S546 - Texas GOP Endorses Vote To Secede, Republican Calls To Secede Has Democrats In Media Crying Sedition
Texas GOP Endorses Vote To Secede, Republican Calls To Secede Has Democrats In Media Crying Sedition. Wyoming, Texas, Mississippi, and Florida have all seen some form of a call for seceding from the Union.But some of these calls are one person here or there and don't have that much of an impact. While they do point out that these calls happen every so often, Democrats and members of media fear this time it is different.In Texas a bill has been filed to allow a vote on secession and it has been endorsed by prominent republicans. The bill will allow Texans to vote on whether they should secede from the Union.This may be all talk, but Trump supporters and Democrats, not necessarily Biden supporters, are divided more than ever. To the point where both sides are now passively suggesting a peaceful divorce could be a good thing.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Media personalities are warning that we must take Republican secessionist talk seriously, as Republicans in four different states have now entertained the idea of or literally called for seceding from the United States.
In Texas, the GOP has actually endorsed a bill that will allow Texans to vote on secession.
Our next story, Dr. Seuss is officially canceled after a study discovered racial undertones and six books are pulled from publication.
And our last story, Cuomo is facing extreme pressure.
Even Hillary Clinton is now calling for an investigation over claims of sexual harassment and even assault from the embattled governor.
Let's get in to the first story.
Whenever I get into a conversation with someone about a potential civil war or some kind of mass uprising, the one thing I often hear is that, well, nothing will really get hot until the government tries seizing people's guns.
And I mostly agree with that, but I don't think the government is going to show up one day and start seizing guns en masse.
They're smarter than that.
There'll be new laws, certain things will be grandfathered in, and in the end, people will just slowly have their rights eroded away from them and not realize it.
But there's a news story from the New York Times about a lawsuit in New Jersey, which even the New York Times says is a clever manipulation to extract private information from a gun manufacturer, because their real intent is to force gun control using a manipulation of the legal system.
That kind of thing happening, with even the admission of the New York Times, says to me, people are getting fed up in this country, and I'm not sure how much longer people are going to just sit around.
We have a story from NBC.
Pro-Trump Republican secession rhetoric in Texas and elsewhere is more than a punchline.
And I don't know how seriously I take these calls, but there have been many calls from many Republicans, actual politicians, for some kind of secession, outright secession, or, as many people have put it, a peaceful divorce.
Certain blue states can join the United States of Canada, and then the meme says, the rest will be called Jesusland, although I don't think that's really the divide in this country.
It's actually happening.
There have been numerous articles from prominent publications talking about why we must take secessionist talk seriously, because we're hearing it more and more.
And in this article from NBC News, they actually highlight several states like Wyoming, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas, who have had some politicians call for some kind of secession.
More worryingly, I suppose, for everybody, is that Texas actually proposed a bill to allow people to vote on secession, and there's actually some kind of debate happening as to whether or not Texas would actually be allowed to leave the Union.
I don't think it could happen.
But just because I don't think so, or because I have an optimism bias, doesn't mean it can't.
We heard recently, in a segment I did last week, that several counties in Oregon, one county in Colorado, and several in California want to secede from their states, make their own state, or join a different state.
That's the kind of conversation that I think happens before people outright want to leave the United States.
But we've seen what happened in the past when several states tried to leave the Union.
Grant basically said, the people of the U.S.
paid for your admittance to the Union through blood and treasure.
You can't just leave.
There is a debt to be repaid.
But what happens when people are willing to sacrifice everything because they feel that the law isn't working for them?
The government doesn't represent the people.
A lot of people don't realize this, but Texas has their own Declaration of Independence.
I'm not a big expert on Texas history.
My dad's from Texas, but that's about it.
But they did declare independence at one point, and many people in Texas still feel like they have a right to do so.
In fact, most importantly, I mean, the United States itself was formed by a declaration of independence.
Well, let's take a look at why these media personalities are scared and saying you must take this seriously.
There actually is a fear that whether or not anyone wants to believe it could happen, there are people actively pushing us towards it happening.
And we may have that bias that it can't happen here, But maybe it can.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast.
We set up this website as a safety net in the event that we get banned.
You know, my channels as well as the people who work with me, the things we produce.
So we have a ton of exclusive full podcast episodes.
If you like the TimCast IRL podcast, go to TimCast.com, become a member, That membership helps support my work, and we're actually hiring and expanding, so a lot of really good things coming.
And hopefully we don't get banned, but in the event we do, it'll all be here.
But don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's read what NBC News writes, and go over all of the states talking about secession, and then I want to show you what's going on with this gun control stuff, because I really think this could be a very serious catalyst.
It's getting creepy.
NBC News Casey Michael writes, Pro-Trump Republican secession rhetoric in Texas and elsewhere is more than a punchline.
This kind of seditious rhetoric would spell disaster for the supposedly United States of America.
Wow.
Very bold subheader there, my friend.
He writes, For the past few months, a long-buried idea has been creeping from the fringe into the mainstream.
Republican discourse, secession.
Following President Joe Biden's victory in November, GOP officials from Wyoming to Florida to Mississippi have floated the idea.
Claiming that the time for a national fracturing may be near, while there's something of a seasonal flavor to this injection of rhetoric, Republican honchos like former Texas Governor Rick Perry openly discussed secession following Barack Obama's rise to the presidency.
For instance, the recent rounds feel qualitatively different.
As journalist and author Richard Kreitner, an expert on American secessionism, recently wrote, it's time to take secessionist talk seriously.
Well, there is conversations around secession.
We have this story from the Washington Examiner, January 18th.
Wyoming GOP chairman floats secession after Cheney votes to impeach Trump.
We have this story from the Orlando Sentinel, where they mention Tom Vale, treasurer for the Lake County Republican Executive Committee, saying, We may have only one choice to preserve any freedom, secession.
I expect to need the state legislature and governor to endorse this.
To choose otherwise may mean submitting to the coming totalitarian regime.
We also have Mississippi Republican calls for his state to succeed from the union after Biden victory.
He meant secede, not succeed.
We also have this going on in Texas.
Check this out.
February 1st, Texas secession bill formally filed in state legislature.
Kyle Biderman's proposal would allow for referendum on Texas secession.
The vote might actually happen.
People might actually vote for this.
What happens when the state of Texas actually votes to secede from the union?
Probably nothing, but that is a worrying precedent.
And we have an update here, which I'll get more into in a second, from just earlier in February, about a month ago.
Texas Republicans endorse legislation to allow vote on secession from the U.S.
State's part chairman, Allen West, is the latest Republican to come out in support of declaring Texas an independent nation.
My friends, the conversation is happening.
There have been many prominent personalities saying we need a peaceful divorce.
Perhaps it's the best way out of this hyperpolarization, don't ask me, but there you go.
That's four states, and probably not the only ones where people are feeling this way.
But bear in mind, one or two people in the political parties saying it doesn't mean it's a mass movement.
So, I look at these stories and I'm kind of like, yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, I'll see it, I'll believe it when I see it.
But we've got New York Books, The New York Review, Why It's Time to Take Secessionist Talk Seriously, from Richard Kreitner, and we have this story from NBC News.
So certainly the media is starting to get worried about it.
Or, perhaps they're just trying to drum up some rage-bait content to get clicks.
Keep that in mind.
This may be just several people who are angry.
It may be something we've heard in the past.
I mean, this guy even mentions Rick Perry said something similar when Obama got elected.
It may just be a whole lot of nothing.
But I will point out, I've had a lot of conversations with people on the TimCast IRL podcast who do bring up that we may need a peaceful divorce before a civil war.
Believe whatever you want to believe.
Maybe these journalists, these writers, are correct.
In reference to the quote about taking secessionist talk seriously, they say, and it's not difficult to see why, in the wake of the failed pro-Trump insurrection in Washington, far-right American militias, buoyed by former President Donald Trump's empty claims that the election was stolen, have increasingly agitated for the breakup of the U.S.
As the head of one paramilitary group that has worked closely with conspiratorial rep Marjorie Taylor Greene recently revealed, they'd formed alliances with other far-right groups to advocate for Georgia's secession.
One of the primary Facebook pages promoting the rally-turned-riot was also called Red State Secession.
Meanwhile, mainstream outlets like Fox News joke approvingly about secessionist movements in places like Northern California, despite the movement's clear comfort with political violence, while a range of employees at Glenn Beck's outlet continue to call for the breakup of the U.S.
I'd like to point out, I'm sure there are many people who are taken aback by the claims made by NBC News.
Oh, it wasn't an insurrection.
Oh, how dare you besmirch Marjorie Taylor Greene?
That's the point.
The article itself is proof of the divide.
They view Republicans as an evil other, as Donald Trump, as an evil fascist.
Well, the Trump supporters view the Democrats in a much similar way.
So certainly if both people are staring at each other in the eyes, screaming, you're the villain, it's only a matter of time before people start fighting to defeat that villain.
Unless, of course, they stop and part ways.
That's the conversation around secession.
Again, I'm not advocating for this.
I'm just reading you what they're writing.
He goes on, and it's not just a tiny fringe that's thinking about these concepts anymore.
As the Bright Line Watch, a group of researchers from places like Dartmouth University, the University of Rochester, and Chicago, noted in a study released earlier in February, one-third of Republicans said they support secession.
Disturbingly, half of Republicans across the former Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma, are now willing to break off to form a newly independent country.
On their own site, they say this.
There's a quick vote.
15,753 votes on NBC.
Should Texas be allowed to secede?
We move this little slider bar, and it gives us the numbers.
It says 69% say Texas should not be allowed to, and about, I believe that's 23% say they should be, and about 8% are kind of in the middle.
Well, it's certainly not enough to actually allow Texas to secede.
The question is interesting because, well, this poll doesn't poll just people in Texas.
It's whoever read the article from all around the country, maybe even the world.
I'd like to see this poll in Texas.
Now, the Texas Tribune writes that they cannot secede anyway, so, well, there you go.
He says, perhaps not surprisingly, Texas is leading this charge.
As the Daily Beast reported, a Texas state lawmaker, one who attended the Capitol rally on January 6th and claimed it was the most amazing day, recently filed the first serious secession bill the country has seen since the Civil War.
The Texas Republican Party promptly endorsed the bill, which would give Texans the right to vote in a secession referendum later this year, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott refusing to denounce the legislation.
But note, he said the lawmaker was at the Capitol rally.
You see what they tried to do?
The rally was not those breaking into the Capitol.
They called that the insurrection.
The rally was a bunch of people waving little American flags and listening to Donald Trump speak.
He goes on.
Of course, state-level secession remains illegal in the U.S., as the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 2006.
If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.
But that hasn't stopped conservatives from defending the bill, claiming that it's simply giving Texans a voice.
It's unclear if these figures think Texans should be able to vote on other illegal acts in the interest of expressing their voice.
Tread carefully, my good sir, at NBC News.
California engages in illegal activities all the time, notably around drug use and illegal immigration.
We have to make sure we're talking, you know, when we talk about this stuff.
We're talking about what we as humans decide is moral and just and not necessarily legal.
Legal does not mean ethical.
There have been many atrocities committed in the name of the law and legality.
So, again, tread carefully.
Now, secession being illegal in my opinion, I understand.
Fantastic quote from Ulysses S. Grant.
It was brilliant.
I mentioned it in the introduction to the segment.
that the other states in this union have paid with blood and treasure for your admittance.
For you to just leave now after everything we've done for you, well, you got a big problem.
But he goes on to say that people who feel that the government does not represent them have a right to rebel.
Just keep in mind, if you lose, you will live subjugated by those you feel to be your oppressor.
It's a very interesting bit of writing and it was very intelligent.
It's true.
So whether it's illegal or not, I think, is besides the point.
We as a country know exactly what it means to illegally declare independence.
Those words mean nothing to me, at least.
I understand you may say it's illegal, but I'm, again, not advocating for it.
When a large group of people simply say, we don't care.
If the government doesn't have the confidence of the people, how do they enforce it?
By force.
So what are we going to see?
Federal police and National Guard going into Texas and overthrowing the local government and holding new elections?
I mean, if it got to that point, yeah, very well maybe.
Because Texas is not going to be able to resist the might of the entirety of the U.S., mind you.
He goes on to say, while much of the secessionist rhetoric remains couched in claims about things like fiscal responsibility and burdensome federal regulations, it doesn't take much to discern the ethno-nationalism driving the push.
Just like so much of Trump in America, secession in places like Texas is rooted in a combination of nativism, xenophobia, and white racial grievance, which I've talked about.
When you have the Sacramento School District telling white children to form racial affinity groups, what did you think was going to happen?
It's almost like the end result of everything is to just burn the whole system to the ground.
Now they're complaining about what the left is encouraging.
Oh, they'll denounce the alt-right and tell them, you know, you're banned from social media.
But then they will advocate for much the same thing.
I wonder if the real reason they banned the alt-right is because they don't want anyone to be overt in their discussions about what they're trying to do.
Now, he ends the article by saying, The devastation in Texas highlights but a small sample of how awful an actual secession push would likely be.
As University of Houston professor Robert Zaretsky wrote this month, the spirit of secessionism carries terrible human costs.
And he's exactly right.
It's a terrible proposal.
with terrible consequences of which Texas is getting but a taste right now.
Thankfully for Texans, the federal government and the rest of the U.S.
can help the struggling state back to its feet and back to its rightful place as one of America's economic and cultural leaders.
And hopefully the state's Republican Party and Republicans elsewhere will drop, once and for all, all kinds of seditious rhetoric that would spell disaster for the supposedly United States of America.
Let me just remind you of something.
How much money did the United States give in foreign aid to say like Honduras and Guatemala and Mexico and many countries around the world?
How much money are they giving to Israel?
If your argument is that Texas should not secede because they would face devastation from inclement weather, well, I would assume the U.S.
would still provide monetary aid to them the same as they do to a bunch of other countries in the name of security.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Texas will secede, but it's certainly happening.
Take a look at this from February 1st.
They say, after weeks of touting his secession bill on social media, State Rep.
Kyle Biederman of Fredericksburg formally filed the proposed legislation on Friday, which would give Texans a chance to explore opting out of the union in a referendum.
Biderman began talking about the potential Texas exit in early December, saying it's his response to a federal government that is out of control and does not represent the value of Texans.
In a news release published after he filed the bill, Biderman said, For decades, the promises of America and our individual liberties have been eroding, he said in a statement.
It is now time that the people of Texas are allowed the right to decide their own future.
This is not a left or right political issue.
Let Texans vote.
I agree.
Let him vote.
I do support the vote on secession.
I'm not saying I support secession.
I believe that human beings are governed only by their consent.
When you have 51% of this country vote for a certain political party who passes certain laws, well, welcome to democratic representation.
We're a constitutional republic.
Some of the problems of this are mitigated by jurisdictional boundaries.
But, well, that's how the system works.
But what happens when you have a perpetual minority that says, we're not going to live this way anymore?
By their own admission, Democrats recognize that Republicans are a minority government.
That over the past several years, Republicans—the last two, I believe, Republican presidents—did not win the popular vote.
So they're calling for a popular vote presidency.
Get rid of the Electoral College.
You realize what that means?
If there is a unified faction of a large amount of people that remains in the minority, they simply won't be subjected to rule by the majority.
If you say, we outnumber you by a few million, therefore you will abide by our rules, period, and never win another election again, Well, they'll simply say, OK, bye.
Then why would we be here?
If you don't want to live the way we want to, and we don't want to live the way you want to, and the divide is right down the middle, well, then maybe we should break up.
You see, the interesting thing about this secessionist movement is that it's not rooted necessarily in a grand moral dilemma.
Slavery in the 1800s was extremely divisive, and there were many states that were for or against, and internally there was still conflict.
In fact, Virginia shattered into Virginia and West Virginia, a free state and a slave state.
Today, it's mostly just, you are a very different political ideology from ours.
It's not about one particular issue, it's about just an entirely fractured worldview.
Now, I understand during the Civil War there were some similarities in that regard, but there was a major moral issue.
The reason that's important is that people in the North felt it was their moral duty to stop slavery in the South.
I support that.
The North won.
They were the good guys, in my opinion.
And don't get me wrong, I recognize a lot of the arguments about liberty and freedom.
But the North was saying, y'all can't have this institution remain.
I know many individuals want to talk about states' rights, secessionism, the right to secede from the Union, and all of those issues, that I understand.
It wasn't cut and dry to just say slavery, but that was the principal moral issue.
It led a lot of people in the North, Hans Christian Hegg, for instance, whose statue was desecrated by Black Lives Matter activists, to fight to end slavery for the Union.
See, he wasn't fighting for the Union itself.
Maybe he was, but he was an abolitionist, which means you got a ton of people on moral ground saying we will come to the South and we will end what you are doing.
And it just so happens, preserve the Union.
The U.S.
right now doesn't have that grand moral issue for the most part.
People are just saying tribalism.
The right, the left, I don't like you, you don't like me, and they disagree on basic facts.
I doubt you will see Republicans say, we must storm the beaches of New York and take the city back to liberate... what?
No, they're saying, you can do whatever you want!
And when it comes to states like New York, they may complain about guns and stuff, but they don't really care about the red states and what the red states want to do.
In fact, they argue, well, the red states would be a third world country if they left.
Sounds good!
Sounds like there is no moral dilemma.
And if the country wanted to peacefully divorce, there would be no good reason to fight other than to preserve the union.
Keep in mind, alright, I absolutely think it is paramount that the United States remain together and we must find a way to end this divide because we don't want China to take over and a divided United States into two different countries would be a disaster.
Many people will say it can't happen here.
That doesn't mean it's true.
But, Texas Tribune says, Texas can't legally secede from the U.S.
despite popular myth.
Historical and legal precedents make it clear that Texas could not leave the Union, at least not legally.
That's the important thing.
Legally.
So what?
If Texas voted for it, and the government approved it, and they just said, we consider ourselves to be free of the U.S., what's the U.S.
gonna do?
Send in National Guard federalized soldiers to reclaim Texas?
Like I was saying, Kick out the politicians and install their own temporary ones?
Maybe.
This ultimately could be the... I'll put it this way.
If secession moves forward in this way, I believe that the ultimate outcome will be the loss of jurisdictional power in many of these states.
They will no longer be considered, in some ways, sovereign jurisdictions.
They'll just be considered... It'll be more like counties.
And then maybe the borders could change.
But if this push happens, and they lose, it will be the... I think it will be the absolute end of the idea of statehood, for the most part.
They will still have their names, they will still have their jurisdictions, but much like counties, a lot of people don't know who represents the county or the cities, it would just become a federal United States government.
They say, every few months the question seems to come up.
If Texas wanted to, could it secede from the U.S.?
Simply put, the answer is no.
Historical and legal precedent make it clear it could not leave, at least not legally.
The idea is most often raised by conservatives in the state who are angry over some kind of policy coming from the federal government.
And the calls seem to be more frequent when a Democrat is occupying the White House.
They go on to then mention Biderman and his bill and all that.
Well, check this out.
Texas Republicans have endorsed the legislation to allow a vote on secession.
As I pointed out, I'm in favor of that as well.
Voting on secession.
Because I believe people have a right to vote on whatever.
If someone said, I believe there should be a bill to allow people to vote on whether or not they should...
Build a giant spherical or circular disk to block out the sun so the local nuclear power plant can charge more for electricity, then let them vote on it, I guess.
If people want to have a vote on something, let them vote.
Now, you can't just vote willy-nilly.
There needs to be an actual referendum process.
People need to be notified.
So, let them vote on secession.
If the people voice their, express themselves, and say, we do not feel represented, we will then see that.
And that will mean something needs to change.
And even if they vote on it, what do they say?
There will be a committee formed, a conversation will happen, and we'll figure out what we're gonna do.
I'm fine with that as well.
Because maybe then the federal government says, okay, Texas, what can we do?
Texas may then say, here's what we're willing to abide by, and then maybe there'll be some negotiation.
But I pointed this out already.
If 49% of the people never have a chance to be represented in the government, and we get a Democrat supermajority dominating everything, what's the point of the country in the first place?
We're not talking about some Republicans in some places.
We're talking about entire states.
And we're talking about the majority of the blue states.
I mean the state itself, like Illinois for instance.
The Chicagoland area is Democrat.
The rest of the state, for the most part, is not.
So all of these other areas in these states are going to be upset that they're never being represented.
And what do you get?
Like I mentioned, in Oregon.
They want to leave Oregon and join Idaho, where they feel they will be better represented.
What's the difference at the state level and then the federal level?
I understand legally and by precedent there's a difference, but if you have states that feel at the federal level they're not being represented, then they're going to start doing these things, calling for secession.
One of the biggest catalysts that I think is going to drive this is Joe Biden's gun control policy.
Now, maybe you're not a gun person, but at least hear me out because it's not so much about guns.
It's about the tactics being used by the left to gain power and assert themselves.
They know that under our current form of government, it actually is quite difficult to get things done.
When you have a Republican minority, they still hold a substantial amount of power.
That's the point of the republic, to protect the minority to preserve the union.
But the Democrats are using nefarious tactics and nonsensical laws to ban people's right to bear arms and free speech and many other rights.
I mean, the NSA is basically violating the Fourth Amendment every single day.
Politico writes, Biden considers regulating ghost guns, other executive actions to curb gun violence.
The president's movement on guns has so far been more meetings than action.
Ghost guns for those that aren't familiar.
I'm not an expert on this, but my general understanding is that when you basically mill your own weapon and there's no serial number, you can't legally sell it, but you can use it for personal use.
It needs to be serialized if it's going to be transferred or sold or something like that.
Now, Joe Biden has been He has had no problem talking about his plan to end our gun violence epidemic.
He's got a ton of pretty insane policy positions, in my opinion.
One of them is allowing people to sue gun manufacturers when someone commits a crime.
I mean, I think that's just one of the dumbest things ever.
If someone intentionally takes a baseball bat and hits someone with it, do you sue the baseball bat manufacturer?
People are playing baseball.
It's not for that use.
Why would they allow this?
It is a manipulative and sneaky tactic to damage companies.
They know they can't pass the law because more than half the country... I mean, I think the majority of this country, the large majority, supports Second Amendment and wants guns.
It's only these urban liberals, for the most part, who support this stuff.
A lot of people, unfortunately, who support gun control just don't understand how it would work.
Well, they know they can't pass the law, so they use manipulative, uh, subversive tactics, is a better way to put it.
Well, then people can sue the gun manufacturer.
Okay, then when the gun manufacturer goes out of business because it's literally a gun, it's a weapon, well, then there won't be guns, will there?
But I bring you now to this story, one that I think may be the most worrying, which could be a catalyst for serious anger and action, as I pointed out in the beginning.
When I talk to people about this stuff, they typically say, well, not until they come for your guns, right?
The New York Times writes, the most important gun lawsuit you've never heard of.
A case in New Jersey about Smith & Wesson's advertising could expose secrets that the industry would prefer to keep hidden.
I'll just break it down for you.
There's a commercial of a woman, concealed carrying, and then she goes to the gun range.
I guess the argument is that it's misleading or something to that effect.
That's essentially what the New York Times alluded to.
New Jersey has filed a claim against Smith & Wesson, arguing that they're committing advertising fraud.
They say, gun manufacturers have long been immune from liability for gun crimes and deaths because of federal laws that protect them.
But Phil Murphy, the Democratic governor of New Jersey, a longtime gun control advocate, decided to do something novel.
In October.
His Attorney General, Gurbir Grewal, sent a subpoena to Smith & Wesson from the State's Division of Consumer Affairs as part of an investigation into advertising fraud.
Seeking a trove of internal documents, no industry has any particular immunity from cases about claims it makes in advertising.
In truth, the subpoena is a Trojan horse to expose publicly, for the first time, the inner workings of the gun industry.
To put it simply, the New York Times is telling us.
that Democrats are using subversive tactics as a Trojan horse to circumvent the law and legal protections of private businesses to cause them damage.
I'd love to see something against Facebook, for instance.
No, they love Facebook.
I'm kidding.
I don't want the government to use manipulative and illegal tactics.
I think it should go through the proper system.
They go on to say, blah, blah, blah. It is suggested that officials in New Jersey sought
to bypass the legislative process and engage in abusive litigation, along with investigatory
and other tactics to create sufficient pressure to compel Smith & Wesson to voluntarily adopt
reforms consistent with the activists' gun control agenda.
The New York Times writes this.
Let's call New Jersey's reply what it is, disingenuous.
The court knows, and clearly Smith & Wesson knows, that the advertising fraud investigation is not garden variety anything.
But the motive of the probe for the purposes of the law is besides the point.
The case will rest on whether Smith & Wesson breached state laws that prevent companies from misleading customers.
I suppose the issue is, what they're saying is, in the ad, which aired in New Jersey, a woman is concealed carrying.
Yeah, I guess they're saying they know you can't concealed carry in New Jersey.
New Jersey has some of the most insane gun laws in the country.
So what's the argument?
They're advertising to people something that can't be done by their own laws?
Perhaps.
I'm not going to get into too much about this.
I just wanted to point out, the Democrats are willing to use Let's call it extra-legal tactics to get what they want.
Do you think Republicans and even blue dog Democrats and Second Amendment pro pro to
a Democrats are going to sit back and be accepting of this?
Well, there I think pro to a Democrat is kind of an oxymoron. The company Phoenix and ammunition
has this thing when you go to their website, it makes you they ask you, did you vote for Joe
Biden? And if you click yes, it brings you to Biden's gun control page, you leave the website and you
can't buy their ammo unless you say you did not vote for Biden. The people who voted for Biden, who
claim to be pro to a don't know anything about what they voted for.
for.
The people who voted against Joe Biden, be them actual conservatives or not, seem to recognize what's happening.
Do you think people will just sit back as the Democrats pull things like this?
I don't believe so.
Like I said, I don't think it's going to be an overnight thing where they snap their fingers and come and take your guns, but I do think people are eventually going to snap when they keep hearing about what's happening.
The moment they try and say this or that or this will be illegal, You're going to see this powder keg light up and talk of secession is legit.
NBC News and what was the other website?
It was a New York Books, the New York Review.
They seem to think it's time we get serious about these conversations because people are having them and there may be a vote sooner or later.
We'll see how that plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be tonight.
Timcast IRL.
Go to youtube.com slash timcast IRL for an 8 p.m.
live show where you can comment and super chat and then we'll read your comments.
It's a lot of fun.
We'll talk about a lot of stuff.
So thanks for hanging out and we will see you all then.
The leftists have finally come for Dr. Seuss.
Six books will be taken out of publication, and Joe Biden has bucked predecessors, omitting Dr. Seuss from his Read Across America Day proclamation after Virginia's school system drops iconic children's books because of racial undertones.
Let me give you the quick synopsis for this video.
I think that many of these people on the left claiming to be social justice activists are actually white supremacists.
And I mean in the literal sense.
And I think they try and use the phrase white supremacy to mean something else.
Let me stop actually.
I'll have a better way to explain this.
There was a viral meme.
Some dude just on Facebook wrote this thing up explaining why the left was so hell-bent on changing definitions and controlling the meaning of language.
And he said, it's actually really simple.
The reason they call everyone a white supremacist and they smear the right, it's because they're the exact same as the alt-right.
And if people actually realize what they're doing is racist, racism, and culturally insensitive, well, they'd probably reject it.
That's why they're now referring to colorblindness, for instance, as racist, as true racism.
They argue they're anti-racist.
Well, there's a reason why they use the phrase anti-racist, because it's not the same as saying, don't be racist.
They create a new word with a different definition.
To be fair, the concept of anti-racism has been around for some time.
But it's a way for them to argue that the moderate individuals who believe in civil rights and Martin Luther King Jr.' 's, Dr. King's dream, they're the true racists.
But it does create a problem because then how do you explain Dr. King's dream that one day his children will be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin?
Now, when it comes to Dr. Seuss being banned, honestly, I don't really care.
There are some really old depictions that were fairly racialized.
I don't necessarily want to call them racist because they're drawings from a different time.
I'm not sure Dr. Seuss's intent was actually to be to disparage people, but there's certainly racial undertones.
That's for sure.
One of these drawings that's being scrutinized I'm not even convinced it's all that bad, and I can even show it, because I don't think it's that bad.
Some of them I can't show, no joke.
In which case, I understand why they're now getting cancelled.
Sure.
And I'll point this out, too.
Six books not being published anymore.
A lot of books aren't published anymore.
Do we really care when, like, any book falls out of print?
So I don't care all that much.
If you want the Dr. Seuss book, you can still get it.
Someone will still make it.
It's just the company that prints them isn't going to, sure.
I do think it's kind of dumb, don't get me wrong.
And I wonder what the real reason for canceling this guy is.
And I got some ideas.
You know, I think, uh...
You know, the left really hates it when I bring this up, because they say things like, Tim, quote, the left are the real racists pool.
Okay, well, not the entirety of the left, not the progressives, and not most liberals, but certainly strong elements of what we would call today the left.
I'll just put it this way.
The left has been infiltrated by legit white supremacists.
I'm not even kidding.
And they use these clever tricks to be able to implement policies that will ultimately harm them.
A really good example of all of the products that have been cancelled as of late.
Aunt Jemima, Cream of Wheat, Mrs. Butterworth's.
They tend to be depictions of people of color.
Yet Mr. Clean and Little Debbie and Wendy and these other brands are fine.
There was a guy on Twitter, I have his video, I think it was on TikTok.
He points this out, and it's something a lot of us have pointed out.
Why is it that so many of these white leftists are trying to remove minorities from prominent brands, even when the families of these brands are saying, stop, don't do this?
I'm pretty sure it was Aunt Jemima, the family of the woman who was the model for Aunt Jemima.
They get paid!
They get royalties, they like the image.
The left are the ones taking it away.
The right, right now, conservatives and the moderates, and many moderates, are the ones saying, let them have their brands.
Like, I think it was Uncle Ben, for instance, I don't know, maybe not Uncle Ben, Cream of Wheat, you have the black chef, apparently he's like a legit black chef, like a real guy, and was used as the model for this brand because surprisingly back
then they thought it was a good thing and would help them sell their product.
Get this, in today's day and age, Aunt Jemima the company thinks it would hurt their sales
to have a black woman on the box of Pancake Mix.
Why?
Not because of conservatives, but because of the left.
I'm doing air quotes here because whatever this faction is, you now have major corporations saying, we won't have a person of color on our brand because it will hurt sales.
That's why they're doing it.
And it's because the left is threatening them.
So I ask you, who are the racists?
Who are the racists?
Let's read through this, and we'll talk about the Dr. Seuss thing.
Now, I want to point out...
I don't care all that much about the Dr. Seuss thing.
I love it.
I tweeted when they announced the Potato Head, they were dropping the Mr. from Mr. Potato Head, making him gender neutral.
Apparently it was a bunk headline, it was fake news.
The reality was, the brand name for the product was Mr. Potato Head.
And the company, I think it's Hasbro, said, but we do have Mrs. Potato Head, so why are we calling it Mr. when we want to sell Mrs. too?
Get rid of the Mr. and sell both under the name Potato Head, and you still can buy Mr. or Mrs.
The AP, I guess, made it seem like they're making the potato gender-neutral.
I never cared!
I thought it was dumb.
So what?
Give me a gender-neutral potato and I'll slap whatever I want on it.
But someone took one of my tweets where I said, how is the potato even gendered anyway?
And then made it seem like it was right-wing outrage.
And I'm like, actually, my tweet's fairly in line with many leftists.
It's weird how this works.
Depending on where they assume you are, they'll interpret your tweets in different ways.
So rest assured, they're gonna come out and be like, Tim Pool's freaking out about Dr. Seuss.
No, I don't care.
Take the books out of print.
Fine, whatever.
I think there are some images that, yeah, probably were racially insensitive, so yeah, whatever.
Look, go buy the book right now if you're really concerned about it.
Look, I'm against book burnings and book bannings and all that stuff, so...
I don't know, man.
It is what it is.
The difference with this and, say, the products taking the spokesperson or the mascot off, that's very, very different.
You know, that's them saying they don't want non-white faces to be prominent.
That, to me, is extremely racist.
Well, the story about Joe Biden, I think it's fairly simple.
They say, President Joe Biden did not mention Dr. Seuss during his proclamation for Read Across America, bucking a more-than-20-year trend.
President Clintons, Obama, and Trump have all mentioned Seuss in conjunction with a day designed to encourage schoolchildren to read more.
Biden's omission comes as Virginia School District dropped the author from its list.
Luden Schools say they have shifted the emphasis of the March 2nd day.
District claim, District claim research in recent years has revealed strong racial undertones.
That's insane.
They're implying that, like, the Who's of Whoville are actually a racist depiction or something?
That's what they say.
It came following a 2019 report called The Cat is Out of the Bag.
Orientalism, anti-blackness, and white supremacy in Dr. Seuss's children's books.
What?!
These people are nuts, man.
Read Across America Day had traditionally focused on Seuss books, but since 2017, the focus has shifted to celebrating a nation of diverse readers.
All right, well, apparently the news is six books, I think it's six books that I said, yeah, six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published because of racist and insensitive imagery Dr. Seuss Enterprises revealed on Tuesday.
Now, for YouTube and anybody else, I'm going to be showing one of the images they claim is racially insensitive, but I would like to stress I am, in fact, an Asian man from an Asian family, and I'm allowed to, I better be allowed to respond to this, what they say is a racist depiction of Asians, in this image.
They say it's a so-called Chinaman who eats with sticks.
I in no way find this offensive in any capacity.
Now, okay, I'm not Chinese, I'm Korean and Japanese, mostly Korean, but what's the problem?
It's just a guy wearing traditional clothing eating rice!
Like, I don't get it!
Why are they removing this?
I think...
Well, look, I don't know what their intentions are.
I can't read their minds.
I can only tell you what their actions will produce.
And let me explain what their actions will produce.
When they say, you can't have a depiction of traditional Chinese clothing and a guy eating with sticks, they remove that imagery.
What do you think kids will see in the books they read now?
They're not going to see this.
They're going to see a sea of white faces.
It's almost as if they're doing it on purpose.
I wonder if any of these people... No, no, no, no.
I don't even need to wonder.
I've actually talked to a lot of these people, and I've asked them, do you actually know what the alt-right believes?
Now, it's not identical to what the left is, and the alt-right really gets mad when I mention the similarities, or refer to the left as identitarian, because they want that word, and the left doesn't want that word, but that's what it is.
Identity-based policy and law.
Government-based on identity.
It's really what they all want.
So, in the end, if two people have the exact same ideology, the only argument is the core... It's not even the core political policies between them!
I'm pretty sure a bunch of the alt-right have advocated for universal healthcare and curtailing freedom of speech.
It's almost the same thing.
The difference is the overt nature of whether or not they want white people to be on the forefront.
The other day I did a segment.
Where I talked about in the Sacramento School District, they want to create white racial affinity groups to teach children about their shared culture and history so they can come to terms with what it means that their privilege, what their privilege has done to the world.
And I'm like, do you think that if you remove all of the people of color, all of the marginalized people and minorities from products, from books, and then tell all the white kids to go together and form a racial collective, You think they're going to despise themselves?
You think they're going to now advocate for social justice?
They're going to advocate for themselves.
They're sick and tired of being told they're wrong or they're bad inherently.
Take a look at this, one of the stupidest stories.
Ex-CIA director John Brennan says he is increasingly embarrassed to be a white male during TV debate on Republican response to U.S.
Capitol riot.
My friends, they would say that 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Because if you actually had the ability to put things together and calculate as to what was going to happen from all of this, you'd probably be worried about what they're doing.
Let me break it down for you.
Sacramento School District, back in September, wants all the little white kids to be in white racial affinity groups to talk about their shared history and the impact their privilege has had on the world.
Yeah, that's very much like, I don't know, a Klan meeting?
When a bunch of white people get together and they start asking each other, what has the impact been for white people in the world?
They don't say bad things.
Why would they?
When these people, when these young people hear CIA, you know, Brennan, say he's embarrassed to be a white male, do you think that people choose to hate themselves?
Some will.
Some will be self-loathing, and many are.
You've got a lot of male feminists who are very disgustingly self-deprecating, and it's pathetic.
But most guys probably would not do that.
Okay, how about half of guys?
How about half of white people in general?
If you take all white people, say, you should be embarrassed to be white, then remove all the people of color from all these major brands, get rid of any book that has a depiction of someone who's of non-white culture, tell all these white people to talk about their shared history, What do you think they're gonna do?
Half of them might actually be social justice-y and say, aren't we bad or whatever.
But the other half might actually be like, hey, look at all the really awesome stuff we invented.
The telephone, the plane, going to the moon.
Sounds like we did great, huh?
The problem is...
You hyper-focus, you take these people and put them into racial groups, and you tell them to focus on what their race means, they're going to start voting in the interests based on race.
And 60% of the country is white.
That's why I have to wonder if the true goal of all of this is, and always has been, white supremacy.
Because, look, I often talk about this.
I can't read anyone's mind.
I don't know what their intentions are.
It is said that the path to hell is paved with good intentions, so maybe it's a bunch of well-to-do liberals with good intentions doing everything in their power and accidentally emboldening white identitarianism.
I guess.
Or maybe they've actually been infiltrated by people who are smart enough to know how to manipulate a system, and they understand doing this will create what the alt-right basically wants.
There was this point with Sarah Jong.
She was this New York Times writer, and she was posting insane anti-white racist stuff on Twitter for years she was doing it.
And when she got called out, the New York Times said, yeah, well, she was just fighting back, so it's allowed.
On 4chan, a bunch of white nationalists were celebrating.
They were saying they wished for a thousand more Sarah Jones in the New York Times because it would trigger a white racial awakening.
They want white people to feel aggrieved.
They want them to feel embarrassed and ashamed because it's a negative feeling.
They can't get rid of nothing they can do.
And then they want to get rid of all of these images of people and cultures that are not white, so that white people find reprieve only with their own race.
These people are white supremacists, in my opinion.
Fine.
Call them social justice activists, whatever you want.
But the reality is we've seen in many communities, particularly with like Farrakhan, the overlap between the white supremacist or white identitarian ideology is fairly similar.
The difference?
Well, with black identitarianism, things like Black Lives Matter, They're in favor of black communities.
They're segregating college graduations.
They're segregating dorms.
Did you know this?
That dorms are segregated at some California universities?
No joke.
And they say it's a good thing.
We have the Sacramento University saying racial segregation.
I'm sorry.
This is us going back in time.
It absolutely is.
Check this out.
In this tweet, Matt Cromer says, quote, He's quoting a guy in a TikTok video.
I don't know the guy's name.
Liberals are no different than they've ever been.
Their tactics may have been different, but they don't want people of color anywhere they go.
And he shows Mrs. Butterworth's, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, and Cream of Wheat.
It's actually a fairly well put together video.
I don't necessarily want to go into the liberals are no different thing.
I can certainly say the Democratic Party has historically been the party of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, etc.
Those are facts.
A lot of people in the media don't want to admit it, but it's true.
And they say it was a great flippening.
Something happened.
I disagree.
I think what happened was... Actually, hold on.
There is, to a certain degree, some kind of flip.
But when they say that the party switched and the Republicans had the Southern strategy and wanted to become racist, I don't think that's true.
I think the Democrats realized there are subversive methods towards opposing certain ideologies.
There's an old parable, I guess.
Supposedly it's a racist parable, anyway.
But the idea is that, like, some dude is, like, walking through, you know, he's traveling around, and he sees a bunch of people.
And they're pointing a stick, they're pointing spears at a watermelon, freaking out.
They're terrified.
They don't know what it is.
They're scared.
So the guy walks up and says, what are you doing?
It's a watermelon.
And he just breaks it open.
And then when people see the insides, they all scream, ah, he ripped it open with his bare hands.
They run freaking out.
And he's like, wait, come back.
It's just fruit.
Then another man one day is walking by and he sees, once again, the people are all freaking out, pointing their sticks at the watermelon.
And then he says, quick, everyone, run from the monster!
Come with me!
And they all run with him.
By joining them and approaching them on their level, he was able to gradually convince them to then eat the watermelon.
And then a year later, they're all cultivating and eating watermelon.
I heard that story once.
Someone told me it was racist because it has something to do with the Middle East, so maybe that's the case.
The general idea is, if you act as one of the group and approach them on their terms, you won't shock them or surprise them.
What I see in all of this stuff, the banning of these books, the banning of these depictions, is exactly that.
White supremacists approaching liberals on their terms, telling them, here's why it would be good to get rid of this imagery.
Remove it from the public eye.
And then they do it.
And then what do you think's going to happen in two years?
I will say it again.
When you have 60% of the country white, most of them, the overwhelming majority having no idea what any of this stuff is, no idea what the culture war is, what do you think's gonna happen?
It's fairly obvious.
They're going to eventually be smeared, insulted.
They're losing jobs.
They're losing scholarships.
They're being told that they're evil and wrong and bad.
But guess what?
They're in the majority.
So you know what's going to happen?
They'll just say, okay, we're supposed to vote based on our identity groups, our affinity groups.
Okay, we vote for us.
Boom, congratulations.
That's what I was talking about the other day with California.
They wanted to get rid of the civil rights law from their constitution.
And I had to tell my friend this, like, you realize most of California is white, right?
If you tell people they are, you know, they're supposed to vote based on race, do you think all of a sudden white people will just start hating themselves?
And being like, we're gonna vote to make our lives worse.
People will almost exclusively vote for themselves.
You could go up to somebody and say, only people who can do backflips will get $1,000.
And people are going to be like, I can do a backflip, I'll vote for that.
And people who can't do backflips will be like, no way, that's not fair.
It's just typically how it goes, right?
In this image, or in this video, I'm sorry, this guy shows these four brands.
Cream of Wheat, Uncle Ben's, Lando Lakes even, look at that, they took the Native American off.
And he points out, here's the things that remain.
KFC is fine, Quaker is fine, the Burger King guy is fine, Little Debbie, Wendy's, Chef Boyardee, Sunmade Raisins.
Birdseye?
I don't know what Captain's Birdseye is.
All of the white icons.
Mr. Clean, even.
All these other mascots.
Absolutely okay.
I got this meme that was posted by LukeWeAreChanged.
Apparently, it's from Duncan Colton.
Gotta give credit where credit is due.
And you can see Mr. Potato Head climbing the ladder to heaven.
And in heaven, we have the Washington Redskins.
You have the Cleveland Indians.
I think it's Cleveland Indians, right?
You have Paw Patrol, Lando Lakes, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Benz, and Gina Carano.
Mr. Potato Head was not cancelled, okay?
That was fake news.
But I thought this was interesting in what was being depicted as being in heaven, because save Gina Carano and the dog from Paw Patrol, it's all depictions in some capacity of non-white individuals.
Aunt Jemima, the Land O'Lakes lady, a lot of Native American stuff.
Apparently, my understanding is that a lot of these Native Americans either did not care about the name Redskins or actually thought it was cool or it was funny.
There's also a funny, you know, meme that some guy had a shirt that said Caucasians and it was like a white guy and it was like all these leftists were high-fiving each other like, yeah, you show them and it's just like, but it's funny.
I thought that shirt was funny.
What's the problem?
We like it.
Can't we all just get along, I guess?
It's strange to me that you have this image of a Native American chief, I suppose, and white liberals said, get rid of it.
It's mean, it's bad.
It's like, okay, I guess there were some Native Americans that are upset with it.
Apparently now there's like another Native American tribe that's angry at Jeep Cherokee.
So, sure, fine, whatever.
But what's the end result?
You remove all of these things?
You isolate and you segregate?
Look, man.
Fine, whatever.
Get rid of Dr. Seuss.
I don't care.
I'm just telling y'all what's gonna happen.
We are moving towards identitarianism.
Racial segregation and the calls for racially identitarian laws are going to result in white people overwhelmingly voting for themselves.
So, I hope you're happy, leftists, and I hope you're paying attention, but I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
And I will see you all then.
According to the most trusted name in fake news, We Don't Like Cuomo Now says every late-night host in perfect robotic unison.
You know what my problem is with you guys over at the Babylon Bee?
You're writing satire, but it's still technically true.
You're just mocking what they actually do.
Okay, so this is actually a satirical article.
And it's true, though.
They didn't literally say we don't like Cuomo now, but whenever stuff like this happens, they all basically have the exact same opinion.
How boring is this?
Turning on the TV and they all say the same exact thing.
Jeez.
But you know why I say it's the spirit of what the Babylon Bee is saying is true?
This is how crazy things are getting.
Hillary Clinton backs investigation into Governor Cuomo over harassment allegations and says his accusers and all New Yorkers deserve answers.
When you lose Hillary Clinton, you are out of the club!
Happened to Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi Gabbard came out and endorsed Bernie Sanders.
And then all of a sudden, they hated her.
She was the golden child of the Democratic Party.
They loved her.
And then she came out and was like, nah, Bernie.
And so then they went out and roasted her.
There was even a point where, this is a long, complicated story, Hillary basically said something to the effect that, I'm going to be very careful with my language here.
Many people took to mean that she was accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian.
Yeah, a Russian asset or something like that.
Not an actual citizen of Russia.
And that's what happens.
Hillary Clinton had a lot of power in the party, and I think this actually shows the failures and the collapse of the establishment political uniparty.
I mean, Democrats and corporate Republicans combined.
Hillary Clinton is feckless.
She's a terrible leader.
And so when they basically didn't have Obama leading the pack, they had this like B-tier Hillary Clinton.
Now don't get me wrong, I know she's like a world leader or considered to be powerful and wealthy.
But she's not got anything on Obama.
And, you know, look, even Bernie Sanders had more charisma than Hillary Clinton.
And that's surprising because Bernie is a crazy-haired old man.
But anyway, I digress.
Today's segment is about Cuomo.
He's getting MeToo'd.
And there's big questions.
Why is this happening?
Why all of a sudden do they not like Andrew Cuomo?
I think it's fairly obvious.
For one, MeToo allegations are really easy for the left to digest.
More importantly, it is click rage bait.
You know, Cuomo actually killed 13,000 people.
Maybe that number is a little off, but let me just break it down for those that aren't familiar.
He put sick people into nursing homes.
I'm sorry, you have to be insane to think that was an accident.
Now, we don't know exactly why he did it, because we can't read his mind.
But they had the Mercy, that big medical naval vessel.
They had the Javits Center, which is this big convention center with all these hospital beds, and neither were anywhere near capacity.
I think the Mercy was, like, empty.
It had, like, one person on the whole thing.
And then the Javits Center was, like, 30% capacity.
So why did Cuomo say, these people who had COVID, put them back in the nursing homes?
Why do that?
Apparently in Michigan, they put young people in nursing homes, too.
And then one dude beat up an old guy.
Why would they do that?
Some speculate it was because they didn't want to give Trump the W. Make Trump look good.
He helped set up these emergency field hospitals and in this naval vessel.
Can't have that.
So they said, you know, just put him in nursing homes.
We're not going to give Trump this one.
Now, whether or not you want to believe that Cuomo knew it would result in death, that's up to you.
But he did cover up the numbers.
You probably know the story.
A lot of people probably don't care, and that's the crazy thing about this.
I've done many segments on Cuomo deserving prison, and not just him.
Let's talk about Whitmer and Newsom and all the rest, and I got that list.
We'll bring it up.
But this is the funny thing.
How convenient is it for Democrats that when this wave is coming, and these people should be in prison for what they did, the media latches on to the easy narrative.
Let me ask you.
If you were responsible for the deaths of 13,000 elderly individuals, which story would you prefer to dominate the airwaves?
You murdered 13,000 people, or you were inappropriate with three women?
Yeah.
Cuomo probably is breathing a sigh of relief.
I'm sure when the scandal broke out that they covered up these numbers and they were, you know why they covered them up?
They were scared Trump would investigate them.
I'm sure the dude was wiping away bullets from his ears, sweating bullets, freaking out.
Then the story breaks, he goes, oh, I'm getting me too.
Finally, says Cuomo.
Finally.
He's so excited that it's happening.
Here's a story.
A third woman.
Chris, uh, CNN anchor.
Oh, actually, so we'll start with Chris Cuomo.
This is hilarious.
Chris Cuomo won't even talk about it.
Chris Cuomo, the guy on CNN who did the prop comedy with the giant Q-tips and they laughed together.
Hey, dad, you know, I'm so proud of you, brother, and things like that.
Now all of a sudden, well, I'd like to talk about it, but I can't.
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo said on Monday that he was aware of the accusations about his brother.
Obviously, I'm aware of what is going on with my brother and obviously I cannot cover it because he is my brother.
Now, of course, CNN has to cover it.
They have covered it extensively and they will continue to do so.
These people are so miserable and just the dirtiest, most duplicitous I'm sorry.
At this point, how many times has CNN fooled people?
You know, it's like, fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
CNN's fooled people like 10,000 plus times.
I'll just pick a random number because it's probably approaching infinity or whatever.
Critical mass.
They just keep doing it.
Well, I'd like to talk about my brother and the things he's done, but I can't for obvious reasons.
Don't remember, though, don't consider that he literally did a back-and-forth with his brother during the COVID pandemic when his brother was the story.
Governor Cuomo was the one who was overseeing New York's response as the governor.
And they had no problem breaching that line in ethics for ratings to have silly back-and-forth jabs.
And all these Democrats are like, oh, Cuomo, we love you so much.
He wins an Emmy for his press briefings.
He writes a book about dealing with the pandemic, even though we're still in it.
All the meanwhile, he was abusing women.
Hey, how about that?
Chris moved on, having thanked his audience for being straight with me as I've always been straight with you.
I swear, if you still believe this man after he faked being in quarantine, I got a bridge to sell you.
The new accusation on Monday night led to a first call from a Democratic member of Congress for Cuomo to resign.
Kathleen Rice, who represents Long Island, said it was time for the three-term governor to go.
Rice spoke after Anna Rutsch, now 33, told the New York Times she met Cuomo at a wedding in September 2019.
The governor, now 63, had given a toast to the newlyweds, and Rutsch, a former member of the Obama administration and the 2020 Biden campaign, thanked him for his words.
She claimed that he then touched her naked back and she removed his hand.
Okay, so hold on.
Like, did he put his hand on your back?
Is that really it?
Don't make me defend Cuomo.
Apparently he kissed the woman.
Now that, over the line.
Evan Hill tweets, a third woman has accused Governor Cuomo of unwanted touching, saying he placed his hands on her face and asked if he could kiss her at her friend's wedding.
A friend took a series of pictures of the incident as it occurred.
Okay, now, this photo is going viral, because you can see this young woman's got this look on her face like, no, don't do it, Cuomo.
I feel bad for her, because that's probably nasty.
But, I mean, I gotta be honest.
Was Cuomo, when he kissed this woman... I mean, serious question.
Did he... Was it a kiss on the cheek?
Was it an unwarranted, romantic, you know, kiss on the lips?
No, I mean, for real, I think it matters, because, like, what if he kissed her hand, alright?
I'm inclined to assume he was acting inappropriately.
I believe these women.
I mean, you look at this picture, and this lady is clearly not happy.
But is this proportional?
I wanna focus on the fact that Cuomo is a scumbag who, you know, killed 13,000 people.
At least, as the media portrays it, that seems to be the case.
Instead, we're talking about this MeToo stuff.
It's so easy for the left to digest.
It's clickbait.
It riles them up.
And I wonder if they're also throwing Cuomo under the bus, too, because he gained too much power during the pandemic.
He became too prominent.
They were actually saying, get rid of Joe Biden, bring on Andrew Cuomo.
And I wonder if the establishment was like, no!
We don't want Cuomo.
We wanted Biden.
They wanted Biden in.
And Cuomo was more popular.
Well, here's one way to take down his popularity.
He said she was aggressive, then cupped her face.
She said he was aggressive?
Then cupped her face in his hands and asked, can I kiss you?
A photographer captured the moment with Rutsch looking distressed and taken aback.
That's true.
You can see the photo.
I was so confused and shocked and embarrassed, said Rutsch.
I turned my head away and didn't have words in that moment.
Daily Mail asked Ruch for a comment.
She told the New York Times, After the encounter, Ruch said her friend looked at me and said, Oh, please.
in the matter. I didn't have a choice in his physical dominance over me at the moment.
And that's what infuriates me. After the encounter, Rutch said her friend looked at me and said,
are you okay? With such genuine concern in her face that I realized how obviously inappropriate
it was. Oh, please. Just because someone asks if you're okay, this is what they do.
What Cuomo did, yeah, inappropriate.
He should be yelled at for this.
He grabbed a woman by the face.
I don't know if he kissed her or not.
If he kissed her, okay, that's over the line.
But it seems like he just asked her.
Did she say no, or did she allow him to do it?
Either way, you know, him asking, unless she explicitly said, yes, you may, then he absolutely assaulted this woman and crossed that line.
But what is the lasting damage, okay?
We want a proportional response.
I think Cuomo should be booted from office, and I'm not willing to, you know, I don't believe in the ends justifying the means, right?
This idea that we should me-too Cuomo out of office simply because he's a really bad governor, I don't like how that plays out.
I want Cuomo in court.
I want him testifying, explaining why he did this, why he covered the numbers up.
If he gets forced out of office because of these things, okay, I guess it's a good thing, but we need closure.
We need the people of New York State and the American people to see exactly why he's being thrown out.
There are other governors who had done this.
They're gonna boot him out over this Me Too stuff, which, look, if he did, he deserves to be, but don't sweep the other crisis under the rug.
Maybe once he's out of office, someone will follow up.
I really doubt it, but I'd like to see it.
Later, she tried to find the governor at the reception to give him a piece of her mind, but couldn't track him down.
I would have rather just said it that night, Rutsch said.
I wanted to say that wasn't okay.
She added, I felt so uncomfortable and embarrassed when really he is the one who should have been embarrassed.
On Monday night, Rutsch told the New York Post that the photo of Cuomo clutching her face speaks for itself.
The photo pretty much sums it up.
Gross.
What the F?
Every woman has to go through this in the 21st century.
Dude, let me just stress.
She's right with the WTF.
Like, don't take your hands and put it over a woman's face and then say, can I kiss you?
There's flirting with women, there's hitting on women, there's picking up women, and then there is being a 61-year-old man walking up to a 30-year-old woman, grabbing her face and saying, can I kiss you?
Nah!
That's not how you do it.
Like, Cuomo might benefit from reading the book The Game or watching some of those pickup artist TV shows, because this ain't it, bro.
This is not it.
Ruch's accusations follow those made by Lindsey Boylan and Charlotte Bennett, who both alleged harassment.
Both Boylan and Bennett tweeted their support for Ruch on Monday night.
"'This doesn't make me feel validated.
It makes me sick,' said Boylan.
"'I feel nauseous thinking about Anna's experience.
I am sending her love and light.
Charlotte and I are with you, Anna.' Bennett said, "'I stand with Anna Ruch.
Anna, I hear you.
I see you.
I'm sorry.
His inappropriate and aggressive behavior cannot be justified or normalized.
I'm glad he's getting called out.' Okay?
But my fear is that often in the court of public opinion, the response is disproportionate to the crime.
Cuomo acted very inappropriately.
He should get a stern scolding and talking to.
To be fair, we did mention this the other night on the IRL podcast, there's probably things he's done we don't know about.
I mean, these women have come forward, but does that really mean that's the only women who have been, you know, inappropriately touched or, you know, harassed?
Assuming it's harassment.
And I'll stress too, harassment is specific.
You have to do something more than once for it to be harassment.
This is true.
When you're in a workplace, You have to be given a warning.
So let's be reasonable, right?
Let's say you're a dude and there's a woman and you walk up to her and say, you give her a compliment and then you put your hand on her shoulder and say, would you like to go out sometime?
That's not harassment.
If she says, please don't ever touch me again, it is inappropriate in the workplace and I do not feel comfortable with you asking me these questions, the warning has been set.
If the guy does it again, now it's harassment because it's already been warned.
Then you gotta go, and I'll tell you this too, If you're in a workplace, I don't care if it's a man or a woman, and they come on to you, and you don't like it, then you should just give a passive note to your manager.
I know a lot of people might not want to hear this, but no, seriously, and just say, it's to the extent that you feel you were wronged, right?
The point is, if it were me, and someone asked me out, I'd say, not interested, have a nice day.
End of story.
If they like grabbed my face and squeezed my face and said, can I kiss you?
I'd be like, dude, don't ever do that again.
Then I would go to management and say, I've given them a warning right now.
It's no big deal.
We'll carry on with work.
No issue.
Don't worry about it.
I just want to note that it's been said because then after that it becomes harassment.
So I don't know exactly what was going on with these women, but I want to point that out.
Chris Cuomo at the top of Cuomo Primetime tonight, obviously I'm aware, blah, blah, blah.
Here are the women who are accusing him.
Charlotte Bennett's 25.
That's crazy!
A 62-year-old man making these inappropriate comments to a 25-year-old woman.
Get out of here, grandpa!
You trying to rob the... rob in the cradle?
Geez.
Nah, I'm not okay with that.
Boylan, now 36, was working at the New York State Economic Development Agency in 2018 when Cuomo kissed her on the mouth.
Okay, see?
He has denied the incident ever happened.
I gotta be honest.
I don't believe Cuomo.
Look, the difficult thing here is that you need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.
The left likes to say, in the court of public opinion, you don't.
If society just deems it to have been wrong and they believe her, so be it.
And that's true.
I don't necessarily agree with it.
I think Cuomo's a sleazebag, and I'm willing to bet he did this.
I mean, you got a photo of him grabbing that woman's face.
Cuomo, he's scumbag.
Okay?
What'd he do with the nursing homes?
More important, way worse.
You want to tell me that this guy, who was 62 at the time, I'm assuming, kissed a woman on the lips without her permission?
I'd be like, hey man, that's a bold accusation.
Do you have any evidence?
And then you also come and say, here's evidence that he put sick people into nursing homes killing 13,000 people, and I'd be like, wow, the kissing thing seems trite.
Quaint.
I believe it.
I believe this guy is a really, really bad dude.
Again, I don't like that they're using this to try and get him out of office.
I want him out of office on the charges, criminal charges, of at the very least negligent homicide.
It's his fault.
I think I want to say that he's apologized.
He said he has a tweet.
What did he say?
Where, uh, he was like, I now realize that my, uh, here we go.
Jesse McKinley tweets.
Cuomo said, I now understand that my interactions may have been insensitive or too personal and that some of my comments, given my position, made others feel in ways I never intended.
Great.
Stixx Hexenhammer with the fire says, in the comments, Democrat partisans with severe mental issues defending creepy Cuomo and his grandma killing.
Yes!
Spot on, Stixx.
I got this post from Becker News.
It's from Kyle Becker.
You may see him on Twitter.
The coronavirus 5.
These model Democratic governors are now facing political disaster.
That's right.
It wasn't just Cuomo who killed all these people.
There were a bunch of other governors that did basically the same thing.
In fact, Charlie LaDuff, who is this really well-known local reporter in Detroit.
You've probably seen his stuff because he had a bunch of big viral hits from his work.
He's kind of like an anti-corruption guy.
He may be suing Whitmer over this to get the data out.
And he's not a strong partisan.
He's not a Republican.
Check this out.
Andrew Cuomo.
New York Governor Cuomo once made a remarkable admission that may prove to be his administration's epitaph.
Incompetent government kills people.
15,000 deaths are now understood to be directly tied to Cuomo's disastrous executive order in March that mandated that nursing home residents that tested positive for COVID at medical facilities be returned to nursing homes. I mean,
dude, it's crazy.
In a conference call whose contents were leaked to the press, Cuomo referred to President Trump's
pressure on the governor. According to Secretary of the Governor Melissa De Rosa, he starts tweeting
that we killed everyone in nursing homes.
He starts going after New Jersey's Democratic Governor, California Democratic Governor Newsom.
Starts going after Gretchen Whitmer.
Cuomo is now under heavy fire from the left, this we know.
Governor Cuomo has selected former federal judge Barbara Jones to conduct an independent investigation.
Alright, yeah, we'll see.
He's not the only one.
So, while we can talk about the MeToo stuff and criticize him for being a sleazebag, don't lose sight of the big picture.
Gretchen Whitmer.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been one of the most heavy-handed and arbitrary governors in the U.S.
when it comes to handling the pandemic.
Now, Republican state legislators in Michigan are calling for an investigation into Whitmer's handling of nursing homes based on a decree similar to Cuomo's.
Quote, Governor Whitmer's regional hub policy placed patients with and without COVID-19 in the same facilities and may have exacerbated the death toll in those facilities.
Whitmer's policies have been so disastrous for the Wolverine State that bordering Indiana business owners branded her the Indiana Business Person of the Year.
Wow!
The billboard has gone up just south of Michigan border in Angola, referring to Gretchen Whitmer as Indiana Business Person of the Year for 2020's lockdowns.
Was it because people in Michigan were fleeing to Indiana for food and stuff like that?
Gavin Newsom, check it out.
They say Gavin Newsom was another golden boy who lost his shine as the pandemic wore on.
One of the earliest states to lock down, the policies proved to be utterly futile, but extremely costly for millions of Californians.
In November, he was famously exposed for his hypocrisy at a private dinner.
More recently, he is facing a backlash over yet another private event in a state where indoor dining is banned.
The narrative is that it's okay because everyone was wearing a mask.
Nah, that's not true.
Newsom is facing a recall effort that has over 1.5 million signatures, but due to the state of California suddenly kicking into overdrive to remove as many signatures as possible, it will likely take more to put the effort over the top.
I love how they're doing signature verification now.
Phil Murphy.
New Jersey has been the worst managed state in the U.S.
When it comes to COVID response, barely edging out Cuomo's New York, one of the reasons is yet another disastrous nursing home order.
In August, the Department of Justice had issued a request to four states that it issued orders that senior residents be returned to nursing homes.
A petition, is calling for the New Jersey governor to be investigated.
More than 7,300 residents of New Jersey's nursing homes, veterans' homes, and long-term care facilities have died from COVID-19.
Nearly half of the state's coronavirus deaths have occurred among these vulnerable populations.
Whistleblowers have hinted that dangerous policy directives, misrepresented data, and arbitrary decision-making by the Murphy administration contributed to a wildfire of infection and death in these facilities that could have been prevented.
And they mention Tom Wolfe, Also, guilty of the deadly nursing home order.
I mean, I can just say that, right?
Because you get it.
Following New York State Legislature's call for an investigation into nursing home deaths, Pennsylvania GOP members are requesting an investigation into Governor Tom Wolf's policies that sent COVID-19 positive residents back into nursing and personal home care facilities.
Okay, well then charge them criminally, get them out of office immediately.
There is no circumstance after this where these people should remain in office.
None.
You want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were trying their hardest but they made mistakes?
Good!
Now, after killing these people, get rid of them.
What do we get?
Well, there have been calls for the resignation of some of these people.
Not many Democrats.
Many are defending them.
And now Cuomo is getting MeToo'd.
I guess if he's out of office, fine.
It's still a good thing.
But I want to see these people on a perp walk.
You can't do this.
I can understand that sometimes being a leader means you make hard decisions and sometimes people lose their lives.
But you will never convince me that these people should not be charged.
When you have the Javits Center and the Mercy, you better give me a good reason in your trial, because you'll be charged, you'll go to trial, and then we'll hear why you did it.
Maybe there's a good reason why they did it.
Maybe.
Innocent until proven guilty.
But we're gonna ask you, why didn't you use the Javits Center, Cuomo?
