S544 - Oregon Counties WILL Vote On Seceding Over Anger At Failed Democrat Policy And Far Left Antifa Riots
Oregon Counties WILL Vote On Seceding Over Anger At Failed Democrat Policy And Far Left Antifa Riots. Conservatives in several key counties are hoping to create a state called Greater Idaho which would function the same as Idaho but withy expanded territory.Republican voters feel they are not being represented in Oregon as Democrats in Portland continue to favor only one side of the spectrum. While Far Left Antifa riots sweep their major cities the Democrats continue to provide relief mostly to cities igniting outrage among conservativesThe proposed policy would also move northern California into greater Idaho as well.Meanwhile in many other counties similar moves are being made.Republicans and outraged Californians also move to recall governor Gavin newsom
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
After only 36 days in office, he has already begun campaigns in the Middle East and military actions.
This has triggered outrage across the political spectrum.
In other news, in the state of Oregon, five counties will be voting on secession come this May.
If they secure this vote, they seek to move the border of Idaho into Oregon, creating a new state called Greater Idaho.
And over in the strange cultural news, Mr. Potato Head is no longer mister, and for some reason people are really concerned about a potato-shaped toy.
But in this frame of reference, we have something called ending gender segregation.
And while the potato head toy may be no big news, we are seeing the passing of the Equality Act through the House of Representatives, and it may actually become law.
Let's jump in to the first story.
Rumors began circulating immediately after Joe Biden was inaugurated that U.S.
troops had begun moving through Syria.
This was contested by Western sources, and it was confirmed by more, you know, anti-U.S.
sources.
A lot of countries that don't like the United States were saying, yup, the U.S.
is moving into Syria.
Well, everybody said it was disputed.
The mainstream media said, it's not necessarily true.
Don't believe what you see because it's coming from, you know, Turkey or from Iran or something like that.
Well, I don't want to play light, make light of what's going on, but I do want to show this meme from yesterday at 7.40 p.m.
Luka Kowski says, I posted this meme weeks ago, here we go.
And it's a woman crying, wearing a hat that says, I elected Biden and Harris, and she says, babe, will you give me my $2,000 check, please?
And Biden, with sunglasses on, aviators, by the way, eating an ice cream cone, says, of course, honey, I'll reinvade Syria ASAP.
We knew it was going to happen.
I mean, I was counting down the days.
We kept saying, like, as soon as Biden gets in, the bombings will resume.
A lot of people are really upset.
I'm really upset.
Biden has ordered airstrikes in Syria, retaliating against Iran-backed militias.
The president approved the bombings, even as he pursues a diplomatic initiative with Iran to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement.
Now, the bombings with Syria, the attack on Syria, has a lot to do with something called the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, which you may be familiar with.
U.S.
interests, Western interests, want a pipeline going from Qatar, natural gas, up through, you know, Syria, through Turkey into Europe to offset a the European I'm
sorry the Russian gas prom natural gas monopoly to lower the cost of energy for Europeans to
strengthen our European allies things like that I understand why they want to do it in
order to do it they had to blow Syria they had to blow it up
Syria wasn't going to allow us to do this.
So there's reports going back to even like 2009 where the U.S.
was talking about needing to get through Syria because Bashar al-Assad, who, you know, was the guy in charge of Syria, the president, I believe the president, whatever title they use, he wasn't going to allow us to do it because he was allied with Russia.
Then we saw the whole Russia narrative with Trump.
And I believe a lot of it probably had to do with the fact that with Trump in office, wanting peace in the Middle East, he's going to help Russia, they said.
That was the narrative.
We're now learning as well, that also alongside these airstrikes in Syria, they are preparing to sanction Russia.
Here we go.
Before Donald Trump got elected, Hillary Clinton was warned that the actions being taken in Syria could lead to war with Russia.
And I think that's where we're headed.
One of the interesting things about the whole Russiagate fiasco, scandal, was that apparently in one meeting, and fact-check me on this one, because I haven't read this in a minute, so I could be getting it wrong, but my understanding is that Michael Flynn told... What's her name?
I'm forgetting the woman's name.
He told one woman, who worked in the Obama administration, that he felt China was a bigger threat than Russia.
And that made, you know, sent off alarm bells.
Selly Yates, I think it was Selly Yates, I could be wrong.
Sent off alarm bells.
Oh no, they're trying to deflect from Russia.
China is a very serious threat to the United States.
Many articles have been written going back several years about something called Thucydides Trap, which I've talked about.
Basically saying that as an economic power rises and comes to challenge the dominant power, war breaks out in most circumstances.
I think it's like 12 of 16.
So there is a big fear that there's going to be war between the U.S.
and China, but for some reason, the Democrats, Biden, his administration, are focused on going after Russia.
Now again, I think it has a lot to do with getting natural gas into Europe, because they want to strengthen, you know, our ties with European nations, perhaps.
I wonder if Trump, you know, they want to claim it was a big conspiracy and that he was secretly working with Russia, or he was just an outsider who wasn't playing ball with what they wanted to do in foreign policy.
And it's often said that, you know, these people run for president and they have all these policy ideas.
Once they get in, you have the intelligence agencies and European nations saying, look at the information.
We need to follow through with this foreign policy strategy for these reasons.
Most presidents say, OK, and the bombings resume.
Donald Trump, however, probably went, no, no, I'm in charge.
I'm the president.
We're going to stop China.
Do you understand China?
And the rest is history.
So here we go.
Could this mean war with Russia?
I mean, you airstrike Syria.
You sanction Russia.
I mean, they are poking the bear.
I don't know what to expect.
Let's read the news.
NBC says Biden orders airstrikes in Syria retaliating against Iran-backed militias.
The president approved the bombings, even as he pursues a diplomatic initiative with Iran to revive the nuclear agreement.
They say the strikes killed at least 22 people.
London-based Syria Observatory for Human Rights said on Friday, citing unconfirmed local reports, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby portrayed the bombing in eastern Syria as carefully calibrated, calling it proportionate and defensive.
Do you know who likes to claim that, I don't know, throwing things at people and beating people is defense?
That's like what Antifa says.
They'll beat you and say, I'm defending myself.
It's like you literally started a fight.
I get it.
They're saying that these Iran-backed militias were attacking our interests, and so we're trying to offensively defend ourselves, stopping them.
They say the operation was the first known use of military force by the Biden administration, which has for weeks emphasized plans to focus more on challenges posed by China, which we all thought was going to happen.
The President's decision appeared aimed at sending a signal to Iran and its proxies in the region that Washington would not tolerate attacks on its personnel in Iraq, even at a sensitive diplomatic moment.
Three rocket attacks in one week in Iraq, including a deadly strike that hit a U.S.-led coalition base in the northern Iraqi town of Erbil, presented a test for Biden only weeks after assuming the presidency.
The rocket assaults coincided with a diplomatic initiative launched by the administration to try to revive a 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers.
The airstrikes, quote, were authorized in response to recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq and to ongoing threats to those personnel.
The operation destroyed multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian-backed militant groups, including Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyed al-Shuhada, he said.
Syrian and Iranian officials did not immediately react to the strikes.
Russia, one of Syrian President Bashar Assad's chief backers, said it was given just four or five minutes warning before the strikes.
Quote, this kind of notification does nothing when the strike is literally already on its way, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow.
The U.S.
was operating in Syria illegally, he said, and called for better communication with the Biden administration.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said most of the 22 people killed in the bombings were members of Iraqi militias.
The monitoring group did not provide details about how it obtained that figure, but Rami Abdulrahman, head of the rights organization, told NBC News it was based on speaking to sources inside Syria.
He added that the death toll was expected to rise due to the number of people seriously wounded.
Iran's state broadcaster, IRIB News, meanwhile, said 17 resistance fighters were killed in the strikes, but also didn't provide detail about the source of that figure other than citing reports.
A senior U.S.
defense official told NBC News on Thursday evening that the target was a transit hub near the Iraqi-Syrian border used by the militia fighters, and it was too early to say what casualties might have been inflicted on the militias.
The operation sends an unambiguous message.
President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel.
At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to deescalate the overall situation in both eastern Syria and Iraq, he said.
I'd like to point out, I don't think Biden actually did anything, to be honest.
I don't know who ordered the strikes, but Biden was probably sitting in a wheelchair with a burlap, you know, with like a little blanket on his lap and he's sitting in the sun and he's snoring with his aviators on.
NBC News reports two U.S.
aircraft were involved in the strikes that took place at about 6 p.m.
EST on Thursday or 2 a.m.
Friday in Syria.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters traveling with him that the administration had been very deliberate about our approach.
We're confident that target was being used by the same Shia militia that conducted the strikes, Austin said, referring to the recent rocket attacks in Iraq on U.S.
and coalition personnel.
The Pentagon had said previously that it was awaiting the results of the Iraqi investigation into the Erbil rocket attack.
Quote, We allowed and encouraged the Iraqis to investigate and develop intelligence, and that was very helpful to us in refining the target, said Austin.
Biden had approved the operation on Thursday morning, he said.
A civilian contractor was killed in the Erbil rocket assault, and a U.S.
service member and others were wounded.
At least two 107mm rockets landed on the base, which also hosts Erbil's civilian international airport.
NBC News had previously reported that Iranian-backed militias were most likely behind the Erbil rocket attack, and that the weapons and tactics resembled previous attacks by the Iranian-linked militias.
However, it was unclear if Iran had encouraged or ordered the rocket attack.
They're going to say an obscure group called Saraya Aliya Aldam, or Custodians of the Blood, claimed responsibility for the Erbil attack, but former diplomats and regional analysts said the group was merely a front organization created by the main Shiite militias in Iraq.
Following the rocket attack on the Erbil base, Iraq's Balad Air Base came under rocket fire days later, where a U.S.
defense firm services the country's fighter jets, and then two rockets landed near the U.S.
embassy compound in Baghdad.
Iran has rejected any connection to the rocket attacks.
In a phone call Tuesday between Biden and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, the two leaders agreed that those responsible for such attacks must be held fully to account, according to a White House readout of the conversation.
I normally don't read so heavily and just go through these stories, but this is probably one of the most substantive and significant stories that we have seen in a very, very long time.
It is only, I believe, 36 days, people are mentioning, into the Joe Biden administration, just about 36 days, and he has already ordered airstrikes into Syria.
Donald Trump also ordered 59 Tomahawk missiles fired into Syria as well, early on in his presidency, I believe, after like the first year, however.
A lot of people are concerned that this could destabilize the region after we have these historic peace agreements, the Abraham Accords, and I gotta say, I think so as well.
That is probably my biggest concern.
Look, Donald Trump, his plan really did seem to be stop all of the fighting.
We had an interesting conversation last night on the IRL podcast with Ethan Suplee, the actor.
He was mentioning that the US economy, I mean the debt we have, is propped up by the petrodollar.
The fact that we basically force everyone to buy oil using our currency means no matter what we do in terms of printing money, we don't have to actually make anything as long as people are forced to use our money for oil.
So we can print trillions and trillions of dollars, and we're like, so what?
It'll devalue the money you're holding, and you'll have to buy more from us.
So here's how it basically works.
If, you know, you have country X, which is a hypothetical country, and they want oil, but their currency is called, you know, the currency X.
They have to trade that currency for U.S.
dollars, and then they can buy oil with U.S.
dollars.
What that means is, if their economy is weak and they don't have access to U.S.
dollars, they can't buy all that much oil.
So, my understanding is that most companies have to export more than they import to have a net output, a net gain in their currency, so they can trade it to the U.S.
The U.S.
then gets access to those goods made by those countries.
Take the money out of the equation.
You basically have the U.S.
saying, give us your stuff or you get no oil.
That's the gist of why the U.S.
is so hell-bent on being in the Middle East, taking oil fields, you know, propping up to a certain degree, things like OPEC, and wanting to build natural gas pipelines.
It's not just about oil, obviously.
It's fossil fuels in general.
We want to maintain that petrodollar.
What's happening with Syria, apparently, is Russia's not too on board with this.
There's been reporting going back years that Russia was trying to offload U.S.
debt and find other ways of procuring oil, and we see what happens to world leaders.
Well, you know, call them whatever you want.
Who decide they don't want to use dollars anymore.
Muammar Gaddafi wanted to use the gold dinar, it's my understanding.
And Saddam Hussein wanted to use euro, or at least something else.
And the US just said, no.
You're not going to do it.
And here we are.
It leads to long wars.
I know a lot of people, they like to talk about the, you know, globalism and like the one world government.
I'm like, listen.
You realize we basically have that right now.
The United States and the petrodollar.
China can be big, whatever.
As long as they function off the dollar, then there's a global system in place that maintains control and order over everything.
Because oil is, you know, oil and fossil fuels, a key component in any kind of economic growth for basically every country.
It is, you know, you need the energy.
Let me show you something.
First, I want to point out this great tweet from Glenn Greenwald.
He said, "...delivered with empathy and compassion by a diverse cabinet in response to a report that the U.S.
had carried out airstrikes."
Glenn then says, someone should ask Press Secretary Jen Psaki her own question verbatim about Biden's Syria bombing at tomorrow's briefing.
And while the context of her tweet was Trump's bombing of Syrian forces, the question still applies.
Jen Psaki tweeted, April 6, 2017, during the Trump administration, Also, what is the legal authority for strikes?
Assad is a brutal dictator, but Syria is a sovereign country.
That's a good point.
Glenn says there's always a tweet.
There is.
He then says, he shows a tweet from Kamala Harris in 2018, which said, I strongly support our men and women in uniform and believe we must hold Assad accountable for his unconscionable use of chemical weapons.
But I am deeply concerned about the legal rationale of last night's strikes.
That was in 2018.
Glenn Greenwald says, Glenn!
This is why I was amazed at the willingness of reporters who know better to try to encourage people to believe there
was any relationship whatsoever between the dam- what Dems said they were doing, they do during the campaign, and
their platform, and the reality of what they do once they got power.
Glenn, you called it perfectly.
Now, my friends, what do you think the good ol' mainstream media is doing?
There's a song by a band called the Decemberists.
The song is Sixteen Military Wives.
Give it a listen.
You may think it's so liberal propaganda from the Bush years, and it's probably true, but the lyrics are interesting.
Because at one point he says, and the anchor person on TV goes la-dee-da-dee-da.
Basically the song is talking about America saying, we get what we want, we're going to go in your country.
And it's basically about these military wives whose husbands were killed overseas.
Something to that effect.
It's been a long time since I listened to the song.
But one of the best lines is he says, and the anchor person on TV goes la-dee-da-dee-da.
Just ignoring what's happening around the world.
First, let me give a shout out to NBC News, because they do have on their front page, Biden ordered airstrikes in Syria, retaliating against Iranian-backed militias.
But it isn't their lead.
It's not the big story, but okay, okay, look, there's three stories right up top, and airstrikes is right there on the right, so I respect that.
Their big story, however, is about Biden and his global vaccine program.
But what he does, Biden says he wants to help a global vaccine program.
Then we see the COVID checks, and then we see the airstrikes.
But I can respect that they still talked about the airstrikes.
I'm sure the New York Times has something.
What do we play?
Front page of the New York Times.
Minimum wage deal.
Neera Tanden?
What do we got here?
Conservative annual CPAC meeting.
The Pfizer dose.
Coronavirus.
The mayor of Washington.
Tracking COVID cases.
Opinion pieces.
Where's the CEO?
Below the fold!
So, below the fold is a reference to when you open the page, what do you see?
And then when the newspapers were folded, it was front page, but below the fold meant nobody saw that as the big story.
And so, a lot of people would say, I want to buy ad space above the fold, right?
So here you can see we finally scrolled out, ah, there it is!
Okay, well they're covering it, alright, you know, what more can I say?
What do we have here over at politico.com?
Harris gets a crash course on foreign policy.
Are you serious?
Kamala Harris, who denounced Trump's Syria strikes?
Come on, where's the Syria stuff?
Politico, not covering it.
Okay, you know, to be fair, maybe Politico is trying to focus more on hard politics and they don't think that the Syria strikes fall into that, I suppose.
All right, well, you know, there you go.
We got CBS News, who absolutely did put it right on their front page.
So I respect it.
I'm showing you these things because I'm not trying to claim that all of the media everywhere is ignoring this story.
CBS, NBC have it front and center.
CBS, big, bold, biggest story of the day.
Good.
People need to know this.
If we ignore these things, then don't be surprised when bad things happen, and you're left clueless, or when this country is put at risk.
The actions of the United States, in the Middle East going back decades, resulted in what the CIA referred to as blowback.
The people who live there don't like us all that much, and they retaliate against us with acts of terror.
And it's very convenient for the military-industrial complex, these big weapons manufacturers, and the United States, and their efforts, when the American people don't know why we're being attacked.
That's the scariest thing.
Look, there have been some major moments in U.S.
history.
Attacks on embassies and things like that that were the result of what the CIA referred to as blowback.
Our operations in the Middle East were triggering groups to come and retaliate against us.
It wasn't because they hated our freedom.
But many people in America just don't know what's happening overseas and don't want to know and they don't care.
We'll see how many people actually watch this video, to be completely honest.
I know I could probably do a video about some... Mr. Potato Head is no longer a man!
And get way more views.
Because it's a cultural issue that affects Americans here on the ground, here at home.
And we, and it, you know, I don't know.
That kind of stuff, we can see.
We can feel, we can experience.
But when it comes to war, we don't see it.
So what's scary is, someone will attack us.
You know, maybe Russia will retaliate in some capacity.
And then these people who have no idea what's going on will hear, oh no, we're just being attacked for no reason.
And then the angry and ignorant will provide their resources and support to a manipulative and destructive system for what?
Conflict?
War?
I'm not so naive to ignore what's really going on in this world.
I don't know everything.
I don't have access to all the secret, privied, classified, and confidential information.
But I can tell you, like I mentioned with the petrodollar, the powers that be, like Joe Biden, they're not trying to... I don't think they want Americans to, like... It's really hard.
It's really hard.
Let me put it this way.
Try and get these words out properly.
They're trying to maintain the American empire.
I don't think they care about you, but it does benefit you.
And so the question is, if we stop in the United States, and say we're going to back away from the Middle East, and I'm in favor of peace agreements in the Middle East, then what happens?
China comes in.
We could abandon the petrodollar idea, we could abandon the war and all that stuff, and then when Russia and China fill that vacuum and gain that power, we run the risk of in 20-30 years living under a Chinese global order.
If they become the superpower, and they probably are, then eventually their influence suppresses the United States, and they'll start saying, you need to do the things we want you to do.
And then in the U.S.
you'll find harder to get imports, standard of living that's going down, and then we'll be forced to abide by international trade agreements set by China, dictated by China, which would restrict freedoms, suspend the Constitution, things like that.
And that may already be happening.
That's the scary thing.
So how do we stop that?
I honestly don't know.
If the U.S.
is really trying to get this fuel and energy in an effort to grow the U.S.
economy and maintain U.S.
empirical power, or whatever you want to call it, then it would stop China from imposing their will on the rest of the world.
But it doesn't seem to be working.
Thucydides' trap seems to be legitimate.
China is growing rapidly, and they're becoming more and more powerful.
And Biden is focusing on Russia.
Biden administration preparing to sanction Russia for solar winds hack and for the poisoning of an opposition leader.
And I get it, those are bad things, sure.
But does Biden really want to go up against China?
Or is Biden's, you know, transition team cabinet now, these individuals, are they in favor of China?
Well, we're gonna have some more of these conversations coming up this week or next week with experts on the issue to talk about what's going on with China.
But I have to say, I think Biden's gonna go right back to Russia.
The bombing of Syria They're a Russian ally.
I think they care about Russia.
I really do.
They're trying to get the gas pipeline into Europe.
I think it has everything to do with Russia and the Gazprom gas monopoly.
They don't like Russia.
But maybe that's a little bit too simplistic.
Maybe the real issue is what's standing in the way from European expansion is access to cheap and efficient fuels, which they would require the Qatar-Turkey pipeline to offset this monopoly.
And the U.S.
does want to defeat China, but Russia is in the way.
So let's, you know, let's try and have a legitimate conversation about the nuances of what's going on.
I am no fan of the war, of the bombings, of the airstrikes, and my opinion is that it's going to result in further destabilization.
But I say these things because there's probably so much.
Right now, there's probably somebody watching this video who has clearance, who's saying, man, if only you knew.
If only you knew what was really going on.
I've long talked about how every president that comes in can talk all these whisper-sweet-nothings about ending war, and then they get this big ol' stack of files dropped on their desk, and they open it up and go, ah!
That's what's happening?
So we just don't know.
And that's a problem.
But it's, it's, it's, it's... It's a difficult problem.
You know, you can't give out classified secrets which could put the country at risk, and at the same time, we just don't know, man.
I want war to stop.
But I'm not a child.
So it's really difficult for me to know what the right moves are.
And that's the adult conversation that happens in these regards.
I think ultimately everyone's going to struggle and fight for power, lie, cheat, and steal to get it, U.S.
included.
So I want to make sure that there's scrutiny on what my tax dollars go to.
But the bigger picture, we don't know.
And I wish it were more simple than it is.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
As the political tensions in this country escalate and hyper-polarization of the political tribes only gets worse, there are many different counties in certain states that are trying to secede from the state to join a different state.
To put it simply, Red counties, conservative counties that live in blue states dominated by big city liberals don't want to be under the laws of cities that don't make sense for them.
The most notable of these counties would be five Oregon counties who want to vote on leaving the state to create Greater Idaho.
And as you can see on the screen, it's a particularly large state.
But there's also a movement to create the state of Jefferson.
Northern California recently, the leader of the Jefferson movement, was on Fox News talking about why they want to create the 51st state.
Because Northern California is not adequately represented by California, and thus the people who live there don't have adequate representation at the federal level.
And there's another county Weld County in Colorado wants to leave and join Wyoming.
Many people are upset with the Democrat-Liberal order in their blue states.
People in Greater Idaho's movement, as well as in the State of Jefferson movement, are complaining that California is effectively a failed state.
Governor Gavin Newsom is facing a recall, and many other states are furious with their governors.
Now, this is the, I guess, logical conclusion to rapid polarization of the political tribes.
And I don't know if there's anything else we can do, to be honest.
Because outside of this, we've heard a lot from people saying maybe it's time for a peaceful divorce.
That red states and blue states should simply go their other direction.
Some people have said we should have the United States of Canada, and Northern U.S.
states should join Canada and the rest should become Jesusland, as the meme claims.
In one viral tweet over the Mr. Potato Head faux scandal, Mark Dice, a YouTube commentator, said it's time for Republican states to secede.
But maybe that doesn't need to happen just yet.
Or maybe it doesn't matter.
These counties in Oregon are going to be voting in May on whether or not they will join Idaho.
In order for this to actually happen, I think there's got to be, I think it's called an Article 5 Convention of States.
So I'm not entirely sure this would ever actually happen.
But you can certainly see the sentiment among people.
In an interview, the leader of the Jefferson State Movement in California said,
when government does not adequately represent its people, it is incumbent upon the people to
form a more adequate government. So what do we do?
If these states don't allow people to move or change, then you will likely see conflict and turmoil.
People are going to start fleeing states, and if we don't shift things around a little bit to stop the polarization, Then a lot of people are only going to leave those states, and we're going to see the states become deeper blue, deeper red.
And then what happens when you have a permanent majority, single-party rule, and half the country feels like they will never get representation?
I'm sorry, but that just leads to outright conflict.
I think we're at an age, a time, where violence doesn't work anymore, for the most part.
I mean, like, overwhelmingly, it'll just make you look bad and people won't like you.
So eventually, if these places do not have adequate representation, eventually they'll just start flying their own flags and disregarding the authority of those they feel do not represent them.
So let's read through all these stories to learn about what's going on with these states, why they want to leave, and how they... I mean, it seems like many different locations are planning this, and it could have some deep political impact at the federal level, especially with the midterms coming up.
I'm, again, not suggesting these initiatives will pass, but the anger is becoming more and more noticeable that something needs to happen.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member.
We got a bunch of members-only exclusive segments and full podcast episodes talking about a variety of issues.
We set up TimCast.com so that in the event we get banned or purged, there's a place you can go to get access to our content.
So I say our because there's more people in the TimCast IRL show.
But please consider supporting my work at TimCast.com and don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's learn about the disgruntled Oregonian conservatives who are going to vote to leave the state.
From the Idaho Statesman, I think this is the best source for the matter, they say, Disgruntled Oregonians joining Idaho?
Some Oregon counties to vote on it this May.
They say a group of residents in Oregon could be a step closer to their goal of joining Idaho.
Voters in five Oregon counties will cast ballots May 18th on initiatives to join the state of Idaho, move Oregon's border, President Mike McCarter said Monday.
The group was already awarded measures in Grant, Mallior, and Sherman counties,
and it awaits signature verification in Baker and Lake counties, McArthur said. He said the
group submitted 141 percent of the signatures required in those counties. I mean, they've got
the movement to make this happen. The group of conservative Oregonians created a petition last
year to move Idaho's border west to include part of their state, McClatchy News reported.
It's part of the Greater Idaho Project, which would allow some Oregon counties to join a state that some people say more closely aligns with their political preferences.
It's a complicated, multi-step process that would require local ballot measures and state and federal approval.
The group hopes to eventually consume all but 14 of Oregon's 36 counties.
Proponents say the swaths of conservative, pro-Trump, anti-tax voters in rural parts of Oregon have more in common with Idaho, and they want to claim it as their own state, McClatchy News reported.
I'll just pause and say I think we all recognize that's objectively true.
Rural counties have become increasingly outraged by laws coming out of the Oregon legislature that threaten our livelihoods, our industries, our wallet, our gun rights, and our values.
McCarter previously said, We tried voting those legislators out, but rural Oregon is outnumbered and our voices are now ignored.
This is our last resort.
The coronavirus pandemic has helped solidify the Move Oregon border group's feelings.
During COVID-19 lockdowns, McCarter said, lawmakers gave COVID relief to urban Oregon instead of rural Oregon.
Some in the group say they are tied to their communities and don't want to move to Idaho, but rather move Idaho to them.
Move Oregon's Border is working to collect more signatures for a ballot initiative in seven counties, including Curry, Josephine, Jackson, Klamath, Harney, Morrow, and Umatilla.
Quote, Divisions in Oregon are getting dangerous, so we see the relocation of the border as a way to keep the peace.
It's not divisive, McCarter said.
Oregon and Idaho are already divided by a state line.
The problem is that the location of the state line was decided 161 years ago and is now outdated.
In this image on the screen, you can see that the idea for Greater Idaho actually includes portions of California, so you can't just have Oregon counties vote on this.
If they do, then Idaho may expand its borders, pending state and federal approval.
And that would not include California.
So Greater Idaho, as it stands now, probably would not reach that far.
But you know what?
They're right.
Maybe we need to do this.
Look, the idea of states makes a lot of sense, but we're at a point now where politics has shifted dramatically.
We have something you probably know about called gerrymandering, where we move around congressional borders every, you know, I believe it's like, what, every 10 years or so, based on population changes.
Well, what about state borders?
I think, for the health of this nation, this makes a lot of sense.
The alternative is what?
We have people saying peaceful divorce.
If the people of Oregon don't like what's going on there, they can leave and go to a different state.
But then we'll see all of the really blue, you know, Democrat-type voters, tribalists, stay there.
Idaho will become more and more red, and that will create a very, very serious divide.
Now, to be honest, it's not like this is changing anything.
Instead of people going to Idaho, Idaho goes to them, and the deep divide continues.
But that may actually just change the balance of power, particularly if they get the state of Jefferson, because that would create a new conservative state, which would give Republicans, very likely Republicans, two more senators.
Now, I can already hear the Democrats saying, you can't do that, that's cheating, that's not fair.
So would making DC a state and Puerto Rico a state to add four Democrat senators.
You see the problem here?
The hyperpolarization of this country, the divide, is so deep that people are now fighting over creating new jurisdictions in order to gain permanent power in government.
How about we just do something to stop all of that?
The sad reality is I don't think the Greater Idaho Movement solves the bigger problem, and peaceful divorce, which many people bring up, still might make a lot of sense.
But I think that's dangerous for the world.
Listen, we may be at odds with each other politically in this country, and we need to find a way to bridge that gap.
And that includes the left, chilling the F out and calming down.
Now, I can already, once again, hear the left saying, I'm biased on this one.
Listen, I referenced Echelon Insights.
They did a study.
They asked Republicans their concerns.
Illegal immigration.
They asked Democrats their concerns, and Democrats said Trump supporters.
Then white nationalism.
The Democrats are just absolutely pointed in the direction of targeting and going after anyone on the right, and the right is not doing the same to the left.
So the left needs to chill out the antagonism.
Otherwise, everything's gonna fall apart.
And you know what?
I say it over and over again, but apparently this falls on deaf ears.
And they say I'm wrong for even trying to bring it up.
No, the only solution, they say, is to CRUSH the Republicans.
Sorry.
If you try and do that, you will get more of this.
I think the secession of Oregon, I understand where they're coming from.
Who wants to live in a rural part of a state that's dominated by people who allowed Antifa rioters for over a hundred days to burn and damage and attack federal property in Portland?
I mean, that's insane.
And the AG of Oregon filed a lawsuit against Trump when he tried to stop it.
That's your tax dollars in these rural areas.
That is your representation?
No, I don't think so.
So they want change, and if they don't get it, they will leave.
What do you do?
This is the problem of hyperpolarization.
When we disagree marginally, we say, you know what, everyone I vote for always loses, but I'm not that unhappy with the way things are going.
Now you have such a deep divide between the ideologies in this country, this is where we are going.
Take a look at the Greater Idaho Movement website.
They have a variety of maps, and they do all show California joining Greater Idaho.
I think that's particularly interesting.
They also show the 2016 presidential election results by precinct, which shows you...
Well, it shows you how serious these people really are.
When you get into the more eastern part of Oregon, the blue basically disappears.
I mean, there are a few counties that went Democrat, but all these counties, they don't want to be ruled by Portland, and the crazy scary thing is, even in the areas that would remain Oregon, it's still predominantly red.
I know the Democrats like to say, land doesn't vote, it's about population density.
Sure, I understand that.
But there are a lot of people who want to be represented.
And if they're willing to live in Oregon, I'm sorry, if they're willing to live in Portland specifically, where it is going to be Democrat almost all the time, then the divide isn't so deep that they're going to flee the city.
Those who live in the rural areas are already trying to flee the state, and they want to keep their resources.
This stuff's going to get, look, it's going to get really, really bad.
Unless there is an opportunity for peaceful transition.
Here's the greater Idaho movement.
They say Oregon's governor and legislature don't need any Republican votes to rule Oregon.
None of the Democrats in the legislature represent a rural area.
This is why Oregon passes laws that kill industries in Eastern, Central, and Southern Oregon.
They don't protect us from rioters, forest arsonists, or school curricula that teach kids to hate Americans and Americanism.
And they pass laws that violate our sacred conscience.
We can't let our money support their system anymore.
We are outnumbered.
We don't have leverage, and things will continue to get worse.
You love your community.
You've invested time in family, friends, and workplace there.
Our strategy is a long shot, but together, we may be able to save our communities by making them a part of Idaho.
State lines have been moved many times before.
Idaho respects traditional morality and justice, and it doesn't get in the way of rural livelihoods.
It has lower tax rate and a lower cost of living.
Our main document explains the details of our proposal.
In our Frequently Asked Questions, we explain why ideas like trying harder to win elections or trying to convince the legislature to give us our own state are less likely to happen.
We need to unite our neighbors around the idea of moving the border so that we can convince state legislatures to stop holding our counties captive in a blue state.
Voters in two counties voted in favor of this idea in November.
We expect several to vote in favor in May 2021, but we need your help.
Use the links below to learn more about the movement.
Take action.
This is of course the greateridaho.org website where they're bringing this up.
And they show this.
Phase 1 does not include California.
They say, Idaho no longer landlocked, which gives them increased tax revenue.
It would give Idaho a port!
That's really good news for Idaho!
They say, in Oregon, law would be suited for a rural economy and red state values with a lower cost of living, and phase two includes northern parts of California.
They go on to then talk about the Trump votes in these different areas and why it all makes sense, and why it makes sense that eventually Northern California join.
But this, my friend, in Northern California has their own movement!
Called the State of Jefferson.
Now, recently, in an interview, Mark Baird, the leader of the State of Jefferson, they already fly the banners, they already fly the flags, and they point out these jurisdictions, the proposed State of Jefferson, they're Trump voters, they're conservatives, and they're not being represented in California.
I went to California several years ago during the drought, and I learned the states got very serious problems.
In Southeastern California, they're conservative, and they don't agree with the more blue cities, the urban centers.
The problem is the urban centers have millions of people who always outvote the rural areas while not understanding their needs.
One of the craziest things I heard.
Came from some farmers.
They were talking about how they had to drill down like 20,000 feet or maybe not 20,000, maybe it's 2,000.
I don't know.
Yeah, I think like 2,000.
Maybe it was 5,000.
I can't remember.
Really, really deep to find water.
But right next to their farm, I see this canal full of water.
And I said, well, I understand you're drilling, but you got water right there in the canal.
And they said they aren't allowed to touch it because the cities outvote them every single time.
And that's, well, that's an interesting problem.
I met a family.
That lost all of their water because they had a well.
And when the water base dropped, their well went dry.
So all of these farmers and all these houses are digging deeper and deeper and deeper to reach the groundwater.
And when they use it all up, we don't know when it comes back.
More importantly, poor migrant families lost all of their water when these farms started drilling deeper because they could afford to.
Many people in the city blamed the farmers saying, well, they shouldn't do this.
And I said, but your state needs to produce food.
Like these leftists in California brag about how California produces so much food for the nation while disrespecting the conservatives and the farmers and voting against their interests.
What had happened, as I was told, is that when the drought hit, The people in the cities and the tens of millions say, we should get the water.
So what happens?
Poor migrant families end up with no water.
Their wells run dry and the surface water is shipped off to big cities to be used by the urban liberals who have the numbers.
It doesn't seem to make sense.
The problem is, in these counties, notably Tulare County, you don't have a hyper-concentration of conservatives.
So there may be, at a state level, a lot of conservatives who could defend their rights and fight for representation, but they're so spread out.
That they end up not getting any representation, for the most part, in California at the state level, and the state is dominated by a Democrat supermajority, which is causing people like this man Mark Baird to say, it is time for Northern California to leave and become its own state, even flying the flag.
And he has this banner, it says, coming soon, welcome to Jefferson, the 51st state, God bless America, and the great seal of the state of Jefferson, with two X's on the emblem.
Right there.
Now, of course, as I mentioned, you also have Weld County.
Weld County, from the Colorado Sun, they say.
Residents propose leaving Colorado again, this time to join Wyoming.
A similar idea was proposed in 2013, aimed to form a new state with several northern Colorado counties.
It failed.
The AP reports, residents have launched an effort to get a measure on the November ballot that would explore a Colorado county becoming part of Wyoming.
A Colorado campaign finance disclosure website showed that Christopher Richards registered political committee Weld County, Wyoming last February.
KDVR-TV reported, It's pushing a ballot measure that would instruct Weld County commissioners to engage and explore the annexation with Wyoming.
The county just east of Fort Collins has a population of more than 324,000 people.
Richard said during a November meeting that he got the idea in 2019 after reading an opinion article in the Denver Post and began pursuing the idea through a Facebook page.
We're going to move a county to a different state," he said, adding that the effort would just redraw the state lines to exclude Weld County from Colorado and include it within Wyoming borders instead.
Someone else at the meeting, which was posted online, said Colorado is at war with three major economic drivers for Weld County—small businesses, agriculture, and oil and gas.
Officials in Colorado pushed back on the idea.
I absolutely love living in Colorado.
For those that don't love living here, there are certainly less ridiculous ways of moving to Wyoming, Greeley City Council Member Tommy Butler told KDVR.
Erie Mayor Jennifer Carroll said if the proposal makes it on the ballot, residents would have much to consider and it could be a long process.
There are a lot of considerations for Weld County voters if they want to secede to Wyoming.
Income tax, personal property tax, corporate state income tax, retirement income tax, gas tax, severance taxes on oil and gas, and water rights to name a few.
Carroll said in a statement, If Weld County residents approve the ballot question, the Colorado legislature has to approve it.
The Wyoming legislature has to approve it, and it's possible both Colorado voters and Congress will need to approve it as well.
A similar idea proposed in 2013 aimed to form a new state with several northern Colorado counties, but failed.
Now hold on.
How does that make sense?
If all of these people in this area vote and say, the majority of us want to be in Wyoming, why should Colorado have the right to supersede that?
The point of government is to represent the people.
If Colorado as a state doesn't represent the people, these people aren't trying to leave the United States, they're trying to join Wyoming.
So of course, getting approval from Wyoming I suppose makes sense, but Asking Colorado to allow you to stay when you're trying to leave because you don't like their laws just literally makes no sense.
But that's something that will affect all of these different states.
So you mean to tell me that, legally, California could just say no?
Well, of course they're gonna say no.
They don't want to lose access to resources and taxpayers.
And it's great for these places.
I mean, think about it.
In Northern California, you have no representation, right?
So California gets your tax dollars, you pay them, and they give you nothing back.
Wonderful.
So isn't it convenient, then, that they would just vote to say, no, you can't leave?
That, to me, is insane.
There should be some kind of provision, there should have been in the Constitution, that jurisdictions are free to move when they see fit without approval of their state, so long as the counties, the jurisdictions, vote to approve it.
I understand maybe that could get a little bit messy, but look, how else do you deal with this?
Just tell 324,000 people in Weld County, we will never let you join Wyoming.
They're still in America.
They're just, they're in the same place What's the problem?
The problem is those with power want that power.
Now it may be, I'll tell you this, Democrats might say it's a good idea.
You know why?
Take a look at Greater Idaho.
They might say, Idaho is going to vote Republican anyway.
All we would do is ensure that Oregon stays Democrat, and they never have competition from Republicans again?
I mean, that's great federal representation for the Democrats.
Jefferson, on the other hand, creating a new state, the Democrats would never allow.
They would fight tooth and nail and scream, oh you can't do it, it's unconstitutional, you can't create a new state, but we can make D.C.
a state.
You see what they'll do?
They're not going to allow a new Republican state to emerge.
They'll certainly give statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C., though.
And I'll add this, too.
Statehood for Puerto Rico does make sense.
Statehood for Washington, D.C.
makes no sense at all.
The purpose of Washington, D.C.
is so that the federal government can exist without being under any laws of certain states, because then those states would have favor or pressure could be put on the federal government.
So, no.
No D.C.
statehood.
I'm sorry.
My understanding is that people weren't supposed to be living in Washington, D.C.
for the most part, but it became a city, and it became, you know, populated by a lot of people who are not adequately being represented.
So maybe they should actually have a member of Congress for the people who live there, or, you know, several, actually, because I think there's several million who live in D.C.
But statehood, in my opinion, makes absolutely no sense.
Now, what's going on with California and the anger?
Maybe there is some way out.
A recall for Newsom in California.
Talk grows as governors come under attack.
The New York Times reports, fellow Democrats have defended Governor Gavin Newsom, lavishly praising his handling of the pandemic, but conservatives say his shutdowns have been destructive.
They say long before Orrin Heatley filed papers to recall Gavin Newsom, he knew the odds were against unseating the suave ex-mayor of San Francisco, who ascended to become California's governor.
Quote, Democrats have a supermajority here.
It's one-party rule, said Mr. Heatley, a Republican and retired Yolo County Sheriff's Sergeant.
Voters had elected Mr. Newsom in 2018 by a record 24-point margin.
As recently as April, 70% still approved of his performance.
Plus, just to trigger a recall election, Mr. Heatley's petition would require about 1.5 million valid voter signatures.
Lately, however, Mr. Heatley has been feeling lucky.
California has been upended by COVID and lots of other problems, we understand this.
And they say, and then there was that dinner at the French Laundry restaurant that the governor attended barefaced and telling Californians to stay in and wear masks to avoid spreading the virus.
Quote, This is an easy sell, reported Mr. Heatley last week, speaking by phone from rural San Joaquin County, where he was delivering petitions that he said pushed his haul over the $1.7 million signature mark, with three weeks to go before the deadline.
I like to say, we have nobody to thank but him, and he has nobody to blame but himself.
A year into the crisis, Newsom is not the only governor who has hit a political rough patch.
Across the country, pandemic-wary Americans are taking their rage and grief out on chief executives.
In Ohio, Governor Mike DeWine, whose voter approval soared at the start of the pandemic, has been assailed for his strict enforcement of health precautions.
Governor Greg Abbott was under fire for runaway infection rates in Texas.
Oh yeah, Cuomo has got it bad.
cities even before the winter storms collapse their grid.
Crashes of the vaccine appointment system in Massachusetts have eaten away at the once unassailable
popularity of Governor Charlie Baker. For the first time, he is a true political opponent
and it's COVID, said Mary Ann Marsh, a Boston political strategist. And in New York, Cuomo, his
national image as a leader, has suffered and oh yeah, Cuomo has got it bad. He's now
being accused by a woman of, um, he's being accused by a woman.
If you get the drift, he'll keep it family-friendly.
So maybe there is some hope outside of secession.
Again, people have talked about peaceful divorce.
Before we get to that point, I assume most people try to exhaust all possible measures to do something about, I don't know, their uneasiness and their unhappiness, starting with recalling various governors and voting in new politicians.
Now, voting may work.
It may not work.
It seems like we're rolling downhill and there's no way to climb back up.
Voting for the other party may slow down the collapse, but it's still leading us in the same direction.
And I think if these counties do secede, they may very well still be leading us towards a path of, I mean, I guess the end of the United States as we know it.
Maybe it's a little extreme, but the political divide in this country has existed forever.
It really has.
I mean, it's a big country, and what you need to realize about any country, the size of the country matters.
There's different temperatures, there's different climates, and people are going to develop different cultures and want different things.
In the United States, one of the problems we have is, say, gun control measures.
It makes absolutely no sense for someone in West Virginia to live by gun control laws for New York City.
Maybe you live in New York.
You're in a cubicle apartment.
Microscopic.
Stacked on top of a bunch of other people in a concrete block in a city that smells like sour milk.
And you want to have a gun?
Okay.
Well, they say, listen, we understand your right to bear arms, but what happens if the caliber of bullet you use penetrates several different floors or walls of your building and puts a bunch of other people at risk?
We've got to consider the rights of others to be free from you negligently shooting at them.
Now, of course, the Constitution is explicit.
The people should be allowed to bear arms, period.
So be it.
But people in New York have voted for this.
Why?
They don't like guns.
And they have police around every corner.
So when there is a threat, you call the cops and within minutes, sometimes, the cops are there.
In West Virginia, you don't have that.
So therein lies the big problem.
So long as this country passes laws that favor people who live in cities, it will neglect the needs of people who live in the wilderness and might have bears or other dangerous animals come on their property and they have no choice but to defend themselves.
What happens when 30 to 50 feral hogs storm onto your property and start trying to destroy things or hurt people and your children?
And you have no weapon because people in New York didn't want a gun next to their apartment.
You're in the middle of nowhere!
The stray bolt's gonna go into the ground, not gonna go into someone's apartment.
The law makes no sense at the federal level.
If these kinds of things keep happening, and they are gonna keep happening, and recall efforts don't work, and voting for the other party isn't changing these things, then people are gonna start pushing for a secession.
And right now, it's phase one.
We've seen people try and vote in the other.
Say, I don't like this guy, I'm gonna vote for the other party, they'll be better.
It never really improves, for the most part.
Now they're taking the next step.
Okay, well maybe this county should be in Idaho, because then, you know, at least in Idaho they respect these rights.
What happens when a big city in Idaho turns blue?
Because this is true.
There was a study I talked about where they found that even in red states, cities are blue.
What happens when those cities grow?
Industry emerges, creating a hyper-concentration of leftist voters who then all of a sudden say, I don't want someone with a gun shooting through my apartment, so I better vote to ban it.
Again, against the Constitution, I understand.
But what happens then when it affects all of Idaho?
Eventually you'll have people saying, enough.
Eventually get to the point where people will say, hard secession from these United States.
We already heard Podesta with that war game they did before the election, saying that it would be better for the West Coast to secede from the Union than to allow Donald Trump to be president.
They were willing to do whatever it took, by any means necessary, to win that election.
Those, I mean, secession, that's insane.
We've heard the same thing from Republicans.
Talk of breaking up is just getting more and more prominent, and it's on the left and the right.
I don't want this country to break up.
I'll tell you why.
For one, this country is awesome.
All of its states are, but we've got political problems.
And if the United States falls apart, China takes over.
I'm not happy with that idea.
We're looking at potential hot war in various areas of the planet.
Maybe not, because there's always some kind of conflict.
But at least the U.S.
can exert, still, economic pressure.
There are concerns that Joe Biden and the Democrats don't care about what China is doing, and thus Republicans may say, it's too late anyway.
China is going to take over.
It's only a matter of time.
Then what's the point of us making ourselves weaker because we're living alongside those in the blue cities?
Then I guess you're going to find a bunch of Republicans just straight up saying, you know what?
It's time to leave.
But again, John Podesta and the Democrats were saying the exact same thing.
So what do we do?
I don't know.
I don't think it stops with these counties.
I think you're going to have a lot of conflict.
If these counties are not allowed to leave.
I think you're looking at Joe Biden's gun reform, gun control laws he's talking about putting in place, and they're rather extreme.
And it would turn millions of people into felons overnight.
Kind of like the bump stock ban.
People aren't going to give up.
People aren't going to just walk away from their weapons.
There's the meme about how they lost all their guns in a boating accident.
Oh no, they're all gone.
No, I think a lot of people will say, come and take it.
And that's a scary thought, because then we start fighting amongst ourselves.
The Constitution is already under threat, and then our enemies win.
Let's hope that doesn't happen.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight, live!
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL is our live show.
So if you want to ask questions, send in some superchats, go there.
We will be live at 8 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
The most controversial news story of the past 24 hours.
I've actually had people hit me up saying, Tim, you must cover the story about Mr. Potato Head becoming no longer Mr. He's just regular Potato Head now.
No, I know.
A lot of you are probably rolling your eyes because many of you probably agree with me.
Who cares if a toy company wants to make a potato not a mister or whatever?
Because you just put... You know how it works?
You like get the little eyes and you put it in.
But there is a bigger story here in the Equality Act getting passed.
I do want to talk about the Mr. Potato Head thing, though, because I kind of want to just tell everyone to chill out.
But there is a reason for this.
I think it's mostly a business reason, but there is a big cultural shift happening where the Equality Act's intent is to end gender segregation.
I'm not making that up.
Literally, in the bill, it says desegregation.
This idea among many on the left is that, like racial segregation, gender or sex-based segregation are also bad, and we should do away with it.
There's interesting ramifications there because we've seen certain things happen, particularly in the UK, where they started having men and women use the same changing rooms.
I think it was changing rooms, like a pool.
They found that when women and men, males and females, were sharing the same space, assaults on women went up a decent amount.
I think it was something like 60%.
The reason for it is simple proximity.
That when you have a room only for men and a room only for women, that, well, the men and the women aren't in the same place.
But with men and women being in the same place, then you'll end up with more assault.
So there's a conversation to have around there.
That's not a good... I wouldn't say that's a great argument for being against the bill, but there are some questions that should be brought up as it pertains to the Equality Act because it did pass in the House.
First, let's tackle this very, very pressing and controversial social issue around PotatoGate.
As you can see on Reddit, it literally is.
In news controversial, the potato head thing seems to matter to people.
Well, many people are pointing out, finally tackling the real issues.
One person said, I mean, it's a potato.
Yeah, it's okay.
Another person says, well, there are only two kinds of things.
Potato and not potato.
Yes, that's right.
The original Mr. Potato Head did not include the potato.
Just a box of stick-on ears and his eyes.
You provided your own potato!
Another suitable vegetable.
Okay.
No joke.
This is actual news.
And I want to read this because...
I do want to address it, but we will get more to the text of the Equality Act and what's going on with this bill, because I think it's more important.
ABC News says, Hasbro, the company that makes the potato-shaped plastic toy, is giving the spud a gender-neutral new name, Potato Head.
The change will appear on boxes this year.
The toy makers have been updating their classic brands to appeal to kids today.
Barbie has shed its blonde image and now comes in multiple skin tones and body shapes.
Thomas the Tank Engine added more girl characters.
An American girl is now selling a boy doll.
Hasbro said Mr. Potato Head, which has been around for about 70 years, needed a modern makeover.
Yeah, I think that's fine.
Actually, making more Barbie dolls with different hair colors and skin tones?
Great business decision.
You gotta make sure you track your market share, because, you know, if they used to make, say, like, I'll give a random number, 100 Barbies per day, maybe they could sell them to any, you know, boy or girl or whoever wanted it.
But if they do, you know, 30 white Barbie and then different skin tones, they might actually increase their market share because people are more interested in buying certain, I don't know, I guess like, skin-toned Barbies?
Anyway, I think it's a business decision.
All of this, I think, is a business decision.
The Potato Head becoming, uh, no longer being Mr. Potato Head, I think is literally just a cheap way to sell one product.
Think about it.
You sold Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head.
Now, maybe they looked at the data and found that people basically just buy Mr. or Mrs., they don't buy two Potato Heads.
Okay.
Now, you sell one Potato Head, and you give it the male eyes and the long eyelashed ones for, you know, whatever, and you'll sell more of the one Potato Head or cut down your costs because you no longer have to do two different kinds of boxes.
That's really what I think it is, to be completely honest.
And so, you know, you see these tweets.
We got Mark Dice with probably the funniest response to this story.
The Associated Press said, Mr. Potato Head is no longer a Mr. Hasbro blah blah blah.
Mark Dice responded, it's time for Republican states to secede.
A joke?
Probably serious.
But a lot of people were highlighting this tweet because it seems like the most, like, heavy-handed reaction to the potato thing.
But I do think deep down there is an interesting point to be made.
I don't know if it involves Republican states seceding from the Union, but I think it does have a lot to do with something called gender segregation.
Let me show you this from Wikipedia.
There's something called sex segregation or separation.
Wikipedia says it's the physical, legal, and cultural separation of people according to their biological sex.
This can refer simply to the physical and spatial separation without any connotation of illegal discrimination.
But you can see it's part of a series on discrimination.
It's actually interesting.
Yeah, I think it does fit that definition.
If you have a, you know, women's locker room and you say, you can't come in if you are this thing, they are discriminating against a person based on their biological sex.
However, I think typically courts have ruled in favor of this.
I think that's all going to change.
By all means, you can comment and say you don't like it, but let's just talk about the hard facts on the issue.
We are now looking at the Equality Act passing.
The Washington Post has an op-ed that says the Equality Act can become law if Democrats will add religious exemptions.
I don't think they need to do that.
I think they control the Senate and the presidency, and this will become law.
For those that aren't familiar, the Equality Act is a bill That will add several terms to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I believe Title VII, which states that you cannot discriminate on the basis of national origin or, you know, I think it does say gender, but they want to add the words sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Now I talked about this the other day, saying that it is It's almost paradoxical.
It's contradictory.
So, uh... Well, let me just give you the breakdown, and then I'll show you what the text of the bill actually says, and we'll read some of this opinion piece.
The way I explain it to people is a simple question.
Again, not stating for or against.
That's for you guys to decide.
I know the left will still come at me and smear me and attack me because I don't just come out and support whatever they're saying.
But if you have men's and women's programs at university, There was recently someone who filed a lawsuit, I think it was in California, over a women's-only college group.
The courts ruled it was not discrimination on the basis of gender or sex, because the university offered up men's programs of a very similar nature.
So they basically said, the university isn't discriminating against you, they offer you the same room and the same program.
It's just there's one for men, one for women.
Therefore, Well, that's interesting because if you look back at segregation back in the previous era, it was discrimination when they had white and black only spaces.
You could not allow people or businesses to discriminate on the basis of sex.
It's interesting that the law stated that because it would seem to fly in the face of previous rulings on how race-based segregation actually worked.
So this is what brings us now into, you know, one of the issues I bring up.
If you say you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, and let's say you have a locker room.
I use locker rooms and showers because they're typically the most visceral examples.
You have men and women's, but if anyone can identify as either, depending on how they feel, then you quite basically have removed any space specifically for males and females uniquely.
This would be the end of gender segregation.
There will be no safe space for biological females.
I know many feminists, not, you know, I guess the trans-exclusionary ones, the gender-critical, I think that's the right phrase, are very critical of this.
And in my opinion, I think it is fair to say that there are certain differences between males and females, and that there's, I mean, long-held statistical statistics showing exactly why we've done this.
Notably, I mentioned early on that when they started doing unisex locker rooms, I think it was locker rooms, may have been showers, in the UK, assaults against women went up.
Now, I suppose the modern left is actually, I guess, weirdly traditionalist in a sense.
It's a really weird scenario.
So, basically, what you're going to get with the Equality Act is, you know, the end of gender segregation, which you need to understand.
Yes, look at this.
In the text of the bill, it says, Section 4, desegregation of public facilities.
Section 301A of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is amended by inserting, and then, you know, the appropriate terms.
Section 5, desegregation of public education.
They actually say they are ending segregation.
And I believe this will become law.
So this becomes really interesting.
The interesting thing about the Equality Act, in my opinion, is that it sort of brings us back in time.
You know, back to the 40s and 50s, in a way.
I mean, maybe not necessarily... Well, so let me explain.
Of course, back then, we've had gender segregation and sex segregation, right?
The issue now is, we created special safe spaces for biological females, recognizing certain statistics.
Like, although, you know, women do abuse men, men are, you know, more likely abusing women.
Look, I know that when it comes to violent crime, men are more likely to be victimized by men, but when it comes to assault on women, it is disproportionate in one direction.
We looked at that and said, well perhaps it has a lot to do with testosterone and the behaviors and the biological differences between males and females.
We also recently learned that I think the Army is implementing a, you know, differences in the training programs between males and females, which will be interesting considering you now have the ACLU telling the Supreme Court that women must register for the draft of selective service.
With this new bill, you know, it's passed the House, it's not yet becoming law, With it becoming law, we will go back to a pure unisex everything, which, in my opinion, will put females back in this position.
More importantly, it'll be really interesting, in my opinion, because if that is the case, right, that we just can't have gender-only spaces, Well then, there's not going to be a women's sports, because you can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
Which means, if you have a women's league, like the WNBA, and this is passed, then a man could simply say, you can't do that.
I should be allowed to play in the WNBA.
The NBA does not discriminate on the basis of gender or sex.
You see how this works?
The WNBA is special in that it does.
Now there may be court proceedings where they flesh out some rules and maybe change it.
But I can't imagine that this can actually work.
Again, not saying I'm for or against it.
That's up for you to decide.
But if you are someone who's a proponent of this, I simply ask that you give me an adequate response, and I'm listening.
But the idea with, say, the WNBA or women's sports, in that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, well, now you've got someone who's male saying, I would like to compete in this division.
The argument that applies, that we heard earlier, that, well, you could go to the equal and opposite male division.
No such division exists.
The NBA is not the same organization as the WNBA, and the NBA is not a men's-only division.
In which case, there should be a sound legal argument for a biological male, who identifies as male, to be allowed to play in the WNBA.
Look, if you disagree, by all means, just comment and tell me why you think I'm wrong.
I'm only asking that people give me an adequate response to this.
But of course, as most of you know, these are the kind of issues where no matter what you say, someone's gonna try and come after you because this is the hot-button issue.
I'm interested in what Washington Post thinks will happen with religious exemptions.
So let's, now that we don't care about Potato Head, let's read, you know, something that actually matters.
The Washington Post says, The House of Representatives has passed the Equality Act.
We get this.
You could be forgiven for yawning.
Not because the legislation is insignificant.
On the contrary.
For the LGBTQ movement, federal civil rights protection has been a poll star since 1974.
This time could be different.
President Biden has promised to seek enactment in his first 100 days.
Democrats control the Senate.
Whether 60 Senate votes can be found depends on a crucial variable.
Oh, okay, so I was wrong.
They need 60 votes.
Will LGBTQ and civil rights advocates negotiate with faith-based organizations to reach a deal?
For religious and faith-based organizations, the House version of the Equality Act is toxic, because it overrides religious liberty protections granted in 1993.
More broadly, they fear that both law and secular culture aren't a path to equating traditional religious teachings about sexuality to racism.
A compromise could be achieved by packaging LGBTQ civil rights protections with relatively narrow exemptions for religious objectors.
Many states have done this, including Utah in 2015.
They mentioned that with the Church of Latter-day Saints.
More recently, a coalition of faith-based groups, including heavy hitters such as LDS, the Council for Christian Colleges, etc.
Joined with the American Unity Fund, a center-right LGBTQ advocacy group to propose such a compromise called the Fairness for All Act.
The Fairness for All Act has too little Democratic support to pass.
And the Equality Act has too little Republican support.
As written, both are dead on arrival in the Senate.
But amended, the Equality Act could become a vehicle for bipartisan Senate negotiations that could add tailored religious exemptions.
That kind of bill would have a real shot at winning 60 or more Senate votes and a majority in the House.
Members of the Fairness for All coalition are eager to negotiate, but they need a partner.
Congressional Democrats will not support a bill over vigorous objections from LGBTQ and civil rights groups.
So the question becomes, will those groups abandon their purest positions and come to the bargaining table?
They say, to be fair, the earlier reluctance to compromise is understandable.
With no chance of Senate passage, why should they have negotiated with themselves?
Why should LGBTQ people seeking to rent homes, patronize businesses, and adopt children be burdened with religious carve-outs that don't apply to other protected groups?
They say.
But now, not only is the Senate passage possible, there also has been a sea change among some religious groups.
As one member of the Fairness for All Coalition told me, quote,
in the religious communities, in part because of a culture, a culture ration,
in part because of generational shift, I think there is real openness to trying to work this out.
That was not there a decade ago. We hope that the president, that President Biden will be the
president who signs comprehensive LGBT rights legislation as an amendment to the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 into law. We just fundamentally think it's the right thing to do.
We believe it's what our Savior would have us do.
These are conservative religious groups that are not prepared to change their doctrinal teachings on marriage and sexuality, but they have broken with the old guard of anti-gay diehards.
For LGBTQ Americans, negotiating a package deal would bring important legal protections, yet the political gains would be even more impressive.
The once monolithic opposition to LGBTQ rights among conservative religious denominations would be shattered.
Alright.
I'm not entirely convinced religious groups would be on board with this, but I think it's an interesting clash, right, that the Washington Post is bringing up.
But I have to interject here.
What's happening now with the Equality Act is very, very different from what we saw with marriage.
When it came to gay marriage, you saw a lot of traditional liberals in support of it on principled grounds.
I don't care what you do with your life.
Now, there's an interesting argument I've heard from many conservatives, particularly the religious conservatives, that the church and marriage is an Abrahamic institution, and thus, the state has no right to determine what the church should or has to do.
It's an interesting argument.
separation of church and state is it's not in the Constitution specifically, but it's
something that, you know, we believe in in this country.
But many on the left felt the opposite, that because marriage was a legal position held
that the government recognized, you needed to have completely equal protections.
We saw many people, I think it was Barack Obama, be in favor of civil unions, but there
was pushback from many LGBTQ groups saying civil unions did not grant the same protections.
Thus, the Supreme Court ruled marriage, same sex marriage is constant, you know, it's constitutional
and barring it would be unconstitutional.
There's still been many issues where churches refuse to perform this stuff.
The issue, like I said, Is that the biggest burden was placed on churches and other institutions that they had to grant specific ceremonies and that, you know, ultimately it put pressure on a lot of organizations to change their behavior.
The issue now is that, as I mentioned, the Equality Act can bring up some paradoxical legal matters in that how do you protect people on the basis of sex and identity at the same time?
If biological females want a specific protection because they are typically shorter, less muscle mass, so they want the WNBA, we've given them that space.
But if you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, well then that goes away.
So it'll be particularly interesting.
All in all, it's not going to be the same as it was back in 1964.
The end of segregation was fairly cut and dry.
It doesn't matter what your race is, you can use this restaurant, you can use this bathroom, they have to provide public accommodation.
And that makes sense.
But what happens now when biological females demand a secure space based on the fact that they do have very different bodies to biological males?
I don't know.
I literally don't know.
I can only tell you that there is, like, look, people make arguments about differences between races and stuff, and those I don't think are fair or merit telling someone you can't buy a cheeseburger.
But telling someone who's biologically female, who needs to go to an abuse shelter because she was brutally beaten and abused, you know, by a guy, that she has to share the same space with other guys while she may be traumatized, I think may be particularly different.
Again, I know racists have made similar arguments, but there is a legitimate difference between this and that.
Although the arguments may have a similar structure, they're not the same thing.
And I'm not ultimately not saying the bill should or shouldn't pass.
I'm just pointing out these things.
So I wonder, when you tell people that we're taking things away from you, that's very, very different from saying that you're going to give someone else rights that don't necessarily, you know, have any effect on you.
I understand the churches, there was an impact.
But I'll try and clarify.
If you have biological females who are playing in the WNBA, and then you say, with this new bill, we are going to effectively end your league by changing the rules dramatically and introducing biological males who have higher prenatal testosterone, and I'm talking about males who identify as men as well.
They're more likely to have more muscle mass.
I mean, you look at the bell curve or the averages for grip strength, for height, for jumping ability, and it's a fact that biological males are very different from biological females to the point where the army has actually just instituted this.
So, with this, these sweeping changes will cause a massive and chaotic backlash.
Again, we saw this to some degrees in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, when it was passed back in the day.
So I'll end by saying this.
Who cares about Mr. Potato Head?
I literally don't care if they make him a third gen.
I don't know, it's a potato head, it's a toy.
Buy it or don't.
If you don't like it, make your own Mr. Potato Head.
Make Mr. Cucumber, I don't know, whatever.
We have to stop being upset that other companies are doing things like this.
Now, if Mr. Potato Head had a monopoly on potato-shaped toys, or vegetable-shaped toys, I'd say, okay, we've got a problem because they're squeezing out the market, but they don't!
They're not Facebook!
Okay, so these things matter.
As it pertains to this law, I can only say this.
It may not pass.
I am not asserting for or against it.
That's for you to decide based on the things we've talked about.
But I do think we can expect to see a tumultuous period.
And there's going to be a lot of uncertainty and confusion.
Again, not an argument for or against.
Just literally expect that.
We'll see how the lawsuits play out because the lawsuits are already starting now.
Many states have already passed these laws and it raises interesting questions.
Right now, you've got people who are in the older generation who are still willing to respect things like a men's and women's restroom.
But as you get into the younger crowd, the non-binary crowd, they might say, no, I'll use whatever bathroom I want.
In which case, many of these blue states already have this law on the books.
So it'll be interesting to see how the courts rule on this.
And honestly, I just don't know.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
