Ocasio Cortez New Bill Grants FULL Welfare To ALL Illegal Immigrants, Countering Trump's New Rules
Ocasio Cortez New Bill Grants FULL Welfare To ALL Illegal Immigrants, Countering Trump's New Rules. In what may be the most absurd and dramatic escalation from the second Democratic Debates, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has just proposed a bill that will grant full federal benefits to all immigrants regardless of legal status.The Democrats faced heavy criticism for stating they would provide government funded healthcare (universal health coverage) to non citizens in the second debate and now AOC has seemed to taken it one step further for some reason.This comes just after President Trump announced new rules that all immigrants would need to provide proof of finances to cover potential medical costs in what he says will help reduce the financial burden on the American taxpayer posed by non citizen unrecovered medical costs.It seems that the democrats far left push is not just a combination of actually holding far left social justice ideology but also a desperate need to differentiate themselves from the president. It often seems that they just propose whatever is the opposite of what Trump is doing.In this instance Trump announces restrictions on legal immigrants so the far left Democrats announce complete federal welfare for all non citizens.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We're in the age of rapid information exchange, and this means information news stories don't linger as long as they used to.
If a story breaks today, it's played out an hour later.
If you're lucky, you can get 24 hours out of one particular story.
You've got to constantly keep adding to the story in order to maintain your attention.
And that's what we're in.
The attention economy.
You know, 10, 20 years ago, you put out a story, it would last for about a week.
That was the news cycle because it took a long time to print rebuttals and debate.
Well, now we have the next big one-up.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposes full welfare benefits for all immigrants, regardless of legal status, after Trump visa ban.
And there it is.
You see, Donald Trump said, Recently the story came out, and we'll go through all this too, I'll just give you a quick synopsis, that he wants to make sure if people come here for any reason, they can take care of their own health care and it's not going to be a burden on the American taxpayer.
Ocasio-Cortez decided to one-up Trump, to counter him, by announcing full federal welfare benefits for all illegal immigrants.
OK.
But here's the big picture.
This is Ocasio-Cortez one-upping the Democrats on the 2020 stage.
So we now have a prominent member of Congress, as well as all of those Democrats that were on the debate stage, promising government health care to non-citizens and AOC one-upping them.
You see, at first, they said, let's do universal health care for American citizens.
Well, they gotta one-up it.
They gotta give you more, otherwise you lose attention.
They lose your attention.
So they say, healthcare for everybody, even non-citizens.
Every Democrat raises their hand.
Well, Ocasio-Cortez has to take it one step further.
All federal benefits, all illegal immigrants, everything.
And this is how insane everything's become.
So let's do this.
I'd like to read through some of the laws she's proposed and what's actually going on and show you the context around Trump's proposal.
And I want to state as well that it really does seem like they're trying to make sure everything they do is the mirror image to Trump, right?
The Democratic Socialists of America, at their annual gathering, whatever, last month, voted for open borders.
Ocasio-Cortez is a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
By her—how is this not in line with an open borders agenda to say anybody who comes here for any reason, legal or otherwise, gets access to federal benefits?
That's essentially open borders.
You see, they're not just going to snap their fingers and vote, should we open borders to everybody and get rid of security.
They're going to do it program by program by program.
But I think at the end, it's really just about, it's not so much about the Democratic Socialists voting for this, it's about Ocasio-Cortez trying to maintain attention in the press and saying, oh yeah, well what if I do this?
And there you have it.
So let's read the story.
Before we get started, however, head over to timcast.com slash donate in order to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do And I really do mean it.
Share this video.
I don't have the marketing budgets.
I can't put up billboards.
I'm not going to appear on Netflix or any of these big networks.
In order for me to grow and compete with CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, I require word of mouth.
So if you think I do a really, really good job, the best thing you do, just share this video.
And when you do, explain what you agree or disagree with it.
If you hate my guts, please post the video and explain exactly why I'm wrong so people can see why.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has published a series of economic policies as part of her plans for a, quote, just society, including allowing immigrants living in the U.S.
illegally the same welfare benefits as U.S.
citizens.
The New York congresswoman has published a total of six legislation proposals, which aim to tackle the stark inequalities which exist in the U.S.
The package of ideas includes the Place to Prosper Act, designed to create a stable rental housing market to protect tenants and rein in corporate landlords.
Now, this is interesting.
I pulled up the actual resolution, and I'm really confused because it seems her bill literally does nothing.
Literally does nothing.
Okay, it might do some things, but let's be honest.
We'll get to that in a second, and I want to give her a fair shake, but There is also the Recognizing Poverty Act, which would ensure the Department of Health and Human Services adjusts the federal poverty line to account for stipulations such as geographic cost variation, costs related to health insurance, work expenses for the family, child care needs, and new necessities like internet access.
I actually lean towards agreeing with this.
I'm not confident she'll execute it properly, but I do think it's important that if we're going to be talking about poverty, we don't just say everyone in America everywhere is poor by the same standard.
No.
Somebody who lives in a rural area with a lower cost of living but less excess is going to have a different definition of poverty.
Ocasio-Cortez, who previously pushed for the Green New Deal, has also announced the EMBRACE Act, which would allow all immigrants, including those in the country illegally, to be provided with the same federal public benefits as U.S.
citizens.
And now this is where we see the true leap over the shark.
Just total insanity.
Ocasio-Cortez previously said she was going to break apart the Green New Deal into, you know, singular issue things because one of the criticisms was that it was cluttered and not about the environment.
And now we can see this may be what she's doing.
But I gotta admit, if you want to make sure that Democrats lose, and I think that might be on purpose, maybe not from her directly, but I do think there's a plan to get the Democrats to lose on purpose, then this is how you do it.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks in 2016 said he was going to rock, he was going to attack the democratic establishment to the core.
So I have this suspicion that they know that the only way they can truly take over in the party is to make sure those who support the Democrats get let down.
So that they can propose these solutions.
Now, it's a bit conspiratorial.
I'm not saying it's true.
I'm just saying, wouldn't it be convenient that these proposals are so out of line for what Americans actually want?
What I'm trying to say is, it's a big ask, right?
This is a known Trump strategy.
It's a known sales tactic called the big ask, where you ask for a million bucks, and then when the other person says, whoa, a million bucks, say, okay, how about a hundred thousand?
And now it sounds like you're asking for way less.
You get AOC, you get the Democrats on stage to propose the most insane things imaginable, people get shocked by the Democrats, and then along comes someone like Elizabeth Warren, who isn't a centrist, but isn't super far left.
She's still pretty out there.
Right?
She's very much similar to Bernie, but pulled back a little bit, and there you go.
She's definitely to the left of Biden.
That's, well, that's the big ask.
Maybe that's, whether it's intentional or not, it seems like that's the play at hand.
Proposing a bill to give full federal welfare benefits to people who are not citizens is so absolutely out there, I have no idea what sane person would think Americans would go for this.
Some will, I get it.
But even Bernie Sanders said at a rally a few months ago, there are too many poor people in this world, we can't have open borders, they'll all flood here.
And that's Bernie!
And now AOC has one-upped Bernie.
Eventually people are going to say, this has gone too far.
And they're going to pull back and look for someone who is a moderate leftist, but not a centrist.
Someone who's actually staunchly on the left, just not that far left.
You see how it works?
That's how you move the Overton window.
They say, quote, Our nation must recognize that our history, immigrants, enslaved peoples, and refugees built this country.
We all do better when we create a just society that embraces our most vulnerable populations and paves a path to prosperity for all, Ocasio-Cortez's manifesto states.
The bill would ensure that all persons in need are eligible for the largest programs of the social safety net regardless of their immigration status.
I take offense to this.
I'm a taxpayer, okay?
And there are a lot of things that my tax dollars go to that I do not like, namely the war machine.
Really, really, really don't like that.
One of my biggest arguments being on the left for the longest time was before we get to the point where we yell tax the rich, and I do believe in a higher tax bracket for wealthier individuals, I think we need to reappropriate tax funds.
It's not so much about like balancing the budget as, you know, Republicans have said.
It's about figuring out where the bloat is, fixing the corruption, and reining things in.
We can't just every year be like, we're gonna add another .1%, we're gonna add another... No.
Something's wrong.
The money isn't working properly.
We need to stop and make things more efficient.
This is why I really do like the idea of a public option.
And then you have the private and public sectors having a kind of competition.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
I think competition is important.
And one of the big problems with government-run programs, and where tax dollars go, is that we don't know when they're failing.
And then they get all this money pumped into it, the program could go bad, and they say, well, pump more money into it to fix it.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
At a certain point, we've got to stop, pull that budget back, figure out what went wrong, and more efficiently analyze how we can make this program work.
According to the proposal, federal public benefit includes any retirement, welfare, health, disability, and unemployment benefits, as well as any similar payments or assistance that are provided to an individual household or family by an agency of the U.S.
That is absolutely nuts.
I am sorry, man.
That is unsustainable, and it seems like it's intentionally insane.
Intentionally.
Like, I'm at a loss for words.
You know, I've been able to put out content before where I've been like, ah, that silly AOC, I can't believe she did this, but this is like...
I don't understand.
I really don't understand.
This to me sounds like a five-year-old coming to you and being like, I say we should give all of our food to the needy.
And you're like, dude, we have enough food for the next two weeks and we've got to go grocery shopping again.
Or it sounds like a little kid saying, look at all the food that's in Walmart.
Why don't we just give it to people who are hungry?
And you're like, because there needs to be a value exchange for individuals who produce so that they can then exchange things for things they need, right?
You know, I remember when I was younger, and I would play that silly line of, look at all the empty houses we have, why don't we just put the homeless people in the houses?
Man, capitalism, yeah, yeah, rah, rah, rah.
And then it didn't take long for me to realize, you can't just put a homeless person in a house.
Who's gonna maintain the house?
Who's gonna pay for the utilities?
Who's gonna make sure the house is up to code?
All of this work has to be done to maintain everything.
But if we say that the value you provide to the system will not benefit you, people are going to pull out of the system.
It makes no sense.
Who is going to have confidence in paying taxes if you know your taxes go to people who aren't paying them in turn?
Now they might say, Tim, you're wrong.
Illegal immigrants do pay taxes.
Some of them, sure.
Many of them who get their paycheck with a false social security number, it's automatically withheld.
I get that.
But no, not all of them.
Okay?
And you're going to have chain migration.
You're going to have the parents of some of these people now getting access to benefits when they don't pay into that system.
We cannot.
It is not mathematically possible to have an influx of people.
You know what?
I'll put it this way.
Let's say, every day, you put a dollar in a jar.
You and your roommates.
Every day, you and your roommates put a dollar in a jar.
At the end of the month, you have enough for a pizza party.
You say, we now have, you know, we have three rooms.
We have a hundred bucks that we've all saved up by, you know, putting a dollar in and someone, you know, throws in a little extra.
Someone who makes a little bit more than everybody else says, I'll put in two bucks today.
So now you have about $100, and at the end of the month you all say, because we all pitched in to this, we can now pay for a pizza party.
And then all of a sudden a new person walks in and says, I'm going to be crashing on the sofa, ooh, can I send that pizza?
And you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
I understand you're hungry, but we all pitched in for this over the past month to pay for this pizza party, and now you showed up at the last minute and are going to get access to this.
And then you'll have someone like AOC say, they deserve it.
And there's the problem.
Why should she speak on behalf of everyone else?
Now I get it, it's how politics work, right?
If the majority supports it, if Congress, and it goes to the Senate, or whatever, if it gets approved by the President, that's how it works.
But it's one of the bigger problems in offering up our community fund to people who are not in this community, to me, is absurd.
Simply because it cannot go on forever.
On the low end, right?
If there was an immigrant...
Illegal immigrant, and they were dying.
Of course we're going to be like, give them medical treatment.
Absolutely.
Give them food if they're starving.
The problem is when you institutionalize it at a national level, and then you incentivize that behavior, and you've now created a system that continually has an influx of people who haven't paid into it before.
That is an impossible system to maintain.
But let's move on from this, right?
Let's move on from this because they now get into the point about Trump's rule, but I want to highlight another part of her bill, and I believe it's this one.
Is this the Just Society Applies to Prosper Act?
What's really interesting about this is that it says, a landlord may not initiate eviction proceedings or threaten a tenant with eviction, except in the case that, let's see, A. A tenant has failed to pay rent for two or more consecutive months, caused substantial destruction of the rental property, or violated an explicit lease term.
I read that and I'm like, so are you saying you're voiding the entirety of this bill?
You've literally just... A landlord can evict you if you violate a lease term?
Okay, then we can set the lease terms to be whatever we want them to be.
What's the point of this?
Now, she does set a hard limit on the 3% price index or something tied to the consumer price index.
And I think, fine, fine, I understand the goals here.
But it seems silly and absurd.
But anyway, we'll lightly touch that.
Let's move on to... Well, actually, let me see...
Okay, I'm not going to highlight this too much because I already made the point, but Democrats want to offer healthcare to undocumented immigrants.
Here's what that means.
Now, I did pull this up before, but I already made the point that basically, They say in this that illegal immigrants don't qualify for many federal benefits and subsidies, in which case this would only cover some of that.
And the reason I highlight this is to show you that this is the one-up.
This is the point I was making about AOC stepping up and escalating the rhetoric.
But here's the counterpunch, right?
The story was that the Trump administration will deny visas to the uninsured low-income immigrants, and that's why Ocasio-Cortez Well, actually, I want to say maybe it's not why.
She probably took—she took a long time to prepare this.
So I think what she's proposing is more in line with one-upping the Democrats in the debate stage, probably to get the attention away from them.
I honestly have no idea.
Maybe she just really believes this stuff, and she's apparently out of her mind.
But this is what we saw from the president.
President Donald J. Trump is protecting health care benefits for American citizens.
That's how the White House has framed it.
To protect benefits for American citizens, immigrants must be financially self-sufficient.
I gotta say, I don't see... What's the problem?
Right.
If we allow people to come here on a tourist visa or otherwise, and they can't afford to take care of themselves, then we're opening up ourselves to risk.
The issue isn't the individual.
Of course if an individual comes and they get hurt or sick and they're in need, we're gonna help them.
Of course we would.
The Hippocratic Oath.
You know, doctors are gonna... We're gonna help them.
The problem is when you institutionalize.
If you come here, we will take care of you.
Don't worry about it.
Okay?
As an individual, we get it.
But this makes sense, then, because this is us still saying, look, we get it.
You know, if you come here, we'll help you, but you can at least prove you won't be a burden on our system.
How do we make public healthcare affordable?
This is really mind-blowing to me.
Barack Obama couldn't get universal healthcare done.
It was too expensive, and it's too expensive today.
Yet now AOC is offering up all benefits to anyone.
Literally anyone.
You could walk illegally across that border and be like, I need federal welfare.
And that's what she's proposing.
I don't think it'll ever happen.
But boy does that sound nuts.
This is from the whitehouse.gov.
They say, President Trump is issuing a proclamation to suspend the entry of immigrants who will financially burn in the United States health care system.
President Trump has taken this action to ensure we protect the availability of health care benefits for American citizens.
Immigrant visa applicants will have to demonstrate that they will be covered by health insurance within 30 days of entering the country or have the financial resources to pay for medical costs.
Applicants will be required to meet these requirements before being issued an immigrant visa.
A number of exceptions will be made, such as for children of American citizens.
They're also going to say it won't affect children in general.
It won't affect refugees.
They say, admitting large numbers of immigrants who cannot pay for their own health care puts a burden on our taxpayer and our health care system.
Total uncompensated health care costs or the cost of service that hospitals provide that go unreimbursed have exceeded $35 billion in each of the last 10 years.
Immigrants admitted into the country are nearly three times more likely to lack health insurance than United States citizens and contribute to the problem of uncompensated health care costs.
Let's do this.
Those resources that are going to non-citizens, let's give them to those in need.
Mental health and homeless, right?
How many people in California are homeless?
A lot.
It's a serious problem.
Maybe $35 billion a year could go towards solving the problems of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento.
Cleaning up the streets and helping those who are in need.
Instead, if we open up the doors and say anybody who comes is going to get free health care or benefits, you're only going to see more Americans suffer, and admittedly, a lot of these people will show up, get the health care, and leave.
And those who show up for the health care might get stuck, and it might burden the system even further.
They're going to say, large numbers of non-citizens have taken advantage of our country's generous public health programs.
Half of all non-citizen headed households include at least one person who receives Medicaid.
Wow, that's a bold statement.
I did not know that.
Promoting self-sufficiency.
President Trump is working to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect American taxpayers.
So I think we get all that.
I'm not going to read through the last section here because I want to make another point.
CBP awards contracts to build 65 miles of new border wall October 1st from National Review.
It seems like the Democrats will do anything, so long as it's the opposite of what Trump proposes.
And it's very confusing to me.
Now, while the border wall, this big, beautiful concrete 30-foot wall may seem extreme, that was Trump's big ask.
Because now he's got bollard fencing.
Okay.
And he's reinforcing select areas, and now they're gonna do, you know, they've approved 65 miles of new border wall, not the 2,000.
We're inching our way.
Most Americans are concerned about illegal immigration.
Most independent voters, this is from the New York Times, when they learn of the Democrats' far-left push, are less likely, by 6 percentage points, to vote for Democrats.
So Trump proposes something that's moderately popular.
I'm not saying popular with all Democrats or Republicans, but moderately, right?
And then the Democrats come out and say it's a bad idea.
Trump comes out and says, we cannot be spending $35 billion a year on non-citizen health care.
It's a burden on our system.
And AOC comes out and says, no, we should give every illegal immigrant.
And it's like, it's the opposite of what Trump is doing.
Beto O'Rourke actually said, tear down the wall.
I kid you not.
He specifically was referring to El Paso and said, tear down this wall.
Whether or not you think Trump's wall is moral unjust or a waste of money, why spend money tearing down a wall?
That is so absurd.
But it's the point.
I believe what we're seeing from AOC and the Democrats is possibility.
It's a big ask.
All the Democrats support what she's doing so that when they finally bring back someone who's the left of Obama, it seems reasonable, right?
It makes sense.
It could just be, though, that if Trump says something that's moderately popular, they have to oppose him.
Otherwise, what do they have?
Are they going to come out and say they agree with the president policy-wise, but just think he's a bad dude?
I mean, actually, they'd be better off doing that, but they can't.
Because they need to give a reason to Americans as to why they oppose him and why they should vote for the Democrats.
The problem is, Americans don't care that Trump has a bad attitude sometimes.
And again, it's not every Trump supporter, but I've talked to many people, like I was in a cab in Texas when I was on the Glenn Beck thing.
I was on Glenn Beck's show, and on the way there, I was talking to an Uber driver who said he really can't stand Trump's attitude, but he does think Trump's just much better than the Democrats.
And so, if the Democrats propose somebody who is very similar with moderate policies, but just not Not abrasive.
I'm being light here.
They would do substantially better.
Instead, they're playing this weird game for whatever reason.
I think, if I'm going to be completely honest, it's just because there's no leadership.
There's no charisma.
There's no leadership.
They have weak candidates, and they can't get a hold on anything.
And you've got the far left fighting with the moderate, crony, establishment Democrats.
And so AOC just wants to make sure she can outflank them.
She can outrank them.
She can one-up them at every step of the way.
And this is where we get to.
A full-on open borders benefits program.
Now, I get it, it's not complete open borders, but seriously, this might be one of the craziest things I've ever seen proposed, ever.
After that hand-up thing at the second Democratic debate, where they said, how many of you would give health care to non-citizens and they all raised their hand, they actually got rid of that and said you could no longer ask people to raise their hands because it was a huge embarrassment for everybody.
That's how bad it was.
And you even get mainstream liberal types like Bill Maher saying, like, what?
You know, I love it.
Bill Maher said to win, all they have to do is be less crazy than Trump.
And they're even screwing that up.
Well, bravo AOC!
This is truly incredible!
I cannot imagine, I think like every day, if the average American saw this, if the average American saw this story, they would go out and buy a MAGA hat.
I really think so.
I'm being hyperbolic.
They wouldn't vote for Democrats.
But I'll tell you this.
There are a lot of people in a similar place to where I'm at, where I'm really not comfortable supporting Donald Trump because of a variety of reasons.
You know, I do kind of feel like I get way too much into trying to do a runoff list to prove my bona fides and what I disagree with the president about.
But I think it's much easier just to explain why I'd be much more likely to vote for someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who has not gone on this spree of insulting Trump and his family, who has criticized Trump for his foreign policy with Saudi Arabia, trying to coordinate with them on their war with Yemen and a bunch of foreign policy issues.
I think Trump is worthy of some praise, but I think Tulsi is better for a lot of reasons.
I will say this as a bit of a self-reflecting critical point.
I do often feel like if I don't at least point out some of the things I dislike Trump for, I get heat from everybody.
When I say things like, man, I'm not a big fan of Trump, I get a bunch of conservatives saying, you're lying, you don't even know I don't like him.
And then when I actually do say, okay, well then here's why I don't like him, I get people saying, oh, you're just trying to placate people and now you're just pandering to the left.
And then if I don't say anything at all, I get the left saying I should have supported him.
So there's no win.
There's no win here, okay?
The point is, the reason I'm saying this as we wrap up is that I don't have TDS, as you guys know.
It's whatever.
I'm like really lukewarm.
I'm like, I don't like the guy.
It's whatever.
We'll see what happens.
I'm probably not going to vote for him because I like Tulsi a lot.
I like her a lot better.
And I think it's fair to point out that you can be someone who would support Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard for genuine reasons like, for one, I do not like private prisons at all.
We need hard prison reform.
And I can throw Trump credit for working on bipartisan criminal justice reform.
I do not like the foreign war machine, and especially what's going on in Saudi Arabia, and Trump putting out that tweet about, you know, we're waiting for Saudi Arabia, yadda yadda, and I really don't like Trump, you know, giving us, you know, hey, good for you, China in the 70 years, I get it, there's negotiations, but come on, man.
You know, so there's things to criticize him for, but in the end, after all that, I'm kind of like, yeah, whatever, I get it, he won, he's the president, and this is why the Democrats are in trouble.
It's just that simple.
This right here, this story, come on, man.
You know, I feel like a rational person can be like, ugh, Trump, ugh.
But then look at this and be like, ah!
Like, you can groan about Trump's behavior, but you look at this and you're just like, what?
The complete destruction of our federal benefits program?
No way!
Nah, sorry, man.
So, I don't know, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
It's a story we've heard a million times by now, and it does play into this, you know, this thread I've been going on about how everything keeps repeating itself.
But I guess we're gonna talk about it again.
Surprise, surprise, New York City restaurant industry jobs evaporate after $15 hour wage sets in.
So they increased the minimum, and now we're seeing the famous cafe where AOC actually worked shut down.
Because this is a dramatic cost increase.
So I'll give you a quick rundown, but I do have really big news on top of this.
The low wage... wages are going faster for the less skilled than the supervisor.
So low wage growth is faster now.
Unemployment is down.
And, you know, it's all really interesting.
I mean...
This is a story from May 3rd, and it's something that we haven't really heard a whole lot about, that people who are working low-skill jobs, their wages are growing faster than those who work high-skill jobs.
That's the basic point of this.
So, for whatever reason, we'll get into it.
And this is kind of a contrast to this story about the minimum wage, but I gotta admit, this creates another conundrum for Democrats as We see businesses close in New York City after a proposal of increasing the minimum wage, and then we're seeing back in May wage growth has been pretty epic in this country.
But what's interesting is some are crediting that wage growth with minimum wage laws.
So perhaps we have a bit of a framing conundrum in that We can look at how the individual industries are being negatively impacted by these laws, but then when you don't account for everyone who's lost their job due to the wages, you can see that low wages have gone up, right?
So, a good example would be a minimum wage increase.
Obviously, negatively impacts small business.
They lose their jobs, they eventually shut down, they fire people, it collapses.
But Walmart, Walmart's gonna be fine.
And Walmart can follow these new laws, so you will see low-wage growth go up.
This creates two big problems for Democrats.
I can't believe I have to say this, but it's true.
The first problem is that people lose their jobs when this happens.
And the second problem is that it makes Trump look good when the economy does better.
Okay, let me tell you this.
Right now, You're going to have people in New York saying, I've lost my job because of this proposal for minimum wage.
They do.
McDonald's, Starbucks, big corporations then increase the minimum wage because it doesn't bother, you know, they can absorb that cost.
And then on the board, we see low wages going up.
The Democrats can't take credit for this because they would have to say wealth inequality is actually lessening.
They don't want to say that.
They need to talk about how the rich are getting richer.
Not too bad.
It's the lower-wage workers, the lower-skill workers who are increasing.
Trump obviously doesn't want to talk about it because he doesn't want to say, you know, hey, minimum wages increase low-wage work.
However, I think it's fair to point out It raises the low-wage work for megacorporations, creating a net loss for the Democrats, man.
You know what?
I was reading some commentary from someone who said, you know, Trump won't want to admit the minimum wage has worked.
And I'm like, yeah, but you're forgetting the businesses that have collapsed because of this.
Of course it works when Walmart raises their wages.
All you've done is now given Trump the ability to say, look at this great low wages are way, way up.
Wealth inequality is going down.
My plan is working.
Meanwhile, regular people lose their jobs on these policies and it just makes Trump look better.
I'm not gonna give Trump credit for what potentially could be, you know, megacorporations raising low wages.
But I gotta admit...
We're at a point now where it reminds me of that Family Guy joke where, I can't remember exactly why it happens, but like a TV studio or something hired an ugly woman to sit next to Meg so that she looks prettier by comparison.
And then you have someone walk by and he's like, hey Meg, oh, did you get less ugly?
And she goes, yeah, and she pulls the ugly woman next to her.
And I'm kind of like, I really despise Trump's attitude, his demeanor, like his character.
I think he's, you know, he's a reality TV guy.
He's a WWE guy.
He's not, I don't know.
I guess I've called him boorish.
I guess that's the easiest way to say it.
You know what I mean?
But I'm at the point now where you put the Democrats next to Trump, and I'm kind of like, is Trump looking better?
And when you have these policies going up, look, my policy positions remain relatively static.
I definitely think some of my ideas have changed.
I've actually gone a little bit further left on some issues, and I've gone a little further right on some issues.
Hey, I'm a centrist.
What do you expect?
But I took a political compass test recently and I'm actually further left than I was last
year or whatever.
But policy positions aren't what politics are about, for the most part.
And trust me, I mean this.
What politics is really about is often who people will trust and when they vote for the
lesser of two evils.
So now you have stories like this.
Let's read this.
I apologize for not reading into what's happening at this restaurant five minutes in.
But I think it's important to point this out.
Right now we have the view of the lesser of two evils, but it's not so simple to say that.
It's kind of like you have the Democrats continually getting uglier and uglier, and just—they're off-message, they have no core policy positions, they're proposing insane things, and then the scandals.
And so now I'm looking at Trump, who is a boorish, you know, rude personality, who I think lacks the ability—he doesn't have the kind of charisma that I don't know, the left, moderate leftists need, you know what I mean?
That's why there's so many politically homeless people like me, because it's like, could he not just be so, you know, Obama had confidence, but I don't like Obama either for different reasons.
But anyway, the point is, now I'm looking at Trump and I'm like, I absolutely understand why people don't care about his character.
They don't care about the way he talks, you know, when he mocked body slamming a reporter and laughed about it.
It's, you're, because you contrast the Democrats and you're like, you know, when I think of the Democrats now, not all of them, because, you know, I hate to lump everybody into the same category, because there are some I absolutely do appreciate and like, but I imagine, like, you know, little, like, like, Spiegel, you know, Gollum from Lord of the Rings, like, running around, like, you know, trying to grab at, you know, congressional seats, talking about they're precious.
That's what I see now.
I see this, like, Everything they're proposing, they make no sense.
They're not thinking about it.
They're just out of it.
And they're mad that Trump lost the seat, and that's their precious.
So they're, you know, and it's just like, anyway, anyway.
Let's read about New York City.
Hot Air Reports.
Last December, the final phase of increasing the minimum wage in New York City to $15 per hour went into effect.
Well, at least for the last, uh, well, at least the last stage for now.
It was considered a huge victory for the Fight for $15 crowd and presumably a big win for workers.
Yeah, if you work at McDonald's and Starbucks.
So, but, but no, I mean, for real, if you do work at McDonald's and Starbucks, it's good, it's good for you.
Good news.
Particularly in the food service industry.
So how has that been working out since then?
As the New York Post reported this weekend, the Law of Unintended Consequences has come roaring into play.
They feature the story of one taco and tequila joint on the Upper West Side that's been doing a thriving business for a quarter of a century, but now it's all coming to an end.
And they're far from the only restaurant feeling these effects.
Here's a quote.
Big Apple restaurants are feeling the heat from minimum wage hikes, cutting staff hours, and even closing kitchens as they struggle to shoulder the extra payroll costs.
Gabriela's restaurant and tequila bar, a margarita and taco staple on the Upper West Side for the past 25 years, is closing at the end of September, and it has been a long, painful road downhill, according to its mom-and-pop owners.
Since the $15 an hour wage hit New York City in December, Liz and Nat Milner say they've been forced to slash full and part-time staff to 45 people from 60.
Quality has suffered, they admit, and customers have noticed.
They're not coming in like they used to, and when they do, they're spending less.
What happened to Gabriela's restaurant tequila bar is a sobering tale for the entire industry.
If only somebody had warned the city this was going to happen.
Okay, that's a pretty bad joke, they say.
Everybody warned them it would happen.
But they pushed through anyway to satisfy their liberal voter base.
You know what the problem is?
Listen.
When I go through the political policy positions, the arguments, I find that you can be very well informed and come to a very, very specific center-left policy that will improve things.
However, the politicians just play to the emotions and use the most reductive arguments they have about, like, living wages instead of actually addressing the full market impact and concept.
Like, going through everything.
Reading what they have to say, reading what the right has to say, looking at, you know, some economics books, some opinions, and some records, I say, oh, okay, I lean slightly left.
Too many people, though, vote for simplistic solutions based on emotions, and they're being manipulated into these positions which aren't always sound.
Let me make a very important point.
Why is it that they still want to increase the minimum wage?
Why is it that it is a default left-wing position that you must believe we will continually increase the minimum wage?
Is it because it's like a Green New—it's like a New Deal thing from way back when when the left did it?
Is it because a guaranteed wage is a left thing?
Can you be on the left and say it's a bad idea like Andrew Yang did?
You see, I am more in line with Andrew Yang's thinking on this.
But not to put words in his mouth, I'll just tell you.
There was a time, and there is a place, where minimum wages make sense.
Today, we have the looming threat of automation.
To quote Yang, we also have the ease of moving your money overseas and investing in different countries or different states even.
It is easier than ever to relocate or start a business somewhere else.
And therein lies the big problem.
Minimum wages may have made sense back in the day when you had a business that was like, look, we're based in this state, we're trying to expand, it's much more difficult.
With the mass monopolization of the banking industry and digital transactions and the ease in which we can transfer money, it's so easy now to franchise and start businesses other places.
So, you know, the stories I've seen, for instance, I referenced this story back from Chicago.
Cook County, which is Chicago, increased their sales tax by a fraction of a percent.
And I think it was a Home Depot or a Lowe's.
I can't remember exactly.
This is 15 years ago or something.
Shut down!
Shut down!
Reopened a couple miles away in DuPage County.
Why?
As was explained to me by my friend's dad who's a contractor, he said, look man, sometimes you're doing big orders and you might spend, you know, a couple million dollars a year, or, you know, even hundreds of thousands, and that fraction of a percent adds up at the end of the year, you're looking at your taxes, you're being like, $20,000 I could have saved if I just moved, went and shopped somewhere else?
You bet.
And so the shop knew this, and they knew they were losing customers.
In turn, Cook County lost tax revenue.
So the point is, there is a time and a place where this makes sense.
A blanket sweep across all businesses makes no sense.
Now, my understanding is that the minimum wage has something to do... They've thought about the nuance.
I don't want to act like they haven't.
There's a lot to do with the size of a business, the time frame, and things like that.
But you need to understand that New York City is almost entirely small business.
And that's very, very important.
Well, I could be wrong about that.
But that's my understanding.
I think that's true.
Like, they don't allow Walmart and stuff.
So now they say, okay, we're gonna, you know, we're gonna increase the $15 minimum wage, and people start getting laid off.
It's not a shock.
I know I say this whenever this story comes up, but I talked to an accountant who represents 300 small businesses, and he said it's shocking how many businesses are closing because of this.
Because you have to understand, you're not just increasing the wages, you're increasing the tax liability.
So, outside of how much you gotta pay, there's a tax that goes on top of that.
The percentage goes up for everybody.
And then you hear from the left, they say, well, if they couldn't afford to pay a living wage, they shouldn't have been in business in the first place.
Well, then they go out of business!
Congratulations!
How does it make sense to take away someone's job and livelihood and business because they couldn't afford it?
That, to me, is insane.
I kid you not, they say, if you can't afford to pay a living wage, you shouldn't be in business.
Okay, so think about how insane that is.
If you're poor, you shouldn't be allowed to sell food.
That blows my mind.
Well now, let me contrast this a little bit.
In this story from May 3rd, I think I did talk about this when it came out.
Wages are growing faster for the less skilled than for the supervisors.
I want to highlight this because the big argument as to why it's happening is because of minimum wages.
That's what the left is saying.
They're saying this is not happening because of Trump.
You know, Trump and the Republicans are not for minimum wages.
They would drive wages down.
That's the argument.
Now, the Wall Street Journal doesn't assert that.
They just say straight up, hey, it's happened.
But they say, The Atlantic wrote a story saying state by state, minimum wage laws have resulted in a low wage increasing.
And so, what The Atlantic tries arguing is that the Democrats won't take credit for it because it makes it look like Trump's economy is working, and it's one of their biggest arguments they need going into 2020, that wealth inequality is getting worse, when in fact it's not.
Or they're arguing it's not.
And Trump doesn't want to take credit for it because he would have to then acknowledge that it's the minimum wage laws doing it.
But let me just end by saying, first, who cares?
It happened.
Who cares?
We can point to every story of a business closing to counteract every story of someone's wages going up at Starbucks.
Doesn't matter.
It happened.
And I tell you this, Trump is going to take credit for it.
He's not going to care what you say.
You're going to come back and be like, Trump, the wages only went up because of minimum wage.
He's going to go, I disagree.
I'm doing great.
And that's all that matters.
It's all that matters.
When you get into the weeds, the average person is not interested in where you are.
And that means, when it comes to 2020, this is what we're gonna see.
And you can make every argument in the world, and eventually... Let me tell you something, man.
Talking to my accountant, and him explaining all this stuff, I just stop.
I say, dude, let me stop you.
I can trust you, right?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Laws, numbers, HR 13, whatever."
And I'm like, I hear what you're saying, man.
I understand it.
What you need to understand is that for me to truly grasp what you're saying, there's
so much context and information I don't have, which is why I need to hire an accountant.
And of course, that's why people hire people for expertise.
And that's why people go to journalists for expertise, to, like, tell me what's going on.
You now see a story like this, and you start explaining minimum wages and technology and, you know, corporate versus small business, and the average person's gonna go, look, look, man, look, I get it.
I don't have time for, you know, Economy 101, 102, 103, etc.
The economy's doing great, right?
Okay, great.
And then they go and vote for Trump.
If the economy's doing good, what can you say?
What can you say?
Because when I talk to people, that's what they tell me.
I don't know about nothing else.
I kid you not.
Someone recently told me this like a week ago.
I don't know about nothing else, but The economy's doing good, right?
And I'm like, it is, but... No, no, no, no, no, no but.
Look, I'm not gonna sit, you know, the gist of the conversation is, I don't have time.
I have a job.
I'm not gonna sit here and have an argument about whether or not who did what.
I think we should just let it ride for another four years because things are going well.
Why rock the boat?
Why fix what isn't broken?
And I'm like, I get it.
I totally get it.
For me, my reasons are different.
I think the Democrats have gone completely nuts.
But, you know, there's still a couple that I like.
You know, when I say the media, the left, the Democrats, I'm referring to, like, the dominant media sect.
You know what I mean?
So anyway, you know, there you go.
I think I'm quite good at beating dead horses and talking about stuff in perpetuity.
But, look.
Over the past few days, I've been talking about how we keep seeing the same thing on repeat, like the writers for the simulation have just gotten bored, and now they're like, I don't know, just like rewrite script 1 for script 100.
And it really does feel like that, doesn't it?
Can you believe that September 30th, 2019, here we go, another story about a business going under because of the wage hike.
And I'm gonna say it again.
And I'm gonna talk about my reasons, and there you go.
Welcome to the boring, regurgitated 2020.
But it is what it is.
I think one of the big issues is that The new thing I can present here is how many times have I said this, right?
And no one's gotten the message and it keeps happening.
Maybe that's the bigger takeaway.
That I've done like six videos about this and it just keeps on happening.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel and I will see you all then.
An Antifa-aligned individual.
I don't want to call him a protester, but I guess fine.
A protester aligned with Antifa.
That's what they say, who attacked a Trump supporter, has pleaded guilty to assault.
This has to do with Mike Cernovich's event that took place quite a while ago.
Was it last year, I think?
Now, this guy's gonna get 18 months in, my understanding is, prison.
They just had a slammer, and jail and prison are different things.
Prison is usually for terms longer than a year.
At least that's how it works in Illinois.
But here's a guy, he jumped a 50, I believe it was an older guy, 56 years old, is that how old he was?
56 year old man, knocking him to the ground, giving him a head injury, and he choked him out.
And the police arrested him.
What's fascinating about this story is, well, where was the press?
Like, I understand the New York Post is covering this, but think about what happened when the Proud Boys got into a fight with Antifa, and it was literally everywhere.
And they show up to those court cases, and there they are, well guess what?
You're not going to see this story about sentencing in any of the mainstream papers.
At the same time, they'll try and tell you, but Antifa opposes racism.
Yeah, nice try.
Let's read the story, and then I want to show you some stuff that I find quite humorous in regards to Antifa.
They say Antifa protester who attacked Trump supporter pleads guilty to assault.
An Antifa street thug can now look forward to continuing his fight from jail.
David Campbell, 32, copped a plea for his role in a 2018 beatdown outside the Night for Freedom party in Manhattan organized by right-wing activist Mike Cernovich.
Campbell pleaded guilty to two counts of felony assault and will be sentenced on October 23 to 18 months in the slammer, reps for Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr.
told The Post.
Campbell was arrested near the venue, a nightclub, at West 50th Street and 12th Avenue on January 20, 2018.
So, almost years ago.
After he punched and choked a 56-year-old man he had followed out of the event, police said, he was one of about 80 Antifa agitators protesting the gathering.
That's not protesting.
That's why I didn't want to call him a protester.
That's terror.
You tell someone, if you go to this party, I mean, he nearly killed this guy.
And I understand when it comes to plea agreements, the reason he's getting two counts of felony assault and not, say, like, attempted murder or something, or reckless endangerment, whatever the laws may be, is probably just because They were, you know, for the prosecutors, they say we'll give you a lower charge if you, you know, plead to it.
Now, I will, I will admit, there's a fine line, a fine, fine line between, um, well, I shouldn't say that, but I'll say it like this.
In a normal circumstance, you get into a street fight.
You punch someone and choke them.
I don't think you deserve to go to prison for a long, long time.
I think you deserve to go to jail.
There should be a penalty for you committing a crime and attacking another person and violating their autonomy.
This is particularly more nefarious, and this is what I'm concerned about.
They're treating it, in my opinion, as though this guy just happened upon another guy and hit him.
No, this was a political act meant to interfere in Political life.
Telling you, if you support the president and go to these parties, this is what you get.
They're trying to increase the cost.
So, what happens is, while we do treat all of these circumstances based on the individual, I think there needs to be some kind of political component to what we're seeing here.
And I guess the challenge is, he took a plea arrangement, so they gave him just felony assault, and fine, that's what it is.
But come on, man.
You know, it's a 56-year-old guy who was walking to the train, and he got jumped.
And my understanding is they almost, like, almost, they could have killed him, like, hit his head or something.
They say, quote, When the Proud Boys, a far-right fraternal organization, got into a street fight with Antifa members, it was a nationwide story.
The mayor and AG tweeted about the street fight.
When Antifa attacked a 56-year-old man, silence from the press, Cernovich told the Post.
Now that the criminal case is closed, I also will be taking legal action against Mr. Campbell and his confederates.
It is time to find out who is funding Antifa, he said.
Now here's the thing.
They're going to come back and say it was random.
I don't believe that was the case.
There is someone responsible.
They're just good at hiding their identity.
This is not a circumstance of an individual fighting back against a repressive government.
This is the circumstance about a bunch of people showing up and protesting other people.
See, this is the big problem.
When I look at Hong Kong, I see people committing acts that I disagree with and have criticized, but they're going up against the police and the Communist Party of China.
And while I will state, there's still things to criticize them for.
There's no reason to smash out the, what are they called, there's like glass at train stations where they line up.
It's not like a government building, it's just a train station, man.
That's something regular people use.
I can criticize them for that.
But then it becomes hard when they're fighting with cops and the cops are trying to impose Communist China's authoritarian rules.
In this particular instance, and again, I will stress, I will still criticize those who go around smashing up banks and windows and everything.
It's ineffective, but in this instance, you have a guy who showed up to a private event with private people and attacked a private citizen who has no power and did nothing.
That's terror.
That is the baddies.
That is on par.
This is what the authoritarians do.
They attack private individuals and they believe they're justified in it.
Well, now this guy's going to prison.
But to Cernovich's point, you know what I really love about this?
I love about this story.
When this guy was attacked, yeah, there was very little commotion from the press, if at all.
And it's funny, because when it comes to what Cernovich talks about, they know every tiny detail about his life.
They will pull up the most obscure quote from the most obscure live stream he's ever done, and they will know, and it is news.
But a dude in New York knocks a guy to the ground, chokes him out, punches him, and is getting 18 months?
And where is the mainstream press?
Why, all we really get is this.
I did a search for Antifa, New York Post, Washington Times, Washington Times, Campus Reform, Political Light, Snopes talking about Greta Thunberg, which is interesting, we'll get to that.
Daily Caller, Organ Live.
Props to Organ Live, because they've covered this stuff.
But is it at all surprising that when you search for this violence and the sentence, where is the mainstream press?
Here's what I'd like to point out.
Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy over at CNN love tweeting about the right-wing media machine.
Well, maybe there wouldn't be one if you would cover this.
A guy nearly died, or could have died.
Maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but this guy from Antifa attacked a private citizen at a private party because he's a lunatic.
And now he's going to prison for it.
And you all ranted and raved about the Proud Boys.
I mean, it was in the New York Times.
What about this?
New York Post.
Fine, I get it, but they're more conservative.
This is why there is the right-wing media machine.
Because the mainstream media is the mirror image.
It's the left-wing media machine.
And they like to go, there's no liberal media.
Oh please, don't even play.
Don't even play.
We get it.
The bigger companies, the big mainstream companies, the big venture capital, it's all left.
That's why they don't talk about this stuff.
And we know it, and I know it, because I worked there.
Now here's what I love.
You notice how you get to this thing where it says Snopes, Greta Thunberg?
Even Greta Thunberg has enough tact to denounce the fact that she was seen wearing this shirt.
She was seen in a photo wearing an Antifa All-Stars shirt.
She tweeted, That t-shirt can apparently, to some, be linked to a violent movement.
I don't support any form of violence and to avoid misunderstandings, I've deleted the post.
And of course, I am against fascism.
Absolute respect.
Bravo.
Wonderful statement.
I agree.
I know a lot of people want to say it's her parents' shirt.
I, too, am against fascism and I absolutely respect this statement.
She wore the t-shirt.
People got upset.
She said, I understand.
I understand.
I'll delete the post.
Much respect.
Antifa is It's a little horrifying, right?
Greta Thunberg has the tact to understand that what she did was troublesome, in a sense, to what she's trying to accomplish.
And that some people don't like what Antifa does.
And I absolutely respect that.
And again, I think you and I and everybody, we all agree fascism is bad.
Except for obviously the small fringe group of fascists who exist.
But yeah, for the most part, all of us, I completely agree.
And thank you for making this point that Antifa is very violent.
They have done these things.
We see it in the press.
And we can be against fascism while denouncing those who fly that flag.
And then, of course, we get the infamous Lacey McCauley.
The myth.
Antifa is as violent as the right wing.
I don't think I've ever said that.
I know we've heard some pretty hyperbolic statements, but that's... No, this is called propaganda.
The facts.
Right-wing extremists killed at least 50 Americans last year alone.
Hey, that's great.
Antifa has killed no one.
Yeah, that's great to point out that right-wing extremists have done that.
Sure, great.
Does it change the fact that Antifa beat up a 56-year-old guy?
Does it change the fact that a bunch of private citizens were protesting major corporations in D.C.
and Antifa came to protest the people?
It's nuts.
And you know, I gotta do it.
Here we go.
Because this is getting a ton of traction right now because Mitt Romney apparently is like talking about running against Trump.
Mitt Romney tweeted this August 2017.
Oh, I didn't realize that you could just claim to do something, do the opposite, and people like Mitt Romney will come out and defend you.
What I love about this tweet from Mitt Romney resurfacing is I will first point out News cycle context, cultural context, changes with time.
Today we have this story.
We know what Antifa has been doing.
This was a few months after Romney tweeted that.
So it's important to point that out.
Now, that being said, it's important to point out that Antifa earlier in 2017 was attacking people.
And I watched them attack old people.
So Mitt Romney made an insane statement.
Could you imagine if someone came out and praised ISIS and was like, I didn't know what ISIS was!
I obviously don't think Antifa is as bad as ISIS.
I'm making a point about ignorance is not an excuse for praising violent authoritarians who are deranged and beat people.
And even Greta Thunberg understands this.
I love it.
I love that she is aware of the nuance and the context in politics enough to denounce, you know, delete the post and say, I understand, I don't support this.
But even people like Mitt Romney don't even get it.
It's wonderful.
Now, interestingly, I mean, at the time of that post, I think Greta was, like, 14.
And at the time of the rise of Antifa violence, she was probably 13.
So, it's pretty astute.
See?
You see this?
I love that you can have someone who is... I'll put it this way.
Greta isn't the target of... Well, it's hard to say.
The left tries to use Greta as a shield when it comes to climate change, and the right mocks Greta for sure, but a lot of the higher-profile right-wing people are criticizing the left's use of Greta.
But the point is, outside of all of that, by all means disagree with her, think she's wrong, I've called her an ignorant child, and I don't mean that disrespectfully.
I mean it literally.
Like, she's a child who is ignorant of much of how the world works.
But even she has the tact to denounce and delete a post.
Mitt Romney, where you at?
I think we get it.
So I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging around us.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
That is a different channel.
And I will see you all there.
What an interesting storyline, Marianne Williamson.
She's been smeared as the crystal woo-woo lady.
Saturday Night Live has this depiction of her of, like, astral projecting in.
And it is this really weird depiction of her.
But I gotta admit, Marianne Williamson's Twitter is kinda funky.
Or it was.
She had a bunch of weird tweets about, you know, spiritual energy or whatever.
And so I think that's why people started making fun of her this way.
But this story is actually really fascinating.
What Marion is saying is, for one, the smears aren't coming from the right.
They're coming from the left.
And it seems like a deliberate strategy.
Now, I must admit, I have seen many left-wing political activist accounts attacking Marion Williamson.
Now, before, before the Crystal Woo Woo stuff started, they were saying that she was going to be a spoiler, that she shouldn't be in the race.
And then all of a sudden, the Crystal stuff started to emerge, where they insulted her and berated her.
I shouldn't say berated, but belittled her and mocked her.
And she said now several times, the left is lying and they're mean and they're trying to destroy her.
I'm being a little hyperbolic when I say trying to destroy her, but yeah, the smears.
And then all of a sudden these activist accounts I started watching started just mocking her.
And I think they learned an important lesson from Donald Trump.
See, here's the thing.
You want to get rid of someone like Marianne Williamson, who has never owned a crystal, never brought a crystal, and she's like, it's trying to tear her down.
You want to get rid of her.
You can't do it by insulting her.
Marianne Williamson, the way I've described her, is she's been a bit of a sweetheart on the stage.
And what I mean by that, she's very nice.
She tries to avoid the smear campaigns.
She's tried talking about love.
She really has tried bringing a positive approach.
Where they repeatedly try to get her to slam Trump and his family and other Democrats, and she's teetered close to that kind of message.
But it seems like she's at least hoping that there could be a counterattack on this negativity that's sweeping over politics.
And I have tremendous respect for that.
And I donated a small amount to her to help her get that threshold and get on the debate stage, because at least you'll have someone saying, stop the negativity, the insults, and things like that, in a sense.
Well, they learned from Trump.
You see, Trump was very effective.
He's a very, very effective showman.
And he knew, you label these people, you create that mentality, you create that word, and it will destroy them.
Lying Ted Cruz.
Well, Trump supporters have reclaimed that with lying, L-I-O-N.
You know, because now Trump is, I'm sorry, because Cruz is now, you know, saying, hey,
he's the president, he's going to stand by him.
But you had little Marco, you had low energy, you get the point.
Trump took this idea and forced it.
He gave that title to these people.
And it will destroy you.
The same as they're doing now with Marianne Williamson.
Whether it's on purpose or not, I'm not gonna act like anyone's trying to do it on purpose, but I think, or like the whole thing started on purpose, but people definitely are smearing her on purpose.
And the funny thing is, it's coming from the left.
Well, yeah, you know, when Trump was running for president, it was coming from him.
I mean, but he wasn't technically the right, because he wasn't really a Republican, you know?
Well, let's read the story and see what Marianne Williamson has to say from the Daily Wire.
They say Marianne Williamson slams left wing for portraying her as the crystal woo-woo lady.
Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson criticized members of her own party on Saturday for not taking her campaign seriously.
And unfairly casting her as an out-there spiritual leader.
This idea that I'm a crystal woo-woo lady.
The crystal woo-woo lady image.
What does that woo-woo mean?
I don't know.
To some extent, amusing, has no relation to reality.
William said during an interview with Yahoo News.
I've never had a crystal.
I've never written about crystals.
I've never talked about crystals.
I've never had a crystal on stage with me.
No, she's just very much more a new age, let the love flow through you kind of person.
And so they take that and they twist it now to the spiritual healer type of trope.
But it is, I tell you this, effective.
I can't remember who it was, but...
There was that Yeehaw politician or whatever, and some guy yelled Yeehaw or something, it destroyed his career, his political campaign was mocked endlessly over saying that, and then no one took him seriously anymore.
You know, people are going to hear Marianne Williamson, they're not going to know much, and they're going to go, oh, that weird hippie crystal lady?
Nah, nah, nah, what are you talking about?
And they're not going to entertain any of her ideas.
It is one of the most effective tactics to getting rid of somebody.
Making them out to be a character.
Now you've got corrupt Joe Biden.
I assure you.
Crooked Joe.
Trump's already called him crooked.
And that's going to be the line he plays.
And he's going to want you, in your head, to associate that emotion with the person.
And there it is.
So let's read more.
The Democratic hopeful launched a bid for the presidency in January 2019, despite having significantly lower name recognition than her primary opponents.
However, she began to gain national attention and amass a following of her own after appearing at the Democratic National Committee's first presidential debate.
As Williamson's campaign gained momentum, she faced increasing criticism over views that the media portrayed as anti-vaccine, which I believe is unfair.
I'll say this.
I have no problem saying this.
Everybody needs to get vaccinated.
Seriously.
Need and forced are two different things.
People talk about government-mandated vaccination.
That terrifies me.
Giving the government the authority to medicate you is, whoa, hold your horses there.
I think everybody should get vaccines.
I don't think, I could be wrong, that her stance was anti-vaccine.
I think her stance was similar.
The government shouldn't force you to get medicated.
That's weird.
Now, if you want to go to a public school, that I understand.
Yeah, you probably should have to get vaccinated if you want to go to a public school.
You want to mind your own business and be at home and do homeschooling and private school?
Hey, that's your private business, right?
It's redone.
They say she told Yahoo News that while she understands that scrutiny is commonplace for political candidates, something far more sinister was starting to happen, and the uniform attacks were part of a well-designed strategy.
Welcome to the club.
This is what we've seen.
You probably didn't watch my video because yesterday I got lower than normal views, but if you haven't, go watch my video about how they're coming after Bill Maher.
It is a remarkable article.
Okay, here's what they do.
They first, you know, Bill Maher is a long-standing liberal.
How do you get someone to believe he's not?
You call him a phony first.
You say, oh, he's a phony.
And that way someone might be like, how is he a phony?
And they'll listen to your argument.
They then entertain the possibility that he supports an appeal to racism in the alt-right.
And then after that shocks the reader saying, what?
That's absurd.
Bill Maher does not support that.
They end by saying, well, fine.
Call him whatever you want.
Just don't call him a liberal.
And that's how the game is played.
I'm not gonna say it's a well-designed, a well-designated strategy, because I don't know if it's on purpose.
There may be individuals doing it on purpose, like, you know, but not everybody, not all of the media.
I think it may just be that a trend was created, somebody, you know, made the attack vector, and it was funny and trend-worthy, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon.
But I gotta admit, This is very, very inconvenient, and sometimes these things happen, but I gotta say, with the PR firms that exist, they know how the game is played, I assure you.
Those were the words repeated in all of the articles, all of the stories, Williamson said.
They were meant to create suspicion in people's minds.
And now, after hearing this, I say...
Yeah, I've seen that.
Isn't it weird?
Now look, I'm not saying there's a conspiracy between all of these news organizations.
I think it's a social phenomenon.
I have been at the picnic bench in the back of the bars with these journalists as they all say the same words and then giggle like drones saying the same word.
One person will be like, heh, Marianne Williamson, anti-science.
And then everyone around the table goes, huh, anti-science, huh, anti-science.
And then they go and write articles saying the exact same things.
They're in email threads.
They're on Facebook.
They're in Facebook groups together.
One person will be like, haha, she's anti-science.
And then everyone will just giggle and laugh along.
It's not that one person, you know, went to the cabal of journalism and said, everyone,
unidentified
tomorrow's campaign is to call Marianne Williamson anti-science.
And so I can understand from her perspective, it seems coordinated.
But this is actually a really great example, I think, of a standalone complex.
I love that concept.
For those that aren't familiar, it's when a bunch of things randomly happen, a bunch of the same thing randomly happens, giving this impression of a coordinated effort.
In this instance, it looks like a coordinated effort.
That's what she's saying.
All the articles saying the same things, highlighting.
I think there's a much simpler solution to this.
Journalism is dead, man.
It is dead, dead, dead.
And what you have now are activists.
And you also have churnalists.
C-H-U-R-N.
Not jurn, churn.
They churn it out, right?
And what'll happen is, someone will write an op-ed saying, Marianne Williamson is an anti-vaccine, anti-science, dangerous crystal grifter.
And then some other random person who's getting paid 30 grand a year at some New York office is gonna be sitting there like this, like, what do I write about?
Oh, hey, crystal grifter.
And they're gonna be like, Marianne Williamson's a crystal grifter.
And then all of a sudden, crystal grifter appears everywhere.
And that's how it is.
I don't think it's on purpose.
But I do think it's fascinating how she's experiencing this phenomenon, and she's on the Democrat side.
They were meant to create doubt, lest anybody even think of taking me seriously as a candidate.
But I think at this point, just as the smear campaign cast doubt on my credibility, the fact that I've been out there, that people have heard me more themselves, people have seen my clips, enough has begun to cast doubt on the credibility of those who have projected onto me such mischaracterization.
Well, I'll tell you this.
Marianne, you're going to find a ton of support from centrists, you know, to the left, to
the right, moderates, conservatives, because we've all seen this phenomenon from the leftist
identitarian clickbait click media.
Okay, these people are friends with each other.
They're not coordinating on purpose, they just all share the same ideas and live in
a bubble.
So, what you're experiencing, tons of us have experienced.
You take a look at the right-wing rabbit hole lie about YouTube where they claim if you watch one channel you'll get swept up and go down the alt-right rabbit hole.
It's just not true.
It is not true.
They try and create these lies, but what happens is someone will write a fake report with fake connections, like a crime web conspiracy trash, and all these other outlets just repeat the same thing.
They don't fact check.
They don't care.
They're not journalists.
That's the issue.
People need to get thick skin.
Here's the way I put it.
When you play the guitar for the first time, man, your fingers blister up and you bleed.
But eventually, you get calluses.
And you can play the guitar all day and night, and you're less likely to bleed.
You still might.
But yeah, your fingers might bleed.
There's like famous videos where a guy's playing and blood starts coming out of his fingers because even with calluses, It can hurt.
The point is, we are basically the fingers, and we need to grow calluses to protect ourselves from the callous and churnalist press.
But yeah.
They say Williamson, a four-time best-selling author, further contended that the attempts to mock her candidacy and discredit her campaign have been perpetuated by left-wing voices.
She says they're not coming from Republicans.
It's not the first time she's expressed this frustration, saying, I'll tell you this.
If anything, this line of talk is going to be completely relatable to conservatives.
Moderates, too.
But I assure you, the Trump base is going to be like, oh, right on, sister.
And you're going to find a lot of people on the right donating.
Now, here's what I will say.
The right has criticized her.
They've said to donate to her because she's crazy.
And they've also criticized her over her ideas.
She's very pro-reparation.
I think it's awful.
I think it's a terrible, terrible idea that further divides us.
You know, hey, that's just me.
I'm not a politician, so don't take my word for it.
You believe whatever you want to believe.
But I'll tell you this, Marion.
You're about 95% right about what's going on.
It's not well-designated.
It's not on purpose.
But the phenomenon exists, and it is from the left.
So, surprise.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
There's something really fascinating about the phenomenon that is Kanye West and his Republican push.
There's been a bit of back and forth.
You know, he's a big Trump supporter, and still is, but at one point he was like, I'm done with politics, but then came back out saying, no, I'm gonna do what I want.
And he's pushed back on the media often.
Kanye, let me say this, man.
Much respect for you being you, doing what you want to do, saying what you want to say.
Don't let anybody tell you what you can or can't think.
And that's the message you already said, so you don't gotta take my word for it.
I'm just... I'm just saying respect to Kanye West for refusing to back down.
Because you could see early on, they really didn't want him to do this.
They wanted him to stop.
But you know what, man?
In the end, here's the way I see it, you can take everything from me but my convictions.
You can take away my car, you can take my guitar, you can take my skateboard, but in the end, you cannot take my spirit, what I believe in and what I hold true.
And that That is why I have a lot of respect for Kanye West.
Now, I will admit, I think Kanye's a bit of a quirky, kooky, celebrity-type character.
And I don't mean that disrespectfully, I mean he's a very, like, eccentric dude.
You know, love him or hate him.
But here's the story.
Recently, The Salt Lake Tribune says Kanye West brings songs, sermon, prayer, and a crowd of thousands to Salt Lake City's Gateway for Sunday Service.
And this is a really interesting thing that I want to highlight that I think brings Kanye to this position with Trump.
And it has to do with religion.
It's interesting to me.
That there are a lot of people who are not white, who are very religious, yet many of them still support the Democratic Party.
I find it very interesting, especially today, when, boy, do they rag on Christians harder than they've ever done.
Now, I grew up in an era where we definitely were at odds with Christians.
Like, the more orthodox, staunch, like, moral-policing-type religious folk.
I don't really see a whole lot of it so much anymore.
They exist, the evangelicals.
But what I'm seeing now from a lot of the Christian right, or not even the Christian, but the religious right, people like Ben Shapiro, is a really toned-down approach to where things used to be.
It's a much more libertarian approach.
You know, Ben Shapiro being Jewish, but he says that his beliefs are for him, and he tries to justify them based off of his readings of the Torah and all that, but he's going to recognize that other people will live other ways.
And I'm like, I got no problem with that.
I got literally no problem with it.
It was very different back in the day when I was growing up, and it was like the moral police were very religious, saying, no, we must, we must, we must.
So now I think there's something interesting here, that you would expect to see a lot of these people—I believe Candace Owens is also very religious as well—you'd expect them to reject the party that is trying to be much more in line with religion in a still kind of more less authoritarian, fundamentalist way.
Now we're seeing, you know, if any—like, here's what's really fascinating, okay?
Let me put it this way.
Let's just jump to the story, because I'm going to rant on this.
Kanye West defends supporting Trump.
It's mental slavery to make decisions based on race.
And this is at that event.
That's why I highlight this.
And I point out, it's a very religious thing.
But here's the thing.
He's calling it mental slavery to make decisions based on race, but at a big religious ceremony?
You'd think the left, people like me maybe, would be like, oh please, but you're all religious.
But here's the thing, man.
You know, I grew up, and when I was, the first six years of school, from kindergarten to the end of fifth grade, I went to a Catholic school, and then I went to public school, and I'm not a big theistic religious person.
Now, personally, I would love to have a conversation about religion, because I simplify things by saying I do believe in God, But I don't believe in a theistic God, right?
It's more of an Einsteinian God.
And I think you'd find a lot of agnostic types might understand what I'm trying to say that, you know, I don't think any one religion hits the nail on the head with a hammer, but I think there's... I think there's more.
There's more, right?
So I wouldn't call it spirituality.
I do believe in some kind of higher power, but it's not a person.
I don't envision a human when I do this.
Anyway, the point is, when I grew up, we had the moralistic ideologues telling you what you could or couldn't do.
Here's what had to be.
You gotta put a warning on this.
You can't watch this.
Oh, won't someone think of the children?
Today it's not the religious right who's doing that.
The religious right is opening chicken restaurants.
I get it.
There's still some of that in some communities about what should or shouldn't be and what's amoral and what's impure.
But you'll find a lot of people like Ben Shapiro pulling back the reins a little bit and saying, okay, well, you know, you can believe what you want, and then talking about social structures.
So it's less of a moralistic demand and more of a, this is for the betterment, but.
Who's become moralistic and moralistic ideologues?
It's the left!
And this is the weirdest thing.
Look, at the end of the day, I don't care what you believe in.
I don't care which book, which practice you do, so long as you're not infringing on the rights of others.
I think there's a lot of things we'll disagree on.
We'll probably agree on some things, like I mentioned.
You know, I'm not one of these staunch atheist types who says there's literally no God.
I think that's, in my opinion, in the things I've learned throughout my life, I think that's silly.
I believe it's...
I'd love to have a much longer discussion about religion, but I don't think I can concisely express my beliefs in this video talking about these issues.
But, you know, in talking about Kanye West and his support of Trump, the point I'm trying to make is, the left has become moralistic dogmatic.
They tell you what you can or can't believe.
And this is Kanye West pushing back on this.
And what's fascinating to me is somebody who's not theistic.
I am no Christian, no Bible, none of that.
I see a guy, and I understand what he's saying, but it's at a religious thing, right?
It's at a sermon, he's talking about, you know, Jesus and religion, but I agree!
And that's what's fascinating.
I agree because he's saying, here's what I believe, and here's what I want to think, and here's what, you know, and we've come together to believe this, and I'm like, yeah man, more power to you.
If you want to go and have a rally to talk about reparations and social justice, yeah, more power to you.
When you show up on Twitter and threaten someone's life and livelihood and cause them physical harm, when Antifa shows up with crowbars, I'm like, you guys are fundamentalist lunatics.
If Kanye's saying, hey man, let me believe what I want, I'm like, you betcha, buddy, absolutely.
But he's talking about how it's mental slavery.
They tell you you have to vote for somebody because of your race.
And I'm like, that is dogmatic, That is exactly what I opposed when I was growing up.
And I saw all of these arguments about, you know, religion and what's true and what's right and you gotta have faith.
It's crazy how the script is flipped, and the authoritarian dogma is coming from the weird identitarian left.
That's what I'm seeing here, right?
I hope I've made that very clear.
You know, seeing this story about Kanye West, he says, quote,
That's the Republican Party that freed the slaves, West said on Saturday,
during a Sunday service session in Salt Lake City, pointing to the fact that former Republican President
Abraham Lincoln was in office — was in office when slavery in the United States was
You mean the guy who signed the Emancipation Proclamation?
Come on, give him some credit.
He continued by saying people criticize him because he chose his right.
That's crazy to me!
That's crazy!
That, you know, I pulled this article and I'm like, oh, Kanye West defending supporting Trump, and I'm like, yeah, what else is new, right?
And then I think about the fact that him, and again, I believe Candace Owens as much too, is also religious, and I'm like, what?
Wait, what happens?
Like, how do I find myself saying, looking at these people saying, let me believe what I want, you can't tell me what to do, I'm gonna choose to believe in what I want, and I'm like, I agree with that.
And it's like...
How did that happen?
Let me ask you guys this, because I'm truly confused.
Where did that happen?
What time?
When did this flip occur, where all of a sudden, it was like, coming into 2013, now movies gotta be diverse, and the next segment I'm gonna do is about Birds of Prey and the Joker movie, and apparently it's a big feminist film, great, just like Captain Marvel.
What happened?
You know what's really scary to me?
Is that when I was growing up and we had this moralistic religious right, they didn't really make a lot of cultural stuff.
You know, the shows I would watch that were like religious were very obviously like religious context.
It wasn't like The Simpsons.
The Simpsons was like secular, you know, secular humanitarian or whatever the joke is.
And today, what's scary is that now that the left has become moralistic, fundamentalist, dogma-religious types, they do have the reins on the culture stuff on the colleges.
Check this out.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 people attended West's event.
West previously spoke about the concept of mental slavery during a controversial TMZ live interview last year.
At the time, he suggested that slavery was a choice.
He said, when you hear about slavery for 400 years, for 400 years that sounds like a choice.
He said, like you was there 400 years and it's all of y'all?
No, no, no, hold on.
He says, it's like we're mentally in prison.
Now, I think he flubbed that one for sure.
But, you know, I'm always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, to an extent, right?
So, when Kanye West said this and he got attacked for it like crazy, I say, okay, man, I recognize.
I think he poorly articulated what he was thinking at the time.
And look, you criticize him for it.
It's fair.
I absolutely will say that I disagree.
But you know what?
I gotta back up and say, look, man, I honestly don't know.
You know, I'm not a member of the black community.
I'm not gonna speak on behalf of any of them, especially when Kanye and Candace Owens both come out and say something.
And then I get the left telling me, you've gotta step back and listen to what they have to say, and I'm like, I did.
I heard Candace the whole time, and she said, you're nuts.
So it's like, Tell me what I'm supposed to do.
I don't agree with Kanye and Candace on a lot of political issues, but I respect their right to their opinion, and I am definitely listening to what they have to say.
And I can understand a lot of what they say.
Like, Candace, I think, is actually spot on on a lot of the cultural issues she talks about.
You know, family separation, fatherlessness.
I agree.
Education.
I think these are issues that affect everybody, regardless of your race, and I think, you know, she makes good points about that.
So anyway, I don't know, I do try to keep these short, but I think I made my point, right?
It's weird for me to see this big religious event, and me not being a religious person, and agreeing with his right to think what he wants, to be left alone, to not be bullied and berated over his choice for president.
He said, I ain't never made a decision only based on my color, that's a form of slavery, mental slavery.
That's what's fascinating to me.
The religion of intersectionality would dictate Kanye would have to do something.
And my stance is like, look man, we're a country of rebels.
Don't you tell me.
I'll figure it out.
So when Kanye steps up and says, I'm going to figure it out for myself, I say, right on, bro.
Absolutely!
You figure it out.
You know what's right for you.
It always comes down to the individual, and that's what I think it's all about.
If you're an individual and say, I'm going to sort this out for myself, I'm like, good.
Can we empower the individuals, make them better people, make them, you know, self-sufficient?
That's what I'm talking about.
So it's really weird to see all this happening, I gotta admit.
But stick around, let's jump over to the next segment, where I'm going to talk about the new Birds of Prey film being a big fat feminist film, they say, and the results of the Joker box office smash.
Stick around, next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Guess which movie I'm not gonna go see?
Birds of Prey.
Ewan McGregor, Birds of Prey is a feminist film that explores misogyny.
I have no interest in seeing a movie about that.
Look, I'm no fan of misogyny.
I am all for equality.
I am a fan of the older school feminists who truly believe in opening up opportunity for women and men alike, and being fair and honest, and allowing individuals to choose what will make them the most happy.
Happy.
Sorry, excuse me.
I burped at the same time I said that.
But now we have this, you know, coming off of that last, I just did a segment, if you didn't see it, about Kanye West and religion.
We're in this really weird world of preachy, convert-y, religious, identitarianism on the left.
And so I see this, and this to me, the statement, is like, You know, when I was growing up, and I would see, um, uh, who's that?
Kirk Cameron, right?
And he talked about how the banana is proof that God exists, and it's silly.
And let me just say, he says it, like, fits in your hand, it's ergonomic, it's got its own wrapper, you can open up it, in it is this delicious fruit, and he says evolution can do that.
And then he also had this, it was some other guy, I like calling him The Fruit, but he had, like, a picture of, like, a duck body with an alligator head, and he said, if evolution was real, where's the macro-evolution?
Where's these animals?
My response to that is, bananas were artificially selected.
If you've ever seen a wild banana, they're inedible and full of seeds.
And we bred them over time to become this perfect thing we want.
And the other point he made about the alligator duck thing, the duck-billed platypus exists, so I guess, I don't know if that's a good argument, but it's a weird thing that secretes milk.
Weird creatures exist.
Anyway, the point is not to rag on Kirk Cameron.
He seems like actually a really, really nice guy, and that's fine.
He can believe whatever he wants.
I think he's wrong.
That's cool, though.
You know, back in the day, we used to just make fun of each other.
Now you can't make fun of anybody.
Now it's like you get a comedian to make a joke, and it's like taboo, and they'll destroy your life.
And it's not the right doing it.
The reason I bring that up is when I see this from Ewan McGregor, Birds of Prey is a feminist film exploring misogyny, I don't see a cogent political point.
I see someone talking about a film that explores their religion.
Now, I never saw The Passion of the Christ.
I have no problem if somebody wanted to go see that because it speaks to them and what they believe in.
But to me, as someone who is a staunch individualist, I look at this and I'm like, I'm not going to go see that.
I'll tell you why it's a problem.
You make a movie called The Passion of the Christ.
It's very clearly for the people who are interested in seeing this, and even non-religious people want to go see it.
And I heard it got a lot of praise.
It was mocked by South Park and other places, and that's the point.
We used to make fun of each other.
But anyway, I digress.
If you want to make a movie specifically about your religion, Yeah, man, yeah, absolutely.
Like, cool, man.
Do it to it.
I think that's a great thing.
I hope you guys do a good job.
And there's a lot of movies that are, like, made by conservatives.
They've been getting a little better.
Some of them are a little silly.
But, yeah, man, do your thing.
I got no beef.
Make stuff that makes you feel good.
And the same is true for you, Ian McGregor.
If you want to do a feminist film exploring misogyny, like, yeah, spot on, brother.
I'm right there with you.
I hope you enjoy.
It's not for me, but it's cool, though.
The problem is, Birds of Prey is a DC Comics film.
I like Harley Quinn, okay?
I like Black Canary.
No, could you imagine if somebody made Superman, but instead of Superman, it was preaching about the gospel?
I'd be like, dude, I get it, man.
If you're religious and you want to preach the gospel, like, more power to you, but Superman is not that.
Superman is meant to be something different.
If you want to make Birds of Prey, I don't want to see a feminist film exploring misogyny, Ewan McGregor.
If I was going to watch an intersectional exploration, I would make a new hero called, you know, Misogyny Woman.
Anti... whatever.
You get the point.
We can make movies, there are characters, and you can explore these ideas, but it feels to me now that when they do this, they're injecting their weird religious fundamentalism into content that shouldn't be having it.
The same is true for movies.
That's the big problem I see with video games and comics and all these controversies that swarm around it.
I grew up watching anime, man.
I like seeing a dude, you know, fire an energy blast out of his finger.
To me, anime and comics are very, very similar.
Just different parts of the world.
But they're very similar.
People with superpowers fighting evil and doing all this stuff.
And they follow the hero's journey.
And it's fun.
It's a fun thing.
And there's sometimes interesting twists.
But I gotta admit, a lot of anime really does follow very similar tropes.
I'm not gonna call anybody out, but there's a, you know, whatever, whatever, you get the point.
Very much so, shooting energy blasts and fighting and using desperation to become more powerful is a very common thing.
So if you want to make a, you know, like, feminist critique, specifically, like, then make one.
Don't take a, a, a, like, you know, already existing characters and morph them to fit your religion.
Could you imagine, like, so you know how they do, like, gender and race swaps for films?
Could you imagine if they made a movie that, like, turned a character into a biblical figure?
You know, you see the point I'm trying to make?
Like, how about we respect the idea?
I'll tell you this.
Make a new superhero.
Seriously, what if they made a new movie with a new superhero, and instead of just, like, race swapping or fighting misogyny, they just made a good character?
You know what I'll tell you?
Miles Morales and Into the Spider-Verse is a good compromise where they made a new Spider-Man, It's not a movie about race relations.
It's a movie about Spider-Man and multiple universes.
already exists, but in Into the Spider-Verse, Miles Morales, you've heard me say it before
if you've seen my cultural videos, they don't beat you over the head.
It's not a movie about race relations.
It's a movie about Spider-Man and multiple universes, and it's awesome.
So when Ewan McGregor comes out and says Birds of Prey, for those of you unfamiliar, it's
Harley Quinn, Black Canary, et cetera, is going to be a feminist exploration, I'm just
not interested in that, you know what I mean?
And I'm bummed because I'd like to see a Harley Quinn movie.
Instead, what interested me with Birds of Prey is that it's a feminist film.
It is very finely written.
There is, in the script, a real look on misogyny, he said, and I think we need that.
We need to be more aware of how we behave with the opposite sex.
We need to be taught to change.
Now let me just make something clear.
I'm not trying to equate, in a sense, the values of intersectional feminism and religion.
I'm just saying, to me, as somebody who doesn't, you know, follow any of these things, like, to me, it's like a foreign invader in a cultural symbol.
And you know what?
Feel free to agree or disagree, but that's just the way it is.
Let me change.
It says, what interested me with Birds of Prey is that it's a very Christian film.
It's very finely written.
There is, in the script, a real look at You know what I mean?
It's like, how do you think the left would feel if that's what was portrayed?
Now here's the thing.
I think the right is probably lucky in a sense that they're not creating too much cultural
content in a sense that they may fall into similar traps.
But for the time being, if I'm going to see some weird moralistic authoritarianism, and it's not, you know, look, the remnants of the more authoritarian religious from the 90s, it's not really there anymore.
It's not.
And now what we have is a more libertarian approach, like I mentioned in the last segment, but now the authoritarianism coming from the left, and they're putting it in film.
So I want to make sure I do this, because you get my point.
I'm not going to see this because of this.
Like, dude, you tell me you're putting your religion in a movie, and I'll pass.
Like, I didn't see The Passion of the Christ either.
I got no beef if you want to make that, though.
That's cool.
I'm just kind of bummed you're taking away Birds of Prey for me.
Because check this out.
Joker tops Friday with record 40 million opening day.
This movie, slam dunk.
It is a drama, it is light on the action, but it is powerful.
Powerful.
If you did not see it, I really do recommend it.
Don't expect one of these action-packed superhero films.
That is not this.
This is like... It's a character-driven drama.
It's drama and it is anguish.
And it is.
The ending, man, was such a hammer drop.
It was amazing.
Well, they're angry.
They're angry at the Joker.
You know what the worst thing that happened at the Joker screenings was?
They started talking about all this stuff where, like, someone's gonna show up with the gun.
The worst thing was a guy in New York spat on people and got thrown out.
And it's like, dude, what's funny?
That's not even news.
People in New York spit on people and get thrown out of bars all the time.
But the best you could come up with is that one guy at one theater spat on people and got thrown out?
Aw, come on, dude.
I don't even know why you're reporting that.
They're reporting it because they were desperate to make this movie flop.
They wanted people to not show up.
They slammed it, they smeared it, and it didn't work.
And I'll tell you what.
They said this movie was an in-saw movie?
Oh, that encouraged me to go see it more.
And it turns out, without giving too much spoil- uh, without getting- I'm not gonna get into spoilers, I guess.
It's still opening weekend.
It's, it's, it's, it's just absolutely incorrect.
They said it was an in-saw movie.
Not one bit.
Not one bit.
So they try smearing the movie saying it's a bunch of incels and I'm like, oh please dude, I do not believe you.
And when they come out and they slam Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais and Joker movie, that just makes me assume it's gonna be good.
So that's a thing.
When you get someone coming out saying it's a feminist film exploring misogyny, I'm just like, count me out.
Because there seems to be an inverse relation to the quality of a film and the level of politics injected into it.
Now, I must admit, there are political tones to The Joker.
100%.
And they're fairly left-wing.
But you know what the thing is?
The film isn't about that.
Joker is not political.
Joker is a nihilist.
And so these things happen around him that he doesn't care about.
And I think that's really, really interesting.
I thought it was great.
You want to put political themes in your movie, you can do it.
You can do it.
But you do it like Into the Spider-Verse.
You had your diverse cast.
You had a female Spider-Man, you had an Afro-Cuban Spider-Man, you had a white Spider-Man.
We're great!
You had a pig, Spider-Man!
Actually, and I love his story, Spider-Pig.
He was a spider bit by a radioactive pig.
That's hilarious.
But that's how you do it, man.
It wasn't a movie about your religion.
It just contained those elements.
So you can actually see the values of Christianity and Judaism and other religions in these films so long as it's not like literally Jesus flying around saving lives.
You get the point?
So anyway, I don't know.
You know, I don't mean to offend with a lot of these segments, but my feelings are the way they are.
So if you got offended, well, you know, I don't know.
Give me a thumbs down.
But it is what it is.
I appreciate you all sticking around and hearing my rant on these issues.
And you should probably go see Joker.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast at 6.30 p.m.
