Democrats Now Openly Embracing Cheating, Defend And Brag As They Sell Their Souls To Defeat Trump
Democrats Now Openly Embracing Cheating, Defend And Brag As They Sell Their Souls To Defeat Trump. Bloomberg is in, he has qualified for the Democratic debate.Michael Bloomberg did not campaign honestly, he did not win over the hearts and minds of the masses. He gave millions to Democrats, he gave millions to PACs, he's bought influencer sponsored content.He is buying the election and buying the Democratic party.And they are defending himStacey Abrams for instance received 5 Million dollars from Bloomberg and defended him on the view, now speculation emerges that he may choose her as his running mate.Trump has won, he has made the Democrats so desperate that they have decided to renounce what little principles they had left and give in to the massive billionaire power.They have sacrificed all credibility on campaign finance reform and fighting for the working class.We knew they were desperate but never did I think they would stoop so low as to brag about the hard cash being used to buy their party and allegiance.But here we are.It seems as people like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi fail to put a dent in Trump's campaign and presidency many others openly embrace the cheating. They will give him the stage and in exchange Bloomberg offers a Faustian bargain. The soul of the party, the highest seat, in exchange for power.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We all knew that Donald Trump has been winning over and over again, and that this would make Democrats desperate.
I just didn't know how low the Democrats would stoop in their desperation to defeat Donald Trump.
And now we can see it.
They've signed the deal with the devil.
Now you can call the Republican Party evil because you disagree with their politics, but that's kind of, that's kind of silly.
We all disagree with other people on policy and think one person is good or evil, but there's a big difference with what the Democrats are doing with Michael Bloomberg.
You see, Bloomberg isn't just buying ads to win the presidency.
He's straight up buying the Democratic Party.
He's pumping millions into Democratic House candidates.
He's funding lawyers in state AG offices.
And he directly gave the party and their PACs a substantial amount of money.
All of a sudden, they changed the rules for him.
They let him on the debate stage.
And now he's qualified.
They've opened the door.
Because he paid them cold, hard cash.
A man who's worth substantially more than Donald Trump, who's been embroiled in much more, much harsher political controversies as a Republican mayor in New York City.
The Democrats are so desperate and terrified, they're absolutely embracing the cold, hard cash of Michael Bloomberg.
But I'll tell you why I say they've become the party of corruption and evil.
Because they are defending the man.
They have thrown all principle out the window.
Any statement they've ever made about getting money out of politics is now completely without merit.
Because they're actively defending Bloomberg and his massive spending.
I'm not kidding.
Stacey Abrams received $5 million for her pack from Michael Bloomberg and is defending him on The View with misinformation nonetheless.
Bloomberg won't be disclosing where his money is going and where it's coming from, not until after Super Tuesday.
So here you have a man of massive wealth buying his way in, propping up Democrats and left-wing causes, and they gladly take the money and defend him, even on The View.
I'm not talking about progressive activists, because they're pushing back.
It's the Democratic establishment and high-profile Democratic voters and personalities saying, it's fine, we'll take whatever we can get, because they're that desperate to win.
I have the story from The Hill.
Democrats worried about Trump's growing strength, but I don't want to read this to you.
I want to show you this as an example of their fear and how they're willing to do whatever it takes.
What I really want to show you is this from New York Magazine.
Michael Bloomberg has offered Democrats a Faustian bargain.
Forfeit all credibility on the issues of money in politics and democratic reform, and he'll spend whatever it takes to make Trump go away.
They'd be fools to accept it.
There are still many people in media and on the left saying stop, but it's too late.
He gave massive amounts of money to House Democrats to win against their Republican counterparts in moderate districts.
He's given money to the Democratic Party, and now he has been welcomed on the stage, and high-profile celebrities endorse it.
Let's read this story, but before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give, but the best thing you could do is share this video.
It may not break any echo chambers, but I think it's fair to say if you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, if you're a progressive leftist, democratic socialist, someone on the left, you're probably going to be in agreement with a Trump supporter when you recognize that Michael Bloomberg is a serious threat to democracy in this country.
The mainstream Democrats, the establishment, they don't care.
They just want to win.
But I'll tell you this, and we'll read this story.
Donald Trump, for all of his faults, for everything I don't like about him or disagree with, is a legitimate president.
Now, they've tried to claim Russiagate and Ukrainegate and all these other scandals, but let's be real.
Donald Trump won.
He did.
They didn't think he would.
No one thought he would, but he did win.
He didn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars.
He actually fought against the Republican establishment.
He didn't buy it.
Michael Bloomberg was actually in office in New York when he implemented extremely, let's just say troubling policies targeting minorities and poor people, and he defends it.
He actually calls for taxing the poor.
The Democrats are willing to embrace all of this, which shows me they have no principle.
They've sold them.
What's fascinating is it really is a Faustian bargain, as the New York Mag says, and this is from the Intelligencer.
A paper I typically take issue with, but it's true.
Michael Bloomberg is everything they claim to hate.
He is everything they claim Donald Trump is, but worse.
And he said, I'll give you the money and then you make me the president.
So let me, let me, let me explain.
And then we'll read this.
There's a big difference between the Koch brothers or Soros or some high profile billionaire funding programs.
Bloomberg is a man who wants the office itself.
He is telling them to give up their position to him.
It's not an issue of someone who's rich funding causes.
It's an issue of someone rich buying the seat and they're doing it.
They're, they're giving it.
Let's read.
So at the Intelligencer, we have from Eric Levitz writing, Mike Bloomberg has offered America a Faustian bargain. Forfeit
all credibility on issues of money in politics and democratic reform, and he will spend
whatever it takes to make the bad man in the White House go away. The market for what Bloomberg
is selling is large and growing, thanks in no small part to the $300 million he's already
spent advertising it.
Many rank and file Democrats, like so many disillusioned voters in democracies the world
over, like the idea of hiring a no-nonsense post-political businessman to fix their broken
government.
Meanwhile, many Democratic elites see Bloomberg as a savior who can single-handedly stop the party nominating a supposedly unelectable socialist, provide its vulnerable first-term suburban House members with an ideal standard-bearer, and liberate the party from all resource constraints and fundraising headaches as it rides a rising tide of billionaire bucks back into power.
But Democrats would be fools to accept Bloomberg's indecent proposal.
I am not an anti-big-dollar-donor purist.
Removing an increasingly lawless, openly racist president from power is more integral to realizing our nation's democratic promise than keeping our side's FEC records pristine.
Bloomberg has said that he's willing to put his well-heeled campaign operation behind the Democratic nominee this fall, even if that nominee proves to be a self-avowed socialist.
If the former mayor is telling the truth, if he is truly willing to choose social democracy over barbarism and bankroll a Democratic candidate who is openly hostile to the billionaire class, then Democrats should probably take his money and run.
But accepting a plutocrat's patronage and letting your party serve as a vehicle for him to amass direct, personal power over our government are two very different propositions.
Now that was a very biased and verbose way to say what I just did.
It's one thing if a rich person gives donations.
It's another thing if he wants the seat itself, and you give it up.
The terrifying reality of the Democratic Party is they've become, well they've been preparing for this.
This transformation didn't happen overnight.
I did a video talking about Democrats selling their soul, but the reality is, as I've learned, they already have.
A long time ago.
Vox.com, Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy, This is from Vox.
Vox is an outlet that recently published a piece called The Case for Michael Bloomberg.
You see, back in 2016, they noticed this, that it used to be Republicans were perceived as the party for the very wealthy, and the Democrats were for the poor, the minorities, the working class.
Not anymore.
Not at all.
It's the strangest thing to me.
We seem to have two factions on the left.
You have the woke ideologues who believe that Serena Williams is oppressed even though she's worth millions of dollars and a poor homeless white man is the oppressor.
That is insane backwards thinking.
But the other alternative is the Bloomberg elites, the people who have sold their souls to the devil for a chance to win political power.
These are the two predominant factions.
Where are the sane moderates representing the Democratic Party?
I'm sorry, they're gone.
And that's why people like me, who used to be in favor of these ideas, are now called politically homeless.
I'll show you this story.
Several stories, I'm sorry.
Mike Bloomberg to donate $10 million to House Democrats targeted by the GOP.
You see, the man didn't just want to buy access.
He wanted to buy out all of them.
And it's working.
The best example being Stacey Abrams.
And I'll get to that.
Stacey Abrams defending what he's doing.
Why?
He gave her $5,000,000.
I'm not kidding.
He actually gave $5,000,000 to her pack, and all of a sudden she says, Bloomberg's doing the right thing.
That's right.
That's called corruption.
That is literally corruption.
Well, everybody wants to justify why they took the money.
Everyone thinks they're morally justified in doing these things.
They say, God's on my side, or at least when I'm in power, I can do the right thing.
And that's how it always plays out with these utopianists.
They think Bloomberg might be bad, but hey, it'll be better when I'm in power.
Reminds me of Darth Vader, actually.
You ever watch Revenge of the Sith?
When Anakin is turning to the dark side, and he tells, I think he tells Padme, we can overthrow the Emperor.
I'll just, I'll use him!
He'll make me more powerful.
That's what they really think.
But we know how it plays out.
Bloomberg will stay in power.
He'll take that power.
And everything about the man is worse than everything you have ever said about Donald Trump.
He is buying House Democrats.
He is buying the Democratic Party.
And he is buying lawyers inside state AG offices.
It's not simple.
It's not a game.
It is terrifying.
It is a man with seemingly no conscience.
He will buy everything he can, but more importantly, it's not about the conscience of Michael Bloomberg.
I'm sure he thinks he's the hero of his own story, too.
What's terrifying are the Democrats who are openly embracing this and excusing it, saying, well, so what?
It's better that we have the power.
We'll do the right thing.
We can't trust them with it.
And now what do we get?
There it is.
The Democrats cheated and changed the rules.
And let me tell you something horrifying.
Tulsi Gabbard, for all her faults, you might not like her, you might disagree with her, be it on the left or the right, she served this country.
In fact, she still serves this country.
She is an honorable major in the National Guard.
And she stood up to defend the country that she loves.
And while you may disagree with her politically, I think it's fair to say most people will respect her service.
And she opposes war.
But for that, she earns nothing.
They lie, they smear her, and they push her out of the debate, saying, sorry, you just didn't qualify.
You're not popular enough.
Well, I think that's fair to say, to a certain degree, that she wasn't popular enough, fine.
But Mike Bloomberg?
He bought the popularity.
He didn't campaign.
And they say, right this way, sir.
Let me get the door for you.
And now we can see it's finally happened, what we knew would happen.
Now, whether or not he actually goes on the debate stage, we'll see.
But I think he'll definitely do it.
Michael Bloomberg is now in second place in the Democratic primary.
In the aggregate, I think it's fair to say that he is in second place because Biden is still for some reason in second place.
Biden's not running.
Get him out of there.
If we're looking at the actual growth We're looking at the actual public, you know, perception and the press attention.
It's Bernie and it's Bloomberg.
I think what we'll see come the convention is Bernie with the majority of delegates, but a contested convention where the Democratic superdelegates put Michael Bloomberg in power.
Vox wrote a story.
The case for Michael Bloomberg.
Because you actually have the high-profile mainstream left supporting this man.
And this is why I think we've crossed the Rubicon.
It's over.
I mean, this is it.
The Democrats are unashamed.
They have, they don't care.
They just think Trump shouldn't win.
They tried impeaching him and they failed.
They tried competing with, well, actually they failed to compete with him.
They couldn't campaign on kitchen table issues.
And now we can see, for those that are listening, I'll explain it.
Biden was never really the front runner.
They claimed he was, but he wasn't.
That's just nonsense.
We can now see that Sanders is at 24.8 and Bloomberg is at 14.6.
Biden will soon be gone.
Bloomberg is climbing in the polls and that's where we're going.
Stacey Abrams absolutely wants to run for president one day, but says she'd accept a VP slot in 2020.
The former Georgia lawmaker opted against endorsing a candidate this cycle.
It's from The View.
I actually have two stories from The View.
In this story, Stacey Abrams openly defends what Michael Bloomberg is doing, and ABC points out exactly why she did it.
This, to me, is the epitome of corruption and evil.
So let me read, because I first want to explain to you the aspirations of Stacey Abrams.
She may end up as the VP pick for Michael Bloomberg, at least that's what people on The View are saying, as they openly defend what Bloomberg is doing.
Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia gubernatorial candidate, who now focuses on tackling voter suppression head-on, said she absolutely sees herself running for president one day, but for the 2020 cycle, she would be honored to run for vice president with whomever the Democratic nominee is.
Why should we not want someone to have the power to fix the problems and the brokenness that we have?
Abrams told the host of ABC's The View, I want to do good, and there is no stronger platform than
President of the United States, and that's a position I want to one day hold.
They go on to say, uh, let me jump down.
They say, and perhaps bolstering her chances of being picked by any of the candidates running, Abrams declined to endorse one candidate over the other, saying her job right now is to fix our democracy by ensuring everyone who's eligible to vote can.
My best service is to be in that neutral space where it's not about who the nominee is.
It's about making sure no matter who the nominee is, any person who wants to go and vote can vote.
That's what we're doing through Fair Fight 2020.
And now we can see how dark things get.
Fair Fight 2020 is a multi-million dollar initiative aimed at building up and financing voter protection operations in 20 battleground states throughout the current election cycle.
In the 2018 gubernatorial election, Abrams lost to now Georgia Governor Brian Kemp by just 1.5 percentage points.
And she never conceded the election.
Throughout that race, Abrams accused Kemp, then the Secretary of State, meaning the person who oversees elections, of engaging in voter suppression, which Kemp denied.
Back in November, a spokesperson for Abrams told ABC News that the funding goal for the teams in all 20 states was $5 million.
And Billionaire Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Bloomberg made a donation of that amount to Abrams' Fair Fight Political Action Committee on December 20th, according to the Campaign Contribution Disclosure Report filed with the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission.
On Monday's episode of The View, the hosts asked Abram about this donation and the hundreds of millions of dollars Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, had spent during his campaign.
She said, I am grateful to any person who contributes to Fair Fight.
We have more than 100,000 contributors.
His check just had a few more zeros on it, she said.
We appreciate that because, as I said, I'm not endorsing anyone.
My job is to make sure, no matter who shows up, that they get to vote for who they want.
According to the latest disclosure report filed on February 7th, Fair Fight PAC has raised nearly $20 million since its founding on December 2018, and almost $1.2 million last month.
The PAC had just under $12 million cash on hand at the end of January.
Abrams defended Bloomberg's colossal campaign spending, saying, I think that for once we actually know where the money is coming from.
Every person is allowed to run and should run the race that they think they should run.
And Mike Bloomberg has chosen to use his finances.
Other people are using their dog, their charisma, their whatever.
I think it's an appropriate question to raise, but I don't think it's disqualifying for anyone to invest in fixing America.
Dramatically different statement from what you'd hear from, say, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders rejects these kinds of donations.
Now we can see a kind of hilarious response on The View.
Meghan McCain, of all people, pushed back on both Trump and Bloomberg.
Yet what's truly shocking here is how Joy Behar, the establishment high-profile Democrat types, love that sweet Bloomberg cash.
Stacey Abrams openly embraces taking money from an oligarch, something the progressives would reject.
And on The View, absolutely they defend Bloomberg.
They say, after objecting to Bloomberg's past remarks and saying he is obviously a little tone-deaf.
A little tone-deaf, they say, because of his background.
Hostin went on to say that Bloomberg could convince Democrats he's contrite over his past views if he picked someone like former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as a running mate if he were to win the nomination.
Behar, who moments earlier warned Democrats against tearing each other apart because the nominee will need to defeat President Donald Trump, reacted by claiming Bloomberg has done a lot for the black community too.
McCain countered by bringing up a lawsuit dug up by the Washington Post in which Bloomberg was once sued for telling a female employee, I'm not going to read this.
I can't read it.
I'm just saying, you want to go up against Trump and you want to take the moral high ground, Democrats, I don't know if this is going to be the guy.
Behar responded by bringing up Trump's past remarks and comments, such as his reaction to Charlottesville prompting McCain to snap back, I'm not defending Trump because I'm attacking Bloomberg.
And that is revealing.
McCain says straight up, she's not going to vote for Trump or Bloomberg.
Yet immediately the defense from these people is, yeah, well, Trump is bad or worse.
As if that is a defense of what Bloomberg is doing, it's not.
Bloomberg for me is a hard line.
And I was thinking about the other day when I did my podcast and I thought, Maybe the Democratic establishment saw what Trump was and said, if you want this, we will one up it and get you someone 10 times worse.
As I've mentioned, everything they said Trump is, it's actually Michael Bloomberg.
Now, in this tweet from Brian Schwartz, he says Bloomberg gave $5 million to Abrams Group's Fair Fight after someone else pointed out she was defending Michael Bloomberg.
And we actually have the document this journalist from CNBC posted.
Sure enough, Michael Bloomberg, $5 million.
And yes, Fair Fight, Stacey Abrams PAC.
But here's where she misled you.
She said, at least now we know where his money is coming from.
We know where this money is coming from.
No, you don't.
From the AP, billionaire Bloomberg is granted financial disclosure delay.
Why?
He's going to win the delegates.
He is going to completely disrupt the Democratic primary.
Now, based on what's actually happening, it kind of feels like Bloomberg is trying to hurt the Democrats outright.
I think that's kind of silly.
Though he is disrupting the primary and may cause a contested convention.
Maybe that's the point.
To make sure an establishment candidate can win.
But the AP report at the end of January.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg won't have to publicly disclose his finances until late March.
Well after voters in more than a dozen states take to the polls on Super Tuesday.
Presidential candidates are required to reveal their investments, businesses, and streams of income.
Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, is the only Democrat seeking the White House who has yet to file paperwork to publicly disclose his.
And under an extension granted to him Friday by the FEC, the second such one Bloomberg has received, he can postpone their release until March 20th.
All of these Democrats are cheering for the money he's pouring in.
The progressives, Bernie, etc., I've mentioned, they're pushing back, and that's respectable.
What's going to happen after Super Tuesday when all of these middle-of-the-road, desperate Democrats who hate Trump Voted for him, giving him a massive delegate count, and then it's revealed where his money really comes from.
And then they have to contend with what they've supported.
The Democrats right now are between a rock and a hard place, and people like me, who for the most part have voted Democrat, I mean only a couple times to be honest, but I grew up more on that side.
Republicans were never a consideration.
I think we're looking at dark times for whatever the left is in this country.
On the right, what I see are Republicans who I disagree with.
There's a couple of them I think are good people.
There's a couple Democrats I kind of like.
You know, on the Republican side, Dan Crenshaw and Rand Paul seem to be cool people.
I disagree with them on a lot of policy issues.
So when it comes to a lot of what Republicans do, there's certainly things I think are politicking, underhanded, unethical, and disagreeable.
And that's fine.
That's just politics.
I'm not going to vote for these people.
What I'm looking for, then, is some safe and reasonable alternative from an honest person with some integrity.
Instead, we get the woke far-left insanity of the Bernie Sanders camp, who won't denounce the violence of his supporters and the insane rhetoric they've pushed.
And you get Michael Bloomberg, who embodies everything the Democrats are supposed to hate.
There is no rational choice.
Dare I say, I think you will find people are going to flee the Democratic Party in droves.
What sane, normal, progressive American is going to vote for a billionaire like Bloomberg?
I gotta be honest.
I thought that Donald Trump ran as a Republican, not because he's a Republican, but because the Democrats would never elect a billionaire.
That's really what I thought.
I mean, because if you look at Donald Trump's history, he was a Democrat for a long time.
He's a New York, I guess you could technically say he's a New York conservative, meaning he's to the right of most Democrats, but he's still a Democrat.
When he ran on the Republican ticket, I thought it was kind of surprising.
He's the first president to support gay marriage before entering office.
He was fairly liberal in a lot of ways, and some have compared him to Bill Clinton in terms of policy, not in terms of, you know, other things.
But now I look at Michael Bloomberg and I see that I was wrong.
They don't care.
They just want to win.
They want someone in power who has the D slapped on his chest.
That's it.
Because if they claim Trump has said nasty things, you know, bigoted things, Bloomberg actually did them.
So what are you left with?
Nothing but extremes.
Bloomberg is not a moderate.
He will not rally moderates.
He will freak them out.
And Bernie Sanders, if you saw what just happened at his rally on Sunday, with that white dude attacking that black guy, I just don't see him as somebody strong enough to actually stand up and fight for something just.
He's somebody who is weaponizing the scraps of the gutter of the far left and won't call it out.
So the Democratic Party is beyond shambles.
They've become a party of corruption, ineptitude, and evil.
And I don't use the word evil lightly, but what Bloomberg is doing is evil.
Again, it's corrupt in my opinion.
And we need, to an extent, but we need laws for campaign finance reform.
The Democrats were the ones championing that.
They claimed to be at least.
Not anymore.
Now they're openly embracing all of that sweet oligarch cash if it means they get to keep the power.
That's evil.
They're gonna give him the seat, the throne, if it gives them power.
Not for me.
I won't stand for that.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
Bernie Sanders has a serious problem with violence among his supporters and just general unhinged behavior.
The other day we saw that video where the small woman stole the microphone away from him again and he wasn't able to stop her.
At least this time he said no.
Because you remember that time the Black Lives Matter supporters came up and he just kind of bowed out in the back?
This time he said no, but he still couldn't stop this small woman from taking a microphone away from him.
She then proceeded to say, I love you, Bernie, but dairy is wrong and stuff.
And then two women jumped up, ripped their shirts off, and splashed themselves with fake blood.
It was kind of unhinged.
And I don't think regular Americans, like sane, rational people, are going to want to support something like that.
But it gets worse.
At a Bernie rally recently, this was in Denver, a fight broke out.
You see, one of Bernie Sanders' white supporters, who I will absolutely call a Bernie bro, told a black man attending the rally that his shirt, which read Black Guns Matter, was equating black lives to guns or something and that he was racist.
The guy, the white dude, it's hard to know who started the fight, to be fair.
I wasn't there.
From the video, it looks like somebody's filming.
They get really close to the dude's face, but it may just be because they're in a tight space, and then the white dude seemingly attacks the guy with the camera phone, and then a fight breaks out, and then all of a sudden you see this clip from CBS Denver, which I'll just play, where the white dude is like, what is it, what is it called, like a spear?
He lifts the dude up and slams the black dude to the ground, and then people intervene.
You had, at a Bernie Sanders rally, a white dude start a fight with a black dude over his shirt.
Now, according to the story from CBS, they say that it was actually the Black Guns Matter guy who was the aggressor.
I'm calling BS, because I got a video.
In this video, this dude right here, you can see him holding up his sign or whatever he's doing, is, like, one of the worst people you'll ever hear on camera.
He's like, why are you getting so mad?
It's because you know I'm right.
And then when it comes to, like, The guy filming him gets too close, and then he apparently hits the guy.
I don't know exactly what happens, but it definitely seems like it's the white dude who starts the fight.
I'm not gonna pretend like either of these guys are innocent.
I'm just gonna say, why are fights breaking out at Bernie Sanders rallies, and why is this such a common theme among his supporters?
Why do they often jump up on stage and actually go after him?
Why are these racist fights breaking out?
And then you look at what happened back in 2016.
Bernie Sanders has had to denounce the violence before.
Washington Post.
June 5th, 2016.
I was at this event.
Bernie Sanders tell supporters to knock off the violence.
Gee, well, that didn't work, dude.
Let's read the story and then we'll go through this and we'll figure out what's going on.
But I also want to talk about Caitlyn Bennett.
And this is another point about Bernie Sanders supporters.
Now, Caitlyn Bennett, they call her gun girl or whatever.
She does the Liberty Hangout or something.
And she showed up to some Ohio University, Kent State.
And then she got surrounded.
They were throwing stuff at her.
They chased her out.
Yeah, because these young people are not very smart.
They're extremely aggressive.
They're angry, ignorant people.
And that's what Bernie has to contend with.
So you want to talk about the Bernie Bros smear?
That smear has to do with the fact that, you know, journalists are upset that Bernie Sanders supporters are mean to them on the internet.
That I don't care about.
But now you've got to actually answer for this violence.
The violence in the past, okay fine, you denounce it, said knock it off, well it didn't work.
It's still happening inside your own rallies.
Don't get me wrong, Trump had some stuff happen in his rallies too.
And Trump actually said something about, you know, paying a guy's legal defense or whatever.
You can't use that as a defense, I'm sorry.
You can't pretend and be like, but, but, but Trump!
I don't care, but Trump!
I don't care!
Don't!
Bernie, you got a violence problem.
We all saw the Project Veritas videos where your supporters, people literally working for your campaign, are talking about putting conservatives in gulags, and you have this stuff happen?
Nah, I'm not interested in hearing you make an excuse, because Trump is bad too.
So what?
Okay, great, congratulations, Trump is bad.
Now will you answer for this?
CBS Denver reports a fight broke out in the middle of the Bernie Sanders rally on Sunday evening at the Colorado Convention Center.
The Democratic presidential candidate rallied thousands of supporters in Denver in a campaign stop before the March 3rd Colorado primary.
CBS 4's news camera was capturing video of the event when two men began fighting.
They pushed through a metal barrier fence toward the back near the media risers as they grappled with each other, and one man knocked the other down onto the ground after lifting him up.
They both landed on the ground partially under the stage.
Sanders was in the middle of delivering his speech from... his speech from?
Friends of both people quickly intervened, and after some more shoving, successfully broke up the fight.
Now CBS says they don't know exactly what started it, but we have seen the video.
So apparently this guy Tyler, and let's just read.
So he said his name was Tyler and that a person with a t-shirt on that read Black Guns Matter was with two other men and they were booing during the speech.
I'm calling shenanigans on that.
I don't think that's true because in this actual video that I found, These guys aren't booing.
Maybe they were booing before, but in it, this guy's just calling them racist.
And, you know, so maybe they were booing Sanders?
I don't know.
When Tyler tried to capture video of the booing on his phone camera, the man shoved him through the barrier.
Tyler then retaliated.
It was that action which was captured by CBS4's camera.
Alright, so right, it seems like it was the... So maybe it was the black dude who was actually filming, and the white dude attacked him because he was filming too close?
Another video provided to CBS4 by an anonymous viewer shows the moments leading up to the brawl.
It allegedly shows Tyler in a jean jacket and another man arguing about the man's shirt.
The man with the Black Guns Matter shirt also contacted CBS4, although anonymously.
Wait, what?
He called Tyler the aggressor and said he is African-American.
So yeah, Tyler is the white dude, I guess, and he attacked this guy for wearing the shirt.
He had a problem with the shirt I was wearing.
I was recording a vent.
He walks up and calls me a racist, but I thought, what's he know about black lives, about discrimination, or for that matter, the representation of the shirt?
You know what?
I can sympathize with this.
One of the things that is most mind-numbingly frustrating about Bernie Sanders supporters, too, is the overwhelmingly white progressives who think they know better than actual minorities about what it's like to experience racism and discrimination.
Think about the sheer absurdity of this dude, this white Bernie Sanders supporter, who... Is the video gonna even play?
Whatever.
This white Bernie Sanders supporter telling a black guy what it means to be racist or like, you know, why his shirt is bad.
Dude, you're just another progressive elite who thinks you're smarter and better than everybody.
I experienced this stuff firsthand at Occupy Wall Street.
It's mind-numbing.
You try and explain to them, oh hey, those things you're saying, I actually understand.
Let me tell you what's up, and they say no to you.
So how hilarious is it, the paradox of a black dude at a Bernie rally being told by the white guy what racism is?
And there you go, that's Bernie Sanders supporters in a nutshell.
Not all of them.
Just enough of them that Bernie and other people won't call out.
That's one of the things I can't stand about this.
Bernie has absolutely embraced this complete insanity.
He has fallen in line to become another mainstream woke nonsense Democrat.
There's an article from Free Beacon.
Bernie Sanders flip-flopped on the Second Amendment.
Do you know that Bernie used to be a moderate on gun control?
Yep.
Let's talk about why I liked Bernie in 2015 and 2016.
He said, Second Amendment issues are a rural versus urban issue.
And I was like, bravo, good sir, you are correct.
In Vermont, for instance, it's a blue state, bro gun.
But in big urban districts, big, you know, areas, they have different views.
So that's the clear divide.
Today, Bernie is just all on board with the generic talking points.
How about immigration?
Bernie used to say, no, we need to deal with these trade agreements, we need to secure the border.
He was an independent.
Now what is Bernie Sanders?
Now he's just stock, generic, Democrat, open borders nonsense, insanity.
It's because Bernie is courting these lunatics.
You know what I think happened?
I think Bernie had a decently broad coalition of people, including people who are now Trump supporters, who saw him as an honest guy who had spent time in politics.
He was socially liberal.
And, well, he was also very fiscally liberal, too.
But he was viewed by me and many others as an honest guy.
When he said those things like, open borders, the Koch brothers proposal, we need, you know, immigration security and stuff, I was like, here, here.
He said NAFTA was bad, TPP is bad.
I'm like, right on, good sir.
He said, you know what?
We got to be careful about gun control measures because it's rural versus urban.
And I'm like, hey, here's a guy who's speaking some truth.
And he's speaking outside of this weird fake news bubble of just like corporate Democrat and corporate Republican.
So Bernie started to build up a massive coalition of young people because they wanted the revolution, I guess.
And Bernie decided to adopt their views to expand his base.
That was his strategy.
And look where he's come.
Look where he is now.
I say this a lot, but in 2016, one of the major, you know, nails in the coffin for me, on the debate stage, Bernie said, if you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor.
And I was like, whoa!
What happened to the Bernie Sanders who was talking about immigration, you know, controls, and talking about rural versus urban issues, and speaking about working class issues?
Now he's saying this ridiculous, fake, woke insanity?
And that's where he went.
And these are the people he wanted.
That white dude in the jean jacket who called the black guy a racist?
That's who Bernie Sanders has been courting.
It's not every single Sanders supporter.
Some good people.
But he's trying to use that to his advantage to win.
I find it absolutely disgusting.
You should not be supporting these people.
You need to be calling them out.
But you know what, Bernie?
You reap what you sow.
Because now when he gets up on that stage to rally, what does he get?
A small woman can just snatch the microphone away from him and there is nothing he can do to stop it.
You look at what happened when Black Lives Matter did it.
Again, Bernie just bows out because he has no spine.
Now he tried to stop the latest one, but he's not even strong enough to do that.
So you know what?
This is what you get when you refuse to call out the bad people working for your campaign, when you refuse to fire them.
Now, Bernie has fired some people, but Project Veritas puts out these videos and says, Hey, Bernie, your staffers are insane.
All of the people thinking they can wield the ring.
But if we just use it, you can't wield it.
These people are lunatics.
You cannot get them to support you in any sane way.
This is what happens.
So Bernie Sanders, he's like Boromir.
He wants to take the ring.
In this instance, though, he gets it.
And now what do you get?
You get a white dude at your rally attacking a black man, calling him a racist.
That's because you can't wield this.
These people can't be controlled.
They're insane people.
They are unwell.
They have fringe ideology.
But that's what you wanted.
You thought this would empower you?
No.
Unfortunately, it's made everything worse.
But hey, Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls, right?
So we'll see what happens.
But here's the thing.
When he goes to the general election, like, assuming he gets the nomination, which I really don't think they'll let him do, for reasons like this, then I can only assume what we're gonna see.
We're gonna see the Veritas videos plastered all over this country.
Bravo, James O'Keefe!
The Republicans and Trump, I would imagine, are going to take those clips and they're going to turn them into ads that are going to get millions upon millions of views across TV.
The things these people said.
James O'Keefe may have, with this expose, one of the biggest nails in the coffin for Bernie Sanders.
But they're going to show clips like this.
They're going to show Bernie, the protesters, they're going to show the violence.
You're going to see, look at this.
In 2016, I was here, alright?
In San Jose, at a Trump rally.
Outside.
Bernie Sanders supporters were beating people, including elderly people.
And Bernie had to tell them to stop.
He doesn't want to say it again.
I guess he realized it's better to say nothing.
Congratulations.
All of these videos from your supporters doing these things.
And I was telling people, I was like, you realize this was Bernie Sanders supporters that were attacking.
Not everybody.
Most of them.
Not everybody, and I was asked.
In San Jose, I filmed this video where a dude is walking, he's wearing like a yellow neon shirt, and someone runs up behind him and whacks him in the back of the head with some kind of bag.
Got like a million views overnight.
I ran up to the dude, asked him what happened, he's got blood dripping down, and he's like, I don't know, people just started yelling, you know, he said he was waving a sign saying Trump, Trump.
People started yelling at him and spitting on him and hitting him.
So I said, these were Bernie Sanders supporters, and all of a sudden the left got outraged.
Tim's a liar.
Who are these people, dude?
What do you mean?
I think that's the funniest thing ever.
They're like, these young people who are beating random people in the street aren't Sanders supporters?
Oh, were they Hillary supporters?
Yeah, I don't think so.
Hillary was mostly supported by like 50-year-old women.
The people who are on the street wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders, and Bernie had to denounce it.
And they said, how do you even know, Tim?
Aside from the common sense of, dude, a 20-year-old far-lefty progressive who shoved it to a Trump rally and gets violent?
Yeah, they're probably voting Sanders.
But fine, you're right.
How do I know?
They were holding up Bernie signs.
Some of them were wearing Bernie shirts.
But here's the thing.
At the time, I didn't hold Bernie.
I didn't hold this against Bernie Sanders.
I said, you know what, man?
That's not cool.
These people are making him look bad.
I still like the guy.
Here's the problem.
Back then, Bernie Sanders denounced this.
We have this story from the Washington Post.
He said, any person who was a Bernie supporter, please do not in any way, shape, or form engage in violence.
Hear, hear, good sir.
Hear, hear.
I agree.
That's fantastic.
Thank you for that powerful message.
What was that?
Have we gotten a statement yet from the Bernie camp?
Someone, one of your supporters at a rally attacked a black man.
Have you said anything about it?
Here's what they say.
Okay, so let me read this, because there's apparently a lot to this.
They said Tyler was the aggressor.
So apparently this is the guy who was wearing the Black Guns Matter shirt.
He said, he had a problem with the shirt I was wearing.
I was recording the event.
He walks up and calls me a racist, but I thought, what's he know about black lives, about discrimination, or for that matter, the representation of the shirt?
Throughout American history, the man continued, black people and their ability to own firearms has historically been very restricted.
The shirt I got from a concealed carry class.
He said he agrees with Sanders on a number of policies, but definitely not on gun ownership.
He used to, probably, until Bernie flip-flopped.
I think it's really a sad thing at a Bernie rally when someone has a difference of opinion that someone would be treated like that.
I thought it really would be a lot more inclusive than that.
It's not a safe place to express differences.
I would expect that sort of thing at a Trump rally.
Now, you might see some people flick off, you know, Jim Acosta or some other journalists, and they shouldn't do that.
Booing the press.
I mean, you're allowed to, you know what I mean?
But you're better off not doing this.
And especially when it comes to optics, this makes Bernie look bad.
You know what makes Bernie look even worse?
The fact that he hasn't come out, met with this guy, talked to him, and asked him what happened.
No, he didn't care.
Bernie doesn't care at all.
You know what, man?
From all of this, what I really see is that he wants this power, and he'll use whatever resource he can to get it.
And this is where Bernie lost me.
He lost me a while ago because of things like this.
His flip-flopping, his pandering, shows me that his interest isn't being an honest politician like we all thought.
It's just, you know what?
This worked for a while, now I gotta change what I'm saying.
When he said that white people didn't always like to be poor, that was like, whoa!
Where's the Bernie that I knew, the guy who was a sensible civil rights guy?
This is insane.
And now you have what's going on with Caitlyn Bennett, you know, over in Ohio.
These people are nuts.
They're young, aggressive morons.
But they're emboldened because no one tells them to stop.
In fact, after Kaitlyn Bennett had a bunch of stuff thrown at her, and people were, you
know, her security guard had to like pick her up and carry her out, apparently there
was a statement issued by the university police that nothing happened.
Nothing happened.
Now, Kaitlyn said it was like a riot.
And apparently the college police said, no, it was just some protesters, you know, nothing
Someone splashed her with water.
It's like, dude, they were throwing stuff at her.
Yeah, they threw water at her too.
It was insane.
How were you not telling these people, like, you know what, man, I'm not for corporal punishment, you know, pulling out the plank and spanking some kids, but you can at least, I don't know, arrest some people for engaging in mob violence.
But because nothing is ever done, these people are emboldened.
This dude didn't even get kicked out of the rally.
That's mind-blowing to me.
The Black Guns Matter dude gets attacked, gets called a racist and all these horrible things by the white dude at the Bernie rally.
And the security guards say, hey, it's cool.
You're fine.
No punishment.
No comeuppance.
No justice.
Yet you're supposed to believe that Bernie Sanders is going to bring about justice.
Never going to happen.
These are people who want to lock conservatives in gulags.
And not even conservatives.
Moderates who voted for Obama and switched to Trump.
Yeah, you're on that list too.
They spray paint it on walls.
Liberals get the bullet too.
We know what that means.
And Bernie denounced it in 2016.
But today, he won't do it.
Why?
Well, he's got the ring, and he thinks he can wield it.
But he's a fool, because you can't.
These people will go around smashing windows, and that will reflect on you.
And it is one of the stupidest campaign strategies I've ever seen.
Ever.
Because like I say, and I'll say it again, come general election time, I hope you're looking forward to commercials plastered across the internet and TV showing this.
And it's going to show this video of the white dude attack.
You're going to see this white dude lifts up the black dude and just like body slams him into a stage.
And they're going to talk about the racism of the Bernie bros.
At first, the Bernie Bros thing was a smear because journalists were, you know, their poor delicate sensibilities couldn't handle the mean words on Twitter.
I don't know how you explain this.
The smear is not so much a smear anymore because you've got Antifa, the far left, and these people at your own rally doing these things.
I'll leave it there.
I'm sick of it, man.
At least Trump has walked all that back.
But I'll throw some shade his way when he imitated body slamming that reporter, if you remember that.
Nah, not cool.
Not cool at all.
But you know what?
No free passes for anybody.
I'll throw some shade at Trump when it happens, and I've done it several times, and Bernie refuses to denounce this.
Guess what?
They try and claim that Trump didn't denounce the violence in certain areas.
Trump has repeatedly denounced awful people.
He really, really has.
Well, Bernie's done it once or twice.
Is he gonna do it now?
Probably not.
He thinks he can wear that ring.
He thinks it'll help him, but it won't.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all there.
A little while ago, we heard the story of a professor who refused to use the preferred pronoun of a trans student.
He got fired and filed a lawsuit.
And now we have the latest update.
He has lost that lawsuit.
It was dismissed.
And it was argued a couple things.
Notably, that he, as a government employee's speech, refusing to use the preferred pronoun, was not protected.
This is kind of confusing, but, you know, we'll read this.
But also that he didn't actually state a specific claim.
Again, it's all kind of confusing.
And kind of weird.
I don't know necessarily if I agree with the judge or not, because they're arguing that pronoun use isn't like expressing a concern or a public matter, so it's not expression.
I don't know.
This guy is claiming that being forced to use a pronoun with which he disagrees with, the non-biological pronoun, he's being forced to convey ideas he doesn't agree with.
I guess the judge said that doesn't meet the level of protected speech, which is the case.
I don't know.
Let me tell you this.
We're at a time in our history where a student can come up to you and demand you say specific words, and if you say no, they can fire you and you can't do nothing about it.
So you know what?
Maybe it's better that this guy doesn't work there anymore.
And maybe it's about time people start saying, shut up!
I don't care!
And quit!
You know what, man?
I get it.
This is a government institution.
It's really stupid that this is happening because somebody demands to be called a certain thing.
One of the reasons this professor lost, though, is that he was given the option to just say the proper name of the individual and didn't want to.
And if that's the case, well, they're arguing you didn't have to use any pronouns.
You wanted to.
I kind of feel like I don't care who you are.
You can call somebody whatever you want.
But I guess the main issue is that he's a government employee who had the option not to say something if he didn't agree with it, but he chose to say something he was instructed by his employer not to say, and that's the main issue.
So I'll put it this way, man.
God, please, just quit these jobs.
Stop going to these places.
If someone comes up to you and says, you have to do this, and your boss says, you have to, be like, no!
And leave!
You know, if everyone just stood up and said, enough, then we could move on.
It's the most frustrating thing about so much that happens in politics and culture.
People just shut up and bend the knee.
Case in point, we'll read this first, but I'm gonna have to throw a little shade at y'all conservatives.
The Atlantic says, evidence that conservative students really do self-censor is free speech imperiled on American college campuses.
You'll lose your job like this guy, you'll sue, and you will lose so what?
Have a spine, man.
Look, I'm not trying to blame the victims necessarily, you know, and that's gonna get me in trouble.
What I mean is, if you are the one who's being told you can't speak and they'll destroy your lives, I get it.
You're in a tough spot.
But I'll tell you this, if it were me, I'd give them a big ol' middle finger and say, buh-bye, later, and I've done it before.
I've worked jobs where I was disrespected by my boss and I said, I'm gonna quit right now, you don't know me.
And they were like, oh please, later.
And then they begged me to stay.
Please don't quit, please.
Nah, I'm gone.
I wish more people were like that.
Dude, you should have quit in the first place.
Because if everyone who disagreed quit, then what are they going to do?
Fill their ranks?
Bubble echo chamber?
Fine, I guess, whatever.
But just leave.
Let's read the story from Metro Weekly.
Federal court dismisses lawsuit from evangelical professor disciplined for misgendering trans student.
Ah, misgendering, they say.
Judge Fines Nicholas Merriweather failed to show he was discriminated against or had his free speech rights violated.
This is a really tough case to rule and I gotta admit for the judge.
Because it's not an issue of him necessarily... It's a fine line between using a pronoun and stating your opinion on a public matter.
But more importantly, he's an employee of the government, and he was instructed, here's what your job is, and if you don't agree with this, here's an alternative.
He refused.
So in that case, it's kind of like, there was a compromise.
I think the whole thing is dumb anyway, and he ended up, you know, getting fired.
Maybe they'll appeal.
Let's read.
On Wednesday, a federal court dismissed a lawsuit filed by an Evangelical State University professor who was disciplined after repeatedly misgendering a transgender student, infractions determined to violate the university's non-discrimination policy.
There is a big difference between, you know, what is and isn't discrimination.
Sorry, man.
He made a really good point in his case, that there's an infinite number of genders and literally hundreds to choose from in the school.
How could he possibly remember every single one?
That's where the line will be.
But for now, if they say just say the person's name and you say no, they're gonna be like, okay, well then you choose not to.
I still think it's really dumb.
Professor Nicholas Merriweather had sued his employer, Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, alleging that his First Amendment rights had been infringed.
That was after he received a written warning for repeatedly referring to Jane Doe, a transgender male student.
Sorry, transgender female doesn't make any sense.
This individual was born male, and is transgender, presenting themselves, identifying as a woman.
See, what they're doing here makes no sense, and conveys no solid idea to anyone.
Hence the problem with all the pronoun stuff.
Language is supposed to help convey ideas.
This person is not female, nor are they transitioning to female, because female is a biological sex.
You can argue that gender is a social construct, and they're transitioning genders, that I understand.
Not biological sex, sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Using the title Mr. and male pronouns, despite using correct pronouns for every other member of the class.
Meriwether grieved the discipline, but the grievance was denied.
He then enlisted the help of the anti-LGBTQ Alliance Defending Freedom to file the lawsuit against Shawnee State, arguing that his religious beliefs that gender is fixed, binary, and determined by biology from birth prevent him from acknowledging transgenderism.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, along with Adam Unikowski of Jenner and Block LLP and Jennifer Branch intervened on behalf of Jane Doe and the university's LGBTQ student group, Sexuality and Gender Acceptance.
On behalf of their clients, the lawyers moved to have the lawsuit dismissed.
The case went before Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz of the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio, who issued a recommendation last September, arguing for the lawsuit to be dismissed.
In her opinion, Litkovitz noted that Mayweather was given multiple opportunities to stop referring to Doe as male, and was even given the option of simply referring to Jane Doe by a first or last name, without using pronouns or formal titles.
Okay, now I get it.
Not their first or last name, their preferred name, in which case he still rejected it, probably because this person who was born male was now identifying as a woman and using a female name, to which this person probably disagreed with.
She also rejected claims that the disciplinary action violated Meriwether's freedom of religion, She also rejected claims that the disciplinary action
violated Meriwether's freedom of religion, was motivated by hostility towards religion, or infringed
on his freedom of speech, saying, quote, speech by a government employee is protected under
the First Amendment only if the speech was made as a citizen while addressing a matter
of public concern.
Okay, so he was acting as a government employee. She wrote in her opinion, a government employee's
She wrote in her opinion, So this is just so stupid and weird.
How you can simultaneously say that you can't, the government can't tell someone what they can or can't say, and then we have law saying you can't discriminate.
Who decides what is or isn't discrimination?
On Wednesday, U.S.
District Judge Susan J. DeLotte of the Southern District of Ohio dismissed Mayerweather's lawsuit, agreeing to adopt Litkovitz's recommendation.
The court concludes that Mayerweather failed to state a claim for violation of his rights under the United States Constitution, DeLotte wrote in her ruling.
His speech, the manner by which he addressed a transgender student, was not protected under the First Amendment.
Further, he did not plead facts sufficient to state a claim for a violation of his right to free exercise of religion, for departure from religious neutrality under Masterpiece Cake Shop v. LTD v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or for a violation of his rights to due process or equal protection.
Alliance Defending Freedom could decide to appeal Lott's decision within the next 30 days, but has not yet indicated what actions it plans to take next.
Meanwhile, the National Center of Lesbian Rights issued a statement celebrating the lawsuit's dismissal.
We are pleased the court affirmed that schools can ensure that all students are able to learn and access educational opportunities available to all students without fear of discrimination.
Asaf Orr, a senior staff attorney and the director of NCLR's Transgender Youth Project said, This is just where everything breaks down and everyone goes insane.
I'm sorry.
And this has nothing to do with transgender individuals.
It has to do with the infinite genders that can't be addressed.
So, in a story from... This is from...
Daily Mail.
They mentioned that Meriwether, uh, they bring it up.
Basically, whatever.
He said that there's infinite genders.
And how is this lawsuit, or how is this circumstance going to become tenable in the future, when quite literally anyone can say, you must call me by this name?
At a certain point, a judge will have to rule they don't.
But then the whole floodgates open.
Because here's the way I've brought it up before.
First, actually, let me read this.
They say something really dumb.
Since this lawsuit began, transgender students have been worried that they would have to start skipping classes or avoid particular professors because Shawnee State would no longer be able to effectively address bullying, harassment, and mistreatment of transgender students.
Because someone called you a name?
Seriously?
Dude, come on, man.
You can call me any name you want, and they do all day and night on Twitter, and I tell you what, they're gonna call me names because of this video.
Are you kidding me?
This is what- I'm gonna have to- I can't go on the internet anymore.
I can't- I can't look at my computer screen.
Oh, shut up.
Grow up, man.
The president of Saga said in a statement, Saga and its members are relieved that the courts recognize
the importance of Shawnee State's anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies to
transgender people on campus.
This is a big step toward progress for all transgender people on Shawnee State campus.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
It's not going to happen yet, but it will happen soon.
And what do you do when each student has their own set of pronouns and unique name to identify with?
Like, I know it's extreme.
I'm gonna give you an extreme on purpose.
Let's say you went in there, into a class at this university, and said your pronoun was... Are they gonna say that every single time?
No, they're gonna say that's absurd and ridiculous.
What if you said that your name was Volsiferon, Herald of the Dark Sea, Lord of the Winter Veil?
Are they then going to be like, I refuse to say that, I'll call you Volsiferon for short?
No, I refuse!
My name, Volsiferon, Herald of the Dark Sea, Lord of the Winter Veil, you must use my name.
Obviously that's extreme and makes no sense.
No sane person is going to agree that that is a legitimate thing to be called.
Then it goes to the courts and the judge will have to decide whether or not your First Amendment rights are being infringed upon by refusing to use the name of the identity of the individual.
Now, the judge is probably going to say, that's not reasonable.
But then who gets to decide what is?
I mean, the courts for the most part.
That will open a door for any judge to then say, we interpret this name to be unreasonable.
But for what reason, in what regard?
And if you think my name's unreasonable, then what about literally anyone else's name?
What if we step it back, and they just say that their name is Vlociferon Grand Arbiter of Darkness?
You know, they give themselves a name and a title.
At a certain point, you walk it back, and they're gonna say, no one's gonna know how to say that.
No one can do that.
You can't force someone to speak things.
I guess the issue here, what's really going on with this ruling, is the conflation between insulting someone with a slur and using a word that represents how you feel.
No, I think most people would agree.
If this professor was referring to a student by some kind of slur, they'd say, that's discrimination.
You can't insult people based on these things.
Or, I mean, look, as an employee for the government, you can't call someone a name anyway.
You know what I mean?
If you went around and you started calling one student, you know, a butthead or something, I gotta keep the language family-friendly, mind you, then they're gonna be like, we're gonna fire you if you don't stop calling that student this name.
But the difference now is he's literally calling the students by a pronoun and Mr. And they're saying it's basically on par with using a slur because it's discrimination.
You know what, man?
I got a solution for all y'all.
Two solutions.
The first, stop self-censoring.
Stop.
Stop.
Now, of course, I'm gonna get a bunch of people saying, but Tim, you censor on YouTube.
Look, man.
I don't censor my ideas.
I just try and keep the language tone down.
Alright?
If you want to talk politics on my main channel, I mostly talk politics.
On this channel, I'm more than happy to talk about issues outside of that.
Cultural issues, natural disasters, all that stuff that YouTube absolutely hates.
I talk about whatever I want.
And you know what?
If they ban me, I don't care.
I know full well this video could get me banned.
I'm gonna talk about it anyway.
Don't care, man!
Have a little less to lose.
Like, what's the worst case scenario?
I think this is something I learned from skateboarding.
I was reading about tips from pro skateboarders.
And you know, when you're going for a trick, there's really, you know, there's a fear in a lot of tricks you might do.
You may have seen, for those that aren't familiar with skateboarding, someone sliding down a big handrail.
And you think, that's so scary.
And yeah, when the skateboarder's approaching it, it's terrifying.
And you think to yourself, what's the worst that could happen?
And the worst that could happen is pretty bad.
But once you think about it, you're like, I can accept those risks.
And that's what y'all need to do right now.
When it comes to this, words are not violence.
If every single conservative and moderate and liberal who rejected this stood up and gave the middle finger, it would be done with and we'd all move on.
If every single person in that school refused to adhere to this ruling, what are they going to do?
Therefore, to avoid all mishaps, I will use one single word, Florbo.
Boom.
It's not a harsh word.
It's not a gross word.
It was designed specifically, off the top of my head, to be a simple sounding word that's not like, harsh on the tongue, floorbo.
It actually sounds like a cute little fuzzy little creature, right?
A little floorbo, huh?
There you go.
Everyone should be happy with that word.
But here's the point.
They probably won't be, because they want power and control.
They want you to bend the knee and do what they say, or they will come after you.
I personally have no problem calling anybody what they want to be called.
But if a bully comes to me and says, you will call me what I want to be called or else, I'll say, or else, come on, do something about it.
So look, Florbo is funny.
I'll call everybody that, I don't care.
If I go to a situation and someone's like, I want to be called by this, you're all Florbo's now.
I choose my words.
But more importantly, just stop self-censoring.
Stand up and take some responsibility for your ideas and your life, and stop letting these people push you around.
Now, I know for the most part I'm preaching to the choir, but look at this in the Atlantic.
Conservatives really do self-censor.
Well, stop!
What's the worst that's gonna happen?
They're gonna kick you out of school?
Good!
Then leave!
Don't tolerate this stuff.
Stand up for what you believe in for once.
Listen, Donald Trump has no problem standing up for what he believes in to his own detriment and to his own benefit in certain circumstances.
And Bernie won't.
The guy won't do it.
A small woman takes the mic from him.
He's got no spine.
I do not respect that.
I don't care about what you agree with or don't agree with in terms of policy or culture or whatever the point is.
Just have a spine.
You know what, man?
If you're in a school, if you're in a workplace, and you won't stand up for yourself, don't expect anyone else to do it for you.
Now I get that's why a lot of people voted for Trump.
Because finally you had a guy who was going to push back for you.
Nah, I'm not about that.
I take care of my business on my own.
And that's what everyone needs to do.
Take responsibility for what you care about.
And if that means you end up buck naked in the middle of the woods because you've been cancelled and ostracized, so be it!
Learn how to build a mud hut and start a fire and survive.
Because no one owes you anything.
But if you're gonna let these people run amok, go nuts, these woke insane leftists with insane ideas about nonsense, well then you deserve to live under their heel, because you won't stand up and push back.
We'll see how things turn out.
I don't know where we're going.
I'm just sick and tired of it.
I want people to finally just give him the finger.
Flick him off.
So what?
What can they do about it?
Just leave, man.
Refuse to participate.
Protest.
I'll see you all in the next segment at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out.
It's not the first time we've heard something like this, but we have another story, this time from Sky News over in the UK.
NHS, the National Health Service, I think it's called, I'm not British, forgive me, staff can refuse to treat racist or sexist patients under new rules.
The NHS will soon bar discriminatory patients from non-critical care, powers that currently only cover aggression or violence.
There are a lot of reasons to reject Medicare for All.
Medicare for All, from Bernie Sanders and, I don't know, whoever else is proposing it, would abolish private healthcare.
Naturally, unions are upset over this, do not want this.
Most Americans like their private healthcare, but here's the best part.
You don't have a government telling you what you can or can't say, and to a certain degree, in the United States, doctors can refuse you based on these criteria.
But why would you want to centralize all of that power within the government, and then have government employees determine whether or not you can or can't be saying certain things?
Look, man, there might be a circumstance where someone suffered a stroke, or they're drunk, or they're, you know, just not all there, and they say something, and then what?
A doctor's gonna be like, I'm not treating this person who's in dire need, because they said naughty words.
I'll read the story, but while it is fair to say they shouldn't do this, doctors should treat someone even if they don't like them, you can, as a doctor, be like, this person is aggressive and they're causing problems, I don't want them in my hospital, that's gonna happen.
Maybe they'll sedate you, I don't know.
I personally think if you're a medical professional, in my opinion, you should do your best to try and save lives, no matter how awful the person might be.
I mean, you see it in war, too.
Like, even if it's an enemy combatant, you still try to have them survive, and there's obviously logistical and strategic reasons for that, maybe you want information, but we as human beings typically try to help each other, even when it comes to the most extreme circumstances, like in war.
If we don't have to, you know, hurt somebody, we'll try and help them.
Not always.
Okay, let's be honest.
But this to me is nuts because you're talking about your own citizens.
You're talking about people in your community who might have a bad opinion, so you're gonna reject them from non-critical care.
So, I'll be fair.
I don't think they're talking about someone bleeding out.
But that's still kind of absurd.
You could be like, I know you.
You're a bigot.
Out of the hospital.
And then where do you go?
Because it's the NHS.
You just go to a different hospital?
Let's read.
Sky reports, currently staff can refuse to treat non-critical patients who are verbally aggressive
or physically violent towards them. And that one makes sense. But these protections will extend to
any harassment, bullying or discrimination, including homophobic, sexist or racist remarks.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock wrote to all NHS staff on Tuesday to announce stronger measures
to investigate abuse and harassment towards staff, saying no act of violence or abuse is minor.
Being assaulted or abused is not part of the job.
Far too often, I hear stories of the people you are trying to help lash out.
I've seen it for myself in A&Es, on night shifts, and on ambulances.
Mr. Hancock said he was horrified that any member of the public would abuse or physically assault a member of our NHS staff, but it happens too often.
Full stop right there, men.
There is a big difference between someone attacking you and someone saying naughty words.
If you- but hold on.
Alright, I'm gonna say it.
We're entering a world where the left thinks words are violence.
And there you go.
They will say they were violent towards me.
The average person will assume physical violence.
But they're changing the definition because they're slimy manipulators that know it's easier to change the word than change the law.
You will never, in the United States, Actually strip away certain rights.
Okay, that was probably a vague statement.
There are certain rights that will never be taken away.
What they do then is they change the definition of the word, say it over and over again, get their allies and media to say it, until eventually the law itself was changed because the interpretation of the words have changed.
That's maybe not intentional, but it's what's going to happen.
Let's read more.
Boom!
Mr. Hancock outlined a new joint agreement with police and the Crown Prosecution Service,
which will give police more powers to investigate and prosecute cases where NHS staff are the
victim of a crime.
All assault and hate crimes.
Boom.
There it is.
Remember his hate crime of making a silly video with his pug?
And there we have it.
You might do something you think is a joke, or innocuous, or it's not even offensive, and they'll still call it a hate crime.
Maybe you'll use the wrong pronoun on accident.
They'll call it a hate crime.
Maybe they'll demand you do something you don't want to do, and when you don't, they say it's discrimination.
And they'll say the words you used were violence.
And then you won't get the important treatment you need.
Now, it's going to be non-critical, so again, you probably won't die.
But how absurd is this?
That we're taking away so much of someone's rights, and we're changing definitions so that people can just let you suffer or not treat you.
The problem here, for the most part, is In a private hospital, they could still do it.
They could say, get out.
And in a public facility, hospital, whatever, they could also do it, but you have multiple choices.
The NHS is one system.
I guess technically you could go to a different NHS hospital, I suppose, and sure, but the monopolization of power in this way is bad no matter what.
Let's read on.
All assault and hate crimes against NHS staff must be investigated with care, compassion, diligence, and commitment, he said.
These new rules were announced with the release of the 2019 NHS Staff Survey for England, which showed more than a quarter of NHS workers were bullied, harassed, or abused in one year.
Four in ten workers felt unwell due to work-related stresses.
Oh man, I just cannot stand the snowflake generation.
A whole generation of people who are dainty little delicate flowers that can't handle hearing naughty words.
Dude, you can throw literally any slur or whatever you want at me, I do not care.
Sticks and stones can break my bones.
Apparently kids never played freeze tag or anything and never learned these silly nursery, these silly children's rhymes we did when we'd run around the neighborhood saying stupid things.
Little kids, like when I grew up, I was called the worst names you could possibly imagine.
You ever see South Park?
Yeah, that's how life is in Chicago.
And so, as we all learned, sticks and stones may break my bones, words will never hurt me.
Now we're literally at the period where they're calling it abuse and harassment and hate crimes.
And they're actually gonna deny you healthcare because you said something that they think was violence.
About 1 in 7 of some 569,000 staff surveyed reported being physically attacked up slightly on the year before.
Now that?
No beef.
I got no problem.
I don't care what you're doing.
You attack somebody?
Boom, you're out.
You want life-saving treatment?
You want medical care?
And you attack somebody?
Get out.
Don't care who you are, where you come from.
Don't do it.
Now, I do think it's fair to point out some of these are probably people who are mentally unwell, and that's why they need the care.
So let's be careful in how we apply these things.
There's a story I was reading the other day.
Some dude suffered a stroke, and this happens all the time.
And the cops, like, grabbed him and threw him in a cell, and the dude's, like, half paralyzed from a stroke.
I saw one story.
Scary, man.
A guy had a stroke while driving, and he's, like, half-paralyzed, freaking out, and his car's drifting.
The cops finally get his car to stop, and they think he's drunk, so they tase the guy.
Are you gonna then say, you know, oh, this guy was doing something or acting a certain way, so we're not gonna treat him, when it's literally the life-saving treatment he needs to get over what was causing the problem in the first place?
NHS Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens said his service was determined to clamp down on abuse and aggression in all its forms.
Christina McAnia, Assistant General Secretary of Unison, said that although she welcomed Mr. Hancock's tough talk, it came many months after he promised to tackle violence.
These figures show there's been no noticeable change, she said.
A separate survey published by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found that one in five mental health patients do not feel safe in NHS care.
What?
More than half of people with mental health problems in England also said their treatment was delayed, while 42% said they were diagnosed too late.
Do you know what this means to me?
First, to wrap up the main point, and then we can carry on, I do not like the idea of monopolizing all of our health services into a single government-run organization, because then you just have no alternatives, for the most part.
But it says to me that they're continually criminalizing stupidity.
When it comes to a lot of people who have dumb opinions, maybe they're bigots, sexist, racist, whatever, I just view them as stupid.
And stupid people are gonna say stupid things.
Does that mean you don't provide them with service or give them access or human rights?
That's nuts.
But think about it this way.
In the United States, they say healthcare is a human right.
That's Bernie Sanders, that's what he says, right?
Is it a human right, then, if you say a naughty word?
Apparently not, and that's what's so dang confusing.
In the UK, they apparently don't believe that healthcare is a human right, but they do have universal healthcare.
But if you say something they don't like, you lose your human right?
So you don't have free speech, nor the right to health access, even if you're paying it as a taxpayer?
This is not the kind of system that I would want to be a part of.
So you're going to have to convince working class Americans why we should embrace things like this, when more importantly, I can totally respect the idea that if you're abusive and aggressive towards a medical professional, yeah, you're going to get kicked out.
But what about the interpretations they have?
What if you accidentally say something, what if you make a joke, and then you lose your human right?
And worse still, if you're paying for it, and then they kick you out, and you have nowhere else to go.
So no, you're not going to convince me this system's a good thing, because the news just comes out and it keeps getting worse.
And apparently people are angry they weren't doing this sooner.
This is gonna be funny.
And I don't mean funny haha, I mean like funny as in weird.
When you have people on social media saying they were denied healthcare and they're sick and they need help because they posted a tweet four years ago.
But that's the system that you are building.
It's not the system anyone wants.
I get it.
You're gonna find that, you know, Bernie's people are gonna be like, no, of course we don't want something like that.
But if you're gonna claim that healthcare is a human right, then you should come out and oppose what the NHS is doing.
Of course they probably won't.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In today's news that sounds really, really cool, but will probably never happen, there is an effort to secede a large portion of Oregon, and I believe Washington, no, no, no, I believe it's Oregon and California, into what's called Greater Idaho, because they're tired of the fact that these rural states are being overrepresented, they're, you know, Portland is overrepresented in their state legislation.
So they want to secede and form Greater Ohio.
It'll never happen, but they're calling it a peaceful revolution.
You know what, man?
Maybe this is the kind of thing we need.
California has talked about seceding, and everyone's like, go for it.
Just do it, okay?
But now we're seeing how urban centers are disproportionately impacting rural areas of these states.
Like Illinois, for instance.
I mean, it's most states, actually.
In Illinois, it's actually a fairly Republican place, except for Chicago.
In Los Angeles, it's mostly blue, but the eastern portions of California are actually kind of red.
But then you have Oregon, which is a lot of red, and then you have Portland, which dominates all of their politics.
One of the biggest problems I see, and we talked about this on the podcast the other day, is that Democrats enact these policies in their cities, then they complain about these policies, and then want to enact those policies nationwide.
Take, for instance, Bloomberg, a man I do not like.
A man who implemented stop-and-frisk.
Stop-and-frisk was a gun control measure where they primarily targeted minorities and he defended it.
Then you get Democrats and liberals protesting the police in a Democrat-controlled city.
Well, what do you want?
Oh, what's that?
You want to make those laws nationwide?
You're nuts!
So here's one of the proposed solutions.
Ballot initiative effort to move eastern Oregon counties to Idaho gains momentum.
Leader calls it a peaceful revolution.
Look at that.
I don't know if you can't... For those that are listening, you can't see it.
It's really awesome.
It's called Greater Idaho.
It's a massive state.
That would just be so dang cool.
It's never gonna happen, though.
Oregon Live reports.
Talk of secession is in the air always.
The Cascadia movement has been around for years in the Pacific Northwest, inspired in part by Ernest Collenbeck's 1975 utopian novel, Ecotopia, while others in the region call for a conservative, rural-centric state of Jefferson.
Mike McCarter doesn't think anything will come of these efforts.
I'm a proponent of the state of Jefferson, the retired Lapine nurseryman said.
But I don't see it happening.
Well, hold on.
It's because you need to appeal to the progressives in the exact same way.
Go right to Portland and say, hey, you guys don't like the fascists, right?
Just do it.
Just use their language.
Call everybody who's a conservative fascist.
And they're like, yes, great.
If you vote for this, they will no longer be a part of your state.
And everyone's better off for it, right?
If both sides don't like each other, then great!
We have an agreement, right?
Why can't it get done?
They say it doesn't mean he's willing to accept the status quo.
Secession is a sticky constitutional question, but simply moving a state's borders is doable.
That's been done recently, he told The Oregonian, pointing to a 1961 land transfer that moved about 20 acres from Minnesota to North Dakota after a federal project to straighten the Red River cut off the Minnesota parcels from the rest of the state.
McCarter is one of the leaders of Move Oregon's Border for a Greater Idaho.
The goal, as the group's name suggests, is to flip Oregon's eastern counties into Idaho.
And while success remains extremely unlikely, Move Oregon's Border is gaining a little traction.
In the past month, proposals to let voters weigh in on the issue have earned initial approval from Josephine and Douglas counties.
Setting the stage for a signature gathering push to get them on the ballot in November.
This would be the coolest thing ever.
Not because I care about the political ramifications, but finally something would happen.
Everything's been so boring and static for my entire life.
How crazy would it be?
I'd go visit greater Idaho.
Really, it's like being in a new state.
Like, hey, we got a new place.
I've been to Oregon, but I've never been to Greater Idaho.
I've been through Idaho, but never Greater Idaho.
You see?
Whole new tourism industry opens up.
I think technically then, well, you don't even got to change the stars.
The flag stays the same.
It seems like an easy, easy, easy peasy, huh?
So here we go.
And while success remains... We're picking up momentum, McCarter says.
It takes a lot of oomph to get something like this started.
I call it a peaceful revolution.
The group wants to have initiatives on the ballot of every eastern Oregon county this fall.
Our approach is to go county by county rather than a state initiative.
We want people in the counties that would move to Idaho to chime in and say, yes, we want this.
It takes more work to go county by county, but it informs the public more.
I honestly think this is fair.
It's absolutely fair.
Now, Oregon as a state might say no, because it's their territory, and people in Portland might vote no and say, no way, you're not taking the land away from our state.
But I think they should agree, right?
They don't like each other.
And if you want to talk about proper representation, then it absolutely makes sense for one state to gain counties if the people would be represented better.
Especially, it depends on the industry they work in.
Here's the map, they circled all these counties, and they would go to these counties and ask them what they wanted to do.
Of course, it's not as easy as that.
Even if Oregon's eastern counties do vote to join Idaho, approval would then be needed from the Oregon and Idaho legislatures, and the U.S.
Congress.
Well, why the U.S.
Congress?
The states are sovereign, they can make their own decisions.
If Oregon and Idaho say, great, make it happen, well, why not?
I guess because they're members of the union and that's kind of, I don't know, whatever.
Valerie Gottschalk, a Josephine County resident and another Move Oregon's Border leader, said in an email last week that she expected the effort to grow rapidly, having seen the response to the Recall Kate petition circulated last year, a reference to a failed attempt to launch a recall election of Oregon Governor Kate Brown.
People here would prefer Idaho's conservative governance to the progressive liberal current Oregon governance.
Gottschalk said, every time I look at the Facebook group Greater Idaho, the group has gotten bigger.
Sure enough, the movement's Facebook page consistently showcases conservative political views.
Last week, someone posted an article on the page from an obscure satirical news site with the headline, breaking, health officials quarantine Portland to prevent spread of communism.
But McCarter, for one, doesn't like to position the issue as Republican versus Democrat.
It's a lifestyle values judgment between urban and rural more than anything else, he insists.
He says many residents of rural Oregon aren't as conservative as me, but still see the benefits of being part of a more rural-minded state like Idaho.
He and Gottschalk acknowledge.
There are a lot of questions Eastern Oregon voters would need to chew on.
Such as schools funding.
Oregon spends more per student than Idaho.
And the advantages drawbacks of a sales tax.
Idaho has one, Oregon doesn't.
And an estate tax.
Oregon has one, Idaho doesn't.
He admits the Oregon counties would have to accept they'd likely receive fewer services from the state if they jumped to Idaho.
But this also could be one of the reasons Oregon might be willing to let them go.
Most of the counties east of the Cascades are upside down, he says.
They have to be supplemented by the state.
So potentially, Salem might be willing to do it.
Needless to say, those county services needs probably wouldn't make a border switch more attractive to Boise.
And that's one reason the target map to move Oregon's border swings west in the southern part of Oregon.
The group is also targeting parts of Northern California, which means Californians are going to have to vote on it and they're never going to go for it.
Idaho wouldn't be landlocked anymore, McCarter points out.
It would have a shipping port in Coos Bay that'd be huge.
McCarter recognizes that the movement is a long shot, but he nevertheless believes the dominoes could fall quickly.
after the county's voters are on record with their wishes.
After all, the redrawn border wouldn't create two new US senators as a new state would,
nor is it an attempt to leave the US, and it would make Oregon bluer and Idaho redder,
which would probably please those legislature's majorities.
How often do you have the opportunity to be part of a movement to make things better for people,
McCarter says, we're dealing with our liberty.
I gotta say, there's some pros and there's cons, but it does sound like a good thing.
Check it out.
In this image of Greater Idaho, you're going to have many more conservative-leaning individuals being better served by a government that represents them.
It's not fair for people in Oregon to be outvoted all the time by Portland, right?
However, there is some good to that balance.
It's kind of like segregating political positions in a scary way.
It makes sense.
It's going to benefit everybody.
But I think it's important to have some conservatives in a blue state like Oregon to push back and vote against some of these more insane things.
If the conservative areas of Oregon leave, that means Portland will absolutely dominate all of their politics.
It means their senators will go even further to the left and never have to cater to a conservative opinion.
Now, right now, for the most part, they don't.
In blue states, they try and aim blue.
But we've seen how in some states that are, say, you know, a blue state that has a Republican senator, or I think there's very few of those, but there are red states with Democratic senators.
Those red state Democrats try their hardest to be moderate.
If you do something like this, Portland, you know, the Oregon senators will have no reason to try and cater to any conservative opinion at all because they won't have any conservative constituents.
The same is true for Ohio.
So it actually could result in a more polarizing effect.
Individually, they may be happier in that place.
So maybe it does make sense.
I kinda want it to happen.
I don't care about the political ramifications.
I don't think it'll be that bad.
It just sounds exciting if something like this did happen, and I'd love to go visit greater Ohio's beaches in the Pacific Northwest.
Wouldn't you love to say, I'm going to a great Idaho beach?
You'd be able to do it after this, anyway.
It's a fun idea, it'll never happen.
Fun stuff like this never happens.
I guess it used to, but...
The past several decades have been boring.
Life is routine.
Nothing exciting is happening.
Well, I guess Trump is kind of exciting in some ways.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Emmanuel Macron vows to, quote, win the battle against Muslims creating separate communities in France.
What?
I can't believe it.
I couldn't believe it when I read it.
I still can't believe it.
I'm at the Daily Mail, and I'm kind of feeling like this is a hoax article.
Let me tell you what.
I went to Sweden a few years ago.
Man, that was what, now three years ago?
Crazy, right?
And there was this narrative about violence and refugees and all this stuff that was denied.
They said, no, there's no problem.
You're lying.
There's no crime.
Everyone's a liar.
Now they can't hide it.
I have friends in Sweden who are talking about how it's really bad.
And it's all anyone talks about because you can only try and sweep it under the rug for so long until the story breaks.
And I guess, you know, I contributed a little bit to that, you know, that dam being broken.
Because I went there and I filmed stuff.
And while the crime there wasn't nearly as bad as a lot of people thought, it was going up.
Now people are telling me the only thing they talk about is the grenades and the attacks and, you know, other serious problems I'll avoid talking about because we're talking about France.
Now I'm not trying to equate Sweden crime to what's going on in France, but we heard a lot about Muslim no-go zone type areas from many conservatives and people who are alt-right or alt-right.
And the media said it was a lie!
These places don't exist!
You'd see videos where women go to a cafe and the Muslims be like, you can't come in here.
And you'd hear from a lot of people on the right that there are areas in France that the Muslims have created their own separate Muslim communities.
We've heard this in the UK too.
That there are certain areas where they have their own Muslim courts to deal with issues outside of the legal apparatus of the United Kingdom.
So when I read that Emmanuel Macron was literally talking about this phenomenon happening, saying they're going to fight against it, the dam is broken.
You can't deny it anymore.
These things are actually happening.
Let's read the story from the Daily Mail.
Macron pledged to win the battle against Muslims creating separate communities in France during a visit to a police station in a densely populated district in Molhouse in the east of the country.
The French president said the Republic must keep her promises.
We must fight separatism because when the Republic does not keep her promises, others will try to replace it.
He added.
We have decided to win the battle against Islamic separatism using education and the economy.
I don't believe it.
Am I being hoaxed?
This is fake news?
Am I reading the Onion or something?
This is the Daily Mail.
This really happened?
I'm gonna say I still don't believe it.
I'm just putting it out there, alright?
I don't believe this.
Pointing to communitarianism, the creation of self-governing communities within the state, the premier said he was sick of hearing about children being taken out of school because of radical political ideas linked to Islam.
Wait, what?
What is happening?
So you mean to tell me that all of those people on the right were complaining about this several years ago that you called conspiracy theorists were right the whole time, and now the president of France himself is saying this is a serious problem?
Mr. Macron said, we are here for a reason that we share with Muslims.
That is the struggle against communitarianism.
He added, we must fight against discrimination.
We have to have a meritocracy everywhere.
France is a secular republic, which does not compile official statistics about citizens' religion or racial origin.
Yeah, and Sweden doesn't publish crime stats, but neighboring countries do, and we can extrapolate from there.
We know that there is an issue, but I want to stress, Before everybody starts freaking out, you know, on the left.
While we do see a crime in many of these places, you gotta understand, man, for better, like, look, for all the good that America has, we got some really awful places in this country.
Like, high crime.
As Jon Stewart put it in a recent video, uh, I'm gonna be, I'll, no, okay, he called a certain city an S-hole, which is funny because he's the famous liberal, you know, celebrated comedian.
Sure enough, times have changed.
They say, but Bortswiller, the district of the eastern city of Mulhouse, which Mr. Macron visited, is considered a security concern because of tensions linked to religious faith.
In 2012, Bortswiller, which is a population of 15,000, was designated one of 47 Republican Reconquest Districts where traditional French values were being challenged.
What?! !
This can't be real, can it?
This led to more police and security measures being deployed in the area and stricter monitoring of radical preaches.
Here we have a photo says the French premier listens to a police officer in the district of Bortswiller, which is considered a security concern because of tensions linked to religious faith.
We have a bunch of photos of him talking to cops.
Many of those living there in Bortswiller have links to former French colonies in North Africa, such as Algeria.
There have also been concerns with the funding of the new €25 million An-Nur Mosque and Islamic Center in Mulhouse, because around half of this sum is coming from the gas and petrol-rich state of Qatar.
France has a Muslim population estimated at around 6 million, the largest in Western Europe.
There are frequent claims of discrimination against them, especially those living on housing estates in areas such as Bortswiller.
Parties such as the National Rally, which used to be called the National Front, are frequently accused of anti-Muslim prejudice, along with other right-wing parties such as the Republicans.
Mr. Macron has been accused of moving further to the right as he attempts to win voters from both parties.
Yeah, because you're going to lose due to these reasons.
You're going to see people like Marie Le Pen start winning.
I gotta say, look, I'm gonna be completely honest, I still feel like this must be a hoax of some sort because I can't imagine the press actually coming out and now saying this is a legitimate thing.
But I'll tell you what.
They claimed the no-go zones were a conspiracy theory.
They said there's no such thing.
It's a lie.
I went to Sweden.
Guess what I found?
No-go zone is a colloquial term for high-risk areas or communitarian spaces.
I certainly didn't find them to be overwhelmingly dangerous because I grew up in Chicago.
So from my perspective, everything was pretty nice.
But to the people in Sweden, they called these no-go zones.
In fact, the police referred to them as problem areas.
They tried, they do this media technique where they take something you say to an extreme degree to make it sound like you're lying.
It makes me extremely angry.
You know, I'm a non-violent person.
But this is what makes me want to punch someone more than anything else.
I won't because I'm a non-violent person.
I think violence is wrong.
But boy does it make me angry.
Here's what they say.
Someone will use the colloquial term no-go zone and the media will then say a no-go zone is a place so dangerous no one can go there.
They'll then say, but the police go there all the time.
That's not what they were talking about, you liars.
They do to Trump all the time to accuse him of being a liar and then say, he made 10,000 lies this year alone.
Remember that time he said Hillary Clinton acid-washed her server and then NBC News fact-checked him saying, no, she used bleach bit, not a corrosive substance.
That's the game they play.
Something interesting happened, I think it was a couple years ago, when Angela Merkel gave an interview where she said, you know, she lamented the no-go zones in Germany and thought something had to be done about it.
And then all of a sudden, where was the press to claim it was a conspiracy theory?
I hate this more than anything.
You know, right now, there is a... This video's probably demonetized anyway, but I'm gonna avoid saying a certain phrase having to do with people getting sick around the world, you know, starting with China.
unidentified
And the media claims it's fringe conspiracy theories.
Senator Tom Cotton came out and said we should think about this, and they said he's a liar and a conspiracy theorist.
Misrepresenting what he actually said when it turns out there are some scientific papers to actually back up what he's claiming.
The media in this country is so just inept and duplicitous that instead of doing their jobs, they lie.
They lie because they don't care it's easier to write nonsense and smear someone than it is to actually read what's being said.
So I found this story, and I'll tell you what.
This is the Daily Mail, certified by NewsGuard.
That's the best I can do, right?
There you go.
You want to take my words out of context, you go ahead and do so.
But I am reading a story from a major mainstream British publication.
By all means, criticize them for being biased.
But if you want to call them a liar when they claim Macron actually said these things, that's a whole other story.
So don't take it out on me.
I'm just reading the news and giving you my thoughts.
But this is what we see.
France has serious problems.
I've been there several times.
Germany has really serious problems.
And this is coming from even some lefty journalists who were in favor of bringing in more refugees, told me about what Germany was doing, just dumping people randomly.
I mean, then you got the Antifa problem.
The UK has similar issues.
These problems are getting worse.
And it's partly due, not necessarily because of, you know, Immigration or refugees.
Because a lot of people have tried claiming that it's the refugees that are causing these problems, but in reality, many of these people in these communities are actually born there.
And as they state in the Daily Mail, it's from, you know, they've come from former French colonies.
So when France had their, you know, global conquest and whatever, they actually have French nationals who have, you know, several generations ago come from North Africa and the Middle East.
Interestingly, a lot of these stories you see about the violence that happens in France in these areas, these people are naturalized citizens, not refugees.
So there's an important distinction.
Not that I think the distinction is very large, but it's important to point out.
A lot of what we see that these European countries suffer from is the result of colonialism.
Not that I'm gonna play the stupid leftist game of colonialism bad, but you gotta recognize, when Britain, you know, and France went to Africa, went to the Middle East, and tried colonizing the areas, and then these people came back to those countries, it's the direct result of what they did, it's multiculturalism, it's something they've been practicing for a long time.
Now, they were racist for a long time, too.
But the point I'm trying to make is, I don't know why they tried lying about this for so long, but they can't anymore.
They have to now face the facts with what they've created and is growing within their own communities.
But I'll tell you what, I don't see how Macron can win this one.
You think you're going to go into a Muslim community and tell them to break this up and stop doing this?
It's never going to happen.
You're going to face a backlash so hard, they're going to call you far-right, and they're already doing it.
Congratulations Macron, you're now the far-right banker who is a bigot and discriminates.
We'll see what happens with this, but I'm going to say it one last time because I know they're going to come after me for this one.
I can't believe this is a real story.
I can't believe you'd actually say this, but there you go.
