Chick Fil A Bends The Knee To The Leftist Outrage Mob, The Right Faces MASSIVE Cultural Disadvantage
Chick Fil A Bends The Knee To The Leftist Outrage Mob, The Right Faces MASSIVE Cultural Disadvantage. Chick Fil A has announced, following waves of protests and even a store being shut down, that they will no longer donate to Christian charities.While they say this is the result of completing a multi year obligation many see this as a victory for far left outrage mobs who targeted the chicken shop over its peripheral relationship to christian charities.Social justice groups targeting a fast food chain seemed to many to be ridiculous. Why not protest the actual charities? But in the end they seem to have taken victory.This shows a major disadvantage for conservatives and the right. Bill Barr, as well as many others, point out how progressives view their politics like a religion. But if Christian conservatives won't defend even their own religion in the face of leftist outrage how can they win?One way is by electing Donald Trump but will it be enough?Perhaps the far left and the ultra woke cancel culture outrage will push moderates and true liberals away providing conservatives with a victory by attrition.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Chick-fil-A has finally bent the knee to the left-wing outrage mob.
Just weeks after the first UK-based location shut down due to protests, and weeks before that, when the first Canadian store faced mass protest, Chick-fil-A has announced they're dropping donations to Christian charities after LGBT plus protests.
The Chick-fil-A Foundation will no longer donate to the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
And they have donated millions to those organizations.
Of all of the companies, or groups, or whatever, that I thought would never bend the knee, Chick-fil-A.
They did.
And this highlights a very serious problem for conservatives in this country.
The left uses tactics they are unwilling to use, and thus even conservative institutions will bend the knee.
Let me make something clear.
The left views their ideology religiously.
It is their religion.
You have people like Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay being, I believe, professors or associate professors, whatever you want to call them, calling it a non-theistic religion, whereas conservatives separate their politics from their religion.
But I'll tell you what, conservatives, you've got a big problem if you won't even defend your religious values outside of the company you're running.
If the left is willing to put everything, their ideology and politics behind everything, and even go out and protest non-stop, and you won't, you're going to keep losing these fights.
Bill Barr made this statement recently, and we'll get into this.
He talks about the disadvantage conservatives have.
But I will make one other point.
Before we get into this, I don't want to say that Republicans are just losers who can't win a single fight.
No, they won probably one of the most important fights of this generation.
The election of Donald Trump.
And I think there are a lot of losers on the Republican side, and they've bowed out.
They don't want to be involved anymore.
But there are new people emerging who are pushing back.
Think about these protests, the outrage, the anger, that seems to make very little sense.
You know, they're a chicken shop, don't eat there, don't support them.
But they got it shut down anyway, they got a store shut down, and now Chick-fil-A is giving up.
Think about the attitude of Donald Trump.
He was boorish, oafish, aggressive, but maybe that's exactly what Trump supporters wanted, because that's exactly what this is.
Now I'll say this.
I want to get into a bunch of examples and talk about the shift affecting conservatives, this ongoing fight, and how there they are.
There is a battle.
It's give and take a little bit.
But it seems like the attitude that Donald Trump has that I've criticized is the exact same attitude from the left that I'm very critical of as well.
The difference being Republicans, conservatives, moderates, the people who voted for Trump elected someone to speak for them.
Whereas the left has organizations that go out in mass protest and shut things down.
But let's get into this.
And before we get started, I will say a couple things.
I think the Republicans on the right have a major disadvantage unless they do something and make some changes because Trump is under fire nonstop over the impeachment inquiry.
They're doing everything in their power to shut them down.
And we can see they're more aggressive.
The Republicans are going to need more than just Donald Trump.
But let's read the story.
Before we do, the other thing I'll say is, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do, share this video!
If you think what I'm saying matters, or that my opinions make sense, or even if you disagree and want to make fun of me, share the video.
fast food chain Chick-fil-A said on Monday it had stopped funding two Christian organizations, including the Salvation Army, having come under fire in recent weeks from LGBT-plus campaigners.
The fast food chain's charitable arm, Chick-fil-A Foundation, has donated millions of dollars to the Salvation Army and to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which opposes same-sex marriage.
Chick-fil-A on Monday said it no longer funded the organizations.
We made multi-year commitments to both organizations, and we fulfilled those obligations in 2018.
A spokesman for Chick-fil-A told the Thomson Reuters Foundation, adding the company would focus its giving on education, homelessness, and hunger.
Neither the Salvation Army nor the Fellowship of Christian Athletes were available to comment immediately.
Now, I'm sure some will say it has nothing to do with the protests, they just fulfilled their donations, but no, I think it's fair to say it had something, at least, to do with the protests.
And whether it did or didn't, I think there's a more important point to be made.
Take a look at what's going on.
At the same time as this, you have Chick-fil-A being told to stop making those donations because of outrage.
Meanwhile, Sprite publishes a pro-LGBT commercial.
There is right-wing outrage, as you can see.
But what happens?
Nothing.
Sprite carries on as if nothing happened.
The right didn't go out and mass protest, didn't film a bunch of, you know, destruction of Sprite cans, and even when they did it over Nike, I believe it was Nike gear and Colin Kaepernick, it resulted in nothing.
Now, I can't tell you exactly why that is, but I can say you've got a major cultural disadvantage, and it could be because of media institutions.
In turn, however, it's not all bad for the right.
But before we move on, I do want to highlight an important point.
The election of Donald Trump was that counter-offensive.
For the longest time, we've seen the growing culture war between video games, comics, movies, the injection of politics.
People said they would have Donald Trump be their point man.
Instead of going out themselves and waving signs, some do, they had Donald Trump be that aggressive personality to push back.
And in turn, Planned Parenthood withdrew from the Title 10 program over Trump abortion rule.
So there has been some victory from the right, but it's very different.
In the end, though, With Trump facing impeachment and with the left continuing their ongoing campaigns and protests and, in many instances, duplicitous tactics, I think you have a major disadvantage for the right.
And you know what?
It's not just my opinion.
Let's throw it to A.G.
Bill Barr.
He explains why conservatives are at a fundamental disadvantage to leftists.
The Daily Wire says Attorney General William Barr highlighted on Friday during the Federalist Society's 2019 National Lawyers' Convention in D.C.
the reason why conservatives are at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to fighting the political left.
This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day.
It was adverted to by the old curmudgeonly Federalist Fisher Ames in an essay during the early years of the Republic, Barr said.
In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion.
Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image.
According to an abstract ideal of perfection, whatever means they use are therefore justified, because by definition they are virtuous people pursuing a deific end.
They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications.
They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.
Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise.
We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing, Barr continued.
This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a rule-of-law standard.
The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run is if the action we are taking Or principle we are applying in a given circumstance was universalized.
That is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?
They say in a section of his prepared remarks, which he skipped over, Barr added, For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel at the end justify the means.
And this is as it should be.
But there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressives wholly far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.
And Bill Barr basically just explained everything I'm going to dive into and what I was talking about.
The left does not separate their politics from their religion.
It's one and the same.
Conservatives do.
To the extent that Chick-fil-A would abandon supporting charities that held their religious values because they do separate them, because they see the difference between the political and the religious.
And I can respect that to a degree, but I can also point out it's going to result in their potential downfall.
Now, for one thing, This is a culture war.
It's a back and forth.
Like I mentioned, Trump has some victories.
The right has their victory in electing Trump and taking their action through government.
But the left continues doing what it's going to do.
In the end, the big problem you have is that regular people do not want to engage.
If conservatives are standing there with a smile on their face and a beer in their hand, yeah, it's easy for a regular person to say, not interested, buddy.
But what about when someone shows up screeching in your face and attacking you?
Well, you're probably going to bend the knee.
The way I explain it is, you know, why is social media biased against conservatives?
It's actually really, really simple.
Some might allege there's a grand conspiracy, or that the people at the top know they're politically biased and are trying to help certain people win, and that may be true to an extent.
Like, there are people at Google and Twitter, we know they're biased.
But it's actually really simple.
Will, say, Sargon of Akkad.
I love using him as an example.
He's the liberalist, the classical liberal YouTuber anti-feminist.
Is he ever going to lead a group of liberalists to Twitter HQ with crowbars and baseball bats, demanding the end of censorship?
Of course not.
Of course not.
And Twitter knows this.
So they don't care.
They have nothing to lose.
They have no risk by saying, go away.
What about Antifa?
Antifa absolutely would show up and cause damage, and they have in the past.
And that's why universities, and that's why these platforms, they play the game exactly like they do, because they're scared of the moral outrage mob.
Let me show you an example of how this manifests.
We have a recent story.
Leftists taunt conservative students.
This is from Campus Reform.
They say two conservative students from Binghamton University in New York faced a crowd of protesters Wednesday as they tried to promote their club.
One student told Campus Reform that she's willing to press charges.
A New York State Assemblyman has sent a letter to the school's president.
It doesn't matter, though.
The school can't do anything about it.
These outrage mobs just form.
Look at this woman's face.
Look at this picture.
This is a viral video where this woman was screeching at another young woman.
And I can tell you that these people have no idea what's going on.
That's what's truly scary about the leftist outrage mob.
You could sit down and have a conversation with these conservatives who are flyering, just a couple people with some flyers, and they will tell you what they believe and you can argue.
But we saw it in Berkeley.
One of these guys doing this got punched in the face.
And now we can see it here at the university.
This is cultish behavior.
A group of people emerge, they don't care what's going on, they care about the tribe.
And if the tribe says so, they do it.
What do you think's gonna happen?
Do you think this school is gonna do right by these students?
No.
They're not going to do anything because they know that the conservatives will never do anything in return.
What's the worst case scenario?
In 2020, conservatives might go vote.
Donald Trump might win again.
Well, they already expect it's going to happen.
And what is Trump going to do to a university?
Trump's tweeted about it, but he can only do so much.
So while there are victories on the right in voting, they will lose culturally because they don't engage in producing content and they don't go out and protest.
And I got to admit, For the most part, while there are certainly crazies on the right, and a lot of them, there's just way more aggressive, active, angry leftists who show up and make that face to you and threaten you and potentially break the law.
Now, this woman is highlighted specifically in the story because she was really, really aggressive and screaming in people's faces, but you know for a fact they have no idea what's going on.
How can the right go up against that and win?
The sad reality is I think in the long run they can't.
And that's why we see so much of culture bend the knee to the left.
I'll tell you this, man.
Even Chick-fil-A.
Wow.
I'm surprised by that.
Now, I will also mention, every time I do a video where I mention Chick-fil-A, it makes me really want to go.
It's good food, man.
And I guess now there's no controversy in me saying I'm going to go enjoy a nice chicken sandwich with some Chick-fil-A sauce on it, because they've given in.
They've bent the knee to the left.
Who does the right have?
If they can't even stand up.
Now there are some, this is the big point I want to get to, there are new people entering the Republican Party on the side of Trump or just not really but still supporting that side of the political debate for a variety of reasons.
For one, I'm gonna say it.
I'm gonna be as offensive as possible.
While I think the Democrats today are the cringiest group of lunatics, I think the older Republicans before, you know, this change in the party, they're losers.
They're losers.
I know they had their victories.
I know there's been back and forth.
But man, so many of these people have bowed out, running with their tail between their legs, terrified.
And now that the culture war is ramping up, we're seeing new voices emerge and people who are refusing to back down.
We're seeing a group of liberal-minded individuals engaging with conservatives and pushing back.
And this is getting, you know, kind of crazy.
Let me give you one more example before I get into one of the possible best things the conservatives... There's something happening that may actually save the conservatives.
But before we do that, let me show you something.
Check this out.
From GQ.
This is in August.
Tucker Carlson's show has bled 70 advertisers in less than a year.
From August 20th.
Tucker Carlson's not that offensive.
He's not particularly more offensive than other people on TV.
He's a little bombastic, but he's nowhere near that bad.
He's not the worst person on Fox News, so why did he lose 70 advertisers?
Because the left uses any means necessary to win.
Scorched earth.
No holds barred.
Whatever they can do to win.
And like I said, these advertisers don't care if conservatives grumble on the internet.
They're gonna do nothing.
The left is scary.
They get violent.
But take a look at this.
What about Rachel Maddow?
Here's a story from Crystal Ball back in July.
Former MSNBC host tears into network following Mueller testimony, saying that some people drank a little bit too much of that Robert Mueller Kool-Aid.
I don't know if that's an offensive way to describe it, but you get the point.
Rachel Maddow went off the rails with conspiracy insanity and faced no repercussions for this.
She continues to this day.
Not a problem.
Nothing.
You know what?
I can't tell you how or what Republicans should or shouldn't be doing.
I have no idea, but I can tell you this.
Just electing Donald Trump will not solve any of these cultural problems.
We've seen stuff from, say, Jack Posobiec.
He's making a comic book, and one of the things he's brought up is that conservatives don't engage in creating culture.
Well, I'll add to that.
They don't do journalism either.
I'm sorry, it's a fact.
There are a few great outlets that do real journalism that are conservative, but we know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of media being produced, as well as heavily funded, is left-wing.
And that means conservatives are arguing from the left-wing narrative.
So you might resist this and say that's wrong, but you're not producing the facts.
They are.
And so those facts are being framed in a way that benefit them.
And they'll try and argue framing facts, but facts are facts.
Listen, man.
It's a very, very simple analogy or explanation that I give to people.
And you may be familiar with it.
The dihydrogen monoxide hoax.
If you're not familiar, you basically say something like, did you know that hydric acid will kill you if you inhale it?
Shouldn't we ban this dangerous chemical?
It's corrosive.
It eats through metal.
We find it in the plumbing of our big cities.
And people get scared.
Everything I said there is true.
But the fact is that hydric acid is water.
So when you frame it in a certain way, you can shock and scare people.
And if conservatives don't engage in that behavior, they're going to lose.
And Chick-fil-A will eventually give up knowing no one's got their back, or at least the people who got their back aren't willing to use the same tactics, for better or for worse.
I don't think the left's tactics are a good thing.
But I can't tell you how you win.
And this is the disadvantage faced by conservatives that Bill Barr's talking about.
Now how about a real political example?
Is this a picture of Elise Stefanik flipping the bird in an impeachment inquiry?
Elise Stefanik got Marie Yovanovitch, a witness, star witness for the Democrats in the impeachment inquiry, to admit she provided false testimony earlier in the day.
Earlier in the day she said no one in the previous administration had brought up the issue of Hunter Biden.
Stefanik then questioned her on previous testimony saying you said you were specifically questioned in prep by the Obama administration about Hunter Biden.
And Marie Yovanovitch said that's correct.
And that was a bombshell.
That was probably only one of the real bombshells, that Yovanovitch provided false testimony.
And now, presumably twice, there's another reporting.
The response from the left, when Elise Stefanik pulled this maneuver, was to try and do everything in their power, by any means necessary, to destroy her.
And now her opponent, in her district, has hundreds of thousands of followers, and has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars.
But all that's fine.
If someone's gonna raise money, fine, they deserve to.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
The left produced a photoshopped image of Elise Stefanik flicking off the camera.
This is CGI.
This individual tweeted, This guy deleted this, apologized profusely, and notified everyone of the mistake.
But somebody produced a fake image to trick people.
This guy deleted this, apologized profusely, and notified everyone of the mistake.
But somebody produced a fake image to trick people.
Why?
Because Stefanik provided for the right.
She came through with an amazing question and people were shocked.
The story that Yovanovitch provided false testimony could shake the impeachment inquiry
to its core, at least for the time being.
So in response, instead of being honest and telling the truth, the left did this.
A fake image to discredit and smear the politician who hurt the credibility of their star witness.
These are the tactics they're willing to engage in.
And if the right isn't willing to, bless them, I respect that wholeheartedly.
These are horrifying things to do, and they do it to me, and they do it to everybody.
They take things I say out of context, and they try and smear to hurt me and my business.
For the most part, I'm not partisan or bombastic enough to get their focus, but they've tried.
A month-long plus campaign to put conspiracy theorists in my Wikipedia page, which is absurd, because I don't even believe a lot of the reporting from the New York Times.
I don't believe anything.
If you can call me anything, you can say I'm just a general skeptic.
But they tried.
And they failed.
And they'll do it to you and they'll do it to everyone else if you oppose them because they believe in getting what they want by any means necessary.
Even if it means destroying everything around them.
But you know what?
There may be some light at the end of the tunnel for conservatives.
Because of these scorched earth policies, those of the left that had principle have fled.
Check out this tweet from Eric Weinstein.
He is the man who coined the phrase intellectual dark web and this thread may provide You know what?
These tactics used by the left may ultimately be their downfall.
And it may be that through a war of attrition, conservatives win out by maintaining their dignity, their integrity, and their principles.
Eric Weinstein tweeted, Invited on a conservative podcast today.
We celebrated punk rock as I politely told them Trump was obviously, manifestly unfit for office.
And I view their parent org as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
They couldn't have been more decent to me.
This is how they may win.
Yup!
After everything I just said, Chick-fil-A bending the knee, the Republicans, Conservatives, might actually win by just maintaining their integrity.
Now I know, after everything I've probably told you, you might think, no way, I mean with the fake photos and the people willing to believe this.
But let me read on.
Weinstein said, My eyes are open.
This isn't my team.
But when normal souls who think normal thoughts have to go over to their competitor's house to have civil constructive discussion, because their own home often hurls poop at any who won't tow an incoherent party line, loss has to be budgeted.
Don't get sold the narrative that Trump now owns all U.S.
conservatism.
He does own a good chunk of it.
But there's also a new strain of tolerant conservatism that's very liberal, relentlessly civil, anti-inequality, pro-logic, pro-gay, pro-weed, pro-free speech, and multicultural.
I saw a video.
Charlie Kirk with another man and I forgive me for not remembering your name, but he said
that people were booing because he mentioned something about supporting LGBT conservatives
and he said Jesus traveled with the sinners and everybody and he respected and loved everyone
and that's the point. Kanye West was rapping about strippers and now he's preaching the
word of the Lord. You might actually win by being good people in the end by rejecting
this hate. That face of that woman at that college campus screeching and screaming in
the ears of people pure hatred. You might actually win by waving people over and saying
we won't do that. Weinstein ends by saying what's causing this. I don't know, but one
partial explanation is that many normal adults made to feel like pariahs are leaving the
Democratic Party and simply taking their liberal values across the street. It's like visiting
a little Italy Koreatown or other diaspora community. In the end, the sheer insanity
of leftist leftist outrage is pushing liberals away and the conservatives with open arms
accepting them are creating a new different kind of normal majority. I would say.
Well, there are many people on the left who are terrified of the flames and will do whatever the outrage mob says.
There are people like me, like Eric Weinstein, like Dave Rubin, people who say, I'm not playing, dude.
While we may not agree politically, what we agree on principally is more important.
So this is the big thing.
A lot of what's happening in the culture war in politics has nothing to do with policy.
It has nothing to do with politics.
It has to do with I guess integrity and principles.
Do I believe in free speech?
Of course I do.
And freedom.
And equality.
And I detest hate speech.
But I believe freedom comes first.
Because we cannot allow massive, unaccountable systems to control everything.
But that's what the leftist outrage mob is.
So I'm sad to see Chick-fil-A give in.
I am anything but a religious person.
I will say this.
I believe in God.
I have my own kind of religion.
I really, I would say I absolutely reject traditional theism and, you know, the Bible and all these religious things, but I have beliefs that are somewhat overlapping.
I wouldn't call it spirituality, no.
I actually do think there is a God, and it's complicated.
But I am not, not not not, ever going to be a fan.
I grew up Catholic, and I will not.
I just do not see it.
But you know what?
I have tremendous respect for Kanye West to speak out for what he believes in, to preach and to use his position, in spite of the outrage mob.
And that's what I think unites us.
While I disagree with you, the moral authoritarianism is terrifying, and thus, an agnostic-ish individual like me, who leans left politically, is now principally aligned with moderates and conservatives.
The left is pushing these people away.
So in the end, they may end up losing due to attrition.
They've gone too hard.
They're attacking a chicken restaurant.
I don't care if Chick-fil-A wants to make donations to organizations.
I believe we take it to the streets.
We take it to the voting booth.
If Chick-fil-A wants to donate to the Salvation Army, I've been to the Salvation Army.
I've donated to them, too.
We used to give clothes.
They do the thrift store, right?
What is this?
They've gone nuts.
This might be the saving grace of the right.
I don't know what that means for liberals and people like me in the long run, and I believe that there may come a time that people like me or Eric Weinstein, and even Rubin to an extent, may find ourselves pushing back on a right-wing majority who does become more moralistic.
But who knows?
For the time being, I think the screeching outrage cannot survive when you are bleeding out your own side.
It is more... You know, I'll end with this.
While Chick-fil-A may have caved, while other organizations may have caved, while the right may take some ground with getting Donald Trump, I ask myself, why is it that the Axios study, I cited the other day, that Democrats are made angry by nearly everything they read and 74% or so are made angry by the news, Why is it that on the right, everybody's laughing?
Why is it that, you know, Freedom Tunes, for instance, can make fun and everyone can laugh?
And that people can post memes?
And that you have Fleca's talks, for instance, where he goes around and talks to people and he's kind of more jovial and, like, asking questions, not being super angry about it.
I think that's where we end.
Those of us are having a good time and a laugh, and it's much more comfortable, and this is how they win.
To quote Eric Weinstein, this is how they may win.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm, and I will see you all then.
A suburban Chicago high school is now granting unrestricted locker room access to transgender individuals.
The issue of trans people in schools is very contentious.
There are lawsuits against teachers who refuse to say certain pronouns.
I have that story actually here from time.com.
And there have been instances in the UK, now being reported, that girls are risking infection and they're skipping school altogether because they don't want to share bathrooms with males.
It is a complicated problem.
But in the end, this story I find particularly interesting.
Because my general understanding is that at this school, or in this district, they had what's called privacy stalls.
For me personally, if I'm in a locker room, I want to be in the privacy stall.
Like, here's the thing.
When you're in the bathroom, you're in a particularly vulnerable space.
A lot of people don't seem to care, a lot of guys are comfortable, a lot of women are comfortable, but a lot of people are uncomfortable.
You have the joke trope, like I think American Dad did this joke where the CIA director was in a stall and he put toilet paper over the edges of the stall and he called them his privacy strips.
Yeah, a lot of people want privacy.
I think one of the big solutions to transgender access to locker rooms is simple single-use stalls, right?
You have your own room you go into.
So when we talk about the issue of access for trans people in bathrooms, all of this is solved when new buildings institute a simple, single, private room.
Makes sense, right?
Okay.
Well, you'd think that if you even had the left-wing website, Upworthy, saying, girls, hold in peace, skip school, so they won't have to share gender-neutral bathrooms with boys, like, okay, you gotta understand what Upworthy is.
It was founded by the guy from MoveOn, okay?
Eli Parser, I think his name, it is a left-wing clickbait site saying, girls are skipping school, they're risking infection for this.
You'd think if that was apparent, we can all agree, simply, check this out, look at this photo.
Men's room, thumbs down.
Women's room, thumbs down.
Family restroom, thumbs up.
I agree.
I would rather use a private room, right?
That brings me to this story.
District 211 grants transgender students unrestricted locker room access.
Now I want to make a few important points.
For one, it is a complete mischaracterization that trans people are somehow going to endanger somebody or there's going to be harassers.
Or, you know, that's a trope and that is unfair.
I think it's possible that people exploit the system, but people can exploit every system.
The real issue that I see here is not that this trans individual is going to go and hurt anybody or is going to create any risk.
But that you have women who are uncomfortable and risking their safety because they're scared.
This is the challenge.
Do we open up a space for a small group of individuals that could put a larger group of individuals in fear of harm, even if that harm is unfounded?
Gotta say, it's very complicated.
It is unfair to assume that someone will cause you harm, but there's also issues of people just wanting privacy.
So here's the thing.
I'm not gonna, you know, I don't want to play games of who should be allowed to do what or whatever.
Let me, I will just say...
Well, actually, let me read this, because this gets to the heart of the issue.
While I said I think privacy, you know, having your own privacy makes sense, that's what they're fighting against.
Like, they were granted privacy stalls.
They were told they had to use them, and they voted against removing that requirement.
I guess it's a challenge, isn't it?
Should someone be required to use a privacy stall, or should they be allowed to walk around the women's locker room as they see fit, because they identify as such?
Let's read a little bit of the story.
This is from the Daily Herald.
They say, after addressing the controversial issue of transgender students' access to locker rooms in a few different ways over the past four years, Palatine-Schomburg High School District 211 board members Thursday voted 5-2 to lift a requirement that those students use privacy stalls.
They go on to mention some local poli- I don't want to read into local politics.
They say, While privacy stalls have been made available for all students in locker rooms at the district's five high schools, only transgender students have been required to use them.
But when second semester classes begin after the holidays, no such rule will be in effect.
Now we got a complicated problem here.
Requiring someone to use the privacy stall.
Yeah, I don't know about that.
Can you really tell someone this is what they have to use?
I guess technically the answer is yes.
This school is saying transgender individuals will not be allowed to just use whatever bathroom they want unless they're registered with the school and they have their student ID and their identity reflects, like, you have to go through a process.
What they're saying is, you can't just go into the school and claim to be whatever gender identity and then use whatever bathroom.
Okay, well now you've got a problem.
The school is saying they can regulate who is or isn't allowed to use which bathroom, but now they're saying they can't regulate who is or isn't allowed to use particular formats of the bathroom?
I think the problem we have here is, for one, You know, I'm going to say it, and people are going to get angry about it, but I think in the future we're going to have co-ed bathrooms.
I really, really do.
That's what we're seeing in the UK, especially locker rooms.
And the bigger debate is not over bathrooms, it's over locker rooms.
I think that's the case because the laws that are being passed straight up say you can't discriminate, period.
So here's the problem I see.
It's a fact that the perpetrators of violent crime tend to be men.
Sorry guys, it's true, okay?
Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime, men are more likely to be the perpetrators of violent crime, and women are more likely to face harassment and abuse from men.
The problem we have now is that women feel particularly vulnerable and want a private, intimate space.
Biological females, I should say.
And I can respect that.
Trans women and men also want the same things.
And I can respect that, too.
The problem is that for the average female, they recognize the difference between a female and male regardless of if they're trans.
The bigger challenge then arises because it's not a conservative versus liberal issue.
There are feminists and left-wing individuals who oppose these kinds of policies because they think females should have a protected space.
The question then becomes, who is deserving of a safe space?
Should we create a female safe space?
Or do we create an identity safe space?
Because then, what happens then when those females don't feel safe?
I'll tell you exactly what happens.
So I'm not going to read too much into this story from District 211 because it's really, really into the weeds of local politics.
They talk about access to locker rooms, complaints, and the individuals and how they voted.
We don't need to learn about Schomburg, Palatine.
But we do need to see the story that girls are risking infection due to anxiety of sharing bathrooms with boys.
Now, this isn't so much about transgender individuals using bathrooms, but it is about how women or females feel in these spaces.
Transgender individuals make up a very small portion of the world.
The number has been increasing, and there's a lot of reasons for that.
On the right, people believe it has to do with rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
For the most part, not everybody.
This idea that it's a social trend.
On the left, they believe it's because it's more socially accepted.
People are less scared, you know, to come out and be comfortable with who they are.
And I think it's fair to say the truth is closer to the middle, right?
There are probably instances where young people think it's trendy and, you know, adopt certain clothing styles and identities, but it's probably true that a lot of people used to be too scared and didn't want to risk coming out out of fear of violence and harm and discrimination.
So it is a complicated problem that I think everybody can kind of see a little bit of, but people are too tribalistic.
So here's what ends up happening.
People don't think about the consequences of what we get from this.
First, in the UK it was reported that assault against women has gone up with gender neutral locker rooms.
This is not transgender individuals harming people.
I believe it's absolutely important to clarify that this idea that a trans person is going to hurt a woman, it's ridiculous.
There have been crazy people, and there are people who exploit laws.
It doesn't matter what the law is, it will be exploited.
So could there be a dude who puts on a wig and exploits the law?
Sure, but he could do that anyway.
Somebody who wants to commit a crime is gonna commit a crime.
You know, you take a look at, like, you know, gun rights advocates, they say...
Uh, someone who wants to get a gun will figure it out.
Yeah, somebody who wants to go into a woman's bathroom to assault a woman is gonna figure it out.
I'm not super concerned about that.
But the problem arises based on the aftermath of what these laws produce.
So first, I do find it weird that You know, I don't know if it's fair to require someone to use a privacy stall, but I don't really see why that's a big issue.
Why not?
I would prefer it.
I'd be like, yeah, cool, I'm down.
And I think I may have said this earlier, the school says you have to be, like, registered with your identity or whatever, like, they have to know for sure that this is how you identify, you're trans.
How can you regulate what bathroom someone can use, but then concede you can't regulate what bathroom they can use?
It's simultaneously not really making sense.
But here's the bigger problem.
First, I always want to say this.
Protecting the individual rights and liberties of people is paramount.
And as someone who believes in freedom, very much so, and stopping the government from imposing their will on individuals, I believe that's something we should be striving for.
So the challenge becomes How do you protect the rights of a trans person who should be allowed to live free from discrimination, to be allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while also guaranteeing the safe space and protections females are asking for?
The left would tell you that it's, you know, not all the left, because admittedly you've got feminists who oppose this, but many on the left would say, you know, it's an issue of you being a bigot and a transphobe and all that stuff.
And I put it very simply, like, females want to know that they're going to have a space where they can be free from males, especially when it comes to intimate business, like, you know, periods, for instance.
And that's what this upworthy story brings up.
The funny thing about this Upworthy story is that it blames the patriarchy, and they basically end by saying, women should get over it.
I kid you not.
No, listen.
Here's where the big problem arises.
Perhaps you could argue that females should get over it, right?
Basically their conclusion is, look, they go through all of this stuff about, you know, women are embarrassed, there's a taboo and a stigma around menstruation, and that in the end they basically say it's the problem of the patriarchy.
Here's what they say.
They say something like, It must be noted that girls' fears do not arise from the gender-neutral bathrooms themselves, but rather the sexist, patriarchal culture that they and their boy counterparts are raised in.
If we raised our children to be period positive and took an objective and scientific approach to education, girls would be less likely to experience negative emotions related to periods or using the same washroom as their male peers.
Changing this culture would also mean building a more inclusive, LGBTQIAP-plus positive environment on school campuses.
However, addressing culture is a slow and tedious process, which cannot be done through easy fixes like implementing gender-neutral bathrooms.
They're only one step forward that must be accompanied by several other measures to address our toxic heteropatriarchy, including teaching boys how to unlearn misogyny.
Wow!
This is the paradox of what they're proposing.
You can't simultaneously be feminist, but then vote for removing female protections.
You cannot do this.
I understand that the trans community is a relatively small community, and they should be free from discrimination.
Here's the challenge.
First, we can solve all of these problems with single stalls.
For the most part.
Like in New York, most new buildings will just have a bathroom.
They'll have two bathrooms.
And they won't even put male or female on them.
They'll just put bathroom.
Right?
Or they'll put, you know, that one joke is, whatever, just wash your hands.
That's easy to do when you walk into a room and close the door behind you and lock it and you're in a room by yourself.
I think everybody prefers that.
And, of course, you can say that's a gender-neutral bathroom.
A lot of people like to talk about how gender-neutral bathrooms have emerged and that this is like, see, it works just fine.
So again, I don't know if you can force someone to have to use one, but wouldn't that solve the problem?
Here's where the big problem emerges.
In the UK there was a story about how after these laws were passed saying you can't discriminate, locker rooms became gender neutral.
Meaning all males and all females were just walking into whichever one.
It wasn't because they were scuttled to the right direction.
There was no longer a woman or a male.
It was just two locker rooms, gender neutral.
That's the law.
What people don't seem to realize is that when you pass a law, the intended consequence may not be what actually happens.
That's not how the system works.
You've got to think really far in advance.
What did we see in the UK?
An increase in sexual assaults.
That happened, OK?
I'm sorry.
I'm not saying that to be mean.
It happened.
It was reported by The Independent, a left-wing news organization, or left-leaning.
They showed that when the laws were passed, it wasn't like an instant thing where all of a sudden they said, we're going to create a new locker room, a separate one for gender-neutral individuals, and women will still visit.
No, no, no, no.
They said, locker rooms are now co-ed.
And that meant because men are more likely to commit violence against men and women, you will now put males, some of whom are aggressive, violent individuals, along with females, who are less likely to be so.
Now I know, I know, women can be violent, women can abuse men.
That's a fact.
I'm saying that men are more likely to be, and again, sorry dudes, that's true.
And I think most guys realize this, and that's why they want to protect women.
I guess maybe the more right-wing guys.
Male feminists are kind of like, you're strong, you go do your thing.
I'm trying not to stereotype.
But anyway, in the end...
You had an increase in sexual assaults against women simply because male predators.
Now it was a lot easier.
So I will stress this point.
Somebody who wants to break the law will do it.
Okay?
It is absurd to think that a trans person is going to commit a violent act against somebody or that somebody would need to pretend to be trans to go into the women's bathroom.
Let's be real.
If a male predator wants to abuse a woman, I don't think he cares about the thing on the door that says woman.
He's gonna go, oh no, I can't go in.
Unless I put on a wig?
No, he's going to kick the door in and go be a violent monster because they're breaking the law.
I may have said this already, but, you know, if somebody, you want to ban weapons, somebody's going to find a way to go get one.
They're going to break the law because criminals break the law.
So I think, you know, the bigger issue is the result of these laws.
They're not going to play out necessarily the way you think they are.
In this instance, here's the other ramification.
In the UK, they said, OK, we're going gender neutral.
We're going to respect the rights of all individuals.
They ended up taking away protections from women.
Let's be real.
Identity politics is complicated.
It's not always good, and it's not always bad.
The authoritarian application of identity politics is bad.
That's typically what I'm trying to call out.
General social justice, or just justice, and the removal of discrimination, the protection of rights, it's a good thing.
Here's the problem.
We create spaces for certain individuals to protect them in some circumstances.
It is not discrimination if we say we've created a handicapped entrance.
Think about it this way.
Imagine if there was... You ever see a staircase and on the side is a small elevator for people who are in wheelchairs or have trouble going upstairs?
It would not be discrimination, in my opinion, to ask someone who is able-bodied not to use that, right?
Like, a strapping young lad of 20 years old is standing at a staircase of five steps, and he says, no, I want to use the elevator.
And you say, well, like, could you not?
Because it's for people who need it.
And then he says, that's discrimination.
You can't discriminate against me.
And imagine that person then sues, and the state would have to be like, That's true.
You can't tell someone based on capability whether or not they're allowed to use the little mini elevator.
No, that's ridiculous.
The elevator is for people who need it.
Female bathrooms are for people who are more likely to be the victims of sexual crimes.
are more likely to be victimized by males.
That's why we created space.
Same thing in sports.
Female leagues are created because women are less like, on average, have lower bone density,
less muscle mass.
And this is for the top of the bell curve, okay?
There are substantially more, you know, there's substantially more men who can run, you know,
say it's like a six minute mile, I guess.
The point I'm trying to make is, while female athletes are the cream of the crop, the top
of the top, and the best of the best for women, you are more likely to find a guy who isn't
the best who can beat them.
So we create a space where women can compete against women.
Females.
To then say a biological male, for whatever reason, can enter that space is taking away a civil rights protection.
It's like, we want to prevent discrimination based on, you know, gender and all these things and sex and all that.
So we've created women's sports.
This brings me to the big conundrum.
Now, I know the lead story.
You get the point.
Why would they not want to use the privacy stall?
But now we have the issue where, for one, a lot of trans activists say that trans athletes have to, you know, adhere to a certain testosterone.
That's not true.
The law doesn't say that.
You need to think about what the law says and think 10, 20 years down the line.
What will we get?
Well, now we're seeing at some local high schools, I believe it's in Connecticut, two trans women who are not on hormones, who have simply just said that they identify as such, have shattered women's track records and are now, you know, potentially going to get some scholarships.
The young women who are displaced by this are suing for discrimination.
This is the challenge.
I am not here to advocate for or against anything, but to tell you That you now have two people of two different identities suing, claiming discrimination.
They're not both, obviously, suing.
But in the school...
You have this person saying, we should be allowed access.
In the track, you have the women saying, they have an advantage and you're discriminating against our opportunities.
So which is it?
Who wins out?
I honestly don't know.
But I'll tell you what, if we don't talk about it, we don't solve the problem.
The one thing I think everyone needs to think about when it comes to this debate is not whether or not, like, you know, let's put it this way.
Think about what laws you're implementing, think about what comes next, because people don't seem to be doing that.
I do not believe it is fair to expect all of these girls to skip school because they don't want to share a space with a male because you want one individual or a small group of people to be able to use that space.
I think the solution is we probably need prisons that are for trans people, we probably need leagues that are for trans people, and we probably need private single-use bathrooms like this image shows, right?
I don't necessarily know what Science and Sorcery is trying to say.
They wrote, I suppose this was inevitable.
I made a video about using public bathrooms as a trans non-binary gender non-conforming person.
I don't know what their ultimate conclusion is, but at least the general message here makes sense.
You're not going to use the men's room.
It's a large open public space.
You're not going to use the women's, but the family restroom is just one space for you.
That makes sense.
That's something we should think about.
The other issue now that I'll end with, because I don't want to make this too long, is a much bigger challenge.
This is a story from Time.com.
This isn't just about a pronoun.
Teachers and trans students are clashing over whose rights come first.
Do you have a right to compel someone to say something?
The best analogy I could see to a situation like this is the baker in Colorado who won.
A gay couple wanted a wedding cake.
He said, essentially, any cake you want is yours, but I will not write a message.
I will not speak.
The difference here, for me, is that he wasn't being told to frequently work in a space where I had to keep saying this thing over and over again.
Although, there are many people now suing him.
Somebody wanted, like, a gender affirmation cake where, like, you cut it open and it's a different color or something.
And he refused to do that, too.
I believe.
The challenge is, government-compelled speech is not a right.
In my opinion.
This is a big fight.
Now, I think the left doesn't understand the scope of the gender of the gay wedding cake.
They think it was simply a baker saying, get out, I refuse.
No, he was saying, I'll make you cake.
I'm just not going to say what you want me to say.
For me, I fall on the side of drawing something with icing.
You could have someone else do that.
You don't have to do that, right?
You could have one of your staff say, you write it down, I'm not going to do it.
And so that one is a real, real challenge.
Ultimately, the baker won, so we'll leave it there.
This is different.
This is a student telling a teacher you must say these words.
Apparently, there was one case where a teacher said, I'll just call you your name, and that wasn't good enough.
They said, no.
Use the pronouns.
You're never going to make me do anything, man.
The government could come and tell me I have to do, like, say certain things.
That's never going to happen, right?
I understand there are many, many things I just let the government do.
Like, I pay taxes.
I got no problem, right?
And there are probably people who say, like, I refuse.
This is, for me, a red line.
How can you tell someone they must say a thing?
This is a school, right?
And so who's in the right?
I gotta admit, I do not believe a public institution has a right to compel speech.
Period.
We have a First Amendment.
There can be no law infringing someone's right to speech.
So how can one student at a school demand it?
The law doesn't protect you from other people saying things you don't want to hear.
There's no hate speech laws.
Therefore, in my opinion, they could call you whatever name they want.
Now here's the bigger problem.
You could also be fired for saying things the administration doesn't want you to say.
This is a big challenge, right?
Imagine if a teacher started using racial slurs.
They'd probably be fired and who would disagree?
But what if they sued on free speech grounds saying a public institution cannot restrict their speech?
We got challenges here, man.
But in the end, I'll leave it there.
I don't want to miss too long.
All I say is, look, we got to think about the results of what these laws are, and I absolutely will personally question why it is that somebody would sue when there were privacy stalls.
Is it because there weren't enough?
I honestly don't know.
But we got problems, man.
Imagine you have now, like, a black individual who's advocating for, like, Harvard's black-only graduation ceremony, and then a white person sues saying it's racial discrimination.
They would probably win.
What line, you know, and who do we protect?
For the left, it usually falls onto the marginalized group, and because trans people are in the minority, they are the, you know, they win out.
I don't think that's fair, though.
I'll leave it there.
The school did it.
It's happening.
You know, some people say the end of gender segregation, they compare it to, like, civil rights.
That may be what's coming in the future, whether you want it or not.
But we can look at what happens, at least for now.
Is it possible that Upworthy is correct and in the future young women will learn to get over the stigma because boys will be taught to be not misogynists, I guess?
I honestly don't think so.
I don't think so.
98.6% of people or so are discernibly and identify as cishet.
That's what they call it.
Cisgendered heteronormative individuals, like your completely overwhelming majority in the 98th percentile, are either male or female, identify as such, and are heterosexual.
So I don't know what's going to happen, but I really doubt we're going to see people be... Yeah, this might be... I don't know.
I don't know how this will handle.
I'll tell you... I'll add one more thing.
Look.
Somebody described this on Twitter saying that when it came to like gay marriage and stuff, that's something you do in the privacy of your home and your events.
You want to go to have a wedding.
I don't got to be there.
I don't care what you do.
The difference here is...
You're talking about females and males who are now being told in public spaces, in what you want in your privacy, that there will be that big change.
And I gotta admit, it is complicated.
But I will say this.
The way things are going, there are two possible outcomes, and I'm not quite sure what the future will hold.
It's possible, due to the consistent trends towards the left, this results in a future where there is just co-ed locker rooms and bathrooms.
But based on family replacement rates, like liberals and conservatives having kids, and based on the trends of Generation Z being slightly more conservative than millennials in some areas, bucking the trend of the past hundred years, and conservatives having more kids, it's possible that this swings in the other direction, and we start going way more conservative.
I'll wrap it up, though.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all there.
I think regulating the private sector is very important.
But over-regulation is extremely damaging.
You know, we don't want someone selling, I don't know, like a balance bracelet, a piece of rubber, where they convince you with a stupid magic trick that it empowers your balance.
It's snake oil.
Now, to an extent, buyer beware.
I accept that.
But at a certain point, companies might actually sell a product they know to be harmful, thus regulation is important.
I'll give you my favorite example.
It's from Fight Club, where the main character, Jack, I believe everyone calls him, says that if the cost of a car recall is more than the cost of a lawsuit due to loss of life or injury, they won't recall.
Why?
It's cheaper!
Don't do it!
Why are you going to spend more money?
Companies will operate in this way when they become gigantic faceless machines.
In which case, it makes some sense to have some regulation and to make sure we have organizations, governmental institutions, that can be watchdogs over these companies.
The problem, however, is that there is nothing to pull these things back.
We have the revolving door of corporate interests.
People come into office for only a short while, they don't know too much about these industries, they pass laws not fully understanding what's going on, and they never repeal them.
I mean, sometimes they do.
But because government doesn't fail, it does, but usually with bloodshed and rarely, takes hundreds of years, there's no adaptation, there's no improvement.
Fortunately for our government, the founding fathers saw through this and said, we better make the Constitution amendable.
And amendments were able to allow us to adapt and grow.
But at a certain point, Something bad happens.
Now, not necessarily for the United States.
The Constitution and the ability to amend it may actually be its saving grace and why we've lasted as long as we have.
And here's to another couple hundred years of great American awesomeness and freedom.
But we do face trying times.
At the local level, businesses in big urban districts are embracing socialism.
And not overt socialism, but more socialist policy.
This results in businesses closing.
Now we've got a couple views on this, right?
You've got the socialist view, let the government control everything.
You've got the capitalist view, no, let the free market control everything.
And then you have the technocrat view of Andrew Yang of a mix between technology development and things like that.
There will never be enough.
Life will never be perfect.
People will never be happy.
There will always be problems.
What is the appropriate wage to pay someone?
I honestly have no idea.
Wealth inequality can be a really, really bad thing.
Too much of it, you get a peasant revolt.
But at the same time, who determines what the right minimum wage is?
What's your labor worth?
What someone was willing to pay for it?
Check out this article here.
It's from a Columbia and LIU economist, Panos Mordakotis, saying San Francisco and NYC begin to see the ugly side of socialism.
Now, he's saying socialism, and he's the expert, so I'll defer to him on this one, but I think he's talking about policy that pushes us in that direction.
Because I know immediately they're going to be like, these places are not socialist, they're capitalist.
But let's read the story.
Panos writes, San Francisco and NYC retail and restaurant sectors are beginning to see the ugly side of socialism, store closures and layoffs, as their owners cannot keep up with local government mandates that raise the cost of their businesses.
Socialism is in fashion again in America, at the local level that is, where governments have been passing mandates that tell corporations how to run their businesses, like the Fair Work Week laws.
These laws require employers to prepare working schedules for their employees ahead of time.
That's on top of minimum wage mandates, which tell employers how to pay their employees.
The Fair Week mandate hits restaurants and retailers particularly hard, a sector which employs a large number of hourly paid workers.
In theory, this mandate is a good thing.
It addresses the unpredictable nature of employment in these two industries.
Quote, Retail and restaurant employees are often victims of erratic work schedules, says Krista Hardwick, in-house legal counsel at Deputy.
These hourly paid workers are typically scheduled with only a few days' notice, sent home early from shifts without warning, not paid properly for working overtime or during breaks, which means they can't properly plan childcare or coordinate with other part-time jobs accordingly.
I'm going to bet he is going to bring up the fact that what happens if someone abruptly cancels, calls in sick, has a doctor's appointment, can't make it or quits?
What do you do?
Just shut down the store?
You might have to call someone in at very short notice.
The Fair Workweek laws are designed to solve this problem.
They enforce fair scheduling practices to ensure workers have ample notice, typically two weeks, of their schedules and paid accurately and on time for their work.
As the name suggests, Fair Workweek laws aim to make unpredictable scheduling practices tenfold more fair, and predictable, so that workers can manage their lives outside of shift work more easily.
That's the pretty side of socialism.
In practice, however, things are different.
Implementing a fair workweek is a complex task, according to Hardwick.
As fair as these laws are for workers, they are incredibly lengthy and complex, and national food and retail chains with hundreds of locations across the country have as much trouble implementing them as more localized chains.
and that imposes a big compliance cost on employers who eventually pass it on to consumers
in the form of higher prices and in some cases they go out of business and send workers to
the unemployment lines.
That's the ugly side of socialism.
But there's a more fundamental problem in setting schedules out of time.
It requires the guessing of market conditions, the number of customers who are expected to
visit restaurants, and retail stores a couple of weeks down the road.
It is tricky when evaluating these kinds of workplace changes for locations like NYC and SF, because they have atypical norms when it comes to hiring, especially in certain industries, says John O'Bacon, CEO of John O'Bacon Consulting.
What about weather?
Let's say you look at the 10 day schedule and you're like, it's going to rain in four days, which means we are going to have limited foot traffic, but increased delivery.
That means I now need to pull in more delivery drivers and cancel some of the wait staff.
Oh, but you can't do that because you got to do it two weeks notice.
Now you don't got enough delivery drivers and you got too many waiters sitting around doing nothing.
The change, obviously, then, is one person who can do everything.
You can do deliveries and wait.
But that might mean firing current staff because these laws are new.
Perhaps it means, in the future, things will be, you know, better because they'll be planned for.
And I will say, a lot of these laws are implemented step by step.
They say, by this time you must do this, by this time you must do that.
But let's read on.
Simply put, government mandates make it difficult to run businesses.
When governments get involved in the private sector with mandates and regulations that dictate how companies are run, they're making it more difficult for them to do business.
Yeah, you know what?
Get more specific, man.
I'll throw some shade this way.
We get it.
Yeah, regulation makes things difficult.
Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing.
I can respect that.
The problem that needs to be brought up, and please, get to it, don't just talk about Venezuela, Is that when do these laws stop?
How far is too far?
How much is enough?
See, here's the thing.
Capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than basically any charity or government ever has done.
Now, there's a lot to be said for China.
Yeah, they've turned things around really, really well for their citizens.
They have lifted many people out of poverty and illiteracy.
And China's also a pretty fascistic dictatorship, which puts a million plus people in torture camps and harvests their organs.
That's the Uyghurs.
So, you know, let's avoid the communist method.
In terms of freedom, capitalism has done this.
But you know what?
With freedom comes a problem.
People become spoiled.
Things are too good, and it's never enough.
There was an interesting thing I read about the difference between the left and the right.
And the left was saying, it was this left article I read, said that conservatives seem to think that everything is always the way it should be, and we should always go back to the way it was just a little bit before today.
You know, in the civil rights era they said, no, you can't change things.
And even today they say, no, you can't change things.
But things change.
Well, I think that's a fair point.
Because the analogy is often the left is pulling everyone left and the right holds them back from going too far.
Today the left has gone way too far and the right can't stop them.
So now moderates and conservatives are kind of left behind as the left goes off the rails.
This means that there's not going to be a slow roll of changes to businesses.
There's not going to be a debate over which ideas are good or bad.
It means the left will take things by force and steamroll straight through passing laws, developing supermajorities, people are forming tribes, hovels, whatever you want to call it.
California is going insane.
There is poop in the streets, the cities are falling apart, businesses are shutting down, and people are leaving, and they keep rolling out more of the same.
They think you can just snap your fingers and the government can solve the problem, but that's not the case.
If it was, why wouldn't government have done it all the time?
They'll tell you, oh, it's because conservatives obstruct with their nasty views.
Sorry, California is proof that's not true.
California is basically a Democratic supermajority.
In many of these cities, they can pass whatever they want, yet San Francisco has feces littered all over the streets.
Their businesses are shutting down.
People are fleeing California.
It's not the end of the world.
I'm not acting like California's literally in flames.
It's a very beautiful place.
But it's got a lot of problems.
And it's not being solved by more government.
Listen.
What does it mean to be left or right?
There's a bunch of different views.
There's culturally left and right, and there's economically left and right, and people conflate the two sometimes.
But let's make one thing clear.
Even if you are slightly to the left of center, meaning you believe that there can be good government programs, social liberalism, to ensure equal rights, and that these corporations aren't spiraling out of control, that doesn't mean you're in favor of what they're doing.
They have become so burdened by government that it's a weird authoritarian left.
It's no longer just kind of a moderate left where we're like, we want a little bit more policy than not to be sure.
That's where I fall.
Then you have center-right people who are like, we should pull back policy.
It should be a little bit more capitalistic.
That doesn't mean you're okay with the system as it stands today.
What we're seeing today is complete bloat in the public sector.
As more and more government programs are made, and the way I've always described it is, we're just slapping band-aids on top of band-aids and never cleaning the wound and figuring out when to start over.
I'm not saying devolve everything into laissez-faire capitalism, I'm saying, perhaps we need to reassess when government fails and figure out a way we can end the insanity before these businesses shut down and everything just keeps getting worse.
It has been a slow spiral towards things getting worse and worse in California.
Wealth inequality in San Francisco is insane, but they're the ones complaining about wealth inequality.
The homeless crisis in California is insane, and they're the ones who claim to be fighting for the marginalized.
The richest people in the country, many of them are in San Francisco.
And that's where a big portion of the homeless crisis, drug abuse, and human waste, it's there.
Why aren't they solving the problem?
Because the solution isn't as simple to just say, more government, more policies, more taxes.
They tax you more.
California's got, I think, the highest state tax in the country.
I think so.
I could be wrong about that.
Or at least one of the highest.
And what do they do?
They create the poop patrol.
I kid you not.
Is that going to stop people from pooping?
It's not!
It's just going to sweep it under the rug and the problems get worse.
I don't know what the solutions are, but I tell you this.
You can't keep chasing... They are running so fast to the left, they think the solution is always just in front of them, and eventually they're going to run off a cliff.
Let's read a little bit more.
That's about it with the story.
He says, socialist governments from the former Soviet Union to Cuba and Venezuela tried to have companies plan what they would produce, how many people they would hire, how they would work, and how they will pay them.
That didn't work because it was an impossible task given the lack of perfect foresight of decision makers.
It didn't work in those societies, and it won't work in San Francisco and NYC where businesses are beginning to see the ugly side of socialism.
I would have preferred if he was a little bit more specific.
I certainly think we WANT people to live better lives.
But even people who work at McDonald's are wealthier than the average person in Brazil, for instance, where the per capita income is like $8,000 a year.
Even somebody who works at McDonald's.
Can get a cell phone with access to the internet.
Can they get health care?
Not enough people.
It's a shame.
I think we can do better.
However, what are we basing this off of?
Relative to what, a hundred years ago?
Did you know that a homeless person today has better access to health care than Rockefeller did a hundred years ago?
If a homeless person collapsed, somebody will call emergency services, they will bring in the hospital, that person, their life will be saved.
Will they get perfect treatment?
No.
Will it be even moderate, like base-level treatment compared to the average person?
No, of course not.
But technology and capitalism has made things better for everybody.
Here's the problem.
Poverty a hundred years ago was literally having no teeth, having scurvy, and sitting in the... You die!
You can't live!
And people would be like, you can't be a burden on us.
Let's go a little bit further than a hundred years, right?
Things have gotten better and better.
At what point do we have enough?
Bernie Sanders talks about how rich people are addicted.
I think there are a lot of people who, the more power you have, the easier it is to gain power.
You have a ton of money, you can make strategic investments, mitigate your risk, and then see massive returns and just become more and more powerful.
But what about you, Bernie?
How much is too much?
When is enough enough?
We have a system that has lifted so many people out of poverty.
And we welcome in more immigrants than any other country in the world.
We are doing so much to end poverty for people.
And we should continue to strive to make things better.
But perhaps the solution is moderate.
Perhaps the solution is we can't always just snap our fingers and demand industry give people more money.
Because sure enough, after they said $15 an hour, it was like Rashida Tlaib or whatever, I think, came out and said, why don't we do $20?
$20 an hour.
Yeah, because it's never enough.
Poverty is relative.
The poorest person in this country today has better access to healthcare than your average person did a hundred plus years ago.
Things have gotten better.
So how much is enough for the top and the bottom?
They like to scapegoat the richest.
But there's very few of them.
And even if you taxed all the rich people at 100%, you'd pay for nothing.
You wouldn't even give everybody like a couple hundred bucks if that.
I think they did it, there was like a math, and I could be wrong about this, where they
took all of the wealthiest people and they took all of their net worth and they converted
it to liquid cash, which I know doesn't make sense, but then distributed it.
It was like a hundred bucks per person or something, right?
Jeff Bezos has, you know, 127 billion in net worth.
Convert that to dollars and you got 300 million people.
Great.
Everyone's going to get a couple hundred dollars.
What's the point?
What are they going to do with that?
Have one week where they can, you know, repair, pay one bill or something?
It's not going to solve all of the problems.
So in the end, here's the point.
It's never enough.
It's never enough for anybody.
And that's when things fall apart.
I always viewed it as two sides, the public and the private sector, and they're both building towers that are swinging left and swinging right.
Eventually, they become too cumbersome and collapse from the sway.
You've got people who are poor, who want to be less poor.
I totally respect that.
And I believe they're substantially more deserving than protecting billionaires.
I think we can and should do more to lift people out of poverty.
But I do believe that there is a limit.
How much is too much?
How much will strain the system and cause it to fall down?
Is one of your towers going to be pushed too far to the left and then just fall apart?
And the answer is yes.
The same is true for the private sector.
How much is too much?
At a certain point, you have oligarchs and you get San Francisco.
Moderate policy makes the most sense.
But I'm sick and tired of these people saying, we can do everything for everyone.
No, we can't.
You will strain the system and you will destroy it.
The same is what's happening in San Francisco with these massive billion-dollar tech companies, rising prices, increasing homelessness, and a failure of government to solve any of these problems.
California is a horrifying place.
It's a beautiful place in a lot of ways.
You know, you can go skateboarding, the weather's nice.
But you look at the track they're on.
It's not going to be pretty.
Because you have... Look, California is the extreme of all of this, and it's an example of what's happening.
You have massive, unaccountable corporations dictating politics, and everyone on the left saying, but my private company.
No, we want to regulate that!
And then you have a government saying, and now we're going to do all of these quick fixes and hot fixes that solve no problems.
You have runaway government and corporations, both in California, and it's about time someone did something about it.
I don't know what that something is, but I mean... I should...
Perhaps that was a bit too direct.
Let me just say, focusing on this, seeing the problem, if we do nothing and we don't address it, eventually it falls apart.
I know, invariably, the left will say, Tim is claiming that poor people don't deserve more, he's criticizing poor people for wanting more, wanting more.
You know what, man?
Let me just end with a final point.
Everyone is greedy.
Everyone wants more.
And while I certainly have no problem, and even think there could be some more taxes implemented on the ultra-wealthy, take a look at San Francisco, we need to solve the problem of government as well.
And it's often neglected.
And it's often making things worse.
You will not solve these problems with a one-size-fits-all solution.
A blanket $15 minimum wage for the entire country makes no sense.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
If companies can't survive because of the regulation and because of the costs, companies won't, and people will find other ways.
And that means more people will be left with nothing.
Here's the big problem.
On the right, they will say, when you implement a higher minimum wage, the business shuts down, and now that person's wage becomes zero.
On the left, they will say, the businesses make too much money.
I think both sides are seeing something important, but missing something.
On the left, I should say, you know, you can't always guarantee that every business has money, and the assumption that just because Bill Gates is rich means that the mom-and-pop pizza shop in New York can afford to pay the... Okay, let me start over.
Bill Gates has a high net worth.
Maybe Microsoft can afford to pay.
Maybe these oil companies can afford to increase wages.
But what about mom-and-pop pizza in New York, which has a very slim profit margin?
And then one day you just snap a law.
Now you got to control for time and money for your staff weeks in advance.
Now all of a sudden they're saying our profit margin is negative.
Shut her down.
Take what we got and go.
Now nobody has a job.
So that's true.
There are ways to implement policies to fix things, but sometimes the system is just a system of decentralized minds trying to make the best of it.
And you should realize that there is a growth rate we can support.
We have less poor people today than ever.
People are literate.
People are going to school.
And they still want more and they always will.
That's the danger of the left going far left and the divide.
California's gonna collapse.
I'll just put it that way.
I'll wrap it up because you get the point.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast and I will see you all there.
Why are so many politicians spineless?
I mean, for that matter, why are so many people spineless?
Come on, people!
Grow a spine!
Well, we got at least one Democrat who's willing to not only reject impeachment, but to speak up about it.
And he said something that actually breaks my heart.
From the Daily Caller, Democratic Rep, some Democrats quietly concerned about impeachment want to move on.
Well, come on then!
Where are they and why won't they speak up?
Props to you, Jeff Van Drew, Democrat from New Jersey.
I believe he's relatively close to where I live.
But why don't you tell them to speak up and say something?
The insanity over impeachment, and that's what it is.
It's insanity.
Nonsense.
Hearsay.
And it's all they have.
And you know, maybe we could pass the USMCA.
Maybe we could talk about lowering drug prices.
You know, Donald Trump was talking about this stuff.
Maybe we could actually get something done.
But you know what?
While it's upsetting, I will say props to Mr. Jeff Van Drew for going on, I believe, on Fox Business and said, you know, none of this, okay?
Let's read the story from The Daily Caller.
They say.
Democratic New Jersey Rep Jeff Van Drew said some Democrats are privately concerned about the ongoing impeachment process and want to move on.
Speaking to Maria Bartiromo on Fox News Sunday morning features, Van Drew, who along with Minnesota Rep Colin Peterson, who was one of only two Democrats to vote against formalizing the impeachment inquiry, said the endgame is well known unless something new and amazing emerges to incriminate President Trump.
Van Drew told Bartiromo he expects to vote no on eventual impeachment unless there's something new, something we haven't heard, something that really rises the level of treason or high crime.
I don't know exactly where in Jersey this guy is, but I'm glad there's at least... Look, either he's a guy who is sensible and smart, or...
Well, actually, you know what?
He's sensible, smart, and privileged.
I'm sorry, principled.
Perhaps he's just pandering for a conservative crowd?
I don't think so.
I think this is a guy who knows it's a sham, and is probably in a similar boat to where I'm at, where we're like, dude, listen, I say it all the time, you don't gotta like the president, man, but this is insanity.
Quote, but we don't see that, he said.
We see little different variations, hearsay, discussions.
Somebody heard something that somebody else said.
Impeachment.
You know that our founding fathers had vigorous debate of whether they would even allow impeachment in the Constitution.
You don't disenfranchise voters.
Millions upon millions of voters.
Voters choose their leaders in America, and we are less than a year away from that election.
So we all know it.
I'm glad some Democrats are speaking out.
The Fox News and Fox Business host then asked Van Drew about any potential concern among his Democratic colleagues.
I don't know how other folks will vote.
Because in all honesty, originally I thought there were going to be a few more.
Not that it matters if I'm 1 or 101.
I do what I believe is right.
But there is some discussion among some of them, quietly, privately of concern, certainly, what I'm hearing out in the street with most people as they are tired, they are kind of worn out.
They're kind of bored.
Most folks, and they want to move on.
Unless there's something new and amazing, we know the endgame here.
So where are they?
Where are these Democrats to stand up?
You know what?
I will spare, I will spare being too mean, because if you are one of these Democrats, a more moderate Democrat, who knows?
This is insanity, it's absurdity, and it's not helping anybody.
You need to stand up.
You need to speak out.
You need to join Jeff Van Drew and speak on principle about what you believe.
I believe him.
If he says there are people who are privately concerned, we know it.
The moderates were late to the party.
They didn't want to get involved in this.
They all signed up under the assurances from Nancy Pelosi and the DCCC that polls show they will win if they support impeachment.
You know what, man?
There are places in this country where there are regular Americans who don't care about this.
And we saw the other day, in a video I made, there was a focus group.
This organization did a focus group and found most people don't care.
And I don't care.
I hate even talking about it.
But you know what?
We're about to get a whole week of more testimony from people who have no idea what they're talking about.
There's one guy even.
But we'll see.
We'll see.
Because certainly, Republicans have been able to get some of their own bombshells.
But you know what the problem is?
The left is gonna take literally anything they can and stretch it.
You know what?
They rag on Alex Jones over this, but I gotta give it to them, okay?
They can take the most absurd hearsay game of telephone and turn it into the biggest and grandest conspiracy of all time, better than Jones ever could.
I'll tell you what, man.
When Alex Jones goes on Rogan, and he's like, they're setting up cell towers, and they're gonna mutate your kids into cow hybrids, or whatever he says, I'm like, that's just, nobody will believe that.
It's entertaining, right?
And there's some things that Jones has gotten right, as much as people don't want to admit it, and now they're gonna take this out of context to smear me, I mean, Joe Rogan said that Jones was right about Epstein.
You know, you could throw that to saying a broken clock is right twice a day, or that Jones' problem is that it'll take a small bit of information and stretch it too much, speculate too much.
So here's the main point.
I'm not saying this to rag on Jones.
I'm saying the Democrats, they go one step beyond that.
Like, come on, man.
At least when Alex Jones talked about the 5G cell towers and tumors and stuff, There is a study showing that rats had a higher propensity for tumors around the 5G towers.
I think Jones takes it and extrapolates way too far, but look what the Democrats did.
You get Alex Jones, who sees a study, and then yells about the frogs being turned gay because of atrazine, which is at least a tiny bit based in reality, but still, you know, kind of went too far with it.
What do the Democrats do?
They say, That Bill Taylor heard from his aide, who overheard a phone call with Sondland that Trump mentioned investigations, and Sondland believes that in his opinion, Trump's opinion, is that Ukraine is more important, the investigations into Biden, than Ukraine, the presidency or whatever, and that somehow becomes a bombshell report of indisputable, clear evidence of wrongdoing, like Cenk Uygur said, or they say that it's
It's directly implicating Trump.
Man, Jones didn't even go that far, and he says some kooky stuff.
Well, you know what?
There's a bit more news in the impeachment stuff.
Whatever.
Because Nancy Pelosi apparently wants Donald Trump to testify, and Trump's response was, I like the idea.
I'll say it, man.
I would like to see Donald Trump testify.
I think it would be great.
And I think it would, you know, the problem is they'll put him under oath and they'll use that and they'll twist that.
So I recognize that.
And I think there's a big problem with the left's argument that if Trump has nothing to hide, he should just allow the investigation.
Oh, you know what, man?
But I would like to see Trump testify, outside of politics.
I don't care about the left or the right.
I'd like to see Trump sit down and ask some questions.
For one, I really do like the transparency.
I do think it's more likely than not that while Trump may have acted inappropriately, he may be a bit brash and uncouth.
Man, who saw that coming?
Who could have expected that from Donald Trump?
It doesn't rise the level of impeachment, nor did he do anything overtly illegal in wanting to investigate known issues.
We've known, the Obama administration has known, the New York Times has known, that Hunter Biden and Burisma has been an issue.
Should Trump testify?
Well, the question of should he testify has to do, has to be broken down.
Should he testify for the good of America, if it was an honest, good faith testimony, then absolutely.
I lean towards, yeah, just go for it.
Recognizing, however, that the left will use this to smear and defame and pull things out of context, and if they're going to take, If they're going to take a story about a guy who's claiming that he heard from a staffer, who heard from an ambassador, that the ambassador's opinion of Trump's opinion was X, if they're going to turn that into directly implicating Trump, you've got to imagine, Trump could sneeze, and they're going to be like, Trump in violent outburst, rages at the Democrat question.
You know, a Democrat will ask him, like, did you do wrongdoing?
And Trump will go, excuse me.
And they'll say, and they'll show that clip over and over of Trump going, and they'll screenshot his face.
I know exactly how the media will play it.
So therein lies the bigger question.
Is it worth the risk?
The answer is probably, for Trump supporters, no.
Although I would like to see him testify.
I'll tell you what, man.
The left says Trump's got nothing to hide, so he should testify.
You know what?
I'm going to agree with that statement.
I think it was Wolf Blitzer.
All right, Wolf.
I agree.
Let's get Donald Trump up there to testify, spill the beans on everything, and then to corroborate or reject what Donald Trump has said, we'll need to get Joe and Hunter Biden up there, as well as Alexander Chalupa, and bring all these people in.
Because I'll tell you what.
I'll make it simple for everybody.
If Trump broke the law, lock him up.
If Hunter Biden broke the law, lock him up.
I don't care.
I'm not here to play for tribes.
I just happen to think that for the most part, we don't have any evidence.
And it's probably just Trump saw, you know, look, he's, I think, in my opinion, Trump was personally slighted by the Russiagate stuff for three years.
He knows about the wrongdoing the Bidens were doing.
We've seen sworn statements and affidavits.
They're trying to claim it's conspiracy, but at least there's probable cause and it should be investigated.
So I'll tell you what, man.
If Trump wants to break the law, then he can get impeached, whatever.
I don't think we have any evidence to prove that.
So, fine.
But I'll tell you what, let's just operate under the assumption Trump is guilty and so is Biden.
Great.
Have them all testify in front of Congress, make them all answer the questions, and we can all move on.
And then you'll have President Pence.
How does that sound?
I honestly don't care.
I'm just sick and tired of the games.
I happen to think that—I'll tell you exactly how I feel about this.
Donald Trump is boorish and he is—what's the right word for—he shoots from the knee.
He leaps before looking.
He just goes for it.
He says, I know what I want to do.
He does it.
And so that sometimes people don't understand what he's doing because he's all over the place.
That doesn't mean anything illegal.
It means he made a phone call.
He asked him a question he probably shouldn't have.
He probably should have just said, you know, you guys take care of this, see what you can find.
He's got it.
We've got an apparatus in the United States, various Justice Department groups or, you know, it can be dealt with.
So ultimately, I think Trump is just He's just, uh, I don't know, brash, right?
It's an easy way to put it.
But Biden, Hunter Biden, the Obama administration, it looks like there's some real dirt there.
So you know what?
Put them all up on the stand, right?
Make Trump testify, and then the Republicans can respond by saying, great, Hunter Biden.
I'll tell you what, man.
If they came out and said, oh, Donald Trump will testify if Joe Biden and Hunter Biden testify, I'd be like, yes, please!
Bring them all up!
You know what, man?
I have, uh, I am not interested in protecting anybody for any reason.
If anybody broke the law, we should know about it.
And I think, I think Trump supporters would agree, and I think progressives would as well.
I think, you know, this is what's surprising to me.
Why aren't progressives being like, yeah, okay, Trump, go investigate the Bidens.
As if Cenk Uygur likes Joe Biden.
You know what I mean?
Like, you're great!
We should just let Trump do his thing.
And Trump's gonna, Trump, there'll be an election, and you can vote him out.
Unless, I don't know, progressives don't think they can win.
But whatever.
We'll see what happens.
In the end, Democrats are, you know what man, this dude, this one Democrat, what's his name, I want to make sure I get his name right, Jeff Van Drew, much respect.
Absolutely much respect.
Because he's coming out and saying no to this.
And I hope he's sincere, but I believe it.
He's taking a big risk by rejecting the Democrats' position.
And it's the right decision, in my opinion.
And I've always been more of a Democrat than anything.
And, you know, I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
The ACLU has honored Christine Blasey Ford with the Courage Award.
The ACLU is trash, and I'm really, really saddened by this development.
You know, there have been a lot of things the ACLU has done in the past I've much respected.
They used to defend civil liberties, but you can actually see the moment when the soul of the ACLU was grasped and torn from its withered husk of a body.
You see, the ACLU used to defend civil liberties, period.
Even for those who are detestable.
They once defended a Klan rally in Skokie, Illinois.
A famous case.
And it's not the only time they've done it.
And I used to be proud to say this.
But when I worked as a non-profit fundraiser, I actually signed up new members for the ACLU.
It was my job to go out and tell people why the ACLU was important.
I got paid to do it.
And the people I signed up paid the ACLU to help them continue their work, and I was proud of that.
Now I'm ashamed of it.
I'm ashamed over what the ACLU has become, because they've defended overt racism, but now defending Blasey Ford?
Listen, man.
I don't care if you think she's a hero or if you hate her.
The fact is, she is a random person who came up.
She had no corroboration.
She had this flimsy accusation from 30, 40 years ago, and there's no courage in that, okay?
Coming out and being like, I think I remember this thing 40 years ago.
Dude, are you kidding me?
I was, you know, I was having a shower thought earlier, because I saw this story, and I was like, you know what's funny?
Like, there are people that I grew up with, I can't remember their names!
Like, okay, not like good friends of mine, it's not like I'm senile.
There are people that, like, a friend of my ex-girlfriend, that I used to see periodically, and I'm like, what was her name again?
Man, I don't remember.
There was one chick I dated 10 years ago, can't remember her name!
You know what I mean?
And so for them, for the ACLU to give an award to a woman who has this accusation from 40 years ago with no corroboration, You know what, man?
I'm just saddened and offended by what's happening.
See here, I'll tell you exactly when the ACL had its soul ripped out.
The ACLU rejected Donald Trump's call for a travel ban, a moratorium.
He was saying that these specific countries, we will not allow people to enter the U.S.
from there.
A lot of people called it a Muslim ban.
That's Trump's own fault because he called for a Muslim ban in the past.
But the nations included, I believe, North Korea and Venezuela.
So it wasn't just about banning Muslims.
And there were many countries that were Muslim that weren't banned.
So no, it was apparently, there were a list of nations that were high risk that Obama put together and Trump said, let's do it.
The ACLU rejected that.
There was a massive anti-Trump leftist resistance protest at airports.
And so the ACLU said, we're filing a suit to block Trump from doing this.
You can't do that.
It's a violation of civil liberties.
I can respect that.
I can respect that, ACLU.
Well, the ACLU saw record donations.
Bravo!
They resisted Trump, and sure enough, the money came pouring in.
But what happened then when Charlottesville was going to take place?
Well, the ACLU actually defended Charlottesville, saying they have a right to march, thinking they were proud and were going to stand up for our liberal ideals.
And guess what happened?
The left was outraged, furious, because the left looked the ACLU in the eyes and said, we have no principles.
We have no integrity.
We simply want to win.
We want power.
We don't care about who is allowed to speak.
We don't care about civil liberties.
We don't care about justice.
Bend the knee or perish.
And the ACLU Drop to the floor, in a pool of its own urine, shivering, saying, please, please!
The ACLU, a husk of its former self.
I'm, I'm, you know, you can tell I'm really angry about this because of the work I've done for them in the past.
I feel like they shoved a knife right in my back.
I'll admit, though.
I'm biased.
It doesn't have as much to do with the Christine Blasey Ford thing or Charlottesville or whatever.
You know, if they want to defend someone's right to free speech and then all hell breaks loose, that's a different... Look, man.
Am I going to be met at the ACLU because they defended the Charlottesville March?
No.
Because we didn't know what Charlottesville was going to be.
I didn't go.
I didn't want to go.
I didn't go and cover it, right?
There was a lot of journalists who went and I wasn't going to be one of them because I don't... I've never actually covered any of those events.
I've gone to, like, Trump rallies, but not that.
Well, after the fact, it turned, it devolved into just utter madness.
And we know how it ended.
That's not the ACLU's fault, okay?
It's not the fault that a clash broke out.
But I'll tell you why I'm so angry at the ACLU, and it's less to do with these things and more to do with the ACLU defending overt racism.
Just overt racism.
They said, make no mistake, the lawsuit against Harvard that's purported to represent the interests of Asian American students would primarily benefit white students if successful.
Oh, I'm sorry!
I'm in your way, ACLU.
Now I get it.
Okay, I've talked about my ethnicity a lot.
This is why.
A lot of people think it's funny, but no, man, you don't understand what it's like.
You know?
To be used as a weapon.
Buy these groups for these ridiculous socialist endeavors that fly in the face of what civil liberties are supposed to be, to be used as a shield, and then when you speak up, they just tell you you're white.
So I get it.
I'm not the most Asian person in the world.
But make no mistake, what the ACLU is saying by rejecting this and defending Harvard Is that, for one, all Asians are Chinese.
Because, for the most part, the Asians who get into these schools, they're wealthy Chinese immigrants or Indian immigrants.
They're not Vietnamese or Laotian or, you know, to an extent, Korean.
They're not Filipino.
What they're saying is, if you look too much like them, you can't go to this school.
I know I'm exaggerating a little bit.
It's basically, you're gonna have a harder time getting in.
So yes, that's racist.
That's not defending civil liberties.
Civil liberties would be defending the individual from a machine that says, because you look like this, you can't come here.
That's racist.
And that's what the ACLU has become.
Let's read a little bit about Christine Blasey Ford.
Kavanaugh accuser Christine Bozzi Ford accepted an award for courage from the ACLU on Sunday.
They honored Ford, who accused Brett Kavanaugh of assault, with the Roger Baldwin Courage Award at the ACLU of Southern California's Bill of Rights dinner.
Please.
Ford works as a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University.
When I came forward last September, I did not feel courageous.
Oh, it's probably because you felt guilty.
I was simply doing my duty as a citizen, providing information to the Senate that I believed would be relevant to the Supreme Court nomination process, she added.
I thought anyone in my position would, of course, do the same thing.
Also, apparently, she purged all of her social media and records of her existence from the Internet before coming forward with a dubious 40-year-old accusation that couldn't be corroborated.
Very courageous, ACLU!
Thank you so much.
You know, No, I'm gonna stop.
I had an anecdote, but I could probably get sued.
You know, the ACLU has let me down on other instances, okay?
And I'll leave it there.
Ford said she was inspired by Anita Hill, and by values her parents instilled in her growing up in Washington, D.C.
Oh, the by-any-means-necessary scorched-earth, no-holds-barred destruction of our institutions?
Think about it.
We're trying to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
The president was elected, he says.
This is who I want.
We're good.
All of a sudden, an unfounded 30-plus-year-old accusation emerges from somebody who can't
corroborate any of that, and we take it and we give this person an award?
I'm...
I can say it a million times.
I'm sorry.
I had a responsibility to my country, to my fellow citizens, to my students, to my children, to live the values that I tried to teach them.
She also said her testimony inspired 20,000 women across the country to send her message about their assault experiences.
That's why it meant so much to be recognized by you tonight, Ford told the Bill of Rights Dinner audience.
Because I know you will continue the work of protecting survivors and preventing assault.
You will continue the work to protect personal privacy and the rights of citizens.
That's not what they're doing.
That's not what they're doing at all.
The ACLU is a farce.
The ACLU has become just a shill organization to say, you know what?
Just tell us what to say and give us your money.
I know people who work there, or who have.
And I've heard some hopeful things, that internally there's a lot of people who are demoralized and scared, because we know what the ACL used to do.
Like, they only recently defended Charlottesville.
But after that, things changed.
Now they're just a husk that says whatever the resistance outrage, Insanity wants them to.
The people who believe that by any means necessary they will take what they want from the rest of us.
The lunatic authoritarians who will lie, cheat, and steal.
And those of us who say you shouldn't do that are left behind.
The ACLU should be ashamed of itself.
I am so utterly disgusted and ashamed to have ever done anything for their benefit.
And I'm ashamed that some of the people I signed up maybe are still donors.
And I hope, based on what I pitched when I said to sign up, those people agree with me.
At the time, I said simple things like, you realize the ACLU has defended the right of even the Klan to speak.
And people would say, you know, I disagree with what they say, but I defend to the death their right to say it.
You know, we'll protest them.
And we'll shut them down and we'll use our free speech right back.
But, the ACLU recognizes the importance of defending free speech, even for those people.
What happened to that?
Where did it go?
I'll tell you this, man.
The ACLU doesn't deserve your support, doesn't deserve your money, and it's a damn shame.
You got me saying damn.
And you can't say that on YouTube.
You know, I'll admit, that's considered a swear.
Giving an award to Christine Blasey Ford, I saw that, and it just kind of reignites all of that, you know, all the negative feelings I have about what they've become.
And I'll tell you what, man.
This does play into a bit about what I was saying earlier on my main channel with Eric Weinstein saying that, you know, liberals are being pushed out by their own side.
People are flinging poo at them, so they're leaving.
What does it say when an organization that I supported, that I worked on behalf of, that I convinced people to join the ACLU, has become this?
What does it say about our society?
I'll tell you what, I didn't change.
Maybe a little bit in some ways, but, you know, we all change a little bit.
But my politics are still where they are, believing in freedom, you know, being a bit of a social liberal with left-wing policy ideas.
But look at this.
Anybody who pretends like Christine Blasey Ford had anything relevant to say is lying to themselves and to you, because she did not.
What she said would never fly at all in a court of law, and they admit it.
They say, oh, but it's not about a court of law.
It's about whether or not a credible accusation should be ignored when we're talking about the Supreme Court.
It would be ignored by any sane, logical standard.
It's not a conservative position to say that.
You are just evil people who will destroy everything in your wake to get what you want.
You want power, and boy, I hope you never get it.
I hope they won't.
I got a couple more segments.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a minute.
I will see you shortly.
I believe we need to implement a student loan forgiveness program.
Most people associate that with progressive politics.
I know I do.
But we have this story here from The College Fix.
Former Trump education official proposes conservative case for student loan forgiveness.
There's actually a really intelligent take on what a lot of the problems facing the idea.
For one, one of the biggest complaints about student debt forgiveness is that people who already paid off their loans are now what?
You get a freebie and they had to do all that work?
Simple solution.
A tax credit for just that much so you still get that benefit.
I actually think that's a really great solution.
Let me tell you my position for those that aren't familiar.
We raised a generation insisting college was mandatory to success, and that was a lie.
People like me, who were fortunate enough to see through that, I escaped with no debt.
I'm a high school dropout, but I run a successful business.
I actually run a couple.
So for me, I'm doing great.
Too many people were told success has to do with getting a good job and getting a degree and all that.
Success is about how you define what makes you happy and accomplishing your own goals.
But here's the problem.
A lot of these young people are in debt, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel, so they give up.
You ever play a video game, and you couldn't figure out what to do next, so you just said, I'm done, and you stopped.
And for all you know, it could have been a simple pick up, you know, that lever and, you know, pick up that hammer and hit that button.
It could have been one simple step, but you just didn't know where it was, so you said, I can't do this.
I'm not going to sit here trying to figure it out.
I'm done.
Because the path, there was no light there.
We need a light at the end of the tunnel, otherwise these young people just think the only solution is full-blown communism.
It may seem counterintuitive.
A debt forgiveness program where we tax people or companies to pay off the money they got?
That seems socialist!
It is a bit left-leaning in a lot of regards.
We'll read this and see what the conservative take is.
But I don't think that's necessarily the solution.
I think we just stop the interest rates.
Let them pay off what they owe.
But give them a light at the end of that tunnel, and incentivize personal growth and development.
Otherwise, they're going to give up, and they're going to watch the whole world burn.
Because if they can't, what's the point?
Let's read and see what this Trump official says and how there's a conservative case.
Now, mind you, Trump did forgive student loan debt for disabled veterans.
There is a really smart way to do this.
I'm just going to say it, man.
Look, I don't care if it's left, right, top, down, whatever.
We cannot have a generation burdened by massive debt they struggle to pay off because they won't buy homes.
They won't get married.
They won't have kids.
There are a lot of problems there.
It affects everybody.
We need to figure out what we do about this because it was our culture that made the mistake in the first place.
They say a former Trump administration official in the Department of Education is now making the case the federal government should forgive student loan debt and that doing so is actually a conservative position.
Wayne Johnson resigned last month as the head of the Office of Federal Student Aid, declaring that the federal student loan program is fundamentally broken.
He made the case that debt forgiveness is a conservative position at the American Enterprise Institute Thursday, calling for the forgiveness of up to $50,000 in student loans.
Too far for me, dude.
That does not seem conservative.
But let's read on.
Johnson would extend an equivalent tax credit to those who have already paid off their loans and then abolish the federal student loan system.
That I agree with.
I will say, look man, you want to pay off $50,000 in loans?
Take the money from the colleges.
Seriously, take it from them.
They're the ones exploiting young people.
Furthermore, Johnson would award a $50,000 college grant to every high school graduate going forward.
In an interview with AEI, I think that $50,000 to every high school graduate?
That's way beyond free college.
If we did a free college program like Bernie wants, it wouldn't even cost $50,000 per person.
In an interview with American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Jason Delisle, who specializes in higher education financing, Johnson made clear that he did not want this to extend to private loans, because I don't want it to go into the private sector.
Ah, there you go.
Okay, so he's talking about forgiving the federal loans.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos hired Johnson in 2017, which she credited to giving her a copy of his doctoral dissertation on private student loan debt.
An economic stimulus.
To pay for his plan, Johnson proposes a 1% tax increase on corporate earnings.
I'm gonna stop you there, dude.
I do not think that'll work.
They can move their businesses elsewhere.
He argues that corporations are the ultimate beneficiaries of college graduates and therefore should take part in the investment into their creation.
I think the colleges that are exploiting young people, that are jacking up tuition, these companies that sell college textbooks that are ridiculously expensive, and the collusion they have between professors to make them buy the books as a requirement, how about we find that money there and stop the people who are selling snake oil to kids?
Student loan forgiveness and education grants weren't the only specific details of Johnson's plan.
He also wants to see federal income share agreements championed most prominently by Purdue University President Mitch Daniels.
ISAs require students to pay a fixed percentage of future income to an investor who finances their education.
That's actually an interesting idea as well.
Johnson said ISAs could be a very powerful component of his plan, kicking in after the $50,000 credit has been exhausted.
He would like to see a college explain to him why $50,000 was not enough money.
A lot of people have hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
The problem is not taxing companies.
The problem is these corporate college systems.
They know they can get your money.
They collude.
They jack up prices.
We need to stop them.
They are the problem.
I have to point out too, it's funny how many college kids get indoctrinated or just enter this weird cultish mindset, as well as be laden with debt they can never pay off.
So their only solution when they leave is, they've been beaten over the head with communist ideas, and now they're like, I can't pay this off, they vote communist!
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy.
I'm saying these academics are left-wing.
A lot of people go to college, get into academia, and they recycle these same beliefs, and now they're going to vote for communism.
I know communism is bold.
I can say socialism.
At several points in discussion, Johnson was clear to emphasize that his plan was still a work in progress, and that he was still working through many of the details.
And I can respect that he's working on that, and I think it's the right thing to work on, though I think he's got some details wrong.
Far be it from me to tell him he worked for the government.
He knows how the system works.
Maybe he knows better than I do.
I would assume so.
Those include a look-back period for the tax credit for those who had paid off their loans.
That means that up to a certain number of years in the past, those who have paid off their loans will be eligible for the $50,000 tax credit.
Johnson said the problems with the federal student aid system are the hiding in plain sight, are our hiding in plain sight, and that people throughout the country feel the burden of the debt.
But he added, it's not just the debt itself, it's the whole system that got them into that state of affairs.
Yes, yes, yes.
Though some specific programs were well intended, when looking at the structure of those programs from a requirement standpoint, some of these things make no sense when you try to operationalize them.
He believes the vast majority of loans dispersed by the Department of Education will not be collected because a majority of the people who owe more money now than they did before making payments because of compounded interest rates.
That's why I'm saying my idea for debt forgiveness is you still owe all of that money, but we're going to stop the interest so now you only have principal to pay off.
And yes, that means based on the rate of inflation, you are going to see technically your payments going down.
So it's a net benefit.
You still got to pay off what you borrowed.
No freebies.
But can we stop the predatory interest?
That's what's causing this to be a perpetual problem.
I'll tell you what, man, you can disagree.
I respect that.
But I ask you then, what's your solution to dealing with the fact millennials aren't buying houses?
There's gonna be a housing market collapse and a bunch of empty homes collapsing, falling apart.
What about not having families?
We gotta figure out how we make sure that young people can become adults.
And college is the biggest problem.
College, in my opinion, makes young people perpetual children in more ways than one.
We do not need people institutionalized their whole lives.
You need to figure out how to survive on your own.
That means college... Look, you've already spent so many years in grade school and high school, and now you're getting out at 22, 24, 26, and you've never lived your own life, fought for your own food, found your own shelter.
You've done nothing but have everything handed to you, even the money to pay for it.
These are all problems.
Not only that, but the culture of these colleges makes these people perpetually outraged children.
So we need to stop it.
We do.
And that means pulling off the band-aid might hurt.
And you might say, I don't want to do that, but I tell you what, the alternative is worse.
This system carries on.
It's going to be the biggest bubble we've ever seen.
There's going to be a collapse of an entire generation that are going to be desperate for money and with no recourse.
I'll tell you what.
If they have debt they can't file bankruptcy on, if they can't make money, they're going to become weird, I don't know how to describe it, but I'm like, I don't know, zombies almost, like economic zombies, where they struggle to participate in the economic system, they can never make enough money, they can't get rid of the debt, so they give up, and they slosh around angry and outraged all the time, and they vote for insanity.
You need to give people a structure they know, where if I do X, I will get Y. And right now, these people know, for the most part, that no matter what job they take, they won't make enough money to pay down that debt.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand there are a lot of millennials who love having that fancy new iPhone, drinking that Starbucks latte, and can't budget for the life of them.
But regardless of those cases, even if there's the majority, this needs to be dealt with.
We need to figure out how we shift our culture to get rid of this problem.
I, for one, am very much in favor of solving it however we can, and that includes student debt forgiveness.
And I'll tell you what.
It is begrudgingly that I say that.
Man, I do not like the idea, because I know kids in college who partied and wasted their time and are irresponsible.
And the thought of giving tax money to them makes me, you know, I don't want to do that.
Be responsible.
I struggled.
I fought.
I survived.
You can do the same thing.
And it was good for me.
And it'll be good for you.
But I'll tell you this, as much as pulling out that bandaid might hurt, and you might regret doing it, and you don't want to help that person you knew was irresponsible, something needs to be done.
I am not saying that we should feed a man a fish, that we should go to these kids and say, here's all the fish, congratulations, your life is miserable.
I'm saying that we should now teach them to fish, and we should say, I'll tell you what, We're going to teach you how to fish to fix this problem.
We're going to set up a system to where you have to pay back your loans in some capacity, but stopping interest rates will at least alleviate the problem to a certain degree.
Maybe it won't be enough, but the conversation needs to happen.
1.5 trillion dollars in student loan debt nationwide is accumulated interest.
We can't go on like this.
If you're older, what world are we leaving to the next generation?
You might hate millennials.
You might think these leftists are nuts.
And hey man, I can sit here and crack a beer and we can rant all day and complain about them.
But I'll tell you what, if we don't do something now, the ship is sinking.
And it's going to be bad, bad, bad for everybody when the economy takes a major hit because these people are funneling money into debt they'll never pay off.
I'll leave it there.
I don't know if his plan is correct, but I do think it's interesting that there's a lot of people on board with this, conservative or otherwise.
Let me know what you think.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m.
