A judge has ordered a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case. It is not over. Apparently there was mishandling of how the prosecution was supposed to go quick rehash for those that just missed the story, because it was the biggest story. Maybe you live under a rock Jesse's Molette was a cute. List of staging a hoax hate crime against himself and boy. Did it go? downhill from there eventually he's kicked, show his shows getting canceled, but but strangely, after six, teen felony indictments the charge dismissed they called it an alternative. You know dismissal, or something like that. But in reality it seems like a conflict of interest meant to protect the elites, including justice. A man who wanted to smear Trump supporters to generate the quite a police to increase his salary. But now we are in a big breaking update moment Chicago Tribune. Let's read, the story. Judge

for special prosecutor be appointed to look into some. Let controversy and we this one here, former state appellate Judge Sheila O'Brien, a he's been leading the charge and is victorious a cook county. Touch on Friday ordered the surprise. Appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the short lived fusion of just a saying it may have been legally invalid from the very beginning. Judge Michael human rule that states attorney Kim Foxx had the right draw herself from overseeing execution, but held no legal authority to delegate that responsibility to our top deputy Basically, she recuse herself because she had some connection to the family. They were trying to get just small let off from committing this crime. She says she recuse herself, but what she really did, what she took one of her top aides or top. You know where they say top deputy and put that person in charge.

It's not a recusal, a recusal would have sent would have seen a new office take over. How can you say, there's no conflict of interest simply because Kim Foxx the the DA was I aside, but our office Now you have to take orders from her. That's not a recusal at all. It was open mirrors. But now a small light is in for a wide awakening, because guess what this special prosecutor is going to have a wide purview. This may go deeper than just Jesse Smollett. Now perhaps I could be wrong. I don't know I'm just saying. Maybe this looks into the corrupt and from a you know a wider view and may have a bigger impact than just just a small lot: a complete and total back fire. Let's read on they say, with the deputy holding no real authority. The small let case made its way through the court system. Without a prosecutor at the helm, the veteran judge said:

There was no master on the bridge to guide the ship as it floundered through uncharted waters and ultimately lost its bearings to and set the President irregularities identified in this case warrants the appointment of independence of independent counsel to restore the pub confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system. Bravo spot on. I agree the special prosecutor, yet to be named by two men, will have a wide mandate the individual may investigate the actions of any person or office involved in all aspects of the case, two men said could recharge millet to bring an indictment, anyone else if there are reason little grounds to do so. It would seem that the attempt at being corrupt to get your buddy off has backfired, and this could it could result in more people getting charged, not just just a small lot. Made the decision, even though

counties. Inspector general's office is already investigating the decision by state attorney can box office to look into the controversy. Fox herself, however, agreed that probe but I'm sure she didn't expect a special prosecutor. Now, for those of you that have followed politics, you know that Donna trump himself dealt with four nearly two and half years a special. Oscar Wilde. There was a conspiracy, but for an extended time of time, under eight that, from a special counsel, Robert Muller, it is not a fun thing and Trump was Re aggravated, at least according to many reports. Well now this is going to fall on to Kim Fox and justice mallet may find himself once again facing trial for staging a hoax hate crime. Let's read on form appellate judge. Sheila O'Brien has spearheaded the effort for a special prosecutor, arguing that state's attorney fox actions create a perception that justice not served here that mister What receives special treatment county prosecutors oppose the move

take. A special prosecutor would duplicate the efforts of the county inspector general's office. Yes, but maybe that's what we need, I'm you know I I get it if you know, but I, but I don't trust you Know- will put this way as a fox in the henhouse. Are you going to trust the that you know there could be any one of these foxes dressed up like chickens, let's, let's let's, double down on this one. How does that sound? Independent counsel, not just for people who may already be you know, have a have a bond. May I may have something to gain by covering this up. They say: Fox's office. Drop all charges against Malek an unannounced court hearing in late March, less than three after he was charged with staging attack on himself small at also faces a lawsuit from the city of Chicago seeking to recoup the cost of police overtime for investigating the matter. Attorneys have been sued for defamation by the two brothers who claim small paid them to help stage the attack and he will not return to his role on the Fox Series Empire. It all fell apart. He

want to make more money, so the police said allegedly and it all art shows getting cancelled and he's the that I got. The stories pulled up, let's redone, in on interpretation, Brian highlighted how foxes is said she recused herself early in early in the early investigation after communicating with a smaller relative. Only to later claim that it was not a refusal in the legal sense that would have required the entire office to withdraw from prosecution. She did it, presumably my assumption because she wanted to avoid, give press, when everyone heard her say recusal, they assumed assumed it was formal, and then it turned out it wasn't, which means she never accused herself. She just you know, delegated delegated one of for deputies run this. How she wanted him to. And then sure enough, an emergency hearing got it sealed, got the court case sealed, but all charges dismissed and then just what came out and said he was innocent and said, see that the charges is

everyone was outraged. No, no, no, no, no, no, that's not what it is, but he claimed it was and he danced around and he had his victory, but you know what he committed a crime. So, let's what they find they say. Communications later released to the Tribune showed Fox had asked police super when did Eddie Johnson to turn over the investigation to the FBI after she was approached by Tina. Chen a former chief of staff to First Lady Michelle Obama, a spokesman for Fox's office at the time that a not relative, was concerned about leaks from Chicago police to the news, media fur medications turned over last month, include text from Fox saying she advised to recuse himself only because of false rumors. She was related to small lot. Small letter was American openly gay found at the center of an international media firestorm after he reported late January being the victim of an attack by two people, shouting horrible things will put that way, but similar.

Is charged with sixteen felony counts of disorderly conduct after Chicago police determined that had agree to pay the two brothers he knew to stage the attack, while now it is a day of reckoning, the story seemed to have kind of died off. He mainly got away with it. Assuming he did it right, we're back in the allegation territory because the charges were dismissed even though many people in you know, in law enforcement and in the prosecutor, there's office, were saying no he's not innocent right, so a couple of things I want to run through here. Just some updates and I'll make something to point about left wing racism will get to it. So Charlie Demar has been one of the reporters in Chicago in a really great job of covering the story. Oh man, I switch to twitter and get the light drop and he's got the collusion drawn up- it's actually kind of honey, because it makes a lot of like boat reference This is for some reason. I don't ask me the conclusion says. In summary, just

let's case is truly unique among the countless prosecutions heard in this building a case that purported to have been brought and super asked by a prosecutor serving in the stead of our duty do our duty, elected state's attorney, duly elected, who, in fact was up pointed to a fictitious office. Having no legal existence is all it is so a case that deviated from the statutory mandate requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor in cases where the It's attorney is recused and finally, it is a case where based upon similar factual scenarios resulting this positions that judgments have been deemed avoid and held for not hear the ship of the state ventured from its protected? without the guiding hand of its captain. There was no faster on the bridge, to guide the ship as it floundered through uncharted waters and ultimately LAS it's bearings as with that ship, In the case at hand, there was oh, duly elected states, attorney. When Justice Malik was arrested, there was no states attorney when small I was initially charged. There was,

The state's attorney once much case was presented to the grand jury, nor when he was indicted there was no such attorney. One small was arraigned, and entered his plea of not guilty, and there's no state's attorney in the courtroom, but when the proceedings were no late crossed, I think that's like you know, found like nullified. I could be wrong. It's it's been awhile none of this really really interesting judgment. So what is and to just a light in the meantime. Well, this is huge news moving forward. Many people have wanted justice may actually get it now, at the very least, the appointment of a special prosecutor is a heavy burden on let's shoulder. So I'm sure there's going to be a bit of a catharsis for many trump supporters who are smeared by his actions, he claimed it was Trump supporters who came and attacked him and it turns out according to police, he staged the whole thing vindication as it were, but we have a few

It's here empire is coming to an end, the story from last month. I don't really cover it, because it was you know just a tad bit, but because we're here now with a smile at facing the you know further out of. Locations of his actions. We have some things to go over. There were no plans for Jussie Smollett to return and according to deadline empire? Is to an end the show was a hit. That's my understanding. The show was a big hit. He not only destroyed his life and his career doing this allegedly, but he may have just harm the careers of his cast and co workers and the people who worked on the show that there are people who Initial, probably a making one thousand five hundred and twenty dollars an hour out of work because one guy wanted to play it up and be selfish, and this brings me to my bigger point, so so, for those that were engine was going on just a small light there you go, I didn't want to make a you on this. But I wanted to highlight this issue going into politics with common Hughes.

Operations and trust me that there this does. This does make sense that there is an overlap between these two stories. How many people rushed to the front row? to the defense of justice, more light, claiming that there are people who are bigoted and hateful in this country and he staged it according to police Coleman, Hughes is incredible if yeah I've interviewed before and- and he just continues to continue to inspire me- he gave it. He testified before Congress. On the issue of reparations Now you may be asking hey TIM. These things don't necessarily make sense like they're not connected. They are four pulling his testimony, which was brilliant, absolutely brilliant How is reparations and he talked about, but but he's he's not just like on one side of the issue is it brings up the new ones in the in the time? That's that's that's you know. That's pat since the air of slavery and Jim Crow, he talked about how at one point reparations made sense, and he was very intelligent and now He is being attacked by the left and their call racial slurs is the overlap I wanted to bring up wow

is Jussie Smollett. Stage this whole attack. They rushed to his death and so they say. Oh look at all these big. It's when it's Coleman Hughes, who speaks intelligently and passionately, and brings up the new in these issues. They they use racial slurs and that tells me the complete hypocrisy, the complete hypocrisy. It was the world to these people. Atwood celebrities, standing up you had Ellen page on which I can or what show Cole bear something, and she was just like why in our country yeah, where are they now? Thank you. You have the cast of what I can. Was a big bang theory or something coming and what happened just now. It was wrong. Where are they now when people come in tack, Cullman Hughes, with racial slurs over his informed opinion, and it is person thoughts on an issue. Where is the defense of people who are calling I'm not going to read. Absolutely not where, where are these people, that it's obvious only one sided, it's obvious hypocrisy, so you know what

I'm glad to see this a special prosecutor being appointed in the case of Justice Mulet, if not, if for just one reason, justice if it turns out to smell. It really was innocent, then good good for him. But you know what people aren't buying at the police. Aren't by there were witnesses. There was Karaba testimony and it was it It was just a small, let attacking and accusing Trump supporters of being the worst of the worst. If that's not true, then the people you have to know, and justice must be served if this the charges was not the right call and many people say it wasn't then perhaps a special secure and the other ongoing investigations will I truly shine a light on all those who have done wrong, but I want to say one more time. What really really frustrates me I I you know I did a story on reparations the other day. I I don't believe they'll be effective in in today's day and age, because they're too many people who are like it. Let me say that

right, I will give you a little bit on the subject of justice. My light just just hear me out. There are people today who might sent as like blonde hair blue eyed white people, who have a great grandparent who was a slave, and what happens when the government says yup you're descendant, therefore we're going to you know, give you money. They might be like you know, five five percent, two percent, three percent there are people who look completely white, who don't even know, of ancestors who may have been slaves way back. You know hundreds of years ago, woman you one of some really smart points about how at the time it made sense, and today it doesn't because he grew up in an affluent suburb. He six so he's not a victim doesn't make sense to give him money, and I look at that. I say: here's an intelligent young man But in this case and what happened they boo him. They boo him and now people online are calling him a slur, and is the last to say that's wrong. I was on the ground at protests. They were proud boys. There supporters, conservatives whatever is an la right, and the left

when protesters were yelling racial slurs, I was in Portland and the left wing protest those were yelling racial slurs. There is a video of left wing. Proto there's yelling racial slurs. Where is the left when these things happen? I'll tell you: what They line up in droves when Jussie Smollett Story happens to prove trump supporters are all the worst of the worst, but when they do it over and over again in all of these instances in all public I published about LA I published video about what happened. Portland we've seen it. There's video published about the other Portland Incident where they're yelling racial slurs and where did is the left. So this is I feel like it's complete pockrus. You know and this is why there are many other people- not just me who have you always found themselves on the left, who are now more confused as to why the left is claiming to fight for justice, to fight against bigotry and they're. Not here. Not I'll say this because I don't want to be it. I want to be a complete deck right. There were people who did

come out and slam just Millett Trevor Noah I did a an absolutely hilarious. Take down a just, a small lot. It was like it was. It was great. It was really well done, but there are people who love to pretend to be fighting for social justice and opposition to racism who absolutely aren't and those people they break. My 'cause, I say I'll, say it now. I'll say it again: there is real social justice. There is and it's just justice there are bad people. There are bigots and we want to end that, but there are people heading to oppose racism for absolutely standing behind it I'll leave it there thanks for out, stick around next will be coming up at six p: Youtube dot com I news, comment below and a you think I'll see. On the next segment. We're seeing more and more regulation coming Josh Hawley, but most of bill that would strip section two hundred and thirty protections away from big tech, giant social media companies, unless they met to an audit.

Storm I mentioned a few days ago and there's a it's an interesting conundrum, because the argument over whether or not you should sue a company for libel, necessarily mean you're gonna to do anything about censorship, right so will Chamberlain for human events. Is argued. This is the wrong fight. Who cares if you can suit you Youtube, because someone said a bad word about you. However, one way to view is that by forcing them to either be liable for libel or neutral means they'll default to be neutral. I saw the story from Box and it's complete thanks for some reason, these people who work for the july- let's don't do any fact, checking it's probably shocking to no one. If, when I tell you, they don't do fact checking the story says well. Washington's first attempt at regulating big tech is a joke. New legislation proposed by Senator Josh Hawley. That's intended

read social media of supposed political bias ignores the platforms real problems? Well, it's not supposed political bias. We know it's a act. Did you bother doing a google search with mind blowing Gizmodo published the story a couple years ago, a facebook employee. Are you sad? They routinely suppressed conservative news instead, of doing any fact checking what do they do argue nonsense from a nonsense position. Here's the thing actually, what language some of their arguments actually hilarious. In one, arguments. He says my VOX your colleague, Casey Newton has a nice summary of why the quote Facebook, or whatever is out to get, can His name is a silly one, unsupported by any useful data. How about Collette that looked at twenty two hype? while suspensions and twenty one were on one side of the culture war, he says here's the money. Paragraph quote, the truth is that social networks have been a boon to partisans of every stripe. Conservatives especially

A conservative social media star became the president of it states and they, several social media star seems well on her way to a higher office, despite being in first term in Congress, the real by so social networks, as Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged, is towards the extremes. That's true and doesn't change anything here. It's happening you. Yes, it is true. They're they're, biased towards the extremes. Okay, and then, when it comes to those who are to the most extreme or or either side who gets police the most. That can serve it. If it's plain and simple there are people left to get censored, I've I've talked about them too. I made a video of just defending David and I work wrote a book and I got suspended from twitter. Twitter context doesn't matter. Okay. There is calling out the censorship, but guess what it doesn't matter? If, Irving, are doing better or worse, it doesn't matter who is getting the better the extremist or otherwise it matters that when it comes to enforcement, it's typically and conservatives plain and simple

Now some may argue well, maybe I can't remember who argued this to me, because the pastor once said, maybe just because conservatives tend to break the rules, and I said if you create rules that typically target. If you're with conservatives, wouldn't that imply that your rules are biased towards biased against conservative. Right, like the mist general often bring up, so we get over and over again and what and what were the reason I I want to talk about this- is that I get so annoyed every time. I read a story where they don't bother doing any basic fact checking and it's art, there is nothing to do with what the argument actually is. They said it's not true. In? Like imagine, this argument is really saying: they're saying it's not true that social is biased against conservatives, because the extreme Mister doing great that's a non sequitur That makes no sense like it that follows through how about this.

Three mister being benefit our our our get get rich reaping the benefit of social media. Conservatives are being suspended, the most those are two different things. So He does actually bring up some good points right it necessarily make sense to strip section two hundred and thirty protections. It might work. So here's what he says lots of people say they want Washington to take a firmer hand and start regulating looking Valley's most powerful companies, which had oversight for years? I think that's true, that's fair, but what? If our elected officials can't hack it, and they probably can't that's my I'm, adding that regulating big complicated companies can a technical challenge, but Washington already regulates all kinds of complex industries. The real issue, regulating tech? Maybe that hour aren't really serious about regulating it case in point new selection proposed by Senator Josh Hawley. That's supposed to rid Facebook, Google, twitter of political bias. The idea is,

the federal government will strip away protections that shield those companies from being held accountable for their content, their their users upload and they distribute I will only restore the protections if they can prove their neutral right. So I'm paraphrasing. I agree that you can't prove your neutral. It's, like I mean, you can sit down and they can audit a series of people been banned and then say we found you know ex wife, you know or is or see, but the problem is you can't track? Every person is I've been banned right. Are they going to do so? Middle less appears every account. We've banned his every tweet we've deleted. Now you go through and determine whether or not they are left or right? Is that the I want, I mean, maybe how many people got hired to do that yes really make sense. There are some things you can easily point to the mass general policy hate speech policy, perhaps The real answer is. Are you? Are you politically neutral? Do you support free speech period because there are people who have first member protected views that are not fun views?

Here's what I want to do right well read a little bit more of this, but I want to tell you the I want to show you the perfect example of how these people on the left live in a bubble and can't understand what the hell is actually happening. Take a look at this tweet. It says comedy duo folk lords on how they stay funny with how to being offensive. How are they funny without being offensive? First of all, this, thing as wholesome jokes? There are jokes that are funny that aren't offensive and I'm and be find something out, political. You want to do common. It's not offensive. It's easily done that you look at George Carlin. Ok, he could be really offensive or not. He had the hippy Dippy weatherman sketch. Remember that trust me. This is going somewhere. In this video. You can see them and making fun of bmx or is and skateboarders. I could be offended by that. I am a skateboarder. How is this not offensive? No, they just don't care who they're offending

That's the point. You can also see if there's something there comedy, they make references to colonialism and white supremacy and all these other things and it's like listen- that is still offensive to some people and I'm not talking to people on the right. Some people let's say you shouldn't bring up these stories, so here's the here's, I'm trying to point out when you see these stories, where they're talking about how there's just no bias against conservatives. No, the issue is there on the far left, to them their extremes on. I don't know how further like you go. I don't know if they're thinking you know, I don't know, I mean this revolutionary. I suppose they looked at their right and it's a conservative and thank all, but their friends nobody's. So therefore, it's not a bias. You look, you look at these comedians and they say the fines. We are not offensive. And look at the comedy you're like do your comedy is very offensive to a lot of people, but they say I'm not offensive, that's how they view the world. I know I do too, as far left like further left than Bernie and like ridiculously far leftism

and he told me that he said I was a conservative me and that he was a centrist and I was like bro you're like you're, a socialist and like and I was like socialism is as far left as you can go like the scale as from socialism to lodge a fair, I am in the middle. I think we, the balance. You want a full on command economy, social control, that's as far left as you get. You don't get further left, then complete governmental. You know public control of everything of every resource. Is it not man, I'm in the center? That's how they view themselves. So what happens is for one you have that bias. You get stories like this. And they're are unwilling to actually do any leg work to research. The fact that it's not about supposed bias, it literally exists, and why do these companies even get funding Why this is ridiculous and then you see the argument doesn't even follow through there's no bias against conservative because social media companies support extremists like those sentences, don't connect that does like there's nothing there.

But I will say this: I don't think the bill makes a lot of sense. So can agree there, but I really appreciate if these people actually did some real journalism on other things. We do, is they like to claim that all conservatives are literally every single person right, they'll find one conservative, they think is a bad person and it will say all conservatives and people just to the left. Two people just do it in general. I'm not, conservative. Neither is tulsi, Gabbard or Andrew Yang have decried big tech censorship. Please. Yet when it comes to these arguments, I'm always I'm always will ok, why they'll say well, conservatives are claiming x and it's like, but so is Tulsi Gabardine Andrew Yang. They have decried censorship too. So what where, where are you where you at they're living in tribal world? Where They claim it's everyone else and not down. But yes, everyone is a part of this game. Everyone's a part of this problem so anyway long story short, I'm going to keep going to write this one up in a little bit I'll end with his final thoughts. He says it will be an interesting thought, excel

to imagine what would happen to these platforms if they did lose their liability protection, their business, models- rely on an endless supply of content uploaded free by users who don't have to ask for permission first, but maybe the Jaya. Platforms are now so enormous and they don't need to distribute infinite amounts of content anymore. Maybe they could by bringing in enormous but manageable amounts of content, which it says which they could actually review before publishing kind of, like a media company, this used to be unthinkable, thought and still seems to be. If you talk to people on the platforms, but maybe that's where we are headed like it or not. I agree I I do. I think Youtube is going in direction. Us, and I think they're manually reviewing every channels all the channels on purpose so well, my channel gets deleted. We'll see what happens, but I'm not I'm not surprised that you know once again, we get more proof, we get more evidence in more action and the left is outraged. Stick around one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly. Senators are being briefed on ufos as spec

elation grows surrounding naval sightings it's time to have a fun segment. Where we talk about Ufos, no, it doesn't mean aliens, it does mean, on identified flying objects which we don't we don't know what they are but interesting. Things have been on the horizon, because hearing more and more from mainstream press about how pilots credible Navy pilots are seeing ufos. What could they be? They often describe weird little Tictac things that move as other defying the laws of physics. I love this stuff. I love it for a few reasons. One there are secrets out there as x files would say. Truth is out there. Well, there are a lot of things out there. We don't know about, and this things that we haven't yet discovered everything there's a people share where it says born too late to for the world too soon to explore the galaxy? But I disagree. There's you know it's it's it's defeated to believe there's. Nothing else to find there are people who believe

we've discovered everything and then, who knows what's next and it's like? No, no man, you gotta, go find it. Somebody found it, it was difficult, they didn't know it existed. It was discovered. Let's read the story from Fox NEWS, the defense, it reportedly briefed Senate Intelligence Committee. Vice chairman Mark Warner on, Wednesday, along with two other senators as part of what appeared to be heightened efforts to inform politicians about naval encounters with unidentified aircraft, one spokesperson indicated as senator sauce to probe safety concerns surrounding unexplained interference, Navy pilots based upon the politico, the outlet reported, more briefings were being as news surfaced at the Navy revised Procedures for personnel earning usual aircraft sightings as part of a program investigating issue Navy personnel, reportedly told Pentagon officials if they encountered aircraft

that appeared to defy the laws of physics and aerodynamics, while in military airspace, Navy strike group pilots also reported seeing strange objects flying above thirty thousand feet at hypersonic speeds, with no visible Engin or infrared exhaust fume According to the New York Times, is it possible that there is some kind of weather phenomenon? Maybe you know ball. Lightning, apparently, is a thing. I don't I'm not I'm not an atmospheric scientist, so maybe I'm wrong, but apparently like yeah black balls of energy can be like five through the air. Could it be just a natural occurrence, It could be aliens. I guess I really doubt that's the case, because I think, as I've said time and time again, it's the most likely thing is classified black ops technology like. US government technology, not telling you about or for an adversary, and that's where it gets scary, although many

We want to believe it's aliens. Let's just let's see what goes on since that program started. Military officials have reportedly briefed President trump another government figures on the sightings. When Trump acknowledged the briefing in an interview released on Saturday. He doubted that Navy purse well actually saw ufos, and this is funny. I didn't make a video about at the time, but Gizmodo potentially write a story saying if Trump always lying and he denies your foes exists. Perhaps he's lying about this and ufos do exist. Let's on he said, quote I did have one very brief meeting on it, but people are saying they're seeing ufos. Do I believe it not particularly maybe he sang he does believe it if he knew if there was evidence of extraterrestrial life. From said, I think our great pilots would know and some of them see th see things a little bit different from the past. We're watching and you'll be the first to know Christopher Melon,

Former deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence, has said the USA you Ufos existed. We know that does exist this It's no longer an issue. He said the issue is why they here where are they coming from and what is the technology behind these is that we observing. Are they saying aliens 'cause, I I say here's the thing I do not believe aliens came to earth. They would make contact with us right now. What are they going to do? I go to the US and say: hey you're, a big country with weapons were going to talk to you. Well, what do you think of the uh nations are going to just sit there happily now and if aliens did come and they didn't speak to everybody, somebody spilled the beans, so no, I don't think aliens are here and then and the extremely rare, like you know, unlikely that they they do. They probably wouldn't talk to anybody, because I could trigger like serious concerns. People would panic, you know we're still it. We were still very religious planet. So but I I guess what they're he he he brings up a question: why are they where they coming?

from what is behind these devices that we are observing, so maybe they're not devices like who knows we don't know what is it could be weird interstellar life of some sort of noise yeah like I mean like not alien, but something that is like exists in outer space. Well then, He didn't immediately comment on Wednesday. It previously told politico in April that brief officials on reported safety hazards response to requests for information from congressional members of our staff, Navy officials, provided a series of briefings by senior naval intelligence officials as well as aviators, were for the hazards of aviation safety. I have to wonder, though, why haven't any of these things actually collided with our aircraft right. Is it possible, then, that they are being intelligently piloted? Former Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who requested the Pentagon's program investigating the matter pushed in a June interview Congress to learn more about the issue? They would be surprised how the american public would accept it. He said referring to the military read,

who is able to get twenty two million dollars in funding for the study of military sightings of your foes said that his office produced a plethora of reports on the subject that money was spent developing page after page of information where people in the past had seen things and not one person, but hundreds of people as a result of there's been a lot of activity since then. So it's interesting that the federal government and that the Senate is not getting involved right, but we do have another. This one's from CNN and they say they they ask. Why are pilots seeing ufos? Well, I can't answer that, but I can read what they think they say. Don Lincoln is a senior scientist at the fair me national accelerator laboratory. He is the author. Several science books into the guy who writes this. He writes

over the past. Seventy years more than ten thousand similar reports have been made. I'm I'm skipping the first. You know issue about Ufos because we we we we we got through it. Most reports were eventually debunked as weather balloons, the planet, Venus or even oddly shaped cloud. Some accounts simply arose from from nothing more than fevered imaginations of UFO enthusiasts, but not all reports could be dismissed so easily in two thousand and four Navy fight. Jet pilots operating from the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier reported, seeing ufos off the coast of San Diego and more recently, other military pilots flying with the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Atlantic, made similar claims that use of those accounts, became public knowledge from a story in the in the New York Times and a new mini series on the history channel, and you know the history channel's running this because they make so much money if ancient aliens. The question that comes to mind are these aliens, sadly For anyone who a fan of the television show the x files, it is simply far far more plausible that what these pilots were seeing

something with a more ordinary explanation, whether it be an instrumental glitch or some other unexplained artifact and that's basically what I'm saying given the fashion alism of the pilots who poured the sightings. I am fairly sir they did indeed see a UFO. The problem- is that many people jump directly from on identified to flying saucer and that's just too Rj jump to be reasonable. There is simply no credible evidence that the earth is being visited by aliens. There are no artifacts, no clear photographs, no captured aliens, no alien bodies, nothing and If they were aliens, maybe they don't exist in the same kind of medium. We doing they probably can't even talk to us, we can hear things right hearing is, is is built upon AIR in water, the medium in which we live, that can that can convect vibrations and then our ears are heavy vaults to pick up and sends those vibrations there are. There are some There are some animals that a weird thing went there animals. That can sense.

Show magnetic waves like what do they call every other called, but, like the Echidna Platypus, I believe can do this. We can't even perceive that the way they can How do they sense it? I don't know. Maybe it feels like sound them, no idea like. Maybe they hear in different way, so aliens did come here. Why would why would we even bet they could talk? Maybe they can make noise, maybe they can't even exist in our atmosphere. That's probably true and maybe they don't even think the same way we do right. We, we just don't, know well three little bit more. Reports of us. Your photos are from I from eye witnesses or poor resolution photographs or videos. They say they are from ask a criminal prosecutor of the value of eyewitness reports. They have it they have continued to a majority of the convictions that were later overturned by dna evidence and eyewitness, be an unreliable source of information and in the case of something as extraordinary as the observation of alien spacecraft, pedestrian.

Simply won't do. As Carl Sagan often said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary the evidence, the reality is that unidentified it means just that, and so I think that's you know the sad reality. I'm not gonna go on for a minute. With this video yeah. I just wanted to mainly point out that we're seeing this more and more that senators are being briefed about ufos. The navy is I'm seriously- and I think among you know, for anything else- foreign weapons technology. In fact it may even be american weapons technology that just classified it could be like listen if or weapons. You know you know about the fighter jets. You know of the missiles. You think that if you like it, you know about it, you think Russia doesn't. Of course Russia does Russia probably knows about way more than you do so think about what that what America is actually been able to keep under wraps. I'd, be willing to bet whatever we're seeing is just well beyond the pay grade of excuse me even our fighter, pilots but

I live there. That's rang out. I'm the tech sort in the bus, so in in the van it's been really complicated and it and it's it's it's a challenge, but I got to work out that work flown we're getting there. So forgive the hook. Ups for the past day into the lighting is change. There's been some, you know bugs, but stick around. I will see you tomorrow at ten, am because the podcast it'll be six thirty pm every day. Thanks, Frank, it out I'll, see you on the time the dirty dirty smear merchants. That's what Carl Benjamin referred to the press as when he was running for member of in parliament in the UK. If you're, not familiar, is a you, tuber, peas, anti feminist, he's, a liberalist he's very much for a liberal democracy. And you've heard the news as dirty smear merchants, because they are unfortunately not all of them I know some good journalists, but we're going to look into how a smear campaign works, because the epoch times- which I think is pretty damn good source for the most part present to go round

There was some questions from NBC News and wrote this open letter calling out loaded questions designed to smear the epoch times I think I'm not in that right. So first whenever I do a story. I make sure for the most part, it's certify I did buy news guard. You can see this up in the corner. Let me see if this actually pops up, it doesn't always pop up for ok. If you can see this because the plug it's sometimes it doesn't appear in in the in the screen, grab who is guard is, in my opinion, a biased source, but, of course every You're going to get some kind of bias from various groups 'cause everyone kind of sees things differently, but I think they try to do good job for the most part, but still lean left and that's just because mainstream journalism as it stands, leans left one hundred percent the criticism they have of news guard this x right here, see. It says, handles the difference between news and opinion. Responsibly is specifically 'cause, they don't run negative stories about Trump. I kid you not and will read

and it's not even it's not even stories about Trump, it's just that they currently run neutral to positive stories about Trump, which in no way means anyone here supports the president. Take a look at the smear campaign how this stuff works from Steven Gregory Steven Gregory, I said stuff in our spot, to NBC News is inappropriate questions. He said dear readers Last week we were contacted by to NBC reporters who posed a series of highly inappropriate questions. The NBC report, question the religious beliefs of some of our staff members sought to How did their beliefs attack our journalism based on personal opinion, rather than objective analysis and even information on the personal lives of our staff. Why would they do that? You know I've gone over journalistic ethics minimize harm. Why? you target the personal lives. Clearly, this seems to be a hit piece because epoch times,

and fall in line with the mainstream narrative? Let's read the wanting to NBC this open letter. We not only defending epoch times, but also journalism itself. Freedom of the press, and freedom of belief, and I want to stress this is rated positive? Ninety percent, you know like almost entirely by news guard and they even got even says and I'll show you this tab that epoch up with a standard of honest and ' and and fair and balanced journalism. These questions are kind of crazy. He says S, growing, independent media. We we probably up- I journalism the Times ' founded in two thousand, with the goal of bringing truthful and uncensored news to people around the world are founders person. Experience the horrors of communism in China in our reporting. We have continually exposed the crimes of communism against humanity. For doing this, We have sustained ongoing attacks, tens at attend our staff members were arrested in China and given

in terms ranging from three to ten years. Unfortunately, the bane of George journalism today, is the all too common practice of writing news to conform to a pre existing narrative or agenda. This is what Epoch times has sought to avoid in all that we do. The best journalism of the past had the truth. Is standard, not political advantage. I completely agree. NBC's questions seek to dig out with they assume is our agenda by Ask about our coverage of president Trump and our relationship with the spiritual practice of Falun Gong, it's play does appear that NBC has an agenda with respect to covering the Trump presidency study by Harvard Kennedy School Shore Sign center on media politics public policy found Nbc's coverage of Trump's first one hundred days in office was ninety three percent negative. The plain truth is that 'cause the epoch times. Coverage of Trump differs from that of NBC. Two reporters. Sought to hunt for an agenda that would discredit us

and the story they have in mind is no small undertaking. Four weeks x, staff members have been conned. Acting us to. Let us know, NBC had been asking about their work at the epoch times what what a great deal, it has been put into the story check this out. Nbc asked having an agenda with this question, much of the what times recent coverage has focused on the promotion of President Trump's policies, interviews with surrogates and a deep state conspiracy to spy on his campaign during the twenty six. Election do you feel like this? Is fair characterization, and do you consider the epoch times to be pro trump? There are a lot of who are tracking the spying of trump, notably build are the attorney general has made comments about how we believe this happened. Just because you port on developments in this area doesn't mean you are pro- and I this distinction for many people, even Oliver Darcy at CNN, simply because he reports on Alex Jones and Bn Facebook not take him down, it doesn't mean he's trying to get him taken down simply

as I've reported on certain you know far left websites doesn't mean I'm trying to get taken down now I do sing personally Oliver Oliver Darcy crossed the line when he met. You know he continually says things about. You know, white. Why this allowed? He put his opinion out there he's getting into that space, but, more importantly, set the media pressure got Jones Band and you cross a line when you know it's one thing to tell a story. It's one thing to say: Facebook won't take down, You know people break the rules, notably people like Alex Jones, etc. That it's a story after story after story we see, see and go after method, media they're, just targeting independent press. Now, why is NBC talking Ipark Times, because the Apoc Times isn't follow falling in line with their anti trump narrative? It would seem you know, I don't these it's to reporters to be honest, but asking about whether or not they're pro trump that's interesting now gets even even creepier when they said other questions want to draw conclusions from the private lives of our staff. Took this out, they asked is the easy?

I'm predominately staffed by volunteers. Do some he times. Interns, volunteers or employees live in a shared home. He says, simply inappropriate what bearing do individuals living arrangements have on the journalism of the epoch Times when NBC asked New York Times, journalists if they share an apartment, guess what I assure you. There are a ton of people at VOX and Buzzfeed having Huffpost who share apartments straight up. Why are they asking because I try and paint them as friends, extremist or supporting the president. That's not that's the game they played so, let's, let's, let's, let's take a step back and talk about loaded questions and polls. I did a video the other day about Ocasio Cortez, holes being down, or I should say, unfavorable and I wanted dress. The questions are everything. So what do think would happen If you want to someone said this recently, I Israel, Ocasio Cortez. Let campaign to remove Amazon of from New York, costing twenty five thousand jobs for new Yorkers? Do you support her.

What is that question imply? Am I asking if you support her actions. Am I asking if you support her in general? Well, guess what the way I framed it! to bring up this really negative horrible thing. People are going to assume am asking. If I support her in that action, but then what happens? all comes out, and it says when asked. If people support Cortez, they said no, that's the game. They play and you can see that coming out here and how they frame journalism as well their questions that have no bearing on the credibility of the epoch times. Why, if you don't lie, the stories. They're writing talk about the stories, but this is what they do. Ad hominem want to target the institution to describe store they don't like. Let's read a little bit more, what they asked. They say: in one question asked about spiritual practice, which is also my opinion: inappropriate asking it seems that all or most of the epoch times, reporters and editors also are also found gong practitioners. How does the practice Alan Gong inform or influence the epoch times coverage. Why would it? Why would you ask that

The answer? Is it doesn't right? I don't know So here's what I wanna do I don't want to? I don't want to through every single question. I'll read the final thought from them, but I want to show you why the times is rated with it. It's got one red x about news and opinion, and I kid you not it's, because they don't like the fact that our new starts when they report on Trump. They don't negative information. At the end of a letter, he says our The press has special privileges in our society, as suggest by the time. The fourth estate, in order to defend, privileges. The press must show it is acting in a responsible manner. In response NBC. The epoch times seeks to vindicate our media and in doing so, the role of the the pressure plate in our society. So look you don't the like that times, I've used them for a few different stories. But here's what to do. This is news guard

News guard is a third party, independent rating agency for news outlets. I really appreciate the work they do, but I feel like there, they don't it's it's. I do not necessarily agree with their system, but I appreciate that they try to do this work. I have a different idea that I'm trying to work on and and we're hiring people out the goal to take a random sample of a hundred articles from the past year or so from very outlets and then fact check them and then there's any violate. Of journalistic standards that are clear cut. We give them. You know a negative, a mark, then we say acts out of a hundred. Have you know we're bad I talked about before and so, instead of saying, we think they're honest, we don't we're not going to do it. We're going say you know, one thousand seven hundred stories, contain factual errors eighteen out of a hundred were opinion, and not fact. You know at basically that can be like okay, they're, typically telling the truth or we can say you know

ten out of one hundred were slanted and omitted information, but take a look at this the bug times the way I see it is there in a similar space to where I am there's a lot of stories that are being ignored and there's a lot of false framing they actually, I believe was the epoch times picked up my story that I published on Youtube about the letter, the letter, from the far left activists at media, that the platform, the proud the store so that so they ran this well, take a look, so you can see here that they do not as far content. They gather information responsibly. They correct and clarify errors handled between news and opinion responsibly. The next me tell you: why is it because they put a into their stories, it's not in the add ability section. They say this. I'm trying not I'm trying to find this because epoch times does not disclose a pro trump conservative agenda and Sherry stories and facts to advance its point of view. These guard has determined the site does not handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly, isn't

that really really interesting. What about VOX or Buzzfeed. They, they certainly cherry, pick stories and are slanted. But I'll tell you what news guard gives them a clean slate, and so there lies the problem I think actually see from news guard is how close it's too mainstream safe. Are you for advertisers, so one of the reasons I like using news guard is that you can accused me of being biased or using bad sources. I use a third party while don't entirely agree with everything Gar. Does it's kind of a shield? You're gonna get a lot, people who are going to try and discredit the epoch times right sure go for it. They are targeting. It's an ad hominem attack because you did this I've had this happen to me or particularly with Sweden. When I went to Sweden, You know it was it was. It was two years ago. It was Trump said last night in Sweden, so I went there with a friend of mine, we did this big story thing. There was interesting Lee. Around the so Trump said last time, Sweden and then

we decided to launch a go fund me so that we could go and just do like of live like a daily vlog from Sweden. Talk to people a few hours after this, I was informed that Joseph Watson made a joke, I guess it was a joke. It was like I dare any journalist to go to mom I'll pay for your trip and so I had my powers like I. I've never met the guy. I don't know when I've still never met the guy, and I was like I'll I'll do We're doing a go fund me, like sure yeah. Nope donating around two thousand dollars? And then there, you go journalists because people were threatening to sue him. So here's the thing Does that matter in terms of my coverage? No, actually completely. I found what we found was contrary for the most part. Two it all it I got a call from a journalist from one of these digital outlets, threatening to somehow steal. My private messages I have this is the

they played in asking me about like at first, I will talk about sweet. I was really excited. I'm like man, here's what's happening. You know you got this. Conservatives are all wrong. They think it's like this war zone, I was going up. It's not actually is bad because people are viewing it and it's it's complicated process right They even ran stories? Other outlets saying Temple finds very little crime. Of course it was relative. Low crime knows me. It was also the high for Swedes really really low for Americans. That's that that it's it's it's! It's perspective right they accuse me of some kind of conspiracy, because, instead of challenging what actually and they said, let's just discredit, so I get call from a guy. I think you want. About Sweden instead, what does he say? He says? the effect of soap. Can you send me all of your private messages with politics of Watson, and I was like? Is that a joke? First of all, there's like six- and I was More importantly, no I'm not to give you my private messages and use said to me on the phone. I could you not we'll get them. He said

He said we're going to get those messages, so you may as well give them to us now and I and I said, is that, are you joking and you, It's like you might as well give him to us, and I said if I gave you the private messages from from somebody. Would never be able to do an interview again, no source, whatever works for me. Are you nuts so sure enough? He got it back down and guess what there was no conspiracy iced, I have never met Paul Joseph Watson, we've between each other sometimes but it's the goal, was instead of saying Temple is wrong. It was let's smear TIM Poole, admittedly the Huffington Post in one of the best stories on what happened. But I tell you the game is afoot? this even to this day on Wikipedia there claiming I went to Sweden because of parts of Watson, and that is a bold faced lie and what's crazy, about it. Is that the hold a site actually says. I went there because Trump said last night: in Sweden, there is a Ical game.

People in media know what they're doing and that's why They ask the questions they do to people like the epoch to organizations like the epoch times. They know they can smear them based on things slightly unrelated to journalism. They know can ask loaded questions to force loaded answers, and this is People, don't trust, trust the press anymore. Even though the epoch Times takes a rather neutral approach. Even though news guard says we think they do honest journalism, they're going to get a strike because we think there I could you not that's what it says in the news guard thing they said we think they take Pro Trump stance. They talk about how there was a Trump rally and the epoch time, didn't mention that there's a protest outside should they then they're, going to say that epoch Times did mention the Orcs protest in a subsequent story. That makes sense there two different stories but of course it's not good enough. They should have been one and so the Hanging of news guard, then, is that their pro trump? That's how crazy it is. If you don't hate Trump, you are

That's that's their narrative anyway. I think the point, As long as you know, look The reason I want to do this video is that I'm not so. As you got some NBC News guys coming after epoch times, I think epoch pretty decent job they in a similar space. Look they're like it's like centrist, you know, I wouldn't call it pro trump they're. Just not right- Trump nonstop but NBC's coverage is ninety or on the first hour days, ninety three percent negative, like they pointed out and we've over and over again, so from there. And their point of view, if you don't hate Trump, you must be pro trump is insane anyway, stick around next video will be coming up at one hundred pm on this channel, and I will see you all, then you know all and talk about how I feel, like the mainstream laughed, is being infected by a more radical wing of far left, identitarians, etc. You get the point, that's probably why you watch my videos there change groups on the right that I think are generally bad people.

Bad opinions and they want to do bad things, but those people aren't really in politics and they're not being there I've been humored by the mainstream? We have the story here, it's from it's an opinion piece from Michael Knowles it from his show the left cannot be civil and there's a few things. I want to talk about we're talking. What about Cortez's comments on the border and Chuck Todd pushing back want to talk about how they are still this rift within the Democratic Party what the reason why I want to highlight this is for one for those that aren't familiar Hillary Clinton made a statement before sang civility. We can't be civil, until we win and that's as a lot? When will they win? You never win right before there are no ends. The ends don't justify the means. There are no ends if the demo that's controlled every branch of government. They would still act like they weren't winning they would still say: oh, the Republicans are doing this so if they come recommended they will never be civil war, then it's on them. They are refusing

come to the table. So we also have this. This current rift between the Democrats, where basic, I think is happening, is back when Clinton was running in two thousand and sixteen the Democrats were kind of unified behind her and there are look. Ins were in disarray because Trump was coming up. Setting things in doing, I don't know, he's he's a different kind of republican and everybody knew it. He changed the party for better for worse, your opinion. Fine, but now you have the the the dumb Kratz, who, at the time were saying like the Republicans, are done for the Republican Party, is over another stronger than ever at least for the time being, I guess, but it really just feel like the Democrats are the ones are facing this fracture they're falling apart tearing each other apart and they refuse. Just to be civil, the problem is, if you, refused to be civil, then you're not going to be civil. With your own side, That's literally, what's happening So let's take a look at this a little bit from Michael Knowles and then we'll move on to some other comments and I'll make some more points the storm Daily Wire says it's on Thursdays,

sort of a Michael Knowles show? Knowles explains the double standards of the left when it comes to civility and with those on the other side of the political aisle. The reason I like this is that it's actually within their own within their own party. You know the far left these progressives have moved into the Democratic Party and we're the first things are casual. Cortez did was protest, Nancy Palosi, that says a lot. Doesn't it it's not about civility with the other side, there's other side within their own party I think we're seeing actually is that we have three political parties right now and ones. Operating under the guise of Democrats, because we have a technical, two party system, so you know Causal Cortez policy. Politics are very, very different from Hillary Clinton's or from Nancy Pelosi's sees Ortez wants to impeach below sea dozen. Plus he's trying to play the you know the long game and and reach more Americans, because we're Taz is catering to the far left. You can't We call them the same political party, but let's really little bit otherwise keep reading but

can't be civil, don't take my word for it, Hillary. London explains why the left won't be civil anymore and here's. The quote with from from Hillary, you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the house and or the Senate, that's civility, can start again, but until then, the only thing the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength it's really it's really interesting that that's the position she took. The Republicans have repeatedly called for civility for debate for conversation, and conservatives tend to do it and moderates. You know sent left types tend to do it, but you have. These people like Clinton, by any means necessary, and it's not just the far left you. Got politicians like Hillary, like buying, who believe any means necessary, and when you put that up against the are left, who believe basically the same thing. What do you get in civility? It's not from the republic since there are absolutely publicans who do not convey civility and will

not reach out olive branch, but for the There certainly are people like Dan Crenshaw comes to mind. You know great to see TED Cruz, your Cortez. But The interesting, then that you have this ref inside the Democratic party. So right now I'll give you a specific example. You've got Joe Crowley, the no because you're part, Cortez Displaced, is supporting a candidate in opposition to a Casio Cortez and just Justice Democrats, I think- or you know whatever this look, these these Democrats, Kratz people oops freudian they I've got three companies that do the same thing right there trying to set. Another democrat incumbent, so so you. Look at it like this way. It's kind of Justin the Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, certainly with the Republicans to. But then you do have. These moments were like TED Cruz in court has come together. So here's what Noel says you be civil with people who oppose everything you stand for. That's our theory then, who are supposed to be civil with. If you don't have to be civil. People who disagree with you, then

what's the point of civility, course. Your civil with the people who agree with you, your just civil with them. You embrace them. You celebrate them there on your team, the only purpose of ' only in politics is to be civil to the people that you disagree with. But Hillary doesn't grant that people who disagree with her. Any legitimacy have any right to speak, have any right to vote their deplorable there irredeemable. Now. The worst kind of people in this country- they shouldn't voice, they shouldn't be able to elect a president. Guess what happened, but by the way went when she said that those very people make sure that she never came within a stump once he said that those very I was very people make sure that she came within a stone's throw of the White House again and I'll. Take a look. What Michael Moore saying. Michael Moore seems to get it that people were fed up status quo and they were going to elect Trump and they did and why happening. And what is he saying now? He calls

insane. That is not civility. How you expect to win the votes of people. If you disparaged If you insult them and you refused, be civil with them. It's like the demo. Rats just want to excise. Anyone who dare oppose the dollar, but that's not a winning strategy. It's just going to be the end of the Democrats So let's do this. Let's move on from from Michael Knowles comments, because I don't think this is super long video. I don't think we do too much into like what the left is that ' talk about a lot. I did talk about this in a video yesterday, Chuck Todd. Why aren't? They Kratz calling out Alexandria, Ocasio Cortez for her camp comments. I want to avoid getting too much into this because Youtube is trying to you know, de and delete my you know. Well I'll leave it there is there's controversial issues that are difficult to talk about I want to point this out specifically to say, live on MSNBC. Ok, I thought it was MSNBC is calling Cortez for comments on the border on the detention facilities

and where the rest of the Democrats really really interesting to see that you've got regular people that are saying no and then you got all the Democrats deciding to soften what these camps really are so the reason I bring this up is because it's contrast to this idea internal instability within the Democrats. What makes it so that the Democrats will fight amongst themselves for one thing, but then all get behind the craziest most insane rhetoric for another think about it. You moderate Democrats right now saying they want to approve four point: five billion dollars to solve. The problem on the border. You then get far left Democrats like Cortez and Jana Marmor. She dot dot to lay even in that. So I don't know, but we don't want, we don't want any force meant of immigration policies. We just want the humanitarian aid, so they did. Green here, there's some obstructing they're holding up the bill, but so casualties, saying insane nonsense. Where the Democrats well, the

that did speak up spoke up in defense of for why would they to defend her here. But then I agree with that comes the bill. It makes literally no sense, and that's one of the big problems for me when looking at the Democrats, I can't figure out what they're doing and why they're doing it, it doesn't seem makes sense. They don't. Wants ability, while Michael Knowles points Well then, who are going to be civil with that makes no sense look they're fighting amongst themselves for two reasons: the first twenty twenty is coming up. It's obvious they're going tear each other to shreds. That's the point right, now you've got some silly. I don't I don't. Even I don't even know, what's going on Joe Biden said, ridiculous thing about how he to get along with segregationists and Cory. Booker got really mad. Yes, 'cause Corey Booker is going to play up the identity politics in an effort to win. So we see opportunity now, with Joe Biden, making these comments and they're going to each other throats

the reason I bring this up. Ok, I guess the point I'm trying to make this video is I'm sitting here reading these stories confused the what the hell they're doing and why they're doing it? I saw the for Michael Knowles right Talking about how Hillary Clinton said, you can't be civil unless you win while they won the house and what happened to get civil. No, they didn't is that still incivility, it's still the defense of Antifa. It's still the lies that cheating, the smearing they'd each other. Cortez ridiculous nonsense, but then, when it Joe Biden, they go for the throat. So we've got just complete chaos that's the point. I guess I'm trying to make is I can't figure it out maybe you can I can't I'm sitting here looking at the Democrats and I'm like ok you're fighting about this, but why aren't you fighting about that? You agree with them. Yes, but you don't agree with them on that you're supporting, bill, but now you're opposing the bill. It's just complete disarray, you don't look, I understand it's kind of obvious with when you coming up the Democrats are going to let that happen, no matter what, but when you add that you add Cory Booker coming out saying? How dare you, Joe Biden, make these comments

or a book or what do you say about Ocasio Cortez? Why did the demo that's coming out and calling out for that. I just don't seem to understand, but I will point this out to you got an internal civil war. You've got two thousand and twenty civil war and just sends the Democrats complete chaos, because the Democrats are not only fighting amongst themselves because the far left is is encroaching within the party. They're also fight amongst themselves, because they how to deal with twenty twenty, and each of these Democrats wants to put themselves above the other, and then you have Hillary Clinton in civility and their fight against the other tribe and there you I look at the Democrats and I'm confused and it's complete and total chaos there the tear themselves apart, and it's only going to get worse. So I guess my final thought on the matter, the thinking about how, in twenty sixteen everyone said, the Republicans were done. You remember that right. You know people were saying you know Trump is, is the sign of the end for the Republicans wanted it? What ended up happening everyone is rallying behind Trump. You,

Marco Rubio and TED Cruz rallying behind Trump Democrats are confused. Tweeting about how Marco Rubio shows up in cheers, cheers on Trump in Florida and they're like why we hated Trump and Rubio something like a Republican is coming to support a republican president. Why is that weird? And I'm like? That's a good point two. Sixteen, the Republicans were doing the same thing that you invited Booker are Booker doing everyone say hi to Republicans are done for now we're looking at The Democrats and their play disarray so I'll, say two things it could be that you know part was calling the black, they were seeing themselves in the collapse. It could also be that this, is a normal process which is going to result with one strong Democrat on top just like with Trump and Party realigning under new leadership But all I can really say is the left is not going to be civil at no point they they won't because- You never meet the end. There is no winning one when every branch they will

continue to say, like what we haven't won until there's. No more Republicans right, EVA if they're in control will say we didn't win yet the are are at our back ever end. There will never ever be civility. It's going to happen with all this weird in fighting, but I will say you know one more thing told story: about Democrats, ten, each other's throats out, you know I mean that matter. I thought. Actually talk about, and I guess your comments on what you think is happening. I maybe so stupid as to claim the Democrats are, are going. You know, fracture fall apart the Democrats and Republicans, but I don't think make a prediction as to what's coming next democratic or try. Upset. I'm sorry the progressives. The far left are trying to upset more incumbents there trying get rid of the old guard and bring in a new, far left and Teri infection that worrisome? And if that becomes a democrat He then we're in serious trouble like Us liberals, I mean like people who want real moderate policy. Now, plus he is right, which is not call for impeachment. I think is wrong on the border and a bunch of other things. So she's, not the candidate. I, like you,

like to even tulsi, is like she's, not sue far left a tarian, though you know just kind of I I think she's great. I thank you know it's not perfect, but she's. You know they have to watch. Works for me Rational person, who's willing to reach across the aisle have conversations and and like a real person. What, if the far left justice as types these Identitarians takeover, it's going could be it's going to be not fun. You were going to see the the rise of the the you know, these neo liberals these these far left we're going to call it who by their politics on a fringe. My morality, dog, monitor, intersectionality makeover and that's scary, because imagine what it was like in the late 90s early 2000s with the neocons Hubei. Their decisions off of the moral right. The more you know. Morality and religion. Yoga same thing: now: we are going to something now with Democrats,

I'm not going to I'm not a big fan of that, but I'll leave it there 'cause we're going a little long. I don't know I'm kind of all over the place in this video 'cause. I had like fifty stories pulled up and I'm like all I can see when I step back is complete disarray and I came and figure it out stick around next video will be at four pm on my main channel youtube to become flushed cast, and I will see you all there. If you watch my videos, you will know that I'm a fan of Justice- I haven't talk about good social justice. The idea that there really are problems pertaining to bigotry and discrimination in this country, although they not nearly as bad as they used to be and that coming from someone who's experienced a little bit of it and knows my family history. I think there can be real good social justice, however, The people who often take the mantle of social justice activists tend to be pretty bad and awful people you've He says before. So, let's just get to the point, Brett Kavanaugh all the really really bad things that they said and did to Brett Kavanaugh eyes and the smears, and I mean it literally. We know

at several of the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were completely fabricated, one guy, even apologized, saying just made it up. You don't know why everybody is All done with these nonsense stories that couldn't be proven or corroborated, claiming that he was with a bunch. Guys lining up outside of the outside of rooms where women inside were being assaulted, complete nonsense, you No I'm really really mad about it. You want to know why I called people out. You wanna know I'm Hey! That's a really bad thing. Several times now, Brett Kavanaugh, proven to be on the side of justice, and I'm impressed with the a story today from VOX V to make it clear the progressive site talking about Supreme Court overturned, Curtis, flowers's, murder, conviction, citing Tobias, bias, Doug Evans, a white prosecutor from Mississippi

Deliberately excluded black potential jurors from a black man's case, the court ruled and guess who wrote the opinion in defense of this man opposing the bigotry. Cavanah, it's not the first time we've seen a story where Brett Kavanaugh has come up on the side of justice, of course, but that this the Supreme Court will disagree with each other and just because one justice agrees or disagrees doesn't mean they're, four organs, justice. This is how we try and find justice. The point I'm trying to make is if you are a social justice activist, you would look at the story and you would agree with Brett Kavanaugh. Kevin. I believe there was a racial bias that, because the process He said we're going to make sure there's no black jurors. You couldn't possibly have this. Man face a jury of his peers, which should be representative and Brett Kavanaugh. That's what he felt so here we have a story again 'cause. There was a bunch of other ones where Brett Kavanaugh has repeatedly cited with the liberal side of the court, and they tried to destroy this man.

Were they trying to get justice? No and Brett. Kavanaugh has proven he really does. He really does want to get justice from their perspective, right, I understand that their opinions in the Supreme Court, but I'm trying to make here, is Brett Kavanaugh. Is actually siding with what they claim to fight for, but they try destroy him. That says to me like many people who want true justice, they don't actually When I say they, I don't mean like all of the left every single democrat I mean these arbiters of justice who claimed to be you know, activists, all they really are our grifters. Of course. There grifters on the right people claim to do. You know that they'll look for I censorship against conservatives, but then all of a sudden talk about how some speech should be restricted codes offensive, I'm not going to get into who you know I'm talking about, but there are people on the left. Who will go all day and night like oh we're about social justice and then what pins. When someone like Coleman Hughes, a brilliant young man, is mirrored with slurs nowhere to be found

what happened when small smollett comes out with these. This hoax oh, oh heavens, help us and now here have a story from Brett Kavanaugh. But let's do this. I have me rent, let's read what happened with Brett Kavanaugh and why he cited the way he did. The story says: the Supreme Court has overturned a murder conviction for Curtis Flowers, a Mississippi man who has tried for the murder for murder six times saying the prosecutor violate the constitution. By excluding black potential jurors from the trial, the Supreme Court ruled seven to two Friday that Doug Evans a white prosecutor, unconstitutionally excluded eligible black, earth from flowers trial for murdering four people in nineteen? Ninety six inside a furniture store just s, justice, Clarence, Thomas and Neil, Gorsek dissented. It's really interesting. I say of all the people who sent. This isn't the first time flowers who is featured on the second season of in the dark podcast from the from american public media has had

conviction overturned in court. In fact, Evans. Tried flowers six times in ninety seven Nine thousand nine hundred and four oh seven hundred and eight in twenty ten and each time the jury has, their failed to reach a verdict or the conviction an appeal in his last Twenty ten Jury made up of one black and eleven white jurors. Sentencing him to death. That conviction was overturned because I've selected his jerry during the jury. Jim process, prosecutors and defense attorneys questioned jurors to squeak screen for potential. At interest and pinterest. Examination that can often reveal personal information. They will then What's the removal of jurors, they think will be biased, Batson V, Kentucky all the nineteen. Eighty six, that race cannot be a factor in an eligible juror lawyers accused of racial bias must, provide a non discriminatory explanation for striking out a potential juror american public media found as part of the podcast investigation that,

Evans is office. Has long exhibited discriminatory practices in two hundred Twenty five trials between ninety two and two thousand and seventeen fifty percent of eligible black jurors were excluded, while just eleven percent of eligible white jurors met the same fate, Brett Kavanaugh Greed, Red cap- and I felt that one I have with bright cap. I just have a on issues of it's only a couple cases terms of security technology. I like bright Kay, has a kind of reply. If you want knowledge, but you don't his brain,

court nominee he's been elected an I got it right. Well, let's redone, they say ever with already. Ok. The same goes hours of accepted the first eligible black. What is the New York Times eligible black churches were asking the average of twenty nine questions paired. Yes, only flowers trials has had more than one and Evans Clan

actions of the people involved in the case or to the but your store where the shooting occurred into the New York Times, so that these standards, the court agreed v. I agree spot on part of Batson, it Middle criminal, justice system, campus or payment in March, either during oral argument in March, that was uh Jerry eating black defendants that is made although convicted in nineteen. Ninety six for the murder they run.

His death sentence will be dropped he will be moved from present present toys sports pork in to account, according to eight hundred pm lingering question to trial, while January that is seven hundred and thirty. He could also offer a four hours hours later could for Evans to be removed from the case and Tirley anytime. Evans is on track to be re elected as district attorney in November, because the fourth for the fourth election and he is running on a post. So here's the point they said in nineteen eighty six, this it should be, cannot use race as a factor really, and I would agree that that should not play a role, but I would also feel like as someone listen, I fall on the center left side. I believe

If you have somebody you know it was a black and being a student. There's potential tampering like in this case Brett Kavanaugh, and that you know it looks like he excluded or didn't hold the white jurors in same standard. I don't believe you'll get a fair trial, I'm assuming that support Kevin. I thought it's really funny. It is right everything I tried to do to stop this man, the lies and smears, but why? Why did they? They thought it was going to. Concern. I mean it kind of it he's a conservative, but does that mean he wouldn't be on the side of justice? They thought he would protect Trump. I don't know all I know is here we go here. We go time. Time again with justice, Brett Kavanaugh, proving that he cares about being fair and honest even when he stands in opposition to Clarence, Thomas and Neil courses. So what did they truly expect to get out of this. Now I will say: you're get the Here's the theorist saying right, Cavanaghs only doing this to butter people up, so they think he's on their side, because then

going to be a big case against Trump and had to fill defend trump. But what impeachment? I really doubt it. Nothing is going to happen with that I'll. Tell you what I think really happened, drop that Trump looked at his choices for Supreme Court Justice and he chose Brett Kavanaugh, that's just what happened. He said. I think this is the right guy for the job, there's probably going to be political bias. I would I'd be surprised if there wasn't, and the left through lie after lie. Don't want to everybody in the left, but you had these people with false accusations, and I really don't know why they did it. I really don't because is when it comes down to the job. If you can't trust someone who's been A you know, Federal Circuit Court judge for as long as they have been, if you can't trust them now. Why, then, what do we do? What do you do? Then? They wanted to stop him from getting nominated confirmed to the Supreme Court. What do you think's going to happen? you think Trump is going to be like okay, I give up no he's going to nominate somebody else and we can't have a

It's way trying to shut people down. I think right, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think right Kevin. I was doing the I think, because it's a good person who has affair head on his shoulders as he perfect. I don't think so. I don't know the guy Just know that in this case he made the decision that I felt was right and here's a guy was supposed to be on. The right I can it's one going leave it there.