Leftist Gets Vasectomy Over Climate Change Fears, Conservatives WILL WIN If Liberals Don't Have Kids
Leftist Gets Vasectomy Over Climate Change Fears, Conservatives Will WIN If Liberals Don't Have Kids. Ocasio Cortez choked back tears recently as she said he dreams of motherhood were not bittersweet due to climate change. While Ocasio Cortez cries often enough, many young democrats like her feel the same way and have pledged to not have children.In the latest bit of over the top politics a man wrote an op-ed about how he is getting a vasectomy to help the planet and save the polar bears.But this push to the far left seems like social justice virtue signaling that won't actually help anything. For one the guy was already 38 and didn't have kids but more importantly many other countries are still having many kids and even conservatives are having many kids.This means all that the far left social justice types do by not having kids is ensure that their ideas leave the earth with them. it means that in the next several decades the US and other countries will become more and more conservative and right leaning.Some have argument that due to immigration the future will be far left but the reality is that most migrants are still more conservative than the far left progressives in the US.Hispanic migrants for instance are very religious and you even have people like Kanye West pushing Christianity.The trend as it looks now is toward a conservative future. Social justice and far left narratives are an ideological deadend if the people who believe them don't have children.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today's political battles will eventually come to an end.
And in the coming years, young people will become adults and they will take over.
We can get a glimpse of what the future will look like based on the next generation.
It's kind of obvious, right?
Somebody who's 15 years old in 15 years will be in charge of many big companies.
Some of them will even be in politics.
But I can tell you one thing.
There's a debate over whether or not the future will be conservative or liberal.
And one of the things I've said very often is, I think it's going to be pretty conservative, and this story going around is exactly why.
This is from OutsideOnline.com, and it reads, I got a vasectomy because of climate change.
Getting one was by far the most powerful personal action I could take for our planet.
And I want to contrast for you two stories.
This is from a leftist who's concerned that CO2 emissions are destroying the planet, therefore, Why would you want to have a child to bring them into this world with all the wildfires and disasters and overpopulation, at the same time contributing to that problem while subjecting a new life to it?
That's how the left views things.
Let me show you a story from the right.
I don't have seven arms to hug them all.
A year after their father's death in Afghanistan, a mother and her children struggled to move on.
This is from Time.com, and it's from October 10th, 2019.
I feel for this woman's family.
She lost her husband in war and the father of her children.
It's a sad story.
Now, they live in Utah.
Utah is a red state.
I'm not saying they're overtly conservative, but in this red state, this family had seven children.
Compare those numbers, and I think you can see where I'm getting with this.
A story that I covered on my second channel a few weeks ago, I believe.
Republicans have more kids than Democrats.
A lot more kids.
Red states have more kids than blue states.
Maybe that's why Republicans keep winning.
It's hard to know exactly what's going to happen because along with the decline in liberals having children, you have an increase in immigration.
So here's what I'm going to do.
First thing I want to do is I want to read for you this story.
And comment on it.
About why this individual got a vasectomy because of climate change.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can support what I'm doing, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
What you may have realized by now is not about impeachment, because I said, you know what, enough.
We deserve a break.
And there are other important issues that I could focus on for the main segment I do every day.
So again, helping my channel grow, just share this content, it really does help.
Let's read the story outside from Wes Seiler, who I'm assuming is the person who got the vasectomy.
He says, I've always struggled to combine the idea of personal responsibility with the overwhelming need for human society to address the threat posed by climate change.
Since at least the 1970s, the massive energy corporations responsible for the vast majority of our carbon emissions have known about and done nothing to mitigate the harm they cause.
Full stop.
Actually, in the 70s, there was a big concern over global cooling, where they actually encouraged people to use more fossil fuels.
But yes, there was a concern over global warming, which has persisted to this date.
Because they own politicians worldwide, there doesn't appear to be any will to take government-level action.
But I'm supposed to turn off a light?
What possible impact could that ever have?
And why is this all on my shoulders and not theirs?
Well, because the world is comprised of individuals.
Individual actions results in the bigger picture.
The snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche, but you can't tell a corporation just to stop.
That doesn't make sense.
We need fossil fuels for food production and food transport, and we have a lot of problems with waste in this world.
And I agree we could do more to solve.
I'm very much in favor of protecting the environment, weaning off fossil fuels, and solving that problem.
But I don't see how a vasectomy actually solves anything, because let's be real.
If you don't want to have kids, don't have kids.
This seems like some more of an ideological extreme.
Listen, if you're concerned about how you bring up kids in this world, it makes sense to say, I don't think we'll have any more.
In fact, some people have said they're going to have one or two, maybe just two kids because then you're at population stasis.
Some have said, I just want to have kids.
Okay, I think it's a little bit extreme for a lot of reasons, but fine, go ahead and don't do it.
In this instance, however, going for a vasectomy because you don't have kids is strange.
Not only that, I believe this man is 38 years old and he doesn't have any kids.
It sounds like he's just virtue signaling.
I gotta be honest.
It sounds like he's saying he did this for climate change when in reality he just didn't want to have kids.
I mean, you're 38.
I mean, I'm 33.
I don't have kids.
And I guess I want to have kids.
We'll see what happens.
But anyway, let's read on.
He says, When I got engaged to my fiancée, Virginia, and I started planning for the future, it wasn't just my dog Wiley and me against the world anymore.
All of a sudden, I started thinking 10 to 20 or more years ahead.
Children are an obvious thing to plan.
With a sudden focus on responsible decision making, it no longer made sense to leave hypothetical future offspring up to chance.
When should we have them?
What did our careers look like on the timeline?
Who'd be responsible for staying home and raising them?
Couldn't we just have one of the dogs do that?
That's a weird okay.
He says, We got engaged in June 2018, a couple months before a wildfire destroyed an entire town in California.
Another one wiped out sections of Malibu.
Shortly after that, most of the Mississippi River basin flooded.
Something that might be the new normal.
Virtually eliminating the future for industrial agriculture throughout a region that produces much of this nation's food.
And of course, the whole Donald Trump thing has been... Oh, and there it is!
The whole Donald Trump thing.
Listen.
Natural disasters have existed forever.
Did you know in the past they thought they were acts of God?
Now we know it just sometimes disasters happen.
I'll quote Bill Maher.
In the film Religulous, someone asks him, if you reached a glass outside and it started raining, wouldn't you call that a miracle?
And Bill Maher says, no, sometimes it rains.
Well, guess what?
Sometimes there are wildfires.
There have been reports that because of California mismanagement in clearing the brush from the floor of these areas, it starts fires.
And wildfires are actually a natural process when, you know, biodegradable materials start piling up or carbon-based materials, and then there's too many, fires start.
My understanding, and I could be wrong about this, is that it's a cycle.
There'll be too much, they'll start a fire.
But because we're now preventing them, it gets worse and worse and worse.
I do think it's fair to say that many people are concerned.
Climate change is causing more extreme weather phenomenon.
But still, this sounds like a virtue signal.
Let's read on, and then I want to get to a specific point where I can just... Let me put it this way.
This is extremism.
This is what you get when you have hysteria and outright extremism when it comes to political ideology.
This man talks about how he's trying to save the polar bears by doing this.
Maybe as a joke, I guess, but the polar bears, while they're sort of in trouble, they're actually doing okay.
I'll show you the data.
But actually, let me read more.
He says, it looks like the pace of climate change is speeding ahead of science's ability to understand or forecast it.
Thinking about hypothetical West Junior's life as far into the future as I've already lived, 38 years.
So he's 38 with no kids.
It's tempting to try to forecast stuff like so many feet of sea level rise or the extinction of some keystone species.
But that may not be possible.
The future might be worse than any of us currently fear.
Then Virginia and I started talking about something we could do for ourselves to make a meaningful impact on the bigger problem.
We could just forego the whole kid thing altogether.
Dude, you're already 38.
I mean, it sounds like you were already planning on it.
He then talks about how there's too many humans, and this brings me to the big point about what a waste of time.
You see, many people have been talking for quite some time about not having kids to offset global warming, climate change, climate crisis, whatever you want to call it.
That makes no sense.
You know why?
First, conservatives are certainly having kids, religious folk are certainly having kids, India and China are certainly having kids.
Now, I think based on current numbers, China's actually lower than the U.S., but China's massive.
And there are many countries, I believe in Africa for instance, the entire continent, the birth rate is around between like 3 and 5 depending on the country.
So while you are not having kids, and you make up only a subsection of the United States, You look at other continents and other countries, and they're certainly having kids, but think about the exponential growth.
You're not offsetting anything, okay?
The people in certain African tribes who are having four or five kids, those four or five kids also have four or five kids.
Now, it is projected to go down by 2050, but they're still going to have two or three kids, in which case your numbers are declining.
Now, the reason why this is so important to consider, you're the people who care about climate change, right?
Do you think China cares about climate change?
They say they do, but they don't.
They're building new coal power plants.
This is one of the biggest ideological dead ends at the left faces.
They don't want to have kids, so who will carry out your ideas to protect the environment in the future if the conservatives, who don't think climate change is a big problem or don't believe in it outright, are having tons of kids, maybe even seven, and you're getting abortions and actually not having kids or getting vasectomies?
You see, your ideas die with your kids.
The future will be handed off to the next generation, and you can try and say as much as you want, but in the end, other people share their ideas as well, other people disagree, and they're having more kids than you.
Take it for what it is.
But let me show you where we ultimately end up.
You know what the bigger issue is?
It's not so much about whether or not other countries are having kids.
It's about the fact that while you are deciding you won't have kids, people who work in industry and governments are outsourcing the positions they need to grow the economy.
This results in a rather funny phenomenon.
First, We have this story from June of 2018.
Would you give up having children to save the planet?
Meet the couples who have.
The environmental toll of having even one child is enormous.
58.6 tons of carbon each year.
So is going child-free the answer to our climate crisis?
The answer is a resounding no.
Because this is very, very short-sighted.
We end up seeing stories like this.
Want to fight climate change?
Actually, this predates that.
Have fewer children?
Well, The Guardian told us, these left-wing publications, you've got to have less kids.
We've got to fight climate change, right?
The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding flights, going vegetarian, according to a study into true impacts of different green lifestyle choices.
Okay.
Not having kids is a great way to fight climate change.
But in 30 years, who will continue that fight for climate change when the people who don't believe in it had kids and their kids are now 20 and 30 years old and they're now voting against you?
You see the ideological roadblock you're facing?
Perhaps the answer is have one or two kids.
But they're saying outright none and get vasectomies.
What do you think happens when the economy starts receding or depressing because there aren't enough people to sustain it?
That brings the next story.
From January of this year, Megan McArdle for the Washington Post, columnist, writes in an op-ed, can immigration save the U.S.
from its birth rate crisis?
Man, I tell you what.
There are a lot of people who certainly think there's a conspiracy behind this.
No, this is dominoes falling over and it's quite hilarious.
You see, the people who believe in getting vasectomies and not having kids make up a very small faction of this country.
It is true, however, that liberals, for the most part, aren't having that many kids in general.
You will then have leaders of industry and government saying, We need new workers to fill these jobs.
So what do they do?
They open the doors for immigration.
I am not criticizing immigration.
I'm saying, to those who say, don't have kids because they think it'll help offset climate change, you are wrong!
Because by not having kids, they just replace you with people from other countries who are willing to do the jobs your kids aren't around to do.
Now, of course, naturally you're going to get a lot of people on the left saying, oh, the Great Replacement Conspiracy.
I'm not talking about conspiracies or race or anything like that.
I don't care.
I'm saying, if you think not having kids will reduce the global population, you're only reducing the ideology of the people who believe that.
You get the point?
Conservative families, immigrant families will keep having kids.
Okay?
That includes people of all races.
And the only people who will cease are those who actually believe what you do.
In the end.
We can see where this leads us.
And don't worry.
I want to get to the polar bears in a second.
Fatherly wrote this article on March 26th of this year.
Red states have more kids than blue states.
Maybe that's why Republicans keep winning.
But this goes back to 2006.
Let me read this for you.
And for those that did see the segment I did earlier, forgive me, but it's important context.
Liberals are not having enough babies to keep up with conservatives.
Arthur Brooks, a social scientist at Syracuse University, was the first to point this out all the way back in 2006, when he went on ABC News and blew Blue Starters' minds.
The political right is having a lot more kids than the political left, he explained.
The gap is actually 41%.
Data on the U.S.
birth rate from the General Social Survey confirms this trend.
A random sample of 100 conservative adults will raise 208 children, more than replacing them.
While 100 liberal adults will raise a mere 147 kids.
That's a massive gap.
They say, when we collected the number of children per capita in each state and then compared the data to statewide voting records, we found that the trend is so strong that it can even be observed at the state level.
Red states come out with significantly more kids per capita than blue states.
This means that today we are seeing the top end of the bell curve and it's going to shift.
When I covered this story, I showed the data from Pew that Generation Z is slightly more conservative than millennials in some key areas.
Not completely.
Generation Z is a little more progressive and a little more conservative depending.
There's slightly more support for Donald Trump among Generation Z.
Many people took that to believe that young people in general are more likely to be conservative.
I don't think that's correct.
What I think we're actually seeing is that there are just more conservatives in Gen Z than we can expect.
There likely is still a trend among young people to move towards progressive politics, especially when you see the media being produced for kids, being produced by a lot of leftists and progressives.
But because of the sheer number of conservative children going back to 2006, we knew this, you will likely see a bucking of that trend.
So I've said it before, but for the context.
Traditionally, every generation is slightly more progressive, but for the first time in like four or five generations, Gen Z has actually shifted that a little bit.
So it stands to reason, with people saying they're going to get vasectomies, we are going to end up with more conservatives in the future.
Now, some people have said to me, Tim, with immigration replacing these liberals, you're going to have a more liberal future.
But let me just stress, The migrants who come here tend to be substantially more conservative than progressives.
They're not conservatives, but they're substantially more conservative.
So what I think you'll end up seeing is a shift towards the right.
Whatever this left-wing rush off a cliff is, I think in 15 more years, you're going to see a push to the right.
Because I think a good point to bring up is, For instance, a lot of the Hispanic migrants who come to this country are Christians.
You now see Kanye West, for instance, talking about the gospel and Christianity and religion.
I think you're going to see a resurgence in Christianity because of this.
Think about it.
The people who are more likely to be atheist are also more likely to be pro-choice, not have kids.
They're also more likely to be doing things like this.
Which brings me to that great article, AOC gets choked up at Climate Forum.
My dreams of motherhood are now bittersweet.
The future, in my opinion, will be substantially more conservative than it is today.
Because the left-wing politics will end up bending towards a more conservative position as time goes on.
Gen Z, although many of the Gen Z people are worse snowflakes than millennials, they're likely going to start skewing towards the right for a couple reasons.
As more young people are conservative, eventually the dominant social group will be more conservative.
You'll end up with kids who are big fans of PewDiePie who don't trust the weird progressive media, and then you're going to have young people wanting to be like that.
If you have four kids who are progressive and six who are conservative, the new kid who steps in is going to want to be popular, and the most popular person has the most amount of support.
So, they're gonna shift in that direction.
But this idea of getting a vasectomy and not having kids, yeah, it's pervasive.
AOC is saying her dreams of motherhood are now bittersweet, she can't do it.
Imagine what life is like if you don't believe climate change is that big of a deal.
I think it's a big deal too, but I also realize if you don't have kids, your ideas go away when you do.
Well, they're not having kids.
But here's my favorite part.
I told you I'd get to the polar bears, and I gotta get to the polar bears.
So he says, in the op-ed, we're not having kids.
I found a colleague's brother here in Bozeman who performs vasectomies and made an appointment.
I was afraid of getting my scrotum operated on, but the procedure ended up being quicker and less invasive than most dental appointments.
He goes on to explain that he took Valium before the surgery, and for the next seven days it felt like someone kicked him hard where the sun don't shine.
Doesn't feel, doesn't sound like it felt very good at all, and that's seven days.
Ooh, that's, I'll give you respect for enduring that, because that's, that's, bravo.
That's gotta hurt, right?
I think even if you disagree politically, there is still going to be the brotherhood of understanding the pain of getting kicked and dealing with that for seven days, sure.
While I disagree with you politically, I'll give you respect there.
He says the worst part was taking a week off from the gym.
I'd been making good progress.
It's just a week, you know?
It's a good recovery.
Just don't eat, just don't go overboard.
Eat some protein.
Now here's the best part.
It might not be enough to save the polar bear, and it might not prevent the next campfire, but this is the absolute biggest difference we can make.
We need fewer humans, and getting there voluntarily will be an awful lot less painful than doing it with war, famine, and natural disaster.
And I agree with that final message, to an extent.
We do need less humans, but we need less humans in major cities.
We actually need more humans working on certain areas of technology.
The big problem we have is that we have too many humans who do literally nothing.
So here's the challenge, man.
The world would be better off if people were more in line with how the United States is focusing on the problem.
Developing new technologies?
People like you, Wes, who want to do something about climate change.
But you look at China, they don't agree.
And they're producing, I believe, around double what we produce.
Now it is true, at least according to my understanding, that per capita, we produce the most.
But China as a nation is producing around double the carbon we do and they are still building coal power plants.
What do you do to solve that problem?
This is not it.
So you know what?
In the end, guess who wins?
The conservatives.
Because the very last thing I'll give you is the polar bears.
He says he wants to save them.
Well, I decided to go to the Arctic World Wildlife Foundation's website to figure out what exactly is happening with the polar bears and is there any cause for concern.
And the reality is, a little bit, but maybe not so much.
You see, they say this.
Before 1973, several polar bear populations were decimated by unsustainable hunting by European, Russian, and American hunters and trappers from the 1600s right through the mid-1970s.
In 1973, Canada, the U.S., Denmark, Norway, and former USSR signed the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and Their Habitat.
In 2005, the polar bear was upgraded from least concerned to vulnerable by the IUCN group.
In 2013, ministers and other leaders from five polar bear range states met in Moscow for the first international forum on polar bear conservation.
The leaders made significant commitments to address the issues of polar bear habitat, research, and trade.
The event was supported by the WWF.
Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range, and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them.
Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
Four populations are declining, two are increasing, five are stable, and eight are data deficient.
In the future, they do fear that there will be a 30% or so decline.
So I'll tell you what.
When it comes to the left, you know what the big problem is?
They don't know where to stop.
They don't know how far is too far.
And Jordan Peterson has talked about this.
Conservatives know how far is too far and have no problem calling it out.
In fact, there's a big fight among conservatives right now about people showing up to, like, Donald Trump Jr.' 's events.
I'm not going to get into it.
The left doesn't know when to stop.
They don't know what the right amount of money should be to pay somebody.
They say $15 an hour, and then as soon as they get that, they say $20 an hour.
They don't know at what point you stop fighting.
You see, your efforts to save the polar bear worked.
Now what you need to do is say, okay, where we're at right now is helping the polar bears.
What can we do to think ahead to make sure we can help them in the future?
Getting a vasectomy and not having kids is the opposite of that because there will be no one that you can instill your ideas into in the future to make sure the polar bears remain protected.
So, by getting a vasectomy, AOC, by crying and saying you can't have kids, and to all the other progressives who for various reasons are terminating their pregnancies, refusing to have children, or outright preventing the ability to even have the kids in the first place, your ideas will go away with you.
The polar bears are going to be okay.
However, with you gone, and with no children to share your ideas, there will be no one left to protect those polar bears.
But alas, I believe that what I'm saying will fall on deaf ears, because they'd rather virtue signal.
Let me just give you one final thought.
I hope you enjoyed this, because we're getting away from impeachment, at least for a little bit.
But this gentleman here was 38 when he decided to do this.
Dude, I think you're already not going to have kids.
And I'll say it again, you don't have to have a vasectomy to avoid having kids.
You can just choose not to do it.
And then maybe in the future, I guess it's reversible anyway, but...
Just goes to show you that what we're seeing here, in my opinion, is ideological extremism, which is a dead end and results in the loss of this culture and these ideas.
I'm sure some people on the right are cheering and laughing about it.
But it's virtue signaling, saying, look what I did to prove that I care.
AOC, you cried while I went and did the right thing.
Well, guess what?
They're gonna bring in more immigrants because you won't have kids, and those immigrants are gonna have kids, and in other countries and continents they're still having kids, so you are quite literally doing nothing but removing the only people who seek to help solve the problem of climate change.
I think it's fair to say in the future no one will care.
Unless something really bad happens that everyone's forced to, but I don't see it.
The problem is too big to be perceived by an individual, in which case most people will just say, you know what?
Sometimes it rains.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
The Democratic debate was a flop.
Only 6.5 million viewers.
Now, yeah, 6.5 million viewers is a decent amount of people, but it's like, I think, less than half of the first debate.
And you also gotta realize, they may talk about it in the story, but I believe the first Republican primary debate in 2016 was like 25 million viewers.
It was like the biggest broadcast ever.
And now we have this.
The lowest in the current cycle, and it's getting lower and lower.
And you know what?
It's kind of sad for another reason.
Apparently, this was a historical Democratic debate.
Because the people who were asking the questions, the journalists and commentators, they were all female.
And people were cheering for this, and unfortunately, 6.5 million viewers.
It flopped.
Here's the real reason, though.
Why would anyone bother watching a bunch of people say the same thing they've said 50 million times on every news outlet?
It's all non-stop, okay?
The news is 24-7.
It is in our faces.
It is on our phones.
Twitter has kept us hooked into the network 24-7.
Man, I was thinking about before the advent of Twitter Mobile, where were we in terms of information?
I remember being at a skate park.
With a candy bar Nokia back in like the 2000s with no access to the internet, I had no idea what was going on.
I was just going around skating and it never occurred to me that something might happen.
Now no matter where I go, we're always checking our phones and we know.
I'm sorry.
The format is dead.
We don't need this anymore.
And it's on the way out.
I'm going to read this for you, but I want to show you a couple things.
Check this out.
This is Joe Rogan with Bernie Sanders, 10.5 million views.
This is Joe Rogan with Andrew Yang, 4.46 million views.
And one of the, I know that, I believe Tulsi Gabbard was on with Joe Rogan a couple times, but the one I did pull up, I don't have it now, is like 1.5 million.
I'll tell you what.
You want to get your message out, you go on the Joe Rogan podcast.
You don't do this.
Think about it.
Bernie Sanders got way more traction by talking with Joe Rogan, was able to actually talk a bit more in depth about his ideas without being given 30 seconds to respond.
You actually got to sit down for a couple hours and talk about things.
Was it the most in-depth?
No.
Is it good when you have a debate and someone can say, hey, your idea is bad for this reason?
Absolutely.
Do you always get that from Joe Rogan?
Unfortunately, you don't.
But Joe Rogan is still leaps and bounds above whatever this archaic monstrosity is.
So there you have it.
The old guard is fading.
And let me show you something really amazing.
Look at the top comment here.
This feels like a watershed moment for alternative media.
Random MMA guy Joe Rogan has a far better interview with a presidential candidate than any mainstream media and reaches vast amounts of people.
Dare I say it?
More people.
Joe Rogan and Bernie Sanders' conversation has reached more people than the MSNBC Democratic debate.
So why bother?
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
You know what's funny?
This shows us something else.
They are in panic mode because they no longer control the narrative.
And by they, I'm referring to establishment politicos.
And I'm not talking about a secret cabal that knows they can press a button.
I'm talking about a group of people that know that the message will only be distilled through a few networks.
They can pay for coverage.
They can provide favors for beneficial coverage to people they know.
Not like it's a grand conspiracy, but birds of a feather flock together.
These rich politico types are like, hey, if you want access to our White House, you better do us right in the press.
They know, as we heard from Amy Robach, if we do the story on Epstein, uh-oh, we can't interview, you know, Will and Kate anymore.
The media used to be the gatekeepers, and there are many people still praising that role and demanding we need it.
Unfortunately for them, the old guard is gone.
The ivory tower is collapsing.
Let's read a little bit first and then I want to show you the ramifications.
I'll tell you this right now.
As this archaic monolith collapses, It's not pretty.
When you look at these old crony establishment Democrat types talking about conspiracy theories, it's funny because it's like, dude, you're old.
You're out.
You're not the majority anymore.
You don't control the narrative.
Your insane worldview is now the minority.
Congratulations, you've lost.
It's actually kind of sad, but also kind of, I don't know, uplifting in a sense when you watch these failed crony DNC type warmongers losing.
Hey, hey, feels good, right?
I'm a random dude.
Joe's a random dude.
I mean, Joe's a famous guy.
He's a comedian, and he's not used to being on too much TV shows and stuff.
But we're in the era now where we have a real meritocracy, to an extent.
It used to be cronyism.
It was like, if you want a job, you gotta be wealthy, your parents gotta pay your way, and you gotta have a connection.
Now it's make good content, have good ideas, and work hard.
That's amazing.
They say, according to data measured by Nielsen, the cable news outlet's telecast captured just 6.5 million viewers overall and a little more than 1.67 in the key demo, 25 to 54.
It's the most coveted demographic.
That is a major failure because Fox News regularly gets like 800 to I think like a million in the key demo.
That's sad.
No, I think Fox News might get like 400 to 500.
I could be wrong about that.
But still, for a democratic debate only getting three times a normal night?
The totals would make the event one of the least watched in the recent cycle of five democratic debates that have been offered by the Democratic National Committee in 2019.
MSNBC noted that some people watched the debate in non-traditional fashion.
Coverage generated more than 1.3 live video streams via NBC News.
Are they talking about a million?
In a memo to staff, NBC and MSNBC chairman Andy Lack offered praise for Wednesday night's coverage.
We took a completely blank canvas, a sound stage, at Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta and turned it into a stunning debate venue worthy of the moment, he said.
Staffers, he added, knocked it out of the park.
So listen.
Remember when Tulsi Gabbard was talking about boycotting the debates?
It actually kind of makes sense when you think about it now.
I mean, you'd be nuts to forego access to 6.5 million people, I get it, but we're coming to a point now where time could be better spent doing other things.
Seriously.
I'm gonna be honest with you guys.
I get hit up by a ton of people about doing interviews, and there was a period where I was out, you know, I think I did a handful of Fox News interviews about certain issues.
I just ignore it.
I don't do them anymore, you know?
And it's because we're not... There's no real reason for me, someone who makes media, to go and do media.
Now, I understand for politicians.
But at a certain point, you're sitting there thinking, like, what's the real benefit to going to the event, to speaking, to doing this show?
And I remember I was told by the speaking agent a long time ago, he said, you gotta realize that when you're asked to go do a show or talk somewhere, it's because you are their entertainment.
And I thought about that and I was like, but I make media, right?
So if I'm going to do my own, why would I bother going to them?
Now at the time, I was getting substantially less views on anything I was doing, but I still felt like, I don't know, I'd rather just do my own thing, right?
And so for a while I did speaking events and I did go on these shows, but now we're at a point where it just doesn't matter.
Going on Joe Rogan was great.
That's a really, really big platform, so there's great benefit to that.
I gotta imagine now, if you're Bernie Sanders and you pulled in 10 million views on Joe Rogan, why are you going to want to go to the debate?
I mean, I guess you will for posterity, for the prestige of doing it, to have your name in the newspapers, but even the newspapers are failing.
Check this out.
I got a couple of tweets I want to show you.
For one, let me come back to this one about Joe Biden.
I want to show you this first.
David Frum tweeted, President Trump won the 2016 election by accepting clandestine foreign help.
False.
He was caught trying to win the 2020 election by extorting clandestine foreign help.
Also false.
If unchecked, he will do it again.
He is likely doing it right now.
This is David Frum with 800,000 followers.
You know what's funny is 10 years ago, that would have been law.
For all these people who scream and rant about conspiracy theories and about how Trump believes fake news, sorry, your narrative machine has been fractured and you don't control this anymore.
As proven by the Democratic debates, you can't even... 6.5 million?
I get more views than that in a week!
And just about.
So if I'm... I'm getting, you know, I think right now like 35 to 40 million views per month.
A month is very different from a single day.
I can understand that.
But they don't do democratic debates every day.
They do democratic debates every other month.
So now the best thing you can do is make a YouTube channel.
Get on Twitter.
Make your own media.
And guess what happens when you do that?
Well for one, we see how they try and ban people.
They want to ban people because they're like, uh-oh, dangerous ideas.
Can't have that.
Facebook suspended me for saying the name of the whistleblower and YouTube took down my video because I talked about the identity of the whistleblower.
So that's horrifying.
The new gatekeepers are going to be YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
And that's why we got to make sure we protect this.
Because we will revert back to this, you know, monopolistic narrative state where you have no chance to hear, you know, opinions or even real fact-checking.
Because think about this.
They don't, you know, I get my content removed.
I had one video talking about Pinterest, that the Project Veritas leaked, they outright deleted it.
And they sent me this, like, I got a notice later on, it was sent to a spam folder, like, hey, we just want to let you know we deleted your video.
That's horrifying.
That was Legit Journals and I did nothing wrong.
I broke no rules.
There have been YouTube channels that have been deleted outright.
That is scary.
We do not want to go back to that world.
They certainly do.
The uber-wealthy politicos.
They can't control the narrative.
How are they going to win if they can't brainwash you?
So here's what's happening.
I'm willing to bet right now.
There's one of the biggest divides between left and right in this country, whatever you want to say it is.
I think it's mainstream versus alternative media.
Now look, there's been a lot of people who have said things like it's authoritarian versus libertarian.
That's true, to an extent.
Some people have said it's nationalist versus globalist.
Also true, to a certain extent.
But I don't think any one of these, you know, factions or divides really encompasses what the culture war really is.
So I do think it would be presumptuous of me to say it's alternative versus mainstream, but I think it's a big factor.
And so I think, you know, when it comes down to where someone's worldview originates, it depends on the news they hear, right?
If all you ever hear all day is CNN, you probably think it's a fact, Trump did these things.
If you listen to David Frum, you're like, heavens!
It's proven?
Trump did it!
Uh-oh, better impeach him.
But if you're someone who's actually paying attention and watching, say, C-SPAN, and then, which is the nonprofit, just straight, you know, broadcast of the depositions and stuff, If you're watching that, and you're watching different sources, you're getting a healthy news diet of varying opinion, and you probably will find yourself at odds with people like David Frum.
But if you're someone who just watches CNN in the airport, doesn't pay attention, and goes golfing, comes home and says, what's on CNN?
You live in a paranoid, delusional reality that's collapsing.
Your reality is falling apart.
They call everyone conspiracy theorists.
Yet they're the ones now pushing conspiracies.
They got the Mueller probe.
Wasn't good enough.
Years of accusations, disproven, and it wasn't good enough.
So then, you know, I guess it's a good thing.
And this is what really scares me about Facebook, YouTube, and whatever becoming gatekeepers, and they are, is that it's going to be easier than ever to control the narrative.
They will make some arbitrary rule.
They will give you a strike.
They will shut down streaming.
They will say, oh, you can't say the name.
They made up that rule about the name.
I made that video about the CIA whistleblower, and there were no rules against saying his name.
And it was a few days later, gone.
They made a rule and retroactively enforced it.
That is insanity.
I don't know how we deal with that.
I can tell you, though, it is a bit fun watching the mainstream struggle and flounder with terrible ratings, and to an extent that includes Fox News.
I mean, they're doing better than everyone else, and so they will be around a lot longer.
But I gotta tell you, man, Fox News is actively pushing Fox Nation harder than ever.
And Fox Nation is their online subscription news program with way more shows.
So Tucker Carlson just started promoting that like crazy.
Because the activists came and took his advertisers away.
But you know what?
If they're smart enough to adapt, they'll survive.
CNN on the other hand...
Not so much.
I don't know what their plan is.
I guess CNN's plan is to just keep, you know, paying airports to run their channel so they can sell ads against it.
Not a bad business strategy, I guess.
But you can look at what they're doing.
You know, let me wrap that up and bring it to the last tweet.
I'll say it again.
As mainstream media collapses, there is no singular narrative anymore.
And so it's funny because people will look to me and say, aha, this proves Tim's a conservative because his videos oppose the mainstream narrative.
And it's like, There was a thread that I replied to earlier where someone said, Jennifer Rubin, who was like a former conservative I guess, said she would never vote for a Republican unless they supported impeachment, which means none of them.
And then someone responded that you could say the same thing about me.
That I'm, you know, if she's a liberal then I'm basically a conservative because I agree with conservatives on all of these things.
And that's just plain not true.
It's absolutely not true.
For one, uh, well, you know, I'm not going to get into it because I always do, but I have a series of videos.
One, I said, I made a video dedicated to saying Tucker Carlson is wrong.
Diversity is a strength.
It's just being misframed by the left.
I've also talked to, uh, I just did a video where I said, uh, student debt forgiveness is a must.
I'm heavily in favor of it.
Dedicated a whole segment to talking about why we need to do it.
And yeah, some people didn't like it.
And that's like the fifth one I've done about it.
So the other thing, too, is I'm absolutely willing to vote for somebody who is in favor of impeachment.
Like Tulsi Gabbard.
I am upset, disappointed that she did, but I still trust her judgment when it comes to big political issues outside of impeachment, and I don't think Trump will be impeached anyway.
I am not a lunatic.
So then what is the real divide here?
Why is it that, you know, my worldview, the things I say often are like, Trump is winning, the Democrats are losing, the Democrats have gone insane.
Perhaps it's because I am in the alternate media space with a variety of sources.
Some right, some wrong, but not a singular narrative.
So when I look to, I'll give you a really good example.
David Pakman made a video saying Trump's approval rating hits all-time low or drops to new low or something like that.
It wasn't a record low.
It was just the lowest it had been in a while.
I'm sorry, it's disapproval was higher than it's ever been.
Something like that.
I made a video saying Trump approval higher than it's ever been.
And I specifically highlighted David's video to make the point.
When David made his video, and I have tremendous respect for David, I absolutely recommend you guys watch his content for sure, because we disagree with each other and that's healthy, that's what's the point of YouTube.
Look man, David's been getting a bunch of strikes on his content because the mainstream media is trying to shut him down when he comments on the impeachment hearings.
He's a perfect example of us disagreeing on a lot of things, but that's the greatest thing about what YouTube is, is that you can actually bounce back and forth and see why we disagree and decide for yourself.
I think I'm right.
I think David's wrong on a lot of things.
I think we agree on a lot, but that's great.
I think that's awesome, actually.
So anyway, the point was...
When I was making my video about Trump's approval rating being higher than it's ever been, it's because there were two polls that said so, and it was because in the aggregate that was the case.
So if you're going to take one poll that says today Trump's disapproval is higher than it's ever been, I can respect that.
It's a fact.
For me, I don't make a video about that because I'm like, It's just one poll.
Now it is complicated because obviously I have my bias, and the other day I made a video about one poll saying Trump's approval rating was up, but I still show the aggregate.
I always do because I want to make sure I show the polls, and that's why I think I'm right.
So if I say something like Democrats are losing, it's not because I'm a conservative, it's because the Democrats are losing.
But if you're only watching CNN, you must think they're winning.
It's crazy.
And then when you look at Trump's approval rating being up in the aggregate during impeachment, I'm like...
When you look at two polls now in the past week saying opposition among independent voters to impeachment is up 10 points, Hill Harris X and Politico Morning Consult, I just don't think I'm wrong on this one.
That doesn't mean I like what conservatives are doing.
But you can see how media is broken down between mainstream and alternative.
Now I can accept David also is not mainstream and he disagrees with me too.
So I guess my analysis isn't perfect.
But the difference is, if you're on YouTube watching someone like David, you still have a better opportunity of going to a channel that might disagree.
Whereas if you just turn the cable news on, and you're watching CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News, you're getting a singular narrative.
So here's what I'm gonna end with, okay?
In light of what they're saying.
CNN.
MSNBC would have you believe that Donald Trump is terrified, shaking in his boots, that he's going to lose to Joe Biden.
I love how no one thinks Joe Biden is mentally fit to be president, or even debate for that matter, and Democrats are acting like Trump was worried about losing to him.
And that's the big takeaway from this.
How is it that even Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks is saying, is something wrong with Biden?
But you turn on CNN and the narrative is like, Trump really is scared of this guy.
And it's like, dude, if you spent even two minutes watching alternative media and that includes the Young Turks, you're going to be like, Biden ain't all there, man.
Because in the YouTube space, in the alternative media space, and yes, some mainstream journalists, but for the most part, you go to progressive YouTube channels, left-wing YouTube channels, moderate, not even far left, and they're going to tell you Biden ain't all there.
So what happens?
When you get away from that mainstream narrative, you realize Biden is not mentally fit to be president.
But again, while the mainstream media absolutely has talked about Biden's gaffes, not to the extent that we are.
Now, I will admit as well, I think it's not black and white.
Biden, if you watch the debate, you're watching Biden and you're like, this dude can't even talk right.
But down here, this alternative space below the ivory tower, you know, they're all above us.
We're all saying it.
You know, we're agreeing.
Now, I get it.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks will still tell you Trump is worried about losing to Biden, but I think the point is, if you're on YouTube, you have the opportunity to see why that doesn't make sense.
It's not perfect, but I'll tell you this.
You turn on mainstream television, one narrative.
You go to YouTube.com, all of the narratives mishmashed and around each other.
And while most people have confirmation bias and still only want to watch what confirms their bias, you are substantially more likely to see something you disagree with on YouTube.
And this brings me to one more point.
I will wrap up, I promise.
The rabbit hole theory.
The fake news pushed by the mainstream media that if you go on YouTube, you'll be driven down a rabbit hole.
This is my favorite thing.
You know, you've got BuzzFeed claiming that a Trump supporter meme was bots.
You've got BuzzFeed also claiming that Republicans are pushing a fake reality, but the top stories on Facebook are all negative towards impeachment.
And I have to say, listen, man, If you're finding that people are being driven towards a certain kind of political commentary on YouTube, perhaps you are the crazy person.
Like, imagine standing in a room, ranting and screaming, and everyone's walking away, and you're saying, am I out of touch?
No!
It's everyone else that's crazy!
That's what they're doing.
Their ratings are dropping, their narrative has collapsed, and people are leaving to go find new spaces.
This is the end of the old guard.
Congratulations.
But if we don't fight back and stop YouTube from doing these arbitrary enforcement policies, it will be worse than it's ever been.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
I will see you all then.
A new bill in South Carolina would make gender reassignment illegal for anyone under the age of 18.
And naturally, there are many LGBTQ activists who are upset, calling this anti-scientific, saying Republicans don't know what they're doing, etc, etc.
And this is part of the broad, ongoing trans child debate.
It's a very, very complicated problem.
Naturally, you're going to see this kind of backlash, and I'm surprised we're only seeing it just now.
Another interesting thing is, there doesn't seem to be a lot of news on this.
I found, I believe, a local outlet, I could be wrong, it's Post and Courier, but there's not a whole lot of reporting other than activists who are outraged this is happening.
Now as with all conversations around this issue, I must stress, this is a very contentious conversation, and we have to make sure we do it right.
And I'll say very simply, there are a lot of people who believe that if a child is transgender, and they transition early, They can prevent any secondary sexual characteristics associated with the gender they do not identify as.
Basically, if the kid transitions before puberty, they can present more female or male.
There's a lot of complicated problems here.
For one, it's something called desistance.
The rates of desistance based on current academic numbers is, I believe, 65% to 94%.
Because of that, it's one of the main reasons people are saying, hold your horses on giving kids hormone blockers or gender reassignment surgery.
So it's complicated.
But I think I should stop opining.
We should read the news, and then I'll show you some comments from the activists.
See what's actually going on.
South Carolina could ban gender reassignment for kids under 18 under new proposal.
So it's just a proposal so far.
They say State Rep.
Stuart Jones said Thursday his proposal is in response to a Texas custody case that's drawn national attention in which a mother wants her seven-year-old to undergo gender reassignment surgery over the father's objections.
It's almost been weaponized, and this is to protect children.
While he is personally opposed to gender reassignment, Jones said he's not looking to bar the practice for people ages 18 or older.
For a child, it's a whole different matter, Jones said.
Somebody under 18, they can't buy cigarettes and alcohol, and so they shouldn't be able to have a sex change.
The bill is designed to prevent kids from being pressured or bullied in any kind of circumstance to have their gender reassigned, Jones said.
Chase Glenn, executive director of LGBTQ rights advocacy group Alliance for Full Acceptance in Charleston, said Jones' proposal goes too far.
This is obviously a very troubling bill.
This is an incredibly vulnerable population that we're talking about, with an already high suicide rate, he said.
This could have disastrous implications.
Now, I do want to stop and point out, there's a big difference between a 7-year-old and a 17-year-old, alright?
And so now things are getting complicated, and I can't tell you what is right or wrong.
It's hard to know at what point the appropriate age is for me.
I'm not a scientist or a researcher.
It is fair to say, it is factually true.
There are kids who are trans.
Now I don't know if that means, you know, this kind of treatment or whatever is the appropriate response.
There are many academics and doctors who believe it is.
That may be the case.
But it's also true that desistance, the rate at which trans kids desist, meaning around puberty they stop being trans, is more than half.
Sixty-five, by the low estimate.
Sixty-five percent.
So that's two in three kids.
That's a really, really dangerous thing to do to a kid then, to put them on some kind of treatment, if the result is overwhelmingly likely, even up to ninety-four percent, that they are not actually trans.
This is why it's complicated.
I think there is still some problem with this bill.
I have to read it to make sure, but I think there's a huge difference between 7 and 17.
And if you've got a teenager who's, you know, 16, 17, and to an extent maybe even a little bit younger, like they're a few years now into puberty, you might not know what is best for them, and the doctor might know better.
I actually would say, in many circumstances, the doctor would know better.
Now, I personally think kids who are 7 have no idea what's going on.
Far be it for me to tell an academic what they should or shouldn't do, but I especially think it's important to make sure we don't let overzealous activists take over the narrative and push out the science.
The fact remains, desistance is really, really high.
And if that's the case, we've got to make sure we're being very careful about this.
As for the 18, you know, or older, Sounds like he's going by what makes you an adult or makes you a minor.
And his view is that he doesn't want parents pressuring their kids into doing it, even if they're teenagers.
Man, this is complicated.
I don't know if this is the right answer, but this is gonna keep happening.
Naturally, people are gonna freak out.
Let's keep reading.
State lawmakers in 2017 failed to act on a controversial bathroom bill that would have required people to use a restroom based on their birth gender.
Then-Governor Nikki Haley said the ban would cripple the economy.
I'm not sure if they're going to include why Nikki Haley said that would cripple the economy.
I'd be interested to hear what they thought about that.
Similar legislation banning transgender reassignment and treatments for children has been introduced in other states, including Alaska, Illinois, and Texas, according to Bill Track 50, a legislative search engine.
According to data released in September 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics, less than 1% of teens between the ages of 13 and 17 identify as transgender.
More than half have contemplated suicide.
The Academy, which represents 67,000 primary care doctors, issued its first policy statement on the care of transgender youth last year, and included among its recommendations, providing youth with access to comprehensive gender-affirming and developmentally appropriate health care.
I don't know what the right answer is, man.
I'm not gonna tell you.
And I will tell you, you gotta be really careful with these conversations when it comes to social platforms, because the gatekeepers of big tech will stop anyone from even talking about it.
I know there's probably gonna be a lot of comments from people who are very, very much in support of this.
The fact remains, It is complicated.
I know I say that a lot about a lot of things, but that's true.
It's true to say that there are many activists who have gotten science shut down, that there is a belief in something called rapid-onset gender dysphoria, and seriously, we can't even have a conversation about the appropriate way to help children.
And to me, this is alarming.
I've had friends tell me that only bigots would support this and only bigots, you know, would prevent that seven-year-old from undergoing, you know, life-changing surgeries or hormone treatments.
And I was like, listen, man, like, watch my video.
And I showed the video, like, breaking it down, and they said, they accused me of basically trying to just ask questions as a way to discredit ideas.
And I'm like, What?
We're talking about kids who 65 to 94% desist, okay?
We can't destroy... Like, you know what, man?
I think it's really scary that a lot of these kids are going to be permanently altered by these treatments and drugs, and we're not completely sure.
So let me tell you one thing.
If you're in favor of this, I've got no problem with that.
I think we defer to the academics, and if that's the case, then so be it.
But, it took decades of research to figure out why cigarettes were bad.
A lot of the drugs that are being prescribed, a lot of the treatments, we don't have long-term studies on.
There have been some cases where, you know, bad things have happened.
And there are a lot of stories circulating the web about these kids who were pressured into being trans.
It was really bad for them.
I'm not saying that's every single case.
And I also want to stress that if it's less than 1%, we really are focusing on a tiny minority of individuals.
However, we're talking about... I mean, this is like one of the biggest, latest battles in civil rights, at least as far as the left sees it.
Let's do this.
So I wasn't able to actually find the full bill, which was kind of annoying, and I tried, trust me.
I was able to find this from scstatehouse.gov, showing this is the individual, what's his name?
Jones, what's his name?
Stuart Jones?
Am I getting his name wrong?
Stuart Jones, okay, that was it.
And we can see here that we have the H4716, a bill to amend the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, to enact the Youth Gender Reassignment Prevention Act by adding Chapter 139 of Title 244 so as to prohibit a person who is under 18 years of age from undergoing gender reassignment medical treatment to provide for professional discipline for violation of the act and for other purposes.
Now there are some activists who have been sharing this, and this is what we can see so far.
It says, a health care professional who intentionally performs gender reassignment medical treatment on a person who is under the age of 18 years is subject to professional discipline by the state board of medical examiners or the applicable health care professional licensing board up to and including suspension or revocation of any license or certification required to practice.
I'm going to have to say I lean pretty much towards disagreeing with this and the reason is because I think Well, while we can be concerned that there are some doctors who might be ideologically driven, in the end, someone's private medical decisions are between them and their family, and the challenge that we're seeing now, for one, eat luck, man.
You know what?
This is tough.
I gotta admit it.
You know, we want to protect kids.
We don't allow them to do drugs.
We don't even allow them to join the army until they're adults.
Like, you can't even serve your country.
That's not life-altering.
I mean, technically it is.
But, you know, you're taking on a contract and a job.
There are a lot of things kids can't do.
The difference here is kids can do a lot of things they're not legally allowed to do on their own with parental consent.
They can get married.
I believe to an extent, I could be wrong about this, actually you guys tell me because you probably know better than I do, if they can join the military in some capacity if they have parental support.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if you're like 16, your parents can sign something allowing you to join.
Maybe that's not true.
Maybe I'm getting that wrong.
But there are a lot of things that kids aren't legally allowed to do, but with parental consent actually are.
It's complicated.
That's as far as we go.
So I'll put it this way.
I think the big challenge arises with 18.
I think if you said 13, you'd have overwhelming support.
Because these are kids who haven't even gone through puberty yet.
You're going to end up with kids who are 15, 16, who are well into puberty, who absolutely are trans, who are being restricted from the recommendations of their doctors, what they should or shouldn't be doing.
I can't tell you what the right answer is.
I can only tell you what's going on.
And, of course, me being a miltos fence-sitter.
So we have this tweet from someone named, on Twitter, Angry Black Lady.
South Carolina just introduced a bill prohibiting anyone under age of 18 from undergoing gender reassignment medical treatment, including intervention to alleviate symptoms of gender dysphoria.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but this seems pretty callous.
She says, by callous I mean the specific language preventing a physician from alleviating symptoms of GD.
Imagine if it were anything else but GD.
I'm having a conversation with myself, but only tweeting bits of it.
And that's a really, really great point.
Take any other treatment and or mental illness.
I'm not saying I'm talking about other mental illnesses.
Imagine somebody is experiencing some kind of distress and their doctor says, here's what I want.
And it's been restricted because they're too young.
That's why I think this is probably overreaching.
Look, man, I'll agree that that case with the seven year old.
That's, I do not believe children know what, you know, I don't think so.
And I'm not basing off of my personal opinions about any conservative ideas or anything.
I'm not.
I'm just looking to the scientists.
So, look, you can't simultaneously claim that, you know, the right is anti-science, and then when I'm only citing the science, you claim it's a conservative position.
That's just not the case.
If desistance is as high as they claim it is, they've made arguments against it, but they have not changed the numbers.
So you want to do a new study and find new numbers, I'm all for it.
For the time being, I always do it this way.
Climate change is real.
Resistance rates are extremely high.
And so the risk is extremely high.
The solution?
Don't know.
I do know activists are desperately trying to shut down these conversations, which is alarming.
So, Imani says, also, how are you going to prohibit a person from seeking medical care?
What's the penalty for the teenager who begins their own GD treatment since they can't get treatment from a physician?
Make it make sense.
Completely agree with that as well.
You're going to ban something.
You're going to end up with kids ordering drugs off the internet from Mexico.
And they do this.
I'm making a specific reference to something they do.
So I think, perhaps conservatives could agree, prohibition won't stop it.
It's a cultural problem.
If there are teenagers who are being told by everybody, this is what you need, they're gonna go and do it.
All you're gonna do is make it illegal and make it harder.
Maybe that's the case, but it's not so much about making it harder, it's making it more dangerous.
You can have a kid go to a doctor and get certified, safe drugs.
Or you can have a kid order them from China and get something contaminated, you know?
That's why I'm never a really big fan of Prohibition.
Imani ends by saying, the more I read and think about it, the worse it gets.
If a teenager is prohibited from undergoing medical treatment for GD, then they'll be subject to discrimination, purposeful misgendering, appearance policing, not to mention use of locker rooms and bathrooms in schools.
Well, I'm not... that's, you know, social stuff is a bit different.
You know, I can't control whether or not someone's going to discriminate against you, so...
Even if they are undergoing treatment, other people can still be mean.
I don't really see that as an argument.
But I do think we're entering dangerous territory.
And I don't mean with this bill.
I mean we've been entering dangerous territory for a while.
There's a story going around.
I actually did cover it.
A school in the Chicago suburbs has voted to allow trans individuals unrestricted access to female changing rooms, to locker rooms.
And I gotta tell you, it is mind-numbing trying to have a conversation with people about this when they don't actually read articles and they have no idea what they're talking about.
So in this instance, there was a video going viral where a high school female is nearly in tears because she has to get naked in these locker rooms and doesn't like the fact that there will be males going to the locker room.
And, you know, the argument from the left is, oh, but they're a trans woman, it's fine, it's like, dude, it is a private, safe space for females.
This individual is not female.
They are trans.
There is a difference.
You can call them a trans woman, you can call them a woman, whatever, but there's a big difference.
And this young woman is...
Uncomfortable and scared, and this other trans person won their vote.
The issue there was that the school had private booths, basically saying that if you were trans, you could use this private area for changing, and they didn't like it, said it was discrimination.
And so they voted, and they won.
And that's exactly what you'd expect to happen, because the law says it must be that way.
You cannot discriminate.
Well, if that's the case, you legally can't keep a non-trans individual out of the bathroom.
This is what people don't seem to understand about any of this stuff.
It's not about what you want to be.
It's not about what should be.
It's about what happens based on what you say.
And there's a huge disconnect between saying something like, we shouldn't discriminate against people based on gender identity, and what is the outcome of that.
People look to these trans individuals and say, I want to make sure that they are not discriminated against and they can use whatever facilities they want.
Okay, I get that argument.
I can respect it.
I'm listening.
You want to pass a law to affirm that?
I am also listening.
Okay, what ends up happening is that the law now says you can't discriminate.
So put it this way.
Your gender identity.
In New York City, they recognize literally an infinite number.
I'm not exaggerating with this.
The result of the law was not to say, if you're a trans woman, you can use the women's bathroom, or if you're a trans man, you can use the men's bathroom.
That is not what the law ended up doing.
Because they were trying to make sure the language was perfect, robust, and worked, you're now quite literally saying, there is no distinction between male or female bathrooms.
They can't do anything about it.
I mean, I'd be curious if there was a literal law saying if you're male, you can't go in the women's restroom.
I don't think that's the case.
So put it this way.
There are a lot of complicated, loose ends that need to be brought together.
So here's what ended up happening.
When people were sharing that story about the bathrooms, I posted a link from the UK.
It said, data reveals that the risk of assault increases with unisex changing rooms.
And all of a sudden, here comes the lefty brigade who doesn't know anything about any of this, trying to be like, what does that have to do with locker rooms?
Like, listen.
The result of laws saying you can't discriminate was not to create a new bathroom.
It was not to say we hereby allow all people to use these bathrooms.
It went beyond that.
It was businesses could no longer create Women's or men's.
They couldn't discriminate.
So effectively, the result of the law was not exactly what you thought it would be.
So here's what they're imagining.
They're imagining in their head, they pass this law, and the trans individual can just walk into the women's bathroom, and everyone's happy.
The reality is that some businesses just create one bathroom, one changing room, one locker room, or they outright remove the male or female designators from the locker rooms and just create two different locker rooms.
The result is that biological cis heterosexual males and females are now sharing spaces, and that increases the risk of assault.
That's from The Independent, okay?
That's a left-wing paper.
I'm not making this up.
I am not here to disparage anybody.
I have tremendous respect for everybody, and I'm trying to navigate how we protect the rights of women and trans people, and that is a huge issue.
Now, of course, like, you know, it's crazy because whenever I talk about this, invariably, I tell you what's gonna happen.
Gender critical feminists are going to call me a misogynist and say I'm an MRA and all of this stuff.
They always do it.
And then at the same exact time, trans individuals call me transphobic.
And I'm like, dude, literally, you guys have a conflict.
Our society is trying to navigate this.
I don't know what the right answers are.
I do know that both sides have their point of view.
And I certainly think there are angry activists shutting down debate.
So how we solve this, I can't tell you.
But I will say, Do females, people who are born female, experience life as a female, who know the risks of, you know, traveling around outside, do they gotta carry pepper spray, do they need a whistle, what do they need, right?
Women, females, take that seriously.
Trans people also are very at risk as well, but they're different experiences.
Do we then say that if you're female, your rights stop because trans people, and you no longer have access to a female-only space?
So how do we protect females, trans women?
And I think one of the things a lot of activists have tried to do is conflate the two, and it's just not the case.
So if we can't have a discussion on reality, we're in serious trouble.
As it pertains to this law, however, I think the law is bad.
And I think it's too sweeping, it's too general, and 18 probably isn't the appropriate answer.
I mean, like I was saying earlier, if the law said 13, I think you'd find broad support for it.
Because someone who, or, you know, 13, yeah.
Because I think... You know what, man?
I'm going to stop there.
You get the point.
But man, how crazy was it when Mario Lopez said three-year-olds don't know if they're trans, and he got attacked for having to apologize?
Like, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, man.
Three-year-olds don't know anything.
It's not about hating anybody.
It's about... They're three!
Like, they just learned how to talk, you know?
And I think we've got to take this seriously, otherwise you're going to find abusive individuals, people who want to abuse their kids, will get away with it.
We need to make sure that we walk slowly, we do it correctly, we plan ahead.
So these laws are going to keep popping up, and it's partly because the debate gets shut down.
I shouldn't even call it a debate.
The discussion around how to protect certain individuals, it gets shut down.
Videos get deleted.
People get accused of all these awful things.
Sorry.
I don't know what to tell you, but I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think about the law in the comments below.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
It's the beginning of the end for the deep state after explosive bombshell report spell
game over.
Isn't it funny how the media always does that literally every time something happens about
around Trump that's like even a little bit bad for the president bombshell bombshell
game over the new one they're doing is explosion.
OK, well, now we actually do have an explosion because many of you may already be aware that
But an FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation for falsifying a FISA doc.
Now, here's where it gets crazy.
I was thinking about doing something on this, but I gotta admit, the whole Russiagate probe, Horowitz, the DERM stuff, there's a lot going on.
And I probably couldn't do it justice, but now we got something that falls a little bit more into my wheelhouse, and that's the Washington Post stealth deletes A connection to FBI agent Strzok.
Is this really an explosive bombshell spelling game over?
The answer is no.
This actually might be, I don't know, an attempt to placate Trump supporters.
So take it all with a grain of salt.
As much as CNN and MSNBC and all these networks want to scream in your face every time something happens, I think what we have here is interesting.
It's good for Trump.
It's just the start.
It may not be the end.
And it may result in a slap on the wrist.
This could be a Patsy, right?
So let me back up for a second.
What we're learning is that it seems a FISA doc, which is a surveillance warrant essentially, document, they go to the FISA court, they want to get surveillance.
Apparently this was on Carter Page to start surveillance of him and it was falsified.
However, Apparently, what they're saying is it didn't fundamentally change the understanding and may have still resulted in, you know, with or without the change, may have still resulted in the surveillance anyway.
That's the big takeaway.
Don't get all excited thinking this is the beginning of the end of the deep state or whatever, you know, whatever you want to think about.
What that is, it may result in one guy being like, Oh, it was him.
There was no, you know, I'll put it this way.
There may be higher level individuals who have done wrong.
And if this turns out to be more of a patsy thing, they throw a low level dude under the bus.
And then, but let's, let's read the news and figure out what's going on with this Washington post stealth deletion.
Fox News reports, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign advisor.
Now, most people believe it's Carter Page.
Enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.
Oh, okay, okay, hold on.
That flies in the face of the initial reporting I had seen.
So it looks like we're getting a little bit more information.
And I gotta tell you, I was wrong.
But I think the reason is, we can see here the Washington Post stealth changed the story.
Actually, let me read because it seems like the media is working overtime.
I gotta say, maybe they're panicking on this one.
The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham told Fox News that Horowitz's comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant abuse FISA against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on December 9th.
That's locked, Graham said.
I hope you're ready for some popcorn!
Boy, I would love to just sleep until then because the roller coaster ride's about to begin.
Now again, I know, I know.
I said bombshell explosive game over.
It may not be the case, but I'm looking forward to seeing what they have to say.
The new evidence concerning the altered document, which pertained to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report.
CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by the Washington Post.
But the Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved worked beneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence.
The Post did not offer an explanation for the change.
Which occurred shortly after midnight.
Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.
The person under scrutiny has not been identified, but is not a high-ranking official.
They worked beneath former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity, to discuss material that has not yet been made public.
The Post wrote in its now-deleted paragraph, Didn't Amazon, you know, they're the ones who are funding Walpo- Anyway, I digress.
It's always interesting to see where the money's coming from.
Though it probably doesn't matter too much.
I will just say this.
They deleted this.
No update.
No correction.
Sounds to me like they weren't supposed to.
Like that was embargo to details.
And now, it's cat's out of the bag.
Because here's the thing.
If you're a journalist, you don't accidentally claim a fact, right?
If I have a source, and the source says, look, there's this dude, he worked under Strzok, he's getting in trouble, and then you write it up, and then, no, no, no, no, you weren't supposed to put that part in, they should take it out real quick.
If it was a mistake and it was incorrect, they would say so.
We fought, but here's the thing.
It wasn't incorrect.
They can't issue a correction.
They just published embargoed information, so their only option is just to delete it and say nothing.
Because again, the Washington Post can't say it was false if it's true.
And therein lies the deep conundrum.
Why remove it?
They say, ah, here we go.
So they did add a correction.
There you go.
The paper eventually added a correction to the bottom of a piece reading.
An earlier version of this story erroneously stated that the FBI employee being investigated for altering the document worked underneath former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok.
The employee was a low-level lawyer in the Office of General Counsel and did not report to the Deputy Assistant Director.
Okay.
Man, I'm 0 for 2 on this one, huh?
But it seems like, in this case, it really is just incompetence on the part of the Washington Post.
Or is it?
I don't know.
Yeah, I guess that seems to be the case.
They say, nevertheless, Horowitz reportedly found the FBI employee was involved enough in the FISA process to falsely state they had documentation to back up the claim he made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the FISA warrant application the Post reported.
Then the FBI employee allegedly altered an email to substantiate his inaccurate version of events.
The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.
This is nuts!
This might undermine the bulk of Russiagate.
You know, the deep state thing is funny, but I gotta tell you, man, a lot of people get mad when I say this.
Not a conspiracy.
You have a but—look, the reality is, there are many people for a variety of reasons who don't like Trump, who—it's a standalone complex.
These people take actions on their own to benefit—it looks like a conspiracy, but it's—this person is probably a level of a person who, like, snuck in and said, I'm gonna take down Trump, you know, and then they wrote something up, or they—you know, we don't know.
I'm completely open to the idea that there's a leader who's commanding a group of deep state individuals, but I just don't think that's the case.
I think it may be to a certain degree, but it's not gonna be what you think it is, okay?
In the worst-case scenario, I'd imagine there might be some high-level people involved who did have some low-level people do stuff, but conspiracy implies, like, you got these strings connecting everybody, and, you know, so I don't, look, Let me clarify.
Conspiracy means a group of people plotting something.
Plotting a criminal endeavor.
I think what we're going to find is there may be a bunch of small conspiracies here and there, maybe, but it's probably a bunch of individual actors who are just taking advantage of the system because they're insane.
Like, this person probably just was like, ooh, if I change this.
But I will add, In that regard, this one, I kind of lean a little bit away from that for once, because how would he have known what to change, and even if he changed it, who would have filed it, right?
So the thing is, imagine you're a lawyer, and you make a document, and you hand it off to this low-level employee.
Would you then follow through with the FISA surveillance if they changed it?
What if they came back to you and said, the FISA got approved, and you're like, what, really?
Let me see.
Hey, wait a minute, this document's different.
Sounds to me like at least more than one person had to be involved in knowing what was going on.
They say in its initial 2016 FISA warrant application, the FBI flatly called Page an agent of a foreign power.
Fake news!
Never proven.
Sources told Fox News last month that U.S.
Attorney John Durham's separate ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 had transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation.
Well, hey, don't take the- yeah, that's- and that Horowitz's report will shed light on why Durham's probe has become a criminal inquiry.
Oh, man, I am so excited.
I'm gonna- I'm- I'm- I'm just- you know what?
I'm gonna rain on the parade, though, guys.
For the longest time.
The cabal, the deep state, whatever.
I'm saying that in jest.
These crony elites have gotten away with everything.
It is rare anyone has ever held accountable.
Maria Ivanovich provided false testimony, now based on Fox News as well as Elise Stefanik's questioning, twice.
It's, I gotta say, I believe Vindman also provided false testimony.
And you're gonna get the mainstream CNN being like, how dare you question the integrity?
I don't care who you are.
I don't care what you've done.
Okay, if I don't trust you, I don't trust you.
Vindman said he didn't know who the whistleblower was.
It is amazing to me how woefully unprepared the Republicans are in dealing with all this.
Let me help you out.
At least the phonic, she nailed it, okay?
She got her questioning right.
You ask Vindman, Do you know who the whistleblower is?
No.
Do you believe you know who the whistleblower is?
Yes.
Here's the thing.
Even— So, how do you claim you know something versus believe something?
That's the challenge.
Let's say that Vindman knows for a fact the whistleblower is the person he leaked to.
He can say, well, I doubted whether or not— I didn't watch him do it, so I wasn't sure, so I said no.
And there you go!
Do you believe you know who it is?
And they're just gonna say, yes.
Bing, bing, bing, there you go!
You gotta figure out how to navigate semantics, man.
But it's not even that, it's like... Here we go, I'm going on impeachment again.
Listen.
When they talk about impeachment, it's like they're two days behind the curve.
We just had major breaking news out of Ukraine.
Andriy Derkach accusing Biden of siphoning Ukrainian tax money.
Why aren't you on it?
I hope they get on it!
But anyway, here we go.
The reason I bring that up is, is anybody going to hold them accountable?
Is anybody getting in trouble?
Oh, Roger Stone goes to jail for being a blaggart.
You get Michael Flynn going to jail.
Well, not yet, he's not going to go to jail.
But he's accused of lying.
And then the left parades around, haha, they're all felons.
Like, dude, these charges are mostly dubious.
They're like, you lied to us, we think.
Meanwhile, Maria Ivanovic provides false testimony twice?
Come on, man.
So you know what?
Do I believe anything will come out of December 9th?
Nope!
I'm sorry, man.
I just don't see it.
It's gonna be the same game.
The criminal cronies are gonna keep doing their criminal crony nonsense.
And no, I'm not talking about a conspiracy.
I'm just talking about these people who know they're untouchable.
It's not like...
It's a culture, that's what it is.
It's not a conspiracy, it's a culture.
It's people who know, I won't cross that line if you don't.
And so, it's just a bunch of cronies, revolving doors, it's what it's always been.
So anyway, they're going to say that, you know, Republicans have long argued about FISA abuses.
Well, now we got the investigation.
And a lot of people think it's the beginning of the end.
This bombshell, this explosive bombshell report will spell game over for the deep state.
Well, that's to be seen.
But that's where we are so far.
So stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
For once, Republicans are taking their hands out from under their butts and getting to work to actually do something about the problems in our country.
Now I'll tell you what.
I don't care about Donald Trump.
I just want the Bidens to be investigated.
If at the end of this they say, haha, we've proven Trump did all these bad things, I say, great, good for you.
Now investigate the Bidens.
For years you told me they were corrupt.
You told me in 2015 that Hunter Biden was undermining U.S.
efforts to weed out corruption in Ukraine.
And now they are gaslighting us saying Joe's a saint.
Here we go.
Lindsey Graham launches probe of Biden's Burisma and Ukraine.
Thank you.
Now it may be there's nothing here and it may be just that they're cronies who play nepotism games and make money, but please do something.
Investigate.
They want to investigate Trump over a phone call and they're bringing the parade.
It's just so annoying.
Okay.
Did Trump receive $83,000 per month?
Was Trump accused by Ukrainian MP of siphoning taxpayer dollars?
No.
Hunter Biden was and Joe Biden is involved in that.
Let's read.
Washington Post reports, and you know how I feel about them.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham, is that his middle O?
Sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday requesting documents related to former Vice President Joe Biden and his communications with Ukrainian officials, a step seen as a GOP effort to counter the House impeachment investigation of President Trump.
Thank you!
Now, I'm not concerned about whether they want to counter the impeachment investigation, but it's clear there are two issues here.
Whether or not Trump wanted dirt on Biden, which they haven't proven, and whether or not Biden was corrupt.
And if Biden turns out to be corrupt, then Trump's investigation makes sense.
This should be the first thing we do, but Adam Schiff, no, you can't call them.
You know what, man?
Can't stand that guy.
The inquiry by Graham is focused on any calls Biden may have had with Petro Poroshenko, then the Ukrainian president, regarding the firing of the country's top prosecutor, as well as any that reference an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company that employed Biden's son, Hunter Biden.
If Biden's got nothing to hide, testify and let them investigate, right?
And if it turns out he's on the level, good, we'll all be better off for it.
Graham's document request suggests he is seeking to legitimize Trump's accusations that Biden, then Vice President, put pressure on Ukraine to fire its lead prosecutor to protect his son.
A claim without evidence that has been disputed by a... Washington Post is trash!
Did you know that right now, according to Interfax Ukraine, Andriy Derkach, an MP in Ukraine, has stated that Hunter Biden received $16.5 million in money siphoned from Ukrainian taxpayers.
And in a sworn statement, Shokin, who's accused of being corrupt, has stated he was fired because he was investigating Hunter Biden.
He was investigating Burisma, a company where Hunter Biden was a board member.
And it's also true that after Shokin got removed, the new prosecutor cleared Zlochevsky of all wrongdoing.
And it wasn't until Zelensky got into office in Ukraine, the investigation started up again.
And now the prosecutor's looking into Zlochevsky with implications on Hunter Biden.
Was Ukraine meddling in 2016 or are they meddling today?
Should we trust Ukraine and say they weren't meddling and Trump's lying?
Oh, but Andriy Derkach, an MP in Ukraine, is saying that there was corruption.
So is that meddling today or is Biden corrupt?
Pick one.
It can't be both.
Oh, I guess it could.
It could be they weren't before, but now they are.
But Fiona Hill's still wrong when she tries to claim that Ukraine is doing nothing wrong.
I've talked to some people I know who are experts, and they don't trust Andriy Derkach when he says this.
And it's important context.
But when they come out and try and claim, no, Biden's on the level, dude, you told us for years that wasn't true.
I am tired of the media doing this.
A claim without evidence.
Did you hear of Google?
No, they're lying on purpose.
Or you know what?
Look, Hand lens razor, my go-to.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
But how many, like, you gotta be the most incompetent moron to not do a simple Google search.
Does this dude not read the news?
But he writes it.
Colby Itkowitz, you're a liar.
I am saying, as a statement of fact, you are lying.
Because the only alternative is that you're a moron.
And you know what, man?
I'm sorry, but I'm just sick and tired of this.
A claim without evidence.
Without evidence.
John Solomon published something like 30 facts with documents on his website.
So why do this?
Because democracy dies in darkness.
Oh, please.
These people are awful.
The Washington Post is utter trash.
Graham, one of Trump's fiercest defenders on Capitol Hill, told the Washington Post in late October that he was under intense pressure to launch an investigation into Biden by Trump and his allies.
But he said he would not turn the Senate into a circus.
I gotta say, I respect that.
I absolutely do.
The Democrats have no problem turning the House into a circus.
And Lindsey Graham said no, and I can understand that.
But now that we're in this nonsense, we need to know what happened with Biden.
Because if it turns out there is probable cause for an investigation, then Trump was right to want one.
And that undermines the entire impeachment process.
And he would instead focus on committee's work on the investigation into the Justice Department's launch of the Russia investigation, which is also very, very important.
Taylor Reidy, a spokesman for Graham, said the senator is now seeking the documents because Adam Schiff and the House Intel Committee have made it clear they will not look into the issues about Hunter Biden and Burisma.
Ref.
Schiff is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Graham is requesting documents which could shed additional light on that issue and hopes they will be able to answer some of the outstanding questions.
In Grant's letter to Pompeo, seemingly timed to coincide with the conclusion of the public impeachment inquiry hearings in the House, he asks for communications between Joe Biden and Poroshenko, as well as any between Devin Archer, a business partner of Hunter Biden's, and then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry, on March 2, 2016, based on reporting that the two were scheduled to meet that day.
A former Cary aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak about a private meeting said the meeting was 100% unrelated to Burisma and included no mention of business.
The aide characterized the meeting as a courtesy hello to a 2004 alumni of Cary's presidential campaign and said their exchange lasted no more than five minutes.
Graham does not provide a deadline for the State Department to produce these documents.
The unsubstantiated allegation that Joe Biden acted nefariously in pushing for the removal of Ukraine's prosecutor is at the center of the impeachment inquiry of Trump.
Full stop, playing the games again.
Tell me, Is it unsubstantiated that Ukraine was trying to interfere in our elections?
You know what?
You're right, Fiona Hill.
Ukraine is on the level.
Oh, what was that?
An MP claimed that Joe Biden was receiving money?
That's right.
In another instance, an MP in Ukraine, I believe it may still be Dirk Hach, Said that, I'm probably pronouncing the name wrong, said that Joe Biden was consulting for Burisma and receiving money personally.
Unsubstantiated allegation.
That's an opinion.
You know what man?
We're doomed.
But actually, maybe I should take that back.
I'll tell you this.
Because you're watching this video.
You're hearing this, right?
Do this.
If you watch my videos on this, you know what I've covered.
Go to Interfax.
Google search Interfax.
Biden, $16.5 million.
Read the story for yourself.
And I'll tell you this.
Interfax is a Russian news outlet.
And you may think then, OK, why would I trust them?
Well, because it is a fact that Andrei Derkach, he did a press conference and he published a video talking about all of this.
Well, there you go.
Are we going to claim that the MP in Ukraine is lying and trying to interfere in US politics?
Or are we going to say that they're presenting real evidence of wrongdoing that needs to be investigated?
Pick one.
But you can't call it unsubstantiated.
These people are liars.
They say Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25 call to look into the Biden's attempt, Democrats charge, to use his power to strong-arm a foreign leader into investigating a potential political opponent.
Full stop!
That is unsubstantiated.
Not once have Democrats asked any of the witnesses.
Is Donald Trump scared about losing 2020?
Is Donald Trump concerned that Biden will beat him in 2020?
Has Trump ever expressed any concern in any way about Biden polling higher than him?
They've not asked one single question!
And they call that unsubstantiated.
You look, man, you got a sworn affidavit, you got four from Ukrainian officials.
You got an MP on the record of numerous stories saying corruption, corruption, corruption.
And they call that unsubstantiated.
And the Democrats are trying to claim that Trump was digging up dirt on the Bidens with no evidence, literally none.
It's conjecture.
Was there a quid pro quo?
You know what?
Looks like there may have been.
Yep, that's right.
Trump very well may have wanted this investigation in exchange for a White House meeting.
And you literally just described Joe Biden doing a quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo is clearly not the issue.
The issue at hand is what was his intent?
Was his intent to get dirt on the Bidens or to weed out corruption?
Prove it.
They haven't.
But here comes the Washington Post without doing any research, spoon-feeding vomit into your mouth.
I'm sick and tired of these companies, man.
I am sick and tired of this.
They are lying.
They are either the stupidest people on the planet or they are willfully deceptive or willfully ignorant.
I'm over it.
It's garbage.
The Washington Post is the trashiest rag I've ever had the privilege of putting my eyes on.
Let me say it for me one more time.
Lindsey Graham is looking into the Bidens.
I believe it's possible we don't find much on Joe.
But it's hard to say, because there are accusations.
To call it unsubstantiated is an outright bald-faced lie.
Lie, lie, lie.
Is there proof Joe did anything?
No.
We need to investigate.
The Bidens are dirty, but are they doing things that are illegal?
That's a different question.
I say that Hunter Biden getting that job, it's dirty!
Of course it is.
We all know it.
Everybody knows it.
I'll see you all.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I'll see you shortly.
Covington Catholic student Nick Sandman gets good news in lawsuit against NBCUniversal.
It seems that the Covington kids are actually winning, for the most part.
Now, a lot of people mocked them.
I mean, they were berated and mocked and lied about in the media relentlessly, but then afterwards, when they filed a lawsuit for defamation, slander, and I think that's what they're suing for, all of these leftists were like, you know, basically screaming, burn the witch with their pitchforks, like, no, you will get no, you know, justice.
These kids did nothing wrong.
They were lied about.
They were smeared.
And then when they said, we want justice, the left started mocking them, saying, you'll never win.
These cases will be dismissed.
Sure enough, two now, a couple of the cases, have been approved to move forward into...
Discovery.
You know what that means?
It means we're going to get access to documents to see what they were doing behind the scenes.
Let's read this story.
I might have a media twofer for you.
If we can get through this story quick enough, I've got a funny story about CNN.
A federal judge in Kentucky ruled on Thursday that a $275 million lawsuit from Covington Catholic students Nicholas Sandman against NBCUniversal can proceed in court.
The third lawsuit from Sandman, the judge has... Third!
District Court Judge William Bertelsman dismissed parts of the lawsuit while allowing discovery on allegations that the network's coverage defamed the teen by reporting that he blocked Native American elder Nathan Phillips in a January 18 encounter at the Lincoln Memorial, The Washington Times reported.
The court finds the statements that plaintiff blocked Phillips or did not allow him to retreat is, if false, meet the test of being libelous per se under the definition quoted above, said Judge Bertelsman in his order.
Sandman attorney Lynn Wood wrote on Twitter, as predicted, today Judge Bertelsmann entered an order allowing the Nicholas Sandman case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery just as he had earlier ruled with respect to Washington Post and CNN cases.
I think Elizabeth Warren and some other politicians got cleared though.
So some wins, some wins.
Big ones against media.
Late last month, Bertelsmann reversed course on Sandman's $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post after having initially blocked it from moving forward.
Quote, After reviewing an amended complaint, Judge William Bertelsmann ordered Monday that the case could enter the discovery phase and hence a portion of the lawsuit against the newspaper could continue, the Cincinnati Inquirer reported.
The judge's order that discovery can continue means Sandman's legal team can make requests for internal Washington Post documents concerning the events, like emails and communications between editors and reporters.
I wonder if they deleted them.
Bertelsmann allowed the lawsuit to proceed after tossing out 30 of the 33 examples of what Salmon's legal team had tried to argue were libelous statements.
Now, I'll stop here.
A lot of people were critical of some of the claims they put forward saying you'd never pass with that, but I think it was a spaghetti strategy.
You take all the noodles, you throw them all at the wall and see which ones stick.
They threw out 33, three of them made it through.
Congratulations, it worked.
The court will adhere to its previous rulings as they pertain to these statements, except statements 10, 11, and 33, to the extent that these three statements state the plaintiff blocked Nathan Phillips and would not allow him to retreat, Bertelsman said, according to a separate report from the Washington Times.
Suffice to say that the court has given this matter careful review and concludes that justice requires that discovery be had regarding these statements and their context.
The court will then consider them anew on summary judgment.
Following the judge's October ruling, Salmon attorney Todd V. McMurty noted that the ruling was a good sign for the $275 million lawsuits against NBC and CNN.
And it was.
He added newsflash.
Federal Judge William O. Bertelsman partially reversed his ruling to dismiss Salmon's claims against WAPO.
Nick's case may now proceed into discovery.
The ruling bodes well for NBC and CNN.
Oh, please, please, please.
Fingers crossed, everybody.
We live in a world today where these journalists lie every day.
They lie, they lie, they lie.
It's not all fake news.
They're not all bad.
The great journalists that still exist, that are clinging on to the drying husk, the withered husk of the fourth estate, they're overseas.
They're on the ground.
They're doing real reporting.
I know many of them.
I work with them.
They're good people.
These bloggers who sit in an office in New York all day, these journalists, do no real work.
They do no search.
They do no research.
They just write whatever.
I saw a video on Twitter.
Better lie about some kids and, you know, be mean.
So yes, it's about time we said enough.
You can't do this anymore.
That's why justice needs to be had.
Precedent needs to be set.
If you do not do the reporting, then you pay when you get it wrong.
This is a huge win, McMurtry concluded.
Sandman will be able to start discovery and find out exactly what the reporters were thinking when they attacked Nicholas.
Uh-oh!
How much you want to bet these journalists were saying things like, what smug little awful kids?
You know, just saying really awful things.
Now, I think they're allowed to, though.
The question is whether or not they said things like, I know they didn't do this, but let's say it anyway.
That's going to be bad news.
Let's read on.
They say in March, Salmon's legal team released a video explaining the incident that led to the decision to file massive lawsuits against numerous media organizations.
Yeah, I think we get all this.
They say, How long will we allow these media giants to tear at the fabric of our lives, to further their own agendas?
Will they ever be held accountable?
Yes, they will, the video adds.
Nicholas Salmon has taken a stand for himself and for you by filing major lawsuits against CNN and the Washington Post.
Nicholas and his legal team will not be stopped until these Goliath corporations are held accountable for their lack of journalistic integrity.
Until then, no one's reputation is safe.
And safety for that, when they come out with... Look, the Today Show, NBC on TV, ran a fake story claiming that I pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
It's fake.
It's just not true.
I am the milquetoast fence-sitter.
I hardly ever take definitive stances, and I always say No, no, no, it's probably not the case.
But they ran the fake BS crap anyway.
Because they're bad people.
Because they're not journalists.
They're only pretending to be.
And they're making everything worse with their garbage.
So you know what?
You get an encore on this one.
I'm gonna wrap it up there.
Because I'm gonna keep ragging on the media, but this time, let's bring in CNN.
Oh, this is great.
You're gonna leave today with a good hearty laugh.
Chris Cuomo called his mom on live TV and it did not go well.
Now, when I first saw that headline, I was like, why are you calling your mom?
And I thought it was gonna be something like, she didn't realize he was on TV and said something embarrassing.
No, it turns out...
You see, in the impeachment testimony, there was a claim from a couple people that they overheard what Trump was saying on the phone, even though the phone wasn't on speaker.
Apparently, Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the EU, was talking to the president, and this guy David Holmes said he heard what Trump was saying.
And so Cuomo, wanting to prove that you could, calls his mom, Holds the phone up without putting on speaker and no one heard a damn thing.
Sorry, Chris.
That was, uh, somebody on Fox said it was like in the OJ trial when the prosecutor was like, try on the glove and he couldn't do it.
That's what it was like.
He was like, I'm gonna prove it.
And everyone's like, I can't, I can't hear anything.
And one dude was like, I'm across the table, I can't hear anything.
Thus, not really proving, but kind of discrediting the idea you could hear it.
Let's read.
The skit came amid a break in the David Holmes impeachment testimony Thursday.
The career Foreign Service officer echoed his previous closed-door testimony that he overheard Trump during a phone call with Gordon Sondland.
Trump tweeted Wednesday that he has great hearing, but he has never been able to overhear a phone conversation that he wasn't on.
The president suggested people try it live.
So they did just that.
Can you say hello, mom?
Cuomo said after he got his mother on the phone.
She probably can't hear me.
Mom, can you hear me?
Mom, say hello.
Hi Mrs. Cuomo, how are you?
It's not on speakerphone, it's just regular phone.
It's two feet away from Dana.
She can't hear my mother, Cuomo said.
The funny thing is, too, he puts it on speaker, and you hear his mom say, yeah, I can hear you.
I hear what you're saying.
So what was really happening is that she was responding to him, but nobody could hear.
So they're like, can you hear me?
Hello?
Hello?
And she's talking.
Talk about stupid.
These media companies are garbage.
I can't hear your mother, Chris.
I'm sitting across the table.
Another panelist added after Cuomo held the phone inches from Bash's ear.
Cuomo pointed out that perhaps Bash couldn't hear his mother because the call was not on speakerphone.
Holmes testified that he overheard a phone call that was not on speakerphone, but that Trump was so loud he was able to hear him.
That is insane!
Come on, man.
Look, sometimes it's possible to overhear what someone is saying on the other side.
It absolutely is.
But it's usually when it's really, really quiet, right?
Like, I've been in a car with just like a low hum of driving, and yeah, you can hear.
But in a restaurant, where you're talking and people are—come on, dude, I just don't buy it.
Despite apparently failing in the experiment, Cuomo claimed the test as a win, saying the president's suggestion was just a distraction.
Aww, did your idea flop?
Later in the segment, he admitted that the other panelists didn't like the experiment because it proved Trump's point.
They didn't like my telephone demonstration either, Cuomo said.
They think I made the president's point for him, and that's OK.
That's legitimate.
Well, I can respect that.
Because you did.
You made Trump's point.
The media plays a dirty game.
Remember, you know, let's go back to the first segment.
We got an FBI agent under criminal investigation.
Trump tweeted out, my wires were tapped.
And everybody runs these stories saying, oh, Trump's, you know, fake claim.
Trump's saying nonsense.
He has no proof.
He's a president!
What are you talking about?
He probably was like, show me documents.
And he looked and he was like, why were they spying on me?
And it's classified, so he couldn't necessarily say too much.
And then it turns out, it was real!
You know, it's funny, man.
Why is it?
That these media companies believe everything said by the government, when it benefits them, and they think everything said by the government, when it doesn't benefit them, is wrong.
You can tell they don't like Trump very simply.
He is the president.
He has access to this information.
He walked in and said, boom, here's the folder.
Go ahead and read.
And he did.
And he found out he's being spied on.
So he said it.
And then they were like, Trump's making it up.
What are we talking about?
He's the president.
Of course he would know.
He can look.
Turned out it was true.
So you know what?
I think it was funny to make fun of CNN, but in the end, I'll just wrap up with the Covington thing.
I hope they win.
I really, really do.
I hope they win.
You know, I strive, I'm very careful with my language, and I do my research.
