 on May 24th, to no one's surprise, Politico published yet another hit piece against Bernie Sanders. And I'm assuming that they thought it was incredibly brilliant, like you see the Photoshopped image of a tree behind Bernie Sanders. But it's evident to me that they didn't think this one all the way through. So it's titled, The Secret of Bernie's Millions. How did he amass three houses and a net worth approaching at least two million? The surprisingly conventional middle class climbing of a radical sounding socialist. Now the article itself, it's accompanied by this weird imagery of the money tree that I showed you. And also an image of Bernie Sanders being depicted as what I assume is a giant. He's carrying three houses, two of which are on his shoulders. And it's just really weird and bizarre. And just by reading the title and looking at the imagery that's in this, you already know what's in here. They're rehashing the same argument that we were beaten over the head with from a couple of weeks ago. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, but he's also a millionaire. Gotcha. And if you assumed that that's what this article was about, you'd be correct. Now to be fair, this isn't the worst hit piece on Bernie Sanders ever. I've read dozens of hit pieces against Bernie on this program. And this by far is not the worst. But with that being said, it's still dumb. They have this long article that contains absolutely no bombshells. Rather, what it was evident that they're trying to do is construct this narrative about how Bernie Sanders wants to radically transform the very system that made him successful. Therefore, he's a hypocrite. It claims Bernie Sanders is cheap while simultaneously very wealthy. It asserts that he's become what he hates in oligarch. And he once claimed in the 1980s, I believe, that he never desired to be rich, but now he's rich. So we got him, folks. It quotes democratic strategists that imply he's hypocritical. And overall, it really goes into great detail about the history of his finances, how much he made while he was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, how much money he had, what his net worth was during the 2008 financial crisis. Just a lot of details that don't matter. But nonetheless, it's a long article that essentially if they want you to take away anything, I'm assuming it's that, hey, this guy's a hypocrite. It's not compelling. Bernie Sanders has never claimed that millionaires and billionaires are inherently evil. That's probably something that I would claim is, certainly with regard to billionaires, but what he's always railed against is their greed. They hoard their money in offshore bank accounts. They don't want to pay their fair share of taxes. They lobby the government to do their bidding. It's the greed that he cares about. That's always been the crux of his concern with millionaires and billionaires, not their existence. But yet what they're essentially doing is building this straw man. He's a socialist, so he shouldn't be a millionaire. He should donate all of his money to charity. It's just, it's preposterous. But here's where it's evident that they didn't think through this article, especially when it comes to the images. Because if you look at the photo of him with the money tree and the houses on him, when you look at the tweet that accompanied the images from this piece, they say Bernie Sanders might still be cheap, but he's sure not poor. Take a moment and think about this. How is this not shamelessly anti-Semitic? Because Ilhan Omar criticized an interest group and Politico published an article heavily implying in the title that her comments about APAC were in fact anti-Semitic. There was no inclusion of the word allegedly anti-Semitic or comments that were perceived as being anti-Semitic. They implied it was anti-Semitic. Now I get it, this is from a different author, but nonetheless, the overall response from the establishment and journalists was that what Ilhan Omar said was incredibly troubling because we need to be hypersensitive of anti-Semitism in order to avoid hurting the Jewish community. And I absolutely agree that we should be hypersensitive because there is an increased amount of anti-Semitism. But what Ilhan Omar said was about an interest group, which is not representative of the average Jewish American or Jewish human being. It's just not. But yet, if you're going to be extremely hypersensitive, if your standard is going to be very high for what you deem as anti-Semitism, then how is it that, I'm assuming multiple people greenlit this article where Bernie Sanders, a Jewish American, is called cheap. They talk about the money he has, they depict him with a money tree behind him. I mean, what this is, is it's hypocritical. This is hypocrisy. When it comes to Ilhan Omar, she better watch whatever she says, otherwise she'll be called an anti-Semite. But when it comes to Bernie Sanders, we don't like him. So let's be openly anti-Semitic by our own standards. And let's call him cheap and talk about all the money he has and make it seem as if he's a greedy Jew. I mean, how is that not offensive? How are establishment news outlets not calling Politico out after calling Ilhan Omar out? It's insane. So it's a double standard. And thankfully, there were a lot of people that called out this double standard. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, can Politico explain to us how photoshopping money trees next to the only Jewish candidate for president and talking about how cheap and rich he is, isn't anti-Semitic? Or are they just letting this happen because he's a progressive politician they don't like? Notice the people willing to explain this away, yet when Ilhan's words are taken out of context, they are the first to jump on her. Look at how these accusations are selectively enforced on the left, especially when it's the alt-right actually committing anti-Semitic violence in the United States. And that's exactly it. And it's why when they continuously weaponize this anti-Semitic claim against people who are progressive, like Ilhan Omar, who call out Israel and APEC, they're playing politics. They don't genuinely care about anti-Semitism like progressives do. They're not concerned with it because if they were concerned with it, this would be completely unacceptable. A photograph of the only Jewish presidential candidate next to a money tree, they call him cheap, they talk about all the money he has. I mean, how is this acceptable by their standards, not by our standards, not by your standards, by their own standards? How is this passable? How is every single mainstream news outlet that called out Ilhan Omar not screeching at the top of their lungs now? It's because they never cared about anti-Semitism. They cared about attacking their political opponents and weaponizing something that's a serious issue, anti-Semitism, to their own advantage. That's what this is about. So thankfully, there were a lot of people on the left, nobody really super prominent, but enough people that called them out in response to this tweet, especially, where they were forced to take action. So they apologized saying, for the record, this replaces a deleted tweet that needed more context. Our apologies. And the new tweet reads, Bernie Sanders has three homes and a net worth approaching at least $2 million in a strict bottom line sense. He has become one of those rich people against whom he has so unrelentingly railed. Now, Ari Robin half responded saying, Politico style book needed more context equals the previous tweet contained an anti-Semitic trope. The current tweet contains a doctored photo of Bernie in front of a literal money tree and a house that is not his because that is better. Jeff Stein of the Washington Post says, what if we Photoshop a money tree next to the Jew? Exactly. So they were pretending like this one was better when it's really not that much better. By their own standards, if they claim we need to administer strict scrutiny when it comes to possible anti-Semitism, how does this pass their test? How does this get green lit? It just goes to show you that they have contempt for Bernie Sanders. What's unacceptable for other politicians is perfectly acceptable for them. Ilhan Omar is not allowed to call out the influence of a literal interest group like APAC without being considered anti-Semitic. She can't call out Israel, the government of Israel's war crimes against Palestinians and human rights abuses without being called anti-Semitic. But Politico can literally Photoshop a money tree next to Bernie Sanders and publish an article where they talk about how cheap he is and how much money he has and go into great detail about his finances. And that's perfectly reasonable. I mean, these people are hypocrites. This tells you everything you need to know about the mainstream media news pundits. They don't actually have any objective standards for what is and isn't anti-Semitic. They don't necessarily care about the damage that's being caused to our Jewish brothers and sisters because there has in fact been a rise in anti-Semitism. They don't care about any of that. They're going to do what's politically expedient for them. And that's one thing they keep proving to us time and again.