Democrats Caught Facilitating Immigration Fraud, Coaching Migrants To Lie To CBP Report Says
Democrats Caught Facilitating Immigration Fraud, Coaching Migrants To Lie To CBP Report Says. According to the Washington Examiner, Democrat Veronica Escobar sent aides to Mexico to teach asylum seekers how to bypass immigration laws by lying about medical conditions or by claiming they can't speak Spanish.The rhetoric and action from Democrats supporting non-citizens seems to be reaching critical mass as two 2020 Democratic hopefulls have carried out campaigning in Mexico. With Beto O'Rourke meeting migrants in Mexico and Cory Booker actually accompanying migrants who had previously been removed under the Migrant Protection Protocols back into the US.Democrats seem to be in a bubble on immigration and much of the boom in right wing populism around the world is the result of a fear of out of control immigration.In a shocking twist to the story however, CNN's Fareed Zakaria came out in agreement with Donald Trump saying he is right and people are abusing and gaming out asylum system.This news just reinforces that Democrats are chasing an increasingly extreme far left social justice policy which will end in complete open border. From offering illegal immigrants healthcare, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, to stating they won't deport illegal immigrants it seems Democrats are out of touch with conservatives, republicans, and even the majority of America.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
From the Washington Examiner, Democratic Congresswoman secretly sending staff into Mexico to coach asylum seekers.
The other day, a couple days ago, Cory Booker went into Mexico to aid illegal immigrants entering the country.
Strangely, we keep hearing these people referred to as asylum seekers.
They're not.
In almost every circumstance, the people being referred to in these stories have already been removed from the United States and are seeking to bypass the laws, thus illegal immigration.
There are asylum seekers that are coming to the U.S.
They come, they make their case.
In many instances, now they're being told to remain in Mexico.
In an attempt to bypass this, many people are trying to re-enter the U.S.
and change their story.
In this instance, according to DC Examiner, a Democratic congresswoman is coaching them on what they need to do to not have to stay in Mexico, telling them to claim they don't understand Spanish.
That's one of the rules.
We all saw Cory Booker.
We saw Beto O'Rourke campaigning in Mexico.
We've seen sanctuary cities in general.
We've seen Democrats, as of last year, warning illegal immigrants of pending ICE raids.
We've seen a judge accused, now indicted, for letting illegal immigrants go from a courthouse secretly to avoid ICE.
It's a really, really weird story.
I can't quite put my finger on it.
Democrats are actively aiding non-citizens.
Who do they represent and why are they doing this?
But beyond this one story, I want to talk about something else.
In Maine, where many African migrants are being sent, we see the story of a single mother being given a tent by the city.
Yet, illegal immigrants are being given facilities.
It's a very, very strange circumstance.
When you have California giving healthcare, voting to, Give healthcare to illegal immigrants while they have a homeless problem.
Look, I get it.
We can act like the homeless of LA and the illegal immigrants are both humans deserving of human rights, but don't we have a triage system of who should be helped first?
I can't say I understand why this is happening.
Of course, you'll see many people on the right say that Democrats are actively aiding foreign citizens for the purpose of getting new voters.
I can't really put an argument against that other than Look, I don't know why Democrats are actively aiding non-citizens.
Why would someone want to elect someone who won't represent them is beyond me.
But let's start with this story.
And before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video because YouTube won't suggest them anymore.
I rely on you to suggest these videos to your friends and family on social media if you think people should listen to my content.
I appreciate it.
From the Examiner, a Democratic Congresswoman is sending staff to Mexico's northern border town of Ciudad Juarez to find migrants returned from El Paso, Texas under the Remain in Mexico policy, then coaching them to pretend they cannot speak Spanish to exploit a loophole letting them return to the U.S.
So no, DC Examiner, these are not asylum seekers.
When they go from Right?
claiming asylum, being told to wait, and then trying to commit fraud to re-enter the US,
that is illegal immigration, right?
I think that's a fair point to be made.
The same can be said for what Cory Booker did.
The people that Cory Booker brought in had already been deported.
Now there's very, very important context we need to mention when talking about asylum
seekers.
I'll briefly mention it now.
CNN's Fareed Zakaria makes surprising comments about Trump's remarks on asylum.
It pains me to say this.
He is right.
People are abusing the asylum system.
This is more evidence of that.
And lo and behold, Democrats are facilitating the fraud.
Let's read on.
The National Border Patrol Council's El Paso chapter and several CBP personnel told the Washington Examiner aides to Rep.
Veronica Escobar, who took over 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke's district, and the local Catholic diocese have interviewed thousands of migrants in Juarez over the past few weeks to find cases where Department of Homeland Security officials may have wrongly returned people.
They say, What we believe is happening is Veronica Escobar's office is going to basically second-guess and obstruct work already done by the Border Patrol, said one senior UN official, who shared evidence with the Washington Examiner from concerned CBP managers and rank-and-file members.
Those documents have been held to protect identities.
Under the bilateral MPP, Migration Protection Protocols, or Remain in Mexico policy, anyone returned must be fluent in Spanish because they may have to reside in Mexico for up to five years until a U.S.
federal judge decides their asylum claim.
A Democratic politician's aides re-escorting people back to the port are telling officers the Central American individual with them cannot speak Spanish despite their having communicated in it days earlier, CBP said.
What we're hearing from management is that they're attempting to return people and the story was changed in Mexico.
Where a person who understood Spanish before now doesn't understand.
Where a person who didn't have any health issues before now has health issues.
If they don't speak Spanish, what are they speaking?
English?
What's their first language?
Maybe it's English.
Escobar's team has sought interviews with 6,000 people who were returned last month, according to one CBP official.
The union learned from an intelligence unit within CBP that those doing the interviews are wearing recording devices during the interviews to tape conversations and possibly listen back later.
They went through and interviewed everybody, cherry-picked them, brought them back, and now are using them as taglines.
They're going over there and manufacturing a lot of these issues, said the union official.
All three border officials worried the interviews might be used to suggest the Border Patrol is wrongfully turning away a large number of asylum seekers.
We had finally found a happy medium, because we always get crapped on when it comes to immigration laws, and then they're finding loopholes to bring them back.
So it sounds to me, and I could be wrong, that these people come, claim asylum, speak Spanish, are told to wait in Mexico, after these interviews come back, They secretly record the interview where the person claims they can't speak Spanish, and then when the CBP is like, no, we know this person does, they're trying to use that as evidence to claim CBP is doing something wrong.
When in reality, at least according to CBP and evidence, I believe, evidence I believe they have provided to the DC Examiner, they say, Senior union official who shared evidence with the examiner.
It sounds like Democrats, at least this one Democrat, is actively assisting in immigration fraud and trying to paint CBP as the bad guys.
Mark H. Metcalf, a former federal immigration judge during the Bush administration, said the involvement of Escobar's office was likely more of a stunt than a genuine threat to the integrity of the process.
She's trying to obviously say these people have been wrongly denied their claims, and they're waiting when they shouldn't be.
However, he said a criminal case would exist if Escobar were found to be complicit In an effort to perpetrate a fraud, which would have to include knowingly injecting false statements during interviews, follow-up conversations, and documents presented to U.S.
officials.
They go on to say, a DHS security official aware of the situation said Democrats, nonprofit organizations, and 2020 hopefuls are furious that these migrants are not permitted to await their court dates in the U.S., where they have the opportunity to disappear and slip into the interior, never to be seen again.
By opposing a system that assists migrants and speeds wait times, these individuals are exposing a cause that looks more like a cover story for their political motivations.
Any effort to subvert and obstruct federal law enforcement operations should receive a full review, the official said.
In one incident, an Escobar aide and diocese official walked a male migrant over the bridge in June and asked for him to be admitted into the U.S.
because they had found he had cognitive disabilities.
Officers took the boy and turned the case over to Border Patrol, where an agent found a constituent information and privacy release form with the U.S.
House of Representatives seal on it inside the 17-year-old's file.
Two officials said the paper would have to have been put in his file while he was interviewed in Mexico and was not supposed to have been left there because it would reveal to the Border Patrol that a member of Congress or their staff was meeting with migrants in Mexico.
The boy has since returned to Mexico because the medical condition was not diagnosed by a medical professional, but by an aide of the Congresswoman.
Management saw that Forma was like, what is this?
And reached out to our international liaison unit, and ILU said yes, Veronica Escobar and several other politicians are in Mexico trying to defeat the MPP program.
Officials only discussed one port of entry in El Paso, but said they knew of three other incidents where Escobar's aides had walked back a Remain in Mexico program recipient.
In another confirmed case, a female migrant was brought back to the port after claiming to have been raped in Juarez.
The union official said the onslaught of interviews suggests federal resources are being misspent.
Resources are being diverted into a foreign country in an attempt to reverse already decided legal action, meaning these people were found inadmissible under a new program and they must remain in Mexico.
They're trying to subvert that.
Listen, don't take my word for it.
Fareed Zakaria, this story from The Third, from The Daily Wire.
Fareed Zakaria said, it pains me to say this, but Trump is right.
I don't know where you can stand on this when CNN says Trump is right.
Trump is literally mocked as the Orange Man Bad Network.
We now have the New York Times calling for Congress, give Trump the money he wants.
The Democrats stepping up and saying, fine, we will give the humanitarian aid package.
And even CNN caving and saying Trump is right, dealing with his remarks on asylum.
And what did Trump say about asylum?
That many people were exploiting the system and didn't return to their court hearings once they were left in the US.
But let's see what Fareed Zakaria was specifically talking about.
He does reference asylum abuse, but let's get into the quote.
Zakaria opened the segment by noting that he is not a fan of Trump.
It pains me to say this, but he is right.
That the U.S.
faces a crisis with its asylum system.
Democrats might hope that the out-of-control situation at the southern border undermines Trump's image among his base as a tough guy who can tackle immigration.
But they should be careful.
It actually could work to the president's advantage.
Since 2014, the flow of asylum seekers into the United States has skyrocketed.
Last year, immigration courts received 162,000 claims, a 240% increase from 2014.
The result is a staggering backlog, with more than 300,000 asylum cases pending, and the average immigration case has been pending for more than 700 days.
It's also clear that the rules surrounding asylum are vague, lax, and being gamed.
This is incredible to hear from CNN.
Seriously.
The initial step for many asylum seekers is to convince officers that they have a credible fear of persecution in their home countries.
And about 75% meet that criteria.
Some applicants for asylum have suspiciously similar stories using identical phrases.
Many simply use the system to enter the U.S.
and then melt into the shadows or gain a work permit while their application is pending.
Zakaria noted that asylum is supposed to be for a very small number of people in extreme circumstances, and that the definition has become very loose over time, and that is a major factor that is contributing to the number of people flooding the U.S.
border.
The criteria for asylum need to be rewritten and substantially tightened.
The number of courts and officials dealing with asylum must be massively expanded.
People should not be able to use asylum claims as a way to work in America.
There needs to be a much greater cooperation with the home countries of these applicants rather than insults, threats, and aid freezes, which is a criticism of Trump.
If things continue to spiral downward, and America's southern border seems out of control, Trump's tough rhetoric and hardline stance will become increasingly attractive to the public.
Keep in mind that the rise of populism in the Western world is almost everywhere tied to fears of growing out-of-control immigration.
Well, listen, I can't say whether Trump is right or wrong.
I can tell you what Trump is saying versus what the Democrats are saying and what both are doing.
But I can point out the sheer absurdity of sitting here to tell you that Fareed Zakaria now agrees with Trump's stance.
Asylum is being abused.
People suspiciously have the same story and are gaming the system.
And then when we see the DC Examiner saying straight up that they have seen evidence a Democratic Congresswoman is helping these people commit immigration fraud, I'm curious if there will be a criminal case here.
But it sounds like it's irrefutable at this point.
I do not believe Democrats have the best intentions of the American people.
At least most of them.
There are a few that I think are doing well, that have principles.
They're not all perfect.
I can say the same for many Republicans.
But all you can really say after this is, you know what?
We've seen it played out time and time again.
Trump was not wrong.
You don't have to like the man.
I certainly don't.
And neither does Fareed Zakaria.
It is not some kind of virtue signal to say this.
Many people are like, oh, Tim simply saying he doesn't like Trump to signal to the left.
No, by no means.
I think Trump is crude and crass.
And as I've said time and time again, represents the worst of American culture.
As it pertains to the government, the New York Times released an op-ed showing that since 2012, the Republican Party has tilted slightly to the left.
That includes Trump.
But that doesn't mean you have to like the man.
He has some very aggressive stances on some policies.
His foreign policy is nearly as bad as Obama's.
I actually think Obama's been worse at this point.
And Trump does deserve praise for pulling back on Iran and for his meetings with North Korea.
But the point is simple.
You don't have to like the man and you don't have to be a supporter of his to recognize he's been right.
I do not believe anyone should truly be an overt supporter of someone unless they really do agree with everything they're doing.
Okay, so I wouldn't call myself a supporter of most politicians.
It is rare that I get behind somebody.
But I think at this point, when you can see that even Fareed Zakaria, CNN, is willing to acknowledge Trump was correct on the issue, take a principled stance, stop screaming Orange Man bad, and recognize he was right from the get-go, and something needs to be done about this.
Cory Booker escorted illegal immigrants back into this country.
People who had been removed under the Migrant Protection Protocols.
A legal action.
It is a law.
It allows the government to do this.
It is just a policy under an existing law.
Cory Booker brought them back in.
But let's move on.
Because I want to get to the crazy points.
This story.
I'm not going to read through it in its entirety.
Main single mother facing eviction has been offered a tent and camping gear by the city.
Now, I believe this woman is in Bangor, and a lot of what we're seeing in terms of African migration is in Portland.
I don't want to act like it's a one-for-one.
It's very easy to conflate issues.
Policies may be different in Bangor than they are in Portland, but I want to stress the existing problems our country faces.
We have a homeless crisis.
Period.
I can't tell you how many activists I've heard say things like, how can we have so many empty homes and so many homeless people?
I agree.
I think there's a challenge in that you can't just put someone who's mentally unwell or without the means to support the maintenance of a home in a home.
But I do think we can pass some kind of comprehensive homelessness or housing reform package.
Unfortunately, even in Los Angeles, with a Democratic supermajority, they were unable to do this.
If California can't be those who we look up to from the Democrats in order, you know, In an effort to get things done.
If we can't look to the Democrats who claim to be fighting for this to solve the problem, who do we look to?
And therein lies the problem we're seeing here.
Democratic Congress people.
AOC giving advice on how to skirt ICE and immigration enforcement.
A year ago, Oakland mayor, I believe it was the Oakland mayor, helping, warning people that ICE raids were coming.
A judge in Massachusetts indicted for helping an illegal immigrant escape ICE enforcement.
Democrats actively campaigning in Mexico, like Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker, escorting the migrants, illegal immigrants, back in.
And now we have a story from The Examiner that a Democratic congresswoman is assisting in immigration fraud.
Again, that's from The Examiner, whose claim to have seen evidence.
How can we have a homeless crisis?
How can we tell this woman we're going to give her a tent to sleep in?
Meanwhile, we have Democrats actively assisting in illegal immigration.
Fareed Zakaria said it.
They're gaming the system.
A lot of people are.
Asylum is meant for a small amount of people.
It is.
And I believe we have a moral obligation to protect those who truly are fearful of their life, even if they bypass Mexico.
I can certainly complain that if you're fleeing Honduras and you're in Mexico, you're safe, but I still recognize perhaps Mexico may be dangerous and we can help these people.
But guess what?
Real asylum seekers are few and far between.
Many of these people are exploiting the system, as Fareed Zakaria has said.
Don't take my word for it!
CNN, Orange Man Bad Network, as many people have mocked them, has said it.
How can we see this story here?
This is what shocks me.
Comment, seriously.
A Maine single mother faces eviction.
She gets a tent.
In Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, there are homeless camps popping up around the country.
Why is California offering to pay for universal health care for illegal immigrants, meanwhile they have a severe homeless crisis they haven't been able to solve?
I truly don't understand what the intentions are.
Now, I do want to make sure I stress some other information because my intention never is to, you know, to just present things in black and white.
The woman from the story is couchsurfing.
And we have seen that Portland area residents are lining up to host migrants from Africa.
So I don't want to claim that she's in the tent.
No, she's sleeping on someone's couch, but that's the best they could do for her.
But we do have African migrants being given facilities and food and shelter.
Meanwhile, our own citizens, single mothers, do not have this luxury.
There's a few other stories that I wanted to highlight in reference to what LA is doing in response to the homeless crisis.
We have this story.
LA property owners shelter residents, try to block settlement that lets homeless people keep their Skid Row belongings.
It seems like over and over again, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, we genuinely have people who claim to want to help those in need.
They actually don't.
If you really wanted to solve our problems, if you really cared about those who are in need, wouldn't you walk outside your own building and give a hand to the person sleeping in the streets?
Why is it that they're so willing to signal to people who aren't citizens of this country?
They're so willing to assist in fraud.
They're so willing to actively campaign in Mexico and aid illegal immigration back to this country.
How is that?
But then when it comes to the actual bills to allow the homeless to even keep their property, they block this.
There's no way out of this.
Lack of affordable housing contributes to Los Angeles' homeless crisis.
Why couldn't the Democrats solve the problem?
And why are so many Democrats blocking the citizenship question?
Why are they blocking voter ID?
Why are they assisting in illegal immigration?
I can't really say.
I guess a lot of Republicans will have their opinions though.
But let's wrap this up.
A Democratic Congresswoman secretly sending staff into Mexico to coach asylum seekers.
Their stories are changing.
They're claiming not to speak Spanish.
Documents are emerging.
And the DC Examiner says they viewed evidence that staff from this Democratic Congresswoman are essentially assisting in immigration fraud.
And I don't say that lightly.
They go on to say that if there's evidence that she's committing fraud, a criminal case would exist if she were found to be complicit.
Therein lies the issue.
Was it her?
Or was it her staff?
Well, DC Examiner has taken the framing, and they claim to have seen evidence.
They're saying straight up, it was the Democratic congresswoman who was doing this.
We'll see if any criminal charges emerge.
But people are certainly calling for charges against Cory Booker for doing the exact same thing.
So I'll stress one last time.
The woman that Booker accompanied back in this country had already been removed legally under the Migrant Protection Protocol, and he brought them back in providing a high-profile press and political kind of protection.
I don't know what to say.
All I can really end by saying is it seems like the Democrats are more interested in campaigning on the behalf of non-citizens than actual citizens.
Stick around.
It's about to thunderstorm.
I will see you in the next segment at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6 p.m.
Last night, while many of you slept, another earthquake hit California, and I believe This is the third earthquake to hit Southern California, prompting more fears of the big one.
For the longest time, people have said the big one is overdue.
The big one is the San Andreas Fault, where people believe an earthquake is coming that could be over 7.8.
Last night, about, I believe, nine hours ago, a 7.1 magnitude aftershock just hit Southern California.
What that means Is that the 6.4 and I believe 5.4 that we had just seen are now four shocks to the actual earthquake of 7.1.
My understanding is the way it works, and I think they might go over this, the bigger quake is the main quake.
At least that's how they classify.
I mean, they're all earthquakes.
So there's four shocks and aftershocks.
What happened was We saw a 6, I believe it was a 6.4, and then shortly after, a 5.4.
So everyone said the 6.4 earthquake was a big quake.
Whoa, it lasted a long time.
A 5.4 hit, and everyone said, that's just an aftershock.
A 7.1 just hit, and it lasted something like 40 seconds, and it started fires, it caused a lot of problems.
Now, here's the thing.
There may be another one coming.
And that's the articles I actually have pulled up.
So here's what I want to do.
The other day, we saw this story from NBC.
Powerful Southern California earthquake triggers fears of the big one.
It remains difficult to predict when a monster quake could hit, but models indicate a small chance that one of at least a 7.8 magnitude could occur in the next 30 years.
They've been saying it for a long time.
We just had a 7.1.
We've just had three quakes in a short amount of time.
The big one might be coming.
California might be in serious trouble.
And it's no laughing matter.
I mean, California has faced a ton of serious problems.
My understanding now is they're declaring a state of emergency and requesting federal funds because there was a lot of damage.
I don't believe anyone was hurt.
Thank heavens.
But it seems like something bad might be about to happen.
I remember being in California and something happened.
It was, uh, uh, Fukushima happened when I was in LA.
And people started fleeing because they were worried the radiation was going to go through the water and the air and hit California.
And my understanding that some of it may have, but only the lighter, like, iodine, because, like, the MOX plutonium and stuff is too heavy.
I'm not gonna get into all the radiation stuff.
But essentially, every store had sold out of potassium iodide, which is what you take
to protect your thyroid from radiation, because people are panicking.
I can only imagine what's going to be happening now in California following three earthquakes,
one reaching 7.1.
Now, another thing that's really important to stress in terms of earthquakes, I'm not a seismologist,
but what I do know is that the Richter scale is an exponential increase.
So, 6.4 to 7.1 is actually, like, much, much... It's not normalized, right?
Like, a 5 to 5.1 is not the same as a 7 to a 7.1, right?
So, the bigger the number gets, the more massive the earthquake is.
It's an exponential increase.
So I don't know the math to tell you how big the 7.1 is.
But here's what we'll do.
Before we go any further, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
And the best thing you can do, just share the video, because YouTube doesn't suggest my videos anymore, as many other channels.
But I'll tell you this, I have data.
They suggest CNN way more now.
I'm not kidding.
I can actually pull the data up, maybe in another video.
But...
Basically, what we're seeing now is potential fears following these earthquakes that there's going to be the 7.8 magnitude earthquake.
What's interesting about this story here from NBC News is that this story was yesterday, okay?
And now we're here.
They had fears the big one was coming, they wrote an article about it, and sure enough, last night, boom, a 7.1 hits.
So let's see what the latest news is on the 7.1.
The Guardian now writing this.
California braced for more after 7.1 magnitude aftershock.
Powerful tremor strikes 125 miles north of Los Angeles.
Communities already assessing damage from 4th of July quake.
Listen, just a stress before I read this article.
This story said there are fears of the big one following the 6.4 and the aftershock.
We now have the same article talking about the 7.1.
I'm not saying I know what's gonna happen or why, but I'll tell you what.
It really does feel like there might be a bigger quake coming really soon if the pattern holds consistent.
But let's read.
The Guardian writes, Emergency officials in Southern California's high desert are braced for strong, potentially dangerous aftershocks from a major earthquake that damaged buildings, ruptured gas lines, and sparked numerous fires near its remote epicenter.
The magnitude 7.1 tremor rocked the Mojave Desert town of Ridgecrest near Death Valley National Park as darkness fell on Friday, jolting the area with eight times more force than a 6.4 quake that had struck the same area 34 hours earlier.
So there's your math.
That's the point I was trying to make.
From 6.4 to 7.1, it's actually an eight times increase in the power.
California Governor Gavin Newsom requested federal assistance and placed the state of emergency services on its highest alert.
We have significant reports of fires, structural fires, mostly as a result of gas leaks or gas line breaks.
OES Director Mark Ghilarducci told a late night news conference.
The quake also caused water main breaks and knocked out power and communications to parts of Ridgecrest, a city of about 27,000, about 125 miles north of Los Angeles.
No fatalities or serious injuries were reported from either quake, police said.
But Killer Doochie said the full extent of damage would not be known before daybreak on Saturday.
This was a very large earthquake, and we also know there's going to be a series of aftershocks as a result of the main quake, he said.
Adding his agency faced a challenge getting needed resources to the isolated quake zone.
This is not going to be something that's going to be over right away.
So, it's also possible.
Again, based on what I said earlier, that this isn't the main quake.
And that's important to point out.
I don't know, look, I'm not the expert here, so don't take my word and take any action.
All I can tell you is what I think and what I've read.
It's possible more quakes come.
I read an article the other day that said earthquakes trigger more earthquakes.
That the likelihood of a bigger earthquake goes up when another earthquake happens.
We've just seen 6.45.47.1.
7.1 is 8 times bigger than 6.4.
If it gets any bigger than that, things are going to get really bad.
So the big one is supposed to be bigger than 7.8.
Which, I can only imagine is going to be substantially more massive.
So, they're going to talk about, you know, yeah, some people got hit, chandeliers were shaking.
Brian Humphrey of the Los Angeles Fire Department told KNX-AM radio, more than 1,000 firefighters were mobilized, but there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.
The press box at Dodger Stadium lurched for several seconds and fans in the upper deck appeared to be moving toward the exit.
I think what we might see from this, people are going to be panicking.
I wouldn't be surprised if right now people are rushing to Walmart, water is getting sold out like crazy.
They say the pair of quakes were the most powerful to strike the region since 1994, when the 6.7 magnitude North Ridge quake hit the heavily populated San Fernando Valley.
The event caused 57 deaths and billions in dollars of damages from collapsed buildings and destroyed freeways.
That's terrifying.
This is the first magnitude 6 quake in 20 years.
It's the longest interval we've ever had.
We know that the last 20 years was abnormal.
We should expect more earthquakes than we've been having recently.
Chances are, we're going to have more earthquakes in the next 5 years than we've had in the last 5 years.
So more coming than they've seen.
So here's a photo.
You can see all the books knocked off the shelves.
Let's talk about the big one, though.
So I pulled up this Wikipedia article just because I want to point out some timeline context and what can be expected.
First, it's not going to be like a 9.5 or some ridiculously massive earthquake that just wipes out California.
It's actually expected to be a 7.8, which still will be massive, okay?
Will be massive.
When I was a kid, there was like a 9.2 in Alaska or something, I remember.
Could be wrong.
But, uh, there's a Wikipedia article for the San Andreas Fault, and they have a section called The Big One.
It says, a study published in 2006 in the journal Nature found that the San Andreas Fault has reached a sufficient stress level for an earthquake of magnitude greater than 7.0 on the scale.
So, that may have been it.
That may have been the big one.
There you go.
It may be all over.
I think not.
I think it'd be important for people to prepare because things can get really bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if highways are going to be jammed up with people fleeing the state while they still can.
Who knows?
I have no idea what's going to happen.
They go on to say that the U.S.
Geological Survey most recent forecast, known as USURF-3, released in November 2013 estimated that an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater occurs about once every 6.7 years statewide.
The same report also estimated there is a 7% probability that an earthquake of magnitude
8.0 or greater will occur in the next 30 years somewhere along the San Andreas Fault.
A different USGS study in 2008 tried to assess the physical, social, and economic consequences
of a major earthquake.
The study predicted that a magnitude 7.8 earthquake along the southern San Andreas Fault could
cause about 1,800 deaths and $213 billion in damage.
So what we can see here is the earthquakes in California along the San Andreas Fault
1957 it was a 7.9. That's huge 1906 was a 7.8 also huge
1957 was 5.7 18 in 1989 we saw a 6.9 and then in 04 we saw 6.0
If they're estimating a probability of 7% and this is old information of an 8.0 or greater
We've also got warnings that there could be more earthquakes coming. Maybe just aftershocks that are smaller
Maybe bigger ones.
I can only really say, take care of yourselves, man.
If you're in California, take care of yourself.
Don't take chances with your safety.
There's only one of you, you know?
There have been wildfires, there's been devastation in natural disasters, there's been flooding in Houston.
All of these things, I want to stress, your belongings, you know, it sucks to be out alone without the things you've built up and the things you own to protect your family and keep your family afloat, but your life is always more important.
A lot of people, you know, they don't want to give up their backpacks when they're on a plane.
They say, leave your bags, leave your bags.
Seriously, leave your bags.
There's only one of you.
There is no value to your life.
And I'm not saying you're valueless, I'm saying there's literally no amount of money that could replace you.
Out of all of the stars in the universe, out of every formation of every chemical and every molecule and every compound and every life form, there is but one of you.
It cannot be replaced.
Your life is the it, not the you.
You're a person.
So I just want to stress, I don't want anyone to panic, you know, I don't want to say... But, when I woke up, my phone was lit up with all these notifications of people being like, dude, 7.1 in California, this is significant.
And it's scary.
Actually, let's do this, this photo's really cool.
Check out this photo, this is the San Andreas Fault.
A road split.
I saw a picture of a road split.
Like, it... So, you know, I don't know, man.
Here's what I hate.
When it comes to doomsday scenarios, and I actually have a really funny doomsday thing from Vox.
Vox is saying that the end is near.
We got 760 years left.
The end is coming.
Here's what's really scary about any disaster.
If, you know, there's a stigma that if you come out and say, people prepare, they make fun of you, they mock you and say, oh please, nothing's gonna happen.
And then when it doesn't, they feel justified.
But what happens when it does?
Okay?
I don't know what's gonna happen here.
All I know is an earthquake did happen and I hope everyone's safe.
And I hope people can take care of themselves.
I also know people in Los Angeles felt it.
They significantly felt it.
And if this is a foreshock to a bigger quake, that's gonna be seriously bad news for a lot of people.
If they're predicting 8.0, 7% chance, I don't know what to say, but don't take any chances.
So, look.
I'm sure people are rushing to Walmart, rushing to stores to buy what they can.
It's probably a good idea to stock up.
I said this before, I will say it again.
People have first aid kits.
It makes sense to all of us.
We have bandages, we have band-aids.
How often do you use them?
Almost never.
I got a first aid kit.
I used it for the first time like three months ago.
I've had it for like two years.
For the first time I used it because I accidentally stepped on my computer case.
I was taking it apart and I cut my foot.
I'm like, I need a bandaid now.
So I had to go on the first aid kit.
I'm like, man, this is the first time in like two years I've actually had to get a bandage.
Put some neosporin on it or something.
So I have a bandaid on it.
But what about water?
What about food?
And it's really funny because, you know, TV has given us this negative impression of preppers.
They're mocked and ridiculed, when a lot of them are actually kind of rational people.
They're not saying the end is nigh.
They're not waving signs in the air and marching down the highway trying to warn you with big scraggly beards.
They're just people who are survivalists who know how to start a fire, and they've got, you know, a couple weeks of food.
This is what's crazy to me.
That we know natural disasters happen.
We know we are staring down the barrel of a massive earthquake in California.
We've been warned about it over and over again and earthquakes just hit.
Let this be a reminder to all of you.
It is not the realm of fantasy to believe a massive earthquake can cause significant damage to California and you could get hurt.
So no, don't create a vault.
Don't stock up with like three years supply of baked beans.
But have some non-perishable food.
Have some water stored specifically in case of disaster.
Listen, there was a point a few years ago, there was an algal bloom in I think Lake Superior, I can't remember, one of the Great Lakes, where Ohio is.
Man, my geography is terrible.
Bottled water around the shoreline of the lake was, like, completely sold out.
Because the water had become toxic, you couldn't drink it.
So people rushed to the stores to buy bottled water.
I believe FEMA had to come in with emergency water supplies.
And this is why it's kind of shocking to me that people don't have a couple cases of water or, like, you know, a 50-gallon, you know, drum of emergency water to drink in the event the water supply gets cut off.
Let me ask you this.
Outside of your water faucet, Where could you go right now to drink fresh water?
Seriously, think about this for a second.
No, I don't think we're facing the apocalypse.
I'm not saying it's an increased likelihood that your water stops working.
But if the stores were closed...
If your water faucet stopped working, where is your water coming from?
I would be willing to bet like 98% of people don't know.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of people in rural areas know full well.
Because I lived in rural areas with pumps.
We were getting groundwater.
We knew where the water came from.
And we were independent of any like main water grid for a city.
But I'll tell you what, man.
The last thing you want to experience is being in a major city when the water gets shut off, somehow.
If a major quake hits LA and it disrupts the flow of water, things will get ugly fast.
I don't know how the government will be able to contain it without sending in emergency water tanks to try and supply, but you've got 13 plus million people in like the LA County area.
If this quake does hit, and you don't have water, bottled water will be gone.
You're not gonna live longer than, you know, what is it, like five or six days without water.
People will start fighting over water.
It's gonna get ugly.
So, I'm not gonna tell you what you should or shouldn't do.
I'm not telling anybody to be a prepper.
But here's the point.
If you're gonna have a Band-Aid and you never use it, why wouldn't you have some spare water and food?
That's crazy to me.
You know, unlike the hierarchy of needs, food comes first, water comes first.
So why have a Band-Aid when the likelihood is that you... I guess... This is crazy to me.
We're so safe and comfortable in our cities because we assume the water won't go out that people don't have emergency water, people don't have emergency generators.
And you know what's really scary?
Imagine the power goes out in California for a sustained amount of time, even a couple weeks.
Diabetics need refrigerators for their insulin.
Without power, those people are in serious trouble.
So yeah, maybe some people should have emergency generators.
And I'll tell you something that's really convenient.
Since I've got the van built, it's its own independent, you know, power source.
It's got solar power on it.
I've had the power go out twice in the past couple months.
One at home back when I was in Jersey, and once up in Connecticut because of a storm.
And I was like, the first time I was like, damn, I wish I had the van.
Second time I was like, I got the van!
Having that independent power allowed me to keep working and doing my thing.
But I don't want to rant on doomsday scenarios.
Look, you've seen it.
Last night, while we slept, 7.1 hit California.
A lot of people were awake.
I mean, it was like 9 or 10pm.
People were awake when the quake hit.
So don't take it for granted.
Absolutely not.
You know, there are times throughout the day, throughout the year, you'll have no problem buying like 5 cases of water.
None whatsoever.
I could go to the store right now in Connecticut and probably buy 30 cases of bottled water and like 30 gallons of water.
No problem!
I walk in, just fill up a car, people will be like, damn, this guy likes water.
But when it happens, an earthquake, a power outage, a hurricane, then you won't be able to buy the water.
That's when everyone will rush out at the last minute.
I'll tell you what, if everybody took the same precautions they took with, like, a first aid kit, with food and water, you wouldn't have the major mass panic, necessarily, when something big actually happens.
So, all I really want to say is, the responsibility for your own survival lies with you and no one else.
Don't be one of these people who panics at the last minute, runs to the store, and then fights with someone over a can of baked beans because there's no more food.
The roads... You know, if a major earthquake happens, the roads could be shut down.
There's going to be a difficult time getting food into the city.
Now, there is the San... What is it?
The San Pedro?
1.
You can download the summation of Wikipedia onto your phones.
one of the biggest ports in the country in Southern California.
So it'll still come in through the waterways.
But just keep that in mind.
I'm not gonna, you know, I could rant on survival and stuff for a long time.
I'll tell you this, one more bit of advice for all of you, and I hope you really do take
this seriously.
One, you can download the summation of Wikipedia onto your phones.
I kid you not, it's only like seven gigabytes.
Wikipedia is not perfect, but there is a lot of information that can be very, very important.
Like, you might be able to look up a picture of a mushroom or something and be like, hey, that's poisonous.
More importantly, though, download a couple survival guides into your phones.
Just like your first aid kit, you will likely never use it.
But I'll tell you what, outside of being concerned about, you know, potential disaster, How cool would it be if you just happen to be on a hike with your buddies and friends and you're like, oh, I have this app that's gonna tell me how to make a fire.
And you can make a fire in a really cool way using like string and a stick.
So there's cool things about it.
More importantly though, download a survival guide onto your phone today.
You'll probably never have to use it, but I hope and I believe by doing so, you will increase the likelihood of your survival in any dangerous incident or major disaster by a significant percentage by having that on your phone.
It's really funny because people say, oh, you know, when the big solar flare hits or something, you won't need a phone.
Not true.
Absolutely not true.
If some major disaster happens and there's no electricity and no cell phones, your cell phone is still ridiculously powerful.
Don't underestimate it.
It's a calculator that can help you.
More importantly though, Wikipedia and survival guides.
I have like two or three different survival guides, and they're really comprehensive.
It's really amazing.
There's like, like I don't know, like 10 or 15 different ways to make fire and collect water.
There's like a cool thing about like using leaves to collect condensation and funnel it down into like a makeshift like leaf bowl.
Really cool stuff.
I mean, I like the idea of, like, hunting.
I like the channel, like, ancient technology.
I love this stuff.
So beyond that, I think it's just cool to know how to, like, manipulate the environment to get what you need out of it.
Like, literally pulling water from the air using leaves.
Pretty cool stuff.
Anyway, earthquake happened.
This is a long video.
Thanks for hanging out.
I hope you're all safe.
I hope this is the end of it.
You know, thoughts and prayers in California.
Nobody got injured, so I think we're good.
But look, The big one is gonna come, okay?
We're looking at the San Andreas Fault right here.
It's gonna... It's gonna happen, okay?
So just... I just want you guys to be safe.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you in the next segment at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Starbucks kicked out some police officers because customers did not feel safe around them.
And I gotta say, this is the result of people being inundated with propaganda on social media for like 10 years or longer.
There are people who have realized police brutality causes rage, and rage causes clicks and makes money.
There are whole websites that have raked in millions of dollars simply by posting nothing but police brutality videos, and many left-wing outlets know a good police brutality story.
Ooh, that's gonna get you money.
But in reality, These stories are actually relatively rare, and the likelihood that some cop is going to attack you or do something in a Starbucks is insane!
Even if there was a higher- you know, even if it was true that most police officers were bad people who would brutalize you, they're not gonna attack you randomly in a Starbucks.
But this is... I feel like it's dominoes falling over.
When we talk about what's happening with these cops, we can just take a look and go back in time and see what's happened.
Starbucks to install safe needle disposal boxes after employees sign a petition.
You know, when you look back at where this all started, it seems kind of obvious something like this would happen.
It starts with two young black men Being asked to leave because they hadn't made a purchase.
People on the left then say it's all about racism, while many others say, look, if you didn't buy anything, you gotta go.
Now, these young men, I think the story was, it's been a while, said that other people didn't pay either, why were they being singled out?
They were actually waiting for someone to meet them there.
So it is rather silly they got removed.
Because of this, and because of left-wing cries of bigotry, Starbucks changed its policy and says, you know what?
From now on, you don't need to make a purchase to hang out in Starbucks.
What ends up happening?
We saw a bunch of stories about Starbucks being, you know, now just littered with trash.
Homeless people were coming and using the bathrooms.
They couldn't kick them out.
The bathrooms were being shut down.
There was a big outcry over, you know, a wave of Starbucks putting up out-of-order signs because the bathrooms had become so filthy they couldn't clean them.
Because homeless people and mentally unwell people were doing gross things in them and people were probably shooting up.
And that's not, look, people probably shooting up, it's probably why Starbucks employees wanted safe disposal boxes for needles.
And now here we are.
I gotta say.
If you're someone who's shooting up heroin in a Starbucks, you probably would not feel safe with police there if you're breaking the law.
Now, I don't know why these people didn't feel safe around cops, I think it's silly.
There are some circumstances where I'm uncomfortable around police, a lot of people are.
But, I... Like, not in a Starbucks, that's so weird.
So let's read this story and see what they have to say.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, just share this video because YouTube doesn't suggest my videos anymore, for the most part.
So I rely on you guys to share it if you think it's worth being listened to.
So, let's start from Fox News.
Some police officers in Tempe, Arizona say they were asked to leave a Starbucks on the 4th of July because a customer complained they did not feel safe with the cops present, according to reports.
Five officers were drinking coffee at the Starbucks location prior to their shift beginning when a barista asked them to move out of the complaining customer's line of sight or else leave.
The Tempe Officers Association wrote in a series of Twitter messages,
Rob Ferraro, president of the police union, told Fox 10 of Phoenix that such treatment of police
officers seems to be happening more often these days. It's become accepted to not trust or to
see the police and think we're not here to serve you. And again, it goes back to, we take great
pride of the level of customer service we provide to citizens. And to be looked at as feeling unsafe
when you have law enforcement around you is somewhat perplexing to me.
Well, it's not to me.
Al Jazeera Plus, BuzzFeed Vox, many left-wing outlets, as well as fake news outlets, have pumped out relentlessly police brutality videos.
So while some of it, I think, is justified to call out police brutality, we've gotten to a point where market saturation, right?
Businesses trying to make money, produce content to make police look bad, and then you end up with stories like this.
If somebody on Facebook only sees police brutality content, they're not going to feel safe around police.
But let's get to the actual, like, bigger picture here.
Why would five customers be removed because one customer complained?
Could I then complain that, like, a group of men dressed a certain way make me feel unsafe, and then Starbucks will remove them?
Why wouldn't that one person just leave?
This is where things tend to be going with outrage culture.
One person gets upset and demands the world change around them, and Starbucks says, you got it.
What if the police said that person is making all of us feel unsafe?
Get rid of them.
Would Starbucks then go to that one person and say, you need to leave?
I don't think so.
Let's read on.
They say the police union also posted a series of Twitter messages about the incident.
This treatment of public safety workers could not be more disheartening.
While the barista was polite, making such a request at all was offensive.
Unfortunately, such treatment has become all too common in 2019.
The union said it did not blame the Starbucks corporate office, adding it looked forward to working collaboratively with them on this important dialogue.
Earlier Friday, the union tweeted a parody of the Starbucks logo and the words Dump Starbucks and the image of a hand dumping the contents of a Starbucks coffee.
Don't appreciate Starbucks asking our Tempe cops to leave your establishment on the 4th of July.
Several of those cops are veterans who fought for this country.
Zero respect they say.
A Starbucks spokesman told the Arizona Republic the company was still gathering details about what happened.
We have a deep respect for the Tempe Police and their service to the community, spokesman Reggie Borges told the newspaper.
We've reached out to the Tempe Police Department and Tempe Officers Association to better understand what happened and apologize.
We want everyone in our stores to feel welcomed, and the incident described is not indicative of what we want any of our customers to feel in our stores.
They say, neither the barista nor the customer who allegedly complained were identified.
Starbucks would not say whether the barista would be disciplined in connection with the case.
In 2018, an incident at a Starbucks shop in Philadelphia made headlines when two black men who were waiting for a business colleague inside the shop were arrested for trespassing.
The Philadelphia Police Commissioner later apologized to the men, and Starbucks closed some 8,000 locations for part of a business day to conduct racial bias training.
So here's the thing.
This is not about Starbucks.
I don't care if a single Starbucks says we don't want an individual or group of people in our stores.
They're a private business, right?
The bigger issue is that we are seeing a massive ideological split.
The left tends not to like cops.
The right tends to like cops.
The right will fly the blue Lives Matter sign and the left will fly the black Lives Matter sign.
When you ask an average person on the left, they'll probably tell you there's a problem with police brutality.
Whether or not it's actually true.
And it's also kind of an opinion whether or not police brutality is a critical problem or just more of a small but, you know, an edge case problem.
Here's the thing.
There are instances of police brutality.
We've seen many videos.
I believe that any cop who breaks the law should be held accountable.
I believe there is a problem with communities refusing to police themselves, be it the left or be it the police.
There have been many stories about cops who have broken the law and their colleagues defend them and refuse to quote, cross the blue, the thin blue line.
They won't snitch on other cops.
We see in the police side, don't cross the thin blue line or something to that effect.
And on the left, we see snitches get stitches.
This is not unique to police, but police do hold a disproportionate amount of power in the public.
Therefore, I think it's important.
If you're a cop, you have to be held to a higher standard than the average person.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to, you know, falsely smear or malign a police officer simply for being a cop.
If a cop is seen doing something wrong, they should be held accountable.
Plain and simple.
Because if we can't look to the police as examples of how we should behave at citizens, then who do we look towards?
But what is more disconcerting about the story to me is that we are entering a world where, look, I've talked about civil conflict, civil war, fine.
This is another example of what can lead to these problems.
The people on the left, business is saying, cop bad.
Bad cop.
Get rid of them.
Even if they didn't do anything wrong.
Even if they're good people who abide by the rules and would actually call out the bad actors.
It doesn't matter.
They're all being thrown aside.
If you can't trust the police, who do you trust?
More importantly, if one side views them as good people who defend the community, and one side views them as bad people, then you have the makings of an ideological rift which is going to result in massive conflict.
And it all goes back to that first domino.
Now obviously, we can go back to the two guys who got arrested, but it can probably go back further than that.
You can say, hey, this is a, this is, you know, the two guys getting arrested starts with this, starts with that.
You can keep going back in time and try to figure out how do we get to this point.
That's why I say to me, it all feels so obvious.
Like, we knew this was gonna happen.
Starbucks gets, you know, criticized heavily for being racist.
Now you have people who say all cops are racist, right?
They have ACAB, they say a bunch of offensive things, and now Starbucks employees are saying, you know what, just get rid of the police.
Remember this idea where a cop could get like a free hot dog?
It's always Sonny in Philadelphia made fun of this joke when it was Dennis and Charlie, I don't know if you're familiar with the show, They basically pretend to be cops and keep getting free hot dogs because a trope for a long time was the cops would walk up to a hot dog stand and the hot dog guy would be like, hey, for you guys out in the house, and the cops would be like, thanks, buddy, because cops were considered officer friendly.
But something started to change in our national conversation around police.
And then it really took off when digital media realized they could make money off of police brutality.
Some websites cracking like Alexa top 500 global websites.
I don't know the exact number so I'll take it with a grain of salt.
But some seriously high traffic for websites just by posting police brutality.
That's going to make people insane.
And it's the same, look.
You want to talk about these online forums where people post nothing but racist messages and how they're being radicalized?
Yes!
Yes!
And let's talk about how people are being radicalized in the other direction against police, when Facebook, when people are just sharing this content and people make money off it.
I'm looking at you, Vox.
I'm looking at you, Al Jazeera Plus, leftist organizations that made money off of these videos.
It may be that one in a million cops does this.
I don't know what the actual number is.
But now we're seeing people just accusing, you know, smearing police, and it's not gonna be a good thing.
It's gonna result in riots, it's gonna result in protests, and it's gonna result in animosity in the community.
Now these cops are upset.
How do you think they feel?
It's not a good thing, and it will only escalate.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you soon.
The Federalist is running a story.
Why Netflix struggle with talk shows is proof the format is dying.
And it talks kind of about Chelsea Handler and how her show, they did some weird things with it.
But here's the real premise of this video.
So we'll look at this story.
We'll look at another story.
I believe Americans are sick and tired of Orange Man Bad.
And so I was talking to some people recently.
I have had this conversation more than once.
I wonder if you, watching this video, have had a similar conversation with someone.
Man, I'm just so sick of everything.
I don't even watch the news anymore.
I have had this conversation more than once.
I wonder if you, watching this video, have had a similar conversation with someone.
I was talking to someone back in my neighborhood in Philly, and they said, you know, I used
to watch the news all the time, but now it's just nothing but Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,
bad, oh my god, I get it.
And it gets boring after a while.
Sure, they get the fervent, crazy anti-Trump people to watch all day, but the regular person is like, man, I'm outta here.
And essentially what they've done is they've created a drug that only some people, like, actually it's a drug for themselves, they become addicted to it.
Look at Rachel Maddow.
Her ratings skyrocketed.
They went up a lot.
With the Russiagate stuff.
What happens when Russiagate falls apart?
Her audience is addicted.
And if she backs away, she's already lost the core, you know, like the regular people.
She can only cater to those crazy people.
Chelsea Handler is very, as far as I know, anti-Trump.
Look at this.
Chelsea Handler went to therapy after Trump's election.
So maybe she's not the most, I'm not here to talk about her and her opinions, but just
to point out, perhaps the reason Netflix is struggling with their talk shows is not because
the format is dying, but because they keep putting the same narrative on TV.
Now, I don't know what Chelsea's show is about because I don't pay attention to her show, nor do I watch it.
But I do watch Netflix, and people certainly watch talk news or news talk or whatever.
I'm getting like 35 million, 36 now.
So my channel's doing great.
Steven Crowder's doing great.
Dave Rubin's had some hiccups with YouTube after the latest suggestion fiasco.
Challenges to the way he structures his show on YouTube.
But for the most part, over a million subs, not too shabby.
There's a lot of people who do this kind of political commentary and they're doing great.
Ben Shapiro is doing really great.
I gotta say, maybe the problem isn't talk shows.
The problem is Netflix is trying to cater to a saturated and dying market.
Well, let's see what they have to say over at The Federalist.
They're right.
It's telling that Netflix's strategy to boost Chelsea ahead of its second season involved deleting 66 past episodes.
Nobody seemed to notice, and the show was cancelled.
Take away 66 episodes of Friends, and there would be riots.
The New York Times called attention to the massacre this week in an article on Netflix's talk show problem.
One vice president described the move as an easy way for viewers to catch up before the new episodes launched.
And that makes sense.
The task of picking up a new show is less daunting with fewer episodes.
And each episode of a talk show can stand alone.
Sort of.
It's confirmation of a point the Times raised, which is that talk shows make for an awkward fit with streaming.
No, they don't.
But why should that be so?
Netflix and streaming services in general are not yet functioning as direct replacements for traditional television.
We still treat the platform differently.
Sure, the option to open Netflix and tune into a regular talk show before bed exists, but people don't seem to want that.
Full stop!
Not true.
Not true at all.
I met with someone from Google a few years ago, and they said, uh, YouTube, uh, Netflix is YouTube's biggest competition.
Well, I'll tell you what, YouTube, instead of deranking suggestions for my channel and for Dave Rubin's channel and other political commentary channels, why don't you recognize that you actually have a monopoly in this space, be it left or right?
There are great progressive channels that are getting throttled.
Kyle Kalinske, David Pakman, and whether you're a fan or not, Sam Seder.
According to data, it looks like they're facing the same throttling as my channel and others.
Because this is what YouTube did.
This is targeting...
Independent political commentary and news channels.
YouTube.
You've got something good.
Sure enough, who's attacking YouTube?
The other media companies that are competing with YouTube.
Perhaps you could recognize people like YouTube for this, and it's working, and you actually have a way to compete with Netflix.
Netflix can't figure out the format.
YouTube does.
But I'll tell you this.
Even among many of the progressive channels that have taken a hit, they're not completely orange man bad channels, for instance.
While they're certainly not fans of Trump, they're not nearly as fervent or crazy.
Kyle Kalinske is a great example.
He's actually complimented Sargon of Akkad.
Wow!
Look at the mainstream media!
They don't!
How many hit pieces came out about Sargon following his UKIP campaign?
It was all smears non-stop.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I went to a skate- there's a skate park by me.
And I've been going there a few times.
And I met some people.
Skateboarders, not your most politically active people, who expressed to me, which shocked me, they just got sick and tired of listening to the orange man bad narrative.
That's all the media is.
They don't talk about anything else.
It's boring and we get it.
And it's a conversation I've had over and over again.
The format works.
You're here listening to the working format.
Ben Shapiro does a daily show and an interview show on Sundays.
It works!
And he doesn't, it's like an hour long, it's on a podcast.
Look at the Joe Rogan podcast!
You're gonna tell me talk shows don't work and Joe Rogan has one of the top podcasts in the world?
Setting up, like creating a bunch of, you know, viral news stories?
You know, like the thing I did, having on Alex Jones, having on Elon Musk.
Yeah, it clearly works.
But why does Joe Rogan need to go on Netflix when he's doing it fine on his own?
The format is working.
I'll tell you this, Netflix.
The problem is Chelsea Handler.
Why do I care what she has to say?
Get somebody who's thought-provoking, honest, and interesting to have real conversations, perhaps like Joe Rogan.
Then you'd see the show work phenomenally well.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say it's confirmation of a point the Times raised.
Oh, we read that.
They say, maybe the late night talk show is a habit of older generations.
Wrong.
People who don't have Netflix and wouldn't watch Michelle Wolfe if they did.
No!
Michelle Wolfe was just a crazy person saying crazy things like everybody should get abortions.
And I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but her voice was kind of shrill.
Okay?
And again, no disrespect on a professional level for Michelle Wolfe over her voice, but like, listen.
You need someone to be able to communicate in a way that you can stomach it and listen to it.
And I know it's kind of a low blow to mention her voice, but I think I'm going to have to be honest on this one.
For me, it was hard to listen to her because she just has a very shrill voice.
And again, not her fault necessarily, but still not good when it comes to talk shows.
She also had a segment where she made fun of Barry Weiss.
Barry Weiss is worthy of criticism, but she's actually got a rather middle-of-the-road approach to a lot of stories that I absolutely respect.
So what happens is regular people who want regular conversations only get orange man bad.
We don't need it anymore!
Listen, I do content and I routinely rag on Trump, but my approach is typically like, oh man, I don't like the guy, but he's not that bad.
He does on the, like, man on the street interviews.
And he did one where he asked people, like, Trump's not that bad, right?
Like, he's kind of bad, but not that bad.
And I'm like, I can agree with that.
Like, and the reason why I would say he's not that bad is that there's a lot of things I don't like that he does.
I don't necessarily trust a lot of what he does, but he's not nearly as bad as the Orange Man Badge show would have you believe, and they're gonna give someone a talk show when she has to go to therapy because Trump got elected?
I'm sorry, that is the wrong person for a talk show.
So is Michelle Wolf.
Michelle Wolf got the show in my, like, I'm gonna say it, like, my opinion, because she was extremely offensive at the White House, you know, dinner or whatever, press event.
So no.
Federalist, you should get this.
You're more of like a right-leaning channel.
Chelsea Handler and Michelle Wolf are just Orange Man Bad shows.
We don't need any more of those.
The market is saturated.
We have Colbert.
We have Jimmy Kimmel.
We have John Oliver.
We have Trevor Noah.
The list can go on.
You get it.
All of late night TV is Orange Man Bad.
They're all competing with each other.
We don't need more.
No.
In fact, I'll tell you what.
If Netflix did a gaming talk show, I bet it'd do well.
And the question around whether or not it's doing well or not is also around the cost of production.
You could probably get some young dude, or woman, to talk about gaming and talk with personalities in pop culture, and it would do ridiculously well.
I bet you could do a talk show dealing with issues like, I don't know, Game of Thrones, or Westworld, or whatever show it is people are watching.
Stranger Things just came out.
You could do a talk show and be like, how many of you just watch Stranger Things?
Would probably do fine, considering the cost you'd spend on it.
What's really happening is that they're talking about pop culture and political commentary, and they're bringing in people who have been traumatized by an election and can't grow up, and speak to the adults in the room.
Plain and simple.
What we see in media is pandering to the children.
The people who are so sensitive, their frail pink little soft skin, that you poke them and they go, oh!
They can't handle, no calluses, right?
You know, when you work hard with your hands, your hands get rough.
When you play guitar, your fingers get calloused.
You become hardened to the harsh realities of life.
And that means we can sit here and talk about Trump and why we don't like him, but we're not crybabies.
He's not that bad.
I think Bill Maher does a relatively decent job for someone who has Trump derangement syndrome.
He calls out the whiny babies and says, grow up.
Spot on.
That show works.
Netflix's problem is not the streaming format, and YouTube is proof.
Steven Crowder is proof.
You wanna do well, Netflix?
Give Steven Crowder a show.
I'd be willing to bet.
If Netflix gave a show to Steven Crowder, it would do phenomenally well.
Hands down.
Because Crowder does well.
So here's what's interesting.
When it comes to streaming format content, you know who is really dominating?
There are some progressive channels, but there are a lot of more centrist or right-wing channels.
I don't know why it is, but I'll tell you this.
If the Young Turks are making a ton of money, and they are, if David Pakman's show is successful, and it is, Kyle Kalinske, Sam Seder, you've got left-wing personalities on streaming platforms that do well, you've got my channel, you've got Crowder, you've got Dave Rubin, you've got Jordan Peterson, you've now got the launching of Bret Weinstein, and Jeffrey Miller, you've got Intellectual Dark Web Types doing their own YouTube-style talk show podcast, throw in some interviews, I guarantee you it would work.
The problem here is you have bad personalities that no one wants to watch.
I'll tell you what, Netflix.
Take the Orange Man bad personality, push him aside because nobody wants to hear it anymore.
And in my opinion, the only reason it exists on television is because they don't know better.
I bet their ratings would do- I bet you, if they replaced a late-night talk show with someone who is more moderate, who is like, there's stuff to criticize the president about, but he's not that bad, they would do phenomenally better.
Way better.
Because you'd actually start capturing some of the Trump audience at that, your ratings would probably go up.
But what happens?
When they don't chase after the narrative, and the- I'm sorry, when they chase after the narrative and their ratings go down, they go, oh, we better push harder to the far left, and they keep doing it, and it just gets worse.
Well, there it is.
I'll wrap this up.
Stick around, more segments to come in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Recently in Wisconsin, a large group of people stormed into a North Face store and stole $30,000 in merchandise.
And this is what's referred to as a flash rob.
Now, ABC News calls it a flash mob, but this is not necessarily a new trend.
But, you may have seen the story about the young woman, turns out she's like 17, who licked the ice cream, put it back, and is facing prison.
There's an update on that story in that I believe they're not going to pursue charging her as an adult, and so she'll probably end up getting some like juvenile slap on the wrist.
Lucky for her.
I also think it's silly to threaten someone with 20 years in prison because they did something dumb like lick ice cream.
Listen, I understand the ripple effect of tampering with, you know, stuff at the store.
And how, you know, it causes a lot of problems.
But let's stop the MeMinutesTracks and stop the young people from doing dumb things because sometimes young people do dumb things.
You don't deserve 20 years in prison because you licked the ice cream and put it back.
Sorry.
You've got some other videos of people, like, scooping ice cream and someone guzzling mouthwash.
It doesn't matter if they staged it.
It doesn't matter if it was a, if it was a, you know, they purchased it afterwards.
They still contaminated a product and you don't know what they did or didn't.
There's gonna have to be a review and a recall.
Plain and simple.
Don't do it.
But anyway, in light of this news, I saw this story and I thought it'd be interesting to talk about other trends in how people target stores.
So, it's not the first time we've seen a flash rob.
It looks like this photo is a different store that was raided.
Oh no, I'm sorry, that's the earthquake.
That's a photo of the earthquake.
The reason I assumed this was probably a flash rob is that, if you're not familiar, It's something I've known about since I was a kid in Chicago, where people would, you know, like 20 kids from the local high school would run full speed into 7-Eleven, yelling, going, aaah, and then just grabbing whatever they want and running out.
It's not a new trend.
But, in light of what we saw with the other stores, I thought it'd be interesting to talk about.
So let's read this story, and then I'll talk, I got an older story, way older story, about the prevalence of flash robbing.
That I think is interesting.
Before we do this, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option through PayPal, a cryptocurrency option, and a physical address.
But of course, YouTube no longer suggests my videos, as I mentioned in the last video, and many videos because of the censorship problem.
So, if you like my content, I need you to suggest it to your friends by sharing it on social media because they don't anymore.
For the most part, they still do a little bit.
But, uh, word of mouth.
If you don't feel like it's worth being shared, then I don't deserve it.
So, let's read the news.
A 10-person flash mob made off with up to $30,000 worth of merchandise from a North Face store in Wisconsin this week.
So, wait, what just happened?
So it's playing the video here, but then it disappears.
Let me close this and see if it'll play the video.
Well, you can see in this image, you've got a bunch of dudes running in and just grabbing clothes and running out.
They say the incident occurred Monday night in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, when the 10 men entered the store with purpose, Police Chief David Smetana told ABC News.
They were gone from the store within 30 seconds.
They knew exactly which area they were going to approach in the store, which clothing items they wanted.
Smetana said the incident was captured on surveillance footage. No injuries were reported and no employees of the
outdoor gear store were confronted Smetana said investigators were working with other police
departments where similar events have occurred He added that similar acts have happened in the area before
but not to this level They grab as many items as they can and they leave the
store in multiple vehicles If you're lucky enough to catch one of them, the other ones have gotten away at that point.
And that is the point.
So let's refresh this and see if I can get this video of it that I want to play.
I know if you're listening on the podcast, you're not going to be able to see it.
But, I mean, there it is.
For those that are listening, it's a large group of men running full speed into the store.
There's a bunch of clothing on various racks, like at any department store, and they grab handfuls of shirts and random clothes and run out.
What's crazy about this, I don't know what you're gonna do with 15 of the same shirt in different sizes.
Unless, I guess, they're gonna sell it on Craigslist.
I have no idea.
But ABC is wrong.
This is not a flash mob.
It's a flash rob.
And so I found this article from Crime Museum.
I don't know what Crime Museum is, but they talk about the concept of a flash rob.
And then they show an image of a flash mob.
I'm not going to read through this article because I have a better one pulled up from 2011, talking about flash mobs turning criminal.
I will read some of this, but I do want to... I'll tell you a little bit about my understanding of this.
So I mentioned just a few minutes ago about how kids would run into 7-Eleven.
This is something I've personally seen with kids in my neighborhood.
And that's why I referenced 7-Eleven specifically.
They would all get out of school at the same time, and then you'd have like, a group of literally 30 teenagers, and they would all just pour straight into the store, they would hold their hands in the air like, like yelling, and they would just take all the candy bars, they would take drinks, and the stores couldn't do anything about it.
In response, many of the stores would put up signs saying only two kids in the store at a time, which literally did nothing, because the point of a flash rob is to everybody run in full speed.
They don't care about your sign.
They're there to break the law.
And the purpose is, with so many kids at once, you can't catch everybody.
And even if they caught one person, that one person claimed they didn't do anything and didn't know better.
In fact, many of these flash robs could have just been spontaneous, like three of the kids may have been friends and didn't know the other kids were, and as soon as it starts, they all run in and engage in the action.
Hey, look, man, kids do dumb things.
But let's read this article.
It's from Time Magazine from 2011.
It says, They gather in masses, organized through social media, or during large events to shock and stop witnesses in their tracks.
But these aren't satirical flash mobs, they're planned heists, and they're gaining momentum in youth circles across the country.
As we've just seen, they still happen.
Stores in cities from St.
Paul, Minnesota to Las Vegas and Washington have been the first to exper- Actually, let's make this a little bigger, it's hard to read.
They say, uh, have been the first to experience this frightening and dangerous new trend, which has developed in part because of the growing popularity of flash mobs or large gatherings in public places, which often include unusual acts of, uh, or choreographed dances.
I will say though, as far as I know, this stuff was happening in my neighborhood back in like 2002, 2003.
They say, while flash mobs are mostly peaceful and created for pure entertainment, flash robberies, otherwise known as flash robs, are just the opposite.
A flash rob occurs when a large group of young people swarms a store, grabs as much merchandise as they can carry, and runs off within minutes, leaving shopkeepers stunned and with thousands of dollars worth of losses.
Just weeks ago, more than a dozen young people overtook the G-Star Raw store in D.C.
and made out with more than $20,000 worth of merchandise.
Two weeks earlier in Georgetown, a group of about 20 to 25 stormed a t-shirt shop to steal Georgetown University gear, then effectively pushed the owner out of the way as she hopelessly attempted to block the door.
You know, I was thinking when I was reading these stories, I'm like, what if you had an emergency drop-down?
Where as soon as the raiders come in full speed, you hit a button, and boom, gates drop down like it was a bank or something.
And you could put a motion sensor in, so that only if the doors are clear do the gates come down.
Then they're trapped, then what do they do?
Then you go into your office, lock the door, and you call the police, the police come, there you go, you caught everybody, right?
They do this for jewelry stores, I know.
Like if somebody comes in and tries to steal something, the doors don't open because they're just locked.
Maybe that's a way to solve the problem?
You walk in and the door locks behind you and someone has to manually let you out?
That probably wouldn't work for a large department store, but let's read on.
They say, Clothing stores aren't the only targets.
In February, Care 11 in Minneapolis, St.
Paul reported numerous flash rob incidents at local convenience stores.
In one such occurrence, a clerk who tried to stop a gang of 20 teens was physically assaulted by one of the thieves, who then pushed over a display on his way out the door.
Not only are these robberies blatant acts of thievery, but to a point they're almost shameless, often occurring in daytime hours with little to no regard for security cameras or fear of getting caught.
Because of this, flash robs have not only become fodder for YouTube, and there's the point, but have also helped authorities identify and catch some of the perps.
For the most part, there's not much that store owners can do to prevent the attacks or stop one that is in progress, except to keep their safety as the number one priority.
As Andy Skugman, spokesperson for the St.
Paul Police Department, tells Care11, the inclination might be to try to stop it.
We don't want people to do that.
We want store employees to be witnesses to the shopping, not victims of assault.
So the important takeaway from this is the YouTube, right?
And that's why I kind of like thought it would be interesting to talk about.
I know it's not the biggest story in the world.
It's just a group of people stealing clothes.
But the issue is how young people keep taking more extreme actions to gain popularity on social media.
The woman who licked the ice cream.
The person who gargled the mouthwash and put it back.
The guy who scooped out the ice cream.
They're doing it for clout on social media and it works.
They don't get in trouble.
And so long as they don't get in trouble, they'll keep doing it.
They mentioned that there's, you know, potential for this because people go on YouTube and know they can get attention.
We've seen crazy stories about, like, one dude had his girlfriend shoot him with a gun through books.
It didn't work.
Dude died.
Girl got in trouble.
People are increasingly taking dangerous actions for YouTube recognition.
While this isn't the case, like, this specific incident isn't a case of that, there's potential that, at least in my opinion, this stuff can become more prevalent just like any of the other, you know, viral flash incidents, viral prank trends or whatever.
People are gonna pretend to do things, the hoaxes, you know, the pranks will be staged but then turn into real-life actions, and then you'll probably start seeing more of this hit the media.
You may have heard the story over the past several weeks.
A young man was in school when he claimed there were only two genders and got removed from class.
A lot of people talked about it.
There were a lot of videos about it.
I didn't really talk about it much.
minutes, and I will see you shortly.
The story from Human Events.
Student expelled.
After saying there are only two genders.
Well, look.
You wanna have an argument about the difference between gender and biological sex?
By all means.
But expelling a student for engaging in that argument?
Now things are getting weird.
But I'll tell you what.
I'm pretty sure- Yeah, this happened in Scotland.
Surprise, surprise, the UK is a weird, weird place.
So let's read this story to figure out what happened and why.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, you're going to have to share this video if you think people should hear the news because YouTube certainly won't suggest my videos anymore.
Yeah, YouTube has been throttling political commentary on the platform because they don't understand what's going on.
Fine.
Bad for business, but sure, let's read on.
Human Events writes, A teenage student at Murren's Academy in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, was removed from class, suspended, and later expelled after telling his teacher, Sir, there are only two genders.
According to the 17-year-old student known only as Murray, the events unfolded if the teacher pulled up a website in front of the whole class that only gave two gender options.
The teacher basically started going off on a tangent about how bad that was and how old-fashioned it was, Murray told a YouTube account known as iHypocrite.
This is when the student stated the scientific fact that there are only two genders.
Well, there are only two biological sexes.
You can have an argument about, you know, gender norms, fine.
In turn, he was removed from class later given the reason his opinion was, quote, not inclusive.
However, the teacher stated his own opinion, that there are more than two genders, is acceptable in contrast.
After sitting outside the classroom for 30 minutes, the teacher finally came out to speak with Murray.
We can see that Paul Joseph Watson posted the interaction on the 14th, but I think the interaction was actually a bit older than that.
Why did you kick me out of class? It's not very inclusive.
We can see that Paul Joseph Watson posted the interaction on the 14th,
but I think the interaction was actually a bit older than that.
I saw the video a while ago.
Within a day of the video being posted, it had gone viral.
The school came across the video and called Murray and his mother in for a meeting.
According to Murray, during the meeting, the school officials made clear he was not getting in trouble for his comment.
Rather, because he recorded the teacher, which is a direct violation of one of the school's rules.
Well, I tell you what.
How should young people go about having accountability for the teachers who are pushing this kind of rhetoric?
If the student wants to push back against a non-scientific cultural opinion, how should they do so if they're punished for it?
Recording seems like the right thing to do.
But of course, this sounds an awful lot like the Lindsey Shepard incident.
Recording.
Now, unfortunately, I don't think you recorded that meeting where you got expelled.
Maybe that would have been a good thing to do, but let's read on.
Maybe you did.
I don't think so.
They say the school suspended Murray for one week, and told him they would have to restrict his phone usage.
Murray conceded he violated a school policy, and because the video went so viral, this was not an outlandish punishment.
However, the school also made clear, in the meeting, that Murray could not talk to the press.
If he did, they threatened harsher punishment.
Man, is that ridiculously authoritarian.
Don't tell the press, don't record the wrongdoing, or you will be punished.
Multiple news outlets did end up covering the story, but Murray did not speak with any of them.
And he did not want to.
He says being able to go back to school was important to him.
The video spoke for itself.
I didn't really need to go public.
Despite Murray's compliance, the school did not let the incident die out.
After the week-long suspension, Murray says the school called his mother.
The head of school and deputy head of school came to his house after consulting higher-ups in the school system.
They actually came to my house because they didn't want me going near the school building, Murray explained.
They said that they've come to a conclusion, the video is still very out there, still going viral, so they wanted me to stay off for another two weeks and return at the end of the summer break so that it would all die down.
Murray and his mother were phoned once more by the school, requesting they come in for another meeting.
At the meeting, Murray was told the issue was debated amongst higher-ups, and the conclusion was, he could not continue his education at the school, he was expelled.
Well, you know what?
School sucks anyway.
It doesn't do anything for you, and if your teacher is gonna kick you out because you claim there's only two genders, maybe you shouldn't be there in the first place.
Plain and simple.
As many of you know, I am a high school dropout.
But I do read a lot, so.
So we have this story, Update Murray Expelled.
I don't know when this story was from.
Let's see when the YouTube video was published, so we can get a better idea of... So this is from July 1st.
So this is from iHypocrite.
July 1st.
So this is actually a couple days old, but let's read on.
Quote.
In our schools, fostering good relations among different groups can be a real challenge.
But our aim is to support a fairer inclusive environment for all.
A spokesperson from the Aberdeenshire Council told the Independent website.
This sounds like a youngster looking for trouble, said Seamus Searson, General Secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association.
Murray's case has some of the more extreme consequences of academic totalitarianism.
LGBT material is forced upon students as young as five years old in schools.
Students are badgered by teachers for wearing clothing and making comments that are supportive of our president.
In some cases, the teacher will even remove physical property, such as a hat or flag, from the individual.
Academia's purpose has been reduced to little more than indoctrination.
So this is a story from The Independent going back to Thursday, June 20th, and I believe this is more about the suspension.
The update on being expelled is rather new.
But what I think we're...
I'm not going to play the video.
You can look the video, you know, if you guys want to pull it up.
But there's something really interesting about the UK and the contradiction of their inclusivity.
They make reference in Human Events that LGBT material is forced upon students as young as five years old.
Well, it's not necessarily incorrect.
Right now, a group of Muslims have been protesting schools in the UK, not in Scotland, but in the UK, maybe Scotland, I don't know, it's spreading, over LGBT curriculum, saying they don't want their kids being taught this stuff.
Who do you defend?
How do you be inclusive of Muslims and of the LGBT community?
Unfortunately, it didn't work.
But I think there's a bigger conversation at play here.
They claim to want inclusivity.
How many people are actually gender non-binary?
I'd estimate a fraction of a percentage.
It's like, what, 98% of people are going to be cisgendered one way or the other?
And I'll say this too, I reject the term cisgendered.
On a personal level, because if the argument is that people can label themselves how they want to be, then I do not accept the label of cis.
And by all means, I will absolutely give myself my own gender label.
Fine.
You don't get to define what or who I am.
I do.
Right?
That's the game we're playing.
Therefore, you can't claim that people can define their own gender and then you try to define someone else's.
So no, I don't accept your terminology.
But there's an interesting thing happening.
You know, we see a lot of this regressive left, social justice stuff, this guy getting expelled.
It's happening in Western nations.
It doesn't really happen in China.
In China right now, there's more of an outrage... Okay, so let me back up.
Specifically referring to the Little Mermaid, you know, fake outrage.
They've cast a black woman to play Ariel.
Ariel was white and red-headed in the original cartoon.
Nobody in the U.S., for the most part, cares.
Like, some people do.
Most prominent personalities on the right really don't care, and have actually expressed they don't care and defended it.
So, now we have people pretending that other people are outraged, and I wonder why this impacts the U.S.
and not China, where people actually are upset.
China's pretty racist.
Why is it impacting Western nations?
I think there's something that can be said for Liberal ideology.
There's a comic that goes around saying the paradox of tolerance.
That if you tolerate intolerant ideas, eventually your society will become intolerant.
And they specifically refer to the far right.
But this is true for anything.
Liberals have a weakness.
Being a liberal is one of the most challenging positions to hold.
The idea that you will protect individual liberties, the right to freedom, while still defending yourself from an onslaught of ideology that seeks to undermine you because you've given them the opportunity.
Authoritarians will arise in any liberal society if there's not a good defense of it.
So that's not an incorrect point that many progressives bring up, but I will say this.
I am not a libertarian, okay?
You can be left libertarian, right libertarian.
I'm a liberal.
And that means I believe in individual liberty and values, and I lean towards social liberalism as opposed to classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism is a center-right position.
Social liberalism is a center-left position.
All that means is I basically agree, for the most part, with classical liberals, but I think the government can play a bigger role in a lot of these circumstances, and I do believe that there are issues of social justice, that can be rectified through policy.
Very, very challenging, and this is not the way.
This is not social justice.
The reason I'm not a libertarian is I believe there has to be some authority to maintain protection of civil liberties.
So that means we have a government that says, you have a right to do this, the government can't stop it, but the government can break up massive corporations, and the government can pass laws to protect individual freedoms and liberties.
Without that enforcement, which is what we're seeing, you get a regressive left that does ridiculous things.
The UK is falling victim to the failures to enforce and protect liberal ideology.
And I don't mean liberal in the sense of left, like in the United States.
A lot of people don't understand this.
Liberal in the sense of freedom.
Sargon of Akkad, Carl Benjamin, is probably center-right at this point, and he's a classical liberal.
That's what liberal means.
It means, you know, so there's liberal, then libertarian.
Libertarians are very much like no government, and liberals are like, well, protect the individual but some government.
I lean in this direction because I think you need a strong social contract to enforce protections.
You should not allow this to happen in the UK.
People should not be arrested for speaking their mind.
You need some way to protect that.
Otherwise, fringe, wacko groups like this guy is going to expel a kid for saying there's only two genders.
Look, kids can say what they want.
Plain and simple.
I tell you what, that 17-year-old girl who licked the ice cream is gonna get less punishment over that than this kid for simply saying there's two genders.
So anyway, I don't wanna make this video a million years long.
These segments are usually short, so I'll leave this a little short and say, when it comes to liberalism, be it center-left, center-right, whatever, I believe we need to push back and protect the individual rights.
Otherwise, this is a weakness in liberalism that allows intolerant factions to grow and push authoritarianism, period.
And now you have some kid getting expelled for simply saying there's only two genders.
Anyway, thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next video will be at 10 30 a.m.
on this channel, the podcast every day at 6 30 p.m.
