.
It was just a platitude, a leftist talking point that doesn't represent an idea.
Of course trans people exist.
I think absolutely Ben Shapiro knows trans people exist, I'm pretty sure.
Ben Shapiro is friends with many trans people.
I think he just doesn't agree with using someone's pronouns by force, and he doesn't agree with gender transitioning.
That doesn't mean he thinks they're not real people.
So what is the idea they're trying to convey?
I honestly have no idea.
I don't think there is an idea behind it.
I don't think there is substance.
These are the people who are running the rules.
These are the people who are influencing.
These are children who have not thought out their core positions, who don't know the definitions of words like abortion in the legal argument, so they're not even conveying any ideas.
They are emotional, reactive, and they will ban you from these platforms and these conversations while giving these high salaries to employees who don't do any work.
This is a corruption, and I'll tell you, man, the system can't sustain itself.
Elon Musk maybe will come, and we've got some developments on that.
But, you know, I'll talk about that a little bit later.
The deal might not even go through, but let me wrap these points together.
What I'm starting to see is your political position isn't as relevant as whether you
adhere to the cult or not.
My political positions can be overwhelmingly left leaning, but I can articulate the thoughts
and have a conversation on it.
And for the most part, the left can't.
Not every single person, but it's like if they don't know what abortion means, if they
don't know what if they didn't actually read the bill Democrats tried to pass, if they
didn't read what Joe Manchin said, they have no idea what they're talking about.
Why are they making rules on these platforms and banning those who do?
And it's a really great example when you look at Hunter Biden's laptop story.
The insanity and the inability of these people to comprehend basic concepts results in them saying it's Russian disinformation.
And they ban it based on emotional, tribal reasons.
And it's insane.
I think I should probably refresh this.
I think I have more retweets than that, don't I?
If I refresh this.
No, no, that's about it, yeah.
Actually, I think it's way more, but for some reason, there's like, I don't know, Twitter displays a different amount of retweets.
I have way more responses from the ratio It's fairly simple.
Watch TimCast IRL from last night.
It may be frustrating.
I certainly don't think I have all of the answers.
And there's probably some points that I made that were bad because I don't think I'm a genius or anything like that.
I just know stuff.
I've read stuff.
One of the things I asked Matt after the show, I was like, do you know what an S-Corp is?
And he's like, no.
And I'm like, do you know what a C-Corp is?
And he's like, no, I don't know.
Do you know what an LLC is?
No.
Have you ever tried to form a corporation?
No.
If you don't know any of these things, how can you advocate for policies to change these things?
That's something I genuinely don't understand.
I would never go to someone who's a plumber and be like, let me tell you how to plumb.
I wouldn't go to a trucker and say, let me tell you how to truck.
When it comes to policy positions, I'll have a position on things that I've read and researched.
When it comes to positions on things like, you know, I was asked about Terry Shalva, I was like, I don't know.
Don't know anything about it.
I certainly think there's probably areas where I'm wrong and have advocated for things.
I'm saying for the most part I try to avoid saying we should do a thing unless I know what the ramifications are going to be.
I certainly know the ramifications of Twitter as a free speech platform and I think even Elon Musk doesn't get it.
But anyway, I digress.
Excellent work from Project Veritas confirming all of this stuff.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The Black Lives Matter funding scandals just keep on piling up.
The Associated Press has got its hands on a 990 filing from Black Lives Matter, and there's a lot of questions that need to be asked.
Like, why is it that the family and friends of those associated with Black Lives Matter, the organization, were receiving such large payouts, large salaries, buying mansions, having parties?
Was all of this necessary?
My friends, we're going to dive into the world of the Black Lives Matter non-profit.
I'm going to show you how much money they were getting paid and the lives they were leading.
And I want to tell you it's all above board.
That is to say, it appears nothing wrong was done.
Now, you may not like how non-profits function.
You may not like how BLM is taking this money, and how Patrice Cullors is buying houses, buying a $6 million mansion, having parties in it, paying, you know, her brother, I think she's paying, what, her brother's company?
Or she hired her brother, and then contracts out to companies that are associated with her friends and family, to the tune of nearly a million dollars in some instances.
And, I can tell you, it's probably all legal.
And the bigger issue here too is while we may take issue with how they're using this money, do you think anybody who gave BLM money cares?
Maybe some.
But I see these headlines.
You know, we've got Fox News BLM co-founder Patrice Cullors has group flooded with white guilt money.
Okay.
Alright.
I understand why we'll take issue with people giving them money and them using it to lead lavish wealthy lives.
Well, Still, if guilty white people want to give up their money to these particular individuals to live wealthy, lavish lives, I don't know what you say to that.
I don't know what you say.
Because this is what nonprofits do.
This is how, this is what non-profits do.
Patrice Cullors admits using $6 million California mansion for parties.
For parties.
And paying exorbitant salaries.
I want to dive into the world of non-profits and tell you why I left them.
I didn't work for non-profits all too long, it was over the span of a couple years.
I'd been working in fundraising and marketing efforts.
And this is par for the course, baby.
Here's the story.
Let's talk about BLM using their money and the scandals that are erupting.
The Daily Mail says Patrice Culler's brother is one of two highest paid staffers at Black Lives Matter and is responsible for handling security at the group's controversial $6 million L.A.
mansion.
They say Black Lives Matter co founder Patrice Cutler's brother is paid is one of the two
highest salaries at the organization for being head of the security team.
The former leader had previously had said previously that her sister, mother and brother
were employed with the Black Lives Matter Foundation.
But new financial filings last week revealed Paul Cutler's is paid more than dozens paid
more than dozens of other employees at the severely scrutinized organization.
Although the May filing first reported by the examiner does not reveal the exact amount
Paul Cutler's is paid yearly, it does state he is one of the two highest compensated employees.
Oh, wow.
I had the AP story, but forgive me, Washington Examiner.
It appears that you had the story first.
The organization will be required to disclose what employees it paid upwards of $100,000 in its 990 financial disclosure filing.
News that Patrice Cullors' brother receives the greatest compensation at BLM comes on the heels of mounting criticism toward the doomed ex-leader of the organization.
Quote, while my brother is the head of security, my mom and sister did work at the property, there are also dozens of people who work in the organization that is Black Folks and are doing amazing work.
After her resignation in May 2021, it's been revealed that BLM purchased a $6 million lavish home in Los Angeles with charitable donations.
Patrice Cullors has also come under fire for receiving a $120,000 payment in consulting fees.
Ah, so brilliant.
Callers has repeatedly denied claims she took money from BLM for personal matters, and has reiterated that all the purchases and transactions, including the lavish 6,500-square-foot studio property home, were legitimate.
Quote, The idea that the foundation received millions of dollars and then I hid those dollars
in my bank account is absolutely false, Kohler said, calling those claims a false narrative.
Well, I am particularly well positioned to explain to you the wonderful world of nonprofits.
Without making any accusations towards Patrisse Cullors or friends or family, because it may all be on the level, I'd like to point at a few things real quick and then talk to you about how non-profits work.
Patrisse Cullors says the idea that she took the money into her bank account is absurd.
Foundation relies on consultants from the Associated Press.
They say the foundation has relied on a small grouping of consultants, some of whom have close ties to the founders and other BLM organizers, for example.
The tax filing shows the foundation paid nearly $970,000 to Trap Heels LLC, a company founded by Damon Turner, who fathered a child with colors.
The company was hired to produce live events and produce other creative services, Bauer said.
Okay.
We got another one.
The foundation paid more than $840,000 to Cullors Protection LLC, a security firm run by Paul Cullors, Patrice's brother, according to the tax filing.
Because the BLM movement is known for vehemently protesting law enforcement organizations, the foundation felt its protection could not be entrusted to former police professionals who typically run security firms, said Bowers, adding the foundation sought bids for other security contractors.
$970,000 to Trap Heels LLC.
What does that mean?
I'm gonna come out and defend.
I'm gonna defend the Black Lives Matter organization here.
$970,000 may be over the span of a year.
Black Lives Matter may have been spending, you know, $80,000 or so per month on events.
That's normal.
Now, I don't know for sure.
It may not be the case.
It looks like we actually have a listed family member.
So, I've got private records.
I don't want to pull up, but I have them on a separate screen.
The $840,000 went to Colors Protection LLC.
So, that seems to be the case.
I want to say, it seems like That's on the level.
Now, a lot of people are coming out and claiming, like, this is egregious and bad.
We'll talk about what's bad, and I'll talk about the dirty games.
But let's talk about what this means, so I can help you better understand.
Look, I'm not a fan of the Black Lives Matter organization.
I think their ideals are bad.
I think we can see them using parties.
They did use this stuff for personal issues.
But let's be correct right now.
$840,000 to a private security firm.
That is actually really low.
No joke.
That is very little money for security for Black Lives Matter.
Now, conflict of interest because they're paying money to their friends and family.
Oh, you betcha.
See, I wouldn't do that to this degree.
But also, I have family who works for my company, too.
I have a couple family members who work here.
Granted, I'm not a non-profit.
I don't see this as being the biggest scandal in the world, especially when, you know, I can give you some insights into the security.
Do you want to know how much it would cost for a full security detail?
This is going to blow your mind.
Between three and five million dollars for the year, for a full security detail.
If you want a single, for a company, for a company, they're barely spending any money on security.
I would estimate that $840,000 in security, if they really are hiring security, because, I mean, maybe they're doing nefarious things behind the scenes.
They're looking at maybe, let's see, in a single day, if they want workday security, We're looking at five security guards and not even 24 hours.
If they were going to do 24-hour detail, this would mean they had two guards for their property at all time.
Makes sense, right?
Just two guards, though.
Two.
So what, you got one guy at the gate, one guy at the door?
Hey, look, man.
Again, not a fan of how they, their ideologies or the things they do.
Security ain't one of these issues.
$970,000 to events?
Again, I'm gonna come out.
I'll defend them.
Apparently, they had, let me see if I can find it here in the Daily Mail.
$150,000 for a November 2020 livestream of election night.
Well, that's a lot of money.
Now I have questions.
So let me, let me try and just slow down for a moment and explain.
I've seen how non-profits work.
I think they're dirty.
I think the security costs they paid are low relative to what I know about security.
$150K for a livestream event?
Ah, here's what's happening.
They've got money, and they just want to spend it.
That's the only reason you'd spend $150K on a livestream.
No, I'm serious.
So if you need cameras and a computer, let me break it down for you.
How many cameras do you need?
Two or three?
Okay.
You can get those for $800 to $1,000.
Good 4K cameras that can live stream.
So there's three.
A computer, $3,000 that can handle a live stream.
Internet, well, depending on what kind of internet you're working with, it may only be a couple hundred bucks per month, especially in a major market with massive infrastructure like LA.
So we're looking at a live stream event.
Let's just round up and say 5K.
Staffing issues.
All right, let's say you're gonna pay your engineers 500 bucks or 1,000 bucks for the night.
How do you get to $150,000?
That's the issue I have.
I want to point out, it may also include set design, which can be expensive, but $150,000?
Seems strange.
$150,000 seems strange.
Seems really strange because look, these are huge numbers.
You know, we're doing so much behind the scenes in terms of production.
Music videos, movies, films.
That number doesn't make sense.
So I got questions.
I do.
Let's talk about, look what they've built.
What are they doing with all this?
Why do they have a dual property $6 million mansion, right?
Two houses.
Why do they have this big set?
What are they doing?
Why did they get an in-ground pool?
Why buy this?
If they're looking to produce content, why not buy in a more industrial setting like any other organization would do?
I don't trust them.
I think they're bad people.
I think they're manipulators.
I think they're relishing in money from white guilt.
And they're living like kings off of America's white guilt.
I think this is an ailment that our society is hurting and these people are effectively leeching off of it.
Now, that being said, if people want to give money to Black Lives Matter, they're going to.
After this news comes out, I doubt you will find a large portion of those who gave being upset about any of this.
In fact, they probably don't even know it happened, which is why the news reporting is important.
Let's talk about the amount of money they're spending.
So let me just reiterate this point.
It's possible the money they're spending is all on the level in terms of security and infrastructure and, you know, doing live streams and things like that.
I think it's a little exorbitant on the live stream end.
I don't think they needed the mansion.
But are they allowed to do it?
That's their money, it was donated to them, right?
Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrice Cullors said the organization is awash with white guilt money.
Cullors made the comment in an MSNBC podcast posted Monday afternoon in response to a question from host Tremaine Lee, who had asked if the organization's tsunami of flooding, what does that mean, was shocking, and if they had guardrails in place to ensure its cash was being directed in the proper ways.
Yes, it was a major shock, Cullors said on the Into America podcast.
It was also a lot of like, oh wait, I did not see that coming.
You know, contrary to what you know has been reported, much of the funding that came in was from individual donors.
Sounds right to me.
That was a lot of white guilt money.
Kohler has continued, there's a lot of white folks being like, we just got to put the money.
Okay, okay, okay.
The same people who are going to advocate for reparations to force people who don't want to pay to pay are also taking white guilt money and using it to lead wealthy, lavish lives.
Incredible.
Now, if Colers herself was receiving exorbitant salaries, that would appear in the 990s, the tax filings for the non-profit.
Because, as they noted, anybody who makes more than $100,000, those are highly competitive individuals and they get listed.
But let me tell you how it works.
I'm not going to accuse them of anything, but I've seen it in non-profits.
Here's what you do.
You start a non-profit, you start a corporation.
You say, I take a small salary at the non-profit, a humble $50,000 per year for the good work of Insert Cause.
The non-profit then raises millions of dollars.
You then hire out your other LLC that employs you at a million dollar a year salary.
You see how that works?
For all we know, Patrice Culler privately, I mean, how does she afford all these homes?
For all we know, It's possible.
She is a private employee at companies that work with the non-profit.
I mean, it's really that simple, man.
Look, we wanna start some non-profits for Timcast.
I mean, we did, and we're going through filing.
It takes a long time.
One is fact-checking.
One is building infrastructure.
We're getting them all sorted.
We haven't, I don't believe, like, no one's taken any donations for them yet.
We're waiting tax filing.
I'm not going to take a salary from the non-profit.
I don't want to receive any money from it.
And we're going to have all our 990s.
We're not highly compensating anyone.
The only high compensation we might have to pay for is building the website out.
When I look at these non-profits, I throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Millions of dollars?
Just, like, buying all this crazy stuff and spending $100,000 on a live stream?
We're never gonna do that.
The goal we have with the Truth in Media Foundation, Tim, someone, someone, I didn't come up with that.
Someone else told me that.
Truth in Media, T-I-M.
We're gonna hire fact-checkers and they're going to independently fact-check our content and many others.
And, you know, look, we could use it here at TimCast for sure.
We do a good job, but we're not perfect.
We, you know, we miss.
And so the idea is that will improve our accuracy because the fact-checkers will just basically, as an external organization, we will pay them To fact-check our articles.
So, Tim Cass will actually pay them.
That will cover salaries for the fact-checkers.
The non-profit will also take in donations.
We're not going to give anybody a million dollars.
We're not going to give anybody hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I'm fairly certain in our actual filing for it, we said no one's getting six figures.
We're going to be hiring basic journalist jobs.
They're going to get paid well, but their goal is going to be to do the work and do the fact-checking.
We'll never buy a mansion with it.
If the non-profit becomes large and starts receiving massive sums of money, we will create prizes to give to journalists.
We will return that money to give it back to good journalism and probably like policy around free speech and accuracy in media.
That's why it's a foundation.
The Black Lives Matter built a big studio, spent all this money, and they're awash with cash.
I don't know what they're supposed to do with all that money.
And I'm not going to fault anybody for getting the money.
Donald Trump.
I'm sorry, not Trump, Steve Bannon, and this other guy, I'm sorry I forget his name, were like, we're gonna build the wall, we're gonna privately fund it, and they raised, what was it, like a million bucks?
The guy took his salary and they tried locking him up.
I think they did lock him up.
Trump pardoned, I think, Bannon.
And my attitude is just like, do you think anybody who donated to build the wall cared that the dude was getting a salary?
Of course not!
It's the stupidest thing ever.
You know, I'll be careful about our non-profit and just say that everything I'm saying is subject to change.
We haven't launched it, we haven't hired anybody, we have these goals, and we're just waiting on filing, which takes a long time.
But this is how they get ya.
Dude said, apparently, with the build-a-wall thing, that he wasn't going to take a salary.
And then he ended up taking a salary, and they're like, aha, you defrauded people.
And it's kinda like, you can't change your mind?
Like, what do you do?
Do you, like, issue a press release?
Or a memo saying anybody who wants a refund is entitled to one, but we gotta pay this guy a salary?
Nobody who donated cared.
Nobody who donated to Black Lives Matter.
Okay, I'm speaking in generalities, not absolutes.
The majority.
I'm sure there are some people who care, but most people who donated to everything they did don't care they did it.
Most people who heard they had a party don't care.
You know?
Would you care if you donated to Donald Trump and he bought a filet mignon?
Medium rare.
Well, well done with ketchup?
Do you think, would you care?
No!
You'd be like, oh, okay, good for him, you know, I donate, I support him, I like what he does.
That's why I don't like non-profits.
I don't like the idea of people living exorbitantly wealthy lives off of this notion that they're doing public services, because they're not.
They tend to lie to make money.
I believe Black Lives Matter is just another ideological organization that manipulates the public to receive donations.
They ended up, because of the branding, receiving tens of millions of dollars from the general public and people who are guilty.
White guilt, as Patrisse Cullors says.
Good for them, I guess.
You know, part of me says, I wish the world wasn't this way.
Part of me says, people can give money to who they want to give money to.
And if story after story keeps coming out about how they had parties, or bought crazy properties, or spending insane amounts of money on live productions, and people keep donating?
Well, okay.
I suppose it's our task then to highlight this, show you the pictures, and say, here's what they're doing with your money.
Multiple properties privately owned by Patrice Cullors.
How does she afford that?
What does she do externally?
Perhaps she has another job?
Perhaps there's a relation?
I don't know.
It doesn't seem like she's getting a large salary from Black Lives Matter.
Take a look at this in-ground pool.
Brick, brick surrounding it.
Oh, wow.
Beautiful.
6,500 square foot mansion.
They built this set.
What are they doing with it?
Is there anything prominent?
Yo, I'm gonna tell you guys something.
$42 million, they could buy, I think buying all of Times Square for one day is $3 million.
I don't know why you would.
It's not easy to coordinate, because getting every ad agency, and you really couldn't do it because some of the ads are vinyl, like they're static ads that are made of vinyl, you can't just swap it out for a day.
But what I mean to say is, They built this massive set.
They have $42 million in assets.
Why aren't they buying billboards?
Why aren't they launching movies?
Why aren't they making shows and buying airtime?
What are they doing with all this money?
We here at TimCast have substantially less money than that.
But, uh, well, I shouldn't say substantially less.
We're doing really well.
You know, thanks to all you guys.
And, um, you know, we're hiring people.
We're trying to hire more people.
We're trying to set up non-profits.
I do well for myself.
We're also a private business.
People who give money get something in return, but there is an element of a similarity between TimCast and Black Lives Matter in terms of donations, in terms of money received.
A large portion of people who give money to TimCast.com do it to support the mission.
And the work we do.
I'd like to say that we are much more efficient with that money, and we're actually producing.
Pop Culture Crisis is now live at 3pm every day.
Go to youtube.com slash pop culture crisis to watch live.
Another live show.
When you super chat on Pop Culture Crisis, money guns fire money at the hosts.
And we're gonna set up a thing, kind of like the chicken party meter, to make it rain.
When the meter fills up, it'll make it rain, and like, lights will flash, and it'll spray the hosts with money.
Because we're trying to make entertainment.
Culture-building entertainment.
You know, Tim Kast IRL is much more serious, much more political and academic.
Pop culture crisis is supposed to be more fun and silly.
We're actively doing these things, and we're hiring these people.
It's, you know, I'm trying to do everything I can to utilize the funds for the mission.
I was talking to our good friend Michael Malice, and I mean that quite literally.
Often it's a half joke, but no, Michael's rad.
And I was like, what can we do?
And so we're talking about culture jamming as marketing with crazy ideas.
I suppose I've got to keep some of the details private, but I wouldn't use donations to buy a $6 million mansion in Los Angeles.
One of the reasons we moved out to West Virginia was because we want to be responsible with the money that we have.
Property is substantially cheaper and larger.
We want to create opportunity for those who have similar values to us on personal responsibility and liberty.
So I'm like, West Virginia?
I don't want to go to Austin.
I don't want to go and funnel money into these big lefty centers.
I want to bring economic prosperity to the regions where people are more likely to agree with live and let live and leave me alone.
So we'll go here.
We've got a lot going on behind the scenes.
I don't know.
You know, I wanted to talk about this because I kind of wanted to defend Black Lives Matter, to be completely honest, as much as I don't want, I don't like them, and I wanted to point out, yo, this is what nonprofits do.
This is what big business is.
Everything they're doing.
Name a non-profit.
So I can't look at them and say anything other than politics has fueled the wealthy lives of these people.
Good for them, I suppose.
Ain't nobody complaining, are they?
Unless you're one of those people who did donate and you're upset this is what they did with your money, because maybe you would be.
Maybe you would be.
That's why I'm like, I much prefer the private business model for TimCast.com.
You know, look, you become a member at Timcast, you are supporting us and the mission, but we're giving you something in exchange for it, so, you know, we pay tax and all that stuff.
Unlike the non-profit that doesn't, and then they use it for whatever.
More scandals likely will arise as more information comes out about their money.
But I think the big story here for most people is if you don't like BLM, you're gonna be mad about it.
And I think if you're gonna be honest, you're gonna be like, welcome to the world of nonprofits.
