S5139 - New Story PROVES Democrats Let Cities BURN In BLM Riots And Crimewaves In Order To Spite Trump
New Story PROVES Democrats Let Cities BURN In BLM Riots And Crimewaves In Order To Spite Trump. While Trump and republicans offered federal troops and national guard democrats refused.
Now as the crimewave continues and crime skyrockets across the country mayor Lori lightfoot of Chicago who once rejected federal troops from Trump is now asking for federal troops from Biden, proving her absolute hypocrisy.
Democrats were willing to allow the cities to burn and face massive crime in order to hurt Donald Trump
#Democrats
#Trump
#Republicans
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A new report proves that many Democrats let their cities burn in order to hurt Donald Trump.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago rejected Trump's offer for federal assistance, but is now asking Joe Biden for that same assistance to have federal troops on the ground.
We're also learning that National Guard was offered to DC just before January 6th and rejected.
In our next story, dozens of schools are using a book that teaches that white people are the devil, depicting a white hand with a whiteness contract and a devil's tail where the child says, dude, we can see your pointy tail.
This is insane indoctrination.
And in our last story, the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir has been slammed for a video they released where they sing that they're coming for your children.
It's actually quite insidious, not funny, and at least they recognized that and pulled it down, but it's still very creepy what they're doing to kids.
If you like this show, please leave a good comment and give us five stars.
And if you really like the show, please share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Kesha Patel was the acting Secretary of Defense under Donald Trump.
In a new discussion, a video released, Kash Patel says that Donald Trump and the Department of Defense offered up National Guard troops to the mayor of D.C.
and Nancy Pelosi two days before the Capitol insurrection, as they call it.
It was a riot.
But Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Democrats said no.
This is interesting because the Feds apparently got information, had foreknowledge, potentially even informants, and they knew that there was a serious threat against the Capitol.
How serious?
Well, it depends on what you think may have happened, but we know what did happen.
And in the discussion, Cash mentions that the entire south side of the Capitol building, where people actually breached it, was unmanned.
In one viral video, you actually see a guy walk up to cops saying, why aren't you doing anything to stop this?
There were actually people in the crowd, outside the Capitol, trying to stop it.
But a bunch of crackpots broke their way in, and here we are.
But this story isn't completely about what happened during the 1-6 insurrection, as the Democrats call it.
It's actually about the country as a whole.
In a new story, we're learning, Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago has asked Biden for help amid crime wave after dismissing Trump's offer.
That's right.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot, in Chicago, is dealing with massive crime, gun violence, murder, and chaos.
And it's been this way for some time, because crime has been skyrocketing.
She had an offer from Donald Trump to bring in federal law enforcement, and she said no, effectively, figuratively, spitting in the face of Trump, saying, we will not have your federal troops in our city.
Now, it's Joe Biden.
Now she's like, oh, Biden, can you please send some federal assistance?
We need some troops on the ground to deal with crime.
Now, perhaps you could say, Tim, she's learned her lesson.
It wasn't that she hated Trump.
It was that she just didn't realize she needed the help.
She thought she could handle it.
Oh, please spare me.
This is about me making an argument, not just placating the left and acting like, oh, everything's normal.
No, let's make the argument.
Lori Lightfoot knew the city needed help.
I'm from Chicago.
I know exactly what goes on there.
They've needed federal help for a long time.
But of course, just like with D.C.
and just like with Minnesota and many other jurisdictions, they refuse.
In fact, in Portland, Oregon, as the lunatics were throwing firebombs and explosives at a federal building, What did Oregon say?
We will not work with federal authorities.
They, in fact, threatened to sue.
I think they actually did file a lawsuit against the federal government.
All of these state and local leaders were saying we would rather watch the cities burn than give Trump any kind of victory.
And that's what we were dealing with for some time.
And now we can see the crooked, corrupt double standard.
You would stand there and spit in my face.
I have family in Chicago.
Lori Lightfoot is a disaster.
Her personal feelings got in the way of keeping the city safe.
And people lost their lives, and people lost their livelihoods.
So here it is, their big narrative about January 6th, and we know you had an offer for National Guard assistance.
We know that the Feds said, or had foreknowledge, that there could be some problem or threat to the Capitol.
We know that Parler was actually sending in information they had.
Yet still, Big Tech colluded to shut down Parler and destroy them, and they did.
And now they act like we had no idea this was going to happen.
It's pathetic.
It's disgusting.
And it's corrupt.
But let's talk about what's happening in these cities now.
Because now Oakland police are saying we're in a crisis.
AOC is saying the subways are flooding and she blames climate change.
Dude, your city.
It's partly her fault for losing the Amazon deal.
Not like I like Amazon.
It's pathetic, and it breaks my heart.
Let's actually read through these stories, and I'll tell you what's going on.
Did you know that Trump was actually about to pull the trigger on the Insurrection Act?
He just didn't have it in him, I guess.
I don't know if it was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, but something needed to be done, and Trump wouldn't do it, and the Democrats wouldn't let him do the bare minimum, at the very least.
So, I think all of our federal leadership has just become trash.
For the most part.
Some get free passes.
Alright.
Well, not free passes, but some have earned my respect.
You know, Rand Paul, Thomas Massey, Josh Hawley's pretty good.
But let's read.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast, but also to support our fierce and independent journalism.
That's right.
TimCast.com is completely independent, owned and operated by me, financed by me, and we are growing.
But actually, I'll say this.
It's financed by you, the members.
When you become a member, and that money goes into our membership pool, or our company's resources, you know what I do?
I hire more people.
We hired like 20-something people already.
It's fantastic.
We've got a new paranormal show coming.
We're expanding the vlog to build culture.
And with your help, we're gonna have way more journalists, and fact-checkers, and investigations, and undercover operations, and of course, they're going to come after us.
But we're growing really quickly thanks to your help.
Let's read this news.
Before we get started, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, and share this video on your social media, wherever you can.
It's the best way to help grow a podcast and help us do our work.
From Yahoo News, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has requested President Joe Biden send federal troops to her city amid a rising crime wave, an offer she previously rejected under former President Donald Trump.
And it was worse last year.
You had people throwing Molotovs.
There's one video where a guy fires a gun to try and break into some store.
I think it was on the Mag Mile.
The Mag Mile in Chicago is like this big fancy shopping district.
Lightfoot, who greeted Biden at the O'Hare International Airport on Wednesday, petitioned the president for assistance after Chicago saw more than 100 shootings over Independence Day weekend, the deadliest weekend so far this year.
Quote, This morning we woke up to a city that is reeling yet again from another night of violence, this time not just against our residents but against those who are sworn to protect us.
The mayor said in a statement about the shootings, which included at least 13 children and 3 police officers.
We must be united and all in this together.
Everyone from the federal government on down must do their part to address this scourge of violence.
I've got a potential solution.
How about you let people defend themselves?
How about you recognize all of these shootings were people who illegally obtained guns, and considering it's so restrictive in Chicago, let people in stores and their homes defend themselves.
See what happens.
Now, look, I get it.
It's bad.
Gun violence is a problem.
But the big problem in Chicago is that you have gang activity, honor shootings, and people going and illegally obtaining weapons, and then regular people can't protect themselves.
So these people are emboldened.
Perhaps it seems a little counterintuitive.
I know, many on the left can't understand how more guns could actually reduce gun crime.
It's simple.
These people who are armed might be like, I better not do this because that dude might have a weapon.
I don't know if it's a perfect solution, but I can tell you whatever it is you've been doing isn't working.
And the gun control you've implemented didn't work at all.
Try something else.
Here we go.
Lightfoot's request came after she asked Trump not to send federal agents to the city last July, saying it would spell disaster.
Quote, What we do not need and what will certainly make our community less safe is secret federal agents deployed to Chicago, she wrote in a letter last summer obtained by WBEZ.
Any other form of militarized assistance within our borders that would not be within our control or within the direct command of the Chicago Police Department would spell disaster.
Hypocrisy much?
The Democratic mayor added that such action would endanger her residents.
Her comments this week echo a plea she made with Biden last week for the federal government to step in following another deadly Chicago weekend.
This is a national problem, she said last Tuesday.
Cities individually cannot tackle this problem.
We just cannot.
In Chicago, we've done absolutely everything possible that no, you actually had Donald Trump offer.
Milwaukee, or I should say, Kenosha, you had in Minnesota, you had in Oregon, you had all these places where Trump said, hey, I got the National Guard ready and waiting.
And what do we hear from a lot of conservatives?
They say, if Donald Trump actually sent in National Guard against the wishes of these jurisdictions, they'd call him a fascist.
And my response is, they called him a fascist anyway.
At the very least, Trump could have done something to protect people.
He offered it.
And so what?
Republicans are scared to use the power they wield because perhaps they barely wield it and they don't know how.
The Department of Justice recently announced it will be sending a strike force to Chicago and other violent cities across the country to quell gun violence.
The strike forces will investigate and disrupt the networks that channel crime, crime guns, into our communities with tragic consequences.
The effort reflects our shared commitment to keep communities safe, the department announced last month.
Take a look at this.
Light foot on federal troops.
Trump won't foolishly deploy unnamed agents to the city.
It was the big lie.
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
There's a video of some federal, I believe it was federal agents, detaining someone in Portland for questioning.
And they started claiming that Trump's Gestapo was secretly rounding people up.
And it's just like, dude, these are people who are in the process of committing crimes.
Yeah, look, I don't like the federal government.
I don't like their expansion of powers.
I think they are very much corrupt.
Donald Trump had the ability to wield some of that power.
He couldn't do it.
He should have fired a lot of people.
He didn't.
He trusted the wrong people.
There you go.
He could have fired Fauci.
He didn't.
Trump made a lot of mistakes.
He just was not ready for this.
Look at this.
The heated exchange between Mayor Lloyd Lightfoot and Donald Trump continued.
This is from last year, mind you.
With the mayor stating federal agents will not come to Chicago streets.
Incredible.
Quote, the Trump administration is not going to foolishly deploy unnamed agents in the streets of Chicago.
As I understand it, what we will be getting are some additional resources in the FBI, DEA, and the ATF.
And unlike what happened in Portland, what we will receive is resources that are going to plug into existing federal agencies that we work with on a regular basis to help manage and suppress violent crime in our city.
It's very simple.
Trump said we can put FPS, CBP, on the ground Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
unidentified
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America 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.
I don't know how common the idea of an alderman is in other cities, but they're basically like neighborhood mayors, okay?
So you've got like the mayor who runs the city, but then Chicago is a bunch of neighborhoods with different names.
You got Ukrainian Village, you got Midway, you know, you got Logan Square, things like that.
And these areas, sort of, it's broken down differently, but there's aldermen.
In a viral phone call that got leaked, one of these aldermen was complaining that the city government raised the bridges downtown, forcing the rioters into neighborhoods.
Incredible.
It's like she wanted regular people to suffer.
Perhaps the issue was then they could say, look, it's all Donald Trump's fault.
Look what's happening in Trump's America.
I mean, you had Black Lives Matter and Antifa engaging in the violence and getting away with it.
Did it strike that as odd to any of these people that the federal government was letting them get away with it?
Talk about stupid, useful idiots.
Check this out.
The Washington Post.
The White House has been trying to claim that Republicans are actually the ones defunding the police.
You may have seen the story.
Well, this one's fantastic because the Washington Post has rated these claims three Pinocchios, which is a pretty serious lie.
Man, they defend the Democrats at every opportunity and they can't even do this.
The Washington Post reports, Republicans often claim Biden would cut funding for police departments,
a falsehood that has kept us busy churning out Pinocchio since the 2020 campaign.
It's kind of funny.
They open the story by claiming Republicans lied about Biden saying he wanted to cut funding.
It's a framing device.
Biden said he wanted to reallocate funding.
But let me explain to other areas.
If you say, we got cops who got a billion bucks in their budget, we're going to take half that and give it to paramedics.
Are you cutting the budget of police departments?
You see, even the Washington Post tries to falsely frame what's actually happening, what's actually being argued.
They sift around the Republican, quote, Hat, you know, full of quotes.
Hat full of quotes.
And pull out one, and they keep pulling out until they find one that is out of context.
Or inaccurate.
Let's say you got 100 Republicans.
80 of them give statements that are fairly accurate.
10 of them give kind of off statements, and 10 of them are just like, you really don't understand what you're talking about.
That's what the left does.
You'll see the entirety of the mainstream right saying something reasonable.
They'll take the one unreasonable thing said by one person and say, look at this lie!
Look at this lie!
They're lying!
They're the ones who hype it up.
But check it out.
They say White House advisers are trying to turn the tables on the GOP with a new talking point, claiming it's actually Republicans who are working to defund police.
That one I find hilarious, mind you.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki brought up the same $1.9 trillion package, the American Rescue Plan, at a briefing on June 23rd.
Yes, Republican lawmakers opposed a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill, which included money for state and local aid.
Many local governments are tapping those emergency funds to patch budget holes, hire officers, and avoid layoffs.
Although Republicans all opposed the package, no one voted to cut or defund anything.
Rather, Democrats proposed $350 billion in emergency funds for state and local governments, and Republicans voted against those extra funds.
That is not a reduction.
That's not defunding the police.
The facts.
Let's define what it means to defund the police, a popular movement among some liberal activists.
You mean far leftists?
Only in rare instances are proponents calling for the outright elimination of police departments.
I mean, like, the New York Times had an op-ed that said, yes, we mean abolish the police, but you get the point.
Defunding is like what they did in New York.
They had, I think the budget was like five billion, they took a billion away or something like that, or it was six.
Many departments, hundreds actually, have reduced the budgets of their departments.
So here we go.
Overall, we award three Pinocchios.
Three Pinocchios.
The White House is lying to you.
They do this all the time, actually.
Under Donald Trump, they say Trump was lying all the time, but the reality was, while certainly there are framing devices used by the president and everyone has their perspective, boy, did the media lie relentlessly.
One of my favorite things to have happened was when there was the White House aide, and Jim Acosta of CNN was holding the microphone and refusing to give it up, and the aide came to grab it, and then you can see Jim Acosta pull his arm down.
What I think happened was she was trying to grab the microphone from him, and then he wasn't gonna let it go, and something happened where they both, you know, kind of jerked.
And the media all went nuts saying this intern tried ripping the microphone away from him, and I'm like, First of all, it's not his microphone.
Why wouldn't he let it go?
And even if she did, And, Jim Acosta is saying, like, I am not going to give you your microphone back?
More importantly, it was clearly not what happened.
Jim Acosta was just not willing to give up the mic, and the media absolutely always frames things to be anti-Trump, even when it's a young woman who clearly has no idea what's going on and says, please can I have the microphone back?
That's the media manipulation they do.
So I find it particularly funny when even the Washington Post says they're full of it.
They say, In this case, there's not even a line item to attach to the White House's claims that Republicans are trying to defund the police.
The American Rescue Plan devoted $350 billion to state and local aid, a pot of money that was designed for a variety of budget-plugging purposes, among those is keeping police, teachers, and emergency medical technicians at work.
But going strictly by the bill text, lawmakers had no guarantee that police would get a slice of the pie.
What's more, voting against a one-time infusion of cash is not the same as voting to cut funding.
There is little basis to claim that Republicans are trying to defund police.
I mean, it's obvious to all of us.
Thank you, Washington Post, for calling out their lies.
Psaki and the White House are on more solid ground by framing this talking point in terms of the COPS program, which some Republicans did vote to cut funding for as recently as the Trump administration.
That's the only thing keeping this talking point from being four Pinocchios.
Okay, so what does a Pinocchio mean?
Four Pinocchio means a whopper of a lie.
If it were not for the COPS program, it would have been a whopper of a lie, saith Washington Post.
Three Pinocchios means significant factual errors.
This gets in the realm of mostly false, but it could include statements that are technically correct, but are taken so out of context as to be very misleading.
The line between two and three can be a bit fuzzy, and we do not award half Pinocchio, so we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward three.
But it was almost four.
Okay, I don't care about their Pinocchio standard.
They were basically lying.
Now I bring you to Washington, D.C.
Jack Posobiec tweets, breaking.
Kash Patel confirms the Trump admin was trying to deploy the National Guard for January 6th, but were blocked.
Why, on January 6th, when it has now publicly been admitted by the FBI that they had information that there could possibly be a situation like that at the United States Capitol, Why weren't the cabinet secretaries under President Trump briefed?
Why didn't the FBI put a thousand uniformed agents around the U.S.
Capitol?
Where was the fence, right?
These are the lackings that led to January 6th.
These are the mistakes, intentional or otherwise, that led to January 6th.
And if you look at the video from January 6th, and they still won't release all of it, an entire side of the Capitol, I believe it's the South side, was totally unmanned.
No police officers whatsoever.
And that's where the crowd first came in through.
And you have to ask yourself, what happened on January 6th?
Now look, I was Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense on the 6th.
We had offered the Capitol Police and Mayor Bowser of Washington, D.C., thousands of National Guardsmen and women two days before January 6th, and they turned So let me issue an in-segment correction.
The offer for thousands of National Guard to be deployed to protect the Capitol.
The FBI is admitted to have had foreknowledge, something, there was a threat, and instead of briefing the President and letting him know, that's what happens.
It's a big lie.
January 6th is the Democrats' big lie.
They say that it was an insurrection.
Yeah, there were some people fighting.
There's a decent amount of fighting, and there was a riot, and these people were wrong, and they should face their penalties.
But boy, are they going... What are they calling it?
Shock and awe, I think they're calling it?
Is that what Kash Patel said?
Somebody said that.
They're basically trying to maximize all of the penalties against people for, like, trespassing.
It's very extreme.
In some videos, you can see one guy saying, come on guys, don't disrespect this house, it's not ours.
In some videos, you can see the police opening the door and letting people in.
Many videos show this.
Insurrection?
It was a riot.
You poorly protected your building.
You knew there was anger and the potential for a riot, and they did nothing.
In other instances, there have been leftists who have stormed the Senate, the congressional buildings, shutting them down.
Not an insurrection?
No.
Why?
You know, I think it's very obvious that there's a very serious institutional bias against the right.
The right is getting crushed.
The left is winning.
And that's a reality.
Does it mean they're going to win?
We'll see.
And even if they do win, how long will their victory last?
We have this story from the New York Times, from June 25th.
Trump aides prepared insurrection act order during debate over protests.
President Donald Trump never invoked the act, but fresh details underscore the intensity of his interest last June in using active duty military to curb unrest.
The New York Times reported, Responding to interest from President Trump, White House aides drafted a proclamation last year to invoke the Insurrection Act, in case Mr. Trump moved to take the extraordinary step of deploying active-duty troops in Washington to quell the protest that followed the killing of George Floyd, two senior Trump administration officials said.
The aides drafted the proclamation on June 1, 2020, during a heated debate inside the administration over how to respond to the protests.
Mr. Trump, enraged by the demonstrations, had told the Attorney General Bill Barr, the Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff Mark A. Milley that he wanted thousands of active duty troops on the streets of the nation's capital, one of the officials said.
Mr. Trump was talked out of the plan by three officials, but a separate group of White House staff members wanted to leave open the option for Mr. Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act to call in the military.
You probably know that Tom Cotton said, send in the troops.
Maybe it would have been the right idea.
Maybe not.
I'm not a big fan of sending in the military.
And in DC, it wasn't nearly as bad as it was in other areas.
Perhaps the National Guard or active-duty military would have made sense in places like Minnesota and Portland or Seattle, where things are very, very serious.
Washington DC was never really that bad, and they were able to handle it.
DC is always fairly mild.
I mean, that city sees so much protest, they can really handle it.
But what did Trump end up doing?
He deferred so much.
Unfortunately, he did not take any definitive action.
Now, maybe it was twofold.
Maybe both sides were hoping the other side would look bad.
Maybe Trump was thinking, look, these riots are making the left look crazy.
It's good for us.
The problem with that logic is, if y'all ain't doing anything about it while you're in power, why bother voting for you?
Maybe the other guy will.
Trump should have done just enough to stop this without going overboard or locking down cities, but he didn't.
It's easy for me to say, you know, hindsight is 20-20, so I really have no idea.
Maybe they would have just said Trump's a fascist and it would have been really bad for him.
Let's take a look at where we are now.
How are things going?
We have a crisis of violence.
Oakland police chief says city is in a safety emergency and saw 12 hours of non-stop chaos when there were seven shootings in one night.
After department budget is cut.
Oh, hey!
Defunding the police!
There we go!
And now they're in a crisis.
Now they're desperate.
Of course they are.
I'm not a big fan of how police handle things, and lately I've been saying we should abolish the police.
You know why?
So long as they're controlled by these powerful leftists and democratic institutions, and they will violate your rights, why give the left the power to do it?
Call their bluff!
The left keeps saying, defund the police!
Defund them!
And I'm like, okay, do it!
Do it!
Come on!
Yeah, they won't do it.
They'll freak out.
The people who live in these cities will panic, and they'll beg someone to bring back their police.
Republicans gotta learn how to play poker, man.
Instead, they're like, no, no, no, we mustn't do that.
You can say it.
But you know what I'd say?
I'd say, I'll tell you this.
Here's what we're gonna do.
I clearly see I'm in the minority here.
Everybody wants to defund the police.
Well, I don't.
I think it's a bad idea.
But I'm open to trying new things.
So if you all think it's the right thing to do, Do so with my blessing.
And I'll be over here preparing a package to refund the police, to fund them again, should the need arise.
How does that sound?
Then guess what happens?
Oakland, like Chicago and many other cities who see massive waves of crime following the political spinelessness and fecklessness, then they can come to me and I can say, Hey, I drafted this.
I've been waiting.
I'm sorry it didn't work out for all of you.
See, I was right the whole time.
Now take a look at this.
Venice Beach Homeless Camp is finally being cleared after months of mayhem, rampant drug use, and misery for residents.
Why, is that the police coming in and cleaning up the damage and the destruction from the lawlessness?
Yeah.
And does that mean that the misery for the residents will subside?
Seems to be the case.
So you mean that policing, shutting down these homeless encampments, has helped make the area better?
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.
I worked with a homeless shelter network in Los Angeles.
Network meaning it was a bunch of different buildings.
One company that operated a bunch of different buildings.
And they couldn't solve the homeless problem.
You know why?
People wanted to be homeless.
So how do you solve a problem like this?
Do you want to help people?
Of course.
Do you want to help the homeless and those in need?
Absolutely.
What if the people who are homeless aren't in need and are just enjoying that they get to exploit the system?
There's a viral video where some guys are sleeping on Venice Beach like, it's great, it's a party, 24-7, we can do whatever we want, no one's gonna stop us.
And if the police issue us a citation, we just go to the church, church pays it.
There are a lot of people who realized they can just say, oh no, woe is me, I'm homeless.
What's really happening is that they're choosing to be homeless because a lot of people enjoy it.
Look, Maybe these uppity progressives don't realize this, but America is effing amazing.
You go to any city, you stand in a street corner and you say, may I have money for a cheeseburger today and I will pay you back Tuesday?
Guess what?
Someone's gonna be like, here's a cheeseburger bro, don't worry about it.
Stand in a street corner and say cheeseburger and nothing else.
Cheeseburger?
Cheeseburger.
Eventually someone will walk up with a cheeseburger, cost a buck, here you go buddy, here's a cheeseburger.
Not in other countries.
I mean, sure, in some other countries, like, you know, Western wealthy ones, but not in many.
A lot of people in this country realize you can sit back with your feet up, staring at the sky, with a smile on your face, because other people will sustain you.
It's not going to work in the long run.
You see what's happening when they're offering to pay what is effectively UBI.
They're giving people $600 unemployment, the eviction moratorium.
Telling people you don't have to work results in people saying, OK, I won't work.
People seem to have this utopian vision that if you just give people money, they'll start working.
It's weird, isn't it?
Now, if your employer offers you money in exchange for work, yeah, that one makes sense.
But right now what's happening is that people can't compete with the free money.
It's an interesting conundrum, isn't it?
You've got a bunch of people who had their businesses shut down and can't work so the government gives them money.
But the government has to give everybody money because you can't just give money to one person.
This is why I've often talked about why I used to be in favor of UBI.
I loved the idea.
I thought it would open the door for people to pursue passion and then I realized it wouldn't work.
Why?
As your economy evolves and technology emerges that will displace certain jobs, UBI doesn't work because some people still have to work.
You see the problem?
Imagine you have a system where you say, OK, if you live in New York, we don't need you to work anymore because the food is made by farmers in rural areas.
The farmers are going to say, why am I working?
Why are my employees having to harvest the fruits and pick the apples, while these people get it for free?
Nah.
Nah, we're not gonna live that way.
We are not going to be serfs for you, Capital City.
And eventually they say, we're not gonna do it.
We're gonna keep it all to ourselves and stop giving it away to these people for nothing.
Then you're getting money too and you can supplement your income.
Then the guy who was picking the apples goes, there's more than enough than I need to survive.
Adios.
Now there are no apples.
It was a fun experiment, was it?
It didn't work.
Defunding the police didn't work.
UBI doesn't work.
People need to have personal responsibility.
So here's my advice to all of you.
Get out of the cities.
Move out to the suburbs.
Right now, there's a massive storm waging all around me.
I can see it's cool.
There's windows in every wall.
It's sunroom.
It's fantastic.
And I'm watching the storm, and there's critters, and there's animals, and they're running and hiding, and there are wild fruits growing, and I can go outside, breathe fresh air.
I have some of the cleanest drinking water I've ever had in my life because of an excellent filtration system and well water.
We are much more responsible for ourselves.
Self-sustaining.
This morning, once again, I made my own breakfast with fresh cherry tomatoes, with fresh eggs from the chicken coop.
It's a great thing.
And I know a lot of conservatives and rural people are just laughing because they've known that joy their whole life of having your own food, and to them it doesn't mean much, but I come from the city.
I grew up in Chicago.
So many of you who lived in these cities, you're dealing with rampant, skyrocketing crime, Democrats who are selling you out and refusing to accept assistance because they hate Trump, pollution, Feckless leadership.
Be responsible for yourself.
It's time to step out, enjoy nature, and stop being the person who is working hard to fund those who refuse to do it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
TimCast IRL podcast.
We hosted Asra Nomani, who showed us a bunch of different books that are being used in grade schools and high schools to indoctrinate children.
One of these books was called Not My Idea, and I read through it during the show because of how insane it was.
In the book, they effectively depict a white person as the devil, holding a whiteness contract with a devil tail sticking out from behind it and a white hand reaching out, and a word bubble that says, dude, we can see your tail.
These people are effectively telling children that white people are the devil.
We're now learning that the book is being used in dozens of schools in a variety of contexts.
There are many schools that have almost exclusively critical race applied principle curriculums.
Yet we keep hearing from these proponents of CRT and CRAP that it's not really happening.
Republicans are lying.
No, no, no, no.
Here's the trick and why this is something we really need to go through and why you should share this video.
Go to TimCast.com.
Check out our Asarat Nomani podcast.
You want people to see this stuff.
They're indoctrinating your kids, and they're using confusing terminology with changing words and definitions on purpose.
You see, when you have this book, Not My Idea, which not only teaches children that whiteness is a contract with the devil, but actually prepares the children to fight with their parents, call their parents liars, and defy their parents, It is... Well, it's indoctrinating kids, but it fits a variety of different ideologies.
And at any given moment, anything you say will be determined to be the wrong thing we're talking about.
That's the dirty game they play.
Over at the Atlantic, Ibram X. Kendi, who is a critical race theorist, who has touted critical race theory, but considers himself to be anti-racist, which is different, he says.
There is no debate over critical race theory.
Pundits and politicians have created their own definition for the term, and then set about attacking it.
That's the game they play, and the mainstream media provides cover for them.
This is... it's the culture war.
It's been going on for some time.
The cult ideology of the racial identitarians has been persistent, expanding, it's getting worse.
I remember back at Occupy Wall Street when I first encountered this racist ideology.
They said, progressive stack.
Meaning, if you want to speak, you have to first be placed on a hierarchy of privilege.
So, they would look at you and say, white man, no you can't speak.
Anybody else?
Okay, moving on.
No joke.
And then there were several instances actually really funny where a white guy raises his hand to speak and they go, they look around, they look past him.
Is there anyone other than a white man who wants to speak?
And the guy goes, I'm actually gay.
And then they're like, oh, okay, you can speak.
That's how they play the game.
It's all about identity.
Your opinions don't matter so long as you fit their specific privilege hierarchy.
Now, Critical race theory.
I think it's the wrong term, to be completely honest.
That's why I've been saying critical race applied principles.
This book that says... Let me show you this image.
You may have seen it recently, but we definitely need to expand upon this.
I want to show you the tenets of critical race theory and prove to you it's inherently anti-white.
And, I want to prove to you that they are trying to undo the civil rights movement.
You think I'm exaggerating?
I'm not.
I'm not even going to waste time.
Because anybody who sees this, who's on the left, is going to be like, oh, he's exaggerating.
Just look at the literature.
One of the core tenets, this is from a document from the U.S.
government, going back to 2009, says the fifth tenet of critical race theory is the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation.
They have repeatedly said over and over that civil rights law empowered white people.
They still say it, but they play these dirty games.
Look at this.
Here's the hand reaching out with the contract and the devil's tail and what is this goat feet of some sort?
It's the devil with a white hand.
Contract binding you to whiteness.
You get stolen land, stolen riches, special favors.
Whiteness gets to mess endlessly with the lives of your friends, neighbors, loved ones, and all fellow humans of color.
Your soul, sign below.
And it says land, riches, and favors may be revoked at any time for any reason.
And the other one, right next to the left, it says, dude, we can see your pointy tail.
One of the problems is the disorganization among the right.
There have been people who have been fighting what's called social justice warriors or wokeness or intersectionality for a long time.
When the SJW tag went around the internet, they tried to shift intersectionality.
And naturally, because many on the right are always on the defensive and following the left, we all fall into these traps.
Critical race theory becomes the new phrase to use to describe what is not just about race, because there is critical gender theory, and there's critical theory in general, all based in Marxist ideology.
So, what ends up happening?
This empowers the left to continue the manipulation of regular people.
Because people like Ted Cruz don't inherently understand what critical race theory is, because I initially didn't understand what critical race theory was, and we all just blindly walked into terminology that they use specifically to manipulate us.
Now, Ibram X. Kendi comes out and says, I've never written about critical race theory.
I write about anti-racism.
It's different.
It's all basically the same thing.
Identitarianism.
Now, there may be different words for different aspects of this ideology, but basically what it comes down to is...
The left wants the law and policy to be based upon race, or at the very least, they want race to be the principal component in how we implement policy, law, rules, etc.
Identitarianism.
Now, within Identitarianism, you also have white supremacists.
So, in my world, when I'm looking at this, it's all the same thing.
The left saying they think certain races should or shouldn't do X, they say white is this, then the white supremacists say similar things.
That's why there are memes showing Ibram X. Kendi and the Klan with the same word bubble.
Because they believe the same things.
Ibram Kendi has specifically stated that we need racial discrimination, which is insane, if you ask me.
We don't want that.
We want the opposite of that.
We want people to be treated fairly.
But here's the idea.
They often show this image, where there's three people watching a baseball game.
They're standing watching a baseball game, and they're each on one crate.
A tall man, a medium-sized man, and a short man.
But the short man can't see, even with the crate.
They call that equality.
See, everybody gets a crate.
The next one says equity.
And the tall man has no crate, the medium man has one, and the short man has two crates.
Saying, see?
Giving everybody a crate doesn't solve the problem.
We need to give more crates to the short guy.
What they don't tell you is that often this manifests in hobbling people.
That means there could be someone who's tall and they crack him in the kneecap with a baseball bat, figuratively.
If they're going to say it's all about giving crates to people, what if there are no crates?
What if there are no crates to give?
Well, then they gotta make you be... To bring about equity, you bring people down instead of lifting themselves up.
Well, let's talk about intersectionality, anti-racism, feminism, etc.
Very early on, people noticed this weird ideology emerging in movies, comics, video games.
It started, I think, for a lot of people, with GamerGate.
All of a sudden, these video games were popping up where it was just like nonsensical plot lines, and it was very insulting and disparaging to white men.
The feminists said, oh, you're just white supremacists and you're alt-right.
When in reality, it was people saying, like, dude, how come every guy in the new Ghostbusters movie is a moron?
You can write good characters, this ain't it.
They said, well, if you hate the movie, you're racist.
You're sexist.
It was the same thing.
Within all of these ideologies is the concept that white people are the devil.
So right now, for some reason, people are claiming that Critical Race Theory isn't inherently anti-white.
They have whiteness literally in their core tenets.
They have whiteness as property, as one of their founding pieces of literature.
Or I shouldn't say founding, but in the early 90s it was written that whiteness is property.
They write books that depict white people as the devil.
And for some reason, people are saying that's not the case.
Let's read a little bit of this.
Not My Idea.
They say anti-critical race theory activist Chris Ruffo published a list on Thursday of schools and districts across more than a dozen states, including one Native American tribal school, that promotes the book Not My Idea by Anastasia Higginbotham.
Ruffo says the book traffics in the noxious principles of race essentialism, collective guilt, and anti-whiteness.
What you need to understand, first and foremost about all of this, is race essentialism.
Identitarianism.
Now, they're different, but similar.
These leftists use manipulative language to confuse regular people who don't pay attention.
They all say, critical race theory is not being taught in schools.
Like, never once have we introduced a book by Kimberlé Crenshaw.
These Republicans are lying!
And then when someone complains about the core aspects of racial identitarianism brought up by the left, They demand the absolute specific term to describe literally what it is you're saying.
And if you don't get it right, you're wrong and talking about something else.
See, here's the real definition.
Critical race theory is just a legal analysis as to the intersection of race and law.
After critical race theory, you get intersectionality and anti-racism.
Intersectionality is this idea that racism and sexism and other forms of bigotry intersect in different ways for different people, creating unique positions.
So, a black man may experience racism, but a black woman experiences racism and sexism, A white woman experiences sexism, but racist sexism is a different experience than either racism or sexism alone.
The funny thing about that is, that's literally a core component of critical race theory.
The idea that people are privileged, that there are oppressed and oppressors, and there's a hierarchy of oppression.
Intersectionality is just a derivative.
So when you're criticizing woke feminism, they say, that's not critical race theory.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
But I'll tell you this.
I just say identitarianism.
I mean, it's really simple.
Now, you can say racism.
That's an easy way to put it.
Racist.
They're teaching our kids to be racist.
How about you just say that?
It's critical race theory.
No, it's a racist curriculum.
Imagine if you came out and you were at a school board meeting and said, I want to understand why the teachers are implementing racist teachings and racist curriculum.
Here's one that says this race can and can't do that.
That's racist.
Imagine an Asian family during Stop Asian Hate went to a school board meeting and said, why does this say X about Asian people?
That's racist.
Instead, conservatives, people on the right, and people challenging this are always playing catch up with the left.
Let's talk a little bit about the Democrats, for instance.
You have big tech suppressing a story about Hunter Biden, banning links, shutting down the conversation, suppressing the algorithm.
Now, that is one of the biggest scandals in the history of this country.
Major multinational corporations silencing major breaking news from one of the oldest public, I think, I believe the oldest publication in the country.
And what are we debating right now?
The Republicans aren't debating anything.
The Democrats are debating January 6th.
They're providing funding and expanding this.
Because Republicans are not capable.
Sorry.
So here's what you get.
On the left, boy are they 10 steps ahead of everyone on the right.
And that's just reality.
They've been implementing these books for how long now, and people are only just now starting to recognize it?
How long has it been going on?
Is it that the kids are already now indoctrinated?
Can you weed this out of the kids?
In this book, it's a little girl hearing her mother complain about something happening in the media, police brutality, and then the mother tells the daughter not to worry about it and she'll learn about these things.
She then goes to school and is told the truth.
That's right.
And she comes home and she says, I'm tired of you lying to me, mom!
Tell me the truth!
And she's like seven years old, mind you.
That's how cults do it.
They use morsels of truth.
They say, everyone's against you.
We're the ones who love you.
These kids are being taught to hate their parents, to reject their parents.
I mean, Christopher Rufo, 25 public school districts in 12 states are now teaching Not My Idea, a book that claims whiteness is the devil, luring children with the promise of stolen land and stolen riches.
Critical race theory is driving public education and it must be stopped, and here's a list of many different schools that are teaching this.
Most have it included in recommended reading lists, but some are teaching it as part of their curriculum.
And in some cases, teachers and principals have recorded themselves reading it aloud to students.
Ruvo included links to the readings in his list.
In one instance of a presentation of a preschool, preschool-aged children, the reading left out two pages featuring the whiteness contract, as did two others.
Three other presentations included the pages, and one featured a principal quickly glossing over the term, calling them additional activities and resources the book features.
Why?
That's the insidious nature of the cult building they're doing.
It's very clever.
You're familiar with the phrase, frogs boiling in a pot.
When frogs are in a pot and the heat's slowly rising, they just stand there as the water gets hotter and hotter and then eventually they're boiled.
But what would happen if you threw boiling water at a frog?
It would run away.
It would jump away.
It would get burned and get angry.
It would be shocked instantly.
What they're doing is a clever tactic of cult building.
They make sure they show you things.
Well, actually, let me explain to you.
I can really break this down, because I actually have been friends with many social engineers, the hacking culture thing, and I can break down to you the core components of manipulation.
First, when you're trying to manipulate someone, you have to understand a person's reasonable boundaries.
This is exactly what they've been doing over the past 10 years, to manipulate, but they're doing it as fast as possible.
Now, this means they run the risk of shocking the system, because they're threatening the reasonable boundaries of individuals.
We may see a big move once schools come back in for the year.
Parents get shocked by what their children are learning.
And we saw this with these Zoom meetings when information like this started leaking out.
So, a reasonable boundary.
Imagine you have negative 100 and positive 100.
And in the middle is zero.
An individual starting at zero is politically uninitiated.
Negative 100 is the left, positive 100 is the right.
Let's just, I'm not saying negative or positive like good or bad, I'm just saying, you know, that's the way the scale goes.
So let's say an uninitiated individual is at zero.
They have very little exposure to any of these ideas on the economic left or right, or cultural for that matter.
If you come to them and say, you must be a communist, which is literally as far left as you can go, they'll say, you're insane, get away from me.
If you come and say, laissez-faire capitalism all the way, they'll say, that's crazy, get away from me.
Because they have reasonable boundaries.
You have to actually enter their world and provide for them information that doesn't offend or shock the system.
So what you do is, here's the individual in the middle, you nudge them a little bit to the left or a little bit to the right.
In this instance, they're trying to teach children that white people are the devil.
They say whiteness doesn't mean white people, but then they literally say black and brown people, which is a reference to color, so yes, they're talking about white people.
If you go to a white child and tell them their parents are evil and the devil, they'll say, but I love my mom and dad, and they'll be confused.
Now, children have wider boundaries.
They can be moved further left and right because they're very impressionable, they're young.
Here's what you do.
You don't come out and say, you must be anti-white and all that stuff.
You come out and you say, hey, look at that video of police brutality, isn't that bad?
An average person would find it reasonably, would conclude that, a reasonable person would conclude, police brutality is bad.
They get nudged one degree to the left, and now they're at negative one.
Their reasonable boundaries then reset, and now you can move them further left, but not as far right.
You then introduce another concept.
These police have been doing this for a long time.
Look, here's another video.
Here's three videos.
Now they go negative two, negative three, negative five.
They jump back because you've entertained the left.
Now their reasonable boundaries reset.
Now you can move them between negative ten and zero.
You see what I'm trying to say?
You can't ever just take a person and radicalize them.
You have to do it very, very slowly and incrementally.
So what they do with this book is they ignore the part where it shows the white person being the devil because that could shock too many people into rebounding and saying, Whoa!
Now that is offensive and crazy.
But if they introduce enough over time, they nudge you and nudge you and nudge you, eventually you become radicalized.
Now on the left, they say YouTube does this.
It radicalizes people to the right.
Perhaps.
YouTube actually just surrounds people with content, but you can't Share on YouTube, right?
That's one of the challenges.
YouTube has to algorithmically choose what to recommend, and it doesn't recommend based on ideology, it recommends based on subject matter.
So what happens on YouTube is that if you watch a video about immigration, you're typically going to get a conservative video because liberals tend not to talk about illegal immigration.
Or more importantly, they don't use the word illegal, in which case YouTube won't recommend you that video.
It doesn't mean it's going to radicalize you, but you could be radicalized by only getting one piece of information over and over and over again.
The difference being, YouTube has no way to scale this effort.
So when you watch a video about illegal immigration, you might actually see extremist videos and pro-libertarian, like open borders type stuff as well, and then whether or not you become radicalized is based on your movements and your choices as an individual.
With Facebook it's the opposite.
Facebook's algorithm recommends content to you that increasingly includes more subject matter and more words, but it's not because of Facebook necessarily, it's because people are clicking share.
People are directly sharing things that stimulate.
So the more aggressive, the more egregious, the more shocking, but not shocking to the point where you wouldn't be converted, The more likely, when they press share, you'll get it.
So I'll put it this way.
If there's a video that's like hardcore, intersectionalist, far-leftist, communist, whatever, Facebook probably won't show that to you, even if someone clicks share because it doesn't fit the algorithm.
But, because of the way the algorithm works, and because everyone can click the share button, people are then sharing amongst themselves and spinning themselves further and further left.
That's the tactic we're seeing with this.
Critical race theory is gaining serious traction.
Critical race applied principles are being, are in our school, the application of the principles.
It's called critical race praxis.
It is in the schools.
That's what they're doing.
It includes anti-racism and intersectionality and all the other stupid words they want to use.
But the core of it is to tell you that race must be the number one or the principal factor in how we set the rules and write the laws.
In California, there was a proposition to remove the non-discrimination provision from their constitution.
It failed because most people are shocked to discover that Democrats want to do this, but they do.
The proposition in California was endorsed by federal-level Democrats, by dozens or even hundreds of Democrats across the country.
It failed.
Regular people said, why would we want the right to discriminate on the basis of race and gender and national origin?
It makes no sense.
So they lost.
You see why they need to increment it?
It's a dirty game.
And the big problem that we're facing?
Republicans don't know how to fight.
The culture war right is dejected and disorganized.
Christopher Ruffo has had tremendous victories, but he's now saying critical race theory, where people in the past have been saying intersectionality, and there's no agreement on what's actually being fought, and that is the tactic of the left, to make it impossible to describe, to confuse people, to always have an out.
Just call it racial identitarianism?
Or call it wokeness?
Because gender theory is there as well.
They're not just teaching children about whiteness.
It also includes men and Christianity.
It is an attack on the basic power structures and ultimately rests within Marxist's critical theory, the idea of oppressors and the oppressed.
The oppressors are wealthy white males.
They then break that down into subsidiaries.
Males, white people, the wealthy.
The wealthy is kind of taking a backseat to this one.
Now they've added cis-heteronormative patriarchy.
See, that's the intersectionality coming out.
Now they're saying straight white males.
They're just going after anyone who in any way is perceivably in a position of power or authority or privilege or whatever.
It is an attempt to destroy the system, and it's working.
It is very clever.
It is very powerful.
And until people on the right learn how to organize, They're going to keep getting routed.
Now, this latest salvo from Chris Ruffo has been the most successful I've seen in a long time, exposing these books.
But it may just be much more simple than this.
As I mentioned with reasonable boundaries, there comes a point where it seems the racist left, the identitarian left, cannot introduce racist ideas to an unwilling population.
Now, many have been converted.
It's very, very horrifying how many liberals have become alt-right.
And I mean that quite literally.
Alt-right doesn't... I mean, many of these alt-right people were pro-universal healthcare.
They're quite literally calling for white racial awakening in Sacramento.
Not kidding.
Look at these books that they're teaching kids.
They're telling them to find their racial identity.
Liberals are becoming alt-right and they deflect by calling classical liberals and libertarians alt-right because they're trying to confuse regular people so they won't know about this.
Let me just ask you something.
Maybe someone shared this video with you.
You think I'm full of it.
You think I'm lying.
Let me just ask you.
Do you think we should have government policy where we say certain races are or aren't allowed to do things based on their race?
Personally, I don't like that idea.
I think people should be allowed to do whatever race shouldn't be a component.
I recognize that racism exists in this country.
I've done a documentary on racism in St.
Louis.
I've done many many docs on blockbusting and news reports on redlining.
These are all really really bad things.
We want to solve for these problems.
Class is probably the way to solve it because if historically Black and brown people have been disproportionately affected by racist policy and are now impoverished at higher rates per capita by race, then it stands to reason that providing class-based solutions will disproportionately lift up those who have been marginalized, correct?
Why then do we want to repeal, in California, civil rights provisions in their constitution?
Why then do we want the U.S.
government the right to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or otherwise?
Why is Ibram X. Kendi saying we need more racial discrimination?
It's anti-racist to discriminate in favor.
That's just called discrimination, positive or otherwise.
It's called positive racism.
Why would we need those things?
If you disagree with those ideas and you think the government should be based on race, well, you have the mentality of people who were, you know, pre-1967.
Sure, the Civil Rights Act came in 1964, but it wasn't until 1967 that we had Loving v. Virginia and the Supreme Court basically said, people can cohabitate.
They passed the Civil Rights Act.
Yet people of different races still couldn't live in the same building.
Even guys.
Like, you couldn't be roommates.
A white and black person couldn't be roommates until 1967.
If you want to live that way with segregation, keep following these people.
Because I'll tell you this, white people aren't the devil.
Asian people, black people, Mexican people, they're just people.
White people are just people.
Every nation has its history of oppression and manipulation.
Don't let them lie to you so that they can bring back racism to this country.
Because that's basically the rule in most other countries, and I won't stand for it.
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.
The San Francisco Gay Men's Choir is under fire over a song they produced where many men are singing that they're going to convert your children.
You can't stop them, it's gonna happen bit by bit, and eventually they'll force you to become an ally once they get your kids.
Now, I'll say, when I first saw the song, I was like, oh, they're mocking the right, right?
They're being facetious, it's tongue-in-cheek.
And that's what they're claiming.
When you actually look at the lyrics, though, it's actually as overt as they could possibly be.
It's kind of like they said, hey, let's antagonize the right as much as we possibly can with these lyrics.
It's one thing if they said something like, we'll convert your kids by being nice to them, and then when your kids come asking questions, we will be there as a resource.
It's not.
They're straight up saying, we will inch by inch, one at a time, without your knowing and in defiance of your wishes, expose them to things that you don't like and tried to keep far from sight.
And the lyrics are pretty crazy, to be completely honest.
Now the reality is, you combine this story with what we've seen from other outlets, yes, there is an effort from leftists to convert children.
It's not just about the gay community or whatever this video is, it's about general leftist indoctrination.
I just covered a book in the previous segment called Not My Idea, where it tells children that effectively white people are the devil.
Now they say, no, no, no, white people and whiteness are different things.
But whiteness is a reference to the cultural actions, the historical nature of white people from Europe.
So what do they really mean?
They say, Asian people are white adjacent.
What does that mean?
I thought whiteness was a cultural reference.
No, it is a skin color reference.
They are telling your children to defy you, to hate you, that you are evil.
Then this video comes out where they say, they don't say outright, they're saying literally, an insidious plot And they say it's a joke.
The problem is they're actually doing it.
Now, of course, when they try to defend themselves.
They say things like, the right is taking it out of context, but let me also add one thing, and then we'll read through this.
In a statement released by the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir, they make reference to the Bible and Christianity.
This is the funniest thing to me.
I think it's in their statement, it may be in one of their statements.
The craziest thing to me about this is, their view is still that it is a religious Christian perspective that opposes leftist indoctrination.
I'm not a Christian.
I do not have faith in the Bible or Jesus Christ.
I'm not a Christian.
It's just the reality.
I do believe in God.
That's very, very different.
There's a lot of philosophical questions about Einsteinian God and simulation theory and what does the word God truly mean.
I don't follow these religions.
I don't believe that there is some grand biblical morality.
I know a lot of people do, and you do, so I've got no issue with people having faith in their religions and believing what they believe.
I do take issue with...
Disrespecting what the parents are trying to do for their children, and that's what we're seeing here with these schools.
You may say that it's fine that teacher in New York was teaching children how to gratify themselves by touch, or teaching them... Okay, here's what they said.
We weren't teaching them how to do it.
We're just teaching teaching how it's done.
Okay, sure.
You might take issue with that, and I do.
I think they shouldn't be teaching kids that.
But I'll say this.
Ultimately, parents should be deciding what their children should be learning, because parents are the ones who are supposed to be preparing their children for adulthood and for responsibility.
For someone to come out in a song and say, we will defy what you're trying to teach your kids, That's insane, okay?
Going to someone else's child and giving them... In the story from the New York Post about this woman teaching these kids these adult things, she was saying the reason was that children should not have secrets with adults.
So why is it that these people are saying they're gonna be teaching your kids things behind your back that will shock and frighten the parents?
How is that acceptable?
Mind your own business and your family's business.
That's what this has always been about.
When I was growing up, the reason why me, my family, my friends supported gay marriage, for instance, was because we were like, yo, let other people live.
Live and let live.
You guys can do what you want.
Now they're laughing and mocking that they're going into schools, they're teaching your children things you don't want them to learn without your knowledge, and we only learn about this stuff because of these Zoom meetings, these Zoom classrooms, where the curriculum gets leaked to the parents who freak out when they realize this stuff is being taught to their kids.
Here's the story.
I also wanna mention, too, there's a story out of Chicago where they're gonna be giving 10-year-olds birth control.
That's the way they frame it, but it specifically may refer to prophylaxis, but that's what they said, birth control.
I don't think they're giving medication to children.
Again, Chicago sometimes, that's what they said.
But this is the point.
They are not just teaching your kids things you might not want them to know.
Well, they're giving things to your kids you might not want them to have.
Here's what you need to understand.
The blame isn't on everyone else.
Sure, some people are more to blame than others, that's usually the case.
But if you think you can pass off your children to strangers, to people you barely know at a government institution, and then you get mad when you find out they're teaching them crazy things, yeah, well, why aren't you taking that responsibility?
It's your child.
Here's a story from Fox News.
They say the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir is facing a wave of backlash after offering up what it described as ironic humor about fears surrounding children and the gay agenda.
The backlash came after the choir posted a video in which they sang about indoctrinating children into being more concerned about fairness and justice.
You think that we'll corrupt your kids if our agenda goes unchecked?
Funny, just this once, you're correct.
We'll convert your children, happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly, and you'll barely notice it.
You can keep them from disco, warn about San Francisco, make them wear pleated pants, we don't care.
We'll convert your children, we'll make them tolerant and fair.
I don't care whose side you're on, left or right.
I think a person's, a child, is their responsibility.
To say that someone's parent says, I don't want them to know this, and then for you to come and say, I'm going to surreptitiously teach them whatever in defiance of what their parents want, is creepy, and I find it to be wrong.
What if, what if, your kids, You know, you're a tolerant leftist who believes in all these things, and one day your kid comes home and starts preaching about the gospel.
And you're like, I do not want you indoctrinated with this stuff.
You should not be learning about the Bible and Jesus.
How did you learn this?
They're teaching us in school.
God!
We went through that already 10, 20 years ago.
They should not have prayer in schools.
The Ten Commandments should not be at the airport.
Fine!
Take the ideology out of it.
Let parents decide what their kids should be learning.
To a certain extent, it's impossible.
You can't separate ideology, because we can say a separation between church and state, and identify the church, but how do you separate ideology from state?
The state has its own core ideology, which is a classical liberalist ideology.
I don't know what you do.
Later the lyrics continue, we'll convert your children, someone's gotta teach them not to hate.
We're coming for them, we're coming for your children, we're coming for them, we're coming for them, we're coming for your children.
Okay, listen.
It's not a joke.
It's direct antagonism.
I mean, just look at that line.
We're coming for your children.
We're coming for them.
We're coming for them.
We're coming for your children.
Saying it over and over and over again.
They were intentionally trying to antagonize.
That joke doesn't play among the left.
So imagine it this way.
If you were going to make a... Actually, I'll throw it back to the Jack Black musical on Proposition 8, I think it was called.
That one played well to the left.
When Jesus is like... I'm sorry.
When Jack Black, playing the role of Jesus, says, Your nation was built on separation of church and state.
When he does that, that's him making an argument.
That's them making an argument to the left.
In this, they're just intentionally antagonizing over and over and over again.
None of this makes any argument to me or anybody else.
I'm sure leftists laugh.
That's been the defining moment, the defining culture content for several years now.
Not to entertain people, but to entertain through antagonizing someone else.
Your children will care about fairness and justice for others.
Your children will work to convert all their sisters and brothers.
Then soon, we're almost certain, your kids will start converting you.
The gay agenda is coming home.
The gay agenda is here.
But you don't have to worry because there's nothing wrong with standing by our side.
Imagine if this was religion.
Imagine if they said, Jesus is coming for your child, the priests are coming for your child, the nuns are coming for you, and we will take your children.
They will care about fairness and faith for others.
They will convert their sisters and brothers.
Then soon, we're almost certain, your kids will start converting you.
I would be upset by any indoctrination.
This is what I find funny about the whole CRT in schools thing.
They say, no one's teaching this and who cares if they are.
We're at the point now where they're saying, yeah of course they're teaching it and you're a bigot if you don't accept it.
Imagine if your child came home to you and started talking about how they feel sadness because they haven't found Jesus.
You'd be like, where are you learning this?
And now in the school, they said, no one has read from the Bible.
No one has preached gospel.
We simply point out that we like Jesus.
That's not teaching religion.
No one's teaching any of the, no one's reading the quotes from saints or past religious scholars.
You're making it all up.
Then they go, well, it doesn't matter, does it?
It's actually a good thing.
You're a sinner.
I'm not down for any of it.
They go on to say, Republican Ohio State Legislator Christina Hagan said, They are pompously singing about undermining traditional values of families.
The video was made private after receiving 88 likes and 5,000 dislikes.
The group said it made the video private out of concern for its members' safety.
This is what's really crazy to me.
In their statement, they say the far-right conservative media found our message video and have taken it as their cause.
This has all happened in the last 24 hours and it continues to pick up steam.
They have taken the lyrics out of context.
No, they didn't.
It doesn't matter if you are making a joke or not.
To support a narrative that suits their intolerant and hateful needs, it is obvious that tongue-in-cheek humor is lost on many.
That they can accept, I accept that.
As a result, we have seen the user comments on YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram become increasingly alarming.
Emails to individuals and the chorus are vitriolic, including threats of harm.
Don't threaten people.
You know, that's just wrong.
They say, after decades of children being indoctrinated and taught intolerance for anyone who is other, from using the Bible as a weapon to reparative therapy, it is our turn.
You, no.
I do not believe in the Bible.
I do not bring the Bible around to people and read it to them, nor do I use it as a weapon.
I think you are as zealous as anyone of any ideology trying to preach whatever their little doctrine demands.
This, I actually find quite funny.
What year is it?
Y'all need to realize, in the left, with your critical gender theory and your critical race theory, that there are regular, non-theistic individuals who don't go to church, who are either agnostic, atheist, or other, who don't like you going to children and doing exactly what we complained about 10 years ago.
Now look, I have a lot of people who are Catholic and Christian, and I have really interesting discussions with them about these ideas.
I actually have many friends who are woke, and we get some serious debates.
I don't care if you believe in your faith, if you believe in critical race theory, If you worship the books of Derrick Bell and Crenshaw, if you love Ibram X. Kendi, I care that they're indoctrinating children and pushing these things in government and policy.
Identitarianism.
I do not want race or faith-based policy.
I want sound, reasonable policy so that the people who want to believe what they want to believe and worship how they want to worship are allowed to do so.
The problem is moral authoritarianism.
This is what we get.
They believe, or perhaps, there are people who were trapped 10 years ago.
And you know what?
Maybe it's old people.
It's the weirdest thing to me.
Taylor Swift has a music video.
And what is it called?
It's called, like, You Gotta Calm Down or something.
I can't remember what it is.
It's called Calm Down, maybe.
And the second verse is about, I guess, LGBTQ hate or something.
In the music video, they have a stereotype of, like, rednecks protesting.
And I'm like, yo!
It ain't 20 years ago, dude.
These times have long since passed.
You are way off base with this.
But there are people, I guess, who persist in that stereotype that anybody who opposes the indoctrination of children must be a red-cap, MAGA-wearing, Christian conservative.
Dude, I posted a meme on Instagram.
It's the Gadsden snake on a skateboard with a beanie, and it says, don't snake me, bro.
It's a plan, don't tase me, bro, and don't tread on me.
And snaking in skateboarding means cutting someone off, taking your turn out of turn.
So, like, if I'm getting ready to do a trick, and I wait for everyone to pass, and it's my turn, and I'm about to throw down my board, and then someone runs in front of me, they snaked me.
It's like, dude, we're... Like, skateboarding's really amazing how there's, like, this unspoken, anarchic flow.
Everybody waits their turn.
Not always.
Some people are snakes.
Anyway, I posted the meme.
Pro skateboarders are commenting, laughing, having a good time.
If you think that this is all about Bible thumpers, you're wrong.
Rock stars, pro skateboarders, A-list celebrities, unfortunately many of them too scared to speak up and say no to this.
Okay, here's what I can respect.
In their statement, they mention, the humor is lost on many.
I didn't find it funny.
When I first heard the video existed and I saw a snippet, I was like, I get it, I get it.
They're mocking conservatives.
Then you listen to the lyrics and you're like, dude, this is not a joke.
They're literally doing this.
Look at this.
They say, will convert your children happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly, and you will barely notice it.
They're saying that they're going to be indoctrinating their kids as to whatever it is they're claiming, leftist ideology, slowly so that you can't do anything about it.
Just like you're worried they'll change their group of friends, you won't approve of where they go at night, and you'll be disgusted when they start learning things online that you kept far from their sight.
The CEOs of big tech companies don't let their kids have phones.
If I tell my kid, I don't want you hanging out with these crackpots.
If I tell my kid, I don't want you going to the crackpot party.
If I tell my kid, don't go to crackpot.com.
I don't know, whatever that website might be.
Don't go to crackpot websites.
As a parent, I'm allowed to do that.
Now, of course, kids rebel.
And to a certain extent, it's a good thing.
But for adults to say they are circumventing you as a parent to teach the kids the things you have specifically said no to is creepy beyond all recognition.
Let's talk about it.
The New York Times blasted for defending adult film literacy for first graders.
These people are sick.
Now, I want to just stress, I want to put a correction in here.
The adult film literacy wasn't for first graders.
And if it was, wow.
Okay, but I'm pretty sure that was for high schoolers.
You still might be saying, dude, schools shouldn't be teaching these things.
Yeah, that's for the parents to decide.
All right, parents, you decide.
They were teaching children in first grade, six-year-olds, how to... six-year-olds, how to do things that they shouldn't be teaching six-year-olds.
Now we get this story on a CPS.
New Chicago public school program puts free condoms in nearly every school, including elementaries.
They say when Chicago public school students head back to their schools next month, any school with kids in the fifth grade and up will offer birth control.
I thought that was a strange framing.
Because it seems they're mostly talking about condoms.
Which I guess is a form of birth control, but birth control typically people assume, you know, pills.
So, sure.
Alright, here's the New York Times.
Talking with children about race and sex.
I get it.
You want to talk to kids about culture, about life, about society.
And you want to talk to the kids about the birds and the bees, that I understand.
Why is this the same thing?
Why are they doing it together?
This is exactly what you need to understand when this video comes out where they say they're coming for your children.
Now, a lot of people are saying they're undermining traditional family values.
They, uh, yes, sure, right?
They're coming for your kids.
They're not joking when they say it.
It's sort of a passive omission.
Every joke has its truth, they say, but these people are like, it was tongue-in-cheek!
Well, they literally do it.
And when I mean by they, I mean leftists.
I don't think that there's, like, individually gay people going around telling kids to be gay or anything like that.
That's... I don't believe.
I think what it actually is is just the concepts of race, sex, and gender and sexuality are lumped into the same critical identity theory ideology that they're indoctrinating children to.
They have books like Not My Idea, that's the name of the book, where they tell kids to yell at their parents and call their parents liars.
This is beyond creepy.
Parents, you gotta homeschool your kids.
There's been a major upswing in homeschooling.
You gotta do it.
If you want your kids to be well-rounded and well-adjusted and smart, it's gonna be your responsibility.
You cannot, and you should never have, put your kids off to someone else you don't know to raise them.
A lot of people use school as daycare because they have work.
I get it.
It's not easy.
Perhaps the simple solution is one of the parents stays home and raises the children, or you interchange between them.
You see the problem with all of this?
And it ultimately stems a lot from feminism.
This is a reality.
When women entered the workplace, It allowed businesses to undercut wages.
I'm not making this up.
These are literally facts.
There are a lot of arguments as to why wage stagnation hit a certain time.
One of the factors is that with doubling the workforce overnight, with the rise of feminism, You now all of a sudden had men and women competing against each other for jobs.
It used to be that one parent could work while the other parent raised kids.
Not anymore.
Now both parents need to work.
Because of that, people need public schools.
Because of that, public employees are teaching your children what they want, not what you want.
And I gotta say, it is a bit brazen to be outraged that you passed the buck off to someone else, and perhaps because the system is broken, and now you're mad it's happening.
I mean, you're allowed to be, but now you have an option.
Take your kids out, put them in a homeschool pod where you have one parent from the neighborhood on their day off teach every day, so Monday through Friday.
John's day off is Monday, Sally's day off is Tuesday, Susan's day off is Wednesday, Rick's day off is Thursday, and they can teach the kids from books you can buy on the internet, and also teach them about their careers.
How about that?
Then, on the weekends, you get the one guy who's not smart about anything and, as I said this the other day, take him to the park.
Take him to a skate park.
Have him do gym class.
In fact, they should be doing some kind of exercise every morning.
If you take about 20 kids from your local neighborhood, you should have at least 20 or more parents.
Maybe less, depending on how many kids people have.
But imagine you wake your kids up, you say, Hey, it's time to go to school.
We're going to go play outside and we're going to play games.
Freeze tag.
Now the kids are running around getting exercised.
Now you say, okay, now we're going to sit down and learn math.
And you know what you can do?
You can actually navigate this and create the perfect learning curriculum for your kids because you're working with them.
How about this?
You start the day with everybody jump roping and playing freeze tag, depending on how old they are.
If they're a little bit older, grab the skateboard, grab the bikes, grab the basketball.
We'll go outside.
You guys do your thing.
You're older.
Younger kids, let's play freeze tag or something.
We'll play some game.
Duck, duck, goose.
Something like that.
Then you do math class, right?
Now the kids are getting tired and you say, okay, 15 minute, we're going to play a game.
And then you get them physically active again.
That might work really well for your kids.
I don't like the public school system.
I don't like... I never liked it.
I didn't like going through it.
I didn't like the garbage teachers.
And I don't like the indoctrination.
I had trash teachers.
I had two really good ones that I can remember.
That's about it.
In fact, it's probably fair to say I only had one really good teacher.
The rest were just callous, angry individuals.
So listen.
The responsibility is yours.
These people made a video.
I think it was purposefully antagonistic.
Who was it a joke for?
I don't know.
But it's getting nasty out there.
People are getting mean to each other.
We should all just chill out and not be so mean to everybody.
