All Episodes
March 24, 2021 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:24:01
S562 - Biden Plans Rapidly Re-Engineering America In Secret Meeting, Democrats Plan MASSIVE Far Left Push

Biden Plans Rapidly Re-Engineering America In Secret Meeting, Democrats Plan MASSIVE Far Left Push. Republicans fear that Joe Biden will remove the Senate Filibuster paving the way for Democrats to push through every agenda item and policy they wish.With full party control of congress democrats can ram through basically anything they want including many far left policies.Historians in the meeting likened it to an FDR style New Deal effort which will focus on immigration, climate, and weapons.This at a time of hyperpolarization can only bring about more anger and division.Biden would be wise to work with the GOP on compromise to help the nation unite. Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:23:42
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Today is March 24th, 2021, and our first story.
Joe Biden held a secret meeting with historians to discuss just how quickly and how much he can re-engineer the United States.
Many are likening this to an effort by Joe Biden to push a New Deal-style policy through, and maybe even a $5 trillion infrastructure package.
Many conservatives are concerned this will just be a far-left push, which brings us to our second story.
Joe Biden has called for a national assault weapons ban.
He's even stated he could pursue executive action to ban guns or stop gun violence.
Many on the right and many gun rights activists, including pro-Second Amendment leftists, are concerned that Joe Biden may seek to, well, take people's guns.
In our last story, reparations are officially here.
Evanston, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, has announced they will be providing reparations to the black community.
We're also seeing a new effort in Oakland that will provide guaranteed income to low-income families with one caveat.
They can't be white.
It seems like as reparations start to make their way across this country, it moves beyond repairing damage and just moves toward, well, Giving non-white individuals access to resources that white individuals won't actually have.
But we'll explore this.
Before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the podcast.
There's a lot of work I put into this show, and if you think it's deserving of it, five stars really does help.
Leave a good comment and share this with your friends, because it's really the best way to help support the show.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Joe Biden recently held an undisclosed session, they call it.
To me, it sounds like a secret meeting with historians to determine how much and how fast
he can radically alter these United States.
According to Axios, they say Biden's new deal re-engineering America quickly.
One of the ways in which Biden could do this is removing the Senate filibuster, which would allow Democrats to ram through tons of legislation without 60 votes in the Senate.
I think the filibuster is a good thing.
It requires compromise.
You need 60 votes, essentially, to pass a bill if the Republicans decide to filibuster, and that means you'll have to come to the negotiating table.
At a time when this country is extremely hyperpolarized, I think that's important.
Biden's plans and his moves to re-engineer America quickly means that Democrats, with their narrow majority in these different branches of government, are planning on doing sweeping changes that half the country does not want, at a time when everybody's a little, you know, hot in their seat getting antsy and worried about political violence and an escalation in the culture war.
Several polls have come out, and this is what's really interesting to me.
Some say that Republicans are more likely to advocate for violence.
Some say it's actually the far left that are more likely to advocate for violence.
While there are several polls saying Republicans are growing increasingly agitated and more likely to suggest violence can be used as a means to get things done, there are still other polls saying the inverse and saying that over the past four years, it's actually the very liberal who have been embracing these positions.
With Joe Biden making these moves, I fear he may be ripping this country apart.
You have to understand what reengineering this country means.
They're calling it Biden's New Deal.
While some people may say it's a massive infrastructure plan that would help the working class, others point out the escalation in critical race theory, Bill de Blasio's plan in New York for his race commission to change the world, likely other Democrats will believe the same things, and Joe Biden's recent calls for massive and sweeping gun control.
Now, I've heard from a lot of people.
And they say, for the most part, there can be moderate changes, and they typically don't care.
As long as the government makes these changes slowly, people allow them to happen, even if their rights are being stripped away.
But a rapid, quick re-engineering of this country could be the final straw in just ripping this country apart.
And I'm worried about it.
Why would Joe Biden plan this?
He's meeting with historians.
That, to me, signals that he understands the risks.
He needs to know what happened in the past and how much he can push this country before it finally erupts into chaos.
I'm no fan of the Biden administration.
Recently, just the other day, they announced some sanctions on China, and I think, you know, I'll point out the positives.
That may be the right approach, and I'm glad the Biden administration is doing something about China.
But then I see things like this, and it says to me that they're making rapid transformational changes which will enrage people who are already agitated in this culture war.
Let's see exactly what their proposal is and what's happening.
And I want to point out, Donald Trump, according to Vox.com, ran as a moderate.
He did not bring about this massive sweeping change they claimed he was going to.
Some of the policies they criticized him for came from Barack Obama, notably the kids in cages thing, or the travel ban.
These were remnants of the Obama administration.
What Joe Biden is planning on doing, they tout as bigger and bolder than Obama.
And he needs historians to guide him, lest he really destroy this country.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.
That's a show we do live around 8 p.m.
every night.
Signing up at TimCast.com helps me and my shows, the people who work on them, in the event that we get banned or purged.
This is what's allowing us to keep moving forward and allowing us to expand.
So we've got a new website coming, we've got more employees coming on, means we're gonna have writers, we're gonna have content, videos, vlogs, all that stuff.
And it's with your support.
So, go to TimCast.com, become a member, and don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's read this story from Axios and figure out what's going on.
They say, Biden's new deal, re-engineering America quickly.
President Biden recently held an undisclosed East Room session with historians that included a discussion of how big is too big and how fast is too fast to jam through once-in-a-lifetime historic changes to America.
Why it matters.
The historian's view were very much in sync with his own.
It is time to go even bigger and faster than anyone expected.
If that means chucking the filibuster and bipartisanship, so be it.
They say four things are pushing Biden to jam through what could amount to a $5 trillion-plus overhaul of America and vast changes to voting, immigration, and inequality.
One, he has full party control of Congress and a short window to go big.
Two, he has party activists egging him on.
Three, he has strong gathering economic winds at his back.
And four, he's popular in the polls.
That last bit, the immigration, the inequality, I think all of it is just them basically saying, now's our chance to seize the ground.
This is political warfare.
Okay, call it culture war, call it conflict, call it cold civil war, call it whatever you want.
But these voting changes, like HR1, would nationalize the voting process, which, for the longest time, was left to the states.
That's freaking people out.
The statements about immigration at a time when we're dealing with a massive migrant crisis on the border, a border crisis, that many are criticizing Joe Biden for, even the left is criticizing Joe Biden over this.
Joe Biden abandoned many of the plans Trump put in place, and it's only getting worse.
And then you have inequality.
Joe Biden rescinded Trump's executive order on critical race theory.
This is the Democrats realizing their power is limited, though they do have full party control of Congress.
They're on the verge of losing it, and likely will in 2022.
Now, should they make massive and sweeping changes that just infuriates the other side and leads us down a chaotic and dangerous path, it's possible that in 2022 Republicans just win and then revert much of this.
But Joe Biden will still be the president and could very easily veto and block much of what the Republicans in Congress could do.
It'll depend on if the Republicans are able to win back the House and who is up for re-election in the Senate.
They're gonna say.
Presidential historian Michael Beschloss told Axios FDR and LBJ may turn out to be the past century's closest analogs for the Biden era in terms of transforming the country in important ways in a short time.
Beschloss said, the parallels include the New Deal economic relief that FDR brought in 1933, which saved the country from the Depression and chaos.
Now, that's actually disputed, to be honest.
You'll ask some people.
I'm not saying disputed by, you know, with merit necessarily, but there's a political argument as to whether or not the New Deal did actually save us.
And Biden is on track to leave the country in a different place, as Lyndon Johnson did with his Great Society programs.
People close to Biden tell us he's feeling bullish on what he can accomplish and is fully prepared to support the dashing of the Senate filibuster rule to allow Democrats to pass voting rights and other trophy legislation for his party.
He loves the growing narrative that he's bolder and bigger thinking than Obama.
This temptation to go even bigger, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell insists will create such a fissure between the parties that he compared it this week to nuclear winter.
But we're told Biden won't hesitate.
Just as he passed the $1.9 trillion COVID rescue package with zero Republican votes and zero regrets, his team sees little chance he's going to be able to rewire the government in his image if he plays by the rules of bringing in at least 10 Republicans.
He won't rub their noses in it, we're told.
That'll be the Biden touch to rolling the opposition, and getting that much closer to the status of latter-day FDR.
Biden's list includes rural broadband expansion.
Now that's a good thing.
Which would be transformative for those communities.
Make child tax credits permanent.
Landmark legislation on climate, guns, and voting.
Climate, guns, and voting.
That's where you're going to encounter some very serious problems.
And I gotta say, we are not in a simple political bickering time.
This is not a time where it's like, oh, Biden wants to pass these things.
Well, harumph, I say.
No, we're at a time where people are freaking out.
And both sides, there are polls showing, have escalating acceptance of some form of political violence.
I'm not okay with that.
We do not want political violence.
We do not want this country falling apart.
We need to be unified.
And Joe Biden is not doing this.
This move Ignoring the other side is not going to solve any problems.
I'm not sure what will.
But I will show you.
Vox.com in 2019.
Democrats are learning the wrong lesson from Trump.
He ran as a moderate and it worked.
That's from Matthew Iglesias for Vox.com.
Even they called Trump a moderate.
Here's what we're hearing from Mitch McConnell.
A nuclear winter foretold.
They report.
A Senate operating in the nuclear winter, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell promises, if the filibuster is eliminated, is one in which lawmakers face incessant roll calls and other inconveniences turning their comfortable lives into a living hell.
Why it matters?
In employing apocalyptic language to warn about a scorched earth response, the Kentucky Republican is trying to scare Democrats away from the tool they're considering to break through the GOP's own political obstinance.
They say, Some tools at McConnell's disposal.
Demanding roll call votes on procedural points of order.
Forcing Democratic Senators and Vice President Kamala Harris, the tie-breaking 51st vote, to live on standby at the Capitol.
Unnecessary quorum calls.
Pausing Senate business while the Secretary issues a roll call vote to ensure all 100 Senators are present on the floor.
It only takes one member to call for it.
Rotating Republicans onto the floor for hours-long debate about the motions and bills reminiscent of the technique illustrated in the 1939 movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Asking Senate secretaries to read through lengthy bills and amendments similar to what Senator Ron Johnson did before a vote on President Biden's coronavirus relief package, which took more than 10 hours.
Senate GOP aides say they could introduce 2,000-page substitute amendments to make the process particularly tedious.
Senate aides say McConnell would be very strategic about he and other Republicans fiddle with the rules, and they insist he is not bluffing.
They point to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by columnist Kim Strassel saying it was spot-on in detailing the pain McConnell could inflict if Democrats go down this route.
This is political.
I'm not entirely worried about Mitch McConnell getting political.
What I'm worried about is the fact that Joe Biden could deal with the sludge thrown at him by McConnell, but that's all it is.
Republicans, as I've long said, seem to just be going, slow down there, Democrats, but doing nothing to actually oppose their plans or advocate for what Republicans want.
Easy way to understand this.
Universal health care is a constant talking point from the left with demands they implement this bill.
And Republicans offering up nothing to Republicans.
I mean, other than just trying to stop Democrats.
That's not leadership.
That's why so many people liked Donald Trump.
Well, let's talk about climate, guns, and voting.
Okay, let's start with climate.
13 states sue the Biden administration over federal oil and gas leasing ban.
The Daily Caller reports a coalition of 13 states have sued Joe Biden's administration Wednesday over its January 27th ban of new oil and gas leasing on federal lands.
By executive fiat, Joe Biden and his administration have single-handedly driven the price of energy up, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said during a press conference Wednesday.
Biden's executive order violated both the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Mineral Leasing Act, which affirms Congress's intent to use U.S.
resources to achieve energy independence, the lawsuit alleged.
That may just be political bickering.
Okay, these fights happen.
13 states are suing Biden.
We've seen things like this before.
But let's talk about Joe Biden and let's talk about guns.
The BBC reports U.S.
gun control.
Biden calls for a ban on assault weapons.
The BBC says he renewed his call to ban assault weapons in high-capacity magazines and urged Congress to pass bills that would end loopholes in background checks.
Let me just pause real quick, and you may have heard me say this.
There's no loopholes in the background check process.
Anybody who wants to go to a licensed firearm dealer must be processed through NICS, NICS, the National Instant Criminal Check System.
Now, for private sales, in some places where it's allowed, it is a crime, my understanding, a felony, to transfer a weapon to someone who is not legally allowed to have it, so you still have the responsibility to know what you are doing.
It's not a loophole, though.
There's just no universal background check system.
From a licensed dealer, there is.
In some places, there aren't.
Now, what Joe Biden is proposing is a ban on assault weapons, and even threatened executive action to do so.
The problem here, and I'm not going to rehash the whole gun argument because I did a ton of videos about it already, is that assault weapon is not legally defined at the federal level, and even when it is, it makes literally no sense.
There are many different weapons, there's 3D printing, and what they define as assault weapon It just makes no sense.
You know, I want to try and make sure I can educate people enough on this issue, but I will tell you...
They say, what makes, say, a Ruger 10-22 go from a hunting rifle to an assault weapon is a pistol grip, which changes very little.
Or the size of the magazine, or the stock, whether it's retractable or folding.
These things don't change what the gun does.
It doesn't change the fact that it's the same firearm, they just have strange definitions.
It doesn't change the fact that in some places an M1A, a rifle, which is a variant on a WWII-style rifle, is an assault weapon, but a modern SCAR-20S isn't.
That makes no sense.
Now, that ultimately doesn't matter for the point of this segment.
I bring up the guns issue because many people have said that is what will truly ignite a real hot conflict.
If Joe Biden announces that he's going to do this sweeping $3 trillion package overhauling voting and guns and inequality, social justice issues, and the gun issue is on top of this.
Then people may be pushed to the brink.
My fear is, we've already seen from the left autonomous zones.
You have the GFAS, they call it, the George Floyd Autonomous Zone in Minnesota, Minneapolis.
The violence there is excessive.
What we've heard from residents is horrifying.
What happens when the federal government takes action that half the country doesn't agree with, and then they just say no?
Already, Joe Biden's come out and said, we may need more COVID restrictions.
But places like Texas said, nah, we good.
And then they reopened.
Joe Biden is not speaking on behalf of a United States.
Like, he's speaking on behalf of literally this country for sure.
But the red states are telling him, shove off.
And the blue states are saying, alright, go Biden.
Already, he does not have the confidence of half of this country.
So pushing forward a hyper-partisan, hyper-polarized, massive overhaul of this country, it's going to push people towards dangerous extremes, in my opinion.
Take a look at this story from the New York Post.
De Blasio announces new world-changing racial justice commission.
They say the move came after de Blasio touted it in advance more than a dozen times over the past year.
But he gave the 11-member commission a deadline to submit its recommendations in December, when he'll be a lame duck following the November 2 mayoral election.
Changing the city charter requires approval by voters, and last happened in 2019 when the powers of the Civilian Complaint Review Board were expanded.
de Blasio claimed his new panel's work would be modeled in part on that of South Africa's
post-apartheid truth and reconciliation commission, saying, we want to take from
those international models and adapt them to the reality here. Racism's been with us for 400 years,
but it can be eradicated, the mayor said. This group will change the world.
Truth and reconciliation. Before the election, we heard Democrats say,
that's the only way to move forward is truth and reconciliation.
Well, that generated massive backlash.
Conservatives, notably, were freaking out, saying, what do you mean by truth and reconciliation commissions?
Oh, they mean some pretty serious stuff.
They mean reallocation of property.
They mean restriction on certain rights for certain individuals.
They're talking about, in Evanston, Illinois, granting money to families as reparations. They're talking about providing
relief to farmers, but only farmers of color, as they describe. This means we are going to see our
already divided nation, which is divided based on political ideology and in obvious ways, geography.
We're now going to see it divided additionally based on race, more so than it already is.
This kind of action is exactly what conservatives were angry about when the media kept saying they would bring about truth and reconciliation commissions.
Now de Blasio wants to do it.
They're going to say de Blasio didn't detail how that would happen, but said he was open to the idea of paying reparations after a reporter said the commission's chairwoman, Jennifer Jones, Austin, CEO of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, has called that something to be considered.
Betsy Gottbaum, of the Good Government Group Citizens Union, called the timing of de Blasio's announcement, so near the end of his two-term tenure, very bizarre.
So maybe it's meaningless.
But I only highlight the de Blasio circumstance, uh, de Blasio scenario, or situation.
Because we're curious as to what Joe Biden will be doing in terms of equity, inequality and immigration.
We're starting to see what Democrats will do, and we're starting to get an image of what Joe Biden will represent.
Axios reports, Biden puts Harris in charge of the border crisis.
Oh, this one is significant.
Let's read, and then I'll tell you why it's so serious.
They say, President Biden is putting Vice President Harris in charge of addressing the migrant surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, senior administration officials announced on Wednesday.
Just as President Obama tasked Biden with fixing the U.S.
economy after he assumed office in 2009, Biden is putting his own Vice President in charge of a problem threatening to overshadow the new administration's own successful launch.
Harris will lead efforts with Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to manage the flow of unaccompanied children and migrant families arriving at the border in numbers not seen since a surge in 2019.
Starting today, the Northern Triangle nations and Mexico will We'll know there was one senior official dedicated to this effort.
To be very clear, this is an important task, a senior administration official told reporters during a conference call.
It was held just an hour before a White House event with Biden-Harris, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.
The announcement and high-level meeting coming the same day the White House arranged a trip for senior aides and member of Congress to South Texas illustrated the breadth of the administration's efforts to get control of the problem.
Republicans say Biden is to blame for refusing to reinstate a Trump-era policy to expel unaccompanied minors, as well as more accommodating language the president's own press secretary concedes is connected to its humanitarian values.
What they're saying, quote, President Biden said during the transition, whatever the most urgent need, he would turn to the Vice President, one of the three officials briefing reporters said.
And today, he is turning to the Vice President.
The first goal will be stemming the flow of illegal migrants into the U.S.
In a broader context, Harris will also work on establishing a strategic partnership with the Central American countries based on respect and shared values.
The work will be conducted with the understanding that these countries are our friends and our neighbors.
They are members of our shared community of the Americas and within the Western Hemisphere.
One official said Harris spoke Wednesday morning with Ricardo Zuniga, the State Department's Special Envoy to the Northern Triangle.
Zuniga and other top border officials left earlier this week for Mexico and plan to go on to Guatemala with the goal of addressing local problems fueling the migration north.
They include lax responses to the COVID pandemic, rampant crun, as well as the after-effects of two hurricanes that blew through the region.
The Biden administration had discussed increased aid to address some of these root concerns.
The bottom line.
The people of the Northern Triangle certainly deserve to experience freedom and opportunity and be able to access protection within the Northern Triangle, one official told reporters.
They shouldn't have to come to the U.S.
to seek that freedom and opportunity, and that's what she'll be working towards.
Among the items to tackle are local corruption and ways to improve local economies.
On the surface, It's a good thing.
It is.
If Kamala Harris is effectively going to reinstate much of the Trump-era policies which stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants and these caravans, it is a good thing.
I will cross my fingers and give them credit for this so far.
But I'm not entirely convinced we will ultimately get something good with Biden's sweeping reforms and putting Harris in charge of the crisis.
Recently, Kamala Harris was slammed for laughing in the face of reporters when they asked her if she would visit the border.
She just busted out laughing.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool
It's extremely inappropriate.
What about the suffering on the border was funny to this woman?
When they said, Madam Vice President, will you be visiting the border?
She just starts laughing.
And she said, obviously not today.
I don't get it.
And that worries me.
She either doesn't care about the suffering, or she doesn't take it seriously at all.
And the reason why I don't think she will actually enact many of these policies that will stem the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the U.S.
or coming to the border, at the very least, is, well, because of this from Newsweek, August 11th, 2020.
Kamala Harris, more liberal than Bernie Sanders, Senate record analysis shows.
That's right.
Now, let me clarify this for you.
They're not saying that Kamala Harris is further left of Bernie.
What they're saying is she refuses to compromise in any way with Republicans.
Bernie Sanders, while he is ideologically far left, further left than Kamala Harris, was at least willing to concede to Republicans on certain issues, which means the bills that he was involved in, supported, and voted on were not so far left.
Kamala Harris, the furthest left you'll see.
Newsweek stated, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's pick for VP running mate Kamala Harris was ranked as being more liberal than Bernie Sanders.
The government watchdog site GovTrack.us ranked all 100 US senators with an ideology score.
The score is based on each senator's legislative behavior, namely, how similar the pattern of bills and resolutions they co-sponsor are to other members of Congress.
GovTrek gave Sanders an ideology score of 0.02 and Harris a score of 0.00.
Together, they ranked as the most liberal members of the Senate.
The website said Harris joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats.
Of the 471 bills that Harris co-sponsored, 15% were introduced by a legislator who was not a Democrat, the website said.
What this means is...
She is not likely going to compromise with Republicans.
Not that she's far left.
Now, Biden has said no deportations in the first hundred days.
He lost that fight.
Biden did say moratorium on deportations and decriminalizing border crossings and things like that, especially during debates.
Kamala Harris likely will pursue Joe Biden's agenda, and it may result in her refusing to cooperate with Republicans.
Now, where does this all lead?
This is where I get worried.
We have this story from Vox.com, and they say the Republican revolt against democracy explained in 13 charts.
In one of their graphs, they say, from a CBS News poll, Republicans see Democrats as something worse than mere rivals.
57% of Republicans say that Democrats are enemies.
43% say opposition.
Among Democrats, it's inverted.
41% see Republicans as enemies.
Now, you may be saying, that's not the majority, right?
So Republicans, the majority, see Democrats as enemies, but not the Democrats.
It doesn't matter.
It's still 41% of Democrats seeing Republicans as enemies, and 57% of Republicans seeing Democrats as enemies.
Republicans dislike compromise.
Yep, more problems.
Now, you can argue that this is liberal bias and these polls are not correct.
It doesn't matter.
What matters is we all can recognize, to a certain degree, there is a conflict between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Zach Goldberg tweeted, Between 2016 and 2020, white liberals became slightly but significantly less likely to say that political violence is not at all justified, while white conservatives became significantly more likely to give this response.
There's a difference here.
And that difference is Republican as a party, Democrat as a party, and here, individuals who are conservative or liberal, noting this singles out white individuals specifically.
What they're basically saying, people were asked, is political violence acceptable?
And 87.64% of white conservatives said not at all.
Today, that was in 2016, 94.89% say not at all, which means over the past four years, more conservatives have embraced nonviolence.
However, among white liberals, less said not at all.
In 2016, white liberals at 86.93%, meaning more liberals were more likely to support violence than Republicans by a small amount.
In 2020, that number goes down to 81.82.
Remarkable.
Interestingly, in 2016, white moderates were the most likely to say that political violence was not at all acceptable.
And that makes sense to me.
In 2020, that number dropped to 85.77.
What this means...
We are seeing hyperpolarization.
We are seeing an escalation among people who believe they are entitled to use violence.
While among all white conservatives, this poll shows that they're less likely to support political violence, they're more likely to say it's not at all justified.
According to a poll from CBS, Republicans are more likely to view Democrats as enemies.
Perhaps that means they won't get physically violent with enemies, but they do see them
as enemies among the far left and liberals.
While they may not view Trump supporters as enemies outright, those that do are more likely
to support the use of violence.
And this has me concerned.
When we see things... There's this tweet from Jack Posobiec.
It says, Navy extremism training today shut down sailor who asked about Antifa, BLM riots, and radical Islam.
Jack Posobiec tweeted out a message, someone who said that they were going through the military anti-extremism training, and every time they tried bringing up Black Lives Matter or Antifa, they were struck down saying, no, no, no, it's not what it's about.
The military was just being told conservatives were the bad guys.
So now I hope you understand what has me worried.
When I tried talking to people about the potential for hot civil conflict of some sort, they always poo-poo it and say, oh no, it's wrong, it's never going to happen.
But there's a podcast called It Can Happen Here, and it can.
It's not going to look like what you think it will look like, but it's happening.
Many people told me, oh, the government is too resilient, they'll never, you know, it's not going to get woke, they're not going to do these things, they're not going to confiscate weapons.
What happens when the military is being trained, as they are now, to view conservatives, the Gadsden flag, as extremism?
That's been reported in other stories as well.
What happens when they're told to accept that Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots are peaceful protests?
What happens then when you, a law-abiding citizen, expressing your constitutional rights, gets a visit from a police officer or someone in the military for some reason, National Guard maybe, and they believe fringe, far-left, woke ideology?
Yeah, they'll violate your rights because you're an extremist!
Already, the national security apparatus is getting involved in domestic policy, which is strange, because they're supposed to be protecting us from foreign adversaries, not from... You know, they're not supposed to be spying in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but here we go.
So this is what has me worried.
Joe Biden's plan for a sweeping overhaul.
Democrats realizing they have a very small window.
They just narrowly got enough power to dramatically make changes to this country.
Even if half the country opposes it, they will do it.
And maybe they're hoping that the other half of the country will mostly just be apathetic, lethargic.
I don't think so.
I think it's only going to make things worse.
I think you're going to find a lot of people deciding that they've had enough.
There's already creepy talk about the country breaking apart and peaceful divorce, and I think that would just greatly benefit China.
But I suppose it doesn't matter all that much, because people are just going to I think people are just going to get angry and they're going to stand up for themselves and they decide to stand up for themselves.
And as much as we might say we want a peaceful resolution, we want this country to find unity, Joe Biden could do that, but instead he's going to go hardcore hyper-partisan and that's going to make people go nuts.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
It's a live show.
We have a conversation, we have guests, so make sure you check it out.
And we even take your comments, so it'll be fun.
You can super chat.
That's at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL at 8 p.m., and we will see you all there.
For the past several days, Twitter has been inundated with nonsensical and inane statements about gun control and guns, and what people need and what they don't need, and it's remarkable that it comes from people who know literally nothing about guns.
I'm not going to pretend to be a gun expert, because I'm far from it.
I'm just a dude who bought some guns last year, but boy, do you learn a lot when you actually try to buy a gun, go to the range, and get some basic training.
I've taken some people to the range, and I've given them some basic instruction on firearms.
And it's remarkable how many people have their opinions change the moment they're actually given basic instruction.
Like, we went to an actual shooting range, sat down, had a guy give a lesson.
You have to do it when you go to many ranges if you're not like a member or whatever.
You have to do it at least one time.
Explaining proper gun safety.
Then when people actually go into that range and fire, they're like, wow.
I didn't realize.
And that's just shooting the gun the first time.
For people to actually go to a store, wow!
There was a viral story that I covered, where a liberal journalist went to, I think it was a Walmart, trying to buy some guns, and was shocked that she could not actually buy the guns!
It's amazing.
Well, Joe Biden wants Congress to pass a law banning assault weapons.
Okay.
We're going to talk about what that means because it means nothing.
But we also have the usual figures, individuals like David Hogg.
He tweeted out that it should not be easier to buy an AR-15 than it is to vote.
Okay.
I'm down.
The only problem?
It's harder to buy an AR-15 than it is to vote.
So we'll get into all that.
I'll show you a bit about what Biden is talking about, calling for these new laws.
But the first thing I'll just say is, these people don't seem to realize that when you want to buy a gun, you have to get a background check.
Now, in some circumstances, in some places, private sale of firearms is allowed.
But let me tell you about how I voted last year.
Got an envelope in the mail, filled it out, put it back in the mailbox, I voted.
I wish it were that easy.
Even when you're trying to buy a gun from someone else, there's usually reasonable precautions these individuals take.
Typically, in many states that do allow the private transfer of guns, you have to know the individual is legally allowed to buy the gun, otherwise you are committing a felony.
In which case, they put it on you to make sure you're not selling a gun to someone who's bad.
And I'll point out the obvious.
We have a background check system.
You can go in and they background check you.
If that doesn't work, what are you proposing?
Because you are not stopping the tide in this revolution.
3D printed guns are here.
There is nothing you can do about it.
What are they going to do?
Ban 3D printers?
Well, I want to show you... I love talking about guns these days.
Let me show you some guns, but let me talk about what Politico is saying, what Joe Biden is saying.
Biden calls for federal assault weapons ban after Boulder shooting.
The president has also urged the Senate to take up a pair of gun reform bills recently passed by the House, of which I think go a little bit overboard, but there's a good argument to be made here that I really do think we have to have.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday called for a federal assault weapons ban and strengthened background checks for firearm sales in the aftermath of a deadly supermarket shooting in Boulder, Colorado, hoisting the contentious issue of gun reform among the White House's top legislative priorities.
It's interesting that we have tragic events happening in Chicago almost every weekend.
It's only now they're bringing up these stories when we have these bills passing the House and making their way to the Senate.
I think it's just people in the media are... they ignore stories until it benefits them.
That's the reality.
Because the truth is, unfortunately, gun violence is real.
It's real.
It happens all the time.
And there are certain tragedies and atrocities that we've just seen recently.
But man, just Google search it and you'll hear about all these different places you never knew.
It's remarkable to me that liberals don't know or care about these other stories that probably would still benefit their cause.
They don't care.
The media focuses on what will shock and scare white suburbanite progressives.
It's saying remarks delivered from the state dining room in the of the executive mansion.
Biden demanded that the Senate quickly take action on two bills passed earlier this month by the
House, which would expand background checks and close the so-called Charleston loophole.
But the president went further. It's not a loophole. This is the stupidest thing.
They call it loopholes. What they're basically saying, for the most part,
when it comes to loophole, is that some states allow the private transfer of firearms.
That when you when.
If you privately sell a weapon, and you sell to a person who is not allowed to have it, you've committed a felony.
It's already illegal, okay?
You can't do it.
So you need to take those active measures.
What's the difference between that, I suppose, and the national instant criminal check system?
Going through an FFL or a store?
I suppose the idea is, then the FBI gets a chance to review the individual.
But if you take reasonable precautions to avoid committing a crime transferring up into someone who is, you know, shouldn't have one, I suppose the argument then is that people trust the government more than a private individual to do the background check.
Okay, I understand that.
It's still not a loophole.
It's just not a law on the books.
So you shouldn't call it a loophole.
They do that to make it seem like people are getting away with something.
Instead of saying, we propose new legislation that would change the way private sales happen in places like West Virginia and Wyoming, they say it's a loophole!
Because they want to create this idea that it's already the standard that you can't do this.
But you can.
Quote, while we're still waiting for more information about what happened in Boulder, I don't need to wait another minute, let alone an hour, to take common sense steps that will save lives in the future, and to urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to act.
We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again.
I got that done when I was a senator.
It passed.
It was the law for the longest time, and it brought down these tragic events.
We should do it again.
Now, that's not true.
That's a lie.
The Washington Post has fact-checked Joe Biden's claims.
They say fact-checker analysis.
Biden's claim the 1994 assault weapon brought down mass shootings.
The facts.
They say a 2004 study from the Justice Department found the ban's impact on gun violence was mixed, at best, because of exemptions written in the law.
Sure, I'll point something out.
on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.
The report said that assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes, but suggested that
if the law remained in place, it might have a bigger impact.
Sure, I'll point something out.
The problem we have is that these high profile individuals, people like David Hogg, David
Hogg is a kid, man.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Stop getting your policy positions from kids.
But these Democrat types, these establishment, authoritarian, liberal types... They're authoritarian right, by the way, not leftists.
They don't know anything about the law, and they're praising.
We should have more young people like him.
If you're getting your information from a kid who doesn't know what a gun is, don't be surprised when your laws don't work.
So I'll tell you right now.
Should anyone care if they ban outright AR-15?
Yeah, if you own it, I suppose, if they grandfather it, I understand why people would be mad, but I'll tell you this, it wouldn't do a thing.
You know why?
There are other kinds of guns.
There are many other kinds of guns.
And it would take only a few minutes for someone to modify an AR-15's internal mechanisms to create a new kind of gun they could call the RA-15 or whatever, and it would be exempt.
This is the problem.
The cat is out of the bag.
3D printing.
Home CNC machines.
You can't do anything about it.
Not to mention, your laws are meaningless.
So Joe Biden is wrong.
He wants executive action.
Let's play a game, my friends.
I'm gonna show y'all a meme you've probably already seen before.
Welcome to a meme about gun control.
What you see on the screen, and for those listening I'll describe it, it says at the top, this is a Ruger 10-22.
It is a wood stock, a wooden stock rifle, and then under it, it says, this is a Ruger 10-22.
It is, it looks relatively different.
This one appears to have a polymer stock and frame, but it also has a rifle grip and stock.
Below this, it says, this is a Ruger 10-22.
It's the exact same gun, only this one has a magazine in it for effect.
The rifle on the bottom, in the middle, at the top, they're all the exact same gun.
They can take the exact same magazines.
At the bottom it says, your fear of black stocks does not change the fact that they are all the same firearm.
And they are, but let me tell you something.
Which weapon would fall under the law as an assault weapon?
Uh, the one on the bottom.
But guess what?
They're all the same gun.
Now hold on.
What does assault weapon mean?
It changes from state to state.
I don't think the Ruger 10-22 on the bottom with the pistol grip and the magazine in it would constitute an assault rifle in places like New Jersey, which is one of the worst states for gun laws in the country.
But all you have to do is add a folding stock, which allows for easier storage, and then it becomes an assault weapon.
The same weapon that can be carried around, that's the same barrel length, effectively, and each and every one of these guns can take the same magazine, but one becomes an assault weapon because of the pistol grip.
It's remarkable how much of this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Before you, I show another image.
My friends, this is an M1A.
It is a wooden rifle.
And if you showed this to the average person, I think Crowder actually did this, they'll tell you that it's a hunting rifle.
This, my friends, is legally an assault weapon in Maryland.
Why?
I don't know.
It fires .308.
Actually, I think this might be chambered for 7.62x51 NATO, which is effectively the same thing as a .308, but Yeah, everybody's a stickler.
I've had some people say, don't use .308 and a 7.62.
It's not chambered for that, you know, pressure, although it is functionally interchangeable.
Then I've had people say, ah, you're fine, go ahead and do it.
Some people say, don't risk breaking your weapon.
Okay, fine.
Chambered for 7.62x51, whatever.
Get your advice from your people.
The point is, this is an assault weapon.
This right here, literally, with a 10-round magazine and iron sights.
Effectively something you would see from, like, World War II, except they used the M1 Garand, which had a clip, not a magazine.
Okay, this is the assault weapon.
My friends, the SCAR-20S is not!
What you are seeing now is an image I just Google-searched, SCAR-20S.
You can see a guy, he's got a fairly large scope on it.
And this also fires, this one fires .308.
So it can handle higher pressure, but it's effectively the same round.
This one is not the assault weapon.
Can you explain this to me?
Why the essentially archaic, you know, 7.62 rifle is an assault weapon, and this one isn't?
It defies logic and reason.
So here's the point.
You want to ban AR-15s?
I roll my eyes.
A lot of people already have the weapons.
You'd have to confiscate them.
That's never gonna happen.
It would be impossible.
And someone would just invent something with a different internal mechanism, and there you go!
It's no longer an AR-15.
I mean, the vectors... Vectors exist, and they use a different internal components.
So it's just outright meaningless.
Now let's talk about voting, my friends.
David Hogg.
He tweeted, It should not be easier to buy an AR-15 than it is to vote.
Okay.
When I voted, I mentioned, I got a piece of mail in my mailbox that I never asked for.
It just showed up one day!
And I took it, and I filled it out as per the rules, and I mailed it back in, and I was done.
When you would like to buy a weapon, In almost every circumstance.
You want to buy online?
Okay.
Go to a certain website.
There's a variety of websites.
And find out what you want.
Pay for it.
Submit your choice of FFL to receive the weapon.
You'll then get notified of the shipment.
You'll get notified by your store when they get it.
You'll show up.
You'll fill out a background check form under penalty of... I believe it's under penalty of perjury.
Saying that you're a US citizen.
You have to check a whole bunch of things.
Saying that, you know, you're not a criminal.
You're not a felon.
Then they run it through the system.
Then you will either get cleared, because the FBI literally checks this.
They send it to them, and the FBI is there going through these, background checking you.
FBI, literally looking at your name.
Some people get researched.
So, often they'll see your name, they'll do a quick search and say, this person seems to be a law-abiding citizen, we have nothing on file, whatever, fine, cleared.
You're good to go, you can buy your weapon.
It happens very quickly.
It's called NICS, the National Instant Criminal Check System.
If you are not a criminal and you have no history, what would a background check find even in five days?
It doesn't change anything.
In fact, some people will be researched.
What that means is you have to wait about 20 minutes while the FBI googles your name or whatever and looks into your background and checks a bunch of databases to see if you are, you know, you might be, you might be, there might be someone with the same name.
You might have some, some, you know, petty offenses like tickets or jaywalking or something like that.
And they'll research you and you sit around the store and you're like, I gotta wait.
And then, sometimes, when you're getting researched, they come back for 20 minutes and say, you've been delayed.
We'll call you back when you're cleared.
And then you leave.
And then five days later you'll get a phone call and they'll say, yes or no.
That's already how it works.
So let me clarify.
Most of you probably know this because if you're a gun enthusiast and you have guns, What they're advocating for in terms of background checks already exists.
If you have a history of mental illness or some other defect, you have to admit to it.
If you don't, you are committing a crime.
Now, if you commit a crime and you submit it, and they do the background check on you and find that you lied, congratulations, you've committed a crime, you will be denied to purchase your firearm.
There is, however, I think there's a, I don't know if it's three or five days, but there is a deadline that the FBI, I think it's the FBI, has.
If they are researching you and they don't complete the process, then you are legally allowed to pick up your gun because you need to be reasonably allowed to bear arms.
We have a constitution.
But the system is already in place.
So let's talk about what David Hogg is saying.
Imagine if, in order to vote, you had to fill out a criminal background check that could take up to five days.
Imagine if you needed an ID from your state proving you live where you are, not just your name!
And imagine if you had to fill out a form signing a sworn affidavit about who you are, that you're a U.S.
citizen, providing yourself a security number and all this stuff, in order to vote.
That's right.
It is easier to vote than to buy a gun.
Which brings me to Matt Walsh, who counters the point from David Hogg.
Matt Walsh says gun ownership is a more important right than voting.
Voting is not really a human right at all, but a privilege that should be reserved for those who are qualified to do it properly.
But it should be easier to buy a gun than vote, but it isn't.
I somewhat agree with Matt Walsh.
I believe that voting should be a right.
Look, I understand there needs to be some kind of civic engagement involved in voting.
We can't just have random people showing up.
There has to be something tied to voting.
And I think it's fairly simple.
When you register to vote, you've got, you know, jury duty is a potential thing, and you have the right to vote.
I really do.
I believe in a constitutional republic with democratic institutions.
I am not a fan of this idea that only wealthy landowners can vote.
I do think some restrictions on voting are absolutely fine.
Voter ID, for instance.
Come on.
We need some security.
You need to prove who you are.
And we want to prove, you know, that you live somewhere.
And I also believe there should be a time limit.
Like, you can't vote if you just move somewhere within three months.
And I think the reason for that is voting locally, I mean.
Voting federally should be allowed to vote no matter what.
If you move somewhere, and then you vote on local ordinances, you could dramatically alter the community for everybody else, and you have no ties to the community.
That's bad.
So I'm fine with some restrictions, but I do believe voting is a right.
I don't necessarily believe that it should be easier to buy a gun than vote, but I understand the point because I'll tell you this.
What good is the right to vote if you have no right to defend yourself?
And that's it.
There's a remarkable argument from the authoritarian right.
You know, many of these Parkland kids are authoritarian right.
Not like far-right ultra-traditionalists, but they're not on the left.
These are not people advocating for socialism, they're literally just advocating for the status quo and the seizure of people's rights.
So, sorry.
The authoritarian left?
Remarkably, pro-gun.
The libertarian left?
Pro-gun.
Libertarian right?
Pro-gun.
Authoritarian right?
Not pro-gun!
And that's many in the Democratic Party, and I literally mean that.
Now, I'll tell you this.
When we talk about the right to bear arms, to protect yourselves from enemies both foreign and domestic, as well, you know, like criminals, what we hear from many of these Democrats is, Oh yeah, like you're ever gonna go up against the U.S.
government.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Nobody wants to go up against the U.S.
government.
When the police show up at your house, you abide, you do what the cops say, and we recognize that in a civil society, police need to be able to make arrests.
When the National Guard is deployed in an emergency, guess what you do what the National Guard says when they're like, hey, get out of here, this, that, or otherwise.
Why?
Because we believe in this country.
Now, there are issues, especially right now in the culture war, but for the most part, we understand there is a process for our wages of grievances.
Many are frustrated that process isn't being... it's not easy.
But I do think the lawsuits going to the Supreme Court tend to work.
Not always.
It's an imperfect system, but it's still pretty good.
I'll throw it back to like the World War II era, where you had the Office of Censorship.
Loose lips sink ships.
Okay.
Many people recognized that there were reasonable restrictions on our freedom of speech, and things we could do when we were in a major crisis.
So that means, cops show up to your house, so long as it's legal and they have a warrant, you know, you abide by the law.
In fact, even if, and this is the tough one for a lot of people, if the cops show up to your house and they're breaking the law, You must, and this is the most important part, you must as reasonably as possible cooperate, because if you want to win in a legal battle and have that regis of grievances, you can't give them any excuses.
Cops show up to your house, says you're under arrest.
You can say, for what?
Do you have a warrant?
You know, call your lawyer.
And then you win when you remain calm.
It could jam you up, it could be annoying, it could be a violation of your rights, but you don't win by screaming and yelling and fighting with cops.
That's not how it works.
It's tough.
It really is.
There are a lot of people who think they're going to be gung-ho charging the streets and taking back their government or whatever.
Sorry, that's just not how it works.
We're a country of 330 million people.
There's got to be a democratic process involved.
And I think the key to victory is persuasion.
That's the arrow we're in.
Convincing people that you were right.
That means filming the police, not screaming and yelling, making reasonable statements, and, you know.
However, I will also point out The fact that people have guns means the cops aren't going to kick your door in and beat your children to death and drag them out of your home.
I don't know what these people, you know, who are like... When I mention the Viet Cong or the Taliban, for instance, that were able to hold back the U.S.
military with but rifles, they're like, so you're saying that, you know, Trump supporters and, you know, they're gonna run out in the streets and act like the Taliban?
And I'm like, no!
I'm saying that in countries where people don't have the right to defend themselves, government agents commit crimes against them.
And it's not even about the government.
It's about some lunatic who wants to come in and steal your stuff.
Anybody who wants to commit a crime.
Now.
Without the right to defend yourself, you would see your rights completely revoked and eroded.
They'd become meaningless.
And that's what I think Matt Walsh is saying about the right to vote.
Now, he says it's a privilege.
I disagree on that part.
But I understand why he says gun ownership is more important than voting.
That may be true only in the sense, at least in my opinion, That if you don't have the right to bear arms, your government and corporations can do whatever they want because they fear no one, they fear nothing.
I'm not a fan of that.
I don't think you are going to see American citizens marching the streets with guns and forming, you know, factions in a great civil war or anything like that.
I think we are seeing a political war and there's attempts to seize power.
But if the American people did not have firearms, then criminal actors and rogue agents within government would do what they want with impunity.
They'd storm into your house and they'd do whatever they want.
Let's talk about Breonna Taylor.
Let's talk about Breonna Taylor.
You want to talk about the right to bear arms.
Breonna Taylor's boyfriend had a legal firearm and the police did not enter the home because they were worried about it and they, you know, they broke the door in and they got shot at.
One cop got hit.
It's a difficult situation.
But think about what would have happened if these people did not have the right to bear arms.
I suppose the left would argue everyone would be alive.
I doubt it.
I think they would have broken into her home and all of the arguments made by the left is that the cops would just kick their way in with impunity and no fear and they would do it to anyone at any point for any reason.
There needs to be a balance of power.
When the people fear their government, there's tyranny.
And when the government fears their people, there's freedom.
It's one of the famous quotes.
I don't think anybody should be shooting at cops or anything like that.
But I do think police need to recognize why you have to knock and get a warrant and do the job right, because people in this country are allowed to defend themselves.
And guess what?
When this dude, Brenna Taylor's boyfriend, shot a cop, he literally shot a cop, The charges against him were dropped.
He won.
Why?
Because they kicked the door in and he was allowed to defend himself.
It's amazing, isn't it?
That's the point I'll bring up to all these leftists.
When they say, you know, what do you need guns for to protect yourself from the government?
I'll just say, I don't know, Black Lives Matter, trans rights, you think cops are bad, you think they're Klan members, you sing that song from Rage Against the Machine, some of those who run forces are the same that burn crosses.
That's why.
Because you think the cops are white supremacists, and then you think that these people should not be allowed to protect themselves from white supremacists?
You know what I tweeted?
I tweeted, we need all marginalized people.
In order to end white supremacy, marginalized people must be armed to the teeth.
And I'm not even kidding.
White supremacy is a bad thing.
White supremacists are bad.
You know, especially violent ones.
They want to oppress somebody.
They want to beat someone.
They want to be bigoted.
They want to violate someone else's rights.
I don't care what you believe, who you love, how you want to dress, how you identify.
You have a right to bodily autonomy and to live your life freely and peacefully.
And if somebody wants to take that away from you by force, with violence, you have a right to defend yourself.
So, I tweeted out the trans flag with the rifle on it, and I said this.
Under no pretext shall the right to keep and bear arm be infringed.
You know what that means?
Karl Marx quote.
Under no pretext should ammunition and arms be surrendered.
The workers should frustrate this by force if necessary.
That's a Marx quote.
That's what the leftists say.
Under no pretext.
The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I just put them together.
You know why?
I don't care if you're a leftist.
I don't care if you're a right-winger, whatever.
As long as we all agree the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed under no pretext, then we're good.
It's the authoritarian right corporate democrat types that are all about banning the stuff.
And guess what?
So are the establishment Republicans.
They just say, well it is reasonable.
Nah.
It's not reasonable.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
Reparations have begun.
Here in the U.S., outright and overtly called reparations.
Now many people disagree with the idea, but there's an actual argument about whether or not the United States government should pay reparations to those who are descendants of slaves.
It's a real argument.
Now many people have come out against it, many people have come out for it.
And much of the arguments for it are that historical racism and lack of access to resources has resulted in historical poverty.
And by providing reparations to the descendants of slaves, namely black families, we can help normalize society and end some of these impoverished areas by giving resources to these families.
I actually think there is a decent argument to be made here.
The problem is, we're in a civil rights era.
We fought for equality, and now we need to recognize that there is historical wealth affecting people of all races, and that by providing people of one race with reparations, I don't think we'll actually solve the problem.
We will still have impoverished individuals of particular races.
Which brings me to the next point.
Now, again, I'm actually not opposed to the idea of reparations.
I am not.
I'm not a big fan of it.
I don't completely agree with it.
I just think there is a logical argument to be made, and I think it's fair to say maybe it won't work.
Personally, the reason why I lean against these ideas is because I think there are poor white people as well and at this point we solve the problem of poverty by focusing on class and not race.
Now I recognize that there is historical racism which has tied to poverty.
So it's an interesting argument then because if the left truly believes that black families and families of color A variety of marginalized peoples are disproportionately affected by racism.
Well, then a class-based solution would disproportionately benefit them.
You just wouldn't leave behind any poor people.
The problem with this is that we have moved beyond any claim of reparations.
We are now entering into just anti-white government Payments!
Oakland launches guaranteed pay plan for low-income people.
What the Associated Press leaves out is that this is for low-income families of color.
That's right.
This is not reparations.
It's a guaranteed income program that just doesn't give white people guaranteed income.
It's not reparations.
Because low-income families of color, I mean, that could be an Asian family, could be a Latino family.
I don't think there's a conversation around providing reparations to Latinos.
It's about descendants of black families, or those, I'm sorry, black families, descendants of those who were enslaved.
We're seeing the overt reparations happen in Evanston.
And I think this segment is important because white Americans, namely suburbanite families, are in for a very rude awakening.
Last night, on the TimCast IRL podcast, we hosted Jodi Shaw.
She is a white liberal woman.
She was a staffer at Smith College.
This is in Northampton, Massachusetts.
I believe it's in Northampton.
Well, she said that over time, there were these conversations around diversity, inclusivity, and equity, and it felt weird, you know, being criticized or demeaned based on your race when they would say white people are bad and white people have to do these things, but that she thought it was normal, you know, white people aren't supposed to complain about this stuff.
But then eventually it got so intense and so bad, she was forced to file a complaint about racial discrimination against her for being white.
And there is this default position many white liberals have had for a long time where they don't feel they have the right to complain about racial discrimination.
But this goes back decades.
The idea is rooted in a time when white people were the overwhelming majority.
Now they're just a strong majority between 66 and 70 percent.
But there was a time when it was 80 or 90 percent.
And so the idea was they didn't have all that much to complain about for the most part because why should they care if a small minority of individuals is criticizing them?
Things are different today, when in many cities, it's actually not the case that white people make up the majority, at least in some cities.
And in several institutions, it doesn't matter what your race is, they will racially discriminate against you.
Now, that's a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
But as we start to see things like reparations, there's going to be what the left has been calling for, a white racial awakening.
Now, I personally don't think that's a good thing.
I think we should all recognize we're humans, we're Americans before anything else, and we live together and we share this beautiful and amazing country with a beautiful and amazing Constitution.
But something is happening.
Jody Shaw's story is effectively what many white nationalists want to happen.
Now, again, I'm not imputing the honor of Jodi.
I think she's rad, and she's a regular liberal individual who just realized that she was being held back through no fault of her own, simply on the basis of race.
That cannot be accepted.
Now, white nationalists seek to capitalize on this anger and rage to drum up support for their identitarian policies.
But I don't care whether you're a white identitarian or an anti-white identitarian.
I think identitarianism is wrong, and I think This country, the Great American Melting Pot, brings many different people of cultures and race together.
The problem now is, when you hear stories about people saying they finally realized that they were being discriminated against, you will have white racial awakening.
It's what white supremacists are hoping for, and it's what I've been warning about.
You see, reparations for black residents in Evanston, honestly, not a big deal to me.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to it for the most part, although I lean against it because I don't think it's actually going to solve a lot of these problems.
But localized reparations maybe make sense.
Think about it this way.
In Evanston, Illinois, you will have the grandchild of a family that faced racial discrimination, racial covenants, redlining, blockbusting, and things like that.
They will provide access to loans or a reasonable way to purchase a home in a better neighborhood to help solve the problem of the poverty that's created historically from these laws.
For those that aren't familiar, Chicago was the... it's where the phrase redlining comes from.
It's where they basically would not sell to black families.
I certainly think remnants of blockbusting and redlining have created and contributed to historical racism.
However...
Are we really going to solve that problem these days when it's already illegal to do these things?
So ultimately, I say I don't think race-based reparation solves that problem, but here's what's happening in Evanston, Illinois.
NPR reports, the city of Evanston will make reparations available to eligible black residents for what it describes as harm caused by discriminatory housing policies and practices and inaction on the city's part.
The program is believed to be the first of its kind in the U.S.
and is seen by advocates as a potential national model.
Evanston City Council voted 8-1 on Monday to approve the Local Reparations Restorative Housing Program, an official confirmed to NPR over email.
It will grant qualifying households up to $25,000 for down payments or home repairs, according to the city, and is the first initiative of a city reparations fund that was established in 2019.
So let's stop.
Like I said, I don't think this is the solution, but I will point out some benefits.
And some positive argument, I suppose.
If the city of Evanston, just the city of Evanston, votes to allocate their taxes this way, I don't care what Evanston does.
I don't live there.
If this is what they think is right, then so be it.
And, if the resources being provided are focused primarily, they must be used in specific ways, like down payments for houses or repairs, I actually kind of like the idea.
You have dilapidated homes.
You have dilapidated neighborhoods.
If we can repair this, I'm in favor of it.
You know, you take a look at New York City, for instance.
They have the Upper West Side, extremely wealthy.
Well, the way taxes work is that they naturally just pay more in taxes because they have more money.
Percentage-wise, it's the same for most people with New York City's income tax.
But then they can use these taxes to repair poor areas that don't have as much.
Because we, as a country, as a community, are only strong as our weakest link.
So, if the city decides to do it, I'm not necessarily in agreement.
Let me slow down and just kind of break this down.
The main points I'm trying to get across in this segment.
Reparations are not where it ends.
As I pointed out from the AP story, it's eventually going to be, we're just going to print money and give it to people who aren't white.
And the problem I have is, I like the idea of helping the poor, I don't like the idea of having it based on race.
I think there are going to be many impoverished people in Evanston who may be white or mixed-race families who will not be eligible for this simply because they're the wrong race, and I don't like it.
I can understand that they're trying to rectify past racism, But you don't solve the problem of racism with more racism.
Of course, if you ask Ibram X. Kendi, who wants everyone to be racist and segregated, then you do.
And that seems to be what the left is focusing on, and that's what they will get.
They say the program is a step towards revitalizing, preserving, and stabilizing black African-American owner-occupied homes in Evanston, increasing home ownership, and building the wealth of black African-American residents, building intergenerational equity among black and African-American residents, and improving the retention rate of black and African-American homeowners in the city of Evanston.
In November 2019, the City Council established a reparations fund to support initiatives addressing historical wealth and opportunity gaps for Black residents to be funded by the first $10 million in revenue from the City's tax on the sale of recreational marijuana.
The housing program is initially budgeted at $400,000.
I... I'm fine with this.
$400,000.
I'm fine with this.
Check it out.
If you live in Evanston and you have a house, your taxes aren't going to the reparations.
Your income tax, not going to the reparations.
You know what it is?
The people who are buying pot.
I don't think they care either.
So you buy pot, you pay a tax, and that tax goes to reparations?
Fine.
If you don't want to pay that tax and contribute, don't buy pot.
And I kind of feel like a lot of people who don't want to contribute to this probably wouldn't buy pot either.
However, I do recognize still the problems of race-based programs, which brings me to where it ultimately ends up.
The AP reports.
The mayor of Oakland, California, on Tuesday announced a privately funded program that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it.
The program is the latest experiment with a guaranteed income, an idea that giving poor people a set amount of money each month helps ease the stresses of poverty that often lead to poor health while hindering their ability to find full-time work.
Sorry, you're wrong, AP.
Notice how they keep saying, poor people, poor people, poor people.
That's the manipulation.
That's the lie.
They're saying low-income families of color.
So, uh, not low-income white families.
No, you get to suffer based on the color of your skin or your ancestry.
Although I suppose most people might figure out they can probably identify as however they want and then gain access to these programs as well.
You see, this is not reparations.
This is literally just stripping away the resources from everyone to allocate towards people based on race.
This is going to make racism worse.
And so, I reference the problem here, and I reference the Jody Shaw story, to explain the issue of why it's bad that there will be a white racial awakening.
Let me tell you what's gonna happen.
As more and more liberals start to question this, low-income liberals, for instance, who are like, I can't pay my bills, and I don't get money because I'm white?
That's it?
You know, there could be a wealthy, you know, black family that people say deserves reparations.
Why should we be focusing on, you know, Will Smith's family or Oprah as oppressed when they're extremely wealthy?
So these ideas ultimately go in dangerous directions.
Now, mind you, I understand this is for low-income families.
But what happens when white individuals have a racial awakening and that's what they're calling for in Sacramento?
Check this out.
This is in Sacramento where, you know, oh, I'm sorry, they say Sacramento, California, but it's gonna be happening in Oakland.
In Sacramento, that's where the schools are doing the affinity groups so that white students can form their own groups and talk about their shared history and their feelings and have a white racial awakening.
As I've often pointed out, Do you think if you take a large group of white people and then put them in a room and have them talk to each other about their shared history and what they believe, that they will just start hating themselves?
Some might.
But I don't think so.
I think every form of life wants to fight for survival.
And so when you look at a story like Jodi Shaw's at Smith College, she stood up for herself and said, stop making this about race.
I don't feel comfortable.
You're making a hostile work environment, criticizing and attacking.
Now, Jodi is a smart, more liberal-minded individual, waking up to the realities that is the critical race theory and the threats posed by these racist policies.
But she's not racist.
What happens when you do this, and people have an awakening and then realize they are racist?
What happens when racists encounter this stuff?
You know what they're going to do?
Quite simply, they're going to just decide to form a racial identity group based on being white, and they're going to use their collective majoritarian power to vote for things they want.
California had a proposition that would have removed the civil rights provision from their constitution.
It was defeated.
And I'm glad it was.
But if it was removed, theoretically then, public institutions in California would have the right to discriminate based on race.
And so I asked my progressive friends, do you know what the percentage that the racial demographic breakup in California is mostly white?
I think it's like 70% white.
So when you look at these smaller cities in, you know, central and northern California where they're mostly white, Do you think that they're going to use the newfound powers to discriminate on the basis of race to harm themselves?
Why would they do that?
I asked my friend, do you think that these conservative areas that are, you know, all white people, do you think they would pass laws and put up signs saying, you know, only white people allowed and stuff like that?
The progressives seem to think so.
And my progressive friends did.
And I said, so why would you advocate for this?
They didn't really have a good answer.
Now, ultimately, I don't think conservatives would do that because I think these ideas have long since faded.
It is actually the left that wants segregation.
It is white progressives calling for segregation and calling for the expansion of these policies.
Don't take my word for it.
Here's a story from CNN.
Two Asian-American senators back off threat to oppose Biden nominees after White House agrees to add senior AAPI advisor.
CNN reports, Senators Tammy Duckworth and Mazie Hirono on Tuesday backed off their threat to vote against any of President Joe Biden's nominees who aren't minorities after going public with their anger that the cabinet lacks Asian-Americans.
And Duckworth earlier saying she felt insulted by the White House's attempts to brush off her concerns.
I get it.
People use identity for everything.
The alt-right has criticized me heavily, saying that the only reason I don't understand identitarianism is because I don't have a racial identity, being mixed-race.
Maybe they're right.
The only thing I had with my friends growing up was that we were all Americans, and that's why I like America.
Because I think civil rights won.
I think they were right to fight for it, and I'm glad they did.
And now we have a great American melting pot, and I think it's been fantastic up until the establishment neolib-identitarian types and far leftists started coming out, seizing power, and basically tearing the country apart.
I don't blame conservatives for the culture war.
I, in fact, blame the woke leftists.
Now, there are many anti-woke leftists.
Alright, I don't agree with them on, you know, socialism or whatever, but... Hey, look.
We can argue economic policy all day and night.
And authoritarianism.
But I think we have a serious problem with the country being torn apart by policies like we see from these Democrats.
You must have a min... The person must be a minority or else.
No, hire the best person.
I don't care.
And I'm part Asian.
I don't care.
Just hire the best person in Oakland.
They're going to start giving money, straight cash, which means if the money is printed or granted from the Fed or something like that, it dilutes the buying power of everybody else.
More likely though, it's going to be from taxes, in which case people are going to be paying money and that money is going to be allocated to other people based on race.
How is that going to solve the problem of racism when you create racial animosity between people?
It's not going to.
I think you got a lot of racists on the West Coast.
And I think there are a lot of white supremacists, like real ones, who will use this to gain power.
And it'll work for them.
It will.
You're gonna see people finally snapping, saying they're tired of being made fun of.
In fact, many of the alt-right, over the past several years, have stated this publicly.
They were tired of being attacked for being white, so they found the only group that made them feel safe and wanted.
There's a meme about this, where it's like a white guy minding his own business, and then a diverse group starts screaming at him, they said a white oppressor, He looks to his right and there's a big group of white people with torches, and they're like, don't worry, you can be one of us where we appreciate you.
And so he joins the torch march.
That's what a lot of people were feeling.
Nobody likes to be attacked based on things they can't change.
But I assure you, people will do whatever they can to survive when they feel threatened, same as any other creature on this planet.
No, maybe not any other, but most other creatures try to survive.
I think the problem is, leftist identitarianism, which is in government, which is happening now in front of us, which is allocating tax resources, is going to create a surge in the other direction.
And that's literally happened over the past few years.
It's going to result in insane policies from Democrats, from Governors, and the President.
And then you're going to see white people in this country start to ask themselves questions about what the laws should be and what they want.
It's almost like the Democrats figured it out.
The Democrats, historically the party of Jim Crow, the Klan, slavery, and the South, and the Civil War, have always been in favor of racism.
And many people say, yeah, well the party's switched.
They didn't.
I don't think they did.
I think what actually happened is the Democrats realized the path to victory was subversive, not overt.
When they came out and they were racist, they were unpopular because people don't like racism, even conservatives and Republicans.
Mind you, the first senators in this country that were black, the first politicians at the federal level, I believe were Republicans.
Abraham Lincoln, Republican.
Now, Republicans certainly have their share of racists, and always have.
And there were people who probably would have been a Democrat in the past, people who fly Confederate flags who are Republican now, so there is some blending of the parties over time.
But now the Democrats are proposing policies that will ultimately just lead to white people, as the majority, voting for their own interests.
And there you go.
What more do you expect will happen?
And that's it.
The fact that they're straight giving money to low-income families is... I think it's just proof that it's not about reparations.
It's literally just about racists trying to segregate.
They say, the reason white households in Oakland on average make about three times as much annually than black households according to the Oakland Equity Index.
It's also a nod to the legacy of the Black Panther Party, the political movement that was founded in Oakland in the 1960s.
That's their justification.
Pay inequity.
We have cultural issues.
When I look at movies and they say that they're going to have a black male lead or whatever in this new series, I don't care.
Cool.
Actually, I kind of like it.
I've talked to many friends, many conservatives, and I've said things like, look, the first Marvel movies, you had Iron Man, white dude, you had Captain America, white dude, and Thor, white dude.
Do you really think that every single Marvel movie they're going to make is just going to be a white dude?
At a certain point, you're going to get a female of color, an Asian lady, a Mexican guy.
You're going to have different people headlining as the main heroes in these stories.
That's just a natural consequence.
So when they come out and they announced, was it Shang-Chi, I think is the new movie, one of the movies they're doing, and it's an Asian superhero lead, I'm like, cool!
I think we need it.
I think we need representation, and I think we need our movies, our TV shows, our comic books, to reflect a diverse America.
The problem is the wokeness is... they preach, they beat you over that, and they don't treat these people like regular people.
That's not going to work.
Here's what we need.
You do a movie, Black Panther.
I thought Black Panther was actually fantastic.
Seriously.
Because you had Wakanda, You had, you know, T'Challa, this leader, who was an ethno-nationalist.
He was like, our country is only for our people, and it's like, wow.
And then you had the bad guy, who was basically Wakandan Hitler, who was like, our people are the best.
And it was like, looking at these two kind of awful ideologies, especially how they had, what was their, their government was based on ritualistic bloodline combat?
Patriarchal bloodline combat.
Seeing that and seeing that nuance in that political debate was fantastic.
They even have the line where it's like T'Challa's like, if we open our borders to these other people, they'll bring their problems with them.
I'm like, it's a really amazing thing to see that political discourse happening.
And I think it's important to show that even, you know, the king of Wakanda understands issues of immigration similar to conservative arguments in this country.
That's what we need.
Showing people of different backgrounds and faiths, religions, races, Showing them experiencing similar problems that we do.
The problem is a lot of the woke stuff we actually end up getting is like, they scream that white people are bad, they claim white people are the villains, and that's just going to perpetuate racism.
I think in the end what really helps us come together is just watching a TV show with characters of all different backgrounds.
We have a lot of commercials where there's mixed-race families.
I think that's fine.
I really don't care.
I do think there's like a... what these commercials do...
Is you'll have like a mixed-race family, and it's almost every single commercial.
Well, you'll get these conspiracy theorists who think the real reason they're doing it is to push an agenda, and that's just not true.
The real reason they do it is they're trying to get every single demographic to buy their product.
So you'll see a black father, and he's like pouring a bowl of Cheerios, and then a white mother.
They're not doing it because they're trying to push some agenda, they're doing it because they're like, we want literally everyone in this country to buy our product.
And so they're trying to get that much representation on the TV.
I think that's fine.
I think it's... whatever.
Good.
In the end, I think we need to recognize ourselves as Americans first.
How amazing would that be?
People arguing about how we're tax-paying Americans and we're sending foreign aid for gender studies in Pakistan.
unidentified
Hey!
tim pool
There's an argument.
I want the pipes in Flint to be fixed.
Right?
I mean that figuratively because they have been.
When I think about what's going on in inner cities, when I think about what's going on in Evanston or Chicago, I want those things to be fixed.
I think at this point, though, the solution is, as Americans, we're going to take care of our own.
We're going to take care of the people who are paying into the system and who are deserving of Or I think a lot of people are deserving of help, don't get me wrong.
But it's like, if we're all part of this community as Americans, and we're putting in resources, that means we should help the poor.
That's my opinion.
It means I think we should be taxing these billionaires who I don't much care for.
Why should I care if Tom Steyer's gotta pay more money?
That guy was flooding hundreds of millions of dollars to ban guns.
And then I look at these progressive leftists, and they say things like, Like the legit ones, not the fake corporatist ones.
Now they believe in socialism, but I don't agree with that, but they do believe in the right to bear arms.
And I think, you know what?
Every trans person, every marginalized person, should be armed to the teeth.
Carry around your KSG-25 tactical shotgun, load it up with double-aught buckshot, do it.
It's your right to keep and bear arms.
And I don't like the idea of white supremacists hurting or taking away someone's rights either.
I don't want them to gain power, but I think what's happening at the establishment level is going to exacerbate that.
And it's almost like it's the plan.
Now, I believe in a utopian vision of America.
A great American melting pot of people of all different backgrounds who are sitting back, smoking cigars, and they're a little rascal, overweight, grilling up food, holding their AR-15s and whatever.
I'm kidding, by the way.
But I love the libertarian joke, where it's like, I just want my gay married trans woman couple to be able to smoke pot and shoot guns on their property in peace.
Something like that.
You get the point?
It's like, those of us who are libertarian, and that's, I think, the good guys, We don't care what other people do, you know what I mean?
For the most part, it's like, dude, if you got property, and you are trans, you are a gay married couple, whatever, you wanna smoke pot, you wanna mind your own business, and you wanna have a bunch of guns, I want you to do it.
I want you to buy in Bitcoin, I want you to be able to legally smoke pot, grow what you want, and be left alone.
And that means we have to protect the rights of everybody.
And that also means when you look at projects like this in Oakland and in Evanston, when they're centered around race, this is more of an authoritarian practice that will create ideological zealots that will result in more racism.
I think people need to understand what Don't Tread On Me means.
It means, bro, you don't tread on me, I won't tread on you.
You go do your thing and I hope you're happy and have a good day.
And I think the rights that I have are the rights that you deserve as well.
I tweeted something about people, you know, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
And then some leftists responded like, so are you basically saying you think the Black Panther Party should have a ton of guns?
And I was like, yes! 100%!
Yes.
Yes.
Each and every one of them.
And they showed up in Virginia to defend the right to bear arms, and they were praised by conservatives and two-way advocates and libertarians.
And then this guy responded, based.
I'm like, yeah, dude.
Absolutely.
The trans community should be armed.
If you're concerned about these people being targeted by transphobes and bigots who want to hurt them, I think they have a right to exist and have all their rights defended.
They should have guns.
I'll leave it there.
I'll rant on this later.
Maybe it's an IRL podcast.
But I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
I don't think reparation is going to solve the problem.
I'm not opposed to helping the poor, but focusing on race is creating more problems than it's solving.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast is my main channel.
Export Selection