S5153 - NYT Essay Argues Non-Citizens Should Vote, Saying It Would Help Democrats, FORCE GOP To Pander Left
NYT Essay Argues Non-Citizens Should Vote, Saying It Would Help Democrats, FORCE GOP To Pander Left. The essay says there is no good reason for non citizens to be barred from voting.
Across the US more and more non citizens are already getting the right to vote in municipal and school board elections. The left argue that even illegal immigrants should have the right to vote.
In the end this means the entire system will erode as the Biden border crisis already saw more than 1 million illegal immigrants arrested this year so far.
If Democrats keep allowing illegal immigrants into the US they will gain more congressional seats or maybe even turn red states blue as congressional seats are apportioned based on total population no US citizen population.
#Democrats
#IllegalImmigrants
#BorderCrisis
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The New York Times has published a guest essay arguing that non-citizens should have the right to vote in this country, even going as far to say it will benefit Democrats and force the Republicans to adopt Democrat policies in order to win.
In other words, they want to erode and destroy this country.
We've already seen a million illegal immigrants enter this year, and that means a free congressional seat should these people go to the right area.
That can change the electoral vote swing in the next election.
In our next story, the Postal Workers Union says we will not support Joe Biden's mandatory vaccination, shattering the narrative from the left that only crackpots say no to the vaccine.
And in our last story, a leaked video from CNN shows them producing a puff piece defending AOC, who doubles down on her lies about what happened on January 6th.
And I call them out.
Now before we get started, leave us a good review and give us 5 stars, but if you really like the show, share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
The New York Times has published a guest essay arguing that non-citizens should have the
right to vote.
Titled, There is no good reason you should have to be a citizen to vote, the article actually misses the most obvious.
As a citizen, you pledge your loyalty and allegiance to this country, so at the very least we have your word.
That you will not vote against the interests of this nation.
Furthermore, there are people who are citizens of other countries who wish to do us harm and it would make no sense to allow someone who came from Iran or Russia, who are not citizens of this country, to vote.
They would simply vote for the destruction of the U.S.
At the very least, citizenship provides that safeguard.
Now, of course, there are many other reasons you should have to be a citizen to vote, but this story is just another grain of sand in the heap of societal collapse.
I know, I can already hear all the complaints.
People saying, Tim, society is not collapsing, you're exaggerating.
Well, don't take my word for it.
Stakems on Twitter wrote a big thread that went viral talking about societal collapse and what we can do to try and stave it off.
When a popular food brand can recognize there are very serious troubles ahead and our country is collapsing, then perhaps it's fair to say I think everybody can kind of see we have very serious problems.
At the same time that the New York Times is saying, or I should say in this guest essay, that non-citizens should vote, we have numerous instances in the past few weeks alone Where we are seeing different jurisdictions grant the right to vote to non-citizens.
We've seen it in the past few years, and more importantly, the Wall Street Journal reporting that over a million illegal immigrants have been arrested so far trying to enter the country.
If these people enter illegally, and we erode the standards by which our system operates, there will be no system.
For if you have no citizenship, and you have no borders, you have no country, you have no jurisdiction, and then what's the point?
There won't be a country at all.
I mean, come on, the obvious point is, we're currently worried about Russia interfering in our elections, and you're going to argue that someone who's not American could come here and vote?
Heck, they just pay people who come from across the southern border to vote how they see fit, if non-citizens could have the right to vote.
People need to have some skin in the game.
Now, we've seen a million illegal immigrants.
We've also seen 50,000 illegal immigrants released by CBP, not even given a court date.
You know, this country is being gutted, it is being destroyed, it is being torn apart, and it's plainly obvious to those that are paying attention.
But many people would just ignore the issue.
As much as I can give credit to Steakums, which, if you're not familiar, it's like a frozen steak thing, you put it in the microwave, you make a sandwich or whatever.
As much as I can give them credit for their Twitter thread saying, like, we need to recognize our faults, we need to recognize our limitations, learn to trust some experts some of the time, I can respect that they clearly missed the big picture.
The bifurcation of this country is nearly complete, if not complete, period.
Joe Biden's approval rating is nearly 90% among Democrats.
His disapproval is nearly 90% among Republicans.
And most independents disapprove of Joe Biden.
The country is split.
Joe Biden could come out and he could cure cancer, literally, and people would not care.
They would say he's still bad.
We don't care.
Joe Biden could vomit all over himself and the left would ignore it.
Now, I do think The right, emboldened by an alliance with independent voters, is more likely to recognize reality.
And as much as the left tries to claim that people like me are far-right or right-wing or conservative, they're wrong.
The reality is, and I'll show you this in the data, independent voters, people like me, Disapprove of Joe Biden.
Thus, that is more likely to be an alignment with conservatives on some issues pertaining to civics, not all political issues.
Though there is still deep tribalism in this country.
Stakehams doesn't get it.
I don't know if there's a turning back from this.
When you have the New York Times saying non-citizens should vote, when cities like New York are saying yes, non-citizens can vote, then what country is there?
What's to stop someone from simply crossing the border and then voting against my rights?
Nothing.
Well, let's read the story, see the argument of the New York Times, and talk about the collapse and the destruction.
But I will add, as I mentioned, the independent voters disapproving of Biden.
That's right.
Joe Biden's approval rating has dropped.
His disapproval rating is way up.
And it's worse than it's ever been for the president.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com to become a member and get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast, as well as an ad-free experience from all of our content, and we're getting really close to launching that amazing new show about mysteries, the unexplained, and general stories of interest.
So go to TimCast.com, be a member, but don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, and share it with your friends if you think this is very important.
Now maybe you find yourself as a Democrat, you're a left, you're on the left, and you disagree with me and you despise me.
Alright.
Then I challenge you to comment below and tell me exactly why I'm wrong, because we are totally in favor of open inquiry.
If there's one thing we can do to try and find a solution to all these problems, it's have that conversation.
But I at least ask you listen to what's being said, and then tell me why you think it's wrong.
From the New York Times.
There is no good reason you should have to be a citizen to vote, they say.
Washingtonians love to complain about taxation without representation.
But for me and my fellow non-citizens, it is a fact of political life that we submit to unquestioningly year after year, primary after primary, presidential election after presidential election.
Nearly 15 million people living legally in the U.S., most of whom contribute as much as any natural-born American to this country's civic, Cultural and economic life don't have a say in matters of politics and policy because we resident foreign nationals or aliens, as we are sometimes called, cannot vote.
You see, this essay is written by somebody who lives here, isn't a citizen, and is saying I should have the right to vote.
Okay, well, you can become a citizen, dude.
He goes on.
Considering the Supreme Court's recent decision undermining voting rights and Republicans' efforts to suppress, redistrict, and manipulate their way to electoral security, it's time for Democrats to radically expand the electorate.
Proposing federal legislation to give millions of young people and essential workers a clear road to citizenship is a good start.
But there's another measure that lawmakers both in Washington and state capitals should put in place.
Lifting voting restrictions on legal residents who aren't citizens.
People with green cards, people here on work visas, and those who arrived in the country as children and are still waiting for permanent papers.
I'm gonna come out right away and say... No!
And I'll give you my argument very simply and then we'll read on.
I have a house.
I have rules in my house.
It's my house.
It's where I live.
It's where I have to deal with conflict and issues internally with family and friends.
I work very hard to make the house nice.
Now, if I were to open the door to anybody, they could come in and say, I hereby vote to get the big room.
And I say, you don't get the big room, it's my room.
Well, I'm voting for it, so it's mine.
And then everybody else, he brings in all his friends, and they'll say, yeah, we want the big room too.
And all of a sudden, I'm outvoted in my own home, but I'm the one who built it.
They come in, they trash the place, take what they want, and then they leave.
We can't have that.
We need people to dedicate themselves to the betterment of our society.
And that means there's gotta be some standards.
I can't believe I'm actually arguing against the idea that non-citizens should have the right to vote.
No, they should not!
I mean, that's the minimum, isn't it?
Yikes.
They go on to write, expanding the franchise in this way would give American democracy new life, restore immigrants' trust in government, and send a powerful message of inclusion to the rest of the world.
It's easy to assume that restricting the franchise to citizens is an age-old non-negotiable fact, but it's actually a relatively recent convention and a political choice.
Early in the U.S.
history, voting was a function not of national citizenship, But of gender, race, and class.
As a result, white male landowners of all nationalities were encouraged to play an active role in shaping American democracy, while women and poor, indigenous, and enslaved people could not.
That wholesale discrimination is unquestionably worse than excluding resident foreigners from the polls, but the point is that history shows how readily voting laws can be altered, and that restrictive ones tend not to age well.
I will tell you this.
The land ownership was not about shutting people down.
It was because they didn't have IDs.
So the people who were voting in local elections were the people who said, I live here.
Here's where I live.
Here's the land I own.
I have a say in what's happening.
The reason they didn't want people who didn't own land to vote is that someone could walk into New York and be like, I vote to give myself a million dollars.
Of course, a million dollars not really back then, but I vote to give myself gold and treasure.
And then what?
People could vote to just... Who is this person?
What if they came in?
Let's be rational.
Said, I vote that no one can, you know, go fishing past 8 p.m.
And this person doesn't even live there.
And then people stop fishing and the person leaves and laughs, saying, haha.
No, you need to live there so you have a say in the community.
Now...
Times have changed.
Not everybody's a landowner.
Many people are renters, and thus we've expanded the right to vote, because we didn't need land ownership to prove someone lived here and we're a bigger nation now.
To add anyone to the mix, I think this is absolutely wrong.
But, surprise surprise, they go on to say that it's basically just going to, uh, help the Democrats.
Writing, Democrats are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this change, at least at first.
But it could have interesting ripple effects.
Elected Republicans might be induced to appeal to a more diverse constituency, or perhaps to enthuse their constituents so deeply that they too start to vote in greater numbers.
It's also just good civics.
Whoa!
Full stop.
You see what he's saying?
If we open this door, non-citizens will vote Democrat and force Republicans to adopt Democrat policies.
This is the erosion and destruction of the United States, my friends.
Mark my words, and don't you forget it.
Now, will we stand up against these ideas and the encroachment and the dissolution of this country?
The problem is, as Democrats just bring in more and more people and Joe Biden leaves the gate open, You're gonna get more and more people writing these things.
You're gonna get more and more people in congressional districts saying to their representatives, we may not vote for you, but you better give us that power.
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.
Because your district only exists because we're here.
The most important point of all of this.
From the Wall Street Journal, arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border this year top 1 million.
Where did those 1 million people go?
The way the census works is not based on citizenship.
Congressional seats are not apportioned based on who is a citizen and who is not.
It's based on population, and that includes non-citizens.
So to this person writing saying we should have the right to vote, well, you're technically already getting one because you get extra congressional representation, which does help Democrats, and you get an extra electoral college vote, which also helps Democrats.
And Republicans are too stupid to do anything about it.
Republican voters certainly understand this.
But the Republican politicians don't do anything.
In fact, you can look at Republican policies.
They're the ones who opened the doors and changed the shape and
face of this country irrevocably over the past several decades.
Now, as 1 million people are coming in, and in the past month,
we saw 50,000 people be released with no court dates.
Now you'll see where we're headed.
And it's a downhill run.
I don't know if we can change course.
We can turn left, we can turn right, but we are rolling downhill, my friends.
You see, over time, as more and more illegal immigrants come in and are given more and more rights and reshape Congress and reshape the Electoral College, you will see a dramatic change in who wins the presidency.
Now, interestingly, California used to be a Republican state.
It was a reliably red state until, I think, 1992 when it turned blue.
I think it was after George H.W.
Bush, Bill Clinton.
Now that wasn't because of illegal immigration, but they were given more electoral votes and more seats in Congress because of illegal immigration.
Now I'm not going to act like it's the apocalypse or anything.
I think they got like one extra seat, but that does change the vote.
It absolutely does.
And now if we actually not only give more congressional seats, but the right to vote, that's going to change a lot as well.
Now the right to vote, I'll tell you this.
In many ways, it doesn't matter all that much.
It may matter for referendums, which are state-level policies.
But if these people are already represented in Congress, and they're already represented in the Electoral College, it doesn't matter if they vote or not.
If 60% of a population would vote Democrat, and you have an additional 10% of the population are illegal immigrants, It doesn't matter if they vote because that 60% guarantees that the Democrat wins in that county and those votes go to that Democrat.
That electoral vote will go to the Democrat by majority alone.
So perhaps that's why it matters very little.
But this is all part of the erosion.
A million people.
Well, my friends, I give you, from PewTrusts.org, non-citizens are slowly gaining voting rights.
It is happening.
It is happening before your eyes.
And as we sit here and complain about stupid news cycle culture war nonsense, we are missing the big picture.
Okay, it's time to talk about societal distrust in experts and institutions, the rise of misinformation, cultural polarization, and how we work towards some semblance of mutually agreed upon information before we splinter into irreconcilable realities.
That already happened, Stachems.
You're late to the party.
I appreciate whoever is behind this writing about societal collapse, but I'm sorry.
You're late to the party.
They are recognizing that there is a runaway train that could lead to irreconcilable realities.
It's already true.
Trust?
Experts?
None of it matters.
What should a regular person do?
I don't know.
From Pew Trusts.
Two Vermont cities have joined the short but growing list of jurisdictions that allow residents who are not U.S.
citizens to vote in local elections.
Last week, the Vermont legislature overrode vetoes by Republican Governor Phil Scott, greenlighting voter-approved changes to the city charters of Montpelier and Winooski.
Those cities now allow all residents over 18 to vote in city elections, regardless of citizenship status.
Non-citizen voting in federal elections remains illegal nationwide.
Here's what happens.
A non-citizen will come to Montpelier and they'll say, I'd like to propose a referendum to allow non-citizens sanctuary status.
Then their friends come in and vote as well.
More and more people who are not citizens start voting in the interest of opening up the borders because they want in.
And one by one, what was once a lush beach paradise is a polluted, overpopulated wasteland.
Think about it this way.
There is a beautiful, lush garden.
And they say, only ten people allowed in at a time.
But everybody sees the beautiful flowers and the fruits that are growing and they want to eat the delicious apples.
And so they say, I'd like to come in, too.
Well, six of the ten people who are inside say, I say we just let him in.
It's one more person.
They let him in.
Well, this person's got friends, too.
Hey, I say we vote to let him in, as well.
And they say, oh, okay.
The more people that come in, the more there will be people to vote to allow more people to come in.
Eventually there's a hundred people in the garden.
The flowers have been trampled, the fruit has been eaten, there's nothing left.
Overpopulation.
That's just obvious logic.
So we need to have some restrictions.
They're going to say, the movement to let all adults vote in local elections hasn't had widespread success in modern times.
Until lately, just San Francisco and nine Maryland cities have allowed non-citizens to vote in local or school board elections.
While two towns in Massachusetts have passed resolutions in recent years calling for non-citizens to be allowed to vote locally.
The state legislature has yet to approve those changes, but those cities may soon have company.
Lawmakers in D.C., Illinois, and New York City this year are considering legislation that would offer the vote to non-citizens for local elections, such as for city council or the school board.
These proposals have ignited the fierce debates that often come with immigration and voting rights proposals.
Some states, meanwhile, have gone in the opposite direction in recent years, explicitly banning non-citizens from voting.
In Vermont, legislative proponents pointed out that non-citizens are taxpayers, arguing they deserve a say in who represents them.
People always glom onto the idea that you have to earn our right to vote by becoming a citizen, said Democratic State Rep Hal Colson, who sponsored the Winooski bill.
I just don't buy that.
We're talking about a large chunk of the community that's closed off.
These are people who believe voting is meaningless, for the most part.
I believe in this idea that service guarantees citizenship.
I don't exactly know how that translates perfectly, but what I mean to say is you have to at least serve the community in some way.
But what if you just show up, sleep on a porch, don't do any work, sit back and say, I vote for free stuff.
Why would not that happen?
Why wouldn't people vote for free stuff?
Work is hard, huh?
Who wants to work?
So if you give these people an inch, they'll take a mile.
Scott, in vetoing the city charter changes, said the issue deserves further consideration, but that these bills would create inconsistency in local election policy.
Other Republican lawmakers who opposed the changes argued it was unconstitutional to offer the vote to people who are not U.S.
citizens.
Well, the Vermont Constitution says every person who is a citizen of the United States is entitled to vote.
Supporters of the bill said the language does not exclude non-citizens, and that cities have control over their own local elections.
Republican State Rep.
Arthur Peterson, who voted against both bills, disagrees.
If you're not 18 or you're not a citizen of the U.S., I don't see how you could be given the right to vote.
We have to have some rules and the state constitution is our rule.
It's erosion.
Imagine you have a place you are protecting and it is being invaded by people who just keep saying, we should be allowed to come in and burn loot and pillage.
How would your society survive?
It wouldn't.
It's obvious.
I don't need to say it.
They say, with a large number of foreign-born parents in Illinois, especially in Chicago, where a fifth of the population is foreign-born, those taxpayers should have a say in their children's education, said Illinois State Senator Selena Villanueva, a Democrat.
She introduced legislation this year that would allow non-citizens to vote in local school board elections.
We're essentially doing taxation without representation.
We have a large population of non-citizens in this state and throughout this country, and they should have their voices heard, especially when it comes to the education of their children.
The legislative effort may take years, she said, but her experience as an immigrant rights
organizer has prepared her for a longer fight.
It took a decade of debate, she said, before Illinois earlier this year became the first
state to offer Medicaid to older adults regardless of their immigration status.
Her voting bill still awaits a committee hearing.
Passing these measures also can signal a city's support for its immigrant residents, said
D.C. Democratic Council member Breonna Nadeau.
I just want to make it clear.
HR one Democrats voting bills.
They just want power.
If you tell a bunch of people who don't live here that they'll have a right to come here, they'll vote for you.
Now you let in all these people, ship them around the country, tell them you're gonna give them the right to vote, of course they're gonna do everything in their power to get you in so you will give them free stuff and give them power.
Citizenship should be hard fought and earned.
American citizens who are born here, Go through the process.
We register for the draft.
A 35-year-old immigrant who comes here, who doesn't register for the draft, gets to vote.
Women, now after the NDAA sign, will have to register for the draft.
And yet still non-citizens will get the right to vote.
That is insane.
But it's happening.
East Bay City to look at allowing undocumented residents to vote in local elections.
They've gone well beyond just non-citizens.
They're saying people who entered here illegally.
I mean, at least when you say non-citizen, you're talking about legal immigrants and permanent residents.
Now they're saying undocumented.
This is from SF Chronicle.
The city of Richmond is moving ahead to explore whether it can allow undocumented residents to vote in local elections, such as school board contests.
On Tuesday, the Richmond City Council voted unanimously to direct the city attorney to conduct a sweeping review of the city's charter, along with legal research to determine whether it can allow non-citizens to participate in local elections.
Councilman Nathaniel Bates was absent.
Here we go.
Non-citizens may soon be eligible to vote in New York City.
Boy, I'm glad I left.
July 14th, 2021.
A bill extending the right to vote to non-citizens has a super majority in the city council.
The latest push to revive the tradition across the U.S.
The tradition.
They're saying we're bringing back the tradition.
Great.
You know, people in this country aren't paying attention.
Democratic voters aren't paying attention.
They are stealing from you.
They are gutting and destroying.
And what will be left but elite powers that manipulate, lie, cheat, and steal?
There will be a serf class.
There will be indentured servitude.
And it will be you.
Don't think the landed gentry will have to work the fields or do the grunt work.
It'll be you.
Congratulations.
By not paying attention, you voted for it.
Now, my friends, I bring you to Mr. Joe Biden and what he's doing as president.
Well, we can see here from Civics, his disapproval is at 48% to a 45% approval.
From TimCast.com, President Joe Biden's approval rating falls to all-time low.
They say, the president's approval rating dropped to 46% with 52% disapproval according to Rasmussen.
Biden's approval rating had consistently been in the high 40s and low 50s throughout his presidency so far.
The latest figures include 26% who strongly approve and 42% who strongly disapprove.
This gives him a presidential approval index rating of minus 16.
Now, Rasmussen was typically favorable to Donald Trump, so although it is TimCast.com, quite literally my website, I decided to counter this by taking a look at Civics.
Civics does also show that disapproval is higher than it's been, ever, and his approval rating is lower than it's been for his presidency, which is only, you know, six months, but that's where we're at.
So we have two different polls showing disapproval is very high.
All right.
But let's take a look at the important metrics.
His approval rating is meaningless.
You know, Stakehams comes out and says, and this wildly viral tweet with 8,188 retweets and
55,200 quote tweets, 35,000 likes that science has been, the term science has been politicized.
That distrust in institutions is complex, accelerated by people's access to infinite information.
Genuine mistakes but lies and corruption.
People need to come together, recognize their shared humanity.
You can maintain healthy levels of skepticism while also extending trust where it's earned by empirical evidence.
It doesn't exist.
Joe Biden.
Among Democrats enjoys 88% approval, 4% disapproval, nearly unwavering support, a drop of 2 points among Democrats.
Among Republicans, Joe Biden enjoys 93% disapproval.
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 The approval and disapproval are mirror images of each other, 4%.
Among independent voters, we see that 54% disapprove and 35% approve, and this may be the more important metric.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Independent voters recognize the lies from the establishment.
Independent voters recognize what happens when you allow non-citizens to vote.
Independent voters recognize what happens when Joe Biden allows a million people to cross the border in the past year.
180 plus thousand in the past month alone.
Independent voters recognize that their communities are being destroyed, their tax dollars are being squandered, and they are being lied to.
At the very least, 54% do.
11% have no real good opinion, and 35% actually like what Biden is doing.
Unwavering support and unwavering opposition.
The Republicans say Biden is the worst.
The Democrats say Biden is the best.
We are so hyper-polarized.
There's no coming back from that.
Sorry.
Republicans aren't going to wake up one day and say, I actually like Joe Biden now.
They might give him credit for some things.
I mean, the left seems to be cheering on Trump's Operation Warp Speed and the vaccine, I guess.
But for the most part, Biden bad.
Orange man bad.
And when Donald Trump comes and runs for re-election, it'll be chaos once again.
So the Democrats know.
They see what's happening.
And let me tell you how nefarious it gets now.
Independent voters disapprove of Biden.
So how can the Democrats keep winning when regular people keep saying no?
They just bring in new voters.
Illegal immigrants pad the congressional seats for the Democrats and the electoral votes for the Democrats, and they will continue to advocate for this, and they'll win.
You know why?
Because by padding their power, they gain more power.
The more power they gain, the more they can erode the system to gain more power.
It's a never-ending cycle that ultimately ends with Democrats controlling everything.
And then adding more and more people to make sure your vote is diluted and will never matter.
Well, we're doing our best to counter this with important breaking news.
But unfortunately for us, the erosion is just getting worse.
From TimCast.com.
Unemployed Americans sue to restore benefits.
Monthly unemployment increase during the pandemic could be repealed.
Many Republican states have said no to the federal unemployment boost, which allows people not to work.
There are many people who are not working, extracting from the system, and the system is effectively burning down.
The economy is in flames.
And now, with the Republicans who have come out and said, we will not allow this unemployment to disrupt our labor economy, and the labor shortage is killing us, The unemployed people are saying, we're going to sue and we're going to get our rights back.
And you know what?
It seems like that's working.
So what can you expect?
The people who don't want to work will vote, will sue, so that they don't have to.
And then we get left holding the bag because we're the ones who do the work.
Certainly a farmer must farm.
The truckers must ship the food.
But without the jobs being done, none of it will happen.
So why should someone work if no one else is, but they're extracting from the system?
Why should I grow fruits and vegetables for you to steal from me?
Right now there are people who still make food, and I feel bad for them, you know why?
With this hyperinflation, with the decline in real wages, all of this is happening, and the government printing money and just giving it away, you could grow food, and then you go to sell it, and you say, we're gonna sell it, you know, $5 per unit.
And you do all of this work, and the people who show up to buy it did none.
The government just gave them money, and they bought it, and you said, thank you for the money, and you put in your bank.
And then hyperinflation erodes your purchasing power.
So while you work like a sucker, they don't, and they get free stuff.
Why would someone want to work?
I don't blame them, I guess.
The Democrats, the politicians have basically said, let it burn.
Their only way to deal with the labor shortage?
To gain more power?
Flood the country with non-citizens and give them more and more power over you, the citizen.
What's the point of a country?
Perhaps none.
And that's their goal, right?
They're just trying to erode the country.
PolitiFact.
Says Joe Biden, a quote says, Joe Biden is restricting travel for Americans into Mexico, but is keeping the border wide open for illegal aliens to walk right into our country.
Mostly false.
That's a lie.
This fact check is trash.
There are travel restrictions for people coming into and out of the country legally, which includes Americans.
And yes, we saw the video.
The border gate was open.
Migrants walked right through.
Illegal immigrants walked right through, got on that truck, drove off.
50,000 released with no court dates.
Only 13% ever actually came back.
Yes, they're leaving it open.
It's a figurative statement.
We're not saying that Joe Biden is like, open all the borders!
No, it's figurative in that enforcement has gone lax.
So here we go.
A million people came into this country.
One million.
Your vote was just eroded.
We had, what, 175 million people?
No, not even.
It was 165 million or so people vote?
No, not even that.
It was 155 million.
Wow.
155 million people around voted.
So that means, with a million people coming in, your voting power erodes by about, what is that, .75%?
But it's significant enough.
A million votes can change a presidential election.
They can add an electoral vote to a district.
750,000 people will give you a congressional seat.
And they can bring in these million people and the federal government can then put them on planes and send them to a Republican state and turn a swing state into a blue state.
So that's it.
That's the erosion.
They don't even have to vote.
They don't even need the right to vote!
It just gives that seat in the census.
They're playing the long game, and Republicans aren't even playing at all.
They're just sitting back and watching the country erode.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you workers to get COVID shots.
The Daily Mail says California is pushing for indoor mask mandate regardless of vaccine status.
And Twitter is closing its offices in New York and San Francisco with the Delta variant raging.
As I often say when it comes to this stuff, don't take medical advice from me, get it from somebody who actually knows and has training, and someone you trust.
It's that simple, and I don't care anymore.
I literally don't care.
I've seen so much vomitous propaganda, I've seen the stupidest tweets in the world, and I just, I have nothing, nothing to, I'm just, I don't care.
There's like some lady who tweeted something where she's like, every child must be vaccinated, we are being punished, and I'm just like, I don't care.
I don't know what you're talking about anymore.
I just literally do not give to... I'm sorry.
I see these stories, and I'm like, you know what, man?
Get out of cities.
If you are concerned about what's happening with the rapid escalation, the alarmism, the hypocrisy, the confusing data, I can tell you one thing.
Right now, I am looking into a camera.
You know, when you watch these videos, you see my face, and I'm kind of talking at you.
Yeah, what I see is like a little black rectangle with a circle in the middle.
It's a camera.
Behind it, lush greenery, trees, there are wild bunnies running all around.
I can see them.
Well, not right now.
There's no bunnies, but there was a bunny earlier, and he was looking at me through the window.
And the deer, they come in the yard, and they steal my apples.
Dear!
That's what I worry about.
I worry about whether that fox is gonna come back and get in my chicken coop.
I'm not worried about my restaurants closing down.
I'm not worried about mask mandates, because we don't have that out here in the middle of nowhere.
And so I think the one thing that we can all be optimistic about, the one thing that will give us hope, joy, and actually help the planet, Just getting out of the cities, you know?
I think the time is now, because we're gonna keep seeing stories like this.
A lot of people, you'll be able to work remote, so... I mean, look, Twitter closing its offices?
Alright, if you work for Twitter, then I... How about this?
Why don't you go and get a place about an hour outside of any city where you get more space, more acreage, more trees, you can grow your own garden, be responsible for some of your own food.
Maybe not all, but some.
And, uh, just enjoy life and nature and the stars.
No light pollution.
You know, they want to talk about climate change and all the things they're worried about.
They want to say that thanks to the lockdown, the planet is healing.
And I'm like, yeah, well, you know what?
How about this?
Win-win.
I won't go anywhere near your cities where you're putting in all these weird authoritarian rules and locking things down and screaming in people's faces.
And I also won't be contributing to the pollution in the same way as many other people.
And all of you can do the same.
Because what we're seeing now is just the level of propaganda.
It's like getting smacked in the head over and over again with a frying pan.
But we do have something interesting.
I want to read you this story, but we also have major breaking news.
From the APWU.
This is the American Postal Workers Union.
They're rejecting mandatory vaccinations.
And this is going to be its own sledgehammer to the narrative.
This narrative that people who don't get vaccinated are wingnut crackpot hillbillies.
There's a cartoon on Reddit, like a comic someone made, it was like viral on Reddit, where it's a bunch of doctors doing the Iwo Jima pose where they're raising the flag.
And there's a MAGA hat wearing, you know, crazy looking guy pulling the flag back down wearing a shirt that says anti-vax or something.
Well, tell the postal workers, all right?
They say, various media outlets have reported that the White House is considering mandatory COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment for federal employees.
Maintaining the health and safety of our members is of paramount importance.
While the APWU leadership continues to encourage postal workers to voluntarily get vaccinated, it is not the role of the federal government to mandate vaccinations for the employees we represent.
Issues related to vaccinations and testing for COVID-19 in the workplace must be negotiated with the APWU.
At this time, the American Postal Workers Union opposes the mandating of COVID-19 vaccinations in relation to U.S.
postal workers.
Bravo, APWU.
I'm pretty sure they endorsed Joe Biden, so there's a little bit of you reap what you sow, but bravo, 100%.
The decision and the medication you take is between you and your doctor and nobody else, and I have always maintained that.
Joe Biden should not come out with the statement saying this.
Now, as it pertains to Facebook and Google and Wells Fargo and Saks, I tweeted, I wonder how many people are going to quit their jobs rather than get the mandatory vaccination?
More importantly, how many will just say, I want to work remotely and not get it?
To which Cameron Kasky responded, he's a gun rights, I'm sorry, gun control activist.
He was one of the Parkland kids.
And he said, then there will be, if they quit, there'll be a bunch of job openings for people who aren't stupid.
And it's amazing that, you know, arrogance.
Young people have it in spades.
I know I certainly did.
And I scoffed at the idea that older folks would call me arrogant.
Now here I am like, wow, young people are arrogant.
He said, job openings for people who aren't stupid.
And I'm like, there are a lot of people who are not going to be able to get the vaccine and they're going to be forced to lose their jobs.
To which they try and do this gotcha where they're like, are you saying there will be no exemptions?
No, in the letter they literally say that they're going to be working out their exemptions.
But I guess if you were young and you don't understand how this stuff works, and you've not had medical issues, tried to start, you know, have kids, or something like that, you might not understand what medical exemptions actually mean.
For instance, there are many ailments that people had that did not exempt them from wearing a mask.
Even though they felt like they should have been exempt, uh, exempted from wearing a mask, they still were not allowed to.
And many businesses were still allowed to say no.
There was this viral thing where people were claiming that due to certain issues they had, they were exempt from wearing masks, and it just didn't fly with certain businesses.
People still got harassed.
In fact, there was one woman who was beaten by a cop because she had an exemption, and the cop still beat her for not wearing the mask.
Okay.
Let me explain something to all y'all kids out there who happen to be watching this, who think that a medical exemption guarantees the rights of everyone.
That's impossible.
You take a look at the lax nature of California's medical marijuana laws.
I remember when I was in Venice, living in California, I was hanging out in Venice Beach, and they were like, you can basically just say anything and get one of these cards.
Yeah, if you wanted to be able to buy medical marijuana, They were like, the doctor will prescribe it so long as you just say you have back pain or something.
And you can just say it because I can't falsify it.
I'm like, that's the stupidest thing ever.
I mean, this should be a legitimate medication for people who need it.
But that, the rules there, the medical exemptions for acquiring this were so lax, anybody could just claim it.
So businesses like Google can't have lax policy when it comes to medical exemptions because people would just say, oh sure, I qualify later and then not do it.
So there's no point actually having the mandate.
Which means there's going to be a line somewhere.
The easiest example of where this clashes is a woman who might be pregnant.
Now, she doesn't have a confirmed test.
She doesn't have, uh, the doctor says, we don't know for sure.
You might be, we'll have to wait some time.
And then Google says, you have to get the vaccine.
The woman says, well, the doctor says, if I am pregnant, then I shouldn't get this, but we're not sure.
Maybe.
See, it's a gray area.
They could say, well, you have no documentation proving that you are unable to do it.
It's a hypothetical.
So we're going to go ahead and say, no, you have to get the vaccine, right?
Well, the woman's going to say, I'm not doing it because I might be pregnant.
And then, what, quit?
Or they're going to say, OK, we'll give you the exemption under the pretense that you may be pregnant.
In which case, anyone could just say, I might be too.
Well, women at least.
But there are other issues like cancer survivors.
There was one story that Media Matters was roasting Sean Hennedy over because a cancer survivor called in and said his doctor had recommended, because he was immunocompromised, he get the vaccine.
But there are serious risk factors for cancer survivors when it comes to vaccination.
And the man asked the doctor, would he be willing to prescribe it and then administer it?
The doctor said no.
And see, doesn't that create a very serious conundrum for a person who has known risk factors that the CDC has warned about?
Now, let me be clear.
I want to show you this story from TimCast.com.
Oh, bring on all of the people calling me a vaccine shill.
New data illustrates alarmism over Delta variant because the new data shows, they say, a study of over 14,000 emergency hospital admissions of the Delta variant, 166 of which were hospitalized.
They say the Pfizer vaccine is 96% effective after two doses, staving off the Delta variant.
The AstraZeneca vaccine, 92% effective.
They're coming out and yelling about the Delta variant when we have a study right here showing that these vaccines were effective.
I had Dr. Chris Martinson on Tim Guest IRL, and he was talking about ivermectin, and we've also seen, you know, Brett Weinstein.
We know their opinions, and I can certainly respect them as learned men who are scientists, and I am certainly not.
But I must stress two things.
Yes, it's true.
The FDA has not approved ivermectin or any of these things, and that's why I always say, go to your doctor and talk to them.
I can't give you medical advice.
You know, Brett and Chris, they're actual PhD doctors, so they probably understand things better than I do.
But I can say, as a layman, When I was talking to Chris, he said, look at these studies, and I pulled up a bunch of studies saying ivermectin was not effective.
So what am I supposed to do?
Am I supposed to blindly just trust some studies and not others?
The left keeps saying trust the science, but they disregard studies that contradict what they're saying.
I won't do that either.
So we have this article from TimCast.com showing that the Pfizer vaccine and AstraZeneca are over 90% effective, 96% in staving off hospitalizations due to the Delta variant.
So when they come out and now say, oh, everyone who's vaccinated must do this, that, or otherwise, it's like... But the studies show that the vaccines work.
Now, my problem is political, with everything that's going on.
It's the... It's mandatory medication.
I gotta admit though, Facebook, Google, Twitter, sure, do what you want.
If they want to mandate this, workplaces are allowed to do it.
They literally are.
I know people might not like it, but a private business can tell you that you need to have certain vaccinations if you want to work there.
If you don't like that, you are free to leave.
I guess I'm just a bit more libertarian than many people, but not more than libertarians, mind you.
The actual libertarian party, big ol' libertarians, they're as libertarian as you can get.
No, but I'm just saying, look, if a company is the only place you can work, maybe it's like the federal government.
Maybe the postal workers union is right.
The federal government shouldn't mandate this for employees.
It's a public sector job.
As for Google, they are a private business.
Now, when it comes to YouTube, when they're engaging in censorship, that's because YouTube is the principal premier, dominating nearly 99% of the market space, and they control public discourse.
That's when I say, you've encroached on the commons.
As for being a company that employs people, well, if you don't like it, you can quit.
You can leave.
You know what, man?
I say this to libertarians, too.
If you're in America and you don't want to pay taxes, Chiron in Mexico.
It's awesome.
And I'm not saying this to be like, why don't you move?
No, I literally mean it.
Our friend Luke, Luke Orkowski, you know, hangs out on IRL podcasts every so often.
He's always talking about how awesome it is.
He loves going up to these freer places.
And you've got the Free State Project to tell you this.
Where you live, if you don't like paying tax or whatever, you can always move to New Hampshire too.
They're doing the Free State Project.
They're getting a bunch of ANCAPs and Libertarians to move up there and start voting for policies for freedom.
So when I see what Facebook, Google, and Twitter are doing, I'm like, why do I care?
I don't care!
You know, if you're concerned, and you don't like what Facebook, Google, and Twitter are doing, my question is, do you work there?
Because if you don't, who cares?
Let these big tech companies do what they want, I suppose, and you can always quit.
There's no obligation for anyone to give you money if you don't want to engage in a certain, you know, a company policy pertaining to vaccinations.
Now, these companies will have to have some exemptions, but as I already stated, not everybody can get one.
Cancer survivors, people who may become pregnant or want to become pregnant.
The want to become pregnant is another really important issue.
Google and Facebook are going to say, we mandate vaccines for everybody.
A woman could go to the doctor and say, you know, my job wants me to get the vaccine, but we're trying really hard to get pregnant right now.
The doctor might say, well, then we wouldn't recommend it.
So you'll have to quit your job.
That's the choice you'll have to make.
And I think the choice should always be for your best interest, for you to be healthy, to do what you need to do, to live the life you want to live, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
I can't do this propaganda anymore though, man.
Seeing these people on Twitter saying the most insane, psychotic propaganda about kids and stuff, I'm just like, you know what, man?
Michael Malice tweeted this, and I retweeted it.
It's a woman saying that, like, we need to get all children vaccinated, otherwise the responsible people are paying the price.
We've got this story from CNN.
CNN host—I'm sorry, from The Hill—CNN host presses CDC chief on mask guidance.
Why the hell do vaccinated people have to pay the price?
I agree with CNN on this one.
The CDC coming out with these guidelines, these big companies coming out with these mandatory vaccines.
We got Danny Meyer's restaurants in, I believe this is in New York, Union Square.
I don't know actually where they are.
But this is a big thing in New York.
This is a guy who's on the board of Shake Shack.
He's saying Shake Shack won't require this, but his restaurants will.
Things like this are extremely off-putting to people.
And I mean it.
That's why I always tell... You know, this is really funny.
I tell people, you know, go to your doctor, talk about what your goals are, your medical history is, and figure out what makes sense.
Just do that.
I have a study on TimCast.com showing it's effective.
96% effective.
Out of 360-something million doses, there are adverse events, but they are relatively rare.
You need to figure out your risk factors and that means the percentage and likelihood of adverse events versus COVID and things like that and go talk to a doctor about it and don't take advice from me.
But I get attacked by the left for this.
I actually had someone accuse me of telling people to go to their doctor simply to avoid getting banned and that I'm actually pushing anti-vax nonsense and I'm like, What?
Isn't that, at bare minimum, the stopgap of us saying, well, there are some concerns we have about the policy around this, mandating it for people?
Now, by all means, you can disagree with me on the science, because, as the saying goes, if you can question it, it's science.
If you can't, it's propaganda.
I don't know where that quote comes from, but Luke Rudkowski tweeted that just a moment ago, or he tweeted it recently, so I retweeted it.
By all means, tell me I'm wrong.
Look at our stories and say it's not true, and that's why I'm like, I don't know, man, look, it's between you and your doctor, not me.
I'll tell you I think the vaccines are safe and effective, and I think you need to check your risk factors and see if it's right for you, and a doctor will give you that advice.
That's it.
My medical history is none of your business, and your medical history is none of my business.
That's why I don't like the mandates.
Now, as for Facebook, Google, and Twitter, Twitter's actually shutting down their offices.
I think there's a problem in seeing all of the private sector businesses start mandating a medication, of which I've already explained some people wouldn't be able to get, and then effectively shutting down because of the ripple effect it could have on the rest of society.
But that's why I say, you know what?
What's your choice?
You can't force Facebook, a private company, to do something you don't want to do as it pertains to their employees.
There are arguments, I suppose, about greater public health.
There are arguments, I suppose, about Uh, infringing upon the commons like they do with censorship.
But if there's a business who wants to do something, you can simply say, okay, and leave.
When it comes to the common spaces and our ability to engage in politics, however, that's where I draw the line.
Facebook saying they want their employees to be vaccinated does not impact me in my ability to engage in civics.
Facebook censoring opinions does.
And when Facebook is a monopoly on the space, then we've got a serious problem.
Facebook as a business has, what, a few thousand employees here in the U.S.?
Well, they don't have to work there, I suppose.
So, this is where we get to getting out of the cities.
You know, look, if you don't like what's happening in these cities, if you can't work at these companies, there is beautiful lush greenery to be had.
There is a life full of experience waiting for you.
You don't need to live in these cities.
Sitting around watching movies in your cubicle apartment in a city that smells like sour milk.
That's New York for you, by the way.
I lived in one of those apartments.
The place smelled like sour milk.
I was in Brooklyn.
I'm not even exaggerating.
I had a tiny apartment.
They called it a two-bedroom, but it had no living room.
I love it.
You walk in the front door.
Here was the apartment.
You open the door to my apartment, and you were in the kitchen.
I put a sofa in the kitchen, because we didn't have a living room.
And then there were two rooms.
They called it a two-bedroom.
It wasn't.
It was basically a one-bedroom.
And what they did was, it was a studio at first, and they built two walls to separate what was supposed to be the living area into two different rooms that were very small.
So you know what?
I eventually said, this is ridiculous.
And I moved out of the city.
I moved over the river.
And then there was more conflict, more crisis.
There were bombings in New York.
And I said, I'm going to move further away.
So I moved to the suburbs, moved further south.
Then I moved even further south to the Philly area.
And then ultimately, with the riots crossing the bridge, I said, I'm going out to the middle of nowhere.
Now, my previous office, as we moved a month or two ago, I could see mountains out the window.
Now I'm looking at the forest out the window, and that's- that's alright.
It's better lighting in my- like, it's better the sun angle and everything.
But I can see the deer and the rabbits, and I can see, you know, nature.
We got- we had wild berries for a minute, the mulberries, all that season is over, which is kind of a bummer because we are picking the berries, and just getting away from these cities.
We can have an argument about the data, about vaccines, we can have an argument about what the businesses should or shouldn't do, and then I can just be like, at the end of the day, there's one thing you can do.
By all means, keep fighting the fight, standing up for what you believe in, and pushing back where you believe you need to push back, and speak up for what you think is true and correct.
You can disagree with me, by all means, I encourage you to do so.
And I encourage you to be free, to pursue happiness, to find the way to do it.
And when I look at what's happening with cities, and I look at what's happening with these mandates, when I look at what's happening with the COVID pandemic, I simply say, Well, you know, I don't think we can push this boulder up the hill.
We can all certainly contribute to trying to solve these problems and make the world a better place.
And that's the long-term goal.
And then in the short term, we can just make our lives a little bit better and make our lives more comfortable and accept where we can make changes.
As the saying goes, I cannot control the wind, but I can control my sails.
Or you can't control the direction of the wind, but you can adjust your sails.
So while the wind may be blowing fierce, and it may result in things I don't like, and New York is saying they're entering the mandatory phase, you know, de Blasio said the voluntary phase is over, I can look at it and say, okay, well, I know what's right for me, I know what risks I'm willing to take, and that's between me and my doctor.
And if I want to relax and not wear a mask and go outside and breathe the air, it'll be outside of the city.
You live in places like New York, I'm telling you, they're going to start locking down again.
I'm not kidding.
They are going to start locking down again.
In New York, they're already saying that they're shutting down restaurants.
Like I mentioned, Twitter is shuttering its New York and SF offices.
It's just shutting them down.
There's going to be empty buildings everywhere.
You're not going to be allowed to leave your home.
It's going to be like it was last year.
People are going to get pent up.
The rage will build, and then we'll start seeing more violence.
You know, the riots we saw last year weren't just for Black Lives Matter.
It was because people were locked in their homes for months and they were losing their minds.
And they wanted to get outside.
And not an excuse to do it.
We're about to do everything all over again.
And so you know what?
Out here, we grow our own vegetables.
We got chickens.
They're having babies.
We're incubating the babies, and that's gonna be fun, and we're gonna film all that stuff, and we're skating because we have space.
And with this space, we pollute less.
We do.
It's amazing, isn't it?
We're spread out, and so things are recycled better.
One of the guys here, he's building a cardboard recycling machine so we can make blocks and bricks out of cardboard so we can use it for projects and for building.
It's just great, man.
It is.
I want to be a bit more optimistic in this.
I can certainly look at all these things and say it's kind of sad that we're seeing the collapse in these cities, but I also want to say that there is life outside of these cities and change isn't always bad.
In fact, I think y'all should get out of those cities.
I'll tell you one thing.
Just don't bring city policy with you.
Enjoy nature, and trust those who live in the area who know what to do to make it last.
Because certainly whatever it is they were doing worked better than what these cities were doing.
I don't care for the skyrocketing crime, the riots, the corrupt police who are seizing people's weapons, arresting them in their own homes when Black Lives Matter harasses them.
I don't care for any of that stuff.
We don't have those problems out here, so I'm out.
You'll help the planet.
It'll be better for the environment.
You'll be more responsible for your own food.
And I tell you this, garden vegetables that you grew taste a hundred times better.
No joke.
Ask anybody.
You go to the store, you might get that beautiful plump tomato, but there's something about it.
No, there really is.
When we grew our tomatoes here, it was just like the flavor.
Why?
It's probably because it's real.
It grew in nutrient-rich soil.
Fresh eggs in the morning, I chopped up some fresh jalapeno and zucchini, and it was incredible.
So you know what?
I'll make the best of it.
I hope you do too.
But we'll keep an eye on this stuff.
We'll see how it goes.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
channel. Thanks for hanging out and we'll see you all then.
In it, however, controversy has been ignited because AOC claims that on January 6th, when the insurrection occurred at the Capitol, she feared that not only would they attack her when they broke into her office, when that cop yelled, where is she?
She said she feared that she would be There's a lot wrong here, and I'm going to have to rehash an old story because, I'm sorry, conservatives keep getting it wrong.
Are you not listening?
Friends, please share this video because I'm going to break down the timeline proving That Ocasio-Cortez lied about the whole story.
Oh, what's that?
I already hear the conservatives saying, Tim, we know she lied.
She wasn't even in the Capitol.
She never said she was.
She said she was in her office.
She said that she was scared when the door, pounding on the door happened, that the rioters had reached her office.
Why?
There are tunnels that connect her building, the Senate buildings, and the Capitol building.
And conservatives keep saying this over and over again.
It's been months now.
And I see more and more people tweeting, AOC wasn't even in the Capitol.
Which triggers the Reuters fact check.
Fact check?
False.
AOC never said she was in the Capitol.
She said she was scared because the rioters could have gone through the tunnels and made it to her building.
The only problem?
AOC's story about the cop banging on her door.
Happened a full hour before the people actually breached the building.
Oh, and here we go.
Here comes the left saying surely she was still scared that people could have breached the building.
If she was so scared that they could have breached the building, she had a full hour to actually get out.
And she wouldn't have come back for lunch.
It is a lie.
If the police knew, because around 1 o'clock, that's when the first barricades were pushed past, outside, no one got near the building, until like 1.15, they're up in front of the building.
If the police knew, within an hour, these people would have broken into the Capitol, surely they would have dispatched more police, backup, and maybe the National Guard.
I mean, they had an hour to do it.
No.
No one thought this would happen.
So this is... I can't believe... I gotta redo this story.
It's six months old.
But of course, of course, James O'Keefe has gotten this leaked footage, which does show something important.
CNN...
Puff piece.
When Danabash of CNN, I believe it's Danabash, right?
Asks AOC about what happened.
Did she at all question the timeline?
Did they do any due diligence to figure out if AOC's story could be true?
No.
Why is it that we are six months out and conservatives get the story wrong and the left obviously and probably willfully gets the story wrong?
And I see all of these conservatives coming out and not understanding the timeline.
Did y'all not even do a Google search?
The New York Times has a timeline.
Did y'all not even watch AOC's video?
This is what really bothers me.
The conservatives coming out and saying she wasn't even in the Capitol building.
So what?
When you heard this and regurgitated, did you actually watch her Instagram video?
I did!
I actually watched the video, and I saw her say something about, you know, what time it was.
This was really, really hilarious when the story first broke.
Why?
I tweeted, hey, this is not possible.
AOC is claiming all these things happened, but people were milling about in outside of her office.
Nothing was happening.
I had a Huffington Post journalist say, Tim, you are wrong and you need to delete this misinformation.
Because what you're talking about was the bomb scare.
It has nothing to do with the riots.
And I went, whoa, wait a minute.
Am I wrong?
That's right.
It didn't have anything to do with the riots.
Who are these people?
Oh, it was a bomb scare.
That's why the cop went to AOC's office.
So let me just start over.
AOC claims.
Knock on her door.
Where is she?
Where is she?
Says the cop, at least according to AOC.
So she's hiding in the bathroom.
And she says, this is it.
I thought I was gonna die.
Because they had breached.
They had got in.
I thought it was... I thought they broke in.
Who broken?
Why?
Oh, there were protests outside.
Is that your argument?
So you mean to say that the police security outside these buildings, outside the Capitol, you actually assumed that day that there would be a breach of the Capitol?
Just you?
Okay, all right.
I can concede that AOC is paranoid.
And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
But it's patently absurd.
If she actually thought, if any of these politicians actually thought it would happen, they would have had more security.
When the rioters were actually fighting in front of the Capitol after they'd breached the barricades around 1.20 or 1.30, the actual congressmen and women and senators who were in the chamber had no idea it was even happening.
Yet a half an hour before, AOC was scared that it did?
But the people actually doing— I'm sorry, man.
Y'all need to just Please share this.
Let people know.
I'm going to prove it.
I've got Reuters.
I'm going to show you the timeline from Reuters and the New York Times.
Here's the first story.
I'm getting riled up because I'm tired of people getting this wrong.
Unreleased CNN documentary featuring Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leaked compares January 6th insurrection with sexual assault.
White supremacy and patriarchy are very linked.
There's a lot of sexualizing of that violence.
You see, this is the problem.
Now, not like I actually think the left is going to pay attention to anything that happened, but at least you can push back on the lies to a certain degree.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend there's any real conversation happening between the left and the right, but this is an attempt to manipulate the masses.
Perhaps you can at least try and show people some semblance of truth.
Maybe this could be a crack in the veneer, in the wood, and the light beams through, and they say, hey, wait a minute, something's not right.
Because everybody had that moment.
Everybody had that moment where they were watching the news over and over again, they believed it, and then something happened, they said, wait a minute, that can't possibly be true.
Well, AOC is one-upping everything.
That's what we're learning from Veritas, so, hey, good job Veritas.
She's now trying to claim, in a CNN interview, CNN who did no due diligence, who did no work, shame on you CNN, not like you actually care, you're fake news.
I want to show you this tweet we have.
This is from Kangmin Lee.
And it's got a couple hundred retweets.
He's a Korean Christian conservative.
He said, people need to realize how vile it is for AOC to claim that she was scared of being raped on 1-6 when she wasn't even in the building.
She trivialized the atrocity of rape and tried to use the horror of sexual violence to emotionally manipulate people to score political points.
That's half true.
AOC never said she was in the building.
She did not say she was scared of the people in the building.
There are tunnels that connect to the building.
This is the immediate response.
She never said she was in the Capitol.
She said she was in her office.
And she was scared the rioters got to her door, which they could have.
The only problem?
The knock on her door happened a full hour, a little bit longer than an hour, before anybody breached the building at all.
No one knew it would happen.
I'll show you the timeline.
Raheem Kassam shows the clip, and he says, Sandy Cortez, who was not in the Capitol on January 6th, now claims she thought she was going to be raped.
There is no level to which the left will not stoop.
Now trivializing sexual violence.
Sick F's.
AOC, you're a sicko.
James Lee said, I'm still proud of her for donating the coffin in which she was buried after being murdered on the 6th of the Smithsonian.
Very noble.
Quite a bit of a joke.
AOC never said she was in the Capitol.
My friends, I give you the fact check.
This is from February 5th.
Reuters says, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did not claim that she was in the Capitol during the siege, nor that rioters entered her office.
Those are both true.
But see, Reuters isn't interested in actually fact-checking AOC, and getting to the bottom of the story, because no one actually checked the timeline of events.
It's as if both conservative and liberal alike did not watch her actual video.
I watched it, and she goes, it's around 1 p.m., and I was like, 1 p.m.?
The cop probably knocked on the door and said, where is she at?
Is she in here?
You know why?
Because they were ordered to evacuate, and she didn't.
She came back because she had lunch.
Oh, she was so scared of people potentially breaching the building.
Please.
Reuters wrote, In an Instagram Live broadcast on February 1st, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, popularly known as AOC, described her experience during the storming of the U.S.
Some social media users pointed out the congresswoman's office is located in a building near the Capitol that was not breached during the insurrection, and suggested that she had lied about her whereabouts on January 6, or that she said rioters stormed her office.
These claims are false.
In the video, AOC said she was in her office near the Capitol and that she feared for her life prior to discovering it was Capitol Police officer who had banged on her office door.
All true.
What Reuters isn't telling you is that the time frame by which she claimed she thought rioters broke in was a full hour before anybody broke in the building.
I had said that morning, nothing's gonna happen.
I recorded a video at noon, I start recording at noon, 1230, I'm about done, put it up for 1pm, and that's my normal schedule.
And I said, nothing's gonna happen, Trump's gonna do his little speech, everyone's gonna wave their little American flags, and I'm gonna go home.
I published.
15 minutes later, we got news, they had breached the barricades and they were fighting outside the Capitol.
Still, no one thought they would get in the building.
But AOC, I guess, must be psychic, right?
Reuters says, examples of posts claiming that AOC lied about her being in the Capitol during
the insurrection can be found here and here. AOC's video is visible on Instagram here and
on YouTube here. Ocasio-Cortez does not say she was in the Capitol building during the
moments of the siege, but in her office, which is in the Cannon House office building near the
Capitol. The New York rep begins the hour and a half video talking about the trauma she felt
after the Capitol siege and revealing she is a sexual assault survivor.
She then describes feeling tension increase in Washington D.C.
and how protesters began showing up near Congress on Monday, January 4th.
On January 6th, she says Capitol Police leadership told Congress members they all had to be at the Capitol Complex by 9 a.m.
A map of the area could be seen here.
She says she and a staffer were in her office that morning around 9 a.m.
and that she went for her second COVID shot later that morning prior to the electoral vote later that day.
At timestamp 3536, she specifies, for you all to know, there's the Capitol Hill complex, but members of Congress, except for the Speaker and other very high-ranking ones, don't actually work in that building with the dome, the Capitol that was stormed.
There's buildings right next to the dome, and that's where our actual offices are.
She goes on to outline a timeline of events leading up to the siege.
She says she was headed for her vaccine around noon, where the house physician was, then walked back to her office afterward.
Clearly, at no point is she concerned about the building.
She goes back to her office.
At timestamp 3855, she says that she and her staffer head back to my office, sit back down, I go back to my office, G is in the legislative office.
AOC never said rioters who entered her office in the... Never said rioters... Wait, wait, hold on.
Wait, what?
AOC never said rioters who entered her office in the video testimony, but rather described fearing for her life in a moment due to the presence of the unidentified police officer in her office that day.
Okay.
AOC never said anyone got in.
But she did say she thought, when the bang on the door happened, they did.
Starting around 40, 41, 20.
She recalls ordering lunch for herself and her staff around 1 p.m.
When she heard loud banging on her office door and a man's voice shouting, where is she?
Okay, let's slow down for a minute.
It's 1 p.m.
I'm told by people on the left that AOC has been scared of the protesters, fearing they'll breach her building, that she knew they could possibly come in.
She ordered lunch.
That is to imply a delivery person would be able to come to the building to give her food.
If she thought there was raucous rioters outside going to breach the building, what would make her think that delivery drivers would come?
Who orders delivery during a riot?
Ah, there was no riot.
Not yet, at least.
They're going to say, There was a loud bang on her door and a man's voice shouting, where is she?
Where is she?
She says she hid in her office bathroom, where she continued to hear the same shouts, describing the scene at the moment she thought everything was over.
Why?
Why did you think everything was over?
They didn't even get into the Capitol building until an hour afterwards.
No one knew that would happen.
I, on that day, was tracking all the news, and I said, I don't think anything's gonna happen.
Then when I saw them actually knock the barricades down and fight with cops, and this is like 1.30, I'm like, wow.
But that's probably it.
And it was around 2.11 or so they actually breached the building.
I'll get to that in a minute, though.
At 49 minutes in, Ocasio-Cortez says that once the unidentified man was inside her office, her staffer told her it was safe to come out of the bathroom, revealing the person who had been banging the door was a police officer.
She says that because the officer did not identify himself, she didn't know if he was there to help or hurt us.
Why?
According to AOC, the officer instructed her and her staffer to head to another building.
Based on the House Speaker's description of spending the rest of the insurrection sheltering with Rep.
Katie Porter in her office, the new building to which AOC and her staffer fled was the Longworth House, as shown here on an overhead visual of the Capitol grounds provided by Curbed.
Excuse me.
Reuters breached neither the Longworth House nor the Cannon Office House building.
Verdict?
False.
In a February 1st Instagram Live broadcast, Ocasio-Cortez did not say that she was in the Capitol during the siege on January 6th, nor did she say protesters entered her office.
The article was produced by the Reuters fact-check team.
Read more.
Okay.
She was talking about the trauma she felt during the riot.
She was talking about hiding in a different Congresswoman's office because of the riot.
She did not leave her office because of the riot.
The police officer did not come to her office because of the riot.
There wasn't one at the time.
The police officers came to her door because there was a bomb scare and people were being ordered to evacuate.
Apparently, she didn't.
Apparently, when they said, everybody, you got to get out of the building, she went back and ordered lunch.
You mean to tell me she was scared?
Now, of course, I mean, it's horrifying.
There's a bomb scare.
But she had no idea it happened.
If AOC had any reason to be afraid at all, at a time when there was no riot, nothing was happening, and I'll show... Again, I got the timeline right here.
Here we go.
New York Times.
Here we go.
Timeline.
I'll show you the timeline.
What story is she telling us?
Where is she?
The cop was- I thought it was all over.
Why?
What made you think anyone, for any nefarious reason, was coming at you?
You didn't know about the bomb scare.
You didn't know a riot was gonna happen- a breach was gonna happen an hour later.
So what was she doing?
She's either completely paranoid, or she's making the story up.
You see, here's what happens.
The average person remembers that on January 6, there was a riot and they stormed the Capitol building.
AOC can then use that after-knowledge to say, when they came to my door, I thought it was all over and then I... Wait, wait.
And now she's saying she thought they were going to rape her?
That is to imply, once again, she is asserting that on January 6th, she thought Capitol rioters had breached the building and were at her office before it ever happened.
She had no idea of knowing this.
She had no way of knowing this.
She had no idea it could possibly happen.
No one did!
Cue it up, New York Times!
How a presidential rally turned into a Capitol rampage.
Visual investigations.
We'll skip through a little bit of the morning stuff where Trump is speaking and crowds are gathering.
12.15, Trump speaking.
12.17, supporters leave the rally and heading to the Capitol.
12.29, people are walking down the street.
And we have 12.49, people are standing at the Capitol grounds.
And then...
The first barriers breached, 1253.
This is around the exact same time AOC was heading back to her office to order lunch.
At 1253, the first barriers, which are a little bit away from the building, were breached.
These are just your regular street barriers, they're made of metal, and they were pushed aside and the police backed up and started walking.
It wasn't... It was a breach of the barriers.
I'm not going to pretend it was like violence and people are beating each other.
They pushed their way through.
That's about what happened.
If AOC knew this had happened, and received warning in any capacity, she decided, okay, this happened, I'm gonna go back to my office and order lunch.
I guess.
Or the reality is, people inside the Capitol building had no idea it was happening, according to the New York Times, and no one thought they would get in the building at all.
In fact, AOC probably felt it was the safest place to be.
I can't imagine she'd be worried.
At 1253 is when you actually see the video of them pushing against the barriers and pushing the cops out of the way.
It's violent.
It absolutely is violent.
But I'm not going to pretend like this is where they're bashing people over the head or anything.
We then go down and we can see, at 1258, there are people in front of the Capitol.
They've now made their way up to the front, but they are not fighting with cops.
They say, at this time, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, begins the proceedings to certify the Electoral College vote at a joint session of Congress alongside Mike Pence.
Outside they are chanting, whose house?
Our house.
No fighting.
At 1.12, Trump's call to action, they say, as Trump's speech comes to an end, he calls on his supporters to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol.
Yes, Trump also said peacefully.
So now we have this.
Inside the Capitol, members of Congress seem unaware of the extent of the violence outside.
And so the time frame here is 1.15 p.m.
Fifteen minutes after Ocasio-Cortez's police story, the violence has started erupting in front of the Capitol.
Fifteen minutes after!
Still, no one believed the building would be breached.
In the Capitol, members of Congress seem unaware of the extent of the violence outside.
The House and Senate have moved their separate chambers to debate certifying the vote.
Ted Cruz argues that it should not certify Arizona's electoral votes.
At 1.48 p.m., even in the Capitol, the proceedings were carrying on like normal, and none's the wiser.
150.
Still, no one is breaking into the building.
Around 2pm, they breach the barricades, and then we get this.
Let me scroll down.
At 2.10pm, the mob breaches the west side door.
From the New York Times, 2.11 p.m.
to 2.16, rioters break into the building.
No one knew that would happen.
In fact, law enforcement didn't know it would happen.
Members of Congress didn't know it would happen.
I, covering the story, didn't know it was going to happen, and I said it wasn't.
I didn't think it was going to happen.
Senators continue to debate while the mob is entering the building at 2 11 p.m.
So tell me this How when they claim there were warnings given that the police were worried?
That no one, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Cruz, the actual people who face these threats, the people that, we heard some of these people who broke in, they were like, we're looking for Pelosi.
None of them knew.
None of them were scared.
Out of all the warnings and everything that happened, no one knew it would happen one hour later.
They're trying to fabricate a narrative by claiming that AOC could have had some kind of foreknowledge.
Now, I will admit again, perhaps she is just a paranoid individual, and so she always thinks people are together, and her feelings are her own.
I'll tell you what I think really happened.
No one knew it was going to happen.
AOC returned to her office about 7 minutes after the first barricades were breached, indicating she didn't know it was happening.
She had no reason to be scared, and when the cops got to her door, no one thought the people who pushed past the barriers would even fight with cops.
It was 1.15 when we started seeing people fighting with pulleys in front of the Capitol.
Fifteen minutes later, fighting breaks out.
Why would AOC make these assumptions?
Unless she's paranoid.
Okay, I will admit that.
She's a paranoid crackpot and that's why her story comes out.
In which case, why should I care about her paranoid, delusional feelings?
No.
It's because the reality is, no one knew.
The building would be breached.
It happened an hour after AOC claimed the person knocked on her door.
And now, in a CNN interview, she's claiming she thought these people would rape her.
