Rachel Maddow Hypocritically Calls Trump DOJ Dystopian While IGNORING Democrat Abuses Of Power
Rachel Maddow Hypocritically Calls Trump DOJ Dystopian While IGNORING Democrat Abuses Of Power. On Her Show Rachel Maddow suggested that Donald Trump and Bill Barr would use the power of the DOJ to go after their Democratic opponents just before the november 2020 election.She called it dystopian over the top tyranny stuff while completely ignoring Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.Democrats have a habit of blaming Trump for the exact things they have done. The entire impeachment was based on Trump supposedly digging up dirt on joe Biden. They said investigating a presidential candidate was an abuse of power yet Obama did the exact same thing.Perhaps Maddow is just preempting her audience for when the real investigations into Biden and crony Democrats begins, that way she can say "see! told you so! In reality perhaps some investigations are duly needed right now. Hopefully the Republicans actually do something.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats and members of the media establishment have a habit of accusing Trump of doing things that they themselves have already done or actually do as well.
The latest iteration is Rachel Maddow warning of a dystopian, over-the-top road to tyranny if Donald Trump potentially investigates his Democratic opponents.
Because I couldn't imagine a circumstance where an administration would launch an investigation into a political candidate, could I?
Oh, How about crossfire hurricane when the Obama administration investigated Trump's campaign?
What I find so funny about this is that it's not just the fact that they did the investigation into Trump's campaign in 2016, and now Rachel Maddow's freaking out about it, but that Donald Trump was accused of abuse of power and actually impeached because they argued That investigating a political rival or a potential political candidate was abusive power.
It was crossing the line.
Because even that was complete and total hypocrisy.
Because the Obama administration was party to the same exact thing.
And now we see it in Donald Trump's pardoning and clemency of certain key individuals that were just—like Rod Blagojevich, for instance.
I got a lot to say about that.
Or that Bill Barr wants an independent review of many of these prosecutions in the Russia investigation.
And now they're all saying it's, again, abuse of power.
They're calling for Barr to resign.
They're saying Trump is on a cleaning—you know, he's cleaning house.
He's going on an abuse of power spree.
He's becoming unstoppable.
But listen, man.
I'm not here to play politics.
How am I supposed to condemn or criticize Donald Trump for doing what Democrats did first?
That doesn't make sense.
So while sure, maybe it's an abuse of power, how are you going to impeach somebody and criticize somebody?
But first of all, before he's actually done anything, he's not investigating Democrats.
But it was 2016.
During the campaign, they were investigating Donald Trump.
Was that an abuse of power?
By their own standards, it is.
Therefore, Maddow is warning of dystopian, over-the-top, road-to-tyranny stuff that's already happened from the Democrats.
I'm sick and tired of this stupid nonsense, but let's read because we're going to dive right into more stupid nonsense before we get started.
Make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is just share this video.
And many of you, I've noticed, haven't subscribed, so make sure you subscribe, click the notification bell, and then, you know, YouTube will finally start letting you know that I make more videos, so I appreciate it.
Here's the story from Washington Examiner.
Dystopian, over-the-top, road-to-tyranny stuff.
I love saying that.
Maddow warns Trump will investigate his Democratic challenger.
Let's just, can we just go back in time four years and have her say the same thing that Obama, warn that Obama was gonna, no, okay, I'm sorry.
That doesn't count.
That wasn't dystopian.
Let's read.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow told her viewers that President Trump might use the Department of Justice to investigate his political rivals in an attempt at re-election.
Oh, I want to laugh.
I just want... It's so absurd.
After encouraging her audience to look into the candidates on the issue, the MSNBC host warned her audience that the president might engage in... Okay, I'm not going to read it for a fifth time.
She said, quote, At this point in the Trump presidency, at this point in the news, what do you really think the odds are that President Trump and Attorney General William Barr won't open up some kind of federal criminal investigation into whichever Democrat Trump ends up running against in the general election?
She asked her audience.
I don't know.
What were the chances that Obama would launch an investigation into the opponent of one of his former senior cabinet members, Hillary Clinton?
Yeah, he did.
So spare me.
I don't care.
Or if they can't wait that long, if they're too impatient, what do you think the odds are that the President and the Attorney General will do something in the primary, open up some kind of federal criminal investigation, or find some other way to use the federal law enforcement apparatus against whichever Democrat Trump least wants to run against in the general?
Maddow said that America supposedly learned our lesson following the Watergate scandal, which surrounded the Nixon presidency in the early 1970s.
However, she asserted it's a plausible theory for Trump to target his political opponents and undermine his opponent in the 2020 election.
I bring you Codename Crossfire Hurricane, the secret origins of the Trump investigation, as reported by the New York Times, May 16, 2018, which was launched in summer of 2016, before the election took place.
So no, I don't want to hear it.
You're just saying whatever you think your audience wants to hear, because it's going to get you those sweet, juicy ratings to sell advertisements.
I do not believe it for a second.
And we also now know That a couple of the warrants were totally bunk.
But I'm going to read from you the Crossfire Hurricane Wikipedia page and make some points.
I will also add, before reading this, why is Maddow saying Trump might launch the investigation?
Well, look, I think it's ratings.
I think she's digging for scraps to try and produce content.
But it's also possible Trump really will launch an investigation into, say, the Bidens.
The GOP is already investigating Hunter Biden, and if it turns out he actually did things that broke the law, she's preempting her audience with, see, I told you Trump was gonna do it.
He's coming for Biden, even though Joe Biden isn't the frontrunner, was never the frontrunner, and literally everyone knows it, except for the people who are pretending not.
Okay, no, no, everyone does.
But then you have these media establishment types and crony Democrat types that are pretending like they think Joe Biden was the frontrunner at some point.
But I'll just add, among all of the progressives, the socialists, the far left, Bernie Sanders people, and the Trump people, everyone knew Biden was not really the frontrunner in this race.
It made absolutely no sense.
But for some reason, that's what everyone kept saying.
But I'll draw some scrutiny on that.
First, let me read about Crossfire Hurricane.
The Wikipedia page says, Trump and his allies repeatedly promoted conspiracy theories asserting that Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on false pretenses or for political purposes.
A subsequent inquiry by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horwitz, who was appointed by Barack Obama, released in redacted form in December 2019, did not find political bias in the FBI investigation.
And as they say, there were 17 errors.
investigation was properly predicated on a legal and factual basis.
So if Donald Trump launches an investigation into any of the Democrats on a legal and factual
basis, it's not abuse of power, right?
In which case he need only probable cause.
I mean, the Carter page warrants were two of them were no good.
And as they say, there were 17 errors.
Let's read.
Attorney General Bill Barr and his designated investigator, John Durham, publicly rebuked
the findings and said their belief the evidence justified opening only a preliminary rather
than a full investigation and indicated they would continue to investigate.
The Inspector General also determined that the FBI made 17 errors or omissions, some of them severe, in its FISA-warrant applications in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for surveillance of Trump aide Carter Page.
Horowitz nevertheless attributed the warrant problems to gross incompetence and negligence rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias.
And of course, from CNN, two of four FISA warrants against Carter Page declared invalid.
So you know what?
Horowitz is saying that it was gross incompetence and negligence that led to the investigation of the Trump campaign before the election.
Because I guess you're saying a deliberate investigation would be abuse of power, right?
Like digging into Joe Biden's past before he even announced apparently was an abuse of power.
So let me let me ask you this.
If you think Donald Trump is completely inept, if you think he's terrible at what he's doing, then I think you've granted him plausible deniability if he does launch an investigation to say, oops, gross incompetence and negligence on my part.
There was no intent to abuse power.
We're just dumb.
Is that what your defense of Barack Obama's administration is?
I don't care what the reason is.
I'm not here to play politics.
Obama did it.
How could you now start screeching that Trump might do it when that guy literally already did?
But of course, I want to get back to pointing out the discrepancy in media with Joe Biden and what Trump is really worried about because I think it's important not to draw parallels.
I want to show you that I think the point about Trump investigating Biden and impeachment was a lie anyway.
In the real clear politics average, we can see that Joe Biden tanked following the first primary in caucus.
What I find strange is that tons of people when polled would claim they want Joe Biden only until the Iowa primary, or the caucus, when no one voted for him.
So maybe Iowa's an outlier.
Maybe the polls are wrong.
But I do think it's really weird that Biden tanked only after people didn't vote for him.
Wouldn't it be true that before the primary, people didn't want to vote for him anyway, and that's why he lost?
So maybe it's that after the primary happened, people said, I'm not going to vote for Biden because he's going to lose, and all they really want to do is defeat Trump.
The important thing is, everyone knew that Joe Biden was a weak candidate.
And even according to left-wing activists, the only one I didn't want her to pick in secret recordings, Trump admits fear of Clinton picking Sanders as VP in 2016.
That's important because they tried claiming that it was an abuse of power on Trump's part to investigate Joe Biden because he was trying to dig up dirt to beat him in 2020.
But Joe Biden was never the front runner.
Trump was never afraid of Biden.
He was afraid of Bernie.
And maybe saying he's afraid is not the right way to put it.
He was concerned that Bernie would be a strong contender.
So you want to talk about abuse of power?
I don't see it.
You haven't made your case.
But let's move on, because now they're still claiming more abuses of power, and I think it's silly considering they do the same things.
First, I do want to point out, GOP duo moves ahead with Biden investigation.
I bring this up because I want to highlight that what Maddow is doing is preempting her audience.
Once they actually do, if they end up getting dirt on the Bidens, like in terms of actual crimes committed, she's going to say, I told you so.
But here's where I really wanted to get to.
That story was kind of just in the way.
Fox News reporting, Barr taps network of prosecutors to review Russia-Ukraine cases.
So now they're trying to claim that Bill Barr is interfering, that Donald Trump is interfering in the prosecutorial or judicial process.
I think based on the abuse of power by the Democrat standards pertaining to Crossfire Hurricane, there's good reason for Bill Barr to do this review of all of those cases.
It really does feel like we're in a soft civil war.
You know, call the impeachment a coup, call it whatever you want.
But you had Barack Obama spying on the Trump campaign.
Okay, I'm saying that colloquially.
They were investigating Trump's campaign in 2016.
Okay, however you want to call it.
They claim it's an abuse of power to investigate a political rival.
Well, Barack Obama wasn't running for re-election, but Hillary Clinton was, and she was part of Barack's administration, so by their standard, it seems like that was an abuse of power.
If that's the case, doesn't it make sense that someone would come in and review the cases they've presented because maybe there's partisan bias?
Well, they're still claiming that this is an abuse of power, which is hypocritical as far as I'm concerned.
And now, we have more than 2,000 former DOJ officials calling on Attorney General William Barr to resign.
Last week, Barr told ABC News Trump's tweets made doing his job impossible.
I gotta admit, I do love that part, because Bill Barr seems like such a cool-headed guy.
I'm not gonna say that he's right or wrong, or I'm not gonna play any partisan politics, but he's the opposite of Trump in a lot of ways.
He does these interviews, he's very calm and pragmatic, and he says, here's what I'm doing, here's why I'm doing it.
Trump, on the other hand, is loud, bombastic, tweeting all the time.
So I do think it's really funny that Bill Barr is like, going like this, going like, tweeting is making it hard for me to do my job.
I think he's probably right.
But it doesn't mean he's corrupt, and it doesn't mean Trump is interfering.
It means Bill Barr is reviewing partisan bias.
And you've got... I'm going to put it this way, man.
Let's wind back in time.
If Rachel Maddow thinks investigating a political rival is dystopian, over-the-top tyranny stuff, if the Democrats themselves impeach Trump on the basis of abuse of power because investigating a political opponent is abuse, I think it's fair to say the fault lies with Democrats, and Bill Barr should be doing what he's doing, because by their own standard, they engaged in dystopian, over-the-top tyranny stuff, as Rachel Maddow said.
In which case, good.
Someone better get in and start cleaning house.
And Donald Trump's talking about it.
So they're in no position to complain about what Trump is doing.
We now see that GOP leaders carefully express their support for AG Barr.
I have no problem saying from where I stand, I think Bill Barr needs to be investigating, you know, or at least bringing in people to look at these past cases.
I don't know if Roger Stone deserved nine years for what he did.
Tough call.
There's a partisan divide where Trump supporters say he didn't, he deserves something, we'll see what happens, and the left is saying Trump's intervening to get his buddy off, which is so dumb because Trump could pardon Roger Stone if he wanted to.
He doesn't have to ask Bill Barr to do anything, and asking them to reduce their sentence recommendation doesn't mean the courts would actually do it anyway.
I'm from Chicago, and Donald Trump pardoned Rod Blagojevich.
Blagojevich, who was convicted, my understanding, because he tried selling Barack Obama's Senate seat and tried to shake down a hospital.
This, in my opinion, was not a wise move.
I don't know why he did it.
Maybe Trump doesn't care about optics because he's going to do what he wants to do.
But I'll tell you this.
As much as I think Illinois is a severe corruption problem, the reality is Donald Trump, as the president, can pardon or commute or grant clemency to whoever he wants within the federal legal system.
So I think it has to do... I don't think he can pardon people at the state level.
I think it extends only to federal crimes.
But CNN reports Trump just granted clemency to 11 people.
Here's a look at each.
Now listen.
I'm not a fan of Blagojevich as someone from Chicago.
None of us were happy to hear that he was trying to sell a Senate seat or whatever he did.
Let me read this for you.
Because what we're getting at is not so much whether or not Trump should have done it.
It's whether or not it's an abuse of power to do it.
And they're claiming it is when it's not.
A CNN says Trump commuted the sentence of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former contestant on Celebrity Apprentice, who served eight years of a 14-year sentence for the pay-for-play charges.
He was released from prison Tuesday.
They say, quote, he served eight years in jail a long time.
He seems like a very nice person.
Don't know him, Trump said, calling his sentence ridiculous and suggesting the television appeals of Blagojevich's wife, Patty, helped cement his decision.
Aides had worked to convince Trump against reducing Blagojevich's sentence, believing it would play poorly, and Republican members of Congress lobbied Trump to drop the idea.
But inside the White House, Jared Kushner championed efforts to pardon or commute the former governor's sentence.
On Tuesday, Trump linked Blagojevich's prosecution to a longtime foe, former FBI Director James Comey, a close friend of former U.S.
Attorney in Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald, who led the prosecution against Blagojevich.
It was a prosecution by the same people, Comey, Fitzpatrick, the same group Trump said, misstating the Illinois U.S.
Attorney's name, Fitzgerald.
Right.
Here's what I think.
Well, I don't know exactly why Donald Trump wants to pardon and commit the sentence of Rob Blagojevich, but I think it looks bad.
I don't know how this will play out in the general election, but I think most people aren't going to care.
The media wants to make it a bigger deal than it is.
But part of me thinks this may be Donald Trump kind of giving the middle finger to Comey.
You know, look, it was the Obama administration that was investigating Donald Trump.
And by Democrats, again, by their own standards, that was an abuse of power.
So maybe Trump is saying, now that I'm in charge, now that impeachment is over and you've lost everything, I'm going to let this guy go.
One of your great victories, Comey, is over.
Now, I don't know why he did it.
I really, really don't.
And I disagree with it, and I think it was a bad move.
I don't think Rod Blagojevich deserves to get out early.
I don't know, though.
Eight years is kind of a long time, and I'm very much so a criminal justice reform person.
I think, to be honest, I don't know about this guy, but I'd be really happy to see Donald Trump commute the sentences, grant clemency, or pardon tons of people.
Maybe as many as Barack Obama did at the same point.
Because even though Donald Trump commuted all of these people, I think he's still... Last time I checked, he had pardoned six less people than Obama did for the same time period.
He may now be slightly above where Obama was in terms of pardoning people.
But of course, the New York Times and the media can't help But try and claim that using the presidential powers is an abuse of power, which is just not true.
Calm down.
Hypocrites, man.
of the New York Times tweets.
A moment that live in history, a typo I guess, and deserves to be remembered.
President Trump is now both the executive and judicial branch.
Rod Blagojevich, Michael Milken, Bernard Kerik, and others.
Excuse me, the president has the ability to pardon anybody.
So how is he now becoming the judicial branch based on powers granted to him by the Constitution?
This is the absurd nonsense we see from these people.
It makes it impossible for me to take them seriously.
For one, politically, when you look at the Democrats, what have they offered anybody?
Nothing.
Nancy Pelosi tears up Donald Trump's speech at the State of the Union, but then blames the media for why she did it, saying, we have all of these great accomplishments you won't talk about.
I'm sorry, man.
If you won't talk about them, then why should the media?
You're hypocrites.
Politically, you provide nothing.
You complain about Trump all day and night.
When Barack Obama engages in investigations of a political rival, it's no big deal.
It's justified.
When Trump says it's a partisan witch hunt or it's based on false pretenses, even in Wikipedia they say it's a conspiracy theory.
Why is it not a conspiracy theory that Donald Trump was trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden to win a presidential election?
They've never proven the latter.
We know Donald Trump was interested in investigating Burisma in Ukraine, but their claims have never been proven, their conspiracy theories too.
I'm sitting here looking for objective evidence.
You've provided me with none.
And now you have this guy freaking out that Donald Trump pardoned people, claiming Trump, a day will live in history.
Are you kidding me?
I have a huge list of everyone Barack Obama has pardoned.
It's a huge list.
Some of these people did really, really messed up things.
And I'm going to scroll through them very quickly because some of them are so messed up that if I show you them, YouTube will probably delete this video.
I'm not kidding.
These are federal crimes.
Some of them are really, really bad.
And Barack Obama pardoned something like over a thousand people within his eight years.
All right, that makes sense.
Donald Trump's been in for four years, and I think he's actually pardoned less than Obama at this point.
I'm not going to count through it, but last time I checked, it was less.
Did Obama become the executive branch and the judicial branch?
My understanding is now, you can actually go back in time and impeach Barack Obama, even though he's already out of office, for what he did in Crossfire Hurricane.
Perhaps when the Republicans win back the House, because I think they probably will, but we'll see, they'll launch an impeachment inquiry into Biden and Barack Obama for Crossfire Hurricane.
And they'll say, you were investigating a political rival.
Of course it won't really happen, partly because Republicans just don't seem to be effective in that regard. One of the biggest complaints
I've seen from Trump supporters is that although Bill Barr has the power to declassify
documents, he's not done so, and he's arrested basically no one. I think he's arrested
basically nobody. And so they're angry that Bill Barr isn't getting the job done.
I find it hilarious that while they're claiming Bill Barr is corrupt and doing Trump's dirty work, he won't even prosecute McCabe.
He's not going after these people.
They're claiming there's an abuse of power, and Bill Barr seems to be cool-headed and not really acting with an iron fist.
It's an excuse.
As I stated early on, they want to accuse Trump of doing what they have done.
That way, when you come back and say, no, it's the Democrats who abused power, they say, oh, please, you're only saying that because you've been accused.
Sorry, Rachel Maddow.
Barack Obama.
It was his administration.
Alright, they investigated a political rival.
It is what it is.
You can't deny it.
And if you think Trump is bad, it's about time you cleaned up your own room, bucko.
The New York Times is now running a story, Trump takes up call for Barr to clean house at Justice Department.
With a series of retweets, President Trump kept up attacks on federal law enforcement agencies despite pleas from the Attorney General.
I gotta admit, I kinda laugh at poor Bill Barr.
He doesn't seem like a bad guy.
He seems pretty on the level, as far as I can tell.
And he was the Attorney General in the 90s.
From 1991 to 1993, he served as Attorney General.
They didn't seem to have this many problems with him back then.
There were some criticisms.
But he seems to be a dude who's doing his job to kind of fix things, clean things up.
And Donald Trump couldn't stop tweeting to help Mr. Barr.
Attorney General Barr.
I don't want to say Mr. But Bill Barr clearly expressing frustration with the president.
And I got to admit, I laugh.
Because, you know, I agree with Bill Barr.
So many people do.
Even Trump supporters get it.
I love telling the story of when I went down to do the interview with Glenn Beck, I'm riding in an Uber.
And the driver, I asked him what he thought about politics, and he explained to me that he really liked Trump but wished he didn't tweet so much.
And I just, I laugh at the thought, because Trump's never gonna stop.
It's part of why a lot of people like him.
But a lot of people are frustrated that you have this great economy under Trump, he's getting the job done, but he can't shut up to save his own, to save his own campaigns.
But I think he'll be fine.
In the end, I think it's fair to say if Trump is gonna clean house, good.
There should be less power in the executive branch.
I have said in the past, the light at the end of the tunnel, the open window, as it pertains to the investigations of Trump, is the curtailing of executive authority.
If Donald Trump is now having prosecutors and other people, you know, removed from these offices, good!
The civil war between these people ultimately ends with less power for the federal government.
Hey, I'm not complaining.
But I do think it's absurd how they play to this double standard.
They do all of these things themselves and then get mad when Donald Trump might do it.
Let me clarify.
I want to reiterate.
Donald Trump has not yet launched any investigations and Rachel Maddow is now complaining of the dystopian tyranny heading our way that Trump might do it when Barack Obama literally did it.
Okay, I want to clarify that the Barack Obama administration, because I'm not going to claim that Obama directly ordered it, fine.
The point is, it was when he was in office, this went down.
And you know, even if Donald Trump didn't order it, if Bill Barr decided to investigate someone, they would claim Trump did.
So you know what?
I don't want to hear it.
But let me wrap this up by throwing some shade towards the elites.
I'll tell you one thing.
A lot of Bernie supporters don't want to come to the defense of Donald Trump because they know they're going to be up against him in November should Bernie win the nomination.
But I think it's a mistake.
Donald Trump has no problem pointing out the DNC is cheating Bernie.
Bernie should embrace it.
Get the elite loonies out of there.
Just get rid of them.
You've got no reason to defend Barack Obama.
You've got no reason to defend Rachel Maddow.
And especially when you see stories like this.
Bravo, Washington Post, where democracy dies in darkness.
It's time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president.
No, it's not.
Sorry, that's not how our system is supposed to work.
So, I think it's about time we actually gave them less say.
You know what's going to happen at the DNC?
Bernie's going to have a plurality, he's going to have the majority of the delegates, but it's going to be contested, and the elites will step in to give it to Bloomberg or Buttigieg or whatever.
Maybe not Buttigieg, we'll see.
The point is, people like Maddow, these people who defend the establishment, they have nothing but disdain for you, be it a Trump supporter or a Bernie supporter.
So how about we get a legitimate battle, where we have Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders debate the ideas, and I would absolutely respect that.
I happen to disagree, for the most part, with Bernie Sanders on a lot of issues, and I question his integrity.
Same as I will for Donald Trump.
So that puts me between a rock and a hard place.
But I'd like to see an actual debate between people who are talking about America and working class individuals, people that I think actually don't have elite establishment croniest ambitions.
Yeah, believe it or not, a lot of people on the left will get mad at me for saying that, but I don't think Trump is in this to enrich himself.
That's absurd.
The dude's been rich his whole life.
Trump's got his name in gold letters on buildings across the world.
No, I think he ran for the office partly because of his ego, but he thinks he's the one who can fix all these problems, and I genuinely believe he wants to.
I'm not saying he's a good dude.
I'm saying I think his motivation is that he thinks he's smarter than everybody else, and he's going to do a better job.
I think Bernie Sanders feels similarly, though Bernie is probably much more humble.
And I'll throw some shade at Bernie's way.
I don't know if he has a spine.
But I'll tell you what.
I don't care for what these elites want to claim.
They want to call Trump a dystopian nightmare?
Nah, sorry.
You started it.
You don't care about what the people want.
You're just lying.
You want to act like we were supposed to learn from Watergate, Rachel Maddow?
Sorry.
Because you didn't say that back in 2016.
You didn't say that in 2018 when we learned about Crossfire Hurricane.
So I'll tell you what.
If Bernie wins the nomination, I respect and would love to see him debate Donald Trump.
We'll see how it goes.
If he wins, he deserves to win.
If he doesn't, he didn't deserve to win.
But you know what does deserve to happen?
If people in this country and the Democratic Party want Bernie Sanders, they deserve to get him.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel.
And I will see you all there.
A couple months ago, Britain's Labour Party faced one of the worst defeats it has ever seen in nearly 100 years.
It's entirely possible that in the United States we see a repeat of this.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, is facing, I believe, 12 challengers, and many people in the Democratic Party, for instance, are trying to remove her.
It's entirely possible, one, She loses in a primary because she's nuts, or two, what little Republicans there are in her district flock to the voting booth to vote against her, but moderates vote against her too, voting Republican, and flipping a long-standing urban blue district red.
This is essentially what happened in the UK.
And based on the title of this video and the reason you clicked it, you probably understand why.
A British Member of Parliament for the Labour Party, which is basically their Democrats, said that babies are born without sex.
I kid you not.
These people are insane.
I'm sorry, this is beyond insane.
This is paranoid, delusional, psycho world.
They believe cult-fringe insanity.
I don't even know how to describe it because when someone's insane, I don't know how else to explain it, but at least you now understand why labor lost so resoundingly.
This is a worldview that is just broken.
I don't know how else to explain it, but at least you now understand why labor lost so
resoundingly.
This woman, Dawn Butler, is...
Here's what Wikipedia says.
A British Labour Party politician, serving as Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equality since 2017, and has served as a Member of Parliament for Brent Central since 2015.
They say that she served as MP for Brent South from 2005 to 2010.
So no, she's not the most important or powerful politician in the UK, but she is a member of the Shadow Cabinet.
I gotta be honest, I know very little about parliamentary procedure and politics in the United Kingdom, but it's okay.
All you need to understand is that this is essentially like the equivalent, my understanding, would be a member of Congress showing up on CNN and trying to assert biological sex doesn't exist.
And this rhetoric is coming.
It's already here in the U.S.
It's becoming pervasive.
The Democrats are continually embracing the psychotic, dogmatic, just lunacy.
I don't even know how to describe it.
It's like, there are things that are so wrong, you know, that you'd just be shocked someone would think it was real.
Could you imagine if a member of Congress went on TV and started, you know, was adamantly demanding that we enact a bill to ban griffins because the griffin problem is becoming so serious?
I'm telling you, I hear from my constituents, the griffins are attacking at midnight!
You'd be like, this person has lost the plot.
Like even Alex Jones, who they call nuts.
When he talks about, you know, Atrazine and the frogs being gay or whatever, you're like, yeah, he's kind of out there, but at least there is some morsel of truth in his version of reality.
You see, Alex Jones goes on Joe Rogan, and he says something like, you know, 5G, experiments with 5G shows an increased rate of cancer in rats.
Therefore, they're gonna build these towers and need to hybridize humans with animals or whatever, whatever, some insane nonsense.
And you're like, okay, that's crazy.
But, Alex Jones found this study that said the cancer rates are increasing.
He found a study that says there are experiments for animal-human hybridization, which there are, but that's mostly for, like, growing a human organ in a pig for transplant.
He combines them and then says, here's what I think they're gonna do.
And you're like, buddy, you gotta calm down.
But at least he started somewhere, right?
These people are literally looking at a little girl baby and being like, I see no biological sex.
And you're like, dude, it's clearly female.
Everything, everything on this planet.
Okay, that's not true.
A majority of life.
I don't even know if that's true, but a lot of life is sexual.
There's asexual, so okay, I'll concede that.
And then there's also different ways in which sexual life does things, whatever.
But even plants have discernible sex.
99.7% of human beings have a discernible biological sex.
I don't even know why I have to explain this!
I kind of feel like I'm just saying it, and 99.9% of people are being like, Tim, we don't- we know.
There's something scary about what happened in the UK.
Did Labour lose one of the most crushing defeats in their history?
Yes.
Okay.
Did people still vote for them?
Yes.
And that's what's so freaky to me.
That means a few things.
Some of these people aren't paying attention.
They don't care at all.
They go in there and say whatever, Labour.
Alright, there's not much I can say about that.
It's not... Look, there's a responsibility with voting, I get it.
And if you don't know what's going on, you probably shouldn't vote, but people are gonna vote anyway.
And so they probably have no idea who Jeremy Corbyn is.
They have no idea that this woman is essentially a flat earther, as far as I'm concerned.
I mean that metaphorically, not literally.
But then there's something else that we have to contend with.
Some of these voters might be complete and absolute morons, paying attention but just too stupid to realize what they're voting for.
Or worse still, they might actually agree.
And there were a lot of people who did vote Labor.
Labor lost, but a lot of people still voted for this absolute psychosis.
Babies don't have biological sex.
Beep boop.
Let's read.
Spiked Magazine, Spiked Online says, Labor, the political wing of the Flat Earth Society, Deputy Leadership Candidate Dawn Butler says that babies are born without sex.
Here we go again.
Another day, another leadership hopeful has said something utterly ludicrous about transgender issues.
Dawn Butler, Shadow Equalities Minister and candidate for Deputy Leader, was on Good Morning Britain yesterday.
She was quizzed by Richard Madley on Labor's ongoing trans row.
While Butler trotted out the usual cliches that trans women are women, she interrupted madly to make an astonishing claim.
A child is born without sex, she said.
A child is formed without sex in the beginning.
It has to be seen to be believed.
And sure enough, Andrew Doyle, you may know Andrew as the mind behind Titania McGrath, parody SJW account, says, for anyone who still thinks the culture war is a fringe concern, Here is a member of the Shadow Cabinet claiming that biological reality is quote, dog whistle transphobia.
Here was a member of the Shadow Cabinet proposing a flat earth view of the world, denying the existence of biological sex.
More absurd still, Butler dismissed any deviation from rigid trans dogma as dog whistle transphobia.
It is not the first time Butler has engaged in magical thinking.
In 2009, she claimed to have been endorsed as the MP for Brent South by none other than President Barack Obama.
Who's voting for these people?
I gotta say, this is flat earth level psychosis.
But let me add one point.
Before you read her magical quote about how she thinks Barack Obama endorsed her, what we're seeing here, with this politician making nonsensical claims that a child knows is false, is a perfect example of the bias on social media.
So I talked about Mr. Jones, alright?
I know a lot of people probably like the guy, that's okay.
I have no ill will towards her, Jones, or anybody else.
I believe Alex Jones and this lady and anybody else should be allowed to express their opinions and thoughts even if they're wrong.
I actually think this is more psychotically wrong than a lot of what Alex Jones has ever said.
I mean, even Joe Rogan says that Alex Jones was right on a few things.
You can give him that, right?
But what does YouTube do?
They ban Alex Jones, they ban conservatives, and when it comes to videos about, say, Flat Earth or, air quotes here, right-wing conspiracy theories, If you contest climate change, which is very hard to physically grasp for a lot of people, they will call you a conspiracy theorist, a denialist, and they will put a link beneath your video saying, like, this is real, this person is wrong.
So let me say that one more time.
When it comes to issues of climate change, it is very hard to physically experience a dramatic change in climate or to know that the Earth is warming.
Personally, I think it's very important we get a grip on what's happening and better understand it.
I think, you know, the majority, the scientific authorities, whether they're right or wrong, all I can do is trust them when they say this is a serious issue and humans are contributing to it.
Okay, I respect that.
And so what YouTube does is when someone makes a video, they slap a link to Wikipedia saying, here's what climate change is.
The moon landing.
All these conspiracy theories must have a qualifying link to another site because they don't want you to believe conspiracies.
Great.
Yet when it comes to these lunatics claiming there is no such thing as biological sex, mums the word.
No one gets banned.
No one gets purged.
It's beyond a conspiracy.
Let me make it very clear when it comes to science denial.
I always talk about climate change when I talk about the biological, you know, gender denialists, whatever you want to call it.
And the reason for it is, I think there is science denial all about.
The scientific community is not infallible.
They are not absolutely correct and they're, in fact, wrong all the time.
That's what makes science work.
We find something, we explore it, we eventually correct it and improve upon our knowledge.
That means even though I recognize much of science is not perfect and it can change, I'm still going to default to what the authority is going to say on the issue, because I am not a climate scientist.
Now, I absolutely respect the other climate scientists who will put out conflicting information, but for the time being, all I can say is, look man, if the IPCC and all these other organizations say these are the issues, I can only trust them the same as I trust a doctor to save me if I'm dying.
I'm not a doctor.
Don't take my word for it, but I'm gonna trust the expert.
It's not perfect, and sometimes doctors make mistakes, but hey, I'll do that too.
Here's the thing.
Take the average person, and ask them to point to climate change, and they're gonna be like, that's ridiculous, you can't do it.
You're right.
Yet we still recognize the authorities on the matter have said these are serious issues, and we take their word for it.
Now take somebody, and tell them to point to the woman.
And guess what?
They can.
Point to the man.
Guess what?
They can.
And now for the easiest thing for everyone to understand.
The concept of passing.
You know what this means?
Passing involves basically any type of oppressed group who can pass for the majority group.
So I, as mixed-race Tim Poole, are white-passing, they say, although it means very little considering a lot of people don't think I'm white.
It just depends on the circumstance.
Fine.
But they say, you have privilege because you're passing.
That would imply that it's possible some people don't pass, right?
Now let's talk about the issues of trans people.
Some trans men and women are passing.
They call it, you know, trans passing.
And this means that somebody who was born male can pass for a full-fledged, you know, biological female.
Let me ask you what that means.
If you took this woman who claims there's no biological sex and took a non-passing trans woman and said, was this person born male or female?
Guess what?
I'd be willing to bet almost all of the time.
I mean, that's the concept of passing.
People can tell this individual is biologically male or female no matter what transition they've gone through.
Otherwise, the idea of passing would not exist.
Therefore, even a trans person Who has gone through full transition, it is very likely they will not pass, and you can tell they are a trans person.
I'm not saying any of this to impugn the honor and integrity of the individuals or the trans community.
None of that.
I'm pointing out that if you can look at a baby and see it's male or female, how do you deny that?
That to me is insane.
It goes beyond flat earth.
It goes beyond climate change.
Because you can't see the curvature of the earth from the street.
Not everybody is going to build a tower, or go in a space, or going to trust what they see in the media.
I personally think that's absurd.
There's a lot of reasons to understand that the Earth is round and spinning, and you can see all of the evidence around you, but here's the thing.
Even watching your toilet flush and witnessing that beautiful Coriolis effect is not necessarily enough to show someone, like, I got a globe right in front of me.
It's spinning.
It's awesome.
So when the Earth is spinning and you get that swirl in the toilet, they're going to say, I don't know what's causing that because I don't see a giant round Earth.
Now, I can actually respect that to a certain degree.
I think it's silly, because it's more like a Sudoku puzzle.
All of the pieces around you should show you that the Earth is round.
But apparently, people don't want to buy it.
But you know what I can at least say?
Well, they haven't seen Earth from afar, and they haven't put two and two together in the logic puzzle that proves the Earth's round.
What are you going to do about it?
The thing about climate change and Flat Earth is that they are grand scale phenomenon that people can't experience and so they often ignore and refuse to accept it.
And it's hard to convince them because you can't show them.
You can show them a globe, you can show them a photo, and they will excuse it away.
People have said, you know a lot of Flat Earthers say, well the photos of around Earth, that's just a camera lens trick.
The photo of the curvature of the earth from the high up in the atmosphere, that's just a fisheye lens.
And you're like, okay dude, listen, whatever.
You can actually see it from an airplane, but I digress.
When it comes to people like this in the labor party, who seem to think there's no biological sex, they're literally closing their eyes and going, nope, nope, I don't see anything, because you can literally look at a person.
Here's what you do.
You take everyone in the room, and you say, line up from tallest to shortest, and guess what?
Men and women, one side and the other, with a little mix in between.
But more, it doesn't even matter.
You take anyone off the street and say, point to a woman, and they will.
Point to a biological female, and they will.
Now, it's true, there is gender construct fluidity.
I'm absolutely willing to accept that.
Some women look like dudes, some dudes look like women.
It happens.
But for the most part, none of this would be an issue if, like, I should say, the idea of passing would not exist if there was no issue.
Therefore, the average person knows it's reality.
So what do you think's going to happen when it comes to these people running for office?
They are going to get crushed.
And every day, the left in these western countries is just... It's like Daffy Duck level insanity.
So you know what's funny?
I was thinking about why someone like me, why is it that I've always been a moderate, you know, lefty individual, and so has my buddy Adam who does the podcast with me, you know, the TimCast IRL channel.
We're pretty lefty, and so I noticed something interesting when people were trying to classify the culture war, and they said you have the left and the right, and then there are some people who are exclusively critical of the left, someone like me.
I wouldn't say it's fair to say I'm exclusively critical of the left, just typically.
Well, it's actually really simple as to why.
I am more so the average liberal type person in the United States.
Most of them just don't speak up and don't get involved.
Like, you know, I did this podcast with Adam.
He's not involved in this stuff, but he's always been a moderately lefty type urban skateboarding, you know, individual.
And he's like, I'm not involved in this.
So now he's getting, you know, splashed in the face with cold water with all these crazy stories.
And it turns out his opinion is very similar to mine.
So what do you think happens?
In the UK, normal labor voters, union working class people, voted conservative.
Not because they're conservatives, but I guess technically they are now.
Let me show you what this crazy woman has said.
They say science has been a particular Achilles heel for the shadow minister.
Not only does Butler believe that human babies are born with no sex, she also has some strange views on animals.
90% of giraffes are gay.
You know what?
Vote for these people.
Do it.
Go ahead.
What are you talking about?
What world do you live in?
These people are so... It's a combination of insane, unwell, stupid, I don't even know what you call it.
But we are getting to a point where I think we're going to see, we may see, the same resounding defeat of the left in our country in America that the UK saw.
And I think it's coming.
I really do.
When you see the Democrats saying illegal immigrants should get healthcare, and that biological sex isn't a thing, regular people are going to be presented with that choice.
And after the nomination of the Democrat in the Democratic Party, you know, come July or whatever it is, May I think?
I don't know.
You're going to see all of these campaign ads showing what these lunatics have to say.
Ocasio-Cortez at a rally for Bernie Sanders said Bernie Sanders is committed to abolishing ICE and Customs and Border Protection.
I don't think you can get much more insane than these people already are.
Like I said, you can't see around Earth from the ground.
And so I can understand to a certain degree why people think it's flat.
Because you're walking in a straight line and you're on a flat ground, right?
Of course, it's not that simple and we know it.
The Earth is round.
But you can literally look at a man and a woman and these people would tell you it's not real.
So you want to talk about 1984 where they say the party wanted you to deny what you could see with your eyes and hear with your ears and all that stuff?
It's beyond that.
It's like, you know, if there was a sign in the sky and they said, nope, there's nothing there, don't look, you'd be like, okay, you understand why.
But they're literally trying to tell you that the biological functions which create life and has been around for billions of years and resulted in us isn't real.
So if biological sex doesn't exist, or babies don't have it, then why don't same-sex couples have kids?
Where do babies come from?
Perhaps they still think it's the stork.
I have no idea.
But it would seem, based on this crazy lady's idea, it's the doctor who decides?
Like the baby is born and the doctor goes like, woof, woof, and the baby turns into a man or a woman?
That literally makes no sense.
I mean, it's beyond making no sense.
It is psychotic, paranoid, delusional thinking.
I'll add one more thing.
I'm not sure any of these people actually believe it either.
I think they're in a dogma where they know they're lying to themselves, but they have to say it, otherwise the activists will come for them.
Here's what they'll do.
They'll take your quotes out of context.
They'll use that to smear you.
That's why I just ignore this stuff.
But these are politicians who need votes.
And they know that this is going to work because people will vote against them no matter what they do.
So they say, you know what?
If I want to make sure the left votes for me, I will just say whatever I have to say to be in the good graces of the insane activists.
That way they don't come for me.
Congratulations.
You've earned this.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, with the people around him who believe very similar things, I believe we're looking at a McGovern situation.
Trump's gonna win, you know, 500 electoral votes, who knows what.
It's gonna be a wave, a sweep, that no one has ever seen before, but I could be wrong.
There are a lot of people saying that Trump barely got by last time, he'll barely get by this time, but let me remind you.
Richard Nixon squeaked by in his first election.
I did a whole segment on this.
And when it came to re-election, they did the same thing.
They said, we're going to defeat Richard Nixon with a coalition of progressives and immigrants.
And Nixon won 520 electoral votes.
Don't be surprised if it happens again.
And if it's true that we follow in the footsteps of the UK, because they voted for Brexit, and then several months later, Trump got elected, what do you think's happening now that they had another general, and about a year later is gonna be our presidential election?
This, what you're seeing here, will be used against them.
I know it's the UK, but we're gonna see campaign ads.
It is gonna be bonkers.
I'll leave it there, stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
You may be familiar with the 1619 Project from the New York Times, which is basically fake news.
They assert that the United States was created essentially in 1619 with the first black slave being brought to Virginia, and that everything after that was just made to try and keep slavery going.
And that's just BS.
Complete BS.
Now it is true that this country had a lot of problems for a long time.
But we are not defined by our failures or our worst days.
We're defined by how far we've come, how good we've done, and how the Founding Fathers, for the most part, believed in freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And those ideals have carried us forward to a point where we're now one of the most accepting countries in the world, if not the most tolerant and accepting, so much so that we bring in more immigrants than any other country, and we have relatively lax laws on the matter.
And you even have politicians today advocating for just essentially open borders.
Yeah, I think we're a very tolerant society.
But the big news right now is about the 1776 Project.
It is essentially black scholars coming together to reject this notion and writing what they think of the United States and the history of this country and how we've actually done a pretty good job.
See, a lot of people don't know some history about this country that many of the founding fathers found slavery to be detestable.
They weren't perfect.
They did a lot of things that by today's standards were horrifying and are horrifying.
But of course they did.
Every society did.
It's called progress for a reason.
The weirdest thing to me, especially considering my family history, is the rejection of progress from progressives.
You'd think the New York Times would celebrate their own victories.
If progressives truly want to create a more equitable society, For all oppressed peoples, why wouldn't they celebrate their power and success?
In my opinion, the goal is to always be a victim.
That's why the more gains intersectional feminism makes, the more they try and reject this.
And any woman who claims that they've been liberated or can succeed, they're told they're internalizing their misogyny.
I'm gonna read you this story about the 1776 Project, which counters this false narrative, and it's basically a pessimistic view of this country.
America has done great things, and let me explain to you how I can simplify it, with this Wikipedia page from a case in 1967 called Loving v. Virginia.
I'm going to read to you about the 1776 Project, but this means a lot to me and my family.
Because a lot of people don't seem to realize that it was in a current generation's lifetime, today, people alive today, who are not even that old, boomers, grew up in a period where it was illegal to marry someone of a different race if you were white.
Essentially, non-whites and whites could not marry or have children.
These were called anti-miscegenation laws or miscegenation laws.
And it wasn't until the Supreme Court case in 1967, this was all shot down.
Now I'm gonna let you in on another little bit of history.
They talk about the flipping of the political parties and all that stuff in the Civil War.
If I were to ask you, Which political party opposed these laws?
Who would you guess it was?
If I were to ask you...
Which political party tried to reinstate or did reinstate racial laws preventing race mixing?
Which political parties would you guess?
Most of you online who are watching YouTube, you probably already know the answer.
Now, you may be familiar with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia typically has a liberal bias, as they say.
Let me show you something that I find kind of funny.
Let me read you this passage.
Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.
I'll zoom in so it can be a little bigger.
It's kind of hard to read.
They say anti-miscegenation laws in the United States have been in place in certain states since colonial days.
In the Reconstruction era in 1865, the Black Codes across the seven states of the Lower South made intermarriage illegal.
The new Republican legislatures in six states repealed the restrictive laws.
That shouldn't be surprising to anybody who knows history.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and it was the Republicans who wanted to do away with slavery in the first place.
After the Democrats returned to power, the restriction was reimposed.
I find that so offensive.
But I'm not gonna play a game where I try and pretend that the Republicans and Democrats of way back when are the same as the parties are today.
It's just not the case.
Though they try to deny that this is reality, they have a bad history.
Look, obviously today Democrats would not be in favor of this, so we've progressed.
The reason I bring this up is that I wonder why they won't accept it.
Democrats, you came from a bad past.
You've now come to a better future.
You're not perfect.
Nobody is.
But shouldn't you be celebrating the change in your party?
And shouldn't you be celebrating the victories of progress within your party as you now come to reject these racist laws?
They want to talk about how these laws were mainly held in the American South.
In 1967, 16 states still retained anti-miscegenation laws, and it was the Loving v. Virginia case that went to the Supreme Court that officially made it It's quite legal for people of different races to actually get married.
Isn't that crazy?
This is within, like, our parents' lifetime.
My family grew up when this was going on.
So you want to talk about the horrifying, you know, pasts?
You want to talk about your 1619 Project?
I will never understand why the progressives won't just say, hey, guess what?
We're winning, we've been winning, and we're going to keep that going.
Perhaps it's because the people who actually hold liberty-minded views have abandoned that wing of the party.
At least I think so.
And we're seeing it more and more as more people walk away, as they say, from the Democratic Party, which used to be what they called liberals.
Republicans were conservatives.
I don't necessarily think it's true that the parties switched, but that's a whole contestant thing I don't want to get into.
The point is...
The 1619 Project, to me, is offensive.
Now look, I don't come from a family history that had anything to do with slavery.
My understanding is both sides of my family emigrated here well after all of this stuff.
I could be wrong, but I know for a fact that my mom's side of the family, they weren't here for any of this.
So, what I find offensive about it is not the history of slavery, but this negative view and this reductive view of race relations in this country, and how we've only recently come to a point in the past several decades, you know, maybe 60, 70 years, where we actually got rid of crazy laws in many of these states.
We did it!
We're winning, like things are getting better, yet they want you to perpetually be a victim and I absolutely refuse.
I take pride in my family's history rejecting these laws that were bad and racist.
So I'll absolutely claim my victory and say no.
It was the founding fathers and their ideas for all their faults that paved the way that allowed my family to reject this.
And miscegenation is still frowned upon in many parts of the world.
America is awesome.
Guess what?
We are able to fight for our rights, and we've won them.
So stop pretending that the Founding Fathers were bad people.
They were some of the greatest people who ever lived, and they were, by our standards today, pretty bad in a lot of ways.
But so was everyone else.
They were the thought leaders who helped change these things.
Of course, there were other great thought leaders in other countries who helped change things as well, and maybe led the charge before our founding fathers did, but I'm going to credit them with what they wrote and what they created that allowed me and my family to succeed and win where we did.
Which brings me to the 1776 Project.
The Washington Free Beacon writes, A group of predominantly African American academics, journalists, entrepreneurs, and community activists on Friday launched one of the most significant challenges yet to the New York Times controversial 1619 Project, which is named for the year slaves arrived in Virginia, and argues the United States was founded on racism.
Bob Woodson, a leader in the African-American community who has spent his career fighting to stave off the cycle of poverty and crime, argued on Friday at the 1619 Project's message that life outcomes for African-Americans are shaped by the history of slavery and Jim Crow is a lethal narrative that perpetuates a culture of victimhood in the African-American community.
During the launch of his new 1776 initiative, named for the year America was founded, Woodson said the new group would challenge those who assert America is forever defined by past failures.
Let's be real.
America has past failures.
And it's only through the lens of victory do we realize where we were wrong.
We made things a lot better.
And now opportunity is here, and it's not perfect.
You had things like blockbusting and redlining going well into the 1980s.
So, I'll be the first to say, America has had problems with racism.
But by today's standards, we are doing really, really well.
We need to figure out how to solve these problems.
But I don't think the answers are coming from today's modern left, because they've all kind of lost the plot.
Saying all white people are racist is not true.
What about Bernie Sanders who literally got arrested in the 60s fighting for civil rights?
Spare me.
What about the people of the North who fought to abolish slavery in the Civil War?
Spare me.
This country, it was the white people who weren't racist who actually are helping to expel the racism because surprise, surprise, they're the majority.
So it was only through the fact that many white people rejected this and those ideas prevailed that we were able to do away with the evils of racism.
But guess what?
Racism still exists, and it's substantially worse in other parts of the world.
Do we have a long way to go?
We do.
Are we doing better than ever?
You betcha.
And I'm proud to say it, coming with my family and everything they dealt with, I've never really had to experience the kind of legal hardships that my family did while my family was still alive.
I don't have to.
I don't have to worry about going into a place and dealing with signs or laws or fleeing states because we're winning.
And that means there are good times ahead.
Let's stop pretending like this country was evil and wrong.
There we go.
While different academics and journalists have criticized the 1619 Project since its release last year, the 1776 Project represents one of the largest coordinated challenges to the New York Times narrative.
It will focus its efforts on opposing the negative impact the 1619 story will have on future generations of African Americans.
The 1776 Project will promote a series of essays and educational resources that provide an aspirational and inspirational alternative to the Times' narrative.
People are inspired to achieve when they're given victories that are possible, not always showering them with injuries to be avoided, Woodson said alongside partners at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
The fatalistic narrative of the 1619 Project, which is already taught in thousands of classrooms across the country, according to the partnering Pulitzer Center, deprives African Americans of the agency to improve their lives, Woodson said.
This garbage that is coming down from the scholars and writers from 1619 is most hypocritical because they don't live in communities that are suffering.
They are advocating something they don't have to pay the penalty for.
Glenn Lowry, a professor of economics at Brown University and a 1776 contributor, echoed Woodson on the damaging impact the 1619 project message would have on future generations.
The idea that the specter of slavery still determines the character of life among African Americans is an affront to me, Lowry said at the Friday event.
We have shown, and will continue to show, that we are not merely baubles at the end of a historical string being pushed this way and that by forces beyond our control.
I believe in America, and I believe in black people, Lowery added.
Something tells me when I read that document that the 1619 Project authors don't.
They don't believe in America.
And I'm sorry to have to report, I got the impression they don't believe in black people.
The 1619 Project offers a very crippling message to our children, said Dr. Carol Swain, a former professor of political science at Princeton and Vanderbilt University.
I was spared from having that message brought to me, and I believe that if I'd been exposed to that, if I'd internalized that negative message, I don't believe that I would have been able to do the things I have done in life.
I'm going to give you a sad dose of reality.
It's true that in many circumstances racism, sexism, bigotry can hold you back.
But if you dwell on those things and believe that you can't succeed because of them, you won't.
If somebody has a failure, let's say they're not good at running and they want to be a runner, and they think the only reason they're not being chosen to compete in certain events is because of immutable characteristics, they won't be able to solve the problem.
But if they realize that it's possible the fault lies somewhere else, they can seek it out and solve this.
You need to reflect upon yourself.
The sad reality in this world is that everybody is dealt a hand of cards.
And some people get dealt really bad hands.
But if you play right, you can still win.
Poker, for example.
If somebody could be dealt a really awful hand in poker, they can still win by playing right, being smart, bluffing, or whatever they do.
Pressuring, there are ways to win.
That's the point of the game.
So, while there may be real hardships, the best you can do is focus on improving yourself and figuring out what you need to do to navigate this system.
But I've seen it too many times.
People being told, you will never succeed because of this.
This thing will hold you back.
And I say, I don't care.
I'm going to navigate this system.
I'm going to sail these waters.
As the saying goes, you can't change the direction of the wind, but you can adjust your sails.
So no matter what someone tells me, I will say no.
And for those that are fans of My Hero Academia, now I'm going to get some anime.
As the main character said, whatever the future is, if it's a bad one, punch through it.
Smash it.
Determine your own fate.
If there are people around you who try to hold you back for things you can't change, get rid of those people.
You can find a way.
Let's read a little bit more.
The 1619 Project was launched last summer to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first arrival of African slaves to the American colonies.
It aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative, and to show that different aspects of contemporary American life, from mass incarceration to rush hour traffic, are derived from America's history of slavery.
That's just so insane.
When you look back at your ancestry, you'll notice you've got two parents.
Those two parents have four parents.
Those four parents have... You get the point.
It becomes exponential.
And you go back in your family history and all of a sudden you have this massive map of all of these things that have come down to a single point.
You.
And of course, you can follow back just your father's father's father's father in one straight line and hyper-focus on the one guy 300 years ago who did one thing.
But you would be completely removing the contributions of all of the other people who contributed to your existence.
And that's true for our country as well.
There are so many people who contributed to the foundation and formation of this country.
And of course if you want to navigate one line, you can point to impacts that slavery had on basically everything, but you'd be ignoring literally everything else.
You'd also be ignoring that in today's day and age, we actually cherish We have people who fought to end slavery.
We have heroes of all races, and they're the people we look back on and celebrate.
These are people who rejected these notions.
So to say that today this country is founded on this idea, or that's going to hold you back, is an affront to what we've actually done in this country, and to the people who fought so hard for freedom and liberty for all people, regardless of your race, gender identity, national origin, religion, whatever.
We won.
But these people want to create a narrative that we didn't.
That no matter what we do, we can never succeed.
And that's defeatism.
And I refuse to accept that.
I think we're going to do better.
Now, for whatever reason, the modern iteration of the left we have today are people who absolutely need to be victims.
And so they latch onto this, and they refuse to let it go.
They try and claim that literally everything and everyone is racist and that's what we're seeing with the New York Times.
Because this mentality is inside our news media.
They won't tell you the truth.
And they won't be optimistic about it either.
They want you to feel bad and they want you to bow.
They want you to bend the knee and give up power because you are bad.
This is weird religious dogmatic nonsense.
They say that the intersectional feminists are a non-theistic religion.
Some professors have said that.
And it's true.
What they're presenting here is essentially, it's akin to original sin.
Something you can never get rid of unless you bow and apologize.
Something interesting happened, though, in the 2016 election.
Don't ask me why.
Maybe because Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate.
About 10 million people switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party to vote for Trump.
And with that exodus and the walk-away movement, you end up with a bunch of people who used to be liberal thought leaders no longer having anything to do with the Democratic Party and these institutions.
And now you can see them falling down this weird path of dogmatic cultism that no one wants to be a part of.
I think today a lot of people who think like I do are probably not paying attention, not active, not aware.
We call them the exhausted majority, traditional liberals.
They're not paying attention.
So they might read this and say, huh.
But I look to the UK and the segment I did earlier today on this channel, and I see the crushing defeat of the Labour Party.
If our mainstream institutions and the Democratic Party keep going down this path, it's only a matter of time before people like me, people who think the way I do and fit into a political space that I do, who aren't paying attention, start paying attention and walk away themselves.
Because I'll tell you what, When I tell my friends some of the things these people believe, they don't believe me.
They say, there's no way they're saying that.
And I'll show them the videos and I'll say, you need to start paying attention.
Because the people driving the bus that you're on are headed so far left, they're going off the cliff.
It's time to start paying attention.
I'm not saying the Republicans are the right choice.
I'm saying you need to wake up and speak up for once.
We've done great things in this country and the best is still ahead of us.
I hope.
We got a Mars mission.
We got the Artemis project.
Go to the moon.
Build a moon base.
Go to Mars.
I'm extremely excited for the successes of our country.
So long as we have people who actually believe in our successes.
And we start pushing away these people who want to claim that the only thing we have is our failures.
That's absolutely not true.
We're defined by our successes.
And I will absolutely hold up the success of the United States and show it off to everyone around the world and say, this is why we're better.
And the proof is in the pudding.
Because everybody wants to come here.
So if you think this country is horrifying, if you think we're defined by our failures, and we're full of racist bigots, I ask you why all of these non-white people want to immigrate to this country and join us.
Because we've done better than anyone else, and we've made a better world where you are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It's a different channel.
I will see you then.
There are no moderate Democrats in this country.
Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are supposed to be our choices for the not-far-left candidates, but even they are further left to where Barack Obama was.
And the best example—well, we have two—is Pete Buttigieg vowing to open up Obamacare to illegal immigrants, and Joe Biden apologizing for the Obama administration policy on immigration.
As many of you may be aware, Barack Obama was called the deporter-in-chief, deporting, I think, nearly like 3 million people.
Well, now that Joe Biden is trying to run for the president, I don't actually think he is, but now that he's, you know, in that position, he's actually apologizing, saying, you know, oh, we shouldn't have done it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, dude.
There's no moderate position.
It was only four years ago that Barack Obama was stronger on the borders and said no to a lot of the stuff.
Now, let's be real.
Barack Obama instituted DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, I think it's called.
Something like that.
These are the dreamers.
These are young people who came to this country, they had no idea what was going on, and now they grew up here and they live here and they're told they don't have legal status.
For me, I actually sympathize with this.
And I want to clarify something, too, because I was reading this article from Breitbart.
It says, Pete Buttigieg vows to open up Obamacare to illegal immigrants.
We have another story.
Buttigieg tells illegal immigrants that America is your country, too, in Spanish.
The important distinction between, you know, in these stories it's not being presented by the examiner and Breitbart, though they are the truth, he's talking about dreamers, not somebody who just wandered across the border yesterday.
He's talking about young people who grew up here and were brought here by their parents.
I think their parents broke the law.
I think their parents should be deboarded.
I don't think, or, you know, they can apply for legal status and do what they need to do.
I'm not a big fan, necessarily, of DACA.
But I understand you've got to draw a line at some point.
So, we'll read these stories, because I definitely want to get to the point of, you know, the Democrats just going further and further left.
But I first want to make sure it's clear, he's talking about giving healthcare to DREAMers if they pay for it.
There's a big difference between The challenge is where we draw the line on immigration.
funded health care to any illegal immigrant and somebody who's here and literally says,
here's 20 bucks.
I would like health care in exchange.
That makes sense.
The challenge is where we draw the line on immigration.
It seems like every single time Democrats propose some change on immigration, their
line of what is reasonable keeps moving.
Now there's got to be a hard stop.
I think it was Jordan Peterson who talks about how the left doesn't know how far is too far.
And so Republicans have their line on the far right.
They say, no, that's too much and we're going to get rid of somebody.
The Democrats will say, we need DACA.
After DACA, they say, we need to decriminalize border crossings.
We need to, you know, put a moratorium on deportations.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, stop, dude.
DACA is the compromise.
I'm not happy that these kids were brought here.
I think their parents did wrong.
But I also think it's absurd that someone could grow up in this country and then be like, what am I supposed to do?
I don't even know anybody in Mexico or Honduras or Guatemala or wherever they came from.
So in that regard, I begrudgingly say it's time for a solution and a compromise.
And that means first, we need to secure the borders.
We need to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
Then we can talk about how we can help these kids.
So deferring deportation or action, I think is fair.
If they want to pay into A public option that they literally have to pay for?
That's very, very different from what we see in California, where you could walk across the border, and if you're under 26, you get access to healthcare.
But, the point is, this is still them encroaching that line.
It's a big step from what Obama was proposing.
If Obama wasn't going to give them Obamacare, but he was going to defer action, and now Pete Buttigieg is saying, no, no, no, we will give you Obamacare, and you are a part of this country, and you know, all of that good stuff, you can see the line for the left just keeps moving.
I have no problem taking the moderate position of, you know, naturalization, a path to naturalization for dreamers, because I recognize the circumstances, and these are people who grew up and lived in America, I can respect that, but there's got to be a hard line, and I don't know how you do it, because the fear is, if you give in, they'll just keep pushing.
Doesn't happen on the right for whatever reason, but let's read.
Breitbart says, Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg promised an illegal immigrant
on Sunday they would have taxpayer-funded health care if he was
elected president.
As you know, the Affordable Care Act, one of the many missing pieces that it has
is that the exchanges are not available to the undocumented.
Yeah, and?
I would change that. And that would be a change that would come with the
Medicare for All Who Want It plan I'm proposing.
But I'll tell you this.
He's basically saying it's not a mandatory pay program that everyone would be involved in, it's Medicare-for-all-who-want-it, meaning these people would have to pay into that system.
That's my understanding.
If that's not the case, then I'm completely opposed to it.
But my general understanding of the public option is that you can choose to pay for a private health insurer, or you can choose to pay more to the government program.
I'm not a big fan or confident in that government program, but I do see that as a compromise.
And sure, maybe that's something that'll appease the far left.
It won't, because they always come crawling back for more.
The point is, he's talking specifically about DACA recipients.
Look, man, if you've got somebody who came here at six years old, they grew up here, and they need healthcare, what are you gonna do?
Do we just have them be second-class citizens?
I'm not a fan of that.
The big problem I have with the current Democrats' position on all of this, including DACA stuff, Is that they want to decriminalize border crossing, stop deportations and essentially create a serf class of people who can't get access to benefits and who are going to work for below minimum wage because these companies have no reason to report them.
And even if they did, they wouldn't be deported anyway.
So then American citizens are the first class citizens who get access to all these benefits and the second class citizens cross the border illegally.
And that's what the Democrats would create with the system.
There's another story where Buttigieg tells illegal immigrants that America is your country too, but it's important to point out he's talking about DREAMers.
Now, is it fair to call DREAMers illegal immigrants?
Yes.
100%.
But their parents take the blame.
That's the way I see it.
I don't like that their parents did this, but at certain points, like, dude, I do not like illegal immigration.
Okay?
We need... Immigration is a good thing.
General immigration.
The Democrats like to differentiate.
Or, I'm sorry, the Democrats like to not differentiate and act like immigration and illegal immigration are the exact same thing because they're all basically far left.
That's not fair.
Dreamers are undocumented.
They are illegal immigrants.
Some of them actually flaunt their status and that, to me, is disgusting.
You are here in a precarious position based on our good graces.
I am not a fan of classism.
I am not a fan of dragging these people or being mean.
But some of these people like to gloat about how they're going to school, they're undocumented and all these things, they're getting access to public benefits, they're using our resources.
I'm not a fan of that.
You're not contributing to what we're putting together.
And let me explain.
If we fund the roads, I love the roads because the libertarians love bringing it up, and you walk on that road and didn't pay for it, we have to pay for the damage that, you know... Actually, I'll give you this example.
Let's say you live in a house, and there's a creek behind your house, so you build a little bridge.
You pay for the materials, you do the labor.
One day, some random person walks across it.
Now it's got wear and tear.
You tell people, hey, please don't walk across my bridge, you're gonna break it, and they say, you can't stop me.
Eventually you have people illegally crossing your bridge and you have to pay to repair it.
They aren't contributing, but they are using your resources.
What a lot of people don't understand is that we pay for plumbing, we pay for infrastructure, we pay for roads.
These things break down over time.
That includes Dreamers, who came here illegally, but were underage for the most part.
So here's the compromise I come to.
Okay, fine.
The parents, you're responsible for this.
That was illegal.
You've got to pay a penalty.
You've got to be, you know, deported.
Whatever the system decides, I certainly think we can do this in a humane manner.
The young people, if you so choose, alright.
You've been here most of your life, we'll figure this out.
I can respect that.
But the problem, I see what this, and where it gets disconcerting to me, is that I think, even then, they're going to keep pushing that line.
I don't think there's necessarily a right approach to this, because the line will always move, and you don't want to create a pulling effect, where if you do grant amnesty or naturalization, then you then end up with more people trying to rush to the border like we saw with all the caravans.
Immigration controls are important, extremely important, to make sure the economy isn't being threatened and, you know, we can sustain the system and properly place people.
If we just allow people to come and do this non-stop, it gets worse.
So while I... I'll put it this way.
I begrudgingly accept DREAMers.
And I mean that as no disrespect to the DREAMers.
I think, you know, you're in a precarious position, and I will begrudgingly, as an American who's paid taxes, you know, my whole life, say, you know what?
Okay, we'll take care of this.
As long as people are willing to draw that hard line and say, no more.
We cannot allow this to continue.
This has got to be the last time.
Will that happen?
I doubt it.
Because as we can see, the Democrats continually push far left.
Look at this.
Joe Biden is confronted over deportation record by immigrant rights protesters outside Las Vegas event.
As campaign stresses, he'll perform better in more diverse states.
Biden on Univision.
Deporting three million was a big mistake.
The protests outside of their events are because they... Listen, if you bring in a bunch of illegal immigrants, if you let them come and stay, then of course they'll show up and protest your events and make you look bad.
And then if you allow them to stay, and then more come, it'll just keep happening.
There needs to be a hard stop.
I'm not convinced Democrats will do it.
But I'll tell you what, man, you ask me why I'm politically homeless and why I won't vote for Trump is that Trump's curbed all immigration by around 70%.
There's no compromise middle ground.
And look, I don't know what you want from me.
I'm talking to the Democrats.
Because if you can't stand up and propose a sane, rational compromise, then don't be surprised when Trump wins and curbs all of the immigration.
Or 70% of it.
Because I'll tell you what, it is not a sane policy to promise healthcare to non-citizens.
I'm sorry, it's just not.
It's not a sane policy to continually say that you will keep allowing non-citizens access to our resources, to come to our country, to not deport them, to say deportation is a mistake, to say that, you know, that we're just going to decriminalize border crossings.
That's just not sane.
And so you give moderate people a difficult choice.
Accept the dissolution of our borders or accept Trump who is going to curb 70% of immigration.
Trump wins in that regard.
I don't know, man.
You know, some of these issues are hard.
There's no middle ground.
There's no fence to sit on.
So I have to say that, you know, when I looked at the Obama administration, I begrudgingly accept DACA.
I do, you know.
And I think there are young people that can use our support.
I think if you're a snooty jerk who's disrespectful and gloating at exploiting the system, then maybe we should consider your status.
But these are people who aren't citizens.
And so that means the American community has to decide what works for America.
For the time being, Donald Trump represents those views that won.
And so you get what you get.
Democrats, if you don't get more moderate on this, you're going to lose.
And guess what?
They're not gonna get more moderate, so whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
We got a major breaking high profile trending fake news alert on Twitter right now.
Assange is trending with the fake news that Donald Trump was offering Assange a pardon if Assange helped him cover up Russian collusion.
It's fake.
It's a lie.
It's a smear campaign.
And I have no idea what's going on or why.
It's really strange.
The media is claiming this.
That Trump wanted Assange... I'll just read it for you.
Trump offered to pardon Assange if he covered up Russian interference in U.S.
election, court told.
No!
That's not what they were told first.
According to the lawyers from WikiLeaks... Actually, I'll read this for you.
But I want to... It's better if I just read it, and then I'm going to show you why it's fake news.
I have proof.
They're trying to smear Trump.
They're claiming it's going to hurt his re-election campaign because he's colluding with WikiLeaks or whatever.
WikiLeaks has always asserted Russia was not involved.
This makes no sense.
And I have proof.
Independent reports Trump offered to pardon Assange if he covered up Russian interference in U.S.
election.
WikiLeaks founder allegedly has evidence of visit from Republican congressman to Ecuadorian embassy on president's behalf.
Donald Trump offered to pardon Julian Assange if he covered up Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S.
election, a court heard.
The explosive claim, which could have profound consequences for Mr. Trump's re-election effort, if proven true, emerged as Assange, 48, appeared at Westminster's magistrate's court ahead of a hearing next week about his possible extradition to the U.S.
Assange's barrister highlighted evidence alleging former U.S.
Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in August
2017 in the early days of Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the
previous election. Edward Fitzgerald QC said a statement from Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson,
shows, quote, Mr. Rohrabacher going to see Mr. Assange and saying on instructions from the
president he was offering a pardon or some other way out if Mr. Assange dot, dot, dot said Russia had
nothing to do with the DNC leaks.
You know what those three dots mean?
It means they skipped over a large segment of what was actually said.
So, is the headline of this story and the major national trend too 100%?
No.
They said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.
This story is completely false.
Even that quote is false, and we don't even know what was stripped out of it.
This is one of the most egregious smear campaigns I've seen in a long time.
But rest assured, if you're a Trump supporter, I hope you're ready for all of these insane smears to come out in ridiculous fashion.
Julian Assange has always maintained in the DNC email leaks, his source was not Russian.
In fact, people close to WikiLeaks said, one guy said that, I think, it's been a long time, he actually met with someone to receive, you know, a USB drive or something to that effect.
But this was always disregarded by the media.
So now, I'll tell you what, man.
If there is anything that gets me mad, it's the media lying.
They are lying.
These are despicable, scummy people.
First, they assert it's a fact that Russia provided WikiLeaks with this information.
At least, that's what the FBI concluded.
The same FBI that launched the investigation into Trump during his campaign election, which Democrats assert should be abuse of power.
I don't trust them at all.
I claim that Russia actually was the one who did this hack.
Perhaps that could be the case.
It could be the case that Julian Assange didn't realize it was Russia that did the hack and then fed it to him.
But why would it make sense, in fact it doesn't, that Trump would ask Assange to say what Assange already said?
Now the way they frame it is the most disgusting thing.
If he covered up The interference.
Why would Trump ask Assange to cover it up by claiming Russia wasn't involved when Assange had already claimed he wasn't involved?
It's a lie!
A series of emails embarrassing for the Democrats in the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign were hacked before being published by Wikileaks in 2016.
Quote, It sure sounds like Assange's attorneys are prepared to back up this claim with evidence, said Ned Price, a former CIA official who served as special advisor to Barack Obama.
It's another indication that Trump's assault on the rule of law isn't new.
It's been ongoing throughout his term, and imagine just how we don't know yet.
District Judge Vanessa Bereitser said the evidence would be admissible during the next week's attrition hearing.
Assange is wanted in America to face 18 charges, including conspiring to commit computer intrusion, over the publication of U.S.
cables a decade ago.
He could face up to 175 years in jail if found guilty.
Just wait, I actually do have another story for you.
He's accused of working with former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents.
The extradition hearing is due to begin at Woolwich Crown Court on Monday, beginning with a week of legal argument.
It will then be adjourned and continue with a three weeks of evidence scheduled to begin on May 18th.
Copy editor guys.
The decision, which is expected months later, is likely to be appealed against by the losing side, whatever the outcome.
Assange has been held on remand in Belmarsh prison since last September after serving a 50-week jail sentence for breaching his bail conditions while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
He entered the building in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex offense allegations, which he has always denied and were subsequently dropped.
They say he appeared in court on Wednesday by video link from Belmarsh Prison wearing a dark tracksuit, bottoms, and a brown jumper over a white shirt.
He spoke to confirm his name and date of birth and sat holding a stack of papers during the hearing.
The hearing came after the Australian MPs George Christensen and Andrew Wilkie called on Tuesday for Boris Johnson to intervene and stop the extradition hearing.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is expected to become the first British MP to see Assange behind bars in a visit to Belmarsh on Thursday.
At a press conference on Tuesday, it emerged that fellow inmates at the high-security prison successfully lobbied for his release from solitary confinement.
Speaking after the press conference, Assange's father, John Shipton, said his son's condition had improved, but said the extradition going ahead would be akin to a death sentence.
You want to know what really happened?
Because here's the story from CBS Los Angeles, CBS2.
It's a video.
I'm not going to play for the most part.
But it reads, from three years ago, O.C.
Congressman suggests WikiLeaks founder can help make Trump-Russia investigation go away.
Why, that sounds like the independent story is actually true.
Guess what Donald Trump wanted from Julian Assange?
Did he want Julian Assange to cover up Russian interference?
No.
In this video, Rohrabacher says Julian Assange basically needs to squeal on his source.
And if he does, Trump will cut him a deal.
Let me make it clear for you guys.
This was a standard leniency option that anyone would receive if they rat on their sources or their co-conspirators or whatever.
Donald Trump want to know who the real source was.
You know why?
Because if Julian Assange announces who the actual source is for the emails, it could disprove the Russia investigation.
Not that he wants them to cover it up.
But of course, the system has been rigged from the start.
They're going to frame it by asking Assange.
This is a story from three years ago, where they actually interviewed Dana Rohrbacher.
And he said that we want to know who the source was.
It's essentially what he said.
Julian Assange has never revealed the identity of a source and refuses to, but he has maintained Russia had no involvement.
Trump is trying to shake down WikiLeaks.
I don't agree with it.
Julian Assange should not be extradited.
He should not be charged over this.
I don't trust it at all.
But I see what Donald Trump is doing, and it seems like standard criminal justice prosecutorial negotiation.
We will let you go if you give up the people who worked with you.
They want to know how he got those emails.
You know why?
If somebody hacked those emails, a crime was committed, and they want to know who committed it.
The FBI has concluded it was Russia.
Trump wants the evidence.
He could come out right now and say it was Russia.
But Assange has maintained it wasn't.
So naturally the Trump administration and his DOJ are saying, then who was it?
If you're going to deny it, Assange won't release it.
So you know what?
It's entirely possible it was Russia.
I'll throw some shade at WikiLeaks, because when the Seth Rich thing happened, they absolutely, Assange himself, played it up like he, like it was the source.
Like there was no hack, like it really was Seth Rich.
Please.
There's a line, and you absolutely could come out and give us some evidence to discredit the Russia stuff without naming names.
Or perhaps at this point, considering the sheer turmoil and chaos that's ensued in this country, and in the UK, and in your life, you would at least say something is true or isn't.
That's why I don't believe him.
Well, I shouldn't say I don't believe him, but that I believe Assange was saying some of these things to try and throw, you know, to make it seem like Sethridge was involved, spawning all these conspiracy theories.
I'm not interested.
Do you have evidence?
If not, then chill out and stop saying it.
But I'll tell you this, what we're seeing is another major smear, and people are going to believe it.
I cannot stand the media, man.
I want to swear really, really bad, because these people disgust me.
The story is not true.
And not only is it not true, the actual basis is three years old.
It is not a bombshell.
It is not a major breaking story.
It is old news.
Nothing new happened.
Trump is trying to get evidence from Assange and Assange wouldn't give it up.
So bravo to Assange for not squealing on your sources.
And Trump tried to get him to do it and he wouldn't.
And now it's being held against Trump.
You know what?
No matter what Trump does, they will always frame it in the worst possible light.
There's no cover-up.
They just want evidence.
Well, I'm glad Assange is going to defend his sources, but I'm just... I'm over it.
Whatever, man.
I'll leave it there.
Don't be surprised when more comes out.
It's going to get bad for Trump.
They're going to keep doing this.
I'll see you all in the next segment coming up in a few minutes.
So I did a segment about this Twitter feminist who was upset that South Park had corrupted the delicate sensibilities of our youth.
It's kind of funny because it comes off like the moral authoritarianism of, say, like, the old Christian conservatives back in the 90s and 2000s, but no, it's coming from millennial feminists these days.
Reminds me of, uh, you ever see Donnie Darko?
That one lady who's, like, fear and love and, like, it's like a won't-someone-think-of-the-children mentality.
I'm sorry.
I don't care.
I was a little kid.
I watched Beavis and the Butthead.
Get over it.
But this Twitter feminist is now shocked that people were taken aback when she tried to claim that South Park was essentially bad.
The story from Bounding into Comics reads, Marvel Studios She-Hulk writer Dana Schwartz responds to South Park criticism.
Is there something that women are allowed to have an opinion on?
Oh, and here it comes.
I'll tell you what, man.
You got 157,000 Excuse me, followers on Twitter.
So, uh, yeah.
If you tweet something, people are going to criticize you.
And I'll tell you what else.
You tweet tons of opinions.
It's just the bad one people didn't like.
Spare me.
I'm gonna call it out exactly as it is.
If you are a human being with a bad or stupid opinion, don't be surprised when someone criticizes that bad or stupid opinion.
If you're a woman who has a bad or stupid opinion, don't be surprised when people criticize your bad or stupid opinion.
I'm sorry.
It's not because you're a woman.
It's because you're an idiot.
Now let's read, because I'm gonna push back on a bunch of the tweets you put out.
Marvel Studios She-Hulk writer Dana Schwartz responded to her critics by claiming she's getting death threats and questioned if women are allowed to have opinions.
Earlier this month, she took to Twitter to state, quote, Now, it doesn't take a person of even great moral standards to say, death threats are wrong.
No one should be threatening this, you know, this woman And I gotta even say too, the insults on her appearance and her character and the dumb name-calling is all extremely awful.
Now look, people call me names all the time.
My Twitter is full of people insulting me and calling me the stupidest names you can think of.
Guess what?
It happens.
I'm an adult.
I got people who follow me.
So when I do a segment on dating or whatever, I love it.
I did a bunch of segments on dating, and boy do the feminists come for me with all of the same BS you're getting.
Oh, is there anything a man can have an opinion on?
Geez, no, I don't cry about it.
I just laugh that they're so obsessed with me and my stupid opinions on dating.
Yeah, stupid opinions.
I don't care.
I think what I think, I say what I want.
Grow up and get over it.
Death threats?
I get it.
When people threaten me, it's annoying.
I still don't talk about it because I don't want to give any of these individuals attention, but yeah, it happens, and it shouldn't.
So in that regard, I will absolutely defend this woman.
Yes, you're allowed to have an opinion, but you're also going to expect criticism, so please.
Don't act like people aren't allowed to insult you.
They say she would later target South Park fans, describing them as a generation of scared, vulnerable young men.
She would also target South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker based on their wealth and skin color.
She said Matt and Trey are rich white guys, and they convinced a generation of scared, vulnerable young men that irony will never hurt them.
Yes, you have bad opinions.
People love South Park.
It's like, if you come out and attack something people really like, and has been around for a couple decades, don't be surprised when people are like, you're dumb.
Following intense criticism of her attack on South Park, Schwartz is now claiming she's receiving death threats, and that she is a victim in this matter, despite being the one to initially attack South Park and their fans.
On Twitter, she wrote, I tweeted a pretty mild opinion.
Mild?
About a TV show on my own personal Twitter account like a week ago, and I've been getting multiple death threats every day since.
Like, lol, is there something that women are allowed to have an opinion on?
You know what's funny?
If it were really true that she was upset over it, she wouldn't keep tweeting about it.
It's also interesting to point out, she says, it's a pretty mild opinion on my own personal Twitter.
Dude, you have 157,000 followers.
You're a public figure.
You tweeted to 157,000 people.
If 100 people tweeted at you upset about it, that's your fault!
Like, you sent that message to them.
I love that Ricky Gervais joke where, like, he says he'll tweet something, and then it's not meant for you.
So, like, he said it like this.
Someone will find a flyer for guitar lessons, call you up and say, but I don't want any guitar lessons.
And he's like, they're not for you.
I love that bit, but I will push back on it.
It's a funny bit.
But when you have a million followers, you're sending that feed out directly to those followers.
Now they're asking to get the feed from you, but you are posting a message, and you know they are one of the people who are there to pick it up.
They will respond to you, and sometimes they will respond in a stupid way.
So it's fair to point out, yes, people do this.
But it's also fair to point out, Ricky, I'm sure he understands, people are gonna respond to him when he tweets.
You can make fun of him all day and night.
I think it's fair to make fun of the people responding to Dana Schwartz on Twitter saying stupid things, but to act like she's not allowed to have an opinion because someone gave their opinion back.
I'll ask this.
Is there anything that the people who follow Dana Schwartz are allowed to have an opinion on?
She's criticizing them for giving their opinion because they were criticizing her opinion when she gave it to them?
I can't stand this.
You're not in some special class.
You're in the fray like everybody else.
You go on Twitter and say words, people say words back.
How about you stop checking your mentions and ignore it like an adult?
She continues, like guys, I cannot tell you how crazy it's been.
This is the best part.
Crazy, almost constant emails, full like 15 minute videos on YouTube.
About how ugly I'm?
No, no.
Articles about me trying to get TV show cancelled?
Nope, wasn't trying to cancel anything, just tweeted a thought about it wild.
I'll point out the hilarity of me doing a 15 minute video about her, but I do think it's really crass to insult her appearance.
That's just stupid.
You wanna argue an idea, argue an idea.
So I'll give her a little defense in this regard.
Anybody who's messaging her, calling her names, insults or whatever, you're wasting time and you're part of the problem.
Here's what you do.
If you don't like what she says, you tweet at her saying, what you said is stupid for these reasons.
Here's what I think.
Okay, you can call it stupid.
That's fine.
I'm not talking about that.
You wanna call her an idiot?
No, no, that's fine too.
That's criticism.
I'm talking about people calling her like, you know, insult names or whatever.
Just like weird things.
I don't know.
I'll describe it.
Or insulting her appearance.
However, they go on to say, this is an outright lie.
She didn't just tweet a thought about South Park, she stated it was impossible to overstate the cultural damage done by South Park.
She attacked South Park fans calling them a generation of scared, vulnerable young men.
She even posited the idea that the animated comedy show should somehow propose real solutions for the United States of America's two-party system.
What?
She also attacked the show, claiming the problem with laughing at everything is that it is a privilege of people who have never faced systemic discrimination.
How do you know that?
How can you make an assumption about whether or not someone has experienced anything?
That's racist!
Again, you know, these people are insane.
Not only did Swartz attack the show, but it also brought to light some of her rather disturbing opinions on men and culture in general, not to mention her racist comments towards white men.
You know, I can't stand how people do this.
gave me a chocolate croissant this morning, and that is the only interaction with men I will allow from now on."
Okay, calm down. That's a joke.
You know, I can't stand how people do this.
Look, her tweets are stupid.
Her outrage over criticism is also stupid.
But you shouldn't call her ugly.
You shouldn't insult her.
You shouldn't call her insults.
And the tweet she made about getting a chocolate croissant from a man is a silly joke, and it's actually kind of funny.
You know, everybody wants to sling mud at each other and act like only they are the innocent one.
Dude.
You're criticizing her over a joke.
I actually think the joke is pretty funny.
She's actually making fun of feminists in a certain light in that regard, saying that, like, I will only accept chocolate croissants from men is an exaggeration.
It's an attempt at humor.
You don't have to think the joke is funny, but come on, man.
It's just a snarky joke.
Back in November, she called for the killing of Western Canon.
Now, that's a bit more... I'd imagine it's a bit facetious, but she really did put out an article saying, yeah, to do it.
So, of course she has dumb opinions.
You know, Tucker Carlson says he doesn't, you know, drag Rachel Maddow every night because it's just her opinions, and her opinions are stupid, and she's allowed to have them.
Dana's allowed to have stupid opinions.
And so are the rest of us.
So if you tweet something out, I make a video about it, or someone else responds, it's because we're allowed to say these things, and you should get over yourself.
No one's coming after you for being a woman.
Okay, I'm sorry, that's not true.
Some people probably are.
People come after me for being a dude.
People come after me for having, I don't know, no hair, or crooked teeth, or wearing the beanie too much, or whatever.
It's a part of being an adult.
They go into a lot of detail on this.
I'm not super... You know, I don't care too much about these tweets.
But I'm gonna throw a little shade at Bounding into comics.
Because you can't simultaneously criticize her because her opinions are bad.
Like, because she's angry at getting this attention and then... Well, let me rephrase it.
I guess it's kind of like what I already said.
Look, we know Dana Schwartz has dumb opinions, but she's allowed to have them.
You want to call her hypocritical, I can respect that, so fine.
I'll give credit to Bounding into Comics in that regard.
Dana is complaining that people are mad at her when she says stupid things on Twitter.
It reminds me of that meme where the feminist is shoveling crap into... There's a wall that says the internet, and she throws crap over it, and then when they throw crap back, she goes, help, help, misogyny.
Yeah, that's a fine criticism.
I can respect that.
But, like, you know...
Whatever man, this is dumb.
I don't even know if I'm doing a video about this.
I think it's just... I don't even care.
I don't even care anymore.
I'm sick and tired of people pretending like they're immune from criticism.
So I'll wrap it up with this.
Is there something that women are allowed to have an opinion on is why I decided to talk about this.
It has nothing to do with you being a woman.
It has everything to do with you being a human being who says a word.
For some reason, feminists seem to think that men don't do these same things to each other.
You know how many dudes message me every day with dumb opinions, and they're mad at me and they're insulting me?
I get emails all the time.
Like, one dude emails me every day to call me a moron.
What am I gonna do?
You want me to come on Twitter and complain about it?
