Ocasio Cortez Scaring Hispanics Into Voting For Trump And Democrats Are Freaking Out
Ocasio Cortez Scaring Hispanics Into Voting For Trump And Democrats Are Freaking Out. It should come as no surprise to most people that the Hispanic voters who fled or whose families fled socialist countries do not want to vote for more socialism.Countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, And Cuba had policies that ruined the lives of many people. These people fled these countries to find a better life in the US and fears of Socialism from people like Ocasio Cortez pushes them to voting for Donald Trump or a Republican.Republicans have smeared Democrats as socialists for as long as I can remember but now with card carrying members of the Democratic Socialists of America like AOC there is no reason to smear anyone, they can just point to them and say "see."As more Democrats bend the knee to the far left it becomes easier for Republicans and Conservatives to justify claims that Socialism is taking over the Democratic Party.In turn Hispanic voters are opting out along with amny other moderate voters.Come the November 2020 election, I guess we will see.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A couple days ago, I did a segment talking about the African American vote for Donald Trump.
According to three polls, his support in the African American community is up, and the rule is, they say, if a Republican gets at least 20% of the black community to support them, a Democrat will never win again, assuming They maintain that level of support.
But we also need to consider the Hispanic vote.
And as it turns out, socialists like Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are actually scaring Latino voters, Hispanic voters, particularly those who fled socialist countries or whose families did.
Now, for the longest time, Republicans have smeared Democrats as socialists, and I think now we can plainly see those old attacks back in the day are completely fictitious.
Okay?
The moderate Democrats today are fending off an assault from the far left of vowed socialists, and it's actually bad for the Democrats as a whole.
Check out this story from Bloomberg.
I find it particularly funny they call it Trump's socialism cry, when in reality, Ocasio-Cortez is, last I checked, a card-carrying member Now, she herself is a Latina, but there are a lot of people who know just how bad it was in Florida, where Trump needs to win to get re-election for the most part.
Many people understand how bad it was in Cuba, and they don't want to support socialists.
And as the Democrats lose to the socialists, the Latino voters aren't stupid.
They see what's happening.
And now we can see this.
Trump and Republicans are courting Florida Latinos.
Democrats in the state are worried.
Quote, I feel we have taken our eye off the ball.
Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum said about Latinos who are necessary to win.
Let me remind all of you necessary to win.
Now, again, Trump could go around screaming socialism all day and night, but doesn't need to anymore.
Bernie Sanders is basically in second or first place, depending on which poll you're tracking.
And he calls himself a socialist.
He campaigns with Ocasio-Cortez, who is a socialist.
Naturally, you are going to see people whose either themselves or their families have fled socialist countries not wanting to support Democrats.
I believe, and I've said this for a variety of reasons, That Donald Trump and the Republicans in 2018 are going to sweep, they're going to take over basically every branch of government again.
And the Republican Party may actually become some kind of super party, where they have conservatives and moderates together, leaving only around 24% of the country to form the other party, a massive coalition, as moderate Democrats are being forced out.
What I want to show you is this story about Chuck Schumer.
Does Chuck Schumer have an AOC problem?
Amid the talk of a primary challenge, the Senate Democratic leader cast a surprising vote against the USMCA trade deal bucking most of his party.
Here's what I think is going to happen.
I think we're seeing the takeover of Ocasio-Cortez and the socialist left in the Democratic Party, and it's going to scare enough voters away from the Democrats so that they never win again, unless these far-left types get pushed out.
The far-left is not the majority of this country.
This country is actually center-right, according to Gallup.
And so Trump doesn't really need to go on the offensive with the socialism claims.
They're doing it for him.
Today, in a long line of videos where I've said, here's why Trump is gonna win, I bring you the next in the saga.
How the Democrats are losing Latino voters over socialism.
But we'll start with Florida.
Now, before we move on, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
Cryptocurrency, PayPal, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
The YouTube algorithm is an unkind beast.
But the best thing for overcoming this is just word of mouth.
So, if YouTube's not gonna show my videos to anybody, then it's seriously gonna hurt me because they're placing people in front of me, so that actually reduces my visibility.
But if you share this video, it overcomes that, and it's way more powerful than YouTube could ever hope to imagine.
So if you do like what I do, please consider sharing.
I will start first.
A little light here, talking about this NBC article about how Democrats are worried that Trump is actually courting Latinos.
And I must remind you, in my past video I pointed out Democrats were freaking out that Trump was courting the black vote as well.
Dare I say, the Republicans are trying to get minority votes and the Democrats have no idea how to respond.
NBC reports.
The Trump campaign events keep coming.
President Donald Trump has made Florida central to his re-election, holding nine campaign rallies in the state since he was elected and zeroing in on Hispanics.
Vice President Mike Pence has also been spending an ample amount of time in Florida.
He just wrapped up a rally in Kissimmee as part of a Latinos for Trump coalition, pledging to the largely Puerto Rican crowd the administration will support the island after the earthquakes and touting the strong U.S.
economy.
In addition to the rallies, Trump has held numerous events in the state addressing its diverse groups, such as Venezuelans and Cuban Americans.
And there it is!
Do you know what's interesting about Venezuela and Cuba?
Socialism.
And many of the people whose families fled, or they fled themselves, are not going to support more socialism, especially when what Bernie Sanders proposes is very similar to what Venezuela was proposing.
And people lived under Cuba for a long time, trying to escape.
Why would they vote for more?
It turns out many don't want to, and they're flocking to Trump.
They say.
At one of the events on January 3rd, Trump launched the Evangelicals for Trump coalition from a South Florida megachurch attended by thousands of Latinos.
Maurizio Tamayo, 52, a member of the congregation, said he didn't like Trump at first.
I wasn't used to his style.
I thought it was arrogant.
But he grows on you, he said as audience members raised their hands in prayer.
He speaks what's on his mind, according to the government employee and Columbia native, who said his 401k has grown exponentially.
Trump won Florida in 2016 by less than one percentage point and most likely needs to carry the state to win re-election.
It's the state where Trump has the greatest amount of support among Latinos at around 34%.
But I want to talk to you a bit more about Ocasio-Cortez and socialism.
Because one thing we've been seeing for a long time is how she's winning.
She is.
Okay?
Look, you don't have to like her to recognize Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are seriously making gains in the Democratic Party.
Justice Democrats and Cenk Uygur are doing well.
Tremendously well.
Cenk Uygur is of the Young Turks, you may be familiar.
We'll see if he wins.
But listen, I can disagree with them politically and still recognize their amazing victories.
And their challenge to the Democratic Party.
More power to all of you.
Congratulations on your wins.
In my opinion, the way I see it, this is going to force moderates, moderate voters, and former moderate Democrats to the Republican Party, like we saw with Jeff Van Drew.
And if you now lose not just the African-American vote, but the Latino vote as well, how could the Democrats ever win again?
I will remind all of you, I was wrong in 2018 When I thought that Republicans would take the House.
And possibly a supermajority in the midterm election.
I was dead wrong.
There was a lot of data I didn't have.
And I could absolutely be wrong now.
For some reason, there are a lot of people who seem to think I think I'm always right.
I always see these people on Twitter.
They're like, you think you're so smart, you're always right.
And I'm like, no, I don't.
Absolutely not.
I can literally just read you this article from today about how Hispanic voters are scared of socialism.
And they actually point out Ocasio-Cortez.
Now I will say, to be fair, It's not just AOC, but she plays a huge role.
Let me explain why.
While the Republicans can absolutely play this line of, look at the socialists, ooh, the Democrats are socialists, it didn't used to be as effective.
It kind of was, but not entirely because the Democrats would deny it.
No, we're not socialists.
Calm down, they would say.
And I remember when I was younger and they called Obama a socialist, I laughed and I said, no, he's not.
Today, I can't say that.
You know why?
Because Ocasio-Cortez is a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist.
What do you want me to say?
They're not socialists even when they claim to be, and are part of organi- or AOC is a part of the literal socialist organization of prominence in America?
Yeah, sorry.
If socialism is scaring people, it doesn't need to be coming from Trump, scaring them about Democrats.
They're doing it themselves.
And they point this out in Bloomberg.
Check this out.
Democrats appeal to Latino voters who fled socialist countries.
They report Democrats seeking to counter President Donald Trump's use of socialism as a slur can look to a year-long effort to fight back now underway in Florida.
Trump frequently attacks Warren Sanders as socialists in the mold of progressives in Congress, like Representative Ocasio-Cortez, who are pushing the party to adopt far-left policies.
I want to be fair and tell you, it is both.
Of course the Republicans are targeting Democrats calling them socialists.
Elizabeth Warren calls herself a capitalist.
But there's no arguing against it at this point, okay?
What are you supposed to say?
Ocasio-Cortez is winning.
Let me show you something, okay?
This is really important.
Chuck Schumer, a court of the Atlantic, may be scared that Ocasio-Cortez will challenge him for the Senate seat, and he will lose!
Schumer has nowhere near the public support Ocasio-Cortez does.
Not because Democrats are socialists, but because the socialists are mobilizing and pushing hard enough To upset passive liberal voters.
The Atlantic writes, amid talk of a primary challenge, the Senate Democrat leader casts a surprising vote against the USMCA, bucking most of his party.
His reason?
The USMCA didn't deal with climate change.
They're speculating here, and it could be wrong, that Schumer is terrified.
When it comes to a primary challenge, he won't have the progressive bona fides to go up against AOC.
She is taking over!
Accept it, Democrats.
I think it's bad news because we can clearly see in the news how Hispanics who fled socialist countries are scared of this, and it's giving Trump more power.
But so be it, man.
Look, if you're a progressive and you want to win, take it, I guess, but Republicans are going to dominate.
Because I'll tell you this.
Gallup reported, okay, and I showed this before, that it's like 35% of the country is conservative, 35% is moderate, and then you have around 24% liberal.
So what do you think happens when Democrat voters who are mostly like Union Democrats or Blue Dog Democrats and the far left takes over?
They're gonna be like, not for me, thanks, bye, and they're gonna go join the Republican Party like Jeff Van Drew did.
Okay, you know Jeff Van Drew?
We've talked about him.
This guy is a Democrat across the board.
He's like an old-school Democrat, okay?
Now that they've gone far left, Van Drew doesn't really fit anymore.
I wouldn't call the guy a Republican.
I think it's nuts.
He's for, like, gender equality bills, banning offshore drilling.
Not a Republican, yet he just joined the Republican Party and got an endorsement from Donald Trump.
If he takes his voters with him, and he likely will, how could the Democrats ever hope to win?
You know what?
I will tell you this.
We will see what happens in November.
I am not the smartest person in the world.
I am giving you my thoughts and opinion right now.
Opinions based on the news as I'm reading it.
It's really annoying how people will like, you know, in a year from now, they'll pull up a video where they're like, I can't believe Tim thought that.
It's like, well, yeah, I was reading an article from Bloomberg at the time that said it.
What do you want me to do?
Not believe it?
See the future?
Sorry.
Hindsight is 20-20.
Let's read.
They say, this attack has particular resonance among Hispanic voters,
particularly those from socialist countries. Democrats were stung by a narrow loss in a
gubernatorial race in 2018 that featured similar accusations, and Florida Democrats are looking to
blunt those attacks in the crucial 2020 swing state. The party is reaching out to voters whose
negative experiences with governments in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba have heightened their concerns
about socialism and made them receptive to Trump's criticisms.
Do you know what?
Okay, listen.
Yes, the Republicans smear the Democrats all the time.
But how easy has AOC made it?
Look, I'm not saying you have to hate AOC.
You can like her, that's fine.
Okay, this is not a dig at her or Bernie or any of these progressives or socialists.
I'm just letting you know, Republicans are going to win because of it.
And I know, I'm not playing this, you know, game of vote blue no matter who.
I absolutely do not believe in that.
There's going to be a lot of people who would say like, oh, we must vote for Warren, but I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination.
I'm not saying that.
I'm just letting you know a moderate coalition can defeat the Republicans.
It's not going to happen.
Partly because the activists left are really far left relative to the average American.
But they're taking over, and it's precisely because liberals are passive.
Don't take my word for it, the data's in, it's YouGov data, more in common study, I show it all the time, we can see, they call it the exhausted majority, passive liberals.
They're not actively engaging in politics, they're not going out and voting in primaries, and they tend to be moderate.
But I'll tell you this, I'm willing to bet people are sweating bullets in Virginia, After they didn't care to go out for their local elections, and the Democrats swept the state across the board, and now their rights are being challenged, and they're freaking out.
Tomorrow, it's gonna get nuts.
We'll see what happens.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say this.
Over the past year, the state Democratic Party has hired a Latino outreach director, launched a Spanish-language radio show, and trained surrogates to make their case on Univision, Telemundo, and local TV and radio.
It's also seeking to register more Latino voters as part of a $2.8 million effort on
voter registration.
What I think is so funny about this is the Democrats are in panic mode over this.
They're spending nearly $3 million dollars, what is it, a $2.8 million effort on voter
registration and all Trump has to do, spending not a cent, is look over and say for one,
they're secular atheists for the most part, but more importantly, they're socialists.
I think what people don't really understand is that, my understanding, and I could be wrong, is that there is a very strong and powerful Christian community among Hispanics.
I was just in Mexico City, I was talking to my buddy, and he said most of the country, it's either Protestant or Catholic, but most people are.
Way more than America.
In America, it's like 63 to 66 percent.
I think religion is on the decline.
But you have large communities, the black community and the Latino community that are very religious.
It was always interesting to me why the Republicans did so poorly among these groups when they share Christianity with these minority groups.
Well, Trump's absolutely taking advantage of this.
So, that is an aside.
We'll read on, because I want to keep this focused on socialism.
But yes, religion will play a huge role.
They say, roughly one in six registered voters in Florida is Hispanic.
According to the Pew Research Center, exit polls showed that Cuban Americans who make up roughly a third of Florida Hispanics were about twice as likely to vote for Trump in 2016 as non-Cuban Hispanics.
I wonder why?
Socialism.
Democrats nationally fear the attack is effective enough to peel off votes from other Latin American immigrants in 2020.
Charges of socialism have absolutely worked in the past, said Evelyn Perez-Verdia, a Colombian-American consultant who works in South Florida.
They are playing with the fears of our communities, she said.
No, listen, I mean, to an extent, yes, I'm absolutely willing to accept that line of attack.
But you got to understand, man, I know that many Democrats are moderate.
They're trying their hardest to resist the far left.
But when Ocasio-Cortez won, I'm willing to bet, that moment, Ocasio-Cortez won in 2018 in the primary against Crowley, Republicans across the country, Republican consultants, started dancing a jig.
They jumped up on their desks and started dancing, pouring their fanciest, most expensive drinks, laughing at how they knew this was exactly what they needed to prove socialism.
Because for the longest time, they've screamed socialism at people who aren't socialists.
Now they can be like, she's a member of the DSA!
She calls herself a socialist!
Don't take it from us!
And there it is.
People are going to be like, yeah, that's too much for me.
I'm not interested.
Joshua Carte, a former spokesman for Andrew Gillum, a Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2016, said he's concerned the National Party is underestimating the potency of that messaging, especially in such a closely fought state.
Gillum lost by slightly less than half a percentage point in a race in which both Trump and the Republican candidate Ron DeSantis painted him as a far-left socialist who wants to turn Florida into Venezuela.
A label Gillum rejected and fact-checkers rate it as false.
I don't know enough about Gillum, but I do know that he's, well, my understanding, I could be wrong, is that he does operate in line to an extent with the progressive left wing of the Democratic Party, this new left, this reaching of, you know, they're reaching out to these progressive socialist types.
But I'll tell you this, man.
You tell somebody in Florida, because I lived in Miami for a while, you tell them they want to make that like Venezuela, and people are gonna...
I'll just say, they're not gonna be happy with you, okay?
I lived in the farmland, the redlands, in Miami for a year, and I worked down there for two years.
Yeah, there's a reason why people operate in Miami when they're from other countries.
It's because America is awesome, and we have freedom and opportunity.
So, you know what they used to say to me in Miami?
They said Miami was the capital of Latin America.
Don't take my word for it.
That's what people would tell me, the business people.
People from all these different Central and South American countries headquarter their companies and they work out of Miami because, well, as a massive Latino community, people speak Spanish, but it's free.
They know what it's like to operate in those countries, so they come here instead.
What do you think's gonna happen when you come to these people who fled this in fear, starvation?
Think about this.
The people, Nicaragua, right?
Which countries?
I wanna make sure I get them right.
Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba.
What about the people fleeing those countries and coming up to the migrant caravans?
You want to tell them now, hey, you know that country you fled?
We want to do that here.
They're going to be like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I don't want to go back to that, right?
Let's read a little bit more, and then I want to talk about the Democrats' fear.
Chuck Schumer.
AOC is going to knock him out of the race.
They say, still, Karp said the accusation may have been effective in damaging Gillum's campaign in a state where races are often decided by the thinnest of margins.
In the research I have seen, the word is a gateway to people believing other negative narratives about Democrats.
By leading with socialism, Republicans can inject other arguments about Democrats that would otherwise be dismissed by a lot of voters.
Trump has signaled that he will intensify those attacks regardless of the eventual Democratic nominee.
They say one recent series of ads by the Trump campaign on Facebook claimed that every 2020 Democrat candidate has embraced the ideas of radical socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar to try and appeal to their extreme left-wing base.
We've seen socialism completely fail in countries like Venezuela and Greece, the ad says, before asking voters to take an official socialism approval poll.
Trump is hardly the first Republican to do this.
We get it.
But now I want to move on to this article.
Chuck Schumer.
I know I mentioned it several times now, and I'll wrap up on this point.
They say that, you know, the party has embraced the ideals of socialism.
And some Democrats say, oh, it's a smear, they're lying, you know, we're not all socialists.
Let me remind you a couple things.
Ocasio-Cortez is a card-carrying member of the DSA, or at least last I checked she was.
Apparently there was some story recently about her trying to walk back those claims, like, look, when people try to smear me, blah, blah, blah.
Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist.
Elizabeth Warren tried distancing herself, saying, no, no, no, I'm a capitalist.
But Chuck Schumer recently voted against the USMCA, even though Nancy Pelosi praised it.
Nancy Pelosi claimed that she was the one who worked on it, that it was because of the Democrats the bill actually became good.
She said Trump didn't do enough, so we fixed it.
That's why it took so long.
And then Democrat Chuck Schumer comes out and says, nope, nope, not enough on climate change.
Why?
Well, basically, as the story lays out, AOC... Well, I'll just show you this.
Ocasio-Cortez is stockpiling campaign cash.
She's got over, I think, $5 million, some ridiculously large amount.
And people are speculating that she may launch a primary campaign against Gillibrand or Schumer.
So Schumer is shaking in his boots and what does he do?
He says the UMCA doesn't do enough on climate change.
Proving Trump right.
When he says to these people they are embracing the politics of Ocasio-Cortez, they are.
They are.
Not completely, not everybody, but they are.
What do you think happened?
What do you think was going through the minds of these people who fled these socialist countries when they were watching the democratic debate and they said, how many of you want to give health care to non-citizens?
And they all raised their hand and they're thinking like, they're literally talking about exactly what caused the problems in my country.
So it's not every Latino voter.
I want to make sure that's clear.
It is primarily these people who fled these countries or whose family did.
But that's a major benefit to Trump.
Socialism is not popular.
Do I have this?
Yeah, right here.
Less than half in the U.S.
would vote for a socialist president May 9, 2019.
This is Gallup.
It's not popular.
Trump knows it.
Republicans know it.
And now they have Ocasio-Cortez to use as their poster child to prove they've been right the whole time.
And when Chuck Schumer, of all people, starts voting in line with AOC, they can then say, see, even party leadership is adopting what AOC wants.
When they look at impeachment, they say, see, even Nancy Pelosi finally caves to the outrage of Ocasio-Cortez.
They are embracing socialism.
Now, are they really?
Technically, no.
Ocasio-Cortez isn't about socialists, so is Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is kind of... I mean, we'll see what happens.
According to the Veritas expose, you know, at least one staffer thinks Sanders is actually further left than he claims to be.
But the reality is that Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, and many of these Democrats are not socialists.
But I'll tell you what, they will vote that way out of fear.
Because I believe these people just want the job.
You know, I look at Schumer, Pelosi, Nadler, these are the do-nothing Democrats who want the keys to the castle.
So I can absolutely respect AOC and some of these other progressive Democrats who at least believe in something.
But I look at Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, Nadler.
They just want the keys to the castle.
That's all they want.
They say, open the door, let me in the ivory tower.
I want to sit up top.
That's all I am.
So I certainly don't respect that.
And you know what?
I'll tell you this.
There's a lot of things I don't like AOC for.
But it's mostly a disagreement in policy.
I think she does some annoying things on Twitter when she's like, you know, basically everything is Republican.
Oh, here come the Republicans again.
I'm like, no, dude, when someone criticizes you, it doesn't mean they're a Republican.
But I'll tell you this.
There's a lot more I like about Bernie Sanders and AOC than I do about Schumer, Pelosi, Nadler.
The do-nothing, keys-to-the-castle, ivory-tower Democrats.
That's all they want.
That's what they represent.
Look at Nancy Pelosi coming out with those commemorative pens.
Come on, man.
That's sick.
You know what?
I see them, and I see someone who says, can you please let me in?
I'd like to sit in the comfy chair.
I look at AOC, I look at Bernie Sanders, and I see people who say, I want this system by any means necessary.
I absolutely respect people who have a real mission, though I think their ideas are terrifying and insane.
There's so much more to be said for someone who actually believes in what they're doing, as opposed to a grifter, yes, like Pelosi, who just wants the job.
That's it.
I'll leave it there, though.
We'll see what happens, you know, at the end of the year.
But I think it's fair to say now, in my long series about why Trump is going to win again, we have increased African-American support, Hispanic support for Trump, as well as the fear of socialism and the economic factors.
Take these into consideration.
And if you're someone on the left and you're mad that I'm ragging on AOC or whatever, well, so be it.
But if you ignore what I... But I'll say this.
Ignore what I say at your own peril.
I'm not saying this to be disrespectful or to insult you.
I'm telling you how I see it.
I'm telling you there are stories published.
Numerous stories outlining this fear and this problem.
If you don't pay attention, you will lose.
We'll see you all at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel and thanks for hanging out.
Thanks to the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Greta Thunberg, and a complicit news media, children are getting what's called eco-anxiety.
They're having panic attacks, they're feeling depressed, angry.
Greta Thunberg is not necessarily an anomaly.
I mean, she is in the sense that she's very famous, travels the world, and preaches about the end of the world because she's, well, she's been fed all of this insane religious nonsense, but it's resulting in other kids feeling the same way.
In an op-ed for the Daily Mail, Douglas Murray writes, Now here's the thing.
I always start these videos by pointing out, for one, biological gender, or sex, whatever you want to call it, is a real thing, okay?
And climate change is a serious problem.
eco-anxiety, how would you know if they had?
Now here's the thing.
I always start these videos by pointing out, for one, biological gender or sex, whatever
you want to call it, is a real thing, okay?
And climate change is a serious problem.
However, the problem I have with Greta Thunberg is exemplified almost exactly like this, in
this article.
I remember I lived in Los Angeles a long time ago.
This was back before, I think it was like 2012 or whatever.
And some religious zealot was buying billboards that said, are you prepared for the end?
The end is nigh, it'll come on this date.
And when the date came and nothing happened, sure enough, they just changed the date.
I thought it was hilarious.
And so did many of my friends.
Except now when you talk to those same friends in L.A.
about climate change, they're saying the same things, and it's mind-numbing to me.
The world will end in 12 years, they screech.
Eight years, says Greta Thunberg.
Then when you call them out, they say, we were just exaggerating.
Yeah, well, children don't know that you're exaggerating.
So, Ocasio-Cortez has been slammed because she said the world's gonna end in 12 years.
Greta Thunberg, I think, said 8.
And then what happened was, apparently it was pulled out of context, you know, Ocasio-Cortez is angry because she was saying that we... What she was really trying to say, she was quoting this climate change report that said we have 12 years to make a change, otherwise there will be irreversible damage.
Perhaps there already is irreversible damage.
It's really hard to quantify.
That's what makes this so challenging.
The day-to-day things we experience in terms of weather and stuff, it's not really shocking or jarring to anybody because it happens very, very slowly.
Now, there is this well-known meteorologist on Twitter.
I forget his name, so forgive me.
If you're the meteorologist, forgive me.
I could be, you know, promoting on Twitter.
But he says, no, the world is not going to end in 12 years.
Calm down.
He also criticized AOC for confusing weather with climate.
Ocasio-Cortez was in DC, okay, she's there for Congress, and tornado sirens go off, and she tweets like, this is the new normal?
Tornadoes in DC?
And it's like, this is the kind of psychotic fear-mongering in line with these lunatic 2012 doom preachers of old.
Where it's like, dude, do you not realize there's a reason why there are tornado alarms in DC?
It's because tornadoes can happen.
They didn't one day say, because of climate change, we're gonna install, you know, tornado sirens!
There are tornado sirens in Chicago!
And when was the last time Chicago had a real tornado?
I mean, like, the city proper.
I grew up there, and there was some stuff in the suburbs.
People got freaked out.
Tornadoes, you know, appear overhead and they don't really ever touch down, but we have them.
Are we going to complain about that?
No, but AOC does.
See, every little thing, even Greta Thunberg with Australia, it's like everything they see around every corner is lurking the evil sun ray trapped by greenhouse gases, you know, lurking around every corner, jumping out and doing scares at you.
When these people Who preach to the youth, like Greta Thunberg and AOC, and all of their accomplices, okay, are screeching about this insanity.
Kids are going nuts.
So how about I actually read this, because you can hear me rant.
Douglas Murray writes, according to a variety of psychologists and psychiatrists, talk of climate crisis has led to an upsurge of young people reporting feelings of anxiety, helplessness, and guilt.
The symptoms of this newly coined syndrome are real enough, according to the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and why wouldn't they be in a world pumped full of one-sided propaganda?
We saw this over Christmas, when Channel 4 screened a special edition of Gogglebox called Gogglesprogs.
The children were shown watching as the BBC parroted untrue claims by Extinction Rebellion that scientists say we have only 11 years to act and their response was all too understandable.
One child looked especially pained as she counted on her fingers how many years she had left to live and worked out that according to the BBC, the world could end when she was just 19.
If you're not familiar with Los Angeles, you've got basically like this hilly range that separates the actual L.A.
County, and then there's the Valley, right?
What is it?
San Fernando Valley?
And North Hollywood is an area where my friends lived, and there was this big billboard I remember seeing when we were going to the bar, and this is back in, I think, like 2011, and it said, you know, the end is nigh.
And I laughed at it.
So why are they now doing the same thing?
The end is not tonight.
And also make one really, really important point to all the egotistical, you know, climate people who think the world is ending.
Let me just stress this point.
The world will not end.
Humans might make life, you know, bad for humans.
And I think it's a fair point.
If you want to criticize what humanity is doing in terms of pollution, toxification of the oceans, and how this is going to be bad for humanity in the long run, that's the conversation we should be having, but the world is not going to end.
We're not going to burst into flames and everyone will die.
It's just not going to happen, okay?
It is extremely arrogant and egotistical to think that you have such an impact.
I do think the collective actions of humanity will definitely, and is definitely, having an impact on the planet.
According to the scientists, does that mean the world is going to end in the next, you know, ten years?
No.
Now I'll be fair.
They say that was taken out of context.
I'm pretty sure Greta Thunberg said we had eight years to act or something, but fine.
I'll play it fair.
Those are taken out of context.
It's not even true that we only have 10 years to act, and I will tell you this.
The date keeps changing.
Just like that sign I saw in North Hollywood, and then after the date came and nothing happened, a new sign popped up saying, here's the real date!
Remember in 20- was it 20- 2000.
We have 10 years to act in 1990.
We have 10 years to act.
They keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Okay?
Look, man, I get it.
We need to focus on new technology.
But we need to incentivize the market to make these changes.
And we can do this with the help of government.
This is not helping.
This is creating a zealous religion.
Like, these kids are growing up being preached to by doomsayers.
Could you imagine if that crazy guy who bought the billboard or the dude in the corner holding up a sign saying the end is nigh in the street with a crazy beard screeching?
Could you imagine if they put him on TV, parade him around the UN screeching about, you know, the apocalypse is here, the horsemen are rising?
Young people would be like, whoa, this is crazy.
But the thing is, We know those people are nuts.
We tell our kids, ah, they're crazy.
But then Greta Thunberg gets up.
She's 17.
She has no idea what's going on in the world.
She didn't even go to school.
She's skipping school.
I don't know if she's back in school, but her whole point, the whole thing about what she's doing is she's not going to school.
You know, so listen.
I understand.
Let me stop right there.
Immediately all the leftists are screaming, Tim Pool, you're a high school dropout.
I agree.
I certainly am.
And so I defer to the experts when they say the world is not ending.
Okay?
Greta Thunberg acts like she knows everything.
This is why it's happening.
We demand action now.
Do you realize if we took action based on what Greta Thunberg and AOC wanted, like millions of people would die?
Yeah, because we heat our homes with fossil fuels.
Not every home, but we do use electricity.
But guess what?
A good portion of our electricity is made from coal.
Not all of it, but I think more than half.
Anyway, let's read more, because I'm going off on a tangent.
They say later a little boy reacted to the fanatical claims of Extinction Rebellion by saying to the viewers, That's sad.
Why did we have to be born at this time?
Yikes.
We are in an era where things are better than ever.
We've cured many diseases.
We're at the height of antibiotics.
It's kind of scary because there's antibiotic resistance.
You can go on the internet and watch any TV show, any song.
Man.
It's glorious today.
In my pocket, I possess a small device that contains or allows me access to the summation of human knowledge.
Truly, a golden age.
And that device allows me to hear music and talk to people and communicate around the world.
Yet people are saying, these kids, why were we born in this time?
You were born in a glorious, beautiful golden era, child.
Don't freak out.
They are growing up, of course, in a world where Greta Thunberg is preaching her gospel of imminent hellfire, and in which world leaders queue up to approve her message.
It's just, it's religious.
It really is.
Look, here's the problem.
There's real reason to believe climate change is a threat to humanity.
You would be, in my opinion, insane not to think we can't toxify and pollute our own environment.
We have the micro effects of this.
Polluted rivers, rivers becoming acidic, Infected with E. coli.
You know, in Chicago?
Like, you can't even go on the lake sometimes because of the disease in the water.
And there was this... I worked for a non-profit.
They surveyed people at the beach in Lake Michigan.
They're artificial beaches, by the way.
It's a lake.
It's fresh water.
And this is gonna get gross, so I'm giving you a warning.
But they interviewed... They surveyed people.
Asked them how they felt, how was their diet, how were they, I'm doing air quotes, regular in terms of particular bowel movements.
I kid you not, they really did this.
And then, following up a few days after the beach, they found a ridiculous amount of people ended up getting sick, okay, in terms of, you know, having to run to the washroom.
I'm trying to be a bit family-friendly.
But yeah, so listen.
I understand there's a big difference between climate change, global warming, climate crisis, whatever you want to call it, and someone getting sick at the beach because of an E. coli contaminant.
The point I'm making is that we can see how pollution affects the ocean with dead zones.
We can see how it affects, you know, smaller areas, chemical disasters, cancer rates, and things like that.
Scale that up, okay?
The fact is, I'm not saying the world's ending by no means.
I'm saying humans play a role and it's very important we protect our environment.
The problem I have with these people is that they're making these kids lose their minds and they're pushing ideas that, well, are just plain nuts and are not going to help solve the problem.
In fact, they'll make the problem worse.
Let me explain something to all of you.
If you happen to be a climate, eco, you know, individual who likes Square Enix and all that stuff, you're probably mad at me.
If you've made it this far, I'm impressed.
But let me just explain something to you.
When you see that preacher on the side of the road or on the billboard saying, you know, December, you know, 16th, 2021, that's when the end happens!
Jesus will return!
And you think that person's crazy?
That's exactly how people feel when they see Greta Thunberg.
And that's why I've jokingly called it the Greta Thunberg Challenge, you know?
See what happens if you walk up to a stranger and scowl and yell, how dare you!
Stolen my childhood!
See how they respond to you?
They're going to freak out.
It's nuts.
And how do you think kids are going to react to this?
They're growing up and they're being driven insane by zealotry.
It's not going to solve the problem.
It's not going to produce activists who actually want to fix things.
You know what it is?
I kid you not, it's going to be market incentives.
And I think the government can play a role in awarding contracts to successful innovation and inventions in renewable energy.
And we're doing it!
Maybe we could do it better, maybe we could do it faster, that's a fact.
The problem is, human growth as of today was built upon fossil fuels over the past hundred years, and your option right now is cut off the valve, millions die, or wean ourselves off it over a short period of time.
I think we wean ourselves off it for a variety of reasons.
The problem is Greta Thunberg says, shut it down now!
I'm going to Davos, the World Economic Forum, where the top 1% of the 1% of the 1% are meeting, because she's a privileged elite who has all of the luxury in the world.
She got to travel across the Atlantic Ocean in a yacht with all this donated tech, and she's going like, this is the funniest thing to me.
When she's like, it's a zero-emission journey to the UN, and it's like, dude, do you have any idea how expensive that trip was?
It is peak luxury.
The richest people in the world yelling at the poor people struggling to survive who want to use a little oil to heat their home, and they're saying, turn it off!
Meanwhile, they're in massive yachts saying, look at me.
I'm not using emissions.
I will give respect to Greta Thunberg for going that far.
I really will.
Because a lot of people complain about Leonardo DiCaprio flying around in private jets.
You don't need to fly around in a private jet.
You can fly commercial.
But Greta Thunberg still deserves... I don't want to necessarily say disrespect, right?
I respect that she was willing to do this zero-emission trip.
But the point is, it's not possible for everyone else.
It is the height of luxury and privilege to use all of this new tech that isn't being reproduced for everyone, and then complaining that the governments need to shut off fossil fuels because poor people heat their homes.
You see the problem there?
So again, I respect Greg Thunberg for taking the zero-emission trip, but it's not replicable.
You cannot have everyone who needs to fly in the thousands of flights per day floating around on yachts for two weeks.
It's just ridiculous.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say this.
Supposedly, serious politicians like to pretend that what the Swedish teenager is saying, we're all about to die, is true.
That our proposed response, destroy the free market capitalism, is reasonable, and people who ought to know better are trying to outdo each other in hysteria.
The results are hardly surprising.
In recent weeks alone, a number of friends have told me of children feeling depressed or listless because they are falling for the lies of these abusers who claim that young people have no chance of ever growing up.
One mother recently described how her daughter had asked what the point was in taking their GCSEs, I'm assuming it's a test, if they weren't even going to be here a few years later.
Wow.
You might have thought that rather than whip them up still further, any remaining adults in the room should offer children the perspective and insight that age might bring.
But I have been repeatedly struck by how few people there are willing to take up that role.
Meanwhile, cynical politicians such as Jeremy Corbyn and anyone who aspires to lead the Lib Dems have played a huge role.
They have spotted a cynical opportunity to appeal to young voters and latch onto the issue, giving the claims of Extinction Rebellion great weight in the eyes of the young and impressionable.
Too many of us kowtow to children or treat them as some special source of truth, yet the reason why so many are becoming ill with anxiety is precisely because so many adults in a position to know better are telling them that they should be terrified.
Take a headline from the BBC website last summer.
Quote.
Climate change.
12 years to save the planet?
Make that 18 months.
Oh, we went down!
Right.
18 months.
This kind of scaremongering is so commonplace that it barely registers.
Most of us lost count of the number of eco-doomsday deadlines we have passed, as in headlines.
Yet we are still here.
In 2000, the now-defunct independent newspaper ran a story claiming that within a few years, children in countries such as ours were not going to know what snow was.
Two years later, the anti-capitalist activist George Monbiot was using the pages of the Guardian to claim there would be famine within 10 years unless we all gave up eating meat, fish, and dairy products.
Well, 2010 came and went, but most Britons remained well-fed.
In fact, we've got obesity problems.
We got too much food.
How about one thing we can do is grow less food?
I don't know.
It's not really... I don't know how you solve that problem.
They say this, two years later the Guardian was warning that climate change would cause millions of deaths in succeeding years.
The paper went so far as to warn that by 2020, Britain would be plunged into a Siberian climate.
I need hardly say that we are not yet staggering around an Arctic wasteland wearing bearskins.
But that was always the way with climate alarmists.
One day we were going to never see snow again, the next we were due to be covered in the stuff, and all the time we were expected to trust them and destroy the economy on their wobbly say-so.
Greta Thunberg recently said in an op-ed that it's really about ending patriarchy and colonialism and all this other stupid nonsense.
That's what it is.
They're scaring you with whatever they can to force you to join their religion.
That's how religion works.
Okay?
Now listen.
If you happen to be religious... I myself am...
I don't know how to describe my own personal religious views, but suffice it to say, I do believe in God.
I have for a really long time.
People probably assume I'm like a secular atheist.
That's not the case.
But I'm absolutely non-theistic.
I don't look to any of the traditional religions for guidance or anything like that.
I have my own weird philosophical beliefs on religion I think would be great for a conversation I might have in my new show.
But you look at what... I look at what these climate alarmists are doing.
And they're creating sin, you know, like, it is very much in line... It's not about climate, I'm talking about intersectionality, right?
You're an oppressor, you're a colonialist, all this other stuff.
They're creating a fear of hellfire and coming doom, and they're using science and climate to trick people.
They then tell you you must bend the knee and do as they say and abolish capitalism.
They really do.
Listen.
Capitalism is not the problem.
People like to point out that, you know, Greta Thunberg says, your fantasies about endless growth just shows that we should not be listening to children.
Right now, the digital economy is expanding.
The amount of carbon emissions I produce from making a product based on my thoughts and opinions, or better yet, The economic expansion of making a little mobile game where you golf with your finger and you spend two dollars to buy an intangible tea bonus that gives you an extra oomph in your next swing.
A lot of the economy is becoming virtual.
We are not producing more products in the physical world.
We're producing access to digital resources for games and things like that.
It's possible.
Now, it's true that the internet infrastructure does contribute a lot of carbon emissions.
It uses a lot of power.
It's very hot.
All these things.
But it is an economy being built not upon physical products waste.
And, you know, plastics for instance.
It's going to be an ever more efficient internet where a large portion of the economy is becoming completely sustainable because they're digital assets.
Well, I shouldn't say completely, but very much so.
You want to talk about infinite economic growth?
Let's talk about digital space, virtual spaces.
When someone buys real estate on a website, it's theoretically infinite.
So it is entirely possible to have, not infinite growth, but sustained growth outside of the physical world.
She's a child.
She doesn't understand.
Well, she's a teenager, okay?
That's unfair.
Because I routinely rag on her for her going, I am a child!
Leave me alone!
I'm making that up.
She never said that.
The point I'm making is, she tweets about how like, we're children, you know, we understand we're taking big risks.
Like, you're 17, dude.
You're basically an adult.
Anyway, the point is, she has no idea what she's talking about.
She's young, naive.
She was raised on this psychotic doom saying of doom preachers about the end coming, and it never came!
Yet they still believe it.
I'll tell you this, and I mean this with all respect to the religions of the world, to me, it's the same thing as the religions I've experienced.
I grew up, I went to Catholic school, I have seen, it's religion.
So ultimately I think we have a serious problem in that, you know, in the United States we have a separation of church and state, but we don't have a separation of ideology and state.
How do you even do that?
I honestly don't know.
But I will tell you this, I'll wrap this one up, this one went long.
If our kids are being raised to believe this psychotic nonsense, we already have eco-extremists.
They exist.
There's going to be more.
There's going to be more people.
I'll give you a good example.
Ocasio-Cortez says, we eventually want to replace airplanes with high-speed rail.
Now, a lot of people have exaggerated saying she was trying to abolish airplanes.
No, she wrote in the FAQ for the Green New Deal, we can't get rid of planes fast enough and replace them with high-speed rail.
So, she does want high-speed rail.
A lot of people have advocated that it's more efficient in a lot of ways.
Yet, in the UK, they are literally trying to build a high-speed rail to reduce their carbon emissions, and eco-activists have blocked the path, refusing to allow them to build it.
So I tell you this.
What do they really want?
I don't know.
Maybe they really do want a nuclear apocalypse to go back to living in caves.
But how can we live in a world where the environmental activists are simultaneously saying we need high-speed rail and then blocking it when they try to build it in the UK?
It doesn't make sense.
These people are zealots who believe insane things for insane reasons and they're teaching kids these insane things and the kids think the world is going to end and they're losing their minds because of it.
Let me end by saying climate change is a problem.
Climate change, carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, they are serious problems.
They are going to cause erratic weather patterns.
They may already be doing so.
They're causing longer fire seasons.
Now some people, mostly on the right, think this is just a natural occurrence or it's due to the sun.
Someone even sent me a book explaining solar activity.
And yes, solar activity does have a major impact on the planet.
The planet also goes through cycles, and there are a lot of issues around whether or not climate change is man-made or isn't.
But I will tell you this.
I am not a scientist.
I am not an expert.
I can only defer to the scientists.
While I completely understand Was it, you know, 500 years ago, a man was persecuted and prosecuted because he believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not the other way around, because consensus isn't always accurate.
You know, science constantly proves itself wrong to better understand the world, and it was, you know, a couple hundred years ago, people used to drink mercury.
Well, they would actually rub mercury ointments on their skin to try and cure certain diseases, and while technically, yeah, the mercury would kill the bacteria, the hope was that it would kill the bacteria faster than it killed you, so...
The point is, the things we know today will likely change.
It's possible that we come to a better understanding about how climate change actually happens.
Maybe it's solartivity, maybe it isn't.
For the time being, many scientists believe it is the general accepted consensus that carbon emissions, methane, water vapor, etc.
are contributing to climate change and humans play a role in that.
I have no grounds as a layman to challenge that.
What I do know is that these people are nuts.
The simple solution is, instead of screeching about the end of the world coming, which it never does, calm down, assess the problem, incentivize the market, tell people to develop new technologies, Have the universities do research, provide government options, but we have to take a slow approach to figure out how to change this, otherwise we just end up with a bunch of dead people because they want to shut down carbon emissions.
The point is...
Look, I'm not saying all the scientists are right.
I don't know.
That's the problem.
I don't know.
I can only go on what the authorities are saying, and the authorities aren't always correct.
But until there is a general change in scientific consensus, I will abide by what that is, even though consensus isn't science.
If most of the scientists are saying, here's what we think, and there are many who say it's not, I defer to the authority on this one.
The same goes for gender.
All the people trying to claim it's not real, sorry.
You don't get to play that game.
I understand science isn't always correct.
It's not.
In fact, that's what's awesome about science.
We prove ourselves wrong.
But for the time being, I don't know what else you want me to do other than defer to the experts.
I'm not going to cherry pick and pick and choose.
I'm going to defer to the community on all these issues.
So I'll leave it there.
This one was long, but stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
Hope you're all having a wonderful Sunday.
It's Sunday, right?
I can't tell.
Anyway, I will see you all at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
MSNBC has jumped the shark.
Well, again, I guess.
They jumped the shark, like, 30 times already.
If you're not familiar with what jumping the shark means, it basically means they've gone nuts.
I'll put it that way.
They brought on a body language expert to say that Elizabeth Warren was telling the truth and that Bernie Sanders was lying.
I'm gonna tell you all a secret.
I am no fan of body language experts.
I'm just not.
And I'll tell you why.
I am also, to a certain degree, a body language expert.
I used to do non-profit fundraising.
I grew up with a bunch of hacker friends, small hacker community, studying, I don't want to say studying, but involved in various forms of the hacker community, mostly, you know, early on in social engineering stuff, which has to do with monitoring how people react, how they look, how their eyes move, to determine what they're kind of thinking or feeling.
So when I did non-profit fundraising, I would see somebody, we would do street canvassing, and you can just kind of tell what their mood is based on how they look.
So, this kind of stuff is fairly obvious, but what you end up getting with these people, like MSNBC, is a type of, like, pseudo clairvoyance psychic person who's telling you what you want to hear based on stupid things that sounds like they're legitimate.
This woman I'll read this because I think it's insane.
This woman on Joy Reid's show, it's MSNBC, is saying, like, Bernie's hunched over, which proves he's, you know, trying to withdraw and he's lying.
It's like, dude, Bernie's hunched over because he's like 80 years old.
Dude just had a heart attack.
He's not hunched over because he's lying.
He's hunched over because his back is old and degenerating.
I'm not trying to be mean to Bernie.
I'm actually defending the guy.
It's the problem I have with these body language experts.
They do these videos and stuff.
I'm not trying to be mean, but I'll tell you this.
What you typically get is their opinion, but they say something so it sounds like their opinion is justified, when often it really isn't.
So they show you a video, and there's Bernie, and his eyes go wide, he puts his hands up, and then she'll be like, oh, you see that right there, how his eyes got wide?
See?
He's drawing attention to his face, so you don't see what his hands are doing.
It's like, you just make things up, right?
It's just, I gotta be honest.
A lot of it's BS.
Now, it is true.
I don't want to be unfair.
It is true, you really can read body language.
You really, really can.
I'm just saying, when they bring these people on, like, you know what, man?
MSNBC has jumped the shark.
They've jumped, like, 50 sharks.
They just keep jumping sharks.
It's like a wave of shark jumping.
They've gone nuts.
Let's read the story.
But here's what I really want to get to.
The machine is so insanely rigged against Bernie Sanders, and the dude couldn't grow a spine to save his own life.
When Donald Trump tweets out they're rigging it against Bernie again, he goes, no Trump, you're rigging it!
It's like, imagine this.
Here's what I want you to picture in your head when you see Bernie Sanders.
Okay?
And look, I know the Bernie people are gonna get mad.
I like Bernie a lot more than a lot of the other Democrats.
But imagine there's some, like, you know, hunched-over kid with glasses on, like, a playground field at school.
And a bunch of people are bullying him, and pushing him around, and he's just laughing like, haha, haha, yeah, you guys are funny, as they like flick his ears, and push him to the ground.
He gets up, and then some other kid walks over, and they're like, get out of here, you're a loser, and he goes, hey man, look, they're bullying the little Bernie!
And then the little Bernie gets up and points at the kid who's actually defending him and goes, Hey!
No!
You're the bully!
Like he's actually, like Bernie is actually defending his abuser.
He's got like Stockholm Syndrome.
The media can run the most insane nonsense about Bernie.
And what does he do?
Finally, when someone from the other side speaks up, Bernie turns around and yells at Trump.
I know that's what I talked about the other day, but let's read the story.
Mediaite reports MSNBC host Joy Reid was joined by body language expert Jeanine Driver, who assessed the post-debate confrontation between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and concluded that Warren was telling the truth while Sanders was lying.
Oh!
Surprise, surprise!
That was her conclusion.
On Saturday morning's edition of AM Joy, Reid kicked off a lengthy panel segment by summarizing the timeline of the controversy, which began with a Sanders campaign volunteer script that took aim at Warren's affluent supporters, which was followed by a story in which four sources recalled Warren claiming that Bernie Sanders told her during a private meeting in 2018 that a woman could not beat Trump in the 2020 election.
Okay, I know.
I've said it several times.
I also know that a lot of people who watch this channel don't watch my other channel, so if you don't, youtube.com slash TimCast, it is typically more mainstream political, but like, you have to be nuts.
To actually think, intersectional feminist Bernie Sanders would ever believe a woman could not win, okay?
And there's a bunch of different angles people are trying to take to defend Warren on this one, but it's just not the case, okay?
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Why would Bernie come out years later, two years after a woman won the popular vote, and be like, a woman can't win!
It's like, uh, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
She didn't win the electoral college.
But I just think it's ridiculous.
Sanders started the story, yadda yadda yadda.
Reed then introduced a panel that included Driver, as well as activist Brittany Cunningham and political reporter Aaron Haynes.
Reed began by telling Driver that when Warren rolled up on him, was like, no, we're not going to handshake now, you called me a liar, that felt to me like a lot of the ways that women have to operate and work in the professional environment where you can't be angry or you're the bad one.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no.
Hold on.
Anybody who gets angry at work—this is what's so insane to me about this, like, intersectional feminist perspective on work.
It's like, if a woman is mean, then she's called the B-word.
It's like—or you are, you know what I mean?
Like, it's such a convenient excuse, you know?
Because I've personally had experience where, you know, I've been in meetings, And there's like a couple of women.
And then one woman has proposed a really bad idea.
And then after the meeting, she's like, we're talking, and she's like, they just dismissed my idea outright because I'm a woman.
And I'm like, I gotta be honest, like, your idea actually didn't make any sense.
We were doing like story pitches.
And I'm like, your story, your story doesn't seem to make sense.
Like, I'm not, I'm not dismissing because you're a woman.
Like, I'll break it down beat by beat for you.
So the problem, you end up with these people like Warren, who are like, I'm not gonna shake your hand, otherwise I'll look like the bad guy?
Is that the point she's trying to make?
Here's what she said.
Most of us want to deal with it afterwards instead of just going right for it.
Warren walked up to Bernie, you lunatic!
The fact that Elizabeth Warren not only came right over, she squared her body, he's giving her the cold shoulder, he doesn't turn to her, she says, I think you just called me a liar on TV.
If you go back to Wienergate, you go back to all these political Armageddons when it comes to deception, no one calls someone else a liar.
And she comes right out and says, wait a minute, did you just call me a liar?
This is indicative of someone who's telling the truth.
Because if she was lying, it's unlikely she would have confronted him in that moment.
That's absolutely not true.
See, this is what I was talking about with body language experts saying things that are kind of nonsensical.
She says something to justify her opinion on why she thinks Warren is telling the truth, but it literally doesn't mean anything.
Warren is a liar.
Warren lies all the time.
She's comfortable lying.
Even Bernie supporters called out that she's a liar.
So, why did she walk over to Bernie?
Because she wants to confront him and earn more points because she's sinking in the polls She says, here's my opportunity for a big stage to make this moment Well, her polls are still sinking, so whatever Haynes told Reid that the gloves are definitely off with 16 days to go to the Iowa caucuses.
It's interesting that the conversation has shifted to gender now, that really the formidable candidates of color are really out of the race.
We are getting down to the wire here with primary voting about to get underway, and these campaigns are looking to differentiate themselves, and for better and for worse, gender is still a way to do that in this country, Haynes said.
Packnet, that's her name, Cunningham, told Reed that we are also seeing the electability conversation is turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well, I'll tell you this, man.
Elizabeth Warren knew that Bernie had already been smeared with, like, the Bernie bros and, you know, the white men and the harassment in his campaign in 2016, so of course she was gonna take that route.
It's gross.
Even Bill Maher said she's playing the woman card.
Yeah.
Yeah, Warren is.
Now, you look.
Elizabeth Warren has lied so many times, I've lost count.
Why would I- And so has Bernie.
I mean, check this out.
I think it's fair to point out that, at the very least, Bernie is flip-flopping.
I don't believe it.
Oh, I'm sorry.
At the very worst case, Bernie's flip-flopping.
At the best case, Bernie has had an epiphany on why we need to open up our borders.
Bernie now wants to stop deportations.
Bernie now wants a moratorium.
He wants to decriminalize border crossings.
A stark contrast to why Bernie Sanders had so much support in 2016.
Because back then, in the 2015 campaign, he said open borders is a Koch brothers proposal.
He said repeatedly that immigration depresses wages and it's bad for American workers.
And now all of a sudden his tune is changing.
So let me tell you this.
Body language, lady.
Yeah, I think Bernie Sanders has begun lying, okay?
I think he's more honest in a lot of ways, but I definitely think he's decided the political route is the better route, and now he's become a liar.
The most important thing to me in all of this, though, is that we can see how everything Bernie has supported is now being weaponized against him, okay?
It's a bit hyperbolic, not everything, but I'll put it this way.
Bernie plays the intersectional feminist game, now he's a bigot.
Bernie and his supporters are part of this whole doctored video nonsense from the mainstream media, and now Biden is accusing Bernie of doctored videos.
You reap what you sow, buddy!
Okay, you support this stuff, it comes back for you.
I have no problem standing in opposition to these lunatics as they screech about this insane nonsense.
Bernie didn't release a doctored video.
Elise Stefanik did not release a doctored photo of Pelosi.
It's so insane.
But Bernie's getting the same treatment that Trump's been getting for a long time.
They're actually calling Bernie sexist right now.
They've been trying to plaster his supporters, and Bernie... You know what's funny?
With Trump, it's easy.
You know, Trump has said so many things that are just awful, that it's really easy to be like, I accuse you, Trump, and his supporters are gonna, for the most part, not believe it, or actually not even care.
And some actually like it.
I mean, I've seen women wearing shirts that say, grab me by the, you know, hoo-hoo.
You know what Trump said, right?
Keep my videos family-friendly.
And I'll tell you this.
It's not because YouTube makes me.
It's because I actually got emails from people who talk about how they listen to this in the car with their kids and stuff.
And so I took that seriously.
I used to not care to talk about more adult things.
But now I, like, there's no censorship issue on why I won't say, like, you know, certain words.
It's literally because I recognize there are people who have kids who hit me up and they want to listen to, like, you know, political commentary while they're driving their kids around.
So I respect you, family, family people.
Anyway.
Bernie Sanders is getting torn up in much the same way, but Bernie is such a... Look, man, you know what?
I'm gonna say it.
I'm ready for the pitchforks, Bernie supporters.
I know that like, you know, shoe on head, now that I said her name, is gonna like tweet at me angry because she has before.
But Shue's cool, I like Shue.
But Bernie is a bit of a loser, man.
I'm sorry, Bernie's a loser.
You know what I mean?
I'm not saying that to get an emotional rise out of anybody.
I'm not saying that because I don't like Bernie Sanders.
It's not meant to be an insult, it's meant to be a statement of fact.
What I mean is, Bernie has failed in so much of what he's tried to implement.
I can appreciate his consistency over the years.
But now, when all of this stuff is being mounted against him, what does he do?
He says nothing.
He won't stick up for himself.
Like, I'm sorry, dude.
That's a loser, man.
I mean, I understand Bernie has made great strides.
Like, he's actually, relative to the rest of the world, Bernie's a winner, for sure.
I mean, he's a millionaire.
Famous activist.
You know, stood up for a lot of things.
But I mean, right now in the political space, he's a bit of a loser.
I don't mean he's gonna lose.
I don't mean he's losing.
What I mean is, No spine.
No willingness to defend himself.
He is getting torn up by the media, by Warren, now by Biden, and he's just sitting there like... And then when Trump agrees with him, he goes, No, Trump, you're the... You know what, dude?
I'm sorry, man.
Bernie lacks a spine.
He really does.
He's flip-flopped on immigration.
You know what?
One of the reasons I liked Bernie Sanders is because he was all about America.
You know, back in 2015, he was saying things like the workers, union rights.
He was saying things that mattered to the working class of this country.
Now he's pandering to woke intersectional activists and the wealthy Uber elites of the Democratic Party.
And they hate him!
Like, the woke activists love him, but the wealthy Uber elites hate him.
They hate him.
And he's still doing it.
You know what, man?
I guess it's the only option he sees moving forward.
Like, that's Bernie's plan.
You've got to play the game to win?
I don't know.
I'm no fan of that.
I think Bernie should be saying exactly what he'd say.
And if Bernie came out and started talking about why, you know, we need immigration laws and why we need a secure border like he was doing in 2015, He'd be doing a lot better.
He really, really would.
He'd probably be higher than Biden.
You see, Bernie fell into the woke trap.
So he's getting the socialists, but he's losing the moderates.
Bernie was extremely popular.
Yeah, a lot of the Biden-type people were for Hillary Clinton.
I think Bernie would have won if they didn't rig it against him.
They totally did.
But now, what's Bernie's option?
What is he doing?
He's looking at the field, and he's got these activists whispering in his ears, and so he's changing everything.
Look at this.
Quote, he has made wild shifts how Bernie Sanders has changed his approach to immigration.
And they talk about how he used to be more of a nationalist.
Yeah, believe it or not.
And the World Socialist website called him a capitalist reformer masquerading as a socialist.
Bernie has decided to win the activist base by pandering to non-American, like people who can't vote in this country.
It's the weirdest thing to me about what the Democrats are doing.
Literally campaigning in Mexico.
I'll never understand that.
I'll tell you this, man.
Maybe it's to win the primary.
You know, you'll find a bunch of these Democrat activist types are gonna be like, I will only vote for the wokest of the woke.
But regular Americans are gonna be selfish.
I would bet a substantial amount of money.
In fact, for the most part, I'd be willing to bet my life on it.
You know?
That you find the average person is self-interested.
Okay?
Now what Bernie is... I guess because the ideologues are taking over the primary process, Bernie's making his bet on them.
Even when, you know, the establishment is ripping him to a million pieces.
But Bernie won't stand up to him.
Why would I vote for Bernie?
Tell me this.
If you're a Bernie supporter, why should I vote for Bernie if he won't even stand up to CNN, to MSNBC, and to the DNC?
What happened when they rigged it against him?
He endorsed Hillary Clinton.
He said she was not fit to be president, then he comes out and endorses her.
She lost anyway.
I'm sure they are real mad at him about that.
I'd be willing to bet Hillary... Bernie actually... No, no, no, I take that back.
Hillary was awful.
She was just awful.
I was going to say something like Bernie probably played a role in hurting... No, that's not true.
Yeah, Hillary was awful.
And that's the Democrats' fault.
But that's my big question.
Why should I vote for Bernie Sanders if he can't even stand up for himself?
I want a president who's going to stand up for me.
Okay?
I want a president who's going to say, I got your back.
All right?
Now, you want to be a global community and all that stuff?
That's fine.
But Russia, China, Brazil, India, these countries are self-interested too.
We are not living in a globalist utopia yet.
So for the time being, we need someone who's going to protect our interests from those who would lie, cheat, and steal and take from us.
Is that Bernie Sanders?
I think the answer is a resounding no.
Is that Joe Biden?
Oh, absolutely not!
Listen, I think Bernie's ideas are more about protecting Americans, to an extent, but he doesn't have the strength to actually pull it off.
So you've got one dude, you've got Biden.
That dude, I don't even know, he doesn't even know where he is.
You've got Buttigieg, who's basically a gray blob.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar are just like gray blobs.
I don't even know what they represent.
I'm not trying to be mean, because they're like weird corporate centrist types.
But yeah, they're like grey blobs.
Like, I don't even know what they're all about, you know what I mean?
Andrew Yang's cool, though.
And I think Andrew Yang has really started shining recently.
I gotta admit, as much as I really don't like Yang insulting Trump, he challenged him to run, like, Yang's done a bunch of really nasty stuff that got me mad.
Because that's not what I want in a president, right?
But admittedly, I think it was to show that he's kind of, uh, he's strong.
The way he said it, I believe he was genuine.
I got mad about it, you know what I mean?
I don't like when he does it.
But I gotta admit, when I look at the Democrats, I really do think for me, like, are you gonna be a strong leader who can stand up?
You know who can stand up on the Democrat side better than anyone else is Tulsi Gabbard.
Better than Yang.
Better than Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar.
And Buttigieg's not bad.
That dude's, you know, I think Buttigieg's a pretty strong guy.
I really do.
I mean that.
You know, it's probably military service.
I gotta be honest.
I think that's one of the most important factors for anybody who's gonna be commander-in-chief, and I really do mean that.
So when I think about who's gonna have a firm spine, I see Tulsi Gabbard straight up.
I'm not even kidding.
And I disagree with him on a lot of stuff.
I really do.
But, you know, when I look at Bernie, he's the opposite of Tulsi in regards to strength.
You know what I mean?
And, you know, I guess all the Bernie people are gonna freak out right now.
Let me wrap it up, okay?
This is gonna turn into a long rant.
You get the point.
I gotta do another segment coming up at 4 p.m.
I hope you're all enjoying the new setup, but there's a lot of changes to come still.
A lot of work being done.
I just started ranting about Bernie.
Whatever.
I'm done!
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
I'm gonna be talking about...
The Democrats are... There's a fundamental difference between the left and the right, whatever it means.
And I think one of the things that separates the new left and the new right is the understanding of inalienable rights.
Basically, the left thinks the government grants you rights, the right thinks the rights exist within you, and the left thinks that rights only exist within government framework.
Stick around, that video will be coming up at 4pm, and I will see you then.
So you know how I just did a segment at 4pm on my main channel talking about how the far-left fringe ideology is scaring voters away from the Democratic Party?
I was mostly talking about how Hispanics don't like socialism because many of them and their families fled socialist countries, and the Democrats have a problem with the woke far-left and socialist ideas taking over their party.
The main idea is that Trump need not try so hard to convince voters the Democrats are nuts.
Especially with this story, Bloomberg.
My story might have turned out very differently if I was black.
Why?
Axios reports Mike Bloomberg is ready to acknowledge his white privilege.
Maybe Bloomberg is trying to court the other side?
Fine, I guess.
But I'll tell you what, man.
Bloomberg is supposed to be the centrist moderate candidate, right?
He's the one complaining about Bernie Sanders and the far left and saying, you know, America needs a centrist candidate.
That's what he's supposed to be doing.
Dumping like $200 million into ads so far.
He comes out embracing woke far leftism and there you go.
If even the moderates of the Democratic Party are playing up to this insane nonsense, why should anyone believe the Democratic Party hasn't completely gone nuts?
They have.
Case in point, Mike Bloomberg.
Ya crazy.
Let's read the story.
I say why it matters.
It's from Axios.
Bloomberg's courtship of black voters appears an uphill climb because of his past support for stop-and-frisk in New York City.
He's seeking to redefine his reputation with black voters, using his biggest strength, an understanding of data and the economy, to present himself as a wealth advocate on their behalf.
Stop and Frisk, a policy for which Bloomberg apologized prior to launching his campaign, is haunting the former New York mayor at a time when race and gender are driving the political conversation.
Let's talk a little bit about Stop and Frisk.
You know what Stop and Frisk is?
It's basically in New York City.
In mostly black neighborhoods, cops will stop young men and frisk them, and typically find nothing, maybe weed.
And so a lot of people feel that it's particularly oppressive, and I have to agree.
Could you imagine, like, you leave your house, and you're walking down the street and a cop says, stop, and they put you up against the wall and start frisking you, and you're like, I didn't even do anything, nobody called anything in.
Stop and frisk is this policy where they can just stop you and frisk you.
And the idea is, by being really harsh and, like, weeding out crime early, You know, they're gonna stop it from escalating or something.
It just didn't work.
It did not work, and it primarily targeted poor black communities.
Now, I don't think the policy itself was intended to be racist, but, hey, planning, implementation, totally different things.
I think the general idea was kind of like, they focused on high crime areas and stopped and frisked people.
And for a variety of poverty reasons, It happened in black communities, and Michael Bloomberg was all for it up until he decided he needed their votes again.
Yeah, that's slimy, dude.
Listen, man.
Stop-and-frisk didn't work, okay?
It's my understanding, and I think it was a horrible policy.
Michael Bloomberg stands by it up until he needs to get elected.
That's called being a scumbag.
Okay, I don't really insult people, but I'll tell you that right- I'll say that right now.
Bloomberg doesn't- he doesn't care about this, he doesn't care about the complaints, he doesn't care about the protests.
And then- and then- and then he has the- is the nerve to say, well, why didn't you apologize before?
Well, nobody really cared!
Oh, that- oh, please, dude.
Protesters march through the streets complaining about this.
So for you to come out now complaining, I'll tell you this.
In order to be, I want to be fair.
I always try to be fair.
I think the problem with a lot of how America reacts to policy is it's the surface solution, right?
So when you see stop and frisk, the immediate assumption is the police must be racist.
In reality, you have higher crime areas that happen to be black neighborhoods.
You then get racists saying, aha, it must be racial because once again, they're falling onto surface level, you know, outcomes and solutions.
The reality is historical poverty, Historical racism, you know, these things existed, and it made it less likely that you have... I mean, it made it more likely that you have impoverished black communities, and poverty breeds crime, and both the racists and these, like, leftists... Well, actually, they're both racists as far as I'm concerned, and that exactly proves it.
They think race defines everything.
It doesn't.
Poverty, history, these things play big fat, play huge roles.
And I also think it's fair to say that there have been a lot of Democrat policies that have failed many of these communities.
And that's not my opinion.
I'm taking it from people who are now Trump supporters, you know, who are in the black community.
Suffice it to say, Michael Bloomberg didn't care that he was disproportionately affecting, you know, actual marginalized communities up until he needed to get that vote.
Now all of a sudden he's all about intersectionality.
So let me tell you this.
I don't think him, you know, self-flagellating over white privilege is gonna win over any vote.
I mean, maybe it will.
I guess he'll win the intersectional vote.
But it shows, more importantly, the Democrats are fully on board with embracing this.
You know, it's the moderate Bloomberg.
He's supposed to be the middle of the road, and even he's gone far left ideologically?
Yeah, sorry.
They say this, during his 12-year tenure, there were millions of street stops heavily targeting black and brown young men, per the New York Times.
Now Bloomberg is facing the impact of his own political legacy his head of the black community.
Driving the news, the former New York mayor is giving a speech on the racial wealth gap and economic mobility in Tulsa on Sunday, delivering some of his most honest remarks on race since launching his presidential campaign.
Bloomberg's campaign is also releasing the Greenwood Initiative, an economic proposal that aims to address the lasting legacy of discrimination.
What they're saying, as someone who has been very lucky in life, I often say my story, there's a quote, I often say my story would only have been possible in America, and that's true.
I don't know if that's true or not.
I guess, I don't know what he, you know, he's expected to say at the Greenwood Cultural Center.
But I also know that my story might have turned out very differently if I had been black, and that more black Americans of my generation would have ended up with far more wealth had they been white.
I absolutely believe that's true, and what you gotta understand is that Michael Bloomberg is an old white man.
Not that that affords him necessarily a benefit.
Depends on your perspective, right?
But I do think it's fair to say that, look man, historical racism exists.
You know that interracial marriage has only been legal since like 1968 or something?
I don't know what the year was.
But it's crazy, right?
We're only a few decades out.
I think we've made tremendous strides, but you've got to understand that even if today, you know, we truly have real opportunity for everybody regardless of race, and we have, you know, improving circumstances and things like that, you've got to understand that historically, you go back a few generations, and a lot of these people in the black community, they come from families that had zero wealth, whereas, you know, and I'll say this too, I'm not saying that all white people came from wealth, I think it's important to say that, historically, racism played a huge role in how things functioned.
But the problem you get with people like Bloomberg playing this game is that you see, like, the New York Times doing that, you know, what was it, like, 1612 project or whatever it was, where they lied about slavery and stuff.
Listen, man.
Where is the sane, rational individual to point out, not every white person was rich, you know, two generations ago.
Some were poor indentured servants coming over from Ireland.
Not every black person was poor.
But there is a tendency, and I think it's fair to say, There was a lot of serious racial issues.
I think it's important to point out.
You know, I think one of the problems we see often with these kinds of conversations is an unwillingness from either side.
You know, so right now you've got people saying like, nah, stop and frisk isn't racist.
I think it's fair to say to a certain extent, but you've got to recognize it disproportionately affected, you know, black and brown communities.
But it's also important to say it was Democrats going back a hundred years who were in favor of these things, in favor of these policies which created this historical racism.
Nobody's innocent, man.
You know what I mean?
Like, the best we can do is stop pretending like everybody's guilt-free in some capacity.
You know, people act... I'm not going to go on a rant on this because it's turning into a racial segment, but the point is...
Everybody has their share of the blame to a certain degree.
The Democrats try to play it off like, oh, the party's switched.
No, it's not really true.
A lot of the same policies are still being implemented.
I'll tell you this.
Tell people when they say the party's switched that New York City is one of the biggest bastions of American leftism, and that's where all of these racial injustices happen.
Is like, how many stories have you heard about like an unarmed black dude being killed in like a farmland, like rural farmland?
Okay?
Sometimes.
But they're always in these Democrat cities, right?
They're always in cities with like, you know, Michael Bloomberg running for the Democrat primary, Democratic primary.
He's the one who implemented this racist policy.
So, like, why would anybody defend the guy?
Like, so, I'll tell you this.
If you're a conservative, and you're like, no, that's not true, stop and frisk, why are you defending the Democrats on this one?
Dude, New York City's got so many problems with infrastructure, with the trains falling apart, and with the police.
Let me tell you a story, man.
I gotta write this one up.
There was a dude.
This is one of the coolest stories ever.
There was a black cop.
And cops go into his neighborhood in, like, the Bronx and stuff, and they would give out tickets to people drinking booze on their stoop, like the stairs in front of their house.
And so we got mad, and he was like, how are you gonna give my community fines and tickets for drinking a 40 on their own property?
While the white people in Central Park are drinking wine, and nobody cares.
So he goes to Central Park, and he starts giving out tickets to all the white couples that are drinking wine.
I don't mean, like, it was just him talking to the white people.
I mean, that's what it is, Central Park, right?
To make a point, public drinking is not legal in this city, and if you're gonna come to my neighborhood, I'll come to yours.
The city actually got mad at him.
I'll tell you this, dude.
You got a problem?
Like, if... I don't understand why you would want to defend Stop and Frisk.
It's a Democrat... Like, I don't understand why conservatives would defend that.
It's a Democratic policy.
In a Democratic city, rife with racism.
Isn't it the weirdest thing?
I gotta tell you this.
That we have all of these stories about racism and police brutality, and they're in cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.
So, I'll tell you what, man.
I don't know what to tell you.
Other than...
When it comes to, like, you know, the history of racism, when it comes to people like Bloomberg, the main point of the segment was supposed to be that he's embracing wokeness, and that's gonna freak people out.
But I do think it's fair to say, like, I just don't understand why conservatives come to the rescue of, like, Democratic jurisdictions where, like, bad racial relations exist, and why Democrats try and pretend, like, the party changed, when it's literally your cities where you have a supermajority where all of this racist stuff is going on.
Whatever, man.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
This story may not be family-friendly, so I'm just letting you guys know in advance.
I mentioned this on my main channel segment today that I often avoid saying certain words not because of YouTube censorship, but because I actually get a ton of emails from people that talk about how they're like, you know, they play my videos in the car with their kids, and they try- they want to make sure that if I'm talking about, like, serious issues, so- so you are- you are getting that advanced warning.
The story is about a drag queen who, quote, destroys drag queen story hour and woke culture.
This story from the post-millennial.
Basically, let me give you some backstory real quick.
You may be aware, many of you probably are, with this Drag Queen Story Hour that apparently started in San Francisco where drag queens go to libraries and read to children.
This is also similarly, it's in the periphery of other stories about child drag queens in TV shows and things like this.
And we see a lot of people try and claim that drag isn't inherently sexual.
It is.
It literally is.
Actually, don't even take my word for it.
Let me read you the story so you can see what an actual drag queen has to tell you about their experience and how they perform and what it means.
So, The Post Malone Reports.
Drag queen Kitty Demure has taken to Twitter to speak out against the sexualization of children by woke people co-opting drag culture and rebranding it as an educational tool.
Quote, I have absolutely no idea why you would want drag queens to influence your child.
Would you want a stripper or porn star to influence your child?
I'd go ahead and say no.
Now before we get the woke, outraged leftists pretending like they care, I'll remind you There's that one kid.
I did a video of this kid, and they tried to copyright strike me.
The kid's dancing on stage, ripping clothes off, while people throw money at the kid.
And they say, it's just a costume change!
No!
Okay?
It's simulated stripping.
A costume change is not dancing on stage, flirting, collecting money, and then pulling your clothes off.
I'll remind you as well.
Did you know that there are many strip clubs where women don't get naked?
They just do a costume change.
I think this is one of the big things that these liars, they say, oh, it's just a costume change and they're trying to downplay what's really going on because they're creepy, to say the least.
But a lot of regular people who ignore it and say, oh, it's the costume change, that's what they told me.
Have you ever been to a strip club?
You know, there are a lot of jurisdictions that don't allow full nudity or even partial nudity.
So the women will wear like a bra and panties.
And they'll slowly remove their clothes on stage for money.
It's literally the same thing.
And Drag is simulating that.
So, yeah.
Anyway, let's read.
I say, Demure notes that just as you wouldn't take your kids out to see porn stars or strippers read stories while in full dress and makeup, you shouldn't take them to see drag.
There's an effort to introduce kids earlier and earlier to adult sexuality.
The idea is that this will help kids be more open-minded and understanding about the difference.
What it really does is normalize deviant adult behavior in children's minds and override their own instincts.
Giving children access to sexual content makes them think this kind of thing is for them.
It opens doors that should stay closed until a child is of age.
DeMure says...
Here, says here, what all of us know, drag culture is adult entertainment.
The look is sexualized, the names are sexualized.
In fact, the entire concept of drag is a send-up of beauty queen culture.
Beauty queen culture is sexualized as well, and while that is sometimes subsumed beneath the surface, it's obviously fully part of it.
That's what drag plays on.
Drag can be lots of fun, but it's grown-up fun, not for kids.
Now, here's where I think there's a big deviation.
Between the right and the left.
The left seemingly has no limit, right?
It's like Jordan Peterson was saying this, that the right knows when they go too far, the left doesn't.
And so what happens is, to a certain point you're like, yes, kids should understand sexuality and understand, you know...
How the world works.
The adult words.
The birds and the bees.
You teach your kids.
It's called sex ed.
But there's a big difference between explaining, like, reproduction, and letting kids slowly socialize and develop themselves to figure out what they like and what they want, and showing kids things that are fringe.
Completely fringe.
So, listen.
There are some people who are into really, really messed up things.
Probably because of weird traumas that happen throughout their life, and it influences you.
By having some of these more fringe elements, which, by all means, you're free to do, shown to kids, it's exposing them to a continuation of a similar form of whatever, you know, developed that individual.
So, I'll put it this way.
If you're an adult, and you're into, like, I don't know, foot stuff, right?
Yeah, I don't know where that comes from, but hey man, you do you!
It's not a big deal, right?
But what if you're into, like, the really dangerous stuff?
Like, some people like actually injuring each other, you know, with, like, blades and stuff.
Really messed up stuff.
Are you gonna show kids that?
Are you gonna show a kid a video where you take, like, a hot poker and, like, jab someone in the back?
You're gonna show kid BDSM?
Like, at a certain point, it's recognized, there, you know, some people are into weird things, but if we keep escalating it without ever stopping and saying, this goes too far, well, then, we're gonna kinda just spiral out of control and implode.
So, I'm probably a bit more progressive than a lot of conservatives on this one.
I think, you know, we can teach kids certain things.
A lot of people are concerned about, like, LGBTQ curriculum for kids.
I'm not so much.
I'm more concerned with how far they take it.
I actually think it's really important.
If you have young kids and you're teaching them about the bird and the bees, you can explain, you know, homosexual, lesbian, queer, bi relationships.
But going in detail, showing toys like they do on YouTube, it's like, you've gone too far.
Like, I'll put it this way.
There was a YouTube video a while ago where it was like these people showing sex toys to kids, and everybody got mad.
And I'm like, yes, that's going too far.
It's one thing if you want to explain to a kid, hey, you know, like, that's a girl and you're a boy, or you're a girl and that's a boy.
Then, like, explain, here is the science of reproduction, and that makes sense.
At a certain point, you've got to teach kids about the birds and the bees.
It's a known thing in all families, in all households, eventually, eventually have that conversation.
In today's day and age, we're much more accepting of, you know, LGBTQ relationships, so I think it's important to tell the kids that, too.
You simply tell the kid, while most people, you know, most people are attracted to the opposite sex, some people are attracted to the same sex, or maybe even both.
And that's all you really have to tell the kid.
You can explain what transgender is and what queer is.
But whipping out toys, giving demonstrations, and doing shows, you see, that's going too far.
It's no longer about teaching the kid about the reality of the world, it's about exposing them to it.
And to a certain extent, it goes too far.
Like, so I'll put it this way.
When they do sex ed, As far as I know.
For like, kids.
Standard old- Do they whip out toys?
And then have like, the boys and the girls play?
Like, no no no no no no no.
They actually separate the boys and the girls, as far as I understand, and explain things to them.
Right?
But now- When you look at these YouTube videos, it's like, they call it, you know, like, LGBTQ sex ed, and I'm like, yeah, but why are they going as far as they are?
You know what I mean?
Like, explaining kinks in, like, code words?
That has nothing to do with education.
That's cultural development.
That's weird.
So you look at this, and this is where it goes beyond too far, when you actually have kids ripping their clothes off for money.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say pushing drag on kids, normalizing sexualized behavior within an educational frame does a disservice to kids who are initiated too soon into adult sexuality and to queen culture, which is better off not being tagged with tendencies towards, you know, porn.
Demure rightly points out that gay culture has spent decades trying to convince the public they're not pedophiles.
Having grown men in miniskirts and makeup lounging about with kids doesn't do much to dispel this image.
Drag Queen Story Hour is founded in San Francisco and has taken North America by storm.
LGBTQ plus activists and children librarians tout the events as wholesome affairs where kids can get cozy with cross-dressing adults.
with provocative names and hear stories about gender non-conformity and sexuality.
When conservatives and gender critical people speak out against the phenomenon,
their motivations are called into question.
DeMure is telling a truth that her community doesn't want to hear, which is not wrong.
No, I disagree. I don't think DeMure is telling people, telling, saying something her community doesn't want to
hear.
I think there are bad actors who are getting away with it because people are scared to do anything about it.
I'd be willing to bet that a good majority of the people in the LGBTQ community feel the same way and don't want to be smeared.
You look at Jessica Yaniv.
I'm sorry I have to say the name.
But this person is reviled across the board, left and right, LGBTQ or otherwise.
Nobody likes Yaniv.
They understand that.
So you look at this weird, fringe stuff that's going on with, like, Story Hour, and it's basically bad actors taking advantage of the fact that people are scared because of woke council culture, and nobody wants to do anything about it.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, they want to reframe drag queens as not only children's entertainment, but a valuable
component of their education is a kind of intentional confirmation bias. The logic goes that
if conservatives don't want to expose children to sexualized education and alternative lifestyle
acceptability at young ages, that then that must be the thing to do. Children don't know what's
okay and what's not until we tell them.
They count on the adults in their lives to not put them in harm's way, physically, intellectually, and emotionally.
It's odd that the same ethos that holds that children don't have to hug their grandparents would also say that it's okay to plop them into a drag queen's lap for a library story time.
Why do children have a right to say no to granny's embrace, but not to penny trashing?
I don't know what that is.
The most shocking thing you will find about Kitty D'Amour online is not that she reads erotic literature to children in a library, or that she encourages Desmond is Amazing to dance for adults, but that she supports the current U.S.
President.
She spoke out against drag culture in the Walk Away Project, saying that she's encountered racism in the community, and as someone with a black husband, this was not okay.
Demure's mission is to bridge the gap between the gay and conservative communities.
Part of that is to reinforce the idea that drag is for grown-ups.
And of course, she's right.
If you want a great drag show, go see one.
It can be lots of fun, but please, leave the little tykes at home.
Drugs, sex, and lascivious behavior are all well and good, but they're not for kids.
That's actually a liberal position.
You know what's really funny?
MediaBiasFactChecker says that Postmillennial is right-wing.
I find it funny that you can literally be anti-traditional.
You can say something like, hey man, by all means have LGBTQ relationships and marriages and do whatever you want.
Just leave the kids out of it.
And that's a right-wing position?
So you're saying that what differentiates the right and the left is that the left is okay with kids going to drag shows and the right isn't?
I don't even know what's going on anymore, man.
But I'll wrap it up there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In my 1 p.m.
segment, I said I was going to do this at 4.
I ended up switching it out for a story about AOC.
But basically, I have this big thing where I want to show you... There's a really weird break between how the Democrats view rights and conservatives view rights.
It seems that one of the big divides in the culture war isn't necessarily left versus right, libertarian, authoritarian, whatever word you want to use.
I don't know.
But I do think I have identified another factor, and it looks like Fox News keeps crashing, but it's fine, whatever.
One of these factors is whether or not rights are strictly within government or inalienable and existing in all facets of life.
Notably, innocence until proven guilty.
In impeachment right now, They keep saying Trump has the opportunity to prove his innocence.
Trump doesn't need to prove anything.
The burden is on the accuser, not the accused.
That's how our law works.
But it's not about government institutions.
It's about what's fair and just.
Do our rights exist everywhere or do they only exist in the confines of a government courthouse?
It would seem the left, Very, very seriously believes our rights are derived from and contained in government institutions and practices.
And that's not true.
Case in point, Donald Trump.
Innocent until proven guilty, regardless of whether it's criminal or not.
Brett Kavanaugh.
Innocent until proven guilty, regardless of whether or not it's a criminal trial or not.
Free speech.
It exists outside of the government.
So I want to show you this story, and then I'll go into more detail on these points.
House Democratic leaders remark about letting Trump quote, prove innocence should alarm Americans.
Fox News writes, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins said Democrats are exposing their true contempt for the Constitution and the individual rights therein with how they're conducting the impeachment of Trump.
In an interview airing Sunday at 8pm, so I guess in a couple hours from when you watch this, if you watch this when it publishes, Collins said Trump was overtly denied the same due process afforded to every other American under the Constitution, adding the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made an alarming statement to that effect.
Hoyer, the number two Democrat in the House, defended the House's impeachment inquiry last month by remarking that Trump was afforded, quote, every opportunity to prove his innocence.
Instead, he ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and for testimony by White House officials and ordered his subordinates not to cooperate.
That itself is unprecedented.
Collins told host Mark Levin, That no American has to prove their innocence.
In fact, the burden of proof falls on the opposite party.
And it should be difficult.
It should not be easy.
Democrats are upset that Trump wouldn't abide by subpoenas or order his subordinates not to cooperate, citing executive privilege.
They can take it up with the Supreme Court.
That's how the system works.
You know why?
You can accuse Trump of everything you want, but you have to prove it.
And if you can't get Trump's documents, you need to seek legal recourse.
They didn't do that.
Mr. Hoyer from Maryland made a very revealing statement for anybody who's concerned about constitutional rights, especially for me, even those of my Democratic counterparts who worry about their communities where they discuss police action and rights being violated.
It's amazing to me how they're willingly setting that aside to come up with this.
Steny Hoyer actually said, quote, we allowed him every opportunity to come Prove his innocence.
And that was the justification for the impeachment of Trump.
I saw something funny.
High-profile Twitter accounts was ranting about, they said, Trump, you know, is being impeached and everyone's angry.
And they said, here, our position is clear.
The OLC opinion is that Trump can't be indicted for any crimes.
And because Trump committed no crimes, we can't actually impeach him.
Wait a minute.
They said that they tried combining these two non-issues.
That the Democrats can't impeach Trump for an actual statutory crime because the OLC opinion is the president can't be convicted of a crime.
Which makes no sense.
Now, at first, a lot of people saw that and started going like, yeah, they started laughing and laughing like many of these leftists do.
No.
If Trump committed a crime, the impeachment was the indictment, not the conviction.
You moron.
I know I don't insult people very often.
It's been one of those days, I've insulted people quite a bit.
I'll try and stop.
The point is, if the Democrats think Trump committed a crime, that's what impeachment is for.
It is the indictment of that crime towards the President to remove him from office, and the Senate votes to convict.
If the Democrats wanted Trump removed, they would say, we have probable cause for these things, we think Trump committed this statutory crime, therefore we impeach, and now it goes to trial!
That's not what's happening, though.
Trump's been impeached with no statutory crime, and they're arguing he can prove his innocence!
He doesn't have to prove anything!
That's not how English common law works!
But therein lies the big divide between left and right.
I think one of the reasons they view me as right-wing, even though policy-wise I'd probably fall, you know, actually kind of far left on a lot of issues, But it's that I recognize our rights are inalienable and exist outside the confines of government.
Meaning, I don't care where you are or why.
You come into my house and accuse my dog of farting?
I'll say, it's on you to prove he farted because my dog is innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not talking about a court of law, criminal prosecution.
I'm talking about you ragging on my dog!
My dog did not fart?
You must provide evidence.
Guess what?
You can't do it too bad!
The dog gets to stay and hang out while we eat dinner.
If you could prove he farted, I'd send him in the other room.
The point is, I know it's kind of silly, but I don't care if it's your job, a job interview, I don't care if it's your neighbor accusing you, the burden of proof exists on the accuser, not the accused.
Democrats don't seem to think so.
We can take a look at Brett Kavanaugh.
Okay, I gotta try and figure out where I got that Brett Kavanaugh article.
I don't know, it's in here somewhere.
Here we go.
Trump said Kavanaugh was proven innocent.
He wasn't.
Here's what I love.
First, They claim that Brett Kavanaugh is not really on trial.
It's just a job interview, right?
And then, when they couldn't prove a thing, they run this.
They switch back to English common law.
At first, it's like, no one is putting Kavanaugh on a criminal trial.
It's important we get to the bottom of what Christine Blasey Ford is saying because he's under a job interview.
And if you were being interviewed by a job and someone accused you of assault, wouldn't that be important?
No!
It wouldn't be.
Because they're accusing, oh, they gotta prove it.
I don't care what the repercussions are.
I don't care if it's a year in jail, a day in jail, or a slap on the wrist.
I don't care if it's your wife not making you pancakes for breakfast.
You've gotta prove your case.
And so far, in every step, what have we seen?
The left seems not to understand that rights exist outside of the government.
Is that so hard to understand?
Apparently so.
So after they run this whole thing about Brett Kavanaugh's on a criminal trial, then Trump says he was proven innocent, and they switch back saying, The Washington Post runs this op-ed, Investigations don't actually prove innocence.
When someone is found not guilty, they may have actually committed the crime.
But I thought you were just arguing Kavanaugh didn't commit any crime.
You see how the game works?
It is one-sided towards the evil end, the authoritarian end.
When it's a job interview, we're not going to give you the presumption of innocence.
And as soon as we lose, we are going to switch back to that system where we say, well, we don't prove innocence anyway.
Right.
Check this out.
I love this comic.
I love ragging on this comic.
It's the trashiest comic ever.
And it's the perfect example of how the left doesn't seem to understand that rights exist outside of the government.
The government does not grant you your rights.
Your rights exist within you.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights stop the government from infringing on rights that already exist.
You've probably seen this one.
I love it.
It's the XKCD comic written by someone who fundamentally misunderstands how the free speech works.
Public service announcement.
The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say.
Full stop.
No, it does not.
The First Amendment says the government will not pass a law.
The First Amendment covers five different rights.
It's blocking the government from infringing upon your rights.
They already exist.
They exist outside.
The right to free speech means anyone cannot stop you from speaking and expressing yourself.
I believe there is within reason.
I think we can be reasonable, rational adults.
It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your BS or host you while you share it.
The First Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.
Whoa!
Full stop and here's the game.
You just switch subjects.
The First Amendment and free speech are different things.
You see how the game is played?
They do this all the time.
They do it with immigration.
You'll have someone come out and be like, I'm concerned that illegal immigrants might commit crime.
And then they'll say, immigrants don't commit more crime than Americans.
And you're like, that's great.
I'm not talking about literally every immigrant.
I'm talking about the ones who are entering the country illegally.
And by doing so are committing crimes.
The point is.
They start with the right to free speech, and then they switch to the First Amendment.
Maybe because they're just dumb.
But he should really... XKCD... What is this guy's name?
He should really delete this comic, man.
Seriously.
It is such an insane...
First of all, the factual error.
The First Amendment protects five of our rights from government infringement.
Rights that already exist.
More importantly though, like you're completely wrong about what the right to free speech is.
How could you keep this up?
I think it shows that, you know, right now the left in this country is not concerned with what is just.
Take a look at this.
Dating app Bumble publishes full page ad in the New York Times.
Believe women.
No!
No.
You need evidence.
Sorry.
The brunt?
It's on you.
You make the accusation, it's on you.
Not on me.
Not on anybody else.
If a woman comes out and says X happened, prove it.
Don't care if you're a man, woman, Muslim, Christian, Jew, whatever.
Buddhist.
Gotta throw in another religion there.
The fact is, if you wanna make a claim, you need to back it up.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
So anyway, the point of this segment is, I was gonna do a lot longer one, but I gotta wrap things up, keep these ones short.
Every single controversy we've seen so far has been the left arguing that rights only exist within specific confines of government.
Trump is innocent.
If you want to accuse Trump of farting, he's innocent until you can prove it.
Period.
You want to accuse him of abuse of power?
He is innocent until you prove it.
And the burden is on you to prove it.
I rest my case.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
We're getting really, really close to launching the new show.
My buddy's going to be back in town tomorrow.
And it's going to be... I don't know how I'm going to pull it off, but I guess I'm crazy.
It's going to be Monday through Friday, 8 p.m.
live, every day.
And then we're going to upload the segments the next day.
