S5147 - BLM Activist Proposes Black Only Cities Or "Autonomous Zones" In D.C. Democrats Warn Of "Civil War"
BLM Activist Proposes Black Only Cities Or "Autonomous Zones" In D.C. Democrats Warn Of "Civil War."
Joe Biden has warned that GOP voting measures are the biggest threat since the Civil War.
While BLM rioters and Antifa get away with serious crime people on the right get the book thrown at them.
It should be painfully obvious that this country is beyond divided and we may be heading to some kind of collapse, civil war, or balkanization into separate regions
#Democrats
#BLMRiots
#Republicans
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A prominent Black Lives Matter activist who ran for D.C.
City Council-at-Large is proposing an initiative to go on the ballot that would create Black Autonomous Zones in D.C., effectively their own cities.
This is a Black Lives Matter activist calling for racial Balkanization in the Washington, D.C.
area.
In our next story, Dr. Fauci may be facing a criminal probe as Dr. Rand Paul challenges him, saying that Fauci lied to Congress, or at least implying that Fauci did.
And Fauci looked flustered and scared.
In our last story, AOC gets slammed, mocked, for not being able to define capitalism.
It would seem the Democratic Socialists started their own business, which operates on capitalistic principles to turn a profit.
Now before we get started, leave us a good review and give us five stars.
But if you really like this show, please share it with your friends.
Word of mouth is the best way to help.
Let's get into that first story.
A former at-large DC council candidate wants to propose a ballot initiative to create what would effectively be black-only cities by breaking apart regions in Washington, D.C.
into what he describes as autonomous zones.
Now, the reason I say these are cities is because they would have their own mayors and legislative bodies.
Now, let's be real.
This sounds absurd on its face, likely will never go anywhere, and is probably a violation of several laws.
But it shows us the sentiment and the ideology of prominent Black Lives Matter activists.
Now, I don't want to pretend like this guy is one of the most famous guys in the world, but he has been quoted in the press and has been active as an activist with Black Lives Matter for at least five years.
You know, I checked this by going and looking at some news articles and seeing that he had been quoted in other areas.
Again, I'm not going to pretend like this is the most influential guy in the world or anything like that.
But I do believe it is indicative of a larger ideological push among Black Lives Matter identitarians, of which is some kind of balkanization, racial segregation, and we've seen it pushed in many different ways.
There is the very famous diversity, inclusivity, and equity training, where they segregated based on race.
Some people could be trained, you know, you go to the training if you are white, or if you're POC or not POC, We saw, I think it was in Michigan, where they had the cafes for non-POC and POC individuals, and many people basically said, you're creating like a white-only digital meeting space.
We've seen more and more and more of this.
They call it caucusing, or they call it affinity groups.
In Sacramento, the school district actually proposed creating white racial affinity groups to have the white people share in their white history, and that to me is just absurd.
We are moving backwards.
Now, at a time when we are talking about an increasingly positive sentiment towards U.S.
balkanization, we're hearing conversations about civil war, and Joe Biden himself says that the Republican voting laws, the Republican voting bills they're proposing, are the greatest threat since the Civil War.
That is the perspective of the President of the United States of America.
You don't have to like the guy, you can disagree with him, but the dude sits in the office and is saying right now, if Republicans want to pass these bills, they are threatening us more so than the Confederacy did.
Now that's insane, because many others, at least half the country, at least every Donald Trump voter has the perspective that Democrats' lax voting bills are a bigger threat.
The President himself is saying we are facing this threat.
If you are an adamant supporter of the Republican Party, of which there are at least 75 million, he's saying what you would vote for is a bigger threat than the Confederacy.
So we have this article.
Many conservatives are mocking Ken Burns for saying that this is the most fraught time in American history, and they're laughing, saying, the Civil War was crazy, are you nuts?
And I'm like, dude, just because we had a civil war does not mean we are not entering a worse period.
Where we are right now may be the precursor to something truly awful.
I hope that's not the case.
But there's increasing sentiment, and when the president himself is no longer addressing the Republican Party or Trump supporters, Clearly, this country is more than justified.
It is bifurcated completely.
So, I'm unfortunately bullish on the idea of some kind of collapse or break apart or loss of confidence, but I'm not convinced anybody knows exactly how it will play out.
I think civil war is possible, but regional conflict probably makes more sense, and due to some polling and some conversations, I think balkanization might actually be the likely outcome.
That is to say, Each different region may just form its own union of like-minded individuals, and more and more people are filtering themselves by ideology.
People in big blue cities are leaving and going to bluer states, and people who are Democrats in red states are leaving to blue states, people who are conservative in blue states and cities are moving to rural areas.
Case in point, myself.
Lived in New York, moved to the Philly suburbs, because I'm like, hey, the suburbs are better, and now I'm out in the middle of nowhere.
People are filtering themselves.
The more they do this, the more likely we are, in my opinion, to head towards some kind of peaceful divorce or major conflict.
It's funny that they would mock this idea that we are in a more fraught position, that conservatives would do this.
And I'll point to these and, you know, I'll read through the story and talk about these individuals.
When you have a story like this, a BLM activist who ran for DC council, that's basically the local government for DC, it's a federal, you know, jurisdiction, He wants to create black-only cities.
Now I hope, whatever balkanization hits, it will not be based on race.
And I should say, I hope it doesn't happen.
I hope we get through this.
I don't want China to take over.
The United States, the U.S., needs to stand strong.
Well, let's read this story so I stop ranting.
Before we do get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments on the TimCast IRL podcast.
You'll get an ad-free experience.
We are working on a lot of bugs, so I apologize for those that have seen these bugs, but you will get great articles produced by our journalists, and your membership allows us to hire more people.
The next people will bring on our fact-checkers.
They're going to be operating independently from our newsroom so that we can have hard fact-checking, but not just fact-checking.
They're going to be frame-checking.
Making sure that our headlines aren't framed poorly or out of context.
We're going to try and be as rational and moderate as possible because we want you to decide based on the evidence presented.
Go to TimCast.com, become a member, but don't forget, like this video right now, subscribe to this channel, smash that like button, the notification bell, assuming it does anything.
Share this video with your friends.
If you think I do a good job, sharing is the most important way to support this work.
It's how we do more.
It's how we expand.
It's how we maintain what we're doing.
Here's the story.
From TimCast.com.
Former at-large D.C.
council candidate to propose ballot initiative to create autonomous African-American zones in D.C.
And I will stress, the reason I refer to them in the thumbnail as cities is because they would have their own mayors.
This is a man named Addison Sartor is expected to propose the new initiative called the Black Autonomy Act.
Sartor's proposed legislation would create autonomous African-American zones within D.C.
complete with their own mayor and legislatures.
Sartor dropped out of the race for D.C.
council member prior to the election.
The areas that Sartor is reportedly eyeing include an Acostia, Langdon Brentwood, Shepard Park, according to local D.C.
reporter Martin Ostermal.
Ostermal basically said what I've already read.
Sartor wrote about his proposal in April, saying that if it passed, it will preserve predominantly African-American sections in D.C.
as historically African-American autonomous regions.
Quote, These African-American autonomous regions would be turned into their own cities, with their own mayor and own city council members, operating separately and free from control by the present D.C.
government, the activist wrote.
He said that to deny African Americans autonomous regions in D.C.
would be denying us our basic human rights.
I'm sorry, bro.
The last thing we want is codified, hard racial segregation.
As somebody who grew up in Chicago, for those that aren't familiar, we had a dividing line.
47th Street.
You cross north of that, every single house owned by a black family, or black individuals.
South of that, fairly mixed, but mostly white, some Hispanic.
And then if you go down west, or I'm sorry, east, about a mile or two, Hispanic.
That's the racial segregation of Chicago, and it's unfortunate.
It's sad in my opinion.
I don't like that.
I think people should be able to live together and be happy, but there's a lot of things that influence this, and a lot of people make choices to live in these areas, to be around people that look like them, and it is unfortunate that happens.
So considering that, the last thing we want is to codify it.
Chicago is famous for redlining.
That was where they said, here are the areas where we're going to sell to black families near the redline.
It's the Chicago train line, the redline.
You also have the practice of blockbusting.
These practices enforced racial segregation.
I don't want to say inadvertently, but not directly.
They were basically like, well actually no, redlining was legit, racial segregation, blockbusting was using racism to basically profit and scare people and it basically made racism worse.
Now you have somebody who's a BLM activist saying, we should actually codify this jurisdictionally with enforcement from the government.
That's probably not going to go anywhere.
But understand the ideology of what these Black Lives Matter activists want.
They say while the idea has been panned online as blatant segregation and a terrifying glimpse into the goals and direction of the Black Lives Matter movement, Sartor claims that his idea is not segregation.
Quote, African autonomy is not segregation.
African autonomy is simply the act of African American people controlling the institutions in our communities.
This initiative would not prevent African Americans from being able to live or travel to the rest of D.C.
west of the Anacostia River.
This bill would not prevent white people and non-African Americans from being able to travel east of the river.
An example would be how today there are Native American reservations that non-Native Americans are allowed to visit.
Yes.
But there would be what?
A tribal council?
Race-based government?
That's literally what this individual is proposing.
Again, I'm not gonna pretend like this guy is a famous BLM activist, but you need to understand that this sentiment, these ideas are persistent and widespread.
Maybe not as extreme as this, but I've seen it.
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.
for NPR, pointed out that this measure is unlikely to make it to the ballots due to limitations under the Home Rule Act, which provides for an elected mayor and a city council for the District of Columbia.
The Home Rule Act also gives Congress the authority to block any laws passed by the D.C.
Council, which has been done several times.
Sartor claims that African Americans continue to be systematically prevented from controlling the institutions in our communities.
currently has a black female mayor, Muriel Bowser.
The majority of the city's mayors, since the Home Rule Act was enacted in the 70s, have been people of color, beginning with the very first Walter E. Washington.
According to his bio on the Wider Circle staff page, Sartor was born and raised in D.C.
and graduated from Landon School in 2012.
He is currently a sophomore at Montgomery College, majoring in business with hopes of transferring to the University of Maryland in College Park.
He started working for Wider Circle in April of 2013.
Now I'm not sure exactly what this guy's future plans are, and I want to absolutely stress for the 50 billionth time, sure, maybe this is just one random guy.
But he's trying to run for office.
That's more than I can say for the other millions of BLM activists.
This is someone who is trying to be in office.
Now, again, running as an independent, not a Democrat, and withdrawing before the general election.
These are fair points to be made.
But a lot of people are highlighting what this guy is proposing.
is extreme, and it's effectively critical race theory.
James Lindsay is saying, critical race theory exists to tear apart a nation.
We have this post from Medium, where in April, on April 2nd, Sartre talked about the African American Autonomy Act of 2021, breaking down exactly what it would be.
We get the general idea of what this is, but this idea has been around since even before then.
He posted something about this even in March.
These are ideas that don't just come from a vacuum.
I have seen the pro-segregation activist statements.
I have been on the ground during these riots where these people have, in no uncertain terms, said straight up that they want segregation.
From the Washington Post, they point out, back in, this is 2016, he was 22 and a student at Howard University, saying that the Dallas shootings served as a wake-up call for the Black Lives Matter movement.
They couldn't go up against the government.
Effectively, they needed to go into government.
He talks about how powerful they were and talks about his work with the Anacostia Library.
So this is someone, library, so this is somebody who has, or I'm sorry, his meetings at these places, somebody who has been actively engaged in Well, this activism.
Now, I want to throw it to this article here from Fox News.
After seeing what some of these activists say, we have this article,
Civil War filmmaker Ken Burns ridiculed for arguing its most fraught time in U.S. history.
For a guy who delivers history, he seems to forget it. So they mock. They say Ken Burns,
the filmmaker known for his award-winning Civil War documentary, was mocked for referring to
America's current climate as the most fraught time in the history of the republic.
Citing COVID-19 misinformation and battles over election laws, Burns argued the U.S.
is in dire straits.
We're at this desperate place, Burns said on the 11th Hour with Brian Williams.
The convergence of all those viruses, the side effects of the misinformation and the paranoia and the lying, voter suppression, and then the rewriting of our history are saying that we're not interested in facts.
We're not interested in the truth.
We're not interested in the many varied voices that make us up.
Those factors, along with Republicans who he said want to run against the government, drew him to the conclusion that this is the most fraught time in the history of our republic.
Media critics were quick to note that Burns, who newsbusters referred to as the Civil War guy, had already proved himself wrong when he created his miniseries.
Newsbuster said pompous PBS star Ken Burns thinks now is the most fraught time in our history.
The Civil War guy.
Is this just tribalism?
I'd say so.
I'm absolutely astounded by the mockery of this guy because if you've got people who clearly don't align with you and a president who says that the laws you deem necessary are the greatest threat since the Civil War, y'all need to wake up.
The president himself I can already hear a lot of people screaming about what that statement really means.
The President, Joe Biden, he's in the White House, Kamala Harris VP, whether you like it or not, and they come out and say, you and what you deem necessary is a bigger threat than the Confederacy.
Wake up.
Now we can try and push back on this and say shut up and stop.
We need to maintain a strong union lest China start taking over or even Russia of all countries.
But I don't know if there's anything that can be done.
Too many people.
Even people I respect call for peaceful divorce, and the sentiment is rising.
I did the math.
37.2% of people in this country are in favor of their region breaking off from the U.S.
and forming a regional union outside of the United States.
They going to report?
Ken Burns, don't watch my Civil War documentary, which proves me wrong, says Dan Gaynor.
Ken Burns is a famous documentary filmmaker, but for a guy who delivers history, he seems to forget it.
In Burns' assertions, Gaynor argues the filmmaker is omitting both the 1860s and the 1960s, the latter of which featured the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Bobby Kennedy, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
The decade was also marked by widespread protests over the unpopular Vietnam War.
Yes.
But most people were not at each other's throats every single day.
Now, I've heard the arguments.
People say the weather underground.
Bombing campaigns.
Yeah, I wasn't alive for all that.
A fair point.
I wasn't alive, so I don't know.
The Vietnam War, the protests, drafting, the Kent State Massacre, the killing of Martin Luther King Jr., of people like John Lennon.
Whether you think that was a crazy person or something political.
There was a lot of very serious stuff happening, but just because extreme violence occurred does not mean we are not at the point where people want to rip this country to shreds.
So perhaps we had a lot of people who didn't want to go to a major conflict.
There was no dividing line.
I'm sorry.
I think the split today is worse than we've seen it.
And I've looked at a lot of historical polling and the data, and I think it's been bad.
It's been worse.
But it's kind of like saying this.
You think now is the most, you know, fraught time?
There was a period where we were going downhill.
Yeah, but when you're going on a roller coaster, you go up to the top very slowly before you drop.
They're going to say, it was Byrne's suggestion that today's America was more fraught than even the Civil War that Gaynor argued was most egregious, saying, and I can't help but wonder, has Ken Byrne seen his own documentary, Ken Byrne's documentary on the Civil War?
Up to 750,000 Americans dead in a war that ripped the nation apart.
Seems a wee bit worse than having a bunch of people argue with each other on social media.
Yes, we have a deadly virus in 2021, but it's hardly akin to brother killing brother, ending the scourge of slavery.
My response to these individuals is that the Capitol Police are expanding nationwide.
California and Florida, and they're going to be setting up offices around the country to act as an intelligence agency.
We are seeing... How about this?
Lauren Boebert demands DOJ explain why Capitol rioters are being charged and jailed, while BLM rioters who attack federal buildings are not.
Hey, a great question.
Seriously.
Anarcho-tyranny.
Andrew Cuomo of New York murdered 15,000 people.
He was warned, if you put sick people in the nursing homes, you will kill them.
And he had the Mercy at his disposal, the hospital ship.
He had the Javits Center at his disposal.
And he knew that if he put sick people in those places, he'd have to give Donald Trump credit.
So he chose instead to murder 15,000 people.
Now, as to what his true motivations were, that's my personal opinion.
For all I know, the guy's just dumb.
But do you think anyone will go after this man?
No.
Dr. Fauci.
Man, did you see that exchange with Fauci and Rand Paul?
When Rand Paul says, lying to Congress is a crime, and this is gain-of-function research, and Fauci says, no, no, it's not.
You see his hand?
I watched this video where Fauci's sitting there.
He's shaking.
He seems terrified.
By what Rand Paul is saying.
Fauci lied!
Do you think anyone is going to hold him accountable?
No.
Now what can we do?
Take care of yourself.
Be calm.
Be smart.
Be focused.
Be reasonable.
Last thing you want to do is panic.
We can already see that there is a strange fracturing happening within this country.
And the idea that simply because we have not broken out into all-out war means we're not in one of the worst periods of American history, to me, is patently absurd.
Third, 37.2% of people polled with about 2750 people, which is, as I'm told, for polling,
actually a really good sample size.
37.2.
I did the math.
And in the South, it's 44%, with 66% of Republicans in the West.
It's 47% of Democrats.
This is massive, in my opinion.
So, I am worried about it.
Here's what we need to do.
Build culture, first and foremost.
Be peaceful, persuasive, and resourceful.
You see how Joe Biden and the Democrats use what happened on January 6th to their advantage.
Because, look, the people on January 6th who stormed these barricades to try and go into the Capitol, It was wrong, it was wrong to do, and it was stupid to do.
Now again, I know, a lot of people were doting about and didn't know it was happening and were let in by cops, but you can see it.
A guy who did not commit any acts of violence, as admitted by the court, eight months in prison on a felony charge, yet there's a video of a guy fighting cops, fighting federal police, in Portland.
No charges.
If you cannot see that happening, and you think everything's fine, then you're willfully ignorant.
I'm sorry.
Now, I don't know that there's actually going to be a civil war.
I don't know that there's actually going to be Balkanization.
I don't, of course not.
I'm only saying one simple thing.
And I'll phrase it in the form of a question.
Since 2010, and maybe even Obama, maybe even before.
Let's start with the culture war, because, you know, I can speak to my personal experience, and that's my bias, and I'll admit that.
Occupy Wall Street.
We have seen a dramatic escalation in the fracturing between the culture war left and the culture war right.
Since Gamergate.
I mean, but really Occupy Wall Street is where I first encountered The Woke.
You get Gamergate, which ultimately leads into this culture war fight on the internet.
People eventually find themselves in physical spaces.
You get conflict between Antifa and, you know, right-wing groups.
You get the election of Donald Trump.
We get five years of them lying and claiming Trump is an asset of Russia and here's the evidence and we've seen it and he's colluding and all that stuff.
It's escalated.
Based on everything you've seen over the past several years, with people literally being killed on more than one occasion in these street conflicts, with the media lying every step of the way to trick you and manipulate you, with everything you've seen from the 48 states that were embroiled in a lawsuit started by Texas over the voting laws implemented in the 2020 election, not 48 states together, but at each other's throats, seeing that, Seeing the claims made by Donald Trump, seeing January 6th, would you assume the escalation will stop?
That's my question.
After everything we've seen over the past 10 years, 4 years, 2 years, do you think right now is the moment where everyone just says, you know what?
I'm tired of fighting.
Come to me, my brother Biden, and let me give you a handshake and say, let's just calm down and carry on with our lives.
I don't think so.
I just do not think so.
I'm not saying I know for sure.
When I see stories like this, when I see comments made by, say, Lauren Boebert, when I see Biden labeling GOP voting laws the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War, I'm like, yo, this doesn't end well.
The Republicans know, and have said it over and over and over again, and you know, H.R.1 would nationalize elections in this country, and it would rip this country to shreds.
It would lower the voting age, I think, to like 16, and introducing a bunch of people with no responsibility, no understanding, being thrust right into the vote.
And you know how they'll vote.
Many people have pointed out a bunch of other reasons why H.R.
1, the Democrats' voting reform bill, would spell chaos for this country.
It is a brazen power grab.
It is designed just to massively embolden Democrats' voter base and ensure that they win all elections this point forward.
There's some things in it I think are fine.
But Republicans have pushed back saying we're going to have our state-level voting bills that don't even take away all of the provisions that Democrats have been granted.
And for this, Biden says the greatest threat since the Civil War.
When the President says that, say whatever you want about Joe Biden, 2020 Donald Trump, I'm saying this man Sworn in, sitting in the Oval Office, has just said, if you do not allow them to nationalize the elections with H.R.
1, effectively nationalized, you are a bigger threat than the Confederacy.
But these are people who are looking at what's going on critically and saying, could this be where we are headed?
I don't understand how you can have so many articles.
I did not write them.
I did not make this up.
One day I was reading The Atlantic, and I was like, oh wow, they think a civil war is gonna happen.
And I looked through the evidence, and I looked at history, and I looked at the Spanish Civil War, I looked at Weimar Germany, I looked at the history of the American Civil War, and I was like, wow.
Parallels.
Possibilities.
Seeds are being planted.
Who knows for sure?
It may happen.
It might not.
I don't see a reason why things would not keep escalating.
So who are these people who keep writing this stuff?
Talking about the fourth turning.
MIT has that 1972 paper saying societal collapse by 2040.
Are these people just making things up?
And what about this from Newsweek?
47% of West Coast Dems, 66% of Southern Republicans want to secede from the U.S.
My friends, this is not about fear-mongering.
I am simply but a humble man who reads the news, does some investigating, digging into these stories, to try and figure out what's true.
And the one thing I can tell you is that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the establishment, have been pushing and entertaining these ideas for some time.
It didn't start with them, but it's certainly at the highest levels of government right now.
Now, as I've stated, there are some things on YouTube I cannot say, YouTube will delete.
There are names I can't say.
Joe Biden, the administration, has said they're working with the DNC and phone carriers to censor private text messages.
Jen Psaki came out and said, if you violate the rules of one platform, you should be banned across all the others.
They have admitted that they are flagging misinformation for Facebook, for Facebook.
The government has gone beyond overstepping, and you think this is where things de-escalate.
I remember back in 2018 with the Antifa Proud Boys stuff, I had these conservative reporters telling me that I was nuts and exaggerating, for arguing that the articles I was seeing were on point, and that the escalation was coming.
They said, oh, you're crazy.
The federal government would never let that happen.
The security apparatus is too strong.
And I said, what makes you think the ideological fracturing won't reach the highest levels of government?
Presidents have to run for elections.
They have to get their base riled up to vote for them.
Here we are.
It's at the level of the Presidency.
It's at the level of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mark Milley, I want to understand white rage.
Okay, let me slow down one quick second.
Perhaps.
The reason why the U.S.
won't balkanize, and the reason why there would not be a civil war, and why things could de-escalate, well, if one side won, right?
If the Democrats, the Culture War Left, the Identitarian Left, the Critical Race Theorists have won, then maybe there will be a de-escalation.
It's possible.
I mean, take a look at what Lauren Boebert said.
The Capitol, uh, people at the Capitol are being charged very heavily.
A guy who was trespassing, non-violent, eight months in prison, BLM rioters, extremists, burning down buildings.
And there's some things in it that I think are fine.
But there's many things in it that I think are dangerous.
Mostly the lowering the voting age.
And, to be honest, nationalizing the vote.
Creating national, uh, federal rules as to what the states are supposed to do.
The states have the right to determine their own elections.
If they get that, that's it.
Republicans will never win again.
I mean, maybe.
Republicans will do what they've always done and be forced to adapt and change and become much more leftist.
That's why I say in ten years, Republicans will probably be socialists complaining about the Communist Democrats.
Perhaps.
I can't see the future.
Let's go back to the beginning on this one.
An activist for Black Lives Matter who said that he wants black autonomous zones in D.C.
with their own mayors.
And of course you're welcome to come, but it would be like a Native American reservation, owned and controlled by the Native Americans.
Do we really want that kind of balkanization?
It's bad enough we deal with the history of this nation and the bad things that happened.
The Native American reservations?
Sad stories.
I am not proud of the horrible things done throughout history by humanity.
No, but we try to do better and look forward, not backwards.
These are people who want to go backwards.
They want to rewind the clock on civil rights.
And they're willing to fight to do it.
One thing I said several years ago is that one of the challenges of authoritarians in the United States is the Constitution.
Probably the biggest.
The First and Second Amendments.
Take a look at Canada, the UK, Australia.
Look what they're doing with the lockdowns.
They can't do it here the same way.
State autonomy?
10th Amendment, 9th Amendment, the Bill of Rights in general.
How do you get rid of a constitution?
Well, there's one way.
Civil War.
Or, Balkanization.
And Balkanization may be a precursor towards Civil War.
I mean, let's say a region, the country breaks up into different regions, and then five years later, much like with Texas, they only lasted about the Republic of Texas, they join the Greater Union.
The states could break apart, and then there could be a proposal, and then the states vote to re-enter a new union.
Maybe that means there won't be a Constitution or a Bill of Rights.
Maybe the regions would refuse to join without one.
Maybe each region would make their own specific Constitution, and then maybe they wouldn't mesh with each other, and then maybe one region just decides to take the others.
Maybe, like the Civil War, there are two big... there will be factions.
With the North and the South, the Confederacy and the Union.
Maybe in this Civil War, there'll be five different factions all fighting each other.
Or maybe none of it.
Maybe, just maybe.
This is that one time.
Finally, right now, people say, I've just had enough.
I want to watch TV and play video games, and I do not want to fight anymore.
That's possible.
But that does mean that one ideology will persist, and if that's the case, it's likely the woke ideology.
If people just say, I've had enough, the left will just slam through the gates and take what they want.
So where do we go from here?
I think the key is building culture.
Many conservatives have kids.
Raise your kids, teach your kids, instill your values, homeschool your kids.
There's no winning this, because we're in the fourth and fifth generation of warfare, there's no winning this with what the left does.
If the left wants to get violent, we need them to stop.
The police don't want to do it?
Well then, I say take care of yourselves, defend your communities to the best of your abilities, but be defensive, not offensive.
Focus on being the good guy.
Batman isn't the instigator, for the most part.
Batman does not let people die.
And to his own, there are many great storylines about the negatives of that.
But the good guys say, you know what?
We're going to take care of ourselves.
We're going to defend ourselves.
We're going to have families.
We're going to build culture and inspire others.
Peaceful, persuasive, resourceful.
So I don't know where we go from here.
But I do know that a lot of people are angry, on the left and the right.
And we'll see.
If the sentiment about racial segregation keeps persisting and growing, don't be surprised if this guy like Addison Sartor... Don't be surprised when they get what they want.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
After an intense and heated exchange between Dr. Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Dr. Rand Paul says he will be filing a criminal referral calling for an investigation of Dr. Fauci for lying to Congress.
It's amazing.
I listened to the exchange.
Many of you may have seen the exchange between Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci, and it would seem that, yes, Dr. Fauci lied to Congress and is doubling down.
Now, in this exchange, Dr. Rand Paul, Senator Dr. Rand Paul, says to Fauci, would you like to retract your previous statement that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
And Dr. Fauci says, I will not be retracting this statement.
Well, of course he's not going to.
That would be an admission that he lied to Congress.
So, the only way for him out of this is to define his way out of this.
Numerous experts up and down the chain said that research you're talking about, Dr. Rand Paul, is not gain-of-function research.
Dr. Fauci lied.
He lied, lied, lied, lied.
And this research that Rand Paul pulled up, wow, it sounds an awful lot like COVID?
No, I'm not saying it is.
I'm just saying that's one of the questions being brought up in this hearing.
Rand Paul cited this document.
It's a study from 2017 where they constructed viruses.
They took animal viruses, modified them to be more transmissible and to be able to transmit to humans.
And these were SARS COVID viruses.
So Rand Paul says, we're gonna investigate and get to the bottom of this.
Now, in the paper, it actually says they received funding from the NIH.
Perhaps, I suppose, Dr. Fauci could have said, that's not true, they did not receive funding from us, because my understanding is that the funding actually went to EcoHealth Alliance.
But, maybe that's not true either.
The document itself says NIH.
Well, let's take a look first, the news.
Newsweek says Rand Paul seeks criminal investigation of Dr. Fauci after Senate tussle.
Rand Paul has said he will push for a criminal probe into Dr. Anthony Fauci following a seated exchange with the Infectious Diseases Chief at a Senate hearing on Tuesday.
The Kentucky Senator claims the Infectious Diseases Chief lied before Congress about funding for a Chinese lab that some have linked to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now, I just want to stress again, I have the research pulled up.
I'm going to show you.
Let's not just take Dr. Rand Paul, Senator Dr. Rand Paul, at his word.
I will show you the actual study and what they say.
Paul argues that the National Institutes of Health funded so-called gain-of-function research, a process involving enhancing a virus in a lab to study its potential impact in the real world at a lab in Wuhan.
In a stern response, Fauci said, Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director also told the Senate during that the research Paul referred to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain-of-function.
Here's the way I phrase it, because I want to go through the news, I want to show you this, but just to put it simply, for people who might not follow, what does this mean?
What is gain-of-function?
Imagine if someone said, robbery.
Robbing a bank is wrong.
Okay.
All right.
We all agree robbing a bank is wrong.
So a guy goes in and goes up to the teller, demands that money be put into his bag, and then he leaves.
And so when this guy is on trial, they're like, you are being accused of robbing a bank.
No, I did not rob a bank.
That never happened.
I simply went in and forcibly demanded money from the register or from the safe.
And you're like, that's what robbing a bank is.
No, it isn't.
No, because I talked to experts who said that was just forcibly asking for money.
You know, people actually try this.
No joke.
Defining their way out of crimes.
There are people, I remember this growing up in Chicago, what they would do is they would beg.
That's right.
They would go up to you and be like, yo, um, let me get your money.
Look, can I have your money?
Come on, you know, let me see what you got.
And it's really aggressive.
And a lot of people just be like, oh yeah, here, take it.
And then when the cops come, something really funny happens.
The guy would be like, I did not force him or threaten him in any way.
I simply said, can I have some money?
And then the guy, the cop will ask the victim, did he ask you for the money?
Well, yeah, but I was scared.
The cop's gonna laugh and be like, what does that have to do with it?
Did he force you to give him the money or not?
Well, he did ask, okay.
There you go.
Bye-bye.
Sometimes it doesn't work.
You know, the cops aren't dumb.
They'll be like, nice try, buddy.
But if the person admits that they were asked for money, what's a cop gonna say?
Panhandling?
You're under arrest?
Yeah, that's not... that's not a robbery.
NIH and NIAID have said that they supported grants to research viruses in bats and mammals, but had never approved any grant supporting gain-of-function research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.
However, Paul doubled down on his accusations on Fox News, telling anchor Sean Hennedy that under Fauci's leadership, the NIH funded the Wuhan lab And that he has at least tangential responsibility for the severity of the pandemic.
I will be sending a letter to the Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral because he has lied to Congress.
Bravo, good sir.
Bravo, Senator Dr. Rand Paul.
He told Hannity, quote, we have scientists that will line up by the dozens to say that the research he was funding was gain of function, Paul said, accusing Fauci of trying to cover his tracks to cover his connection to Wuhan lab.
Paul added that there is still some conjecture as to whether or not COVID came from the lab, but insisted Fauci was lying about funding gain-of-function research and should be punished.
Maybe.
You have shared this video right here with one of your friends and family members or social media, and maybe they don't want to believe it.
Maybe you watching this video are someone who says Rand Paul is a liar.
What if I show you the actual study?
The actual paper from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which says it was funded by the NIH, and then explains how they constructed viruses to be more transmissible, to be able to infect humans.
I'm shocked by this.
I gotta be completely honest.
You know, the exchange between Rand, Paul, and Fauci was lawyer-esque.
It was very cut and dry.
Yet I see comments, which clearly must be propaganda efforts, Where they say that, you know, on Reddit, one person was like, you know, Rand Paul is only trying to defend his party because blah blah.
And he's the one who actually, he drafted the Breonna Taylor bill.
The no-knock warrant bill.
Rand Paul is a libertarian, the son of Ron Paul.
He's not here to defend the Republican Party.
It's one of the only reasons I really like the guy.
But, you know, sometimes he does, for sure.
I'm not gonna pretend like, you know, it's never gonna happen.
They want to say Fauci gave a robust defense on Tuesday to Paul's claims.
He told the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I totally resent the lie you are now propagating, Senator.
You see, Rand Paul did not directly accuse Fauci of lying.
He simply said, lying is a crime.
Would you like to retract your statement?
Fauci is saying, definitively, Rand Paul is lying.
Those viruses are molecularly impossible to result in SARS-CoV-2.
There it is.
Okay.
Sure.
But did you fund gain-of-function research?
Yes.
I can show it.
You're implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individuals.
If anybody is lying here, Senator, it is you.
Newsweek has contacted the NIAID and Senator Paul's office for comment.
In May, they say President Joe Biden called for the origins of the disease to be investigated and for a report back within 90 days.
The most common theory is that the virus originated in animals, possibly bats, and was passed to humans.
Fauci has been the target of Republican criticism over the Biden administration's approach to the pandemic.
It has gained traction following the release of his emails.
which have been interpreted by his critics as calling into question what he knew about gain-of-function research.
Well, to put it simply, Dr. Fauci's emails have him saying like, uh, this thing that's happening, is that us?
When the pandemic started, there was concern from Fauci that they were funding gain-of-function research, and therefore, this may have been an accidental release of something they did.
Welcome to the lies from the establishment.
Now, I absolutely just love, love, love How it's so tribal.
Democratic individuals, establishment left, whatever you want to call it.
They're just like, meh, Fauci's our guy, so we'll defend him no matter what, even if it's extremely obvious the man is lying.
Oh, and I will say it.
I've read through this, and there's something interesting.
Look.
Can I say, as a statement of fact, Dr. Fauci is lying?
Technically, yes.
But it's based on conjecture and semantics, and therein lies the problem.
Dr. Fauci is trying to use a legal argument about what the definition of gain-of-function is, and his definition is slightly different.
Bro, I don't care if your definition of robbery is slightly different.
What's on the books?
Well, therein lies the problem.
Did he lie to Congress?
No!
I just thought that was something different.
And actually, you know, that defense might actually work.
I mean, think about it.
If someone tells you that, you know, X equals 1, and you genuinely believe it, and then you're in court and you're saying definitively, like, I... X equals 1, like, what are you complaining about?
And it's an issue of defining terms that are esoteric, then they can be like, you are incorrect, sir, X actually equals 2, and say, oh, well, I wasn't lying, I was just wrong.
Well, I think Fauci's a liar.
Check this out.
This is from PLOS Pathogens.
Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat-SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origins of SARS coronavirus.
November 30th, 2017.
This is, I believe, the document, the same title, that Rand Paul presented in this congressional hearing.
The first thing I want to do.
Funding.
This is right here.
Journals.plos.org.
Okay.
And this, I want to show you.
This is on the level.
NewsGuard Certified.
They say, for some reason, PLS doesn't label its advertising, but other than that, very, very credible.
The website for the Public Library of Science's networks of 12 peer-reviewed academic journals that publishes research and news in medicine, biology, genetics, and other fields.
Funding.
This work was jointly funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, China's Megaproject for Infectious Disease to ZLS, Scientific and Technological Basis Special Projects to YZZ and ZLS, from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, The National Institutes of Health, NIAID, the USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats Predict Program.
Okay.
And then they say CASPIONEER 100 Talents Program.
And Wuhan Institute of Virology 135 Strategic Program.
The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, and analysis decision to publish or preparation of this manuscript.
Notice!
USAID and the National Institutes of Health, NIAID.
Hey, who runs the NIAID?
It's Dr. Fauci!
Oh, so here's a paper where they're saying they received funding from the NIH.
Now, what is gain-of-function research?
Well, before we get into the paper, let me pull up good ol' Wikipedia to explain it to us.
Now, granted, the neutrality of this article is disputed.
Yeah, I know Wikipedia is not a good source.
I'm not a big fan.
But at the very least, if we're going to have some basis, we can use a left-biased source like Wikipedia.
Okay.
I really don't see anyone making the argument that Wikipedia is at least not... Like, no one's gonna argue that Wikipedia is right-biased.
You can argue it's neutral, it's fine, or it's left-wing, but you know what?
Whenever we get a story And we want to pull up Wikipedia because it's a general aggregation of citations.
They say, oh, well, anybody can edit Wikipedia.
That's true, too, and I often complain about it.
But let's see what we got.
Gain-of-function research is medical research that alters an organism or disease in a way that increases pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range, the types of hosts that a microorganism can infect.
The research is intended to reveal targets to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to develop vaccines and therapeutics.
Okay.
I love this.
Let's read it one more time.
It says, to better predict emerging infectious diseases.
Okay.
What is this right here?
The National Institutes of Health, NIAID, the USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats Program.
It's so insanely obvious this is gain-of-function research.
Okay, let's break this down.
Basically, what's happening is they've taken a virus, they have modified it, they want to see what happens if they do certain things.
See what happens, right?
Now, there's some technicalities here.
I love this.
I just love the manipulation of definitions.
Let's scroll down here.
Look at all this science.
Oh, jeez.
All this science.
What does it say?
Phylogenetic analysis.
Oh, jeez.
Let's just keep scrolling down.
Rescue of bat SARS-CoV-2 and virus infectivity experiments.
We're reading.
We're reading.
Activation of activating transcription factor 6 by the ORF8 proteins of different bat SARS-CoV-2.
Hold on.
Hold on.
What is that?
The introduction of the ATF6-dependent transcription by the ORF8 of SARS-CoV-2 and bat SARS were investigated using a luciferase reporter in HeLa cells transiently infect... Okay, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
I can't, I'm not a scientist, all right?
I don't quite understand.
Is that saying that they introduced specific things to this virus?
You know what?
I'm gonna go ahead and just ignore that portion.
You know what?
Because I don't need to because they have this.
They literally have, in their section, on Materials and Methods, Construction of Recombatant Viruses.
And they say, Recombatant Viruses with the S-Gene of the Novel Bat SARS-CoV-S and the Backbone of the Infectious Clone.
Let me make this a little bit bigger.
I can read it better.
They say, recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARS-CoV-2 and the backbone of the
infectious clone of SARS-CoV-2, WIV1, were constructed using the reverse genetic system
described previously. The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs, and then they go
on to mention, you know, Gattaca, Gattaca, respectively.
The products were named as fragments Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment.
BSOL sites were introduced into the 3-terminal of the Es fragment of the 5-terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively.
The spike sequence of RS4231 was amplified with the primer pair.
The S gene sequence was amplified with the primer pair.
The fragments E's and F's were both digested with BGLL and BSAL.
The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome were prepared as described previously.
Then two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with E's, F's and other fragments.
The correct infectious BAC clones were screened.
The chimeric viruses were rescued and described previously.
I don't... I... Look, I'll say this.
You know what?
To be fair, I'm not a researcher.
I don't... I generally understand what the concept of, you know, the AGC, it's like genetic sequencing stuff, but I can't tell you what BSOL and any of that stuff means.
I can only tell you that in this study it says, construction of recombinant viruses.
And they mention the chimeric viruses, how they inserted certain things into the virus.
Doesn't that at least sound like to a layman?
That this is them modifying viruses?
Yes.
I don't know how else you describe this.
Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat coronavirus in the backbone of the infectious clone were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously.
Okay.
Maybe their argument is, we didn't modify a virus, we just looked at the sequence for one and then built a new one.
And there you go.
Does that mean this is gain-of-function research?
Well, if they constructed new chimeric viruses, you could argue, they could argue, look at this.
Genome function research alters an organism or a disease in a way.
Did they alter this if they constructed it?
Look, I'm sure there are many scientists who can tell me what they really did or didn't do, but let's operate under the assumption that Fauci funded the Wuhan lab to construct these viruses.
In that instance, it sounds like a loophole.
You know what I mean?
Like, you know, I don't know if you ever see this.
You ever drive down a city and you'll see just a wall, like the front of a building and there's nothing behind it?
So, Ian, you notice this in Chicago a lot.
You'll be driving down the street, and you'll see the facade of a building.
Just that front wall, a single layer of bricks, and like a window frame and a door, and there's nothing else there.
Because the law states that if you leave at least one wall, then the building is the same building that it's always been, regardless of whether or not you've made dramatic changes.
It just sounds like they found a clever way to do the work without actually falling afoul of the specifics of gain-of-function research.
But I don't think it's fair to play this game where we can just look at the fact that they were constructing chimeric viruses to increase transmissibility and then pretend like that is not gain-of-function research.
Now here's what's interesting.
We have this… this is an article from December 19, 2017.
NIH lifts funding pause on gain-of-function research.
This is from NIH.gov.
Interestingly, as Rand Paul pointed out, gain-of-function research was supposed to be shut down.
It was paused.
They weren't supposed to be doing it.
But if you take a look at this document, this study, let's go back up to the top, you can see that the date is November 30, 2017.
So, perhaps the funding was still happening?
Perhaps funding was made?
Well, hold on.
Let's read this article.
They say, Today, the NIH announced that it's lifting its funding pause dating back to October 2014 on gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses.
Now, how?
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
That's the game.
I'm sick of this stupid BS.
What they were doing, Rand Paul cites an expert who says this is the epitome of gain-of-function research.
They were supposed to be shut down October 2014, not funding this stuff.
So you're not going to play this game where you tell me that the funding made it there and then three years later they started working on this study.
I don't buy it.
What I think we're actually seeing is Manipulation at the very least they they did the research when it wasn't supposed to be they weren't supposed to be funding it They did it anyway, and they thought they were gonna get away with it, and then what a month or two months later They said oh, we're lifting that pause
Now we have this.
It's from May 19th.
Statement on misinformation about NIH support of specific gain-of-function research.
Based on outbreaks of coronaviruses caused by animal-to-human transmission, such as in Asia in 2003 that caused SARS, and in Saudi Arabia that caused MERS, NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease have for many years supported grants To learn more about viruses lurking in bats and other mammals that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease.
However, neither NIH or NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported gain-of-function research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility Or lethality for humans.
NIH strongly supports the need for further investigation by the World Health Organization into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, working with a cross-regional coalition of- Oh, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah.
They say they've never approved any grant.
You know?
You see how they play that game?
Okay, you didn't approve it.
Did they take the money and use it for gain of function?
Because the question is, if the NIH was giving funding to EcoHealth Alliance, who then gave the funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Is there not some responsibility for the NIH?
Now, maybe it wasn't your intention for gain-of-function research to happen, but if they say this... I put these two statements to show you the contradiction, in a sense.
They say they've never approved... Look at this!
Neither NIH or NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported gain-of-function research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality in humans.
NIH lifts funding pause for gain-of-function research involving influenza, SARS, and MERS.
What?
If you never approved any of this stuff, why did you have to put a pause on it in the first place?
Someone's lying and playing dirty games, and I don't think it's Senator Dr. Rand Paul.
But of course, you get the leaders you tolerate, you get the leaders that you vote for, and no one voted for Dr. Fauci.
But are we gonna see any real investigation?
Do you think Senator Dr. Rand Paul is gonna get anything out of this?
Unfortunately, the answer is probably no.
But something doesn't add up, right?
Somebody's lying, and it seems like it's Dr. Fauci.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has apparently launched into the business side of things, but claims it's not really capitalism when criticized.
She is going to be selling merchandise, turning a profit, and then using those profits for special programs.
That is, a for-profit business.
I don't think AOC actually knows what capitalism is.
When questioned on it, she defines capitalism as exploitation.
No, I think if you've got a problem with exploitation, you've got a problem with exploitation.
If you've got a problem with corruption, you've got a problem with corruption.
One of the key reasons I think many socialists and communists hate capitalism is that they genuinely don't know what it is.
And more importantly, they don't really have the world experience.
Now, should AOC actually Google search the definition of capitalism, she would find that it's defined as the private ownership of the means of production.
I mean, it's kind of obvious, right?
Socialism and communism is the public or collective ownership of the means of production.
But AOC, when challenged on this, doesn't back down.
I wonder how many of these young people actually do love free enterprise, just don't understand.
Because here's what we see from these socialists.
They say things like, in socialism, there will be no private property.
And then you question them.
Okay, what about my shoes?
And they say something like, well, that's personal property.
What's the difference?
Well, we're talking about someone owning a factory or something like that.
Okay, so who manages it?
Who maintains it?
Whose interest is in making the business better?
But more importantly, their argument?
It makes no sense.
There can be no distinction between personal property and private property.
If they would argue that the factory is the means of production and must be controlled by the public, then I ask you, what is this camera that is sitting just before me?
This is why the socialism and communism stuff doesn't work.
In front of me sits a small camera.
Moderately expensive.
It's a really nice camera.
It's hooked, got some wires coming out of it.
This camera is the means of production, but it's my personal property.
It's not a factory, but I run a growing company, doing decently well.
I run this company essentially off of this camera.
Now, to be fair, we have a studio as well, and they might argue that studio is the means of production.
Okay, but are the cameras?
Are the cameras not my personal property?
Is it because the cameras produce something that they become the means of production?
What if you are an individual, and you make little wooden figurines to sell on the side of the road, and that's how you make money.
That's how you eat.
Is your whittling knife, or whatever it's called, the means of production?
At what point does the scale of production meet the requirements of their so-called means of production to which they would seize your ability to do work?
Let me tell you something.
And then we'll read through this article from TimCast.com.
Would you rather negotiate your own prices and keep your money for yourself after you do work, or submit it all to a collective to determine what you are owed for what you've done?
There's a mix of this.
Unions, I'm not a fan.
I'm a fan of collective bargaining.
I'm not a fan of unions where you're forced to effectively go into the system where you can't negotiate on your own behalf.
I have quit many jobs because they have restricted my ability to work.
You can see where I'm at now.
I am essentially a workaholic.
I like to work.
I like to produce.
I like to know what I'm getting for the work I do.
A lot of people don't want that.
Okay, fine.
You want to be a socialist and have someone else do the work for you.
But therein lies the problem.
You see, people like AOC and these democratic socialists seem to think that their lives will dramatically improve if only capitalism would end.
But that's not true.
Capitalism, just because Jeff Bezos can go to outer space for a minute, doesn't mean he's taking anything away from anybody.
That, in fact, will improve the lives of many people.
The peripheral technologies that are developed around things like space travel have been tremendous in improving the lives of poor people.
But you see, here's the real deal.
Socialists want to extract as much value from the system as possible for themselves.
Well, you know what?
I get it.
They view the world as, I'm only alive for the next X amount of years, so I'll take whatever I want from whoever I want because I'll be dead soon.
That's faux collectivism.
It's their whole goal.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Capitalists say we need to take care of ourselves and have personal responsibility.
Well, here's the story from TimCast.com.
AOC claims she's not using capitalism, then describes capitalism.
This is kind of funny, but this gets into a bigger picture that, you know, I want to talk about.
Democrats are running away from the Democratic Party.
No joke.
There's one article from Axios, and I'm bringing this up as an example.
There's one article from Axios where they say that Tim Ryan of Ohio, in his ad for Senate, doesn't even mention he's a Democrat because of people like AOC.
For TimCast.com, they write, Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lost another battle to definitions on Monday after claiming her private shop does not use capitalism, and then describing the system using various facets of capitalism.
Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer prompted Ocasio-Cortez to flex her economic knowledge by accusing her of using capitalism to push socialism.
AOC has a degree in economics, and she doesn't know the rudimentary definition of capitalism.
Quote, using capitalism to push socialism, branding the U.S.
left, AOC makes a push into political merchandise, Spicer wrote on Twitter, attaching a Reuters article discussing Ocasio-Cortez's private business success.
AOC responded by claiming she's not using capitalism, but instead the economic system used by her privately owned business is based on voluntary transaction determined by private decisions.
She cited tutoring, food programs, and local organizing as examples of the investments the private business makes with its profits.
Quote, Not sure if you know this, Sean, but transactions aren't capitalism.
Ocasio-Cortez responded, Capitalism is a system that prioritizes profit at any and all human environmental cost.
That is just completely made up by these people.
But for what it's worth, our shop is unionized, doesn't operate for profit, and funds projects like free tutoring, food programs, and local organizing.
She added.
I don't think AOC knows what capitalism means, and that's basically the point of this segment.
Okay.
Spicer, ostensibly having the unfair advantage of having a dictionary on hand, pointed out to Ocasio-Cortez that capitalism is based in private ownership.
He said thanks for the reply.
1.
Actually, the definition of capitalism is based in private, not government ownership.
I think you've commented more about this than Cuba and PS, can you come on the Spicer and Co Newsmax at 6pm to discuss?
PSS.
I think it's PPS.
Please tag me in the future so I can respond quicker, thanks.
Other Twitter accounts also responded to AOC's statements.
One user said, AOC has discovered a secret formula where you take money and make something and sell it without making a profit, then take the money and fund other projects with it.
She's a genius!
Political Twitter account Matt's Ideas Shop wrote, The Daily Wire's Emily Zanotti wrote, If the shop doesn't make a profit, then how does it fund those programs?
Yes.
Let me explain something to all of you.
For one, AOC, I don't believe, is running a non-profit.
Those are rather difficult.
But, non-profits do make a profit.
Profit does not mean that you are stealing money from people.
First, let's start with the definition of capitalism.
This is important.
Merriam-Webster defines capitalism as an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decisions, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
AOC, you are selling merchandise.
You are selling the merchandise for more than it costs to make it.
That is called the profit.
Let me break it down one more step further.
If I want to build a birdhouse, and I need $20 to buy the materials, I go to the store and I say, I would like to buy the materials for a birdhouse.
Here is $20.
It gets me the wood, the little tiny nails, and a hammer.
Then, I go and I build the birdhouse.
Bling!
Now I have a birdhouse.
I then go and sell the birdhouse for $25.
The $5 on top is called profit.
Okay.
Now that profit can go into your pocket as the person who did the work, so you can buy food and pay your rent.
Or if you're a corporation, you can actually include labor costs as the cost of doing business, and the profit is what the business makes on top.
You're not exploiting someone by paying them what they agree to.
And then selling a product and doing that work.
Everybody gets a piece, some people get more.
Now, what is a profit?
Google says profit, a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
To put it quite simply, if AOC is funding, is using the, uh, doesn't operate for profit, and funds projects like free tutoring, food programs, and local organizing, How does it do food programs?
Okay, hold on, hold on.
Let's be real.
Maybe what AOC is saying is she started a company that is selling goods at cost.
No one's making a living from this.
It's just volunteered time.
And then they're volunteering to tutor people, dumpster diving for food, and organizing for free.
I don't think that's what she's saying.
She says they fund projects, which implies AOC is buying a shirt for $20, selling it for $25, after all of the labor costs are covered using the $5 to then fund these programs.
Now you could argue, see AOC's not getting compensated.
That's proof that it's not for profit.
She is still using private market capitalism and making a profit.
She's just choosing to allocate that money wherever she sees fit.
Who gave AOC the right to take the means of production, producing the merchandise, and then dictate where the extra labor goes?
You mean to tell me that if there's $5 on top of the production of this, AOC is choosing to take that from the workers?
Ocasio-Cortez is exploiting labor to produce merchandise so that she can fund her political pet projects.
Or she's engaging in capitalism.
You see how that works?
And therein lies the problem.
How many young people don't actually know any of this?
Let me say it one more time for those in the back.
If AOC spends $20 to produce a t-shirt with her face on it, and she then sells it for $25, having not produced the shirt, having done none of the production labor to make the shirt, and then that extra $5 is taken by AOC and allocated into political programs she wants, that is literally capitalism.
Or would you say that AOC selling the T-shirt or the clothes for $25 when it only costs $20 and not giving that $5 to the workers who labored over this?
Isn't that exploitation?
Isn't that how they define exploitation?
You see, the issue is either AOC is really, really dumb or she's lying.
But I'll tell you.
I think she just doesn't know.
I think a lot of young people have no idea what they're talking about.
AOC has a degree in economics and she doesn't know the dictionary definition of capitalism?
Oh, okay.
Is she giving us the academic definition of capitalism?
No.
She's giving us the activist definition.
The only problem is, by her own standard, she is violating capitalism.
No, she's violating worker rights.
She's exploiting this.
So what is she saying?
It pursues profit at all costs.
Let me ask you, AOC.
Do you think your free tutoring, food programs, and local organizing are really, really important?
Do you think that merchandise should be sold at a higher cost than the cost to produce it so that you can get money to fund these programs?
Welcome to capitalism.
In communism and socialism, such a thing does not exist.
Now, there's varying degrees, for sure.
You can have a socialist system because 80% of the businesses are owned by the state or the people, and then there's still monetary transaction.
Of course, money is a universal trade medium.
You can still have these things.
But, if you are talking about the government deciding where the extra value from the labor goes, then that's socialism.
If you, AOC, as a private individual are making that choice, that's capitalism.
Ultimately, I think the things people like AOC and the things she says will result in a new democratic party.
Axios reports swing country.
Rural Democrats run from the party.
Yeah.
We're all Democrats know what's up.
Because you see the prominence, the loud voice of people like Ocasio-Cortez, and they know.
People don't want to vote for that.
I mean, look, some middle-aged dude, some middle-aged woman, they're looking at what AOC is saying and it's like, is she dumb?
Does she not know what she's talking about?
She doesn't.
And it's a shame.
I'm not going to rag on AOC for being a bartender.
I respect that.
I respect that someone could be a bartender and then run for office and win.
I want to see more regular people stand up and say, I want to represent my community and my city and my county and my district.
But there is a problem.
With someone as young as AOC, with no political experience, with no real world experience, she doesn't know what she's talking about.
So by all means, you can represent the people.
Hey, that's populism.
But AOC does not have the skills to pay the bills.
Axios reports, a growing swath of House Democratic candidates say the party needs to radically improve its heartland appeal to have any hope of keeping power in Washington.
With control of the House and Senate on the bubble, many ambitious Democrats from the South to Midwest to the Rockies are running against their own national party's image.
After four years of listening to President Trump, many rural voters are reflexively distrustful of progressive solutions to everything from the pandemic to infrastructure.
In a three-minute ad for a Senate campaign, Rep.
Tim Ryan of Ohio never says he's a Democrat.
That was so spicy when I read that.
You kidding me?
The dude's got a three-minute ad.
It's one of the worst ads I've ever seen, by the way.
They say Democratic strategists are advising candidates in states like these to refrain from fancy language and focus on populist economic policies.
Amazing.
Several consultants insisted that Democratic policies on labor rights, broadband, climate, and infrastructure are popular in rural areas.
It's the messaging that's causing heartburn.
Case in point, in Montana, where Republicans have held the state's only U.S.
House seat since 97, Democrat Monica Tranell is seeking a second seat Montana is picking up from new census results.
Her ad declares, So many people I grew up with don't vote for Democrats anymore.
Wow.
She's right.
I agree.
I don't.
I remember being in Chicago.
And we go to vote.
And I was told by my family, just make sure you do Democrat across the board.
No joke.
That's what I was told.
I was like, what do I vote for?
Just vote for Democrats.
Just go and vote for Democrats.
Why?
Because Republicans are bad.
I had no idea what was going on.
And then over the past, you know, this was back when I was like, you know, 18, 19, 20.
Now I start getting older.
And I start to see what's actually happening.
I don't like the Republicans, yeah.
But, uh, the Democrats are just so awful.
So despicable.
Deceitful.
Stupid.
And I don't mean the voters.
A lot of the voters, sure.
A lot of the voters not realizing they're being fleeced.
But these scumbag Democratic politicians, I legit despise.
Especially because I grew up in Chicago, where it's all Democrat.
Hey, hey, hey, hold on there.
Hold on there.
I don't like Republicans either.
Many of them are the exact same thing.
Scumbag, elitist trash, who sit on their hands and sell us down the river for a profit.
I'm not going to sit here and defend the Republican Party.
It's garbage.
Donald Trump.
Human Molotov cocktail.
Joe Biden.
Establishment authoritarian fascistic nut job.
Kamala Harris.
All those things.
And add, um, sycophantic.
Psychopathic.
I don't care for most of these people.
There's a handful of Republicans I think are okay.
There were some Democrats I liked, but the Democratic Party is based on people who don't know what's going on.
Period.
And then you get older and you realize.
That's why they want young people to vote.
That's why they want the voting age to be 16.
So they can convince a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what's happening to vote for things that will hurt them.
Remarkably, it's the Democrats who say that's what the Republicans do.
Well, to a certain extent, yeah, Republicans do that.
But that's old guard talk.
You know, we're in a new era.
The populists are moving in.
Unfortunately, we have socialist populists and then right-wing national populists.
Now I'm all about helping the people and fixing these problems and making everybody live well and, you know.
Unfortunately, the left populists have thrown their head in the ring with the establishment elitists.
And that's where we are.
Now, the Republicans, they got taken over.
The GOP got taken over by Trump.
For all Trump's problems, he's at least a populist.
They say, quote, They feel like Democrats look down on rural America, she says.
Recent moves by Biden on infrastructure and the child tax credit are consistent with traditional economic democratic populism that has real currency in rural states, rural areas, said Zach McCrary, a Dem pollster and partner at ALG Research.
McCrary added that in swing districts and states, Democrats need to have an answer to the question, what makes you different from a lot of the other Democrats?
These concerns aren't new.
Some Democratic leaders have long warned that the language of the left hurts Democrats in swing and rural districts.
We get 31 swing Democrats who come in, supposed to be moderates, and they drop to their knees and they kiss the pinky ring like pathetic, spineless scumbags.
They don't deserve to win.
These rural areas are going to be fleeced by these scumbag elitist Democrats.
Nah, I'm sick of it.
Forgive me for getting so angry, but I am sick of it.
The Republicans at least do nothing.
You know?
You vote for a Republican, and they'll tell you, I'm gonna do this, that, or otherwise, and then they sit on their hands.
And you're like, just do something for once.
Tell me, what institutions do Republicans control?
The Democrats, on the other hand, they use hate and disdain and they say the right are white supremacists and racist and evil and that's how they get votes.
Because what do you actually campaign on?
Oh, the Republicans want voter suppression bills.
Did you read the bills they're trying to pass?
No, we didn't, but they're voter suppression bills.
They're not.
Did you actually read them?
I did.
Yeah, mostly they're trying to pull back some of the policies granted because of the pandemic.
They're actually going to allow policies that make it easier to vote to stay in permanently?
Yeah.
Because the Democrats are lying.
But you know what?
That's why people aren't saying Democrat anymore.
Tim Ryan doesn't call himself a Democrat.
Amazing.
And then we have this.
AOC isn't just economically illiterate.
She's woke.
And over at CNN, why wokeness is the biggest threat to Democrats in the 2020 election.
They are starting to wake up.
Axios reports rise of the anti-woke Democrat.
Eric Adams wins the Democratic primary in New York to be mayor.
So this is interesting.
We'll see how this plays out.
Granted, I think this country is falling apart.
I think we're more than just bifurcated politically.
Joe Biden and the federal government are so scared and desperate to cling on to any kind of control that they're doing these insane things, you know, arresting people and expanding Capitol Police.
But that just says to me that They're desperate.
If they had control, they wouldn't need to do these things.
They wouldn't need to go after anybody, but they've lost control, and now it's free fall.
I'd imagine that we're headed towards a future where different, the federal government has almost no power, and people mostly disregard it, because that's what's happening.
You've got sanctuary cities and states, you've got 2A sanctuary cities and counties and states.
So how long until the federal government is just screaming and waving its finger and stomping on the ground and no one listens?
