The US Migrant Crisis Is Going Critical, Local Towns Declare Emergencies
The US Migrant Crisis Is Going Critical, Local Towns Being Devastated. A Democratic mayor of the town of Del Rio is outraged as he says calls to federal lawmakers fall on deaf ears. This rhetoric has been echoed by many other jurisdictions that have declared emergencies but it seems that national level democrats just push rhetoric and block Trump, ICE, and CBP from doing their jobs.Democrats have even begun to blame federal law enforcement for the problems at the border while simultaneously voting to block funding for facilities.While Trump's solution is building a wall we don't see much of anything from Democrats as their priorities seem to be on winning in 2020 and on impeachment. Yet everyday the crisis at the southern border with mexico gets worse. Record waves of illegal immigrants are coming to the US and even migrants from African are now flying to Brazil then coming to the US. Many far left social justice types endorse open borders, like the Democratic Socialists of America. It seems that these activists don't understand basic economics and don't actually care for the crisis and what its doing to local communities.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We're facing a massive crisis, a serious emergency on the southern border.
And you'd have to be blind or willfully ignorant, in my opinion, to act like nothing's happening.
Of course, we see Ocasio-Cortez making absurd insinuations about the state of the U.S.
and its similarities to a certain World War II-era country and their practices, and it's nonsense.
Check out this story from Fox News.
Democrat border town mayor says we are sick and tired of feds not listening,
fixing illegal immigration problem.
If you were to ask me, based on everything I've read, is it federal law enforcement at fault?
No.
Well, I certainly think they could do a better job.
You can always do a better job.
I think this is the fault of national-level Democrats who don't want to give Trump a victory.
That's why they're calling for impeachment.
They just want to make him look bad and don't want him to win.
And that's why they refuse to fund border security operations.
And who does it hurt?
The towns on the border.
How about this Democratic border town?
I believe it's called Del Rio in Del Rio, Texas.
How about Portland, Maine of all places, a critical emergency.
How about a town in New Mexico just last month, Deming, New Mexico, declaring an emergency.
Yuma, declaring an emergency.
And not the only ones.
They're not the only ones.
There have been other jurisdictions.
There have been some counties.
And what's being done about it?
Nothing.
It's getting worse.
It's all getting worse.
So here's what we'll do.
Let's start with this Democratic mayor and look at why he's so outraged.
And then we'll look at some of these other towns, as well as some of the latest news on the U.S.
to withdraw funding from some countries, foreign aid, as well as Trump's plan To deport millions of illegal immigrants.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate because as I broach these contentious issues, I run the risk of being permanently deleted off of YouTube.
And yes, we've seen many channels wiped out without word, warning, no question, and we don't know why.
Many channels getting demonetized and we don't know why.
That's why I need your support.
You can go to TimCast.com slash donate.
There's a PayPal option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address for the time being.
Like, comment, share and subscribe, because it really does help.
But who knows what YouTube is doing, and YouTube will probably just get rid of me at some point, so I'm expecting it.
The story from Fox News.
A Democrat mayor of a Texas town bordering Mexico slammed the federal government and lawmakers, saying we are sick and tired of the deaf ears for failing to protect towns like his from illegal immigration.
Bruno Lozano, the mayor of Del Rio, Texas, made his remarks during a meeting with Republican Senator John Cornyn's staffers regarding asylum seekers and immigration.
The mayor criticized the government and called for a more active approach in combating illegal immigration that he says overrun his town.
Urging lawmakers to actually visit the border towns to see the situation.
Yes, I'd love that.
What does Ocasio-Cortez do instead?
Sits in her room, live streaming in her luxury apartment in DC, complaining about how the US is running concentration camps.
They need to see firsthand what's going on.
They need to understand the frustrations that the commissioners, or the city council, the school board, the hospital officials, are managing and having to deal with.
We're frustrated.
We're extremely frustrated.
Our priorities on the city council are our streets, are our parks, are the economy, are the drive of the community, and the places of worship, and the places to have leisure activities.
It is not the priority to solve immigration.
The Democrat added that it's unfair to ask small towns to handle issues related to asylum seekers and immigration, saying this is where the federal government needs to step up.
It is not our purview.
It is not our jurisdiction.
It is your job to ensure that you convey the frustration that I share with you all to ensure that our representatives at the federal level are hearing it.
It's falling on deaf ears, and we are tired of it.
We are sick and tired of the deaf ears.
Me too, man.
I hear you.
Lozano's comments follow the news earlier this month that border patrol have seen a dramatic rise in the African migrants being detained at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The U.S.
Customs and Border Protection said that since May 30th, over 500 people from African countries have been arrested by the agency in the Del Rio sector in Texas.
And so what happens?
Ocasio-Cortez blames Trump.
The Democrats blame Trump.
They refuse to support border security.
Why?
Because it was Trump's campaign promise to build a wall.
And now we are facing emergency after emergency.
And what's being done about it?
This man is a Democrat.
This is not about party politics.
The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, numerous mainstream centrist left-wing outlets have said this is a problem.
And what's being done about it?
National-level politicking.
You know what I think?
Listen, I don't live in a border town.
I live in New Jersey.
I don't know a lot about what's going on.
see outside and they refuse to. They follow each other and they ignore the pleas of Democratic
mayors like Lozano saying you need to come and look at this.
Listen, I don't live in a border town. I live in New Jersey. I don't know a lot
about what's going on, but I do feel like if anyone should have a say, if we should be
listening to anyone, it is the border towns who have been complaining about this.
It is the places that are actually housing the refugees that are saying, we need help.
Okay, I will take your word for it.
I defer to those affected.
I defer to those who have experience in what's going on.
Instead, Cortez sits on her bed live streaming and says, Trump is running these camps.
How dare he?
Oh, we're in trying times.
Think about that.
Someone who really thinks that's the world we're living in, the recreation of World War II, and does nothing about it other than complain on a live stream.
That's brazen.
What would you say to this man who's calling for aid?
Would you compare him to what's happening in what happened in World War II Germany?
Well, Trump is certainly taking action.
I want to make sure I highlight the past stories of these local jurisdictions and the problems they're facing as well.
Because, listen, for those of us in the US, in various towns across the country, we don't see necessarily the direct ramifications of mass illegal immigration.
But these smaller towns are being swept up and hit by it hard.
Interestingly, Portland, Maine as well.
So there are jurisdictions that say, we can't handle this.
We need help.
And we should listen to them.
They're the ones being impacted.
Instead, nonsense.
But Trump is taking action.
Now, here's the problem.
Should I agree with what Trump is doing?
I honestly have no idea.
All I can really say, well, at least Trump's doing something.
He announced the tariffs with Mexico.
A lot of people complained, it'll never work.
And then all of a sudden, Mexico agrees to step up and do more to stop the mass migration.
Okay, so I guess his plan worked.
Can I really complain about it?
I have no idea.
Because instead of having a debate about whether or not Trump's plans will work to stem mass migration, you hear Cortez talking about rhetorical nonsense.
Nancy Pelosi says it's immoral.
You can't do, oh no.
And then, I can say it a million times, these major newspapers say straight up, this is an emergency.
The New York Times editorial board wrote a story saying, give Trump his money.
They don't do it.
So then what happens?
U.S.
to withhold, it's from the Epoch Times, I always say that.
U.S.
to withhold hundreds of millions in aid from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
The administration of President Donald Trump announced on June 17th that it will withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to the named countries, the main sources of mass illegal migration into the U.S.
We will not provide new funds for programs in those countries.
Excuse me.
Until we are satisfied, the Northern Triangle governments are taking concrete actions to reduce the number of illegal immigrants coming to the U.S.
border.
Excuse me again.
This is consistent with the president's direction and with the recognition that it is critical that there be sufficient political will in these countries to address the problems at its source.
I'll tell you what.
Those hundreds of millions of dollars, redirect it back here, and then those people who are coming here, that can fix the facilities and make things better for them.
How about that?
So if these countries aren't using the money appropriately, and people are fleeing and coming here, okay, well then we can divert that money.
That's a good compromise, isn't it?
They say the three countries known collectively as the Northern Triangle will continue receiving aid from contracts and grants that are currently active from fiscal year 2017, totaling roughly $400 million.
The administration left intact aid funds meant to help stem the flow of illegal migrants and combat international organized crime.
Approximately $200 million in aid remains on hold in an escrow account, according to a State Department spokesperson.
So that's predictable.
Trump said that was a possibility, but now we're seeing direct action.
This story from the Daily Caller just the other day.
Trump will remove millions of illegal immigrants from the U.S.
President Trump said Monday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement will begin mass deportations of illegal immigrants starting next week.
The president indicated that ICE intends on attempting to remove the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S.
According to a Pew Research Center study released last week, 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S.
Trump tweeted, Next week, ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States.
They will be removed as fast as they come in.
Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people.
Long before they get to our southern border, Guatemala is getting ready to sign a safe third agreement.
The only ones who won't do anything are the Democrats in Congress.
They must vote to get rid of the loopholes and fix asylum.
If so, border crisis will end quickly.
Here's what I can say.
I have been very critical of Trump's foreign policy.
I have been very critical of his demeanor, his attitude, the things he says.
And I have stated, before he was even elected, and to this day, he is possibly the worst representation of American culture.
At the time, Hillary Clinton was the worst.
This was the meme that was going around.
Hillary Clinton represented the worst that our government could be, and Trump represented the worst our culture could be.
But as it's been pointed out by many people, you don't have to like the guy to recognize that policies may or may not work.
So I sit back, and there are certain things I can absolutely point to.
The foreign policy, I think, has been very, very bad.
But, you know, Trump comes out straight away and says, we want to give weapons to Saudi Arabia because it's great for our economy.
And me and many anti-war left-wing people are shocked.
And he just comes out and says it.
Hey, it's for the military-industrial complex.
And we're like, well, there you go.
All right.
And we're very critical of that.
And I've been very critical of that.
But then we find this problem.
Is it right for Trump to announce the mass deportation of millions of immigrants?
I honestly have no idea because I haven't heard anything from the Democrats other than rhetorical nonsense.
And when, listen, A lot of people will try to point to, um, if you support Trump in this endeavor, they'll say, aha, that proves you're far right, whatever, listen.
The New York Times, and I have to stress this, my opinion doesn't come from listening to right-wing people.
It ultimately is settled when I see the willingness of regular Americans, left, right, center, top, down, whatever, to say, hey, maybe we have an issue.
And then I read that statement from the New York Times where they said the Democrats need to fund this, and I said, wow, that is bold coming from the ivory tower of New York.
Instead, what do we get?
From the Hill, just yesterday.
Democrats aim to block defense money from being used on Trump border wall.
Obstruction.
Now, look, I understand it's a different issue.
Blocking Trump from building a border wall is different from providing funds to these facilities and to dealing with mass migration.
But I believe we have a serious problem with Democrats continually blocking Trump for no other reason than to win 2020.
They want to make sure he can't win.
Well, I'll tell you what.
It's a shot in the foot.
It is an absolute shot in the foot for the Democrats.
When you have a Democratic mayor of this town saying, the feds aren't listening, these lawmakers need to come here, and then the national level Democrats don't care.
They just obstruct.
What do you think regular Americans are going to do?
You know, these polls have come out saying, oh no, Trump can't beat Biden and the Democrats are going to win.
Yeah, sure.
The polls in 2016 had Trump at like a 1% chance to win.
Some of them did.
And now they're saying Trump's only got a 39% chance to win.
It's like, that's actually really high.
Like, when they put him up, they do one-to-one polling, like, they say Biden will get 45%, Trump will get 39% or something.
I don't believe it.
I really don't.
I really, really do not believe it.
Especially when you have towns like Portland.
Portland, Maine!
I've been to Portland, Maine.
Maine.
It is hippie-dippie people sleeping on the grass, you know, chilling, having their little bagels, and it's very hippie-dippie.
You know what I mean?
I don't mean that disrespectfully.
I mean it's like a very chill, like, pot-smoking kind of place.
And they're dealing with a very critical emergency.
They cannot handle the asylum- and you know, look, I'll point this out.
Press Herald calls it asylum seekers.
They're- listen.
It needs to be stressed that if people leave their country in Sub-Saharan Africa to a neighboring country where they're substantially more safe.
And then leave?
I do not believe that is someone who is seeking asylum.
Now it could be that, and let's be fair, let's say you're in Congo, and people are threatening your life.
So you go to Angola, but you don't have resources, and you're going to die of starvation, perhaps.
Okay, then they fly to Brazil.
All right, now you're in Brazil.
Brazil's pretty nice.
Sao Paulo and Rio, beautiful places.
I've been there several times.
Then they leave Brazil.
I do not believe these people have legitimate claims of asylum.
I believe there are a lot of people who do.
A lot of them.
But if we don't fix the loopholes, if we don't secure our borders, then we are doing a disservice to those who are absolutely fearing for their life and need help.
All we end up doing then is playing into the hands of human traffickers and people who seek to just take advantage of our goodwill.
So what are the biggest problems I think the Democrats have?
For one, as I mentioned, they're living in a social media bubble where they're just following each other and they have no idea what's actually happening and it's all just one big virtue signal.
Why did Ocasio-Cortez compare, you know, the camps, the detention centers to Germany, World War II Germany?
So she can rile up her base, so she can rile up people, and it's dangerous rhetoric, but it's all about just riling people up and gaining power.
They're not seriously addressing the issues.
They're not seriously challenging Trump.
You want to challenge Trump?
Okay, let's do it.
I'll say this.
Here's an idea.
The border wall is overly expensive and a waste of money, and money should be diverted to these facilities, and we should figure out a way to disincentivize people who come here.
Do we hear that?
Some people do.
I don't want to act like every single Democrat is just virtue signaling.
No, I'm talking about Ocasio-Cortez and the national-level Democrats, for the most part, who say it's immoral to build a wall.
That's not an argument.
It says nothing to me.
Someone in the middle, you know, center-left a little bit, saying, what's the solution to this problem?
It is a problem.
And when you hear a Democratic mayor from Del Rio saying, why won't they listen to us?
Deaf ears.
You have to wonder what they're really thinking.
So let me stress, there really are good Democrats.
There really are Democrats who care about their citizenry, their constituencies, care about making America better.
But the national-level Democrats seem to not be them for the most part.
Ocasio-Cortez, I think, is one of them.
She bloviates.
She talks about, you know, rhetorical nonsense, and I think she does it because it gets her followers.
She's blinded by social media, and that's a damn shame.
This story from Press Herald says the city will set up 350 cots at the Portland Expo to provide temporary shelter and USM's president says he's willing to open up a 200-bed dorm in Gorham through August 7th.
The story says Portland officials have set up an emergency operation center and begun securing resources such as cots, linens, food, health care providers, and translators as the city prepares to house more than 250 asylum seekers from Africa who crossed the southern border into the United States.
Look, I don't want to blanket all of these people and say they're not legitimate asylum seekers.
I believe it's important to protect the individual and we need to go through their cases and make sure that's the case.
If the U.S.
has determined through their system that these people are asylum seekers and do require shelter, then I will respect the U.S.
in that regard, 100%.
But I would absolutely challenge any Democrat to have a conversation about these people coming from Africa, going through Brazil and Colombia and Mexico, Guatemala, etc.
and not staying in those countries.
Not staying in Mexico.
But Brazil is... I think Brazil's incredible!
I'd love to go to Brazil.
I'd go to Brazil... I've been there several times, actually.
I'd love to go back.
I don't understand why people claim to be in trouble and don't stay in Brazil.
I really, really don't.
So what is the reasoning, then?
Where is the conversation from Democrats saying, here's why they came?
I don't hear it.
I just hear it's a critical emergency, we're lacking resources, we're not being listened to.
So, let me just stress, I actually didn't cover this story on the New Mexico City when it happened back in May, it's a rather short story, but from the Associated Press, another New Mexico community has declared an emergency in response to the increasing number of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Deming City Council voted Monday to make the declaration after City Administrator Aaron Serra noted that federal authorities dropped off migrants in Deming last week.
The Deming Headlight reports that at last count, 170 Central American migrants have been released into the community.
Shelters at Las Cruces also have been overwhelmed and are running low on food.
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's office recently paid to bus several dozen migrants to Colorado, and officials say more bus trips north are possible.
That's it.
That's all everyone can do.
They're passing the buck.
I don't blame them.
Democrats are obstructing Trump.
Don't take my word for it.
That's literally what they've been doing.
They're not voting to give the funds that Trump wants.
They're actually voting to block.
A lot of the expenditures.
Trump had to declare a national emergency to get this.
This is going to Streisand effect.
I don't know if Streisand, it's going to backfire.
That's a better way to put it.
This, in my opinion, will backfire heavily on the Democrats.
When you have a Democratic mayor standing up to federal lawmakers and saying, deaf ears, we need, we're frustrated, we're extremely frustrated, our priorities are our city, and they don't listen.
Think about the local level Democrats who are frustrated that the national level, you know, policymakers are not paying attention.
So, uh, other than that, we saw, you know, Yuma, This was back in April, I did cover this, but we've seen it over and over again.
So I guess I'll leave it there because, you know, I was really, really angry.
In the video I did before this on my second channel, I talked a lot about how Ocasio-Cortez is comparing the U.S.
to World War II Germany, and it's just the most insane shark-jumping rhetoric I've ever seen.
You'd have to be blind at this point to act like there's no emergency, to act like there's no serious crisis.
Whatever you want to call it, security, humanitarian crisis, I don't care.
It's a problem.
Record levels of migrants and even migrants from Africa.
A system cannot sustain this kind of mass migration.
We absolutely can work out a legal process to find homes, to make sure the economy isn't damaged
by just a massive flood of people entering random places.
But right now, I fear you're going to have people in dangerous conditions in these detention facilities.
You're gonna have children and sick people wandering through the desert because they're being promised this great better life, but you know what, man?
It reminds me of Mount Everest.
People seem to think that space is infinite.
It's not.
The U.S.
has an economy that functions and it's very delicate.
But I don't know if you saw the story about Mount Everest, where there was just way too many people on the summit in a huge line, and they're bumping into each other and people were dying.
You have to realize that there are basic principles of existence on this planet.
And that if you just have wave after wave of people coming endlessly, wandering through the desert, you are going to hear about more tragedies.
Children getting sick and dying, people collapsing in the desert.
You're going to have our federal facilities being jammed, you know, completely full of people.
Because, what do you do?
Are they better off wandering the desert or are they better off in the facility?
I honestly don't know.
But if people aren't going to solve this problem, I'm just getting sick and tired of it, man.
I won't go on too much longer.
This is a long video.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
I just don't even know what to say anymore.
Because I made a bunch of videos where I used to kind of just be, you know, incredulous.
I can't believe the Democrats won't do anything about this!
And then I saw this story about the small town and its Democratic mayor standing up and saying enough, and I'm like, wow.
You know what?
They're not willing to do anything about it.
I honestly just don't know anymore.
I really don't.
I think it's just going to keep getting worse.
Trump's obviously trying to do something about it.
Maybe it's not the right thing to do.
I don't know.
I don't know because the Democrats aren't at the table.
They're just complaining about rhetorical nonsense.
Stick around.
More segments to come.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6pm.
I'll see you there.
I can't say that I'm surprised that there's an overlap between socialists and employees of a company that is collapsing, staging a walkout because they want more money from their company.
Because when you ask these people about communism or socialism, they always say, oh, well, that wasn't real communism.
That wasn't real socialism.
And, you know, it'll work this time.
And I think it's because they don't understand basic economics.
From CNN Business, BuzzFeed News staffers stage walkout in effort to compel management
to recognize union. Now, I did a video about the impending walkout. We have a bigger write-up,
and I think it's absolutely fascinating to see these employees who clearly must recognize
that their company is not doing well, asking for more money.
I don't know.
Look at this story from CNN.
January 23, 2019, BuzzFeed to cut 15% of its staff in new round of layoffs.
BuzzFeed wasn't cutting 15% of their staff.
For no reason!
They're doing it because they need to maintain certain levels of revenue to keep the company from disappearing overnight.
So here's my prediction.
Layoffs are coming.
If the employees stop working, and they did, the company makes less money.
There's even less money now to give them what they want!
So, it's a downward spiral of destruction.
That Buzzfeed has reached a point where they don't have enough money to pay the staff what the staff wants, so the staff stops working, resulting in less money, resulting in more laughs, resulting in more angry staff, and then...
Eventually, BuzzFeed is no more.
No más.
But don't, don't worry.
Don't worry, everybody.
I know you love BuzzFeed.
And BuzzFeed sells cookware at Walmart.
Did you know this?
I kid you not.
They have the Tasty brand, and you go to Walmart, and there's Tasty spatulas, and, you know, like, orange peelers or something.
So, I mean, it's really smart.
Weird, but, you know, hey, whatever, whatever makes money for your company.
Apparently, not enough, though, because I still laid people off.
So let's read this and see what the BuzzFeed union is trying to do.
And again, I want to stress, I don't know, I give it a month, two months, no, maybe like half a year, but we will see more layoffs.
A lot of these companies are moving to private production.
So they want to sell shows to like Netflix and HBO because they can't maintain their viewership.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work so that I don't end up in the same boat.
Because I don't want to rely on getting a million- like, you know, BuzzFeed relies on getting a million views to get that revenue to sell those ads.
How about you just choose to support me if you like to?
It's a pay-what-you-will model.
Or pay nothing.
My videos will always be free for you guys.
I do make money off ad revenue.
Hopefully that doesn't go away soon, but it might.
And there's a cryptocurrency, a physical address.
You know, we're expanding with Subverse, and it's trying times.
We're currently hiring people.
We've got videos every Monday through Thursday.
And it is worrisome when you see not only are these companies collapsing, but you also have YouTube stripping monetization away from channels seemingly at random.
We don't know why.
Like, some channels are deleted.
Some people are getting their channels deleted.
Some people are getting their ads taken away.
And that means if you start a business on YouTube, you could be gone overnight.
Terrible, terrible idea.
So, the big play everybody's making, it's gotta be backed by you guys.
BuzzFeed is even doing this.
They've been doing it for a while where you can choose to support BuzzFeed.
I don't know why you would though, right?
It's one thing when you pay a subscription to the New York Times and you're like, I wanna get the paper and I wanna pay for it.
I stopped after that fake news they published on the front page.
They have lost.
They're falling down.
That's kind of crazy to me.
You know, Subverse will never publish anecdotal conspiracy theory.
I assure you.
I will delete the website myself if we come to a point where we need to publish front page anecdotes.
I kid you not.
The New York Times runs a story about one reporter Who watched one YouTube video and all of his conspiracy theories about YouTube's algorithm doing crazy things.
I'm like, there's no data here.
There's no expert testimony.
There's no proof other than, I watched a video on YouTube and here's what I think's happening.
Something dangerous.
And CNN puts them on TV.
If Subverse ever gets that point, I will invite the public in to bash our servers with hammers into complete destruction.
BuzzFeed News employees on Monday afternoon staged a walkout in an attempt to pressure the company to recognize the union.
Approximately 115 to 125 employees were expected to participate in the demonstration, a rep for the News Guild of Free New York, which represents the staffers, told CNN.
The walkout took place at all four of BuzzFeed News' U.S.
bureaus, New York, L.A., San Francisco, and D.C., the News Guild of New York said in a press release.
Our members have grown tired of management stalling and demand they return to the table in good faith.
Oh yeah.
The BuzzFeed Newsroom has the full support of the entire News Guild membership, and we are with them every step of the way.
In my opinion, I firmly believe collective bargaining is a very powerful and amazing thing.
If every employee stood up and said, no, the business has no choice.
Either shut down until you can rehire new staff and it's going to cost you a ton of money, or give the staffers what they want, or negotiate at the bare minimum.
Unions, however, are very, very different and have evolved into something very, very strange.
When I was, I mentioned this in the last video, I was held back by my union.
My raises were held back, my promotions, it was awful.
And we couldn't do anything.
We couldn't, we couldn't even strike.
What do you mean we can't?
I kid you not, we were told, if you strike, they fine you a full day's pay, but we're prepared to do this.
And I was told this by the union, they were like, We're getting close to a strike.
And if we do, everyone gets fined a full day because we work in the transportation union.
And, uh, they were like, so you will end up owing money for going on strike.
And I'm like, I don't, I don't want to do that.
And they're like, you have to, you're in the union.
No, what?
I kid you not.
So I don't know how true that was.
And that's what they told us.
So I will say this.
I don't think unions are effective anymore, and to a certain degree they are.
Don't get me wrong, because collective bargaining still works.
But when I look at like the News Guild of New York, or you know, Transportation Union, like I was in some other unions in the past, I just see external organizations that want that little bit of your paycheck.
I do not believe for a second that the News Guild of New York actually cares about these employees.
Because if they did, they would advise them, listen man, BuzzFeed's not doing well, layoffs are here.
You know, if you guys want more, if you guys want better contracts, recognize they will lay people off in order to find that money.
Money is not infinite.
It doesn't just generate because you're a company.
It's like these people... This is the point I was making about socialism.
It's like these people believe that you go to the government, you rubber stamp a form and the government says, you're a business now, congratulations, here's infinite money.
You can pay whatever you want.
That's not how it works.
That literally makes no sense.
If BuzzFeed can't sell ads, BuzzFeed doesn't have money to pay you.
So BuzzFeed lays off 15% of their staff Man, this is the problem I have with being forced to be in a union.
I had a friend who was working... I may have named the company in the past, but I'm gonna avoid naming them now just for whatever reason.
I had a friend who worked at a company.
And it was a media company they're preparing to unionize.
And I said, I need you to do this right now.
I need you to go to management right now and say, I do not want to be involved in this union.
Tell them that you do not want to be involved and you just want to do your job.
Do that now.
Trust me.
And they asked me why.
And I said, listen, your company doesn't make money.
It's burning investment.
These companies have massive investment and the only reason they aren't gone, they don't just evaporate, is because other companies and investors are putting money and hoping at some point it turns a profit.
You have two problems.
The first, Your company doesn't make money.
Generating revenue, maybe, but not profitable, which means you are in the red and your company is bleeding.
You will not survive unless they can turn this around.
If the union happens, the company is going to just lay everybody off because of the other problem.
Investors are going to say, listen, We're already bleeding.
We don't want to lose any more money.
And you can't make this profitable.
And now you've got union problems.
Okay?
If you pay these staffers more, we can't afford it.
So these are the problems.
I'll tell you what happened.
Mass layoffs.
I kid you not.
And they came back to me months later like, wow, you were right.
And I said, listen, I'm not saying unions are bad.
No, collective bargaining can be good.
But you seriously, like, they view management and they view the people who run the company as, like, evil monocle-wearing top-hat mustache guys going, and we'll make sure no one gets any money or benefits!
You've got people like, I assure you, Ben Smith is sitting there, you know, like, furling, you know, with a furled brow, like, finger on his nose, like, how can we get more money?
How can we figure this out?
The staff wants more money.
I assure you he's not sitting there going like, I don't want to pay anybody.
No, I'm sure he'd love to give you a million dollars if they could.
They got to figure out how to do that first.
And when you put stress and pressure on them, like, I get it.
There are companies that have been evil and there have been capitalists, you know, who have just said, I don't care about how much, you get what you ask for and I get the rest.
And that's to a certain extent fine.
And then you have, you know, the inverse of that, labor pushing back and saying, no, we've come together and we're going to demand more now.
But that makes sense when you're generating profits.
These people think that like, you know, Ben Smith is this bad guy who won't recognize what we want.
I'm like, I assure you Ben Smith doesn't want to fire you.
I assure you Ben Smith wants to hire more of you.
I assure you Ben Smith would love 10 more offices around the world.
A massive BuzzFeed News empire.
Some of the greatest reporting in the world.
He'd love it.
No money.
So now you come in demanding more at a time when BuzzFeed is already in trouble.
You know what?
I assure you, BuzzFeed staff, there will be people dancing on the grave of BuzzFeed, and I assure you there will be people commenting on this video laughing about how this is just going to further bring about the demise of BuzzFeed.
I could care less if BuzzFeed lives or dies, whatever.
It's like, I have nothing to do with BuzzFeed.
They've done some bad things, they've done some good things.
When they wrote up a story recently on Project Veritas, they didn't smear Veritas.
Like The Intercept did.
The Intercept wrote something about Veritas, it was just cringey to read.
You know what I really can't stand?
I get really angry?
When you can clearly see the passive-aggressive insults, like it's high school, in a news story.
Buzzfeed has done this, don't get me wrong, but they'll say something like, the president today, a man who has lied 7,500 times and has been referred to as X, Y, and Z. It's like, dude, I don't need that caveat.
I know who the president is.
You don't need to put that nonsense in there, but they're clearly just angry and they feel good.
Oh, I hate Trump.
Yeah.
And BuzzFeed didn't do that.
Not with Veritas.
And I can respect that.
They're not perfect.
I like BuzzFeed more than most, but I'm very critical of them because they've done some pretty bad stuff.
And now they're, you know, in trouble more, right?
So, I guess the issue is, there was a period where I thought BuzzFeed news was pretty good.
Then they start hurting for money, they start laying people off, and the quality goes down.
Now with these walkouts, which I probably should, we should figure out what happened with the walkouts.
Um, you know it's going to get worse.
So let's read a little bit more of this.
We'll have a longer video for this morning.
Just cause, uh, I usually rant in the mornings because all of my ideas are bottled up.
In New York City, BuzzFeed News staffers also held a rally in front of BuzzFeed headquarters, holding signs saying, Recognize the BuzzFeed Union.
They say staffers have been attempting for four months to get management to recognize their union, the effort ramped up after a round of layoffs.
That's what I was saying, it's a downward spiral.
BuzzFeed goes, God damn it, we gotta lay people off.
Then the staff goes, ah, they're laying people off, now we need more money and security, and then BuzzFeed's like, we don't have money for that, we just laid people off.
They highlighted the instability at BuzzFeed and other digital news shops like it.
It's like, I gotta say it, man.
Imagine your boat springs a leak, and you're like, hey man, you know, our boat's leaking, we need everybody to bail water, I know it's not gonna be fun, and they go, and they all stop bailing water, and they go, no!
We demand that you do X, Y, and Z, otherwise we won't bail water, and then the boat's sinking.
And you're like, guys, please, the boat's sinking.
And then they go outside and start jumping up and down on the boat, saying like, no, no, dude, your boat's sinking, man.
BuzzFeed is just going to collapse one day, and they'll all be out of a job.
And then they're going to be like, but how did that happen?
I'm not saying a union is going to cause that, necessarily.
I'm just saying, like, you are adding unnecessary strain on an already strained company.
In tweets posted Monday, the BuzzFeed News Union account said BuzzFeed has refused to work toward compromise on key issues and taken positions that would severely undercut our union's ability to protect workers.
The account added that BuzzFeed had offered us an unacceptable take-it-or-leave-it deal and walked away from the negotiating table.
Jonah Preddy, the founder and chief executive of BuzzFeed, said in an email to employees on Monday afternoon that the company made an offer two weeks ago to voluntarily recognize NewsGuild as the rep for BuzzFeed NewsUnion.
Preddy described the proposal as the product of more than three months of discussions and negotiations with the NewsGuild, and both responsive to our employees' requests and mindful of the way the company operates.
Since we made our offer on June 4th, new staff have refused to accept it and instead are seeking to impose additional demands that threaten our progress and voluntary recognition, Peretti wrote.
Peretti said the two sides remain deadlocked.
The first issue, according to Peretti, is a request from the union to remove the recognition agreement, the list of job titles that will be excluded from the union.
Peretti said the list was important because the company needs a reliable and consistent means of identifying those employees and new hires who are included and excluded from the bargaining unit.
The second issue, according to Peretti, involves BuzzFeed's ability to offer certain employees individual contracts.
Peretti said the union has no objection to BuzzFeed providing contracts to certain employees that are more generous than the terms of a future collective bargaining agreement, but he said the union objects to the company's ability to provide such contracts while in negotiation for a collective bargaining agreement.
A rep for the News Guild of New York did not immediately have a response for Peretti's email.
They write, The BuzzFeed News walkout comes just weeks after hundreds of Vox Media employees staged a walkout in an effort to compel management to come to an agreement for a union contract.
Vox Media and its employees eventually reached a deal shortly thereafter.
So, well, there it is.
I guess we don't got to go on too long.
We can just leave it there.
But it does seem to me, final thought I suppose, that BuzzFeed says we're going to recognize your union and then they come in and they demand more.
So it seems like My final thought on the matter.
You could absolutely predict layoffs will be coming.
Vox is a break-even company.
Okay, last year, it was my understanding, I read a report saying that Vox broke even.
Which means they can maintain their current levels, but break-even is really, really dangerous.
It's really dangerous.
People don't seem to understand this.
A business doesn't just need to generate revenue.
There's a profit, okay.
This is what really, you know, this is why you can't separate these people from the socialists that don't understand why the system's collapsing.
If your business is breaking even, that means as soon as you hit a rainy day, you collapse, okay?
Break even is dangerous.
It means you're barely able to keep going.
You need profit.
The profit is the cream on top, and you need to take a portion of that and save it for the rainy day.
People don't seem to understand that.
They don't get it.
They're like, hey, this is what I always hear from these people.
Our company brought in, you know, 30 million dollars this year!
They can pay us more!
And it's like, and what were your liabilities?
What do you mean?
How much did the company have to spend to make that 30 million?
I don't know, but they made 30 million dollars.
Okay, right, listen.
You know, it's really funny when you talk to someone about profit, especially these people, my god.
This is, again, the overlap between these people and socialism, it should be obvious to everybody.
It's like, explain to someone basic economics.
These people don't understand it, right?
Like, let's say you want to make a birdhouse.
You want to start a birdhouse business.
So you spend $20 on birdhouse parts, you build it, and then you sell it for $25,
and you get a $5 profit.
Then you have an employee who goes, you make $25?
I deserve money.
I deserve $10.
And you're like, no, no, no, no, no.
We didn't make $25.
We made $5.
It's the profit.
Profit is wrong.
We should abolish profit.
I kid you not.
The DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, wave sign saying abolish profit.
That is not an exaggeration.
Because they don't know what profit is.
It's like, dude, If you sell a birdhouse and it costs you 20 bucks to make, the profit represents your benefit from your labor.
Well, they really, really don't understand that.
For a company, it represents the net positive beyond what it costs to run the business.
But they seriously want to abolish profit.
They want everybody working at cost.
My god.
And I gotta say, Ocasio-Cortez is part of the DSA card-carrying member.
That's worrisome.
These people don't understand the concept of economics.
I'm not even an economist.
I'm not even an expert.
But I understand basic tenets like if BuzzFeed wants to pay $10 an hour, they have to make $12 an hour per person so that there's more than they're paying.
Not only that, what these people don't seem to realize is that if a business pays you, say, like, I don't know, $50,000 a year, They get so the employee gets 50k, the business has to spend like 60 because they pay a tax.
They pay a tax, an employment tax.
These people don't understand that.
I swear to God, I'm willing to bet none of these people understand how business works.
The business, I think the business pays like a 7.5%.
They split.
So if you're self employment, I think it's like 15 point something percent.
And so when you're hired by a company, the company covers half of that and you cover the other half.
So they don't just pay you $10 an hour.
They're paying you slightly more than that.
On paper, you get $10 an hour, you pay your taxes, but the business is actually spending like $11 or $12.
I mean, you know, that math is way off.
But they, uh, if they're paying, so what is it, like, 10 bucks an hour, they're gonna, like, 70 cents on the dollar, right?
So, uh, I'm sorry, on the 10 dollars, 7 cents.
Anyway, whatever, I'll leave it there.
Long video, BuzzFeed.
How much you wanna bet, laughs?
How much you wanna bet?
Stick around, next video will be coming up at 1pm, and I will see you all shortly.
Perhaps you could have said she jumped the shark with the Green New Deal, when they talked about farting cows and getting rid of airplanes.
When the Green New Deal came out, I'm sorry, before the Green New Deal came out, it made a lot of sense in my opinion, like, hey, let's invest in new technologies.
Sounds like a good idea.
And then she puts out this insane nonsense.
But I gotta say, she's really good at one-upping herself.
I'm talking about Ocasio-Cortez, for those that didn't see the title, I guess.
But she's really good at one-upping herself in terms of jumping another shark.
For those that aren't familiar, jumping the shark is a reference, I think, to happy days when the Fonz jumped over a shark on a motorcycle or something.
It basically means she's gone nuts.
Like, she's reached that point.
Check out this story from Newsweek.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says the U.S.
is running concentration camps on our southern border.
And yes, she likened it to World War II.
So let me just say something before we get started.
You have to be a certain kind of special to insinuate the U.S.
government for which you work and represent people of You have to be a certain kind of special to claim that the government of which you are a part is operating concentration camps, and then sit in your room on livestream complaining about it and do nothing else.
If you really thought what was happening was akin to World War II, I would imagine people would be up in arms, which is another thing.
This is really dangerous rhetoric, because no, the US is... I mean, look.
Concentration camp is a loaded word meant to drive a certain narrative.
Certainly, it's a broad term of general understanding.
But simply because we have a record amount of illegal immigrants coming into this country that Democrats don't seem to want to fix doesn't mean the US is rounding up people in our borders and putting these camps.
These are people who have come here asking for shelter, asking for aid, and they're put in bad conditions.
I think it's terrible.
I do.
But the insinuation she's making Jumping the shark.
Before we get into all this, because I'm talking, you know, I gotta say, I'm really, really frustrated right now, you guys.
There were a couple other videos that I had lined up.
I can't even talk about some things anymore.
They're deleting scholars.
They're deleting journalists.
Demonetizing.
I could cover certain mainstream stories.
This story very well could get my channel demonetized.
But a politician is talking about it.
Do I want to comment on it?
I do.
Will I back down?
No.
But I tell you what, man, it is extremely frustrating when I'm sitting here looking at this story about Cortez and her insinuations about concentration camps knowing YouTube will click delete simply for talking about mainstream politics.
It'll happen.
That's why I have a donation page set up, and that's why I am having a meeting later today to talk about moving away to a new space away from YouTube to try and figure out how to do what I do without being concerned about being banned entirely.
It's getting nightmarish, it really is.
Man, I tell you what, there's a crypto option, there's a physical address, but of course, If it matters, like, comment, share, subscribe, because, fingers crossed, talking about these issues and saying these words don't get my channel deleted.
Which they probably will!
That's the future we're walking into.
Tech oligopolies dominating the public space, and you not being allowed to talk about it.
You want to talk about what's really fascistic, Ocasio-Cortez?
Not the fact that the Democrats won't get on board with a plan to fund border security.
But how about the fact that massive tech giants are surveilling people, sharing our private data, restricting what we can talk about, and they've monopolized, duopolized, the public discourse?
Now Facebook's gonna launch a currency?
You wanna talk about what's fascistic?
Let's talk about technocratic fascism.
No.
Ocasio-Cortez wants to blame the president and the US government because other people from other countries are flying across the Atlantic and trying to enter the United States.
You know what, man?
I am sick and tired of these people not caring about the US, okay?
Of course I don't think Ocasio-Cortez hates America and doesn't care about the United States for the most part.
I'm talking about specific issues.
They complain about a bad economy.
They complain about stagnant wages.
She's apparently got an economics degree and doesn't understand supply and demand.
You can't bring in hundreds of thousands of people per month with nowhere to put them With no cities to go to, with no jobs.
We had record job creation.
Actually, I don't know if it's record job creation, but way above expectations.
Unemployment is way down.
So what's happening?
We're getting wave after wave of migrant caravan, people from Africa coming to this country.
And what does Cortez say?
It's the government's fault for trying to do something with these people.
Should these people, these migrants, be in terrible conditions?
Absolutely not.
I deplore and detest the unsanitary and dangerous conditions these people are in.
Is the U.S.
arbitrarily rounding up random people that they don't like and putting them into horrifying situations and then actually causing them harm intentionally?
Of course not!
It is insane what she's insinuating here.
She said, never again.
You know what that means?
When she makes that statement, never again.
She's making a reference to World War II.
What happened in World War II was the intentional ethnicist racial discrimination against a large group of people who are systematically being purged from a country that is nightmarish.
What's happening right now is that waves of people from all over the world now are coming to our southern border to try and get into this country.
Man, I got another story coming up after this about how bad it's really getting.
It's just mind-blowing to me that you have these people claiming the U.S.
government, it's like World War II was, you know, Germany trying to get rid of people.
Right now, people are trying to come here.
You know, it's like you can't understand that.
We have too many people who want to be in the U.S., even with these terrifying conditions, these really bad conditions, that no one should be happy about.
Of course not.
They're still coming!
I did a story yesterday about migrants from Africa coming, flying to Brazil, and then taking a journey up to the southern border of the U.S.
Why?
These people say that they're running from civil war and danger.
I get that.
We should absolutely protect them.
Except they were already in Brazil!
They were already in Brazil and they moved through several countries to make it up to the US.
Why come here?
Because America's economy is better than a lot of these countries.
It's better than Brazil.
That's the real issue.
Economics.
But basic economics will show you we cannot support unfettered, just mass migration without some kind of legal process.
Period.
I have nothing but sympathy for those who want to be here.
I too think America is a great place to live that offers wonderful opportunity.
I would like to share that opportunity.
In order to do that, we need to make sure that there is a legal process for this.
Otherwise, what Ocasio-Cortez proposes, what, just opening the doors to all these facilities and letting people run through the desert?
Do you think the conditions are bad in these camps?
I don't disagree.
I've read these stories.
They're appalling and terrifying.
But you know what else?
What else do we do?
In Mexico, it's just as bad on the other side of the border.
And if you just open the gates and say, you know, we're not doing this anymore, you're going to end up with a bunch of kids wandering through the deserts.
And how many times do I have to bring this up?
This is Ocasio-Cortez jumping the fence and blaming the government.
And it really, really makes me angry.
Now, look.
A lot of people will say things like, you know, Tim's still a voting Democrat.
He doesn't understand.
He's siding with the bad guys, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not supporting Ocasio-Cortez.
The people I like on the Democrat side are people like Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.
Are they perfect?
No.
But Tulsi's issue is, stop foreign intervention.
You know what caused a decent amount of mass migration into Europe?
American intervention in the Middle East over a long period of time has caused devastation and destruction.
And then these people think, you know what, I'll go there, it's better.
And they do.
Look, I know it's a complicated issue.
Believe me, I know a lot about foreign policy.
And these issues, I think, are really bad.
The Democrats are not perfect.
I do not like most of them.
I don't like most Republicans either.
There are some Republicans I think are pretty alright.
Disagree with them politically, but they're alright people.
There are a lot of Democrats I think are alright.
Disagree with them.
Ocasio-Cortez, I think, is a bad person and dangerous.
She's just like, you know, while I can certainly appreciate the symbol of someone like Cortez who, you know, was a bartender and then became a politician.
That's amazing, the story about how any American can truly be involved.
It's also rather nightmarish when you have someone who's as vapid and unintelligent as her saying just repeatedly nonsense things that are going to make things worse for everybody.
Here's what we need to do right now.
And you know what?
I can say it a million times.
The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post.
How many major news outlets have said, you know what?
This needs to be resolved.
This is an emergency.
How many local jurisdictions have said this is an emergency?
You think it's a good thing that people are flying across the world from Africa here, bringing their children and wandering through the desert, through the mountains?
Do you think it's a good thing?
I certainly don't!
Let's disincentivize that.
We need to figure this out.
There has to be a legal process, okay, where we, we, we, we, you know, look, we want to deal with security threats, we want to deal with, you know, disease, we want to make sure people have a place to go, and we want to make sure we don't destroy the economies of local jurisdictions.
I'm doing another segment on this in a few minutes, by the way, for my main channel, which is more about the local impacts, but you know what, man?
You can tell I'm getting frustrated by all this insanity.
Like, the fact that Ocasio-Cortez would make these insinuations shows that she has no idea what she's talking about.
She has no idea what's going on with history.
She has no idea how economics works.
And she is very dangerous in that she has millions and millions of followers, and she says these things.
Can I tell you what?
What do you think's gonna happen when Democrats with as much political, like, I don't know, visibility, like her, claim it's World War II?
We're gonna see the emboldening of extremists.
You're gonna see people start panicking and freaking out because they don't truly understand what's happening.
You have people who keep trying to come here.
You have story after story about how bad it's getting.
They still want to come here.
And Ocasio-Cortez blames Border Patrol.
She blames ICE because our facilities aren't good enough.
Okay, here's what we're gonna do.
Here's what I propose.
How about the Democrats give Trump double the money he's asking for to make sure these facilities are nice.
Oh, what's that?
That would devastate the economy even further?
Perhaps we have a serious problem, and it's been getting worse, and these people won't do anything about it other than complain and act like it's Trump's fault, or ICE's fault, or CBP's fault that people from Central America, Brazil, and Africa are coming here.
I do not believe there is a conspiracy.
I do not believe George Soros is twirling his mustache and trying to get migrants to come here, nor are the Republicans.
That's absurd.
What's happening is that dominoes are falling over.
A debate is being waged in this country where the Democrats are saying, open the gates.
And so people are saying, now's our chance.
Let's go to America.
So they come.
And then you end up with them being in facilities that are terrible.
The facilities in Mexico are terrible, too.
Why bypass all of these other safe countries to try and come to the U.S., even though they know it's bad?
Oh, man.
Still, they say... Actually, I don't even want to read this.
You know, I just... I saw the story, and I'm so sick and tired of the hyperbole and the nonsense, okay?
I really, really would like to see real solutions to these problems.
Is Trump's wall a solution?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I don't know.
Because all I hear from them is it's immoral.
Never again.
Instead of saying, like, okay, we have more and more people coming.
What can we do that would effectively stem mass migration?
Well, Trump did a deal with Mexico.
What are the Democrats doing?
Nothing.
So I'll tell you what.
I'm going to end that segment here because I'll get that off my chest before I go into my main channel.
Go over to youtube.com slash timcast because the next one is going to be about how local jurisdictions are outraged, Democrats even, and they're mad that these federal actors, politicians, won't come down and deal with the problem.
These national-level politicians, man, I tell you what, I'm going to save that for the next segment because I'm seriously upset, man.
I feel like every day I wake up and it's staring everyone in the face.
And what does Ocasio-Cortez say?
She acts like we're in World War II Germany.
Are you kidding me, dude?
Can you actually sit down and solve the problem?
No, you just want to open the doors?
Whatever, man.
Next segment coming up.
We're going to continue this conversation.
YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4 p.m.
Did you know that like 10 years ago, Democrats were in favor of border security?
Did you know that a few- I think it was like a month ago?
Maybe a couple months ago?
Bernie Sanders said no to open borders because there are too many poor people in the world who want to come here.
And many people who supported Bernie supported him because he opposed NAFTA and the TPP, the free trade agreements that have been, by many accounts, devastating for local jobs and manufacturing and industry.
That's Bernie Sanders.
No, it is not a right-wing position to be concerned about unfettered mass migration.
Yet, for some reason, you have these activists and do-gooders.
Baizuo, as it were, if you're not familiar, it means white left in Chinese.
It's a word used to describe people who care more about appearing virtuous than actually solving any problems.
It's more complicated than that.
Take a look at this headline.
This is an opinion piece we'll be reading, California's Free Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants, Courtesy of the Taxpayers.
Well, of course, this is Fox News, and that's going to be a rather conservative opinion.
I wanted to start by saying Bernie Sanders agreed, for the most part.
Think about it.
If you have a certain amount of money to pay towards low-income healthcare, you know, healthcare for low-income people, and you call your state a sanctuary state, what do you think is going to happen?
You will find that if you live in California, someone you know and love will eventually not be able to get healthcare because resources are finite!
Why do I have to explain that?
I feel like I don't.
I'm just preaching to the choir.
I'm literally talking about these issues, and people who are watching are like, yup, we know.
So what do we do?
I honestly have no idea.
I can only point to, you know, Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders ten years ago and be like, yeah, they were on board with this, and Bernie Sanders still, for the most part, kinda is.
So where are we at?
You can't provide community resources to literally everyone on the planet.
Like, if you come to my house, people don't realize that food comes from somewhere.
They don't realize medical supplies come from somewhere.
They don't realize there are only so many hospital beds.
I don't like the idea of restricting access to poor people, but we can start with Americans, right?
Apparently not.
Before we read into the article, go to TimCast.com slash donate, because controversial issues will get you banned, apparently, and political commentary is a no-no on YouTube these days, and almost all of my videos are getting demonetized.
Kinda sucks.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, if it matters for long, like, comment, share, subscribe, and hopefully my channel will still be around in the near future.
Sally Pipes' opinion from Fox News, California's free health care for illegal immigrants, courtesy of the taxpayers.
On Thursday, June 13th, lawmakers in California approved a $215 billion state budget, which Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign.
Included in the budget are several health care reforms whose mammoth cost The state may soon regret.
Paramount among them is the expansion of Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program to cover low-income undocumented immigrants up to the age of 26.
This move will saddle California taxpayers with billions of dollars in new spending commitments and make it harder for all state residents to secure access to timely care.
Currently, Medi-Cal provides coverage to one-third of the state's 39 million people.
Undocumented minors through age 18 are already eligible for Medi-Cal.
Raising that age cap to 26 is expected to bring an additional 90,000 people into the program at an estimated cost of $98 million a year, the state says.
Imagine living somewhere, and people vote to give away your resources to people who don't live there.
Sure, they might need them more, that's fine.
But how will you survive?
You're just dissolving your community.
Los Angeles has a homeless crisis.
The people who live there need help.
They couldn't pass a housing reform bill.
The Democrat supermajority couldn't do it.
In return, you get a typhus outbreak.
There are fears that bubonic plague could already be in California.
I'm sorry, there already has been reported cases of bubonic plague, but there are fears now that it's going to move into LA because of the explosion in the rent population due to how dirty and filthy the city is.
San Francisco has a... feces problem.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that they have a massive problem with humans just defecating wherever they please.
So what does California do?
Expand medical programs to provide resources to those who are not citizens.
I certainly think we should try and save lives.
I do.
But it is disconcerting when you realize, or I should say, we have to be pragmatic about how to solve these problems.
Can we just say, you know what?
We've got a dissolving infrastructure, we've got feces in the streets, we've got typhus outbreaks, we've got homeless people who are actually citizens, but you know what?
Let's give money to people who need the healthcare, who aren't from here, and call our state a sanctuary state.
That's not going to work.
Think about it.
You want to provide resources to those who are sick and need help, right?
I understand that.
You want to make sure that there's medical coverage for people who might be dying, regardless of who they are or where they come from.
Absolutely, I agree.
Okay, I understand that.
Honorable, I will say.
But then you call your state a sanctuary state, you stop people, you just basically, like, you're incentivizing people, come here!
At the same time, you have homeless people, who are sick and need healthcare as well, and you're doing nothing to help them.
That's the problem.
So, if you're going to try and convince me that you actually want to help and take care of people, but you have a homeless crisis in Los Angeles and you won't do anything about it, I'm not kidding, they apparently, it was some, like, progressive complaining about liberal elites in the New York Times that they couldn't pass housing reform.
There's a homeless crisis and disease everywhere.
Okay, let's do this.
Let's provide healthcare for everybody.
No, no, full stop.
Let's say, you know what?
Fine.
Healthcare for everybody.
I'll tell you what.
What happens then when you don't take care of the rat problem and everyone gets typhus?
Okay?
There is a triage system.
Perhaps if you clean up the streets, get rid of the rats in the garbage, clean up the feces, and give shelter to homeless people, you will have less disease and less people will need the healthcare.
But no.
That's not what happens.
This to me just sounds like virtue signaling, right?
The idea that they just want to make it, they want everyone to believe they're virtuous instead of actually solving the problems.
It's one of the biggest problems I have with Democrats.
They say that's dubious.
While campaigning for the state's top job, Governor Newsom said that expanding Medi-Cal in this way would add 138,000 people to the program at a cost of $260 million a year.
It's impossible to estimate exactly what this expansion will cost.
That's because raising the eligibility age will encourage more undocumented people to come to California for, quote, free health care, courtesy of the Golden State's taxpayers.
The expansion will also give momentum to those who want to open Medi-Cal to all undocumented residents.
In fact, the state assembly has passed a bill to do just that at a cost of more than three billion dollars a year.
People don't understand that resources are finite.
Like, I can say it a million times, and I know you guys probably mostly get it, but, you know, I've seen arguments where people say, do you just open your door and let anybody in to your home, and they go, a house is not a country, and they claim that these people can come in, it's better for the economy.
Yes.
If you build a new city, that city will have, you know, requirements that need to be serviced by other people, which can be good for the economy.
However, If you bring in a large group of people with no money and then reallocate money to them, you're then taking money away from those who need to repair and build their infrastructure.
You see how the economy works?
It can grow at a certain rate.
It's very complicated.
I'm not an economist.
But it's fickle and fragile.
And so organic growth and controlled growth can be a good thing.
But just opening the door and being like, three billion dollars!
How about that?
Where's the money gonna come from?
States don't have infinite money.
Money comes from somewhere.
But you know what's funny?
Is that... Look, listen.
I'm like center-left, social-liberal.
I think taxes and regulation are fine.
But there's a certain point at which you just destroy your system.
Like, socialism doesn't work.
It's never worked.
It never will work.
I mean, you know, people like to compare Star Trek to... They call it communism.
It's not... It's post-scarcity.
Literally, in Star Trek, they have machines that can fabricate anything just from ambient energy.
When we have magical machines that can make anything we want, we can provide everything to anybody.
No problem.
We don't.
We have to make things, and there is an economy at play, and money has to come from somewhere.
And if the state just decides to spend money to make people feel good, well, then you're going to hurt yourselves.
This is why it's one of the reasons I think costs are going up.
It's another reason I think that a lot of people are leaving California.
They say the budget is banking on an individual mandate to cover the cost of enrolling undocumented young people in Medi-Cal.
Among other things, anyone who doesn't buy insurance would have to pay a penalty of $695 or 2% of their household income, whichever figure is larger.
The state projects the mandate will bring in over $1 billion over three years.
That mandate penalty is really a tax on those who don't qualify for subsidized coverage through the insurance exchanges.
The federal government offers income-based subsidies that become progressively less generous as a person's income approaches 400% of the federal poverty line.
California's new state budget offers additional subsidies for those who make up to 600% of poverty, or $75,000 a year for an individual.
The Benchmark Individual Market Plan in California has premiums of more than $5,000 a year.
Annual deductibles can run several thousand dollars or more.
Even relatively well-off Californians may find those costs too steep, especially given the high cost of living in the Golden State.
These folks may have to decide between buying an insurance plan that costs upwards of $7,000 before coverage kicks in, or a couple thousand dollars in new taxes, all to underwrite coverage for people who are not in the state legally, who will be incentivized to come in greater numbers, and will further drag down state budgets and the economy.
I don't know what the solution is.
I don't.
I don't want people to go, um, to be hurt.
I don't want people dying in the streets, but I'll tell you what.
This isn't the solution.
Offering state expenses to people who are theoretically not even in the state yet.
You have homeless people in your streets.
Please help them.
You have diseases breaking out.
Please clean up the rats.
San Francisco has a fecal problem.
Please do something about this.
It's only getting worse, and they just keep throwing more and more Band-Aids on the problem and kicking the can down the road.
I got some more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you soon.
I'm gonna give you some advice, and lay down some knowledge.
Did you know that if you throw a milkshake at somebody, it's actually a crime?
May be surprising to many of you, assuming you're part of the Antifa, regressive, communist, or whatever left, where you think that throwing a milkshake isn't violent, yet speech is.
Don't ask me where their ideology comes from, it's nonsense.
They simultaneously argue that speech is violence, but that throwing a milkshake isn't.
That's quite- you don't know the definition of words, please.
Here's the story.
Let me break this down for you.
A man threw a milkshake at Nigel Farage.
Why?
It's mob mentality.
After admitting common assault, Mann ordered to carry out unpaid work and pay compensation
after claiming ACT was a right of protest.
Let me break this down for you.
A man threw a milkshake at Nigel Farage.
Why? It's mob mentality. These people are losing their minds.
What happened?
He was arrested, charged with the crime, and convicted.
Because surprise, surprise, throwing things at people regardless of what that thing is, assuming the person doesn't want you to throw it at them, it's a crime.
And you damaged his property by throwing a milkshake on him, and you assaulted him with a milkshake.
I know it's kind of silly.
Milkshakes aren't that bad.
They're not dangerous.
It's just really annoying, and you can't attack people in this way.
It is an attack.
It's meant to humiliate, and yes, you're attacking them.
I just want to say one thing.
I know it's kind of silly, but hey, people have dairy allergies.
What if Nigel Farage had a very... had a peanut allergy, and someone threw peanut milkshake at him?
That can be really dangerous, and you never know.
Let- Before we read this story, let me tell you something.
When I was a kid, there was a- I'll spare a lot of the important details, but there was a circumstance where two adult men got into a fight because one guy said something to the other guy's wife.
So, Guy 1, you know, hits on Guy 2's wife, and Guy 2 punches Guy 1, who falls back, bangs his head on the table, and dies.
You intended to inflict harm on somebody, and it resulted in their death.
That's not manslaughter.
That's murder.
So in the extremely, extremely rare circumstance that someone has a dairy allergy, or a strawberry allergy, or a chocolate allergy, or a peanut allergy, and you throw a milkshake at them, they could get seriously hurt, and it's your fault.
Let's read the story.
So this guy, he didn't get jail time.
They say he's been spared jail assaulting Nigel Farage by throwing a milkshake over him in one of the spate of similar incidents targeting right-wing figures.
Paul Crowther pleaded guilty to common assault and criminal damage at North Tyneside Magistrates Court.
He launched a banana and salted caramel drink at the Brexit party leader as he walked through Newcastle ahead of last month's European elections.
There was apparently like a post on Twitter Where, I don't know if it was this guy, but someone claimed it was, and he was holding the milkshake saying, oh man, here he comes, I'm gonna go do it.
And then you get people on it, on the social media, who keep egging the stuff on people, like Carlos Maza saying, yes, humiliate them!
Not directly to the guy, I'm just saying in general.
And then what happens?
Congratulations, dude lost his job.
That's a big point.
Here's what I'll do first.
Before I read any more, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a crypto option, a physical address.
I can say it a million times, but guys, seriously, Every day I wake up to hearing about another channel getting deleted, another person being purged from the Partner Program and losing access to monetization, and if that's the case, the only way this becomes possible is if you guys support through PayPal or otherwise.
For the time being, you can like, comment, share, subscribe.
Let's read on.
done.
They say at the time, the 32-year-old told journalists the act was a right of protest
against people like Mr. Farage.
The bile and the racism he spouts out in this country is far more damaging than a bit of
milkshake to his front.
Excuse me.
Mr. Farage said the attack sparked concern.
That the democratic process cannot continue in a lawful and peaceful manner.
But a lawyer representing Crowther argued that throwing food did not amount to political violence.
It did.
The court heard that Crowther regretted his actions and has lost his job as a technical advisor at Sky and received threats as a result.
What do they say that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence?
You know what I really hate about that statement?
It means nothing.
Everything has a consequence.
Positive, negative.
That's just called things happen when you do things.
But guess what, buddy?
You decide to throw a milkshake on a guy, which did nothing, Brexit Party wins, you lose!
You've lost your job, people hate you, and now you're a criminal.
Congratulations.
District Judge Bernard Begley called the incident an act of crass stupidity.
I would agree.
While sentencing Crowther on Tuesday, he was handed a 12-month community order including 150 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay Mr. Farage £350 compensation and costs.
Oh man, think about this.
You threw a milkshake.
Congratulations, you got arrested, lost your job.
You gotta pay Nigel Farage now, and he's gonna get a nice, he's gonna get his suit, you know, nice, nice and clean.
On your dime.
And Brexit party won.
It's just absurd as people do this, and think, it's, you know what?
This is the problem I have with all these protesters.
I would always say, explain to me how throwing a brick through a window, doing these things, benefits your cause.
They don't know what they're doing.
They don't understand the ramifications.
This hurts their cause.
I said this to people that occupy Wall Street.
When you throw a brick through a bank window, do you know what happens?
The bank doesn't care.
It is lower than a rounding error in their accounting systems.
Oh, what's that?
A thousand dollars in labor and cost to replace a window.
They don't care.
I'll tell you what happens, though.
The community is upset.
Broken glass everywhere.
Now I can't go to the bank before work?
What's this?
The guy who works at the bank who's like 24 and makes 30,000 a year is now going, what?
I can't go to work now because they're doing work on it?
The bank's closed?
You're not helping your cause.
You're making everyone think you're crazy.
You wanna know what really helps your cause?
And I mean this seriously?
Stand outside of a bank, wearing a nice polo and some khakis, with a smile on your face, and when someone is about to walk in, you ask them if they have a minute to talk to you about community banking, shake their hand with a smile, and say, have you considered credit unions?
Credit unions are non-profit banks, they're a better alternative, and they reinvest in the community.
And guess what?
If you convince even two or three in one day to move their average savings of, you know, $1,000 or $3,000 to a correct credit union, the bank's gonna get really, really mad because you are disrupting business.
That is something they will notice.
And I mean that literally.
Same is true for Starbucks or any business.
There's a famous case where protesters were outside of McDonald's firing and McDonald's sued them and it caused serious damage to McDonald's.
It's a very famous case.
And it's why the bad guys don't sue.
Because they know it will get worse for them.
But what do we get instead?
We get dudes like this, who has no idea what he's doing or why he's doing it, throwing a milkshake at some dude.
Congratulations, you did nothing.
You satisfied your emotions because you're a child.
That's what a child would do.
An adult would strategize.
Actual adults in the political arena don't bash people with bike locks and milkshakes.
They figure out how to reach people.
And this is one of the most frustrating things for me that I talk about all the time.
The Democrats have no idea what they're doing.
What does Ocasio-Cortez do?
She goes, Trump is running concentration camps on the border.
Be quiet, please.
Can you please talk about something that makes sense and convince people instead of saying nonsense?
But they don't strategize.
Sure, it might work to rile up a few fringe extremists to help you in the short term.
Long-term failure.
And that's what they're doing.
They're doing short-term gain, long-term loss.
Let's read some more of the story though.
The compensation was for the damaged lapel microphone, suit cleaning, distress, and inconvenience.
The court was played footage that showed Mr. Farage walking away with a suit covered in the
drink. The Brexit Party leader could be heard rebuking a member of security staff and telling
him he could have spotted that a mile off. Yeah, he could have. Crowther, of Throckley in Newcastle,
upon Tyne, was charged with common assault over the attack on Farage and criminal damage of a
microphone he was wearing during the incident on May 20th.
May.
Prosecutor James Long told the court, I suppose for the split second the attack took place, Mr.
Farage would not know whether it was a harmless liquid or something in this day and age far more
sinister, yes, because the UK has serious acid attack problems. He said it was clear from a
Facebook post that Crowther made before the incident that he intended to throw the milkshake on Mr.
Farage premeditated.
But when interviewed by police, Crowther claimed it was a moment of madness and loss of control.
In a statement read to the court, Farage said he was embarrassed by the incident and added, I am concerned because of the behavior of individuals like this, the normal democratic process cannot continue in a lawful and peaceful manner.
Brian Hegarty, defending, said there was a long history of protesters throwing food at politicians and the act did not amount to political violence.
Hegarty said the attack was not premeditated for long and argued that Crowther could have purchased a cheaper milkshake than the $5.25 pound drink he used.
He said his client now regretted his actions, adding, the defendant has had cause to reflect and having done so,
he would say he wished he would not have acted as he did.
Crowther believed in democracy and did not want to be seen to be trying to
silence people with whom he disagreed, the court was told.
Yes, now that he's in court and he's in serious trouble, that's what we hear.
Hegerty said his client was not a This guy just joined the mob.
That's mob mentality.
People lost their minds, he lost his mind right along with them.
That's dangerous.
So good on them for actually getting justice in this regard because the UK is not famous for it.
They used to be.
suggested by the Brexit party.
I'll tell you what this means to me.
This guy just joined the mob.
That's mob mentality.
People lost their minds, he lost his mind right along with them.
That's dangerous.
So, good on them for actually getting justice in this regard because the UK is not famous
for it.
They used to be.
It's rather sad where we're at now.
Well, we'll just, they go on to talk about how there's other people who have been milkshaked,
you know, Sargon and all that, but I think, you know, I think, I think I'm not going to
read through the rest of it.
You get it.
Milkshaking bad.
You reap your rewards.
And there you have it.
I think it'll just get worse.
I don't think this will stop anybody, but hey, at least someone got charged.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you soon.
Yes, I did talk about this a bit on my main channel the other day, a couple days ago, but it needs to be talked about again.
Facebook's answer to Bitcoin poses a double threat.
Bloomberg opinion analysis on the Washington Post.
Facebook is launching something called Libra.
They talk about how they're going to bring in a bunch of underserved people, people who can't get banking, into the banking world.
And this is possibly the scariest thing I have ever seen.
Facebook's arbitrary rule enforcement should give anyone pause.
We should not allow a small group of massive mega-monopolies take over the public space.
Where's the left on this one?
Nowhere to be seen.
They like to rail about the loss of the commons.
Where are they now?
M'private business.
That's where they are.
It's a terrifying prospect, I gotta say.
And I hope you understand just how serious it is.
Take a look at the removal of, you know, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Miley Yiannopoulos from Facebook.
Because of press outrage.
Facebook controls a decent amount of public discourse.
Not all of it.
But it is being monopolized.
What happens when they get a foothold in the economy?
And you, listen.
Think about how many websites have you logged in with Facebook.
This cannot be stressed enough.
I kid you not, there are... Every website basically has an option, log in with Facebook.
Right?
What happens when that same thing happens with... What happens then when we have pay with Facebook?
And Facebook says, you're a wrong thinker.
You're not allowed to pay with Facebook.
But the websites don't really accept anything else.
MasterCard, PayPal, and Visa are backing Facebook on this.
So yeah, if Facebook says no-no to you, why wouldn't MasterCard?
MasterCard's already banned people.
PayPal bans people.
We are walking, we are falling, headfirst, straight into the nightmare dystopia.
Nothing's gonna be done to stop it.
I really don't see it happening.
I think it's gonna get really, really bad.
Already, I am constrained by YouTube.
There are certain stories I can't talk about.
I've ranted about it over and over again.
Certain words I can't say.
What are my options?
Like, talk about the issues and then get wiped out overnight?
And then never speak again?
Or compromise?
That is the dangerous point.
But I assure you, there is some things I can compromise on.
I won't swear.
Fine.
I can use innuendo, or I can describe words in more academic terms.
But at a certain point, there will come a time where I refuse to back down.
And that's like, to be honest, you know, if I can tell you a story about Facebook and big tech, I will.
Nothing will stop me from doing it.
The point I'm trying to make is, these constraints will result in the total banning of my channel, as it has for other people.
What do you think will happen when they have a foothold on the economy?
That will be the nightmare.
There will be slums of people banned from Facebook.
There will be the ghettos where people live who try to trade with archaic currencies.
Let's read what the Washington Post has to say, so I don't have to rant non-stop about why I think this is a nightmare.
Before we do, TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work, while you still can, because I repeatedly make videos criticizing Google, and then Google reviews them and decides to put ads or not on them, and I think it's kind of hilarious this happens.
Like, you know, anyway, let's read.
I guess it's written for Bloomberg, it's on the Washington Post.
Lionel Laurent writes, regulators will be watching closely when Facebook Inc unveils its cryptocurrency project this week.
Their vigilance is warranted.
Zuckerberg, the social network's founder, isn't going to gamble with what remains of his public image by replicating the worst accesses of the Bitcoin craze.
He's not trying to create a speculative currency.
A potential wave of mom-and-pop investment losses is the last thing he needs.
He just wants a digital medium of exchange for use on his apps.
Nevertheless, his bid to launch an online payments revolution carries plenty of risks from antitrust concerns to the threat that it might pose to financial stability.
Weekend media leaks suggest that Facebook's Libra project will be a continuation of its past efforts to expand its payments business and keep customers within the walled garden of its social media apps by creating their very own money.
Milo, Laura, and Paul have already been removed from that marketplace.
They will not have access to this currency.
And they will not be the only ones removed.
They will come for you as much as anybody else.
I gotta admit, I think I'll get hit before most of you, because I'm the one speaking out against them.
But Facebook is a private company, so they can just remove me for criticizing them.
Isn't that a nightmare?
Any politician who dares speaks up, they can remove him too and say it's a private business.
You have no right to advertise your policy positions to the world.
You have no right to spend that money on ice cream.
Sorry, no ice cream for you.
While Zuckerberg is poised to unveil a team of partners, reportedly including eBay, Farfetch, Spotify, Uber, Vodafone, so far this feels very much like Facebook's baby.
Tellingly, it's not one that big banks or other Silicon Valley and Seattle giants seem ready to adopt quite yet, unless Zuckerberg surprises us with some bigger names at the launch.
The target customer base for the new digital tokens looks certain to be the 2.6 billion strong users of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
Well, Facebook will no doubt assure us that this project is all about making the lives of its customers even easier.
Giving them the ability to actually buy stuff in a way that Bitcoin has rarely offered, it's hard to square it away with the political effort to curb big tech's monopolistic tendencies.
It's crucial that Libra doesn't become a protective glue that binds Zuckerberg's social networks even more closely together at a time when many regulators want to break them up.
Libra will be presented as an open-source partnership whose benefits are available to all, but to what extent will it really be held at arm's length from the Zuckerberg empire?
Indeed.
If the financial and business benefits of using Libra accrue mainly to Facebook, it will merely enshrine its market dominance.
It goes beyond that, Washington Post and Bloomberg.
It goes into the complete control of the public sector if we don't stop it.
We're already losing our ability to speak.
Facebook is enacting rules that have no bearing in U.S.
law, and there are international agreements that supersede our law, and because they're dominating the ad market, it has real power.
This will be ten times worse.
Maybe it'll fail.
It could fail.
Facebook's tried other things in the past that have failed.
Cross your fingers.
As such, regulators must find out who will own the giant new datasets.
They might even want to push the case that this kind of data should be made available to governments or rivals to avoid the problems of the past, where a handful of companies ended up owning all of the information about our online activities.
While Facebook barely makes any money from its payment business today, with payments and other fees accounting for less than 2% of last year's $55.8 billion of revenue, some analysts reckon Libra could change things.
Barclays is reportedly predicting $19 billion in additional revenue by 2021 if the tokens gain traction.
Libra is scheduled to launch across a dozen countries in 2020.
That's a lot of potential data and new sources of revenue.
I was always really impressed by the libertarians who love Bitcoin, because Bitcoin can be tracked.
It's all publicly available on the blockchain.
So if you buy something, I can track metadata and eventually find out who you are and what you're buying, and activists are doing this to track down the far right.
And they've actually done it!
They've doxed people by tracking addresses and then eventually finding that hole, And correlating data, and then they figure it out.
So Monero comes into existence.
Monero is much more private and secure.
But I'll tell you what, how much do you want to bet?
When this Libra launches, Facebook will know everything you buy, everything you're spending money on, where your money's being sent and why it's being sent.
Facebook will know this.
It's bad enough that they can track all the other data that you're doing?
It's bad enough that Facebook has shadow profiles on you.
Yes, even if you've never signed up for Facebook, they have a profile on you.
They do.
It's called a shadow profile.
Now they're gonna know where your money's going.
Forget a world of privacy.
You know, it's funny because when phone and radio came out, people were concerned about privacy as well.
But this really will be the continued erosion of private life.
Everything will be public.
For what it's worth, good or bad, I don't know.
Financial stability is a worry too, and regulators should ask for transparency on how Libra is structured.
The token is expected to be a stablecoin, which is pegged to existing fiat currencies such as the US dollar or the euro.
That will damp price volatility, unlike the freewheeling Bitcoin, whose price in the past five years has gone from $600 to $19,000 and now $9,000.
Regulatory oversight of which currencies are held in reserve to back the Libra coin would go some way to building faith in Facebook's capacity to redeem tokens when customers ask for it.
I'll tell you what else I think is a problem.
If they're backing it with the US dollar, then they can essentially act as a fractional reserve bank.
Meaning they can say, we're backed by the dollar!
And then just manufacture coins to trade, and then never fail.
Never.
Because they can just print their own money, and as long as people assume it's valuable, Facebook will become the- Oh my god, I'm- Like, could you imagine a world where Facebook controls speech and the economy?
Government will be Facebook?
I hope not.
But yeah, technocratic fascism is already upon us.
Well, no one wants to choke innovation unnecessarily.
Facebook hasn't exactly done much to earn everybody's trust in recent years.
Any chance to put the necessary controls in at the beginning, rather than firefighting down the road, should be grabbed by the regulators.
Yes.
Well, that's the end of the story.
So, look, I don't think anything will be done about this.
I think it'll just, you know, get really bad.
It is what it is.
The politicians aren't fighting back.
I mean, okay, Elizabeth Warren has come out, so much respect there when she said we had to break them up.
There are regulators who are, you know, putting their eyes on Facebook and Google.
They need to be restricted and regulated now before it gets worse.
There's a lot more I could talk about, but I'll leave it there.
Algorithms, etc.
Thanks for hanging out.
I've got a lot of stuff going on today, so it is what it is.
