S5105 - Fauci Says COVID Lab Leak Possible, Media In FULL Panic Mode, Stealth Editing, Retracting "Debunks"
Fauci Says COVID Lab Leak Possible, Media In FULL Panic Mode, Stealth Editing, Retracting "Debunks." Media claimed Republicans, Tucker Carlson, and even other journalists were pushing debunked theories.
Now as more news comes out about covid and the wuhan lab the idea of a lab leak has become mainstream.
While democrats and media were adamant on claiming anything trump said is a lie, the world suffered for it.
#Fauci
#LabLeak
#Democrats
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In our first story, Dr. Fauci has now said he is not convinced that COVID may have developed outside the Wuhan lab and calls for an investigation, debunking the debunks from the mainstream media when they claimed it was a conspiracy theory.
COVID lab leak hypothesis may very well be true.
In our next story, Black Lives Matter activism has backfired.
Crime is skyrocketing in minority neighborhoods, and support for Black Lives Matter is falling close to the negatives.
In our next story, a court has ruled Joe Biden's policy on racial discrimination in benefits for people affected by COVID is racial discrimination.
Surprise, surprise.
Before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the show.
Give us five stars.
And if you really like the show, share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
In a shocking statement, Dr. Anthony Fauci said he is quote, not convinced COVID-19 developed
naturally outside the Wuhan lab.
He has called for an investigation, saying, I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China.
Now, as I have warned over and over again, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an extremely dangerous individual, and his opinions are based on news media from a couple days prior.
That's consistently how things have gone.
The man watches TV and then just tells you what he heard on TV, but people believe him as though he's some kind of expert.
I have numerous examples to break down when Fauci has flip-flopped and negatively impacted public policy, which I'll get to.
But this is one of those times.
Previously, it was reported that Fauci said, no, no, lab leak is not correct.
And now for some reason he's coming out saying, okay, maybe lab leak hypothesis is possible.
Why?
Because in the media, reports have come out now showing that there is strong evidence, strong evidence that lab leak hypothesis may be true.
Is strong evidence definitive proof?
No, it isn't.
But strong evidence.
In fact, when you go to Google and search Wuhan Lab COVID, Google in bold puts right at the top, three Wuhan Lab staffers were reportedly hospitalized in 2019.
With massive breaking news from almost every single major news outlet.
Surprise, surprise!
A day later, Fauci comes out and says, well, you know, now that I think about it, all of the times people have followed this man, I feel bad for them.
But those of you who watch my show and pay attention to the news, you've probably been better informed.
But this is where things get creepy.
As I mentioned, many news outlets are reporting that there are these hospitalizations and more evidence that Lab Leak Hypothesis may be true, which means Lab Leak Hypothesis is the idea that someone may have had a virus in this lab, it may have naturally developed, but then it may have been released accidentally.
Someone may have gotten infected, and I've talked about this even last year.
It made mainstream headlines very slowly, but was debunked, so saith the fact-checkers that be.
New York Times, Vox, CNN, many said it was either, you know, they alluded to the fact that it was discredited or not true or that Trump was pushing wild stories.
Now they are falling over themselves desperate because they look like fools.
Some outlets doing stealth edits.
You know what that means?
It means they're going in and issuing corrections or changes without telling their readers because they don't want to look stupid.
They're in fact trying to rewrite history because their credibility is in the gutter.
You cannot trust these mainstream news outlets.
They do this all the time and it's creepy.
One of the most significant stories was about Tucker Carlson.
PolitiFact actually had to update an old fact check admitting it was false.
You see, they said they debunked lab leak hypothesis by asking for the opinions of a small handful of researchers.
Now, excuse me, but opinions from researchers is not fact.
Fact requires actual investigation.
So how do you debunk something based on someone's opinion?
This is the media landscape we live in.
But there's two huge things we're seeing today.
Fauci, once again discredited, as well as the mainstream media.
You can't trust these organizations.
When conservatives were coming out and saying this may be a possibility, when President Trump said that he was investigating this and he's seen evidence, they mocked, ridiculed, and they lied.
They lied!
Fauci is wrong every step of the way.
If not, he is deliberately lying.
And I'll show you the evidence, and it'll make you laugh.
It'll probably also make you sad.
But let me read this story from The Hill.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, click the Members Only button, and become a member to get access to our exclusive Members Only area with excellent podcast segments with our guests.
This is only available to our members, and some of these are full episodes.
When you sign up, you're helping me grow this business and we've got a ton of expansion underway.
We're trying to hire tons more people.
We're going to be doing field reports, mini documentaries, short films, etc.
with your support.
So become a member, get involved, help us do more work.
But don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this video.
Let people know.
From Changing America, Fauci bombshell, not convinced COVID-19 developed naturally outside Wuhan lab.
The Hill reports, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President Biden's chief medical advisor, is supporting an open investigation of the coronavirus origin, saying earlier this month, He is not convinced it developed naturally.
When asked about whether the virus originated naturally, Fauci said he wants to look closer into the matter, according to Fox News.
I am not convinced about that.
I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out the best of our ability what happened to the best of our ability.
Certainly, the people who investigated it say it was likely the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out.
So, you know, that's the reason why I said I'm perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origins of the virus.
As The Hill previously reported, Fauci and Senator Rand Paul clashed over the role of a virology lab in Wuhan, China, in the origins of COVID-19.
Paul accused the doctor of being linked with the Chinese government and supporting the laboratory that bioengineered the deadly virus.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
Did The Hill just definitively report that the lab bioengineered the virus?
Because I ain't saying that.
Hold on.
Accused the doctor of being linked with the Chinese government and supporting the lab that bioengineered the deadly virus, citing there is a connection between the NIH and the Wuhan lab, a false narrative circulating among right-wing media and politicians.
Amazing deceit.
Absolutely amazing.
From the hill.
Who wrote this?
They don't even have a byline on this?
Christian Spencer.
That's the byline.
They say that the link between the NIH and the Wuhan lab is a false narrative?
Well, I've got a PolitiFact link right here debating the origins of the COVID-19 virus that actually talks about gain-of-function research.
Senator Rand Paul, who attacked Fauci over the pandemic, and other critics have suggested the U.S.
played a role in making the pandemic worse.
Fauci and others have denied that.
They've also called for more investigation of what happened in China.
It's a fact that the U.S.
provided funding.
Now, maybe they're getting specific and saying NIH, but I'm pretty sure that's true.
PolitiFact actually says the argument is about whether it was gain-of-function research or something else.
You want to argue semantics?
Fine.
But this is how the media plays the game.
Over back at the Hill, they say, Changing America also reported that a group of prominent scientists does not want to rule out the possibility that the coronavirus was human-made in a laboratory.
Now, that's going above and beyond even what I think we should be looking into.
I think the first thing we do is check to see if lab leak hypothesis is possible.
But The Hill is actually saying it's possible the coronavirus was man-made in a lab, pending additional information.
The CDC is investigating reports that young adults and adolescents who received COVID-19 vaccines experienced heart inflammation after their second dose.
The Hill is really going heavy into this one, I gotta tell you what.
Let me just stress again, Changing America, this is The Hill, reported that a group of prominent scientists does not want to rule out the possibility the virus was man-made.
Now, they better issue a correction on this one, because look at this.
When Rand Paul questioned Fauci, he didn't say that COVID-19 was man-made and bioengineered.
He said, do you support the funding provided to the Wuhan lab?
The argument is whether or not, my understanding based on PolitiFact, whether or not the funding was for gain-of-function research, which is when they try and make viruses stronger for a particular reason.
The Hill says the lab bioengineered the virus.
Now that, that's a bold statement.
The White House has not provided evidence to refute the lab leak theory.
I'm sorry, if this is what The Hill is offering up, let me just stress that lab leak is becoming beyond prominent.
I mean, The Hill is going way past just, we were researching a virus and it broke out.
The lab leak hypothesis, simply put, is that they were doing research on naturally occurring viruses and it leaked from a lab.
That's it.
That's all.
Now, beyond there, some people are talking about gain-of-function research and whether or not the virus was engineered in any capacity.
Some people have said as much, but we don't have any definitive proof.
I'm not a virologist.
I wouldn't be able to tell you.
I can only tell you what they're reporting in the media.
The Wall Street Journal reported that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were sick around November 2019 and had to be hospitalized.
No one knows how all three researchers got sick or why, according to the undisclosed intelligence report from the U.S.
The Journal reports that China denies the allegation that the virus somehow was created in their lab and was leaked.
China's foreign ministry cited the team, led by the World Health Organization, which said it was unlikely the virus came from China on Sunday.
The US continues to hype the lab leak theory, the Chinese foreign ministry told the journal.
It is actually concerned about tracing the source or trying to divert attention.
Sorry, I don't trust the Chinese Communist Party, but I can show you how the media is freaking out.
Better yet, Drew Holden, who has been a frequent guest of Timcast IRL podcast, he can tell you better how the media has pushed the nonsense.
In a thread, Drew says, The idea that COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan has gained mainstream traction.
It can be easy to forget that little over a year ago, the idea was derided as a vile, senseless conspiracy theory.
First, he says, Senator Tom Cotton took much of the initial heat for suggesting this as a possibility back in January.
Here's what the New York Times had to say about his fringe theory that lacks evidence and which scientists have dismissed.
Apparently, those concerns have been undismissed.
In another piece from 2020, the New York Times concluded, most agencies remain skeptical and scientists are dismissive
of the lab leak theory.
Unfortunately, it appears that was certainly true, but not to their credit.
Yet another story continues to describe the idea as a conspiracy.
It wasn't just the New York Times.
CNN was at the forefront, writing up a poll dismissively suggesting that an accidental release was almost certainly not true, called the lab in question the focus of conspiracies, and of course used it to take shots at President Trump.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Giving free airtime to a hostile power's propaganda should be indefensible.
Here's a piece from Chris Saliza from February 2020 that points back to a CNN fact check, suggesting that you can draw a line through it and say that it didn't happen about the lab release theory.
Care to revisit this one, Mr. Saliza?
Jake Tapper also took a shot at Tom Cotton, sharing an interview with an expert that Cotton's views were something that he put in the conspiracy theory bucket.
Luckily, in case your relatives were suggesting that this conspiracy theory about a lab release were true, Oliver Darcy has you covered with his How to Debunk Coronavirus Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories piece that references the origin of the virus.
NPR might have been the most dismissive, running stories on back-to-back days, suggesting there was nothing to the allegations, and the scientists debunked and dismissed the idea of accidental release.
They were, in retrospect, entirely wrong, but memory holds these pieces.
And the joke we have over here at Timcast is that Journalists debunked the claim using the opinions of some random people.
Okay, researchers, but still.
What are you gonna do?
Get literally every single researcher to agree?
You still can't assert it as fact.
It's expert opinion.
So we say that they debunked and now we must re-bunk.
Although that actually doesn't make sense because I think the idea of debunk is like to remove the bunk, the nonsense.
And like re-bunk would mean to make nonsense.
So anyway, you get the point.
Re-bunking.
Drew goes on.
The way that MSNBC and Chris Hayes frame these two separate issues seems instructive.
When a theory about enough evidence doesn't help the narrative, it's a conspiracy theory.
When it does help the narrative, it's just an open question, even if it's a lot less plausible.
Perhaps the worst offender was the Washington Post, who in January of 2020 said that Senator Tom Cotton's concerns about a potential lab leak in Wuhan were fanning the embers of a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked by experts.
Let's talk about what it means to debunk.
Okay, so Donald Trump claims that there's this video.
It was shot by a reporter of me doing a perfect backflip, landing in the grass in the White House.
A perfect backflip, you say?
The reporter comes out and says, no such video exists.
The phone is then checked and no such video exists.
Then I think it's fine to say it was debunked.
Or how about this?
The video pops up and it turns out Donald Trump, in fact, did a front flip.
Yes.
Although it's not completely false, Donald Trump's claim at that point would have been debunked.
It was, in fact, a front flip.
Maybe semantics, but a front flip and a back flip are different things.
The point is, you can debunk things when you have factual evidence.
The sky is actually green.
Well, sometimes maybe in a thunderstorm, but for the most part, it's blue.
So you can debunk the claim, sort of.
You see how it's not particularly easy?
Because some things can be true, some things, you know, people say the sky is blue, and I say, actually the sky is green, during a thunderstorm.
It's one of the tricks they use in fact-checking, so it's not always that easy.
But it's the dirty game they play.
They take an opinion, and say, we asked a guy who had an opinion we already knew about, and he said it wasn't true, therefore debunked!
Sorry, no, not how it works.
Drew Holden says, but that wasn't all from the Washington Post.
I don't get how you can fact check something that we don't know the facts on, nonetheless conclude that one potentially is doubtful.
And notice the defensive crouch, here and everywhere else around this unsubstantiated lab theory.
This from Politico is precisely the type of amnesia that infects reporting like this.
Two months ago, they were lamenting how warnings and concerns about bat research had been ignored.
A year before that, they chalked concerns about the Wuhan lab up to conspiracy theories.
Politico, a report from March 8th, 2021.
In 2018, diplomats warned of risky coronavirus experiments in a Wuhan lab.
No one listened.
Yes, I think it's fair to say they have amnesia.
My absolute favorite Politico moment is how Politico published a report saying Ukrainians were scrambling after it came out that they were helping the Democrats in the 2016 election.
They came out then later with other reports saying not true that it ever happened and it's like you're the ones who reported this!
Do you have amnesia?
It's amazing, isn't it?
Drew goes on to say, there was a rush across the board to tell the story as a battle between Trump and a lab in China.
As you can imagine, Trump played the role of the villain, at least for places like ABC back in May of 2020.
NBC News leaned into the same framing, referring to the idea that the virus could have originated from a Wuhan lab as a conspiracy theory.
Now, let me just pause for one second and say, here's the criticism.
We still don't know that COVID leaked from a lab in Wuhan.
There's a new report from U.S.
intelligence that three researchers got sick in November with COVID-like symptoms.
So maybe it did.
That's about it.
It should be investigated.
But the media, hating Donald Trump, and no matter what the man did, they had to say it was wrong, it was not true, it was a lie.
The media has caused so much destruction in this country.
And that's the sad reality of what's happening.
Donald Trump could say something, and the media would call him a liar.
Drew Holden also says, It's hard to fault CBS News when the sources weren't exactly bulletproof, in retrospect.
But that makes a broader point.
Journalists should be distrustful of official sources of info.
That's historically been true lately.
I'm sorry, that's historically been true.
Lately, it's been anything but, leading to errors like this.
CBS News says Fauci again dismisses Wuhan lab as source of coronavirus.
Followed by, Hu team in Wuhan says extremely unlikely COVID-19 came from a lab.
And now the glorious Fauci says, okay, maybe, you know, I'm not convinced it didn't.
Fauci himself gobbling up Chinese propaganda.
It's really gross.
Here's one.
Fauci May 22, Fauci May 2021.
And there's the example from Drew Holden once again.
Now here's where it gets downright creepy.
Some of the stealth edits that Vox made to its article debunking conspiracy theories that COVID-19 originated in a lab leak between its original publication in March 2020 and now.
This is what the media does.
First, they said, a virologist who've parsed the genome have more than enough evidence to show that the virus is brand new and came from nature, not the Wuhan lab.
Now it says, but already virologists who've parsed the genome say they have enough evidence the virus is brand new and came from nature.
They removed the section about the Wuhan lab.
Have more than enough evidence to show.
Say they have enough.
The big difference between having evidence and claiming you do.
Very important.
And also they added, the emergence of the virus in the same city turns out is pure coincidence.
They changed it to appears to be pure coincidence.
They went back and changed this story.
Why?
Because they're rewriting history.
Because they're embarrassed.
Because they're terrible at what they do.
Because they don't know how to do their jobs.
Shant Misrobian on Twitter says, the highly researched and reported article that is spurring renewed focus on the COVID lab leak hypothesis written by a veteran science writer and former New York Times reporter had to be self-published on Medium.
Think about what that says about our current media environment.
And now on Google, when you search, this is what's truly amazing to me, when you Google search Wuhan lab COVID, Google itself has included a big, bold sentence.
Three Wuhan lab staffers were reportedly hospitalized in 2019.
I want to show you how sickening this is.
You may have seen this because we've covered it before.
PolitiFact.
The Poynter Institute.
PolitiFact is supposed to check the facts.
They said, archived fact check, Tucker Carlson guest airs debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in a lab.
Editor's note, May 17th.
When this fact check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact's sources, including researchers who asserted the COVID virus could not have been manipulated, So let me get this straight, PolitiFact.
When someone said, we should look into this lab, you asked some researchers, and based on their opinions, said it was debunked.
It's amazing, isn't it?
That assertion is now more widely disputed.
They go on to say, well, we still don't believe it.
I don't care what you think.
Here's the news.
April 15, 2020, Trump says U.S.
investigating whether virus came from a lab.
The Politico article I showed you.
In 2018, diplomats warned of risky coronavirus experiments in a Wuhan lab.
Fauci's ridiculous flip-flop on possible COVID fourth wave.
Of course he flip-flopped.
Do you remember when Fauci said, you know, don't wear a mask?
Out from October 8th, outdated video of Fauci saying there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.
Now, I understand.
The left says, but Fauci was just saying, you know, what we knew at the time.
Early on, conservatives were wearing masks and buying up masks.
I actually had someone send me a pack of N95s.
I was like, okay.
For some reason, conservatives flipped on the mask issue.
May have something to do with like research papers out of Denmark or something like that.
But early on they said wear a mask.
And Fauci said don't wear a mask.
And everyone said he's crazy.
Then Fauci flip-flopped and said wear a mask.
Then all of a sudden the mask thing became this huge issue.
It's kind of weird.
But this was a flip-flop, and it's important to point out it's a flip-flop, because people were saying to wear masks.
Fauci didn't just come out and say, I've decided you don't need a mask, I'm an expert.
He came out and said, other people are wrong, don't listen to them, I'm right.
Then later on, when he realized he was wrong, he flip-flopped.
You better wear a mask!
They said it was outdated.
Fauci, of course.
There's going to be a fourth wave.
There's not going to be a fourth wave.
Sure.
From the Daily Mail.
Dr. Fauci flip-flops again.
Top infectious disease expert says outdoor COVID transmission is low and updated mask guidelines due to be released by the CDC.
This is from April 25th.
Here's one.
This is really, really great.
I love this one.
Fact check from Newsweek.
Did Dr. Anthony Fauci advise wearing two masks, then reverse course?
Yes.
He did.
Well, okay.
Sort of.
It's just really, really funny.
Let me read you this one so you can understand why you need to ignore Fauci.
Talk to your doctor.
If you don't trust him, get a second opinion.
Get a second opinion anyway.
But this is a TV doctor!
It's political!
They say one thing American poet Amanda Gorman and former Democratic presidential candidate from South Bend, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, what have in common is that they were both seen double masking during Biden's inauguration.
Okay.
With the new coronavirus variants coming out, blah blah blah, let me just point out, this is from February.
They say British YouTuber and writer, Paul Joseph Watson, tweeted less than one week after advising Americans that wearing two or even three masks would be more effective, Dr. Fauci has done a complete 180.
They've claimed this fault, this from Paul Joseph Watson, is half true.
They're wrong.
Paul is correct, by their own standard.
He said less than a week after advising wearing two or three masks would be more effective, he's done a 180.
That's right.
He said it's common sense.
The facts.
Dr. Fauci appeared on Today on January 25th.
Quote, If you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective and that's the reason why you see people either double masking or doing a version of an N95.
A few days later, during a CNN town hall, Fauci emphasized what is recommended by the CDC, saying, The CDC does not recommend that you should wear two masks, nor does the CDC recommend that you have to wear N95.
They just say the most important thing is get everybody to wear a mask.
The next day, Fauci answered questions from members of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association during a live stream.
Quote, the CDC has not changed any of its recommendations about mask wearing in the sense of saying wear two masks or do an N95.
They haven't gone there.
They have just said everybody should wear a mask.
A 19 second clip posted to Twitter on Sunday captured what Fauci said directly afterwards.
The tweet received thousands of interactions.
Fauci on double masking, quote, there's no data that indicates that that is going to make a difference.
So my friends, Fauci said, it's just common sense.
If you got another layer, it's going to be better.
Then later said, there's no data that indicates that it's going to make a difference.
And people believe both.
And then they don't know what's happening.
And then YouTube bans people for contradicting a guy who said everything.
So Fauci's like, don't wear a mask, wear a mask.
Wear two masks, don't wear two masks.
And then you're like, which one am I supposed to say?
Which one is YouTube gonna ban me for?
I don't know.
So, at this point, just go to TimCast.com and become a member, because I'm sick of playing these games.
Fauci is a moron.
He is one of the most dangerous individuals when it comes to COVID.
Fauci lied and people died.
Early on last year, he said not to wear masks.
He came out later and said it was because he wanted to get them for medical professionals and not you.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
You do not get to decide what people are allowed to do to protect themselves and their families.
But Fauci decided, in his official capacity, to lie to the American people.
He said this.
He said, we wanted to make sure medical professionals got the masks.
Now, to be fair to the guy, he literally did say, he shouldn't be walking around with the mask.
It may protect maybe a droplet, but you need the medical professionals to have them.
And smart people said, if they don't work and they don't protect you, why should medical professionals need them?
Yeah.
Fauci lied about masks.
And because of that, people died.
And that's the reality.
Now let's talk about how stupid the media is, and how stupid Fauci is.
So Fauci says, first he says there's common sense to wear two masks, then he says there's no data that indicates that's going to make a difference.
There are many people who feel, you know, if you really want to have an extra bit of protection, maybe I should put two masks on.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But there's no data that indicates that that is going to make a difference, and that's the reason why the CDC has not changed their recommendation, Fauci said.
Another Twitter user replied to the tweet saying, didn't he just say that it was common sense?
The best part of this wonderful glorious song that is Fauci's incompetence.
The CDC recommends double masks to help protect against COVID-19.
February 11th.
10 days later.
Dumb Fauci moron who first said it was common sense, and let's be real, it is.
If you're telling people spitting on them gets them sick, of course wearing two masks will help.
But do you have to?
How much more is it really gonna help?
I don't know.
Maybe, maybe not.
Fauci then flip-flops and says there's no data.
The CDC hasn't changed their recommendations.
And then the CDC does!
It's just absolutely wonderful.
CDC recommends double masks.
Amazing.
Fauci is wrong all the time.
The dude could go on TV and be like, you know, if you want to be safe, you've got to, you've got to go base jumping off of the Empire State Building and people would all just line up to go and do it.
Don't go base jumping, please, off the Empire State Building.
Sorry.
Unless you're like a professional with permits and like safety crews, you probably shouldn't do it.
I really doubt you'll get a permit.
The point is, Fauci has been wrong so much, and people just keep following what the guy says.
Early on, I was like, I like Fauci.
I was like, he's doing his best, he's telling us what he can.
And I understood his information changes, he'd do better.
And then I learned, like, he was lying about stuff.
When he was like, yeah, we knew we needed masks, but we want you to have them, we wanted other people to have them.
We wanted to make sure we got them, not you.
How many people would have lived... Can I just point this out?
Why do medical professionals need masks?
To protect them from disease, right?
Okay.
So that they're not transmitting it to each other.
Now, Fauci wanted the nurses and doctors, the medical practitioners, to have masks because they're working in hospitals.
Why are they working in hospitals?
Because there was a huge surge of people with COVID who were sick and were in those hospitals.
So what's the solution?
Well, if we get masks to people, and they don't spread the disease, we could exponentially reduce the amount of people in hospitals, and the doctors wouldn't need the masks.
Fauci lied, and people died.
It's evil, man.
When you have these people in government who think they're smarter than you and better than you, and they lie, cheat, and steal, effectively just burning to the ground, they're not as smart as they think they are.
And that's why I don't trust any of these global leaders on this Great Reset, on this climate change stuff, because they'll do the exact same thing.
They will set fire to their own home, figuratively, because it's too cold outside.
Fauci lied.
People died.
The media lied.
People died.
If Donald Trump said it, they said he was lying.
This is the game we've been playing for a long time.
Understanding what's going on is getting more and more difficult, but I can tell you this.
The Wall Street Journal reports, intelligence on sick staff at Wuhan lab fuels debate on the origin.
Three researchers, November 2019, hospitalized.
Is it possible?
Yes.
Do we know?
We don't.
But anybody who comes out and tells you it's been debunked is lying to you.
Now it's easy for them to be like, well, we know that.
No, you didn't.
All last year we had been saying it.
Next segment's coming up tonight at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
This morning I have for you the story, the quite believable story, about the backfiring of Black Lives Matter activism, Antifa riots, and Democrat policies.
We've learned something quite tragic, actually.
As most of you know, there's been a surge in violent crime, murders, and it's sad, really.
They're mostly affecting these big blue Democrat-run cities, and now we're learning it's mostly impacting lower-income Black and Latino neighborhoods.
Black Lives Matter and these far-left progressives want to come out.
They want to defund the police.
And this is what you can expect to happen.
When the police stop working in these communities, crime explodes.
There was a poll from Gallup.
They asked many black people in America if they liked the amount of police they had or wanted more or less.
Did they want to abolish the police?
Surprisingly, I think it was around 83% that said they were either happy with or wanted more cops.
It was only around 20% that wanted more cops, but it was like 63% that liked the amount of police they had.
They did not want them defunded or abolished.
Yet still, the Democrats win.
Yet still, people vote for them.
Now let's talk.
We'll get into all of that.
And we'll start with the political ramifications of Black Lives Matter riots, Antifa riots.
It should be a surprise to no one that people don't like riots, and because of this, and because of Democrat support, support for Black Lives Matter has fallen precipitously.
Take a look at this tweet from the New York Times opinion.
They say, Republicans reported much stronger support for Black Lives Matter than they had earlier in 2020.
But perhaps even more striking is the rapid decline.
Now, heavens, what could have happened after the death of George Floyd that resulted in a rapid decline in support for Black Lives Matter?
Julio Rosas says the word riot does not appear once in the article, but they did manage to include Latinx Another attempt to memory hole the massive riots from last year.
How utterly stupid.
Look at this.
This image.
Democrats' support for Black Lives Matter went straight up and then slowly went down.
Why would it even go down at all for Democrats?
It should go up and then up, right?
Among all voters, the drop was dramatic, dropping below zero net support.
It's in the negative now.
Republicans are much less supportive of Black Lives Matter than they were at the beginning.
After the death of George Floyd, even Republicans were saying, this is a bad thing, we can't allow this.
Then came the riots.
Then came the support for the riots.
Then came that Black Lives Matter activist in Chicago saying smashing up stores and stealing stuff was reparations.
And Republicans were like, yo, I don't support that.
Because when Black Lives Matter first meant, after the death of George Floyd, a bunch of activists laid down on the sidewalk and put their hands behind their back.
I'm sorry, in the street.
And it was a large protest action.
People saw that and said, yeah man, I hear you.
Can't complain, like, we all feel bad about this.
And then someone threw a brick.
And when Republicans said, hey, hey, yo, like, we all agree, right?
Like, this was a bad thing, but please don't throw bricks.
And they said, don't you tell me what to do.
The Democrats supported it.
Kamala Harris, as most of you know, because I bring it up all the time, solicited donations to get these people out of jail.
Support tanked.
Worst of it, worst of all of it, is not even that political support is tanking for a group.
The worst of it is how it's negatively impacting those Black Lives Matter was supposed to help.
It's not.
It's hurting them.
A lot.
And this is why I'm sick and tired of these morons marching around doing the Red Salute.
Do you know what the Red Salute is?
Why don't you Google it?
When they raise the fist, the symbol of Black Lives Matter is the communist salute.
It is the red salute.
Imagine if a bunch of Trump supporters were marching around doing Roman salutes.
Oh, can ya, huh?
So don't give me one side's worse than the other.
There's... it's... it's... Weimar, Germany.
Here we go.
I see photos of friends and family, people I know, who are too stupid, lazy, and ignorant to care about what they're doing as they burn down minority neighborhoods.
Literally.
When the anti-fuck extremists in Black Lives Matter went to Atlanta and started destroying black-owned businesses.
And they say Black Lives Matter.
Or that video.
Where two white women are vandalizing a building and two black women say, what are you doing?
Figuratively, of course, not the entire city was roasted, just a few select buildings.
And these people say, they're the good guys.
And the media protects them.
You know, it's always been the Democrats, right?
They were the party of the Confederates.
They were the party of Jim Crow and the Klan.
Surprise, surprise.
They may have put on a mask trying to claim that they're the heroes, but here we go again.
The woke liberals and leftists going around smashing up buildings, advocating for policies that destroy the black community, the Latino community, minority communities.
And it's right here in black and white.
The numbers don't lie.
Murders are rising the most in a few isolated precincts of major cities.
I saw this story and I said, well, Maybe that's good news.
I mean, it's bad news in general.
But maybe, you know, we think these cities are aflame, like it's the end.
Maybe there's some good news in that it's just high crime areas.
And then I thought, you know what?
How much you want to bet the crime is skyrocketing in the areas where they need the police most?
Low income.
And then I was surprised to find, actually, it was racial minorities.
I didn't see that coming.
I thought it was going to be like shopping districts.
No joke.
In Illinois, some of the highest crime rates are in wealthy shopping districts.
And I was like, is that bad?
But it turns out, the Black Lives Matter activism is doing nothing but destroy.
It's a sad story, man.
Wall Street Journal reports a murder wave in U.S.
cities that started last year is carrying forward into 2021, and a growing body of research shows a pattern behind the rise.
It has been concentrated in relatively few poor neighborhoods, typically black and Hispanic, with persistent histories of violence.
As elected officials and communities search for solutions, recognizing this geographical reality is essential, say social scientists and police officials who have studied the murder wave.
Police and other city authorities will need to focus their efforts on a few areas that have missed out on the urban renaissance of the past two decades as their middle-class residents have fled.
Controversy over policing has complicated matters out of the conviction of Derek Chauvin, a white officer.
This we know.
I just, it's so annoying when they're like, they break down the story again.
A police officer who was arrested and charged and went through a trial.
It's like, great, write me a different story.
I don't care.
We know.
Homicide is up 9.1% in New York.
Twenty-two percent so far in Chicago, following double-digit increases in both places and in many other cities last year.
Mr. Ludwig calculates that nearly three-quarters of Chicago's homicide increase in 2020 was concentrated in a cluster of eight of the city's 25 police districts, mostly in the city's predominantly Black South Side and largely Hispanic West Side.
Similar patterns have shown up elsewhere.
New York saw a 47% increase in homicide in 2020, concentrated in a patch of Brooklyn neighborhoods with a long history of violence, including Brownsville, Crown Heights, and Bedford-Stuyvesant.
It also hit the South Bronx and Harlem section of Manhattan, said Michael Lapetrie, the New York Police Department's Chief of Crime Control Strategies.
And you know what they'll do?
They'll say, this just proves the cops are racist!
That's the game they play.
They propose policies which destroy.
Then they claim that the destruction is actually the fault of the problem they're trying to solve, instead of themselves.
To put it mildly.
When they say, defund the police!
And then the cops say, okay, and stop showing up.
And then crime explodes.
They say, see?
The cops weren't doing anything anyway.
See?
The cops are racist and won't help these neighborhoods.
We gotta defund even more.
So I wonder about all this.
Is the real goal of the Democrats just to, like, really destroy the lives of black people?
Honestly, I think so.
I take a look at many of these prominent black conservatives who advocate for responsibility, hard work, meritocracy, and there are many prominent, you know, obviously, black leftists who advocate for the opposite.
I have to wonder.
What will truly help minority communities?
Assuming they actually need the help.
Maybe the reality is individualism, taking personal responsibility.
But the Democrats keep proposing things that negatively impact all minorities.
It's not just about the black community.
But it is historically.
And, you know, I've done a documentary, I've done multiple segments talking about systemic racism, things like redlining and blockbusting, and it's no surprise to me that when you look at the history of redlining and blockbusting, these are practices that targeted the black community to hurt them.
What's happening now with Black Lives Matter?
Surprise, surprise.
They've put a mask on its face, but once again, policies are being implemented by the Democrats that hurt the black community.
I wonder about this.
How much do you want to bet?
Because I've done documentaries talking about redlining and blockbusting.
How much do you want to bet?
When they were doing this, they said it was for the good of the community.
We're trying to help!
And they didn't.
They hurt.
And they're doing the same thing today, as they always do.
And these uppity, well-to-do, white progressives from the suburbs, people that I know, members of my own extended family, marching around raising the communist fist, too lazy, too stupid, too ignorant, to care about the destruction they bring.
I want to show you this thread.
From Ezra Klein.
Wow.
Sad stuff, really, because they'll just keep doubling down.
Ezra Klein, as you know, is the founder of Vox.com V-O-X, and he says, violent crime is spiking.
Homicides in cities were up by 25 to 40 percent in 2020, the largest single-year increase since 1960, and 2021 isn't looking any better.
This is a crisis on its own terms, but it's also a crisis on the broader liberal project in two downstream ways.
First, violent crimes supercharges inequality.
Families who can flee do.
Businesses close or never open.
Banks won't make loans.
Property value plummets.
Children are traumatized with lifelong impacts on stress and cognition.
Now, this is where I want to get... This is where I get really, really angry.
From the propaganda of these people.
Here's a viral video.
From, uh... What was it?
From act.tv or something about systemic racism.
And they say there are two people, Johnny and Jimmy.
Johnny, a young white man from a white suburb, and Jimmy, a young black man from a black inner-city neighborhood.
And they go on to explain that institutional or systemic racism is that property taxes pay for schools.
And because the property value is so low in the low-income neighborhood, there's not a whole lot of taxes going into these schools.
And so the schools suffer.
But in the white suburbs, where they're wealthier, they can pay more money in taxes from higher property values, which makes the schools better.
What does that have to do with race?
Wouldn't it just mean that low-income areas in general suffer this fate?
And we should allocate resources from wealthier areas to poorer areas for better schools?
Because we're only as strong as our weakest link.
I think that would be absolutely fantastic to do.
In fact, I think most cities actually do this.
Here's what bothers me about the propaganda.
The violent crime that Ezra Klein is talking about, which is predominantly affecting minority neighborhoods, drops the property value, makes it so that people who do own homes in these areas won't see a payout.
Nobody will want to move there.
This is what I always found interesting.
You know, when I was doing a lot of research for this, I thought, isn't gentrification good for people who own homes in black neighborhoods?
I mean, think about it.
You have a house worth $100,000 in a black neighborhood.
All of a sudden, a Starbucks pops up, a Bank of America.
Now your house is worth $200,000.
You'll get a tax reassessment, and they say, okay, now you gotta pay more property taxes.
Alright, or you can sell your house, double your money, because now it's worth more, go buy another $100,000 house in a different neighborhood.
Maybe you don't want to move.
I mean, so there's still, there's bad things about it for sure, but now you have more wealth, a lot of it.
Gentrification, the property value skyrocketing, could be a good thing.
Not only that, you could rent out the house some young college kids, and then be a landlord, and then go buy another lower income house.
I don't have all the solutions.
What I can tell you is violent crime skyrockets.
Nobody wants to live there.
And because nobody wants to live there, the property values won't go up.
And that means it's just going to be eternal suffering.
Surprise!
It's Black Lives Matter policies that are causing this.
He says, life-long impacts on stress and cognition.
Second, fear of violence undermines liberal politics.
Just look at America post 9-11, or after the crime surges of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Strong men politicians win.
Punitive responses like mass incarceration and warrior policing rise, social trust collapses.
We're not there yet.
Larry Krasner survived his primary challenge in Philadelphia, which is hilarious!
They just can't help but vote for more.
Man, you gotta get out of these cities.
They are run.
Just, they are run like trash.
We are seeing other signs.
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms isn't running for re-election after being attacked by challengers at Soft on Crime.
Chessa Bowden is facing a recall effort in SF.
I know, I could have dedicated a whole segment to this.
Maybe I'll talk about it at one.
Violence is the second most important issue to Democrats in the NYC mayoral primary, behind coronavirus but ahead of housing affordability and racial inequality.
The politics of this could really tip, and not just in other cities, if these numbers keep getting worse, then as with Nixon and Reagan in the 70s and 80s, it could bring law and order conservatives, including Trump, back to power in 2024, so saith Ezra Klein.
More than that, crime should be an issue liberals focus on eagerly.
People deserve to be safe from crime and safe from state violence.
That's foundational to a good life.
Ezra, could you take two seconds to look in the mirror?
Okay?
What do these people care about?
You gotta wear your mask!
Tribal bullcrap.
That's what they care about.
Stupid restrictive policies.
Panic, paranoia, fear.
Not crime.
No, they had police guarding the Black Lives Matter painting.
Not actually policing neighborhoods that have high crime to protect black communities.
Ezra says, crime should be a focus of liberals.
That's foundational to a good life.
Too often, they're given a choice between one or the other, and it's often a false choice at that.
So I asked, he spoke with James Forman Jr., author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Locking Up Our Own, to come on the podcast and talk through the way crime warps politics, the legacy of the 80s and 90s, and what a liberal response to violent crime looks like.
There is good news here.
We know a lot more about what works to prevent violent crime, both in terms of policing and in terms of other institutions we can and should build.
And we're not in the age of austerity.
There's a lot we can do and should do, but we need to do it fast.
One central piece of this response should be seriously investing in community organization and violence interruption programs that have been proven again and again to work.
The American Jobs Act includes that, though it doesn't get much press.
Biden jobs bill would send $5 billion to gun violence prevention.
Okay.
I like violence interruption stuff.
I don't know how successful it is.
I like the idea of community outreach groups that focus on talking with young people in these communities, not going and sending in a bunch of cops and guns.
I like constructive dialogue.
Activist groups in the community.
I've interviewed people who do this, and in my experience, I've seen some of it be particularly effective.
It's like you gotta get the moms out there, you know what I mean?
Like the local community, you gotta get the moms to go out You don't go out with weapons, and they go and talk to people.
You get active in the community.
That's what you need to do.
Inspire people to build.
And I think what you gotta do is you gotta start changing the culture.
You gotta make people believe in, you know, respect comes from merit, not from the barrel of a gun.
I grew up on the south side of Chicago, man.
It's not a race thing.
It is very cultural.
And what I mean is, The white areas have the same cultural issues.
Like, the fights would break out.
You'd have, like, a white dude and a Mexican dude or a black dude.
It was multicultural gang violence and honor violence.
Not a good thing for anybody.
Getting the moms out there to change stuff.
That's good.
If Biden's gonna fund stuff like that, I'm for it.
I'm not a big fan of his policies, I think, and I don't trust him.
I think, for the most part, they're burning these things down.
Ezra goes on to post his story talking about more of this, but let me show you what really, really just I don't think we're solving this problem anytime soon.
As you may know because I covered this last week, Philadelphia's progressive DA wins big in primary, boosting momentum for Reform Movement.
Reform Movement?
It's been a failure.
This guy got elected in 2017.
It's 2021.
As the DA.
He has been soft on crime.
So soft, in fact, you might as well use the Philadelphia's stance on crime for a MyPillow commercial.
Very soft.
Your best night's sleep ever.
Use promo code POSO.
Shout out, Jack.
Anyway, he's so soft on crime, it may in fact be a better night's actually, no, it'll be a much worse night's sleep as the gunshots ring out outside your window.
But they voted for it.
They voted for it again.
They voted for it again.
So what am I supposed to say?
I lived in the Philadelphia area.
I was right to leave.
And people say, Tim, you advocate for people standing up and fighting, but you left with your tail between your legs!
I wouldn't say, uh, that's maybe a little harsh.
I would say that's maybe a little harsh.
I wouldn't say, with my tail between my legs.
I think I came to a realization.
As Ezra Klein pointed out, those who can flee will.
It'll never stop.
You know why?
Flight is an immediate solution to an immediate problem.
Politics is a long-term attempt at solving an immediate problem.
Here's the problem for me.
We advocated.
We spoke up.
We challenged.
I speak up for hours a day.
And what did we get for it?
They re-elect these people.
Our pleas, our facts, they have fallen on deaf ears.
Politics of emotion work, and I think it's a black hole sucking us in with no escape.
We've crossed the event horizon.
When a Democrat comes out and says, I will give you all money, cash money, vote for me!
People go, okay.
Now, you still need some charisma behind it.
Obviously, Andrew Yang couldn't pull it off, but maybe he will in New York.
And then when you come out and say, we must take responsibility and do hard work, people go, hard work?
I don't want to do hard work.
So in the end, what happens?
Republicans eventually capitulate to Democrat standards.
Democrats pull further and further left.
Republicans trail left to try and compete.
But you can't compete with it.
When someone's like, we should give everyone free stuff!
Republicans are like, no, no, no free stuff.
Just the current free stuff you're getting.
No more free stuff.
Just the current free stuff you're already getting.
Because Republicans don't have spines.
Can't you get a Republican to go up there and be like, nah.
We need politicians who are just gonna be like, no, enough!
Get out there and do the work!
Black Lives Matter comes in.
They advocate for policies that destroy these neighborhoods.
Republicans can see it.
The Democrats then accuse the Republicans of being racist.
While the Democrats literally cause these cities to get burnt to the ground.
It's the name of the game in politics today.
The New York Times can't seem to figure it out.
They can't seem to figure out why it is that support has absolutely collapsed.
Net support for Black Lives Matter dropping to like negative 20.
What is it?
Negative 20?
I think net support currently.
Is that like six?
Net support for Black Lives Matter.
I love how New York Times is just covering this as I've been covering this for basically the entire year it's been happening.
Good work.
People are sick of it.
They're starting to wake up to what's going on.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
Joe Biden is a racist.
The Joe Biden administration engages in racist policy.
That is not an opinion.
In fact, that comes from a federal judge that said Biden Restaurant Fund discriminated against white male.
You often hear about this, I guess, on the right, as exemplified by Ground News, which you can see up top by a split across four sources.
Now, let me explain what Ground News is doing here.
They're showing us this story, and they're showing who is reported on this story.
And as you can see, 75%—there's only four sources—are right-wing, and the only centrist source to cover this was The Hill.
Any leftist sources coming out against this?
Absolutely not.
Because Joe Biden is racist, but he's racist in a way that fits the ideology of the far left and the woke cult.
We have an opinion piece from Jonathan Turley who goes into details about what happened with this case.
But we're starting to see some pushback.
You know what's really, really funny?
Hey, my friends, you know that I'm a fan of Tulsi Gabbard, right?
We saw this last week as well.
Tulsi Gabbard demands Chicago Mayor resign for blatant anti-white racism.
Tulsi!
Whoo!
Bringing the heat.
But it's true.
Joe Biden is racist against white people, as you can be.
You can be racist against anybody on the basis of race, but the left is changing the definition on purpose to gain political power.
Tulsi Gabbard had no problem calling it out.
Can I hear a single Republican?
Okay, there's some.
This isn't about any stupid identitarian stuff.
This is the opposite of it.
These are the people who are classically liberal who are saying, hey, Don't judge people on the basis of their race.
Economic factors way more important.
Well, we'll read a bit about what Tulsi said, but first I want to talk about government policy from the White House.
Straight up says...
They're going to be racist.
Jonathan Turley writes, Biden's COVID aid, is it preference or prejudice?
Well, I think it's racist discrimination, like the judge said, but let's read.
For the Hill, Turley writes, President Biden has spoken out often, eloquently and passionately against the ugly poison of discrimination and racism in our government.
So a ruling by a federal district court in Texas this week was particularly jarring.
Judge Reed O'Connor found that the Biden administration engaged in systemic gender and race discrimination to implement COVID-19 relief for American restaurants.
Cafe owner Philip Greer had claimed in a lawsuit against the Small Business Administration That while white, he needs the same rescue as minority restaurants under the newly enacted American Rescue Plan Act.
Greene's Ranch Cafe reportedly lost over $100,000 during the pandemic.
Like many restaurateurs, Greer was delighted to hear about the Restaurant Restoration Fund approved by Congress.
However, he soon learned that due to his race, he could not be considered until other applicants were allowed to seek funds.
The White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress insisted that various groups should be first in line, including women, minorities, and socially and economically disadvantaged people.
Talk about evil!
I despise Democrats.
I loathe Republicans, but I despise Democrats, and I think y'all get that by now.
Let me explain something to you.
This is absolutely a defeat.
Oh, the judge may have ruled in favor of this man, but think about what they get away with.
Think about Cuomo.
The Cuomo brothers, huh?
First, Chris Cuomo props up his brother on TV.
Any kind of correction in this regard?
Any kind of punishment in this regard?
No.
Cuomo just goes, my bad, keeps his job.
Governor Cuomo straight up kills a bunch of people and nothing happens.
Yeah, I despise the Democrats.
But here's the main point.
Cuomo does these things, Andrew.
He gets away with them.
A court rules against him, saying, you can't do this stuff, and he says, oh no, I'll just draft another executive order because the court can't do crap about it.
Gets away with it.
15 or so thousand people dead.
Now for the hill, we see this story.
And what does this mean?
This guy at the restaurant, he's just the one person suing.
The Biden administration has successfully pulled this off.
Done.
It's done.
The money's there.
Gone.
Sorry.
You can sue, but they've already done it.
What good is the judge, is the system, if the money's already being dispersed on racist grounds?
So good for him for winning.
Maybe they'll not do it in the future?
I doubt it.
The Supreme Court is pathetic.
It's weakless.
The federal courts can barely do anything.
They say, The government confirmed that $2.7 billion already has been distributed through the fund, and that there are almost 150,000 pending applications from owners with preferential treatment.
As a result, owners like Greer fear not just delayed payments, but the exhaustion of the $28.6 billion allocated under the program.
The SBA confirms it already has requests for $65 billion in payments under the fund.
Think about how psychotic you have to be to cause harm to someone on the basis of their race.
This white guy.
His restaurant went under.
He needed help.
But the racists, the identitarians, this is straight up Nazism!
Okay, maybe a little exaggerated, but think about it.
It's very, very close to it, at the very least.
You see, what they're doing is they're creating policy based on race.
The Democrats are doing it.
They're getting away with it.
They will do it more.
They will do it again.
What they want Their equity is to strip the resources from one group and give it to another.
And they're doing it with inflation, and they're doing it with racist policies like this.
It's going to make everything worse.
It is... You know, the reason why I won't say it's communist is because the communists, while there were ethnic issues, for sure, the Holodomor, right?
What we're seeing is racial identitarianism combined with authoritarianism and a redistribution of wealth.
So you can say it is communistic, but you throw in... It's like communist Nazis.
It's like the worst of both.
This is criminal.
They say.
The Biden administration agreed that such classifications, particularly based on race, must satisfy the highest constitutional burden of strict scrutiny.
That means such classifications are unconstitutional unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
However, the Justice Department cited studies that women and minorities historically have fewer lender resources and, before the pandemic, often were less likely to receive credit.
There is ample support for that claim.
The legal question is whether historical disparities are enough to justify a
system of race and gender preferences when all restaurants were impacted by the pandemic. This is
the government imposing rules due to a pandemic fine, but still that
destroyed the economy, destroyed the businesses of everyone. Most people in the
restaurant industry for sure who are now saying white people will not be allowed to get
relief.
This will unfairly disadvantage people based on race.
It will reshape the economy, our community, our society, on the basis of race.
Sounds like Nazis to me.
In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that a minority set-aside program in Virginia was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
The government cited historical barriers for minority enterprises, but the court balked.
It noted that identified discrimination in the past would give government license to create a patchwork of racial preferences based on statistical generalizations about any field of endeavor.
When using racial classifications, the divided courts stressed that simply legislative assurances of good intention cannot suffice.
Judge O'Connor relied on such precedent to declare the enforcement of the criteria for COVID-19 relief to be raw racial and gender discrimination.
His ruling can be appealed, but it highlights a concern over a variety of state and federal COVID-19 programs enforcing racial and gender criteria.
To put it simply, Everyone was impacted by this.
There's an argument that if there was a racial policy like redlining, then you could have a government to rectify redlining.
In this instance, the policy affected everyone of every race.
So if you're saying, nah, none for you, you're just being racist.
They go on to say, In Oregon, a state COVID-19 program for black businesses called the Oregon's Cares Fund was challenged by a Mexican-American cafe owner and others under the Equal Protection Clause.
While legislative counsel and some legal experts raised concerns over the constitutionality of the law, a trial court rejected the challenge.
Other such cases are continuing.
Courts have allowed minority set-asides to remedy past inequities.
Such programs often are created solely for that purpose and thus are treated as a remedial benefit for a targeted group, as opposed to an exclusionary denial for other groups.
These cases can present difficult questions of what is needed to enforce a racially discriminatory policy and when a legislative remedial measure becomes either a form of reparation or discrimination.
So if you were to look at Japanese internment, and there are more people than just Japanese, there's a lot of Asian people, reparations were specifically targeting these people for that reason.
That makes sense.
To just outright deny a general relief program doesn't.
The question is, when should preference be given over a common resource desperately needed by everyone?
For example, the Biden administration in many states gave preferential treatment to minority communities in the allocation of early vaccines.
I think that's wrong.
States like Montana and Vermont gave people of color priority.
Even Montana did that!
That meant many other citizens had to wait, due to their race, for a vaccine in the middle of a lethal pandemic.
Yet advocates cited greater vaccine hesitancy in minority areas and other historic barriers to medicine as justification.
No.
Everyone was impacted by this.
Everyone should be allowed to get the vaccine.
First come, first serve.
The court's concern in the Greer case is that the Biden administration's rationale would allow the use of racially discriminatory policies throughout the government.
This is a far more nuanced constitutional issue than past challenges.
Rather than impose a quota system or a direct exclusionary policy, Greer and others complain that the government can achieve the same result by prioritizing certain groups in the receipt of benefits.
The alternative is to maintain a bright line against the use of racial criteria in government programs.
In a 2007 case, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that position most succinctly by declaring that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Hey, you'd think so!
Apparently logic doesn't work all too well for these people, or it does, and what they're really trying to do is strip resources and gain power.
Turley goes on to say, even if such categories pass constitutional muster, there is the question of selecting groups for favored treatment.
In the case of Oregon's fund, Latino owners were excluded.
Under the American Rescue Plan, anyone can qualify for the preferential treatment if they claim to be part of a group that has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society.
Okay.
Then you can claim any group, right?
Uh, I'm Irish, so I should get preferential treatment.
Okay.
Italians.
Russians.
Whatever.
Hey, the Russians.
Man, they got it bad all for the past four years, right?
They say it is the legislative version of the special graduation held at the University of Portland for Q-T-B-I-P-O-C-L-G-B-T-Q-I-A-B-I-P-O-C.
I'm not even kidding.
That's actually what it says.
It says and or BIPOC.
Q-T-B-I-P-O-C.
One of the inclusions were defined, the only major exclusion was straight white males.
Sorry, straight white men.
The question is whether an American Rescue Plan can tell white owners to wait for a rescue that might not come.
Of course, as with vaccine priority programs, the preference given minorities was designed to be short-lived and as a result, difficult to challenge.
However, the underlying issue likely will remain as the Biden administration uses racial and gender criteria in a variety of government programs and resources.
Indeed, the same logic was used in other programs like the special COVID-19 relief funds for black farmers, which I believe was also challenged.
Now, here's what's funny.
Black Lives Matter has made everything worse.
Crime is skyrocketing in black neighborhoods.
Crime is skyrocketing in general.
I guess when you look to communism and authoritarianism, you can find one through line, one common factor.
In order to make everyone equal, you need to chop off the tall grass.
What does that mean?
Well, let's say you have two people.
One guy's 5'10 and one guy's 5'5 and one guy's 6'5.
Well, the guy who's 6'5's got the advantage.
5'10 guy's fairly average and the short guy, disadvantage.
How do you make them equal?
Well, you can't make the short person tall, giving him stilts.
Maybe.
But then you'd have to give stilts to the other guy, and they might not be able to use them, or might not be able to afford them.
In fact, it's too expensive to give technology to try and level the playing field.
There's an easier way to go about doing it.
You go to the tall guy, and you chop off a foot of leg.
And then you go to the 5'10 guy, and you cut off 5 inches of leg.
And there you go.
You've evened the playing field.
In order to make everyone equal, you have to push everyone down.
Because you can't lift everyone up equally.
You can push everyone down equally and suppress them all and make them all hate life.
And that seems to be what they do.
He goes on to say...
The question is how to draw the line when limited funds can result in the reduction or denial of government aid based solely on skin color.
Uh, don't allow that at all.
How about that?
That fear of a zero-sum game for public aid will deepen our divisions and undermine the worthy unifying theme struck by President Biden and his campaign, which is fake.
Racial discrimination is indeed a poison in our body politic, even when done with the best of motivations.
The question is, how can the body politic tolerate?
Well, How many people have talked about Tulsi Gabbard and this, you know, anti-white racism and all this stuff?
Right-wing outlets, for sure.
What about the left?
They ignore all of this.
They're happy with all of this.
Rich white progressives aren't worried about disparaging and creating disparities based on race.
In fact, they revel in it.
So you may have heard this story.
It was Mayor Lori Lightfoot who banned white reporters from doing interviews.
Tulsi Gabbard came out and said no.
What's remarkable is that she's not even... I don't even know what she's doing right now.
She's not in office.
They say former Hawaii Rep Tulsi Gabbard accused Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot of blatant anti-white racism on Friday for only granting one-on-one interviews to black and brown reporters.
Mayor Lightfoot's blatant anti-white racism is abhorrent, Gabbard, a Democrat, said.
I call upon President Biden, Kamala Harris, and other leaders of our country, of all races, to join me in calling for Mayor Lightfoot's resignation.
Tulsi Gabbard's great.
Our leaders must condemn all racism, including anti-white.
The Chicago mayor did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Lightfoot announced earlier this week that she is prioritizing media requests from POC reporters.
This is an imbalance that needs to change, Lightfoot tweeted.
Chicago is a world-class city.
Our local media should reflect the multiple cultures that comprise it.
We must be intentional about doing better.
I believed that when running for office, I stand on this belief now.
It's time for the newsrooms to do better and build teams that reflect the makeup of our city.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, they say, and no one regarding the request for condemnation of blatant anti-white racism.
When do you ever hear from any politician about anti-white racism?
About racism against white people?
Almost never.
The Republicans are the party of speed bumps for the left.
That's what they do.
They're speed bumps for the left.
Seriously.
When the left decides to do something, when they start pushing racism, the right just says, no, wait, don't, and they get dragged to the left.
One of the reasons is that conservatives aren't fighters, for better or for worse.
I mean, many of them are probably physical fighters.
They might, you know, join up, serve, more likely than liberals, perhaps.
They might be willing to stand up for themselves in some regards, but they're not willing to get out and make demands.
Maybe that's the antithesis of personal responsibility, and therein lies the problem.
But if you don't make demands of your society and your country, then you will just lose.
Look at gun control, for instance.
There was this meme, this stupid meme post on Facebook about, no one's coming to take your guns!
And I responded with, yes they are.
They want to make a bunch of guns illegal.
And then I get these long-winded replies where they're like, no one's taking your guns away, this is a myth, the NRA's lying to you, god, you're so dumb.
And I'm like, They've literally banned my guns in a bunch of different states.
I recently got, as you may have seen over at Cast Castle, the SIG M400 from Crowder.
You can't even bring that into some states.
It's just a standard AR-15.
Fires 5.56.
It's like an extremely common weapon.
You can't bring it into many states.
No joke.
It's already getting banned.
They're not gonna outright be like, we hereby ban guns.
And then when the Republicans get in powder, they're like, well, well, well, you know, we're not gonna... There you go.
When the Republicans are sitting in, they don't do anything.
The left then screams, Republicans are fascists.
And Republicans are so pathetic.
They don't do anything.
And I feel bad for the Republican voters who just keep voting these people in.
I get it, though.
People are like, what, so then just give the Democrats power?
No.
Primary these people.
Primary the Republicans.
I got a problem with Republicans?
I'll tell you what.
I'm going to go look for the Republican primary, and I'm going to find the person who believes in individual liberty and will push back and say, one of the first things I'm going to do when I get into office is condemn anti-white racism and stop the ban on guns and repeal gun laws.
How many Republicans right now are offering up bills to repeal federal gun laws?
How many?
None that I've heard of.
Maybe they're doing it.
I don't know.
They should be doing it more.
In fact, there should be Republicans demanding universal gun ownership.
That's right.
Everybody should be required to own a gun.
I'm not seriously saying that people should all have guns if you want when you should.
But you see what the Democrats do?
They want to ban private health insurance.
Bernie Sanders says outright abolish it.
No country does that.
And he's taken seriously.
By a large amount of people.
The Democrats fall in line with these lunatic leftists.
The tankies.
And there you go.
Tulsi Gabbard.
She's got more spine as a Democrat than the Republicans do.
I like Tulsi.
But if Republicans don't stand up and speak out against this, it's over.
Biden has already done it.
Biden has already gotten away with giving away taxpayer money on the basis of race.
Oh, you want to complain about reparations?
He just did it!
Too bad!
No, I think Tulsi was in favor of reparations, too, so it's all over the place.
