Biden Heading To WAR ZONE, Marines Deploying To Israeli Waters Sparks Fear Of World War 3
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/
Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/
Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL
Biden Heading To WAR ZONE, Marines Deploying To Israeli Waters Sparks Fear Of World War 3
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
Now, let's jump into the first story.
The United States has deployed a Marine Rapid Response Force, 2,000 Marines and sailors, to Israeli waters.
They are preparing, according to the Pentagon, for deployment into the country.
At least, this is according to CNN.
Other sources say they likely would not enter the country, but maybe enter neighboring countries, but I'm not quite sure which neighboring country they're going to enter, if perhaps Egypt, I guess.
It's probably the only place they could.
And this has many people ringing alarm bells.
The fact that the U.S.
has deployed warships, an aircraft carrier strike group, and now thousands of Marines and sailors into a region at a time when Iran is making threats.
I guess technically you could say the U.S.
is making threats because Lindsey Graham called for bombing Iran with or without evidence of any wrongdoing, of any involvement in the Hamas attacks.
And now, Perhaps what may be the most alarming story is that Joe Biden will visit Israel tomorrow.
For those that aren't aware, Israel is still under rocket fire from Hamas.
It's a particularly dangerous time to visit this country.
And in this segment, we are not just dealing with the foreign policy ramifications of Hamas's actions, terror attacks, the capturing of civilians.
Or, the response from Israel, we're dealing with the potential real-world implications of our president entering an active conflict zone, and God forbid, something bad happening to him.
It was funny, on TimCastIRL I asked, if Joe Biden, you know, goes to Israel and something bad happens to him, should the US retaliate?
Everyone says no.
I then asked, what if it was Donald Trump? Everybody says yes. And so it does seem to be
that it is largely political. The view that should anything happen to our president,
the US should respond. If it's Trump, we should. If it's Biden, we should not.
And I get it. People don't like Biden. He's a bad president.
Donald Trump, people like Donald Trump, or at least many of the people
who follow the show.
Now, this isn't like a scientific poll or anything.
It was just a bunch of people in the chatroom.
It's not indicative of the entirety of the people who watch.
I'm sure, honestly, based on the actual polls we've done, most people would just say, no intervention.
But there's an interesting point to be made.
And that is, Libby Emin said, If a U.S.
president is killed, no matter how bad they are and whatever, the U.S.
must retaliate.
Because if you do not defend your president after he's been assassinated, if you do not respond to those who would kill your president, then you have no nation.
And I gotta say, it's a tough one, but I mostly agree.
I don't think it is a good idea for Joe Biden to go to Israel right now.
And there are a lot of questions about whether or not he can be secured and kept safe in an active conflict zone such as this.
What you need to understand about your terror attacks from groups like Hamas is that they seek to bypass your traditional methods of security.
That's what terrorism is.
And the U.S.
southern border is so porous, we could have these people entering our country.
With marines off the shore of Israel?
With an aircraft carrier strike group warships?
I mean, this is a particularly precarious situation.
And so I have to wonder.
I have to wonder, man.
I don't understand why Joe Biden would do this, because the risk is great.
It's so great, even CNN is calling it a high-stakes trip.
And if something happens to him, then what?
Well, we've had a lot of conversations about how they get Joe Biden out of the presidential race, considering he's losing to Trump across the board.
Especially now with RFK Jr.
running, the polls are showing that Trump in swing states has a massive lead.
Don't take my word for it.
Interactive polls.
When Kennedy Jr.
is included as an independent candidate, Trump leads Joe Biden in five of six swing states polled.
Arizona up five, Georgia up three, Michigan up two, Pennsylvania, tie.
North Carolina up three, Florida up eight.
To be fair, I don't think it's fair to call Florida a swing state at this point.
But considering that Biden wins none of these states, and it's only because of a tie you can argue Trump didn't win them all, it says a lot about what's going on right now.
And so they need someone else to run.
Now, we've speculated as to how they pull this off, and I've said, you know, Joe Biden is at a campaign rally in California, and then has a medical episode, Gavin Newsom rolls up his sleeves, runs out full speed, and saves the president's life, CPR, whatever it may be.
And a lot of people, I think it's really funny, they're like, the Secret Service would never allow it!
And I'm like, come on, I'm talking about a hypothetical stage scenario in which they're trying to swap out the president, okay?
I don't think that there's a plan to do anything like this, but I will say.
The purpose of the speculation is, imagine a scenario in which they could have Biden not run for president, bow out gracefully, and find a way that Kamala Harris doesn't run either, because she polls miserably as well.
The challenge is, if Joe Biden faces a medical episode, Kamala Harris is next in line, right?
Well, if this is the scary thought, Joe Biden goes to Israel, something bad happens to him.
Kamala Harris is next in line.
She then becomes the acting president.
When she finishes the term out in 2024, she says, I will not seek re-election.
My job as vice president was to assume the duties of the president in the event he was incapacitated or harmed, etc.
Bows out gracefully and even announces right now.
See, here's what's what's worrying me about this.
The risk is great.
And the primaries will be in a few months, if there's going to be primaries.
Now, I don't know what happens, because RFK Jr.
is, you know, he wanted to run as a Democrat, but now he's running as an Independent.
And if they do have a primary, what is he going to do?
Jump back to the Democratic Party?
I don't know.
I don't know.
So, I think, in all likelihood, 99.9%.
Joe Biden goes to Israel, and it's just escalation, and that's it.
And then he comes home.
And so, this is bad across the board.
It should not be happening.
The argument from, I guess, the Biden administration is, we're deploying Marines, military aircraft carriers, to prevent escalation.
And I'm like, are you serious, dude?
This is leading to escalation.
Iran is saying no one will stop them.
That the resistance is what they're calling it.
Let's read the news.
And then we'll talk about what may happen.
CNN says, President Joe Biden will make an extraordinary wartime visit to Israel this week as he seeks to demonstrate staunch support for the country as it works to eliminate Hamas while also pressing for ways to ease humanitarian suffering in Gaza.
The dueling objectives spelled out by his top diplomat Monday evening bring with them significant risks for the president as he works to prevent the crisis in the Middle East from widening.
And they say that, but I'm sorry, I just don't believe them.
I think they want it to widen.
Aides said Biden had expressed a strong interest in making the journey after being invited over the weekend by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Biden has known for four decades.
He spent Monday deliberating over the trip at the White House with his top national security and intelligence adviser.
Meanwhile, in Tel Aviv, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was convening a marathon session with top Israeli officials
to discuss opening Gaza to humanitarian aid and preventing civilians from getting caught up
in Israel's response to the terror attacks.
In announcing Biden's Wednesday trip, after more than seven hours of negotiations,
Blinken said that the US stands, I'm sorry, United States and Israel,
have agreed to develop a plan that will enable humanitarian aid from donor nations
and multilateral organizations to reach civilians in Gaza.
President will also travel to Jordan, where he will meet with King Abdullah II, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The top U.S.
diplomat in recent days met separately with the three leaders, all of whom have condemned the situation in Gaza.
The security risks of a diplomatic visit to Israel were starkly illustrated Monday when Blinken, in his meeting with Netanyahu, was forced to shelter in place after sirens warned of incoming rockets.
White House officials said they'd carefully weighed the risks of a presidential visit and deemed it safe enough both to execute and announce ahead of time.
I mean, I just don't see it.
I do not see the reason for this.
The president doesn't need to do this.
The president's visit will build on Blinken's seven-nation multi-day tour of the Middle East, etc, etc.
We understand, we understand.
What is to be gained by Joe Biden going into a zone where Blinken was just sheltering under rocket fire?
Look, man.
This one's a tough one.
Everybody's screaming at the top of their lungs at each other.
People who were once more aligned in the culture war are now just insulting each other.
It's war, dude.
You know, and everyone's blood is boiling.
My concern right now is this.
The President goes to Israel.
There is a rocket fire attack.
The President, he is a weak man, doesn't make it.
And then we get abject chaos.
What happens next?
Well.
With thousands of U.S.
Marines sailing to Israel, while the Pentagon orders 2,000 additional troops ready for potential deployment, I think we're gearing up for war.
And if we're gonna have war, we're gonna need a Cassus Belli!
A cause for war.
And, uh, what would be that Cassus Belli?
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America 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.
If the United States President Joe Biden is injured, maimed, killed, or incapacitated by Hamas, there will be a direct and immediate response by the United States.
And here's the challenge, and the reason why I bring this up.
Do I believe the President will be harmed?
No, honestly, I don't.
I have a normalcy and optimism bias in this regard.
Biden's gonna go there, he's gonna say some garbled nonsense words, he's gonna come home.
That's the most likely scenario.
I just can't see anything else.
But my concern is that this could be a dramatic international incident which could result in World War III, and that's why it's just an unnecessary risk.
If it is 1 in 200 million chance that Joe Biden be harmed, maimed, killed, etc., why buy that lottery ticket?
For real.
Cost-benefit analysis, cost-risk analysis.
Joe Biden goes there.
What is to be gained?
Very little.
I mean, the diplomatic meetings that could be held to temper the situations, to calm them down, could be held by Blinken or anybody else.
Biden doesn't need to go there.
But he is.
And that means maybe it's a lottery ticket.
That if we win, we get World War III.
Hey, that's a lottery ticket I don't think we should buy, even though it's probably not gonna win.
What's the point?
The risks outweigh any potential benefit.
Can't call him on the phone?
Video conference?
Can't meet in a neighboring nation?
How about this?
All of the world leaders hold a summit, perhaps in Egypt.
Not the safest, but safer substantially.
A neighboring nation.
They can go to Cairo.
They can have a nice meeting right at the airport.
They can all discuss these things, shake hands, security everywhere, and then he leaves.
No, he's gonna go directly into Israel where rockets are being lobbed at civilians.
That's my concern.
And this is what we have to consider.
The presidential order of succession.
First up, obviously, is the Vice President, then the Speaker of the House.
As many of you know, there isn't one.
There's going to be a vote today, and many are hoping it will be Jim Jordan, but it may not be.
So, with no Speaker of the House, obviously it doesn't matter because Kamala Harris is readily available to assume the role of the Presidency should anything happen to Joe Biden, God forbid.
But next up beyond Kamala Harris, with no Speaker of the House, would be the President pro-Tempe.
Uh, is it Tempe or Tempore, whatever, of the Senate?
I've sort of said it a bunch of different ways, so I'm like, whatever.
Pro-Temp of the Senate.
And that is, the current one is, uh, it's that one we talked about last night.
It's, uh, look at all these guys.
This is the second most powerful position in the Senate, and it is Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington.
Oh, heaven's me.
Not going to be too fun, if that's the case.
But that's who it would be without a Speaker of the House.
And after that it's Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General.
I really don't see this as being a very likely outcome.
I do see the very serious potential for massive escalation of war.
Aside from the 2,000 troops, we have this story from the Daily Mail.
Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei warns no one will be able to stop Muslims or resistance forces if Israel keeps bombing Gaza days after hundreds of thousands rallied to ex-Hamas chiefs call for a day of jihad.
If the crimes of the Zionist regime continue, Muslims and resistance forces will become impatient and no one can stop them, Khamenei said.
No matter what the Zionist regime does, it cannot make up for the scandalous failure it suffered.
You know, what an interesting time to be alive is the only thing I can say.
I find the whole Israel-Palestine thing so, uh, so interesting.
These people are chanting, free, free Palestine, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
You know what that means.
From the river.
I believe that's the Jordan River, right?
Oh, we have the map.
We can pull it up just to make sure.
I am not a foremost expert on Israel or things like this, but you have the river here, and this is the Jordan River, I believe.
Yeah, Jordan River.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
Hey, that's the entirety of Israel.
And, yeah, there's no two-state solution here.
And so, with the U.S.
deploying warships into the Mediterranean just off the coast of Israel, I mean, we've got the makings of serious war.
Now, I don't see Jordan likely being as involved.
I mean, they're condemning it.
Lebanon's already involved.
Syria's already involved.
And you gotta wonder about U.S.
deployments into, say, Iraq and Afghanistan, although Afghanistan's quite a bit away.
Iran is here.
And they are separated by Iraq, which all makes a whole lot of sense as to why the U.S.
invaded.
So who is going to be on which sides if this does escalate?
Lebanon?
Syria?
More likely to be aligned with Russia.
Syria, of course, is an ally of Russia.
And this is an escalation we don't need.
But to be completely honest, I don't see right now this escalating to World War III.
I believe if it does escalate, it will be a regional conflict.
That's bad.
It is.
It is the combination of a multi-front, you know, set of conflicts for the United States which could result in the makings of World War III.
China moving on Taiwan is not the biggest move in the world.
It's not World War III.
But you combine all of these and you have the makings of something truly devastating.
The issue with Syria being bombed is that in Tartus, which is, uh, where's Tartus at?
There it is.
You have a Russian naval base.
And so, uh, that is Russian interests.
It is not that far off from Lebanon, and Israel has been engaging in airstrikes on, I believe, Aleppo and Damascus.
I could be wrong about Aleppo and Tartus is right there in the middle.
So you've got Russian interests in Syria and a very real threat.
I don't know if Iran actually engages or what happens but you have the makings of something dangerous now.
Here's my fear.
This conflict, this region?
Yeah, like, look, okay?
Israel and Gaza, it's relatively small.
Egypt, more along with the United States.
Saudi Arabia?
Eh, that's interesting, but cutting deals with the United States.
Jordan seems to not be as big of a player in this one.
Iraq, of course, the U.S.
basically conquered.
Syria aligned with Russia and engaging in conflict with Israel as Lebanon as well as Lebanon and the argument is, is Iran active or not?
Are they transporting weapons?
They may be.
There's a concern that Afghanistan, that the Taliban is shipping weapons, formerly US weapons, through Iran and then under through secret tunnels and making their way to Israel now.
The big question is not whether or not Hamas-Gaza results in, you know, Israel-Hamas results in a big conflict.
The issue is, if something happens to Joe Biden, and warmongers like Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham say, it was Iran, and then we get this big news cycle about Iran supporting terror which killed a president, they'll get their war with Iran that they've been trying to get for several decades.
There was that famous news story, I think it was Wesley Clark, said that there were seven nations the U.S.
wanted to invade and I believe, I could be wrong about this because I don't pay too much attention to it, but Iran is the last one.
John Bolton said during the Trump administration, this time next year we will be celebrating in Tehran.
What a horrifying thing to say.
Because there's no reason to invade Iran.
There's none.
And it's also important to understand, Iran is not some desert nation that we can just swoop into.
It is a massively developed nation with a large population.
It is particularly mountainous and will be very difficult for the U.S.
to engage in conflict in.
Not to mention, you are going to have widespread conflict all across the region.
The interesting thing is... Hey, look at this.
This is something that people need to understand.
When the U.S.
invaded Iraq and invaded Afghanistan, we surrounded Iran on both sides with U.S.
military bases.
You think Iran doesn't know this?
Of course they do.
That's it.
That is their national security.
That is their security interests.
Iran, the U.S.
wants Iran to fall in line with the Western machine.
And they've not.
They've not.
And so the United States, the powerful interests in the deep state, the bureaucratic state, or whatever, the intelligence agencies, this is where they want war.
That's the concern.
We're gearing up, baby.
It seems politically, The easiest path would be if Joe Biden can't win, if Kamala Harris can't win, and you need both of these individuals to leave and before a primary would happen, which is probably around March, then you need a legitimate reason for them to not be available.
I do not see a reason for a high stakes trip by the president.
And my concern is it's just opening the door for an easy exit for Democrats.
You know, I know I'm not I'm not saying I think that it is likely or probable that they're intentionally sending Joe Biden to risk himself.
I'm saying it would be convenient for Democrats to get rid of an unpopular president in a way that would actually substantially boost his popularity.
And if anything happens to him, result in an easy exit and entrance for someone like Gavin Newsom.
And then things will get interesting because I think even many conservatives, they'll criticize Joe Biden.
They'll say he's awful.
And then they'll say they attacked a U.S.
president and we must retaliate.
Maybe he said it.
That's a tough one.
Comment, let me know what you think.
conservative types and centrists who typically are like, I see no reason for intervention being like,
yeah, killing a US president is cause for intervention, is cause for retaliation.
That's a tough one. Comment, let me know what you think. No, seriously.
Should the United States intervene? Well, I shouldn't even say intervene, it's a retaliate.
A retaliatory strike on any nation that kills a U.S.
President.
I mean, it's an interesting question, because if you don't, what are you saying to the world?
That you have no military power?
You have no nation?
We cannot allow someone to strike at our President.
You know, and that's a challenge, because when Donald Trump crossed the DMZ into North Korea, there was great personal risk.
I would not expect the United States to blow up North Korea if something bad happened to him on a peace mission.
But perhaps you'd have to, because that's the point.
You're engaging in this mission of peace with great risk to your personal self, but you also know you've got the might of the U.S.
military standing behind you, and so nothing bad is going to happen, and that's how we bring about peace.
I don't know for sure.
All I can say is, the scary reality is, if something happens to Joe Biden, you got World War III.
Donald Trump could even enter the presidency a year from now, and Trump would say, as crooked as Biden was, we will not stand for anyone attacking a president, and you're going to have people waving American flags and cheering for it.
Which will be a very, very interesting circumstance.
We're deploying troops.
We're getting ready for war.
They're preparing a deployment into Israel.
And Joe Biden is heading there.
So not only are we preparing for war, but we have a real risk of something happening to our president, which could be the casus belli for war to begin.
And then conveniently, our troops are ready to invade.
If something bad happens to Joe Biden, U.S.
Marines offshore storm Gaza, then what?
That's the scary thought.
All the pieces have lined up for something truly bad to happen.
Ultimately, I think nothing will happen, okay?
Because I have a normalcy bias, and it's just unlikely.
Let's hope.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
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.
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.
The Ivey leagues are set to lose nearly 500 million dollars after several professors and
student groups came out in support of Hamas.
You know, there will always be a culture war.
No matter what it is that we're fighting for, we're going to find that we disagree with many people.
And the culture war may be shifting right now with many people on the right, formally, whatever you would call the right, seemingly at odds over intervention in Israel and their stance on Israel's response.
It's also very interesting to see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calling for surgical military strikes to execute Hamas leaders.
And for some reason, I'm still seeing Republicans rag on her.
It's like, come on.
Come on.
Things are changing here.
I mean, I suppose if your position is anti-intervention, you're kind of like, AOC, chill out.
No, but for real, she called for precision strikes.
It's a more complicated situation, but that's the gist of what she said.
She is still critical of Israel, of course, but she certainly departed from where the DSA currently is.
My friends, this story is a white pill.
I keep saying, I think we're winning.
And I think this is a good example of exactly why and how and the next step in us actually winning the culture war.
Let me stress this again.
We are winning.
First, there's the obvious.
I've talked about it quite a bit.
The left don't have kids and the right is more likely to have kids.
It's all that matters.
It doesn't mean that Republicans are replacing themselves.
Families need to have at least two kids.
But the left is certainly not.
They're aborting, sterilizing their kids, or just not having any outright.
That, in and of itself, mathematically predicts a more conservative future, but alas!
Many people say, no, Tim, no, no, no.
Because they're indoctrinating our kids.
Not no more!
Look at this.
When all these students started coming on support of overt acts of terrorism and war crimes, big donors were all of a sudden like, okay, that's it.
That's the line.
And now they're not going to be giving their money to these Ivy League schools.
Hotbeds for Marxist activity.
Once again, the indoctrination machine is getting a beatdown.
It's funny to see the Anti-Defamation League try somewhat to criticize Black Lives Matter while excusing the fact that one of the founders of Black Lives Matter's Global Network Foundation has called for the end of Israel.
Look, man, I'm not here to debate the merits and the history and who's deserving of what land and who's the original settler, because, you know, I gotta tell you, I see these leftists And they're like, Israel are settler colonialists, and the people who live there are settlers, and blah blah blah.
And it's just like, then you got people like, dude, this land was Judea before it, and it was Jewish, and all that stuff.
And I'm like, look man, it's war.
I ain't here to get into the, like, who's right and what, and history, and all that stuff.
I'm here to tell you, man, civilians shouldn't be dying.
And that's a problem for us.
But war is war, man.
And I don't think there's any easy answer or anything I can say to appease the ideological factions.
There are people who work at this company who are very pro-Israel, and there are people who are very anti-Israel.
Not that anyone here is pretty much supporting what Hamas is doing.
But now what we're seeing is that after several professors and multiple Ivy Leagues have come out defending terrorism, the left is losing control of the institutions.
Look, just the other day, we had the Daily Wire announce the launching of their streaming service, BentKey, which is a platform that's going to have a bunch of programs for children.
And it's not overtly political.
It's, as Jeremy Boren, co-CEO of Daily Wire, said, it's about wonder and adventure.
I'm like, this is it, man.
Daily Wire is launching Snow White.
Look, why am I saying this?
This segment, this story is about winning culture.
Harvard losing a major donor.
Professors coming out in support of Hamas.
Yo, regular Americans are freaked out by this.
Imagine how this is going to play out in the election.
Yeah, we got an election coming.
Now, the primary is mostly over.
The donors aren't coming out for any of these other Republicans.
Donald Trump, I tell you, all the PACs, Donald Trump's campaign, they are going to run ads showing the left overtly supporting the murder, kidnapping, and killing of civilians.
There's a video going viral right now.
It shows college students tearing down posters of people who are kidnapped or missing in Israel.
And they're smiling and laughing as they do it.
They're evil, man!
Dude, I gotta tell you.
AOC comes out, and she's saying, like, collective punishment is bad.
And I'm like, okay, here's my view.
Collective punishment, I don't agree with that.
unidentified
That puts me in disagreement with some of my own friends.
I don't necessarily agree that's collective punishment, but I certainly am willing to and interested in hearing the perspective of those who are trying to minimize civilian casualties.
Completely agree.
But Hamas is telling people to stay in these buildings as Israel is seeking to remove military targets.
It is war.
There is no easy answer.
But even AOC is critical of Hamas.
She knows she has to be.
Ocasio-Cortez, in an interview, and I saw the Republicans are ragging on her for this, said, we need more precision.
It's like, you know what I mean?
She says, Hamas must be dealt with, and we must have some precision, and collective punishment doesn't work.
Israel cut off the water.
Well, Hamas is seen on video taking water pipes to make rockets.
Okay, like, what are we supposed to do about this?
It's not easy.
It's war.
There's propaganda, misinformation.
Good luck.
The one thing I can tell you is, ain't nobody gonna tolerate celebrating the killing of civilians in an unprovoked attack.
Oh, I dare say it, I dare say it.
Now, let's be real.
I understand there's a conflict here, but what I'm specifically referring to is the granular and not the overt.
You want to make the argument that Israel is at war with Palestine in 1948, 1967, and all these things, and then say unprovoked is an incorrect statement?
No, no, no, okay, fine, fine, fine.
My point is this.
Yo, a bunch of civilians dancing and partying at a music festival, and Hamas decided to kill and capture them?
That's unprovoked.
Some of these people were tourists.
And the left argues, they're settlers, not civilians.
Okay, well listen.
You answer to that.
If you want to make the argument that Palestine being at war with Israel targets military bases, I would not call that unprovoked.
I would be like, welcome to war.
Everybody's claiming some justification.
But the argument that they... There is no argument why they would kill civilians.
They didn't.
You see, that's unprovoked.
Now, their argument is they're settlers.
No, some of them were tourists.
I've talked to friends of mine who are more anti-Israel, more pro-Israel, and there are many people who are like, it doesn't matter, the people who lived there were born there.
I'm not saying that.
Make your arguments.
Fine, my point is this.
There were tourists there!
That's unprovoked killing of civilians.
You want to argue on behalf of Hamas?
Argue why they did not round up the civilians, get them on a path out of the music festival to avoid casualties.
Why?
Because they're terrorists.
They want to kill civilians.
They put out videos of them holding babies.
Sorry, there's no argument against that.
You want to argue about the war and the crisis and all that?
I'll tell you, fine, war is awful.
Atrocities occur, but there's no reason for them to be parading around civilians, killing civilians.
Sorry.
Because they know that we are good people.
This is the reality.
They know that we're good people.
And so when we see civilian hostages, we're hard-pressed to retaliate.
That's the point of taking hostages.
It's evil.
It's not war.
It's by any means necessary.
And they're going to do what they do.
Let me read the news because I'm starting to rant here.
Harvard loses another major donor over its dismal failure to take an unequivocal stand against the barbaric murders of Israelis by Hamas from Fortune.
The Wexner Foundation became the latest donor to pull support.
I'm not interested in your video.
To pull donor, latest donor to pull support from Harvard University over its response to the Hamas attack on Israel.
The foundation's wealth is derived from L Brands, the former parent company of Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works.
The philanthropy, chaired by Leslie Wexner and Abigail Wexner, sent a letter to the Harvard Board of Overseers Monday that it was ending its financial and programmatic relationship with the university.
The foundation supports up to 10 government and public service professionals from Israel each year to pursue a one-year degree, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay.
There's more.
Oh, boy.
Oh, you'll love to see it.
Why?
Well, look.
into Ivy League schools back out over failure to condemn the Hamas terror attack on Israel.
Harvard and UPenn face losing hundreds of millions in future endowments. Oh, boy.
Oh, you'll love to see it. Why? Well, look, if the stance of Harvard, the entire history was
we defend free speech and I'm sorry, take it up with these students.
I'd say, oh, come on, are you really pulling out?
And this is because students had bad opinions.
I mean, maybe these professors, you know, need to be countered and free speech is important and it's good they're speaking up because now we don't people to go there.
We can make these arguments.
The problem is, Harvard has consistently condemned one side and supported the other.
And now, yes, they've condemned conservatives, and now they say, well, there's nothing we can do about these students, and even have professors overtly, at some of these universities, defending Hamas.
So my question then is, hey man, These are the rules you made.
You live by them.
You wanted to support cancel culture.
Don't expect me to stand in the way of your progress.
This is what the left advocated for.
That if you speak naughty words, they would take your job, they would take your money, and they'd kick you out of polite society.
And so, far be it from me to take from them their utopia.
Hey man, you reap what you sow.
This is exactly what you wanted.
You said the naughty words this time, and now you're losing everything.
That's the world you live in.
Hey, the world I live in?
I've got people at TimCast, as I mentioned, pro-Israel, people who are anti-Israel, and we all work in... I wouldn't call it harmony.
But with an understanding, people have opinions, and it requires us having conversations, and that's the best we can do.
And so, as we adhere to our principles and our morals, I will defend those who would follow in the similar path of free speech.
If someone at this company, whose job it is to like, I don't know, file paperwork, posts their opinion on Twitter, I'm like, bro, I don't know what that has to do with doing the job of filing paperwork.
And so if someone comes to me and they're like, you should scold them, I'm like, why?
Now as a friend, I'll talk to them about what I think.
And they're allowed to have opinions.
What more can be said?
Now, it seems like there's going to be a lot of lost money.
And there's more from the New York Post.
Columbia University refuses to condemn professor who called Hamas attack awesome and exhilarating.
I mean, this is this is amazing stuff.
One guy.
I don't know what university is that he's saying.
It's exhilarating.
It's exhilarating.
Columbia University has refused to comment on the growing furor over a tenured professor who called Hamas's terror attacks against Israel awesome, as a petition calling for his ouster gained more than 45,000 signatures.
Professor of Politics and History Joseph Massad was accused of condoning and supporting terror in a Change.org petition created by 23-year-old student Maya Platek.
The teacher called Hamas's attacks on Israel a stunning victory in an article he published on the electronic Intifada a day after the conflict ignited.
Regardless of one's stance on the conflict, supporting and praising one of the worst acts of terror in history is never acceptable.
We call on Columbia University to hold Mossad responsible for his comments and immediately remove him from the Columbia faculty.
A letter of solidarity with Mossad was issued in turn, condemning the petition against him and calling out Columbia President Nimak Shafiq to unequivocally guarantee his physical safety and his academic freedom.
Big challenges here.
Here's my view.
These are the rules you created and I will not defend you!
Sorry.
Door's that way.
For the longest time, we have seen people terrified to speak up about what they believe in because the left thinks that naughty words should result in you losing your life.
Like your career, your work, your apartment, your banking.
How many people... How about this, Laura Loomer?
She gets debanked, she gets censored, and she's Jewish.
They accuse her of all the worst things in the world.
Those are the rules they wanted to live by.
Well, now they can live by them, far be it from me.
If you are someone Who has bad opinions.
And you defend the right of everyone to have those bad opinions, I will defend your right to have those bad opinions.
I will say you shouldn't be censored.
Let the people speak.
But if you live in a world where you think other people should be removed and censored, then you better believe that I will celebrate when you live by your own rules.
For he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.
These professors, these leftists, have long advocated for censoring, not even extreme opinions.
And this is the ultimate point here.
Why I say we're winning?
They're losing their influence, they're losing their resources, and it's based on their own plans and policies.
It always felt this way, that the path they had taken would be their own demise.
And this is what they get.
So let them all play that game.
Here we go.
New York City doctor Dana Diab is fired after celebrating the Hamas massacre of 260 Israelis getting a taste of their own medicine at the Nova music festival near Gaza.
There's an interesting conversation to be had about cancel culture.
Should this doctor be fired for celebrating a terror attack?
Let me tell you from a business perspective the world we live in.
We have values.
There are things that we value as businesses.
For most of these businesses, they value nothing.
They value their bottom line and their money.
For publicly traded companies, I kind of get it.
Now, I have this to contend with.
We have employees here, as I've mentioned now for the 87th time, with varying opinions.
If someone...
He has an opinion that is offensive.
Perhaps it could negatively impact the company in some way.
It could.
Vendors may want to pull out.
Certain businesses say, hey, we're not going to do business with you over this.
And that's a reality.
What I see with the modern cancel culture left is that you'd say something like generic, conservative, or moderate position, and they would attack you for it.
That's cancel culture.
If someone says something like, I don't think males should be competing against females in women's sports, they would say you're a bigot, you're a transphobe, and they would threaten you over it.
I'll tell you this, we've had, you know, we have multiple shows, we've tried to get guests, reach out to people, and of course, people on the left will be like, I don't want to get cancelled, I can't do it, because they're terrified that even being in the same photograph with me is going to get them to lose their jobs.
Interesting.
Well, right now, we have a doctor celebrating the massacring of civilians being fired.
Yeah, look, if you are a hospital, and you have a lot of customers who are Jewish, and they see this, they may stop servicing your business unless you remove the individual.
That is a reality.
And that's something I think conservatives need to understand about how insane the left is.
These businesses, why were they demanding you wear masks?
Because they don't care about you.
They don't care about morals or principle.
They care about not getting a fine.
Why is it that if someone said you put the flag in the window?
Because they're just like, whatever the people around me say, I will adhere to.
There are those of us who don't live by those rules, who don't live in that pathetic, sad reality.
I do not live in that pathetic, sad reality.
I make up my own mind.
And if someone comes to me, you know, look, there's like, we've had people upset over the opinions of our employees.
We get negative comments on TimCast IRL about people we've had on the show or who work here who are Jewish, and then we have the inverse, where people who are Jewish are attacking us over the statements some of our other employees have made.
And my attitude is just like, I would destroy.
I would forego all of this before I'm going to compromise my principles.
If someone comes to me and says, you need to do something about this statement, I'd be like, what should I give them a raise?
Like, what do you mean?
You know, like, I don't understand how an opinion of an employee of mine has any impact on whether or not they're stacking boxes in the storeroom properly.
And they say, well, it's a reflection on your business.
No, it's not.
It's a reflection on the opinion of that individual who is entitled to have opinions.
The people who work for me are not required to believe what I believe as the boss.
That's a stupid reality to live in.
If someone comes to me and says, well, if you don't get rid of that person who stalks your storeroom, you know, who's stacking, you know, the checking the mail, then I won't do business with you.
And I'll be like, see you later, dude.
Bro, you don't get it.
I would rather all of this go away and me go live in a van down by the river before you can come to me and make a demand of me over the opinions that aren't mine.
That's me.
But I gotta tell you, the people who are supporting Hamas, let it be said again, these are the rules they decided to live by.
So, uh, I'm not gonna defend them.
They don't work for me.
They wanna live in a world where they're not allowed to have opinions?
Well, now you're waking up to that.
And if someone comes to me, I'll say, hey, we're building a parallel economy.
And in this parallel economy, there are people of very, very different opinions.
We've had people on TimCast IRL, Michael Malz, for instance, defend, abolish the police.
We've had conservatives say, no, defend and fund the police.
And I've taken a more nuanced approach of, of course we need police.
Funding for police, I think, is a good idea.
They need better training.
But in these big cities where the leftists live, let them abolish the police.
See if I care.
You're talking about cops that are appointed by Democrats anyway.
You see, my position, you know, for a while was very much, I defend free speech, even for those I disagree with.
And I've changed on that position.
Because I've started to realize that if you are playing a political game, Where one side says, we will take and never give, and you say, I will give and never take.
Then guess what?
You lose.
If there are people who advocate for free speech, they are giving.
I say, then I freely give in exchange.
We share.
That's compromise.
And if there's one side saying, we demand our right to speak, seek our opinions, but we will deny that right to you.
I say, well, then no, have a nice day.
Free speech, in my opinion, defense of it, extends to those who agree with it.
And if you don't agree with free speech, then fine!
We can operate under your own rules.
Let me give you the gist of this.
Watching this person get fired.
Watching the universities lose hundreds of millions of dollars, it is glorious.
And it is us winning the culture war.
Why?
Because the ideas of free speech are going to succeed.
The constitutional rights, the ideals of the founding fathers, the best ones, not the bad ones, are going to win.
And the far left, who support acts of terrorism, are losing.
Let me show you how crazy it really is.
We have this story.
Alicia Keys posted on Instagram She said, She's being attacked and accused of anti-semitism.
I have to wonder, to be completely honest, who doesn't know what paragliding represents right now with BLM and all that?
But let's just operate on the assumption, she literally was just talking about paragliding, but she's scared.
That's it.
Yo, it's so brutal.
She's being roasted by people over this.
Hey, look, man.
These are the rules the left wanted to live by.
And they can live by them.
And the celebrities?
These are the rules they wanted to live by.
They played this game.
Hey, if she really cared about it, she could speak up and say, dude, I support what I support.
Now, I can respect the far left for outright just coming out and saying what they say.
Good for them.
That's why free speech is good.
That's why we want them to speak up.
Then they can get fired.
Because of the rules they wanted to live by.
In the end, where we end up is, cultural institutions are starting to fall.
The universities are faltering.
We are winning the culture war.
It is plain and simple.
You know, it was only a matter of time before the rules they created imploded in their faces.
And that's why we say, get woke, go broke.
It backfires beautifully.
Now we do have to ask ourselves what this means for the future.
And I'm sure there are going to be many people who say, See, you're not allowed to criticize Israel.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Bro.
I ain't gonna comment on that.
You know, I think it's silly.
I can tell you this.
Here at TimCast, you can outright criticize whoever you want.
Seriously.
And, uh, I have my lines and my limits.
Mostly, it's just like I said.
The opinions of people who work for me are not my opinions or the show's opinions.
And the fact that someone works here is not a reflection on the opinions of me!
And anybody who comes to me and claims otherwise, I'll tell you to shove off.
I don't care.
Literally.
But I think what we've seen is, yeah, you can criticize Israel, man.
I can say it outright, like, hey, look, civilians are dying.
It's a bad thing.
I think, you know, we need to discuss Israel's response in cutting off water, etc.
There's arguments to be made.
There's no problem being critical of Israel.
In fact, a lot of people who are pro-Israel criticize them quite a bit.
In fact, they're very critical of Netanyahu right now.
The problem is, they're not criticizing Israel.
They're supporting the killing of civilians.
It's very, very different.
I got my lines, man.
But it is curious, I don't know.
If somebody who worked here came out with drastically different values to what we supported, then I think they'd probably not work here.
I mean, that's reality.
An example.
If someone here started pushing weird, woke, racist things, I'd probably be like, this ain't the place for you.
I believe in free speech for those who believe in free speech.
If someone here started advocating for weird woke policies, defending the killing of civilians, and saying no one has a right to free speech, I'd probably be like, why are you here?
Like, why are you working here?
To be fair, again, I don't know how that impacts the person who, say, like, filing paperwork or lifting boxes.
But if their job was overtly political, then we'd probably have those political debates, and that's kind of the point.
But I have my limits, too.
Someone who's actively fighting against American values is a detriment to the culture war we're fighting.
I probably would not want to employ them.
So get it.
It is not always about principle.
Not for everybody.
It's about our moral limits and our moral lines and the futures we're seeking to create.
And if my goal is to win a culture war to instill American values, personal responsibility, meritocracy, individualism, etc., etc., and someone's actively working against that, I don't want to fund them.
But if you believe in free speech, I'll tell you this.
Advocate for free speech, and defend the free speech of those on the right, I subscribe.
I want to read what they're saying, and they defend free speech.
So I have no problem saying, yeah, I'll order that magazine, and read what they're on about, so I can better understand their perspectives, and then explain why I think they're wrong.
But they're right about free speech.
And if they're right about free speech, I'll defend their right to free speech as well.
I think we're winning this one.
Because really, in the end, it's about reason.
If you can prove your point, a point to disagree with, then you deserve to win.
If you have the truth on your side and the facts speak for themselves, you deserve to win.
But if you're a hypocrite and a liar, too bad.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
This is how I'm seeing it framed basically everywhere.
Pro-Israel conservatives as well as the corporate press are claiming that AOC and fellow progressives want a ceasefire in Gaza.
What the argument basically is is that Hamas commits a terror attack against civilians and Israel and storms in and kills a bunch of civilians and it's horrifying.
Israel then begins its, I guess what would you call it, response They cut off water.
They begin hitting Hamas military targets, Al-Qassam Brigade targets, which results in civilian casualties.
Israel warns civilians to evacuate.
Hamas says... There's a video of them saying, death before indignity.
They order people to stay.
Say no.
Because it's an ideological conflict of two different moral worldviews.
Israel says, we don't want to kill civilians, so stop shooting rockets at us.
And Hamas says, our land from the river to the sea.
The left makes their arguments, and I certainly think it's fine to criticize Israel, and we can make this argument.
In this, I see something different.
I don't believe that AOC has formally called for a ceasefire.
In the clip going viral, AOC actually calls for surgical strikes to remove Hamas.
You know, and so, okay, maybe I'm giving her a little bit too much here, but I do love this arc.
AOC moving from pro-Palestine into the, well, maybe we need precision and Hamas must be dealt with.
Now that's it.
Take what you can get, man.
My attitude is there's a lot of people who are very pro-Israel, there are a lot of people who are Jewish, who are like, AOC doesn't get it, calling for a ceasefire, and, like, I get it.
Hamas is not going to stop.
It's not going to stop.
Now, I don't think that means Israel is justified in doing everything they're doing.
I don't know.
Don't come to me for those hard moral questions, because I can't.
It's war.
What I can tell you is, if you remove the barrier around Gaza, it's funny.
I can ask this of any leftists.
I asked this of Max Blumenthal.
I don't think I got a straight answer out of him.
You know why?
I'll give you my thoughts.
Let me ask you, whatever your position may be, if you remove the security barrier around Gaza and said to all the people of Gaza they can freely move about in all of Israel, what would happen?
I think even people on the left realize it would result in the mass murder and killing of many Israeli civilians.
I think even the left understands this.
Let me play this clip for you of AOC and I'll tell you this.
This is why I say, you know, maybe you gotta take what you can get.
When you can get someone like AOC on the far left to actually say Hamas must be removed with precision...
Well, you know, I think what's important to note about a ceasefire is that it's not one-sided.
Hamas has been sending thousands of rockets into Israel as well, and what is important is for us to identify our goal in terms of what safety means, in terms of what defense means.
I certainly take what you're saying about the condition of Gaza right now for civilians who, as you point out, are not synonymous with Hamas.
But for Israel to deal with Hamas, which is a force that is actually detrimental to Palestinians, how else are they supposed to address a violent militant, some say terrorist group?
Well, you know, far be it for me to agree with the United States government, but yeah, Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Look, I understand the whole argument, one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter, blah blah, that's all ideological nonsense.
If you're an organization that is not seeking to gain control of resources or a region, you are seeking to target and kill civilians, I'm sorry, I'm going to refer to you as terrorists.
If Hamas went in and seized the land and defended it and got civilians out, I'd say that was a military operation.
But they intentionally killed and captured civilians, children, etc., and are quite literally terrorizing them for a political end.
Now don't get me wrong, it's all war.
It's all war.
And I think in the purest of sense, you can call it whatever you want, military operation.
But that's my distinction.
The goal of a group to terrorize the people who live there who are non-combatants, I think that is abject evil.
And I think what we're trying to figure out right now is that this present situation of collective punishment and indiscriminate attack is is one approach, but we are seeing that the issues and
the complications with that approach now. I'm just can we target them in terms of intelligence?
Is there precision? Are what are the options available are an entire are entirely up to the
administration and for for Israel to to examine and explore? Let me just break down what she
I see a lot of people coming out and being like, what this is nonsense, and she can't even give a real answer.
I thought she was quite articulate.
I think I understood exactly what she's saying.
Israel cutting off food, water, and electricity is not good.
It's going to make things worse.
Innocent people are now suffering and dying over what Hamas did.
We should minimize that.
Israel should focus primarily on taking out military targets for the same reason I just explained.
There's a big difference, however.
I have no problem saying it.
Hamas killed civilians.
Israel's being like, we're not going to supply energy to the region.
Very different.
Israel's under an obligation to give anybody anything, and they're not just going in there and executing civilians the way Hamas did to Israel.
That being said, AOC's point, I don't completely disagree.
Israel needs intelligence and precision.
Okay.
You know, if your argument, AOC, is that you want surgical strikes in the region to take out Hamas leadership, then so be it.
Perhaps then the answer is, I'll give you a simple version, AOC, you want to play that game, we'll play that game.
I'm not one to advocate for any kind of intervention or war or anything like this, because I don't know that I'm smart enough to create a circumstance that I can't deal with, right?
Like, if I came out and said, we should do X and X happens and everything gets worse, that'd be my fault.
I don't know enough.
What I can tell you is, AOC's plan is basically, uh, I don't know, some dudes dropping from helicopters, night vision goggles, coming in and executing Hamas leadership in surgical commando raids.
Certainly would minimize the amount of civilian casualties, right?
Hey, if you want Hamas dealt with.
So look, man, I just see this.
I see a lot of people insulting AOC over this approach, and I'm like, what is your answer?
Is your answer seriously to just starve out and cut off water to people in Gaza?
I mean, come on, that's insane.
There's two million people there, okay?
They're not all militants and enemy combatants.
They're civilians.
They need water.
Nah, it's an argument.
Israel's under an obligation to be the one supplying water to them.
That I get.
But if the argument is, let's try and help the civilians to the best of our abilities and stop Hamas, sure.
I think that's pretty much the argument from the pro-Israel side.
Not everyone.
We've seen those videos of pro-Israel people calling for wiping out Gaza.
I don't think this ends well in either direction.
But my point is, if AOC is moving away from the DSA, you don't need to insult her.
You can say something like, glad to see you've broken from the DSA's position of supporting Hamas outright.
Work with us on a real solution on this one.
You're wrong about this, but we have, we have a conversation to be had.
I can respect that.
It's the new AOC, ladies and gentlemen.
She's going to be basically Pelosi.
There you go.
She's becoming establishment.
But I don't, I don't completely hate her answer.
Yeah, I don't want civilians dying or dying of dehydration or being shot or being killed or being killed in rubble.
I don't want any of that.
Well, how do you deal with Hamas?
Important question.
Maybe Acey's got a point.
More precision surgical strikes, and I guess what she's advocating for is assassinations.
I ain't gonna go there, because I don't know, man.
I don't have the answers.
But I'll just leave it to her.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
It's over.
Donald Trump has won the Republican primary.
And this article from the Wall Street Journal basically proves it.
Trump challengers are begging for money.
Big donors aren't giving it.
GOP business titans who opened wallets to stop Trump in 2016 are deterred by his lead in the primary polls.
That is right, ladies and gentlemen!
Donald Trump is doing so well across the board in polls.
As a person who produces media commentary, there was so much money to be made from a primary season.
I'm kidding, by the way.
It's true, though.
I'm sure many people in media are like, no, give more money.
Why?
Because then Vivek and Ron and Scott and everybody else has to buy commercials.
And when you get a big, robust primary season, the commercials let them fly.
But the reality is this.
That money should be going to Donald Trump.
The money that would normally be donated to his challenger should go to him so that he can fight Joe Biden.
If Joe Biden actually ends up being the nominee, and I am convinced he will not be.
Hey man, I could be wrong about that.
I'm probably wrong about that, but I just, I just feel in my heart of hearts it ain't gonna be Joe Biden, because how could it be?
How could it be?
Especially with him flying to Israel tomorrow.
Man, I hope everything's alright.
The Wall Street Journal reports, billionaire business leaders Paul Singer, Ken Griffin, Joe Ricketts, and Stephen Schwartzman blew through tens of millions of dollars trying to topple Trump in 2016.
They are reluctant to give it another go.
With Trump commandingly leading GOP primary polls three months before voting begins, some of the party's biggest donors are holding back on major investments in other candidates.
Oh yeah, they tanked and sank themselves.
It's just, what was the point?
They say the former president's top competitors, DeSantis, Scott, Haley, Christie, landed six- and seven-figure donations earlier in the race.
But the 2016 field, which had a bunch of people blah blah blah, I don't care.
It's becoming clear the cavalry's not coming, said Ken Spain, a longtime GOP strategist who advises the business interests of Washington on Washington.
The donor community has come to recognize the strength of Trump and the difficulty in dislodging a major part of the base from him.
Rob Collins, who co-chairs a super PAC supporting Tim Scott, wrote in a new memo to donors that it was making a move that would be obvious in the business world by canceling much of its planned advertising this fall.
This electorate is locked up, he wrote, according to a copy of the document reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.
Those who oppose Trump would be wasting money.
Until the field thins.
Fundraising reports filed over the weekend show how crucial outside groups would be to defeating Trump in the primary.
Fueled heavily by small donors, Trump's campaign raised about $25 million from July to September, while DeSantis raised $11 million.
Anyone can give a maximum of $3,300 for the primary to the candidate's campaign accounts, while wealthy donors could pour millions of dollars into these super PACs.
One person who works closely with several donors in the financial industry predicted that big GOP money would largely be absent from the presidential race and instead flow toward an effort to win Republican control of the Senate.
Another person said large contributors are despondent and resigned to Trump's expected GOP primary victory.
Oh, you love to see it.
The rhinos!
The whiny babies!
Oh, too bad!
You ain't getting what you want.
And you're gonna take what we have to offer, ladies and gentlemen, from the latest polls at 538!
Here we go.
Morning Consult has DeSantis beating Biden, I'm sorry, losing to Biden by three points.
And Trump losing by two points.
Okay, in both circumstances in that poll, Trump loses, or the Republicans lose, but at least Trump is beating Ron DeSantis, I guess.
Daily Mail, Trump is up one.
Telegraph, Trump is up two or tied, two different polls.
Fox News has one poll with a tie, one with Trump up two, Haley up four, and Sanders up two.
One showing Biden up one.
We have another poll from the Telegraph showing, excuse me, Biden beating Trump by one.
However, additional, and that's, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I gotta make sure I read the states on these because they're not all.
The Telegraph showing Trump winning, that's Michigan!
Dude, that's massive!
Michigan.
Pennsylvania, Biden's up one.
In North Carolina, Trump is up three or five.
In Georgia, Trump is up.
That's massive, massive, massive.
These are the states Trump needs to win.
In Florida, he's up seven and five.
Arizona, five.
In the general, they say Biden is leading.
DeSantis by three and Trump by one.
But understand, the general doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter in the same way.
And I'll explain.
When you see Biden is up three, that's bad for Biden because they need to be up by five.
The general national polls include massive urban centers, and that doesn't matter to the electoral college.
Swing states are what matters.
Trump can lose the popular vote by millions, but if he gets these swing states, he wins.
That is why the state polls are more important.
And when you see Trump beating Biden by a couple points, that means apocalyptic defeat for Joe Biden.
We have a market resource group, Whitmer versus Trump.
They claim Whitmer wins.
But with Biden, Trump wins by seven.
Look at that insane swing.
It's just, it's all ridiculous.
The point is this.
Ron DeSantis may be the only guy that was actually standing up to Donald Trump.
Then Vivek Ramaswamy briefly passed him.
Now Nikki Haley passed him in a variety of ways.
We will see.
It is still, man, excuse me.
It's still really early.
It's still really early.
And Ann Coulter made a really good point on the culture war last week saying, you know, let's talk about and then she inserts all of the prominent candidates who everyone thought was going to win, who then didn't win.
Giuliani, for instance.
She goes back way further because she's older than me.
I don't know a lot of these candidates.
Take a look at this from Echelon Insights.
Trump beats Biden in swing states.
Trump beats Biden bad by five points.
Massive.
Overall job approval for Biden among independents is negative 34.
Woo!
That's brutal.
Take a look at this from Interactive Polls.
With Kennedy, RFK Jr.
in, he pulls votes from Democrats.
Everybody tried making this argument saying RFK Jr.
is going to pull Trump voters away, and I'm like, that's crazy talk.
That's crazy talk, dude.
People who vote for Trump are voting for Trump, not voting for anything else.
There's nothing that RFK Jr.
has to offer because Trump is Trump.
I get it.
There's the COVID stuff.
But that's targeting more moderate individuals who we don't necessarily have anyway.
Trump's base ain't going nowhere.
And the argument is that RFK Jr.
would pull the moderates towards the left.
I really don't think so.
Democrats don't want to vote for Joe Biden.
Joe Biden's lost it.
He's too old.
So it's actually quite simple.
RFK Jr., he's taken away from Joe Biden.
Ah, but there's more, there's more.
Take a look at this one from the National Pulse.
Trump, quote, I'm willing to go to jail if that's what it takes to save America.
You know what's fascinating is I've never really viewed Donald Trump as this like heroic guy because he certainly doesn't fit the mold, right?
But let's break this down.
Donald Trump is facing jail.
Why?
Because he's challenging the machine.
Donald Trump is facing the collapse of his entire life's work.
A judge in New York orders the dissolution of the Trump Organization.
They're claiming his properties are worthless.
They're trying to steal his money.
Donald Trump will be one of the few, if not the only, person to enter the presidency wealthy and leave poor.
You take a look at the Obamas, the Clintons.
They didn't have a lot of high net worth when they entered, but oh boy, they're millionaires now.
Donald Trump's a billionaire.
When he enters, his net worth has declined.
So I can tell you this.
They can either force Trump into this position or expose who Trump really is.
And who is Trump?
Someone willing to sacrifice.
That's the point.
It may be that Donald Trump is being forced into the position.
They're trying to put him in prison.
So he says, then I will win and I will shut down these shams and get his revenge.
It may be that by attacking him, he is showing that he's willing to step up and risk going to jail or being bankrupted by a corrupt machine to fight for this country.
Either way, they're going to get a fistful of comeuppance should Donald Trump win.
That's why a lot of people think he can't.
They're like, they'll never let him win.
Yeah, but look, I don't have those biases.
I certainly think it will be difficult for Donald Trump.
I certainly think it'll be difficult for all of us who want to support him and see him win.
But the idea that he can't win is nonsense.
If anything, he's the only guy who can.
Joe Biden's floundering.
They're gonna have to replace him.
That's why I can't see him being the nominee.
And they can bring in Newsom, but I don't see Newsom doing all that well.
They really have got nothing going for him.
And right now, you've got a Donald Trump who says he'll go to jail if that's what it takes.
Maybe it's because he knows they're gonna try and lock him up until he has to win.
Or maybe it's because he genuinely believes it.
He genuinely feels that no matter what, they will not stop him.
I kind of think that's the true Trump, you know why?
I have to imagine, before they decided to go to war against Trump like this, they offered him money or something.
There was that report that one dude offered him, I think it was Sam Bankman Free, was potentially trying to offer him five billion not to run.
You know it.
When it comes to what the deep state, the intelligence agencies want, you know, obviously the path of least resistance is the path you want to take.
You go to someone and say, listen, we're going to destroy you.
Destroy your life if we have to.
That's going to cost a lot of time and energy, and it's going to be frustrating.
Or we can give you $5 billion.
Take that $5 billion and live like a king, just don't F with us.
You have to imagine Trump got some kind of offer like that.
Just go away, shut your mouth, and be rich.
And Trump said no.
You have to wonder.
For the time being, the primary's over.
And everybody already knows it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
On today's episode of You Reap What You Sow, a Soros-backed district attorney who is soft on crime is carjacked with his mother at gunpoint.
Yo, look man, I'm sorry this happened to you, and I wish it didn't, but this is the world you have created, and I'm sure many people are going to laugh, because it's what you've advocated for.
It's what you've imposed on other people, and now it's being imposed on you.
But hey, all I can say is, I'm glad you're getting to live by the rules that you decided you should live by.
Maybe now you'll understand.
But I do think as many people will celebrate in schadenfreude over what happened, you need to understand, this dude probably likes it.
Yes.
You see, in your mind, you can't imagine enjoying being carjacked.
The sad reality?
The scare probably does.
I mean, not literally, he's celebrating.
Woo, I got carjacked!
He's like, it's working.
It's working.
My plan is working.
The fact that he got carjacked at gunpoint, he's thinking to himself, I'm getting it done.
It's working.
The destruction of the cities around us.
You think these people don't have a plan?
You think that they don't do these things for a reason?
They do.
And while he personally may be annoyed that it happened to him, because it's supposed to happen to you, it just shows him what he's doing works.
Let's read this story.
We got this from Fox 8 Live.
They say, Orleans Parish D.A.
Jason Williams and his 78-year-old mother were carjacked at gunpoint on Monday night.
OPDA confirms that D.A.
Williams and his 78-year-old mother were carjacked at gunpoint as he was helping her into the car.
DA Williams and his mother were unharmed and both thanked the NOPD for their hard work tonight and every night responding to crime victims.
New Orleans police a two-armed suspect demanding the keys from Williams, black Lincoln Navigator, around 10 p.m.
Williams and his wife Elizabeth appeared unharmed while discussing the night's events with NOPD.
When asked about the carjacking by a Fox reporter, he said, it's been a long night, I'll get with you in the morning.
I introduce you, via the Washington Examiner, to Jason Williams, the Soros-bagged D.A.
in New Orleans who protects criminals over citizens.
And this is from January of 2022.
It may have taken him some time to experience the world that he created, but now D.A.
Jason Williams is, well, he's the target.
They say these Soros-backed D.N.A.' 's, I'm sorry, D.N.A.'
's, D.A.' 's have enacted reforms that eliminate mandatory minimum prison time, fines imposed on criminal defendants, and jailing juvenile delinquents and small-time drug offenders.
More often than not, these policies have corresponded with dramatic increases in crime in their respective cities.
New Orleans is no different.
Before Williams became District Attorney, New Orleans already faced significant challenges in homicides and violent crime.
In fact, Louisiana has long been one of the nation's worst states in this metric.
According to U.S.
News & World Report, it had a homicide rate of 19.9 per 100,000 people.
Yet given these alarming numbers, upon entering office, Williams, just like his Soros-backed DA brethren, decided the best way to combat one of the highest murder rates in the country was to put more criminals back on the streets.
The statistics from his first year are jaw-dropping.
Take for it what you will, my friends.
I have this video.
I'm not gonna play it for you because that's not what I do on this channel.
IAN MILESTRONG SAYS LOOK AT ALL THE COWARDLY MEN WHO JUST STAND BY AND WATCH AS THIS HAPPENS.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN THIS SITUATION?
I don't do these videos to play videos of shot content for you.
Sorry.
You can go on Twitter and find this.
I make videos to talk about the philosophical questions and moral questions.
And in this video, I will describe a man and a woman apparently just went shopping.
Several young black men are behind them.
Everyone in the video is black.
I'm not trying to make this a racist thing.
A race-based thing, right?
The left will make those arguments.
No.
The woman and the man who are walking after going shopping appear to be black, and there's some black men behind them.
And so, they run up, punch the woman in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground, while the man who's with her just stands and watches, and they scream at him to get back.
In this short video, it's only 24 seconds long, we don't see him do anything.
But, Ian Milestrong says, look at all the cowards, what would you do in this situation?
Yeah.
I'll tell you.
I'll tell you what I'd do.
If I was in New York, and I saw a bunch of men jump and beat a random woman, and start stealing her stuff, you wanna know what I'd do?
You'd keep walking.
I got no problem saying that.
Is that you calling me a coward?
I don't care.
You can call me whatever you want.
I don't care.
In New York, You will go to jail if you try and defend someone else.
We know this.
And the people in New York choose to live by these rules, and I'm not getting involved.
And I understand that's how most people feel.
However, that's not what this video shows, is it?
This video shows a man with the woman, and presumably his girlfriend, but let's break this one down.
Let's break this one down.
I'll show a little bit so you can see the man and the woman right here, right?
The man and the woman right here appear to be walking together.
It might not be a man, to be completely honest.
It may be another woman.
I think it's a man.
But anyway, let's operate under the assumption that you got a man on the right and a woman on the left.
Seems like it, right?
Is this guy dating her?
And if he is, how long has he known her?
Because these are questions, too.
Not questions as for how I'd behave, but questions as to how they'd behave.
Let's say you, like, met a woman at a bar, and you're like, we'll go hang out.
And then you go hang out, and she wants to go shopping, and you buy stuff, and you're carrying stuff around.
You don't really know her that well, and she gets hit.
You're gonna be like, dude, this is crazy.
I imagine these people in New York, they ain't gonna step up for anybody like that.
Now, if it were me, and I was with someone, with my girlfriend, and someone ran up and hit her, yo, it's berserker mode.
There's no question.
Like, I don't know, I might die.
It depends on what these criminals are doing.
You screaming in my face something about get back, what are you gonna do about it after you hit my girlfriend, is just like, I'm not thinking about the words you're saying, I'm swinging.
It's just, there's no question about it.
It's berserker mode.
You know, you want to be calm, collected, and rational.
If I was in West Virginia, and someone snuck up behind me and my girlfriend and punched my girlfriend in the back of the head, I would probably have my weapon drawn, screaming at them to get on the ground and get back, as I tried to, you know, protect and help my girlfriend.
If I was in West Virginia, and I was walking down the street, And I saw a guy run up and punch a woman in the back of the head, who was with her boyfriend, I would probably... yell something.
Lighter intervention.
I don't know about drawing up it in the circumstance, but you may have to.
It's tough.
My point is simply this.
In a place like West Virginia or Florida, and I think a lot of people commented something similar, no problem defending the person who's been attacked.
Because you know that you're not the bad guy here, and no one's gonna hold it against you for trying to protect someone who was just attacked unprovoked.
Now you better believe it's like you attack my girlfriend in a place where I'm armed.
Bad things are gonna happen.
I will protect the life of others from a violent, vicious attack like this.
But more to the point, I bring this up in the context of the DA in New Orleans is to talk about the social decay.
This is what we're witnessing.
It's what's happening.
It's what they are creating.
A world in which you can watch, this guy's gonna watch his girlfriend, I'm assuming it's a guy again, it could be a woman, I don't know, maybe two women went shopping together.
Watch this woman get hit while they laugh and say, take it, take it all.
And then you do nothing.
Why would you?
The Soros DAs are going to lock you up in prison for the rest of your life.
They're going to mercilessly beat you.
And everyone around you will say, just leave me out of it.
Because they're cowards.
I don't want to live in that world!
Imagine a world like that.
You know you're innocent, you know you're the good guy, but everyone around you says, hey man, I don't want to get involved because they'll do that to me next.
Cowards!
I'd rather live in a world where if I stood my ground to protect the innocent, everyone around me would be like, good for you, I'd have done the same.
That's why I live in West Virginia.
And that's why I don't live in New York City.
I'm assuming it's New York.
That's why I don't live in New Orleans.
I've never even actually been to New Orleans.
Maybe we should go down there, take a visit.
Something like, you know, Fat Tuesday, Mardi Gras, and we'll see everyone throw the beads or whatever.
But this is it.
This is why people feel schadenfreude.
When this DA gets carjacked.
This video explains basically why.
Now, I know it's not the same place.
It looks like New York.
But it's because we're sick and tired of being victimized by criminals and the criminals are let go.
It is a narco-tyranny.
These DAs support the crime.
It is the inver- I'm sorry, look.
LGBT for Palestine.
It is psychotic nonsense.
It is chaos.
It is darkness.
It is evil.
It is illogic.
What do we seek?
Order.
Protection for the innocent.
What do they seek?
Anything that destroys.
How could it possibly be that they release the criminals and imprison the victims because they're wacky mirror inverted world people?
In Palestine, it's illegal to be gay.
In Gaza, specifically.
If you are caught or convicted, you don't even have to be caught if they have evidence in some way, that you are LGBT, 10 years in prison.
There you go.
Bye.
Have a good one, I guess.
10 years in prison.
And these people support it!
They actively support it as though that's not the case, but it is.
These DAs release criminals and imprison victims.
It seems like everything's backwards, doesn't it?
That's why I'm telling you, this DA probably is happy they got carjacked.
And you don't want to believe it because your brain doesn't work that way, but theirs is exactly this.
He's thinking, I'm glad this happened to me and I hope it happens to others.
So you can laugh at him all you want.
They're succeeding.
Like, when they send these migrants to other states, I'm glad it's having an impact, but all you're doing is sending the illegal immigrants deeper into the country.
It's not fixing anything.
It may be raising awareness.
That could lead to some things getting fixed because now the Democrats are freaking out.
But immediately, on its face, it's actually just putting more illegal immigrants deeper into the country.