S5200 - Democrats SLAMMED For IRS Scheme To Spy On Accounts With $600 Or More, Critics Say It Taxes The Poor
Democrats SLAMMED For IRS Scheme To Spy On Accounts With $600 Or More, Critics Say It Taxes The Poor. Progressives say this will actually tax the rich but rich people typically have more than $600 in their accounts.
Republicans are calling this mass surveillance, spying, and a scheme to tax the poor.
All of which is True
Biden claims his build back better agenda costs zero dollars and what he really means is that it costs him zero dollars. It'll cost you $3.5 trillion
#Democrats
#Republicans
#IRS
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats propose spying on all bank accounts with at least $600.
They say it so they can tax the rich, but last I checked, people with $600 or more aren't the rich.
No, the reality is Democrats are planning on taxing the poor to make up lost revenue.
In our next story, Project Veritas expose already censored.
It shows several Pfizer scientists saying natural immunity is better than the vaccine.
And in our last story, Merrick Garland says he will be going after parents who threaten school board members.
But what does that mean?
Harassment?
Parents are outraged and protesting and the federal government is now taking action.
Things are getting pretty scary.
And before we get started, leave this show a good review.
Give us five stars.
It really does help.
And tell your friends about it because it's the best way to help a podcast grow.
Word of mouth.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Why?
Well, for the past couple of weeks, a story has been circulating about a new rule proposed by Democrats.
It's part of Joe Biden's Build Back Better agenda.
It would allow the IRS to track your bank account if you have at least $600.
Not every single transaction, but a gross income and outgoing number.
Now, the Democrats say this is part of the plan to tax the rich.
Yes.
There is so much lost tax revenue from wealthy individuals who are not paying their fair share.
So, of course, we need to then track all bank accounts that have at least $600.
Because last time I checked, people who have $600 are rich.
Huh.
Wait a minute.
That doesn't add up.
Well, even if you had $6,000, you're not rich.
And to be honest, even if you had $60,000, you're still not rich.
Now, admittedly, $60,000 is a lot of money, but if you're someone who has a family and that's your savings or your retirement, you're still not rich.
So when you're checking account has maybe $10,000 in it or $6,000 or $1,000.
Why is the IRS tracking you? You see, taxing the wealthy will not actually solve the problem of
the loss in tax revenue.
States are hurting for money, the federal government is hurting for money, and Joe Biden's got a $3.5 trillion spending plan that he claims the Build Back Better agenda in total will cost zero.
And how do they claim this?
Once again, lost tax revenue will be recovered.
Interesting then.
It seems like what they're really trying to do is tax the poor.
They're going to be spying on your bank account.
Now some people have said this is basically just they're going to squeeze every penny out of every person they can.
And some others have suggested something a bit more nefarious.
Why, with the VAX mandate going federal, with the Democrats proposing fines of $70,000 to $700,000, they fully expect people will lose their jobs.
We already saw the largest health care provider in New York fire about 1,400 people.
Those people ain't getting unemployment benefits.
They've been kicked off of that.
Crazy, right?
Well, they gotta get money somehow.
So some have suggested, and I'm not saying it's true, but it's an interesting point, that many of these people will turn to side hustles.
Desperate to make money by any means, they'll do what they can.
Maybe they'll play music in the subway like I did when I was a teenager.
Maybe they'll sell knickknacks on the side of the road, or take jobs under the table.
Well, the IRS wants to know about that revenue, and with so many people expected to lose their jobs—granted, not millions upon millions, but a lot of people not working, ah, you see where this is going—the IRS wants to know how people are funding themselves and feeding themselves.
You see, it's not just about the vaccine mandates.
There's also the question of, with nobody working, how are they eating?
Now a lot of people thought it was the unemployment benefits, but still.
Even with the end of the unemployment benefits, people still aren't taking up jobs all that much.
Certainly money has to be coming from somewhere, and the IRS wants to know if you have money, they can tax.
So this is not a tax on the rich, my friends.
This will overwhelmingly be a tax on the poor.
However, one thing that many people have not considered.
I see people talking about side hustles and COVID and lockdown, but no one's mentioned illegal immigration.
Why, we've had, what, 1.4 million illegal immigrants come into this country?
Now, certainly, they may begin working.
Perhaps they can't open a bank account, but they do know someone or have some access to someone who does.
All of a sudden, that person might start seeing more money come into their bank account.
Perhaps it's the family member of one of these illegal immigrants who is legally allowed to work.
And then their illegal immigrant friend or relative who came to this country recently, like the migrant crisis at the southern border is showing us, they might work under the table.
They have to, right?
They have to eat somehow.
They then give the money to their friends, their relatives, their people who they have relationships with, who then deposit the money in their account.
And the IRS then says, hmm, that's interesting.
This person's tax return shows that they work, you know, at Starbucks, but all of a sudden they're depositing an extra $400 per month.
We want to tax that.
There's a lot to consider in what's going on as to why this may be the case, but ultimately it is one thing.
A tax on the poor, and people are calling them out.
Well, let's read about this, see what's going on, and before we do, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast, as well as members-only segments from Tales from the Inverted World, our mystery and paranormal and true crime show that we just launched.
You see, your membership allows us to expand and create more cultural content.
We got the Cask Castle Vlog.
We got Tales from the Inverted World.
We got a new pop culture show coming up.
It's gonna be movies and video games.
Because as a member, you're helping support the expansion of the culture.
We want the ideals of freedom and liberty and America to come out not just in these conversations, but in the other content we make that is apolitical, so that people can build culture And show something, something positive, something that we can strive for.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's read some of the news about the IRS's new reporting requirements should it pass in the Build Back Better agenda.
American Progress says bank tax reporting is a critical component of Biden's Build Back Better agenda.
I want to show you this story from September 14th first, but before we read it, I want to go and look at the facts.
The reason I highlight this is because I want to make sure you know this is the Democrat agenda, what you're seeing.
Now let's talk about what's being said.
From USA Today, fact check.
Claim about the IRS monitoring bank accounts over $600 exaggerates reality.
Does it?
Let's read.
USA Today says the claim, Treasury Department declares IRS will monitor transactions in all US bank accounts over $600.
Biden's Treasury Department declares the IRS, okay, so they said that already, reads a headline from InfoWars.
The same claim popped up in various iterations on social media, claiming Biden's proposal would give the IRS direct access to your bank transactions.
While the claim is based in reality, it gets many of the facts wrong.
The claim's assertion is a proposal by the Biden administration, not a decision set in stone.
The Treasury cannot declare any changes to law, as that is a legislative power that belongs to Congress.
Fact check, USA Today, false.
While technically true, they're not supposed to be able to do it.
Repeatedly, Joe Biden has enacted law through edict bypassing the Supreme Court and the legislative branch.
So yeah, they're just ramming things through, but okay.
Technically, they're correct, they say.
Even if the proposal is adopted by banks, would not provide access to individual transactions, just the total amount flowing in and out of an account annually.
Interestingly, there's a lot of problems with this proposal.
Let's say I take out a hundred bucks from my bank, and then I put the hundred bucks back in, and then I take the hundred bucks out, and then I put the hundred bucks back in, and I keep doing it.
And then they say, wow, this bank account with $600 has like 300 transactions for $100.
Something must be going on, and they don't know what.
It's the same $100 I gave to no one, but there it is.
Certainly, I don't think they would look too much into that, so it's kind of a moot point, but, or it's kind of a, it's kind of pointless to say.
But, what will really happen...
Is that at the end of the month, when they're like, this guy works at Starbucks for $10 an hour, all of a sudden has $20 an hour in income.
He's not reporting where that income is coming from, and we can see it.
Do you think rich people are stupid enough to fall for stuff like this?
It's a tax on the poor.
Now, interestingly, while USA Today's fact check is like, oh, it's exaggerating reality, we have this fact check from 10TVCBS.
Yes!
Biden's proposed legislation would allow the IRS to have more information on bank accounts with more than $600.
U.S.
reps from nine states, not including Ohio, sent a letter strongly opposing this proposal to Speaker Pelosi, the IRS commissioner, and others.
And now we'll come back to that.
But yes, my friends, this is absolutely real.
And here's what the left is trying to claim.
Now, in my opinion, this is the propaganda of all propaganda.
But let's read.
American Progress says, The United States will lose an estimated $7 trillion over the next decade from people and corporations not paying the taxes they owe.
That is twice the $3.5 trillion of investments that Congress is now considering in the budget reconciliation bill.
The richest 1% of taxpayers alone are responsible for an estimated $163 billion in unpaid taxes each year.
Yet due to IRS budget cuts, the IRS lost thousands of experienced enforcement personnel capable of thoroughly examining complex tax returns.
Audit rates of high-income Americans and the largest corporations have plummeted, draining revenue and resulting in an increased share of examinations focused on recipients of the earned income tax credit.
Ah, and there it is.
Social justice.
expensive for the IRS to audit.
The status quo benefits from wealthy tax cheats to the detriment of ordinary Americans.
It also reinforces economic inequality, including the stark income and wealth inequities by
race.
Ah, and there it is.
Social justice.
Let's be real, okay?
Just because a rich person is rich doesn't mean they're hurting anybody.
Now a rich person who is rich who uses their money to hurt people, okay, well then they're hurting somebody.
But the idea that simply because someone is rich and they're not paying the government does not mean anyone is being hurt by it.
Granted.
I am no fan of the wealthy elites.
I am quite populist.
I agree with a lot of what Steve Bannon says.
Steve Bannon says tax the rich.
Hey, I agree.
Here's what I don't agree with.
Just giving the government more power.
Yeah, I'm sorry, that doesn't solve the problem either.
But I don't like the idea of disproportionate power among wealthy elites who can manipulate our elections through massive spending and lobbying and all that other garbage.
It's a complicated system.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Maybe the best one we got for now until something better could be thought up, but for the time
being I don't know if we're there yet.
Either way, I don't like the idea of Michael Bloomberg, Mackenzie Bezos, or George Soros, or the Koch brothers, or anybody dumping money into our elections.
That being said, if it's a meritocracy, those who are able to accumulate wealth have a disproportionate voice in the system.
And that I get.
Let's read.
American Progress says the richest 1% of taxpayers alone are responsible for... Sorry, let's read on.
They go on to say, President Joe Biden's plan to improve tax enforcement is aimed squarely at fixing the broken and unjust status quo.
The Biden plan has two main components.
One is to fund IRS enforcement of high-income individuals and corporations, modern technology, and better taxpayer service.
The second is to give the IRS greater visibility into opaque forms of income that are requiring banks and other financial institutions to report very basic information about accounts.
This column explains how the bank information reporting proposal will alleviate the two-tiered system of tax compliance, preserve taxpayer privacy, enhance the IRS' ability to detect indications of cheating, result in fewer audits, raise revenue for essential investments.
Boy, is this some 1984 doublespeak.
I love that.
Preserve taxpayer privacy by getting more information on middle-class and lower-class bank accounts?
That's absolutely going to take away privacy.
There's no question about it.
But they expect you to be stupid enough to believe it.
And they go on to mention that it's favoring the wealthy, blah blah blah.
Certainly.
I absolutely believe that the tax system favors the wealthy.
Let me, uh, let me give you an example.
Let me give you an example.
Alright, let's say that there is a CEO of a company who pays himself a million bucks a year.
And the company has a revenue of, I don't know, like $13 million a year.
He then comes out in the press and says, you know what?
I should not be getting a million bucks a year when my employees are not getting near that much.
I've got an idea.
All of my employees will now make $80,000 a year and I'm going to lower my salary to $80,000 as well.
And the left cheers and they clap and they say, wow, this is what CEOs should be doing.
They should absolutely be paying fair wages and raising the salaries for all the employees.
Here's the best part.
When you pay yourself a salary, you have to pay a 7.5% Social Security tax.
I could be getting the gist of this wrong, but the general idea is CEOs don't want high salaries.
Jeff Bezos pays himself $83,000 a year.
He then gets a million dollars in bonuses and plus he has his stock incentives.
All in all he makes just over a million bucks a year.
But why is his salary so low?
Because profit is considered, I don't know if it's passive income or just considered profit, but it's not taxed like wages.
You save a lot of money.
When you as a CEO pay yourself less.
The left doesn't understand this.
But the reality is, when you have a massive and complicated tax code, rich people will always be able to afford the right accountant who can tell them how to save money and utilize the tax law to the best of their abilities.
Listen.
I'm not saying rip off the IRS or steal or not pay their fair share.
I'm saying it's very, very simple.
A CEO goes to their accountant and the accountant says, there's a tax deduction for people who wear clogs.
I think you do have people in the show wearing clogs, right?
Well, we did do three episodes of that one show where people were wearing clogs, and they'll be like, there you go!
You qualify!
And they'll check it off and you'll save money.
There's also losses and tax harvesting and a whole bunch of other stuff that rich people just know what to do so they're not paying massive amounts of taxes.
The reality is, rich people pay, dollar for dollar, more taxes than poor people.
Or I should say, you know, just on the dollar, the hard numbers.
Percentage-wise, rich people often pay a lot less.
Why?
Well, it's like I mentioned.
Instead of paying yourself a salary and paying into that 7.5%, Just pay out profits!
Just pay out profits.
Now, what I'm told is that the IRS looks for this kind of stuff, but there's still ways to manipulate, or I shouldn't even say manipulate, just to utilize tax code to the best of your abilities, with a good accounting firm and a lawyer, so that you're paying the IRS the bare minimum of what you have to pay them.
Poor people don't have that luxury.
They pull up TurboTax or H&R Block, they put in their information to the best of their abilities, and then they end up paying, not realizing they miss a bunch of deductions.
Now, those who have the ability to actually pay a premium can hire these companies to search for every deduction.
And then they do, and then it turns out they don't get one, they lose money, and so people are like, look, just give me my refund.
Yeesh!
What ends up happening?
When the IRS rolls out a plan to actually just take a look at any account with $600, rest assured, you all One day you will get a letter and it will say from the IRS and they'll say, explain this revenue.
And you'll have to do it.
And there are interesting conundrums here because let's say you get paid $1,000.
You then take out that $1,000 in cash and you put it in a shoebox under your bed.
And then maybe a few months later, you decide, you know what, that was a dumb idea, and you put it back.
All of a sudden now, for that one month, it shows you have an additional $1,000 going into your bank.
And then what?
The IRS says, hmm, that's weird where the $1,000 come from.
Now, I think they've got computers that can track this stuff, and it wouldn't raise a red flag in that capacity.
They'd be like, well, he did minus $1,000, so maybe they'll ignore that one.
But what happens if you consistently have $50, you know, every other day?
Sounds like you might be working a job under the table or taking money from other sources.
And there you go.
The IRS wants its cut.
And I'll tell you this.
If you were to tax the rich, 100%, it would not fund the budget.
100%.
It would not reach $3.5 trillion.
Bezos is worth, what, like $100 billion?
Yeah, I don't even think you get to a trillion dollars, to be honest, in private wealth of the wealthiest individuals.
They want $3.5 trillion for this spending bill.
Think about that.
$3.5 trillion.
Now, hold on there a minute.
What if you tax everyone, including the rich?
Now you've got 330 million people, and you can tax them at ever-increasing amounts on every single check, and...
Well, you're not taxing babies, so let's say 230 or, you know, 200,000, uh, 200 million individuals.
The point is, you make more money taxing poor people than you do taxing the very few rich.
You can tax the rich people at a lot.
Let's say you tax Jeff Bezos at 50% of his income, and they probably do, he's a millionaire.
Congratulations, you got half a million dollars from taxing that one person.
Let's say you tax 1,000,000 people $1.
Well, they don't really notice the loss of the dollar, but congratulations, you've made $1,000,000.
The incentive for the IRS is taxing the poor.
And I think it's wrong.
But you know what?
This is what Bloomberg is.
This is what the Democrats are.
This is from November 24th, 2019.
Because Bloomberg was running for office, and he was putting out all this stuff.
This is for Americans for tax reform.
Bloomberg says raising taxes on poor people is a good thing.
You ever see that meme, you know, we are the 47% or whatever?
They were saying, I think it was back during Occupy, that only 47% of Americans actually pay income tax.
The truth is, wealthy people are, I think, the wealthier individuals in this country are the ones actually paying in a net gain for the government, and lower middle class to lower class people are actually a net negative on the system.
That means, if you're a poor person, You pay taxes to a certain degree, not a whole lot, but you receive greater benefits in the long run.
So it's almost like you're being subsidized.
I actually agree with this system.
Completely agree with it.
I'm not a conservative.
I'm not a staunch libertarian.
I'm just libertarian spectrum.
I lean slightly left.
And I like the idea that there is, you know, we're only as strong as the weakest link.
Wealthier individuals pay slightly more in taxes because it's less impactful on their lives.
And as someone, you know, my circumstances are I do particularly well.
I absolutely am okay with helping poor people.
Now, there are a lot of problems with the tax code.
Notably, taxing people at, you know, the final tax bracket I think is like 250 and up.
That makes no sense.
Somebody who makes 10 million bucks a year, a CEO, has substantially more leeway and power than someone who makes 250.
And taxing someone at 250, someone who makes 250 at like 40 some odd percent, makes it substantially harder for them to climb up and become wealthier.
Effectively, you're getting this elite class that makes so much money you'll never catch up.
And they don't care if they're paying more in taxes, within reason, because they have substantially more to invest and spread around and never have to worry about working again.
Someone who makes $250,000 has to work.
They can't just quit their jobs.
Someone who makes $10 million could literally work for one year and then retire.
If they wanted to live, like, humble, middle-class living.
But, honestly, if they retire with half a million bucks, and they put it into the right accounts, they never got to work again.
They will be independently wealthy for the rest of their lives, and they're being taxed the same rate.
The problem I have with the tax system is that, ultimately, it just gives the government money.
So, let's be real.
Bloomberg's plan of taxing the poor, and he was running as a Democrat, and they... Well, let's be real, the Democrats didn't really like the guy, but they certainly loved his money.
What this is is authoritarianism.
He says this, look, quote, Some people say, well, taxes are aggressive.
But in this case, yes, they are.
That's the good thing about them because the problem is in people that don't have a lot of money.
And so higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves.
So I listen to people saying, oh, we don't want to tax the poor.
Well, we want the poor to live longer so that they can get an education and enjoy life.
And that's why you do want to do exactly what a lot of people say you don't want to do.
The question is, do you want to pander to those people?
Or do you want to get them to live longer?
There's just no question.
If you raise taxes on full, sugary drinks, for example, they will drink less, and there's no question that full sugar drinks are one of the major contributors to obesity, and obesity is one of the major contributors to heart disease and cancer, and a variety of things.
So it's like saying, I don't want to stop using coal because coal miners will go out of work, will lose their jobs.
We have a lot of soldiers in the U.S., in the U.S.
Army, but we don't want to start a war to, uh, war just to give them something to do.
And that's exactly what you're saying.
We say, well, let's keep coal killing, you know, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, you get the point.
He's saying, tax the poor!
They dumb!
Look at them drinking them sugary drinks!
You know?
I cut out all the sugar.
Just been eating meat, cheese, and dietary fiber.
You know, veggies and stuff like that.
Good ol' asparagus and a small steak.
Boy, do I feel better.
Get that processed garbage out of your life.
I didn't need someone to come and take everything away from me in order to get me to do it.
Isn't that weird?
That I, of all people, could buy all of the cupcakes at the store right now.
But I said, hey, wait a minute.
I won't do that.
So what about being poor and not having the ability to buy all of the cupcakes?
Makes people buy the cupcakes!
Perhaps there's a correlation between the ability to raise lots of money and start a successful business and eating healthier.
But I'll be honest, over the past year I was eating... I wouldn't say I was eating... No, I was eating bad.
Yeah, I don't wanna... I don't think I was like the worst eater because I would eat like, you know, I was trying to avoid processed foods and breads and stuff, but I'd still have snacks, chips, you know, fruit snacks periodically, thinking, oh, it's, you know, we got the good organic fruit snacks.
The ingredients are like, you know, pectin and real fruit.
Still eating a ton of extra garbage.
And you know what?
It was a choice, it was a choice of will.
I just, one day it was like, I just, I don't want to eat that stuff anymore.
I just don't want to, it just, one day it was like a switch flicked and I said, nah, I'm not doing it.
Pull out the fresh meats and some cheeses and I'll make a wrap or something.
Lettuce wrap, they're delicious.
And that's what I've been doing.
We got these excellent keto bars.
I didn't, no one had to tax me.
I didn't have to be coerced.
I just had to make that choice.
People like Bloomberg and the Democrats.
These are the people saying, we don't care what you want, what you think, or why you do what you do.
You shouldn't have that right.
Well, I suppose this.
If everyone was eating healthier, universal healthcare would be a lot easier and our healthcare costs would be going down.
Life expectancy would be going up, but hey, we're a country where people have the individual right to choose.
And I respect that.
Now, if somebody wants to be morbidly obese, That's their choice.
Don't make me pay for it.
I suppose in the long run, it's bad for the country.
It really is.
No, seriously.
I mean, we need strong, capable individuals and charismatic leaders, and we're becoming a nation of, I don't know, lethargic layabouts.
And that's unfortunate.
A lot of people have started to decide, you know, we're going to take care of ourselves.
And for me, it's all part of this, like, holistic approach to everything I'm doing.
You know, going out, raising our own chickens.
We're now at 15 because they had babies!
We're having our own chickens!
And then we'll eat them when the time comes.
Not all of them.
The original cast of Chicken City, I think they'll be safe, but we got a lot of chickens.
And so we'll see what happens.
Eating healthy is part of that.
If somebody wants to be morbidly obese, I would encourage them to lose weight.
I would say cut out the sugary drinks.
You don't realize, man.
I saw a meme.
This was big for me.
And it showed like... It showed like three jelly doughnuts, and it was like, you know, 800 calories.
And then it showed like a large, you know, Starbucks drink or whatever, and it was like 796, and I'm like, yo.
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 People go to Starbucks or McDonald's and they're like, I'll get a large mocha frap, thinking, there's not that many calories, it's just a drink.
America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
People go to Starbucks or McDonald's and they're like, I'll get a large mocha frappe, thinking
there's not that many calories, it's just a drink.
Or they'll get like a cappuccino, like a mocha cappuccino, thinking, and it's got 500 calories
in it.
People need information, not coercion.
But as Vox tells us, from back in 2016, Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy.
That was back in 2016.
Isn't that amazing?
That you've got Steve Bannon, Steve Bannon of all people, helped Trump get elected a Republican, saying, tax the rich.
They call him far-right.
Man, if that's far-right, I don't even know what's going on anymore.
The reality is far-left and far-right just basically means, are you in the cult or are you not in the cult?
Because the far-left is the cult.
There are creepy conspiracy weirdos on the right, for sure, but, you know, there are creepy conspiracy weirdos.
The left and its establishment is a bunch of authoritarians lining up saying, tell me what to do.
And I'm not a fan.
Michael Bloomberg is an authoritarian.
He is a neoliberal despot.
That's not what this country needs, and that's not what will make this country strong.
We've seen it time and time again.
Centralized authority, manipulation, spying, they lead to dark and dangerous paths.
And maybe that's it.
You know, I think about ancient Rome.
And eventually, the system becomes too large and corrupt to maintain its own girth.
We have become a lethargic and sedentary nation, as it were, a nation of cowards.
I'm not saying you're a coward.
I'm not saying everyone's a coward.
I'm saying we have too many cowards.
That they simply say, you know, these politicians, Democrats and Republicans, that's mainly whom I'm referring to, cowards, who will just say to themselves, let me ride this one out and then get enough to buy some property to hell with everybody else.
What we need are leaders.
We don't have leaders.
We have extractors.
A leader is someone like Rand Paul, I guess, who says, I believe that what I'm doing is going to help people, and I'm going to fight for freedom and liberty.
And he strives, and I believe this of Rand, I don't think he's perfect, I don't think anybody is, he strives to say, what can I do to uplift my fellow Americans, and namely my constituents?
Nancy Pelosi?
Mitch McConnell?
Lindsey Graham?
Their whole thing is just like, how can I get some for myself and play this game?
I really don't think they care.
I'm sorry, I just don't.
Lindsey Graham especially.
How that guy keeps getting elected is laughable.
Seriously.
What are y'all doing?
Vote for somebody else.
Primary the guy.
Mitch McConnell, too.
You know, for too long, we've sat back and watched Democrats and Republicans do the same old garbage game.
Democrats started saying, you know, we're going to primary people.
It's about time Republicans do the exact same thing.
Because I'll tell you this, the Republican Party is garbage.
They do nothing.
They sit around on their hands while the Democrats just go scorched earth.
So here's what you need.
You need some libertarian individuals, some freedom-minded individuals.
And if their whole thing is, no.
I'm going to let you do your thing and tell the government, no.
I'm like, we good.
Right?
How do we do that?
Primaries, my friends, primaries.
Otherwise, if you sit back and watch the IRS continue expanding on what they're expanding on, the Democrats pushing this, if it gets passed, if the Democrats continually just siphon money from the American people through massive inflation and borrowing, printing of money, it's going to hurt your pocketbook.
And don't forget what you see back in the day, IRS apologizes for aggressive scrutiny of conservative groups.
Ah, there it is, from 2017 NPR reports.
An illegal settlement that still awaits a federal judge's approval, the IRS expresses its sincere apology for mistreating a conservative organization called Lynchpins of Liberty, along with 40 other conservative groups in their application for tax-exempt status.
Incredible.
Where are the Republicans to do anything about this?
And you expect me to vote Republican?
Come on.
I get people being like, damn, it's either that or the Democrats.
Oh, please.
And you know, I'm looking at the do-nothings and the lunatics, and I certainly get white people voted for Trump and white people voted against him.
A lot of leftists genuinely were like, they said it's easier to overthrow a feeble old man than it is a fascist.
And that's what they meant in Joe Biden.
There were a lot of leftists who were like, voting for Joe Biden is accelerationism.
And they were like, from the ashes of the old, we shall build anew.
And I'm like, oh geez.
The Trump agenda was like, the real build back better.
Trump had greatly improved the economy and things were not perfect.
But they were getting better.
I mean, Americans were loving it.
Now we're back to the extraction economy.
Now we're back to Joe Biden and the Democrats.
Joe Biden was Vice President before.
The wealthy elites making their friends and family wealthy.
And in order to pay for their plan, they'll tax you.
Look, do they really want to tax the rich?
No, they're rich!
That's the funny thing about all of this.
When the Senators and members of Congress, not every member of Congress, but the Senators especially, come out and they're like, you know, we don't want to tax the rich, or they just don't talk about it, it's because they're looking at their wallet being like, why am I taxing myself?
That's stupid.
They don't get paid all that much money.
I think they get like $174K a year.
But most of these Senators are millionaires.
They don't care about you.
unidentified
They're not gonna tax themselves, they're gonna tax you!
If they're like, look, if we raise taxes on ourselves by five percent, we lose a lot of money.
And the government doesn't even raise that much.
Let's just take a dollar from a million people.
Better yet, let's take a dollar from a hundred, two hundred million people, and then we raise two hundred million dollars.
Just like that.
If they were to tax all the rich people, they wouldn't get anywhere near that much money.
So taxing the rich doesn't make them enough.
The left might want, you know, they come out and they say, taxing the rich does make sense.
Taxing the rich in certain circumstances makes sense.
What I mean is, I think we should re-normalize the progressive tax system so it should be lower for the poor, lower for the middle class.
It should be, you know, whatever it is that people between like 100 and 200 are paying now should be slightly lower.
People who are paying 250 should be slightly lower.
And then after $500, you pay what people paying $250 now are paying, and so what happens is you scale up, creating more tax brackets.
Again, I don't know if it's a solution because just giving the money doesn't solve anything, but I don't like the idea of the ultra-wealthy using their power to get guns banned and violate our rights, which is what Bloomberg and a bunch of other billionaires were trying to do.
I also think there is an issue of people needing to stand up for themselves.
To push back on this.
Because many people voted for Joe Biden.
And if the people want this stuff, well, they voted for it and they weren't paying attention.
You have a media.
What was it?
We talked about this the other day on IRL.
Don't want to be an American idiot?
One nation controlled by the media?
Wow!
Yeah, there you go Green Day.
And now what do you have?
You have people absolutely just following in lockstep with the media's agenda, which serves the political interests.
Keeping the rich, you know, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and it's because people keep voting for this stuff.
So at a certain point I say, look, I'm gonna go out and get some chickens, grow my own food, and just get away from the city and try and be more responsible for myself, and stop expecting that anyone owes me anything.
Because at the end, at the end of the day, if people are unwilling to stand up for themselves or you, or get your back when you do stand up, then you can only really fight for yourself, right?
And that's the scary message that many of these false leaders have.
They don't care about you because they don't think you'll defend them.
We need to change that.
So we need to spread the message and say, I will get your back.
When people get suspended or banned, we need to help give them their voice back.
If I say I oppose censorship, then I will actively oppose it.
I will host Alex Jones.
I will host Steve Bannon.
I will host Enrique Tarrio.
I will host those who are censored.
I will have those conversations because I oppose the censorship.
And then we will set up a speakeasy over at TimCast.com.
A speakeasy where the tendrils of big tech can't go.
I mean, they can try.
And they do have access in some ways.
But for the most part, it's a protection.
I'd say this to those in New York.
If they were operating a restaurant And they said, OK, we're going to adhere to the VAX mandate.
Oh, by the way, we also have a private owners club where you can invest for a crowd investment of five dollars, which makes you a permanent owner.
Of course, owners are allowed to come in the building and don't require vaccination.
I'm not saying it's exactly true, but there are ways of standing up for what you believe in, and I think more people need to.
For the time being, thank the Democrats for taxing the poor.
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.
Last night, James O'Keefe and his organization Project Veritas released a major undercover report from Pfizer.
Scientists saying that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity.
Now, there's been an ongoing debate about this.
Some NBA players have said they don't want to get vaccinated because they have natural immunity.
And many people like Rand Paul have questioned why there's a vaccine mandate when natural immunity does provide protection.
Several studies have come out, many of which have said it's inconclusive.
They don't know exactly for sure if natural immunity is better.
However, there are many studies saying, yeah, natural immunity is in fact better.
And many of these studies actually say, or some of them, that natural immunity followed by vaccination is quite possibly the best protection.
And that may be the case, but it is still being debated in the public sphere.
If you were to follow the science, like actually read the literature yourself, and then try to understand this, you'd probably come to a rather nuanced position where you're like, yeah, natural immunity is good, natural immunity with vaccine is the best, but natural immunity means you have to get COVID in the first place, so getting the vaccine makes sense in that capacity.
In the end, I think we're missing the big picture here in this debate.
I don't think we should be debating how the mandates are being carried out.
I think we should be debating why we're having mandates, period.
In the end, the conversation ultimately will lead to, OK, well, fine.
We'll have the mandates.
You win, everybody.
We'll just do antibody tests or negative testing as well, which I still think is wrong because it still requires you to present your papers.
However, I do think this is huge on the part of Project Veritas because this is exposing Big Pharma's agenda.
These scientists in this exposé are saying straight up it's all about the money.
And while the science may actually say vaccines are good, well, I will say this.
I'm not here to give you medical advice.
You guys know that.
Find a trusted doctor, and if you think it's hard to do, find someone who watches Project Veritasis.
Find a doctor you trust.
It's weird that there's so much pushback to that, but it is what it is.
Ultimately, here's what I mean to say.
I think it's fairly obvious when you look at the data that natural immunity plus vaccination would provide you with the best protection.
In the Veritas expose, the scientist actually says, one of them, that when you get COVID, your body produces antibodies to a bunch of different parts of the virus, whereas the mRNA vaccine is just the spike protein.
So, yeah, it would make sense that natural immunity is better.
It would also then make sense that natural immunity plus vaccination is the best.
Why then do you have this big push?
Why then do you have the censorship?
Which brings me to the point of the story.
Why are they censoring this?
This is not controversial.
I mean, look, I have this article from Yahoo News that I'm actually I think is rather impressive.
It's literally just from Yahoo News.
And you normally they aggregate where does natural immunity stand in the fight over vaccine mandates?
And they basically give the nuance saying, yeah, there are studies that say natural immunity is great and better than the vaccine.
So if Yahoo News is saying this, if we have, check this out, from The Hill, study shows Pfizer vaccine effectiveness declines after six months.
Then we have this from Nature.com, COVID vaccine immunity is waning, how much does that matter?
These are, this is The Hill and this is Nature.com.
If we can't talk about these stories, Then we are beyond in trouble.
And yeah, YouTube might actually take this down because they say, oh, you can't talk about it.
I don't care.
Okay?
I'm not going to sit here and pander to the censors when we have facts.
When we have facts right here.
Now, a lot of people are like, Tim, you won't say a name.
Dude, YouTube telling me I can't say a name of a guy who's on the news anymore is not the same as me being able to say nature.com, COVID vaccine immunity is waning.
Or The Hill, study shows Pfizer vaccine declines.
This is important then because it may be that a lot of the push we're seeing is advertising.
What do I mean by that?
Look.
Companies advertise on networks.
Pfizer probably buys millions or, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising.
If stories start getting shared that make it sound like their product is no good, well then they'll pull their advertising.
Why should we advertise on a platform where people are disparaging us and pushing these stories?
And then YouTube and Facebook and the networks are like, guys, guys, chill out on the talk and smack about Pfizer.
Look, If this is the reality of it, this is the reality of it.
We've seen the Israel studies.
This is why they've been recommending boosters.
So I will say this.
I do not live in a world where I immediately assume that the mainstream narrative always is wrong because you can often conflate the leftist establishment with mainstream or authoritative narrative.
Here's what I mean by that.
We are getting booster shots for those, I believe it's 65 and up.
Okay, so that's available.
And people who are immunocompromised.
That's specifically because effectiveness wanes.
Now, for some reason, the establishment media big tech oligarchs and left would censor people for saying that.
And so what I mean to say is, you can read The Hill and they'll tell you effectiveness is waning.
You can read the news from Israel and they'll tell you this.
They're doing booster shots.
But the establishment, the mainstream media often, and big tech social media don't want you to know.
Here's the proof.
I shouldn't even need to give you proof.
It's obvious.
This is Eric Spracklin.
with Project Veritas has breaking Instagram has now deleted this video from the Project Veritas
page with over 1.3 million views. We have other reports from individuals saying that when they
posted this story about Pfizer, they have gotten suspended for it. This individual says seven days.
Another person says they posted it to Instagram. This this is this morning
goes against the community guidelines and removed. Okay, so this is the issue.
The studies and the science are not identical to the mainstream narrative always and to big tech.
But what happens is... I'll give you this example.
Merck, for instance.
Merck makes ivermectin.
And I have to say, you know, ivermectin is not approved as a COVID treatment.
It's used for treating river blindness.
It is used to deworm horses, but the media lies to you when they call it horse dewormer.
Now, YouTube doesn't want people recommending this, okay?
And I'm not here to recommend anything.
I think you really should legitimately go talk to a trusted medical professional.
But the point is, when you talk about something that is widely available, when you talk about the studies, you could get in trouble.
There are many studies touting the effectiveness of Ivermectin.
There's several studies and overviews that are critical of these reports.
And there's studies saying it's inconclusive, so I'm not here to pass judgment on Ivermectin.
I don't know.
Genuinely, I don't.
I've heard the arguments from, you know, both sides.
I will say this.
Merck, the large pharmaceutical company that makes Ivermectin, recently has announced that they're producing their own COVID therapeutic, which they are submitting for emergency use authorization.
My only question there is, How many studies have been done on this one pill?
Well, according to the Reuters report that I was reading, I believe it was Reuters, there was one study suggesting that it could reduce hospitalizations by 50%.
Why then didn't Merck submit ivermectin for emergency use authorization?
I don't know.
I think that's... Look, you're not going to talk to a sane, rational person and show them those stories and have them conclude that they're going to trust a major capitalistic pharmaceutical endeavor.
Corporatistic, I should say.
Capitalism.
It's unfair to rope in the corrupt with free market enterprise, but it depends on your definition of capitalism.
These big companies, they want to make money, okay?
In this expose from James O'Keefe, you actually hear them say that they're running on COVID.
Look, he says, I work for an evil corporation.
Our organization is run on COVID money.
He said something like, we made $15 billion last year.
How many people there are being turned into millionaires and billionaires over this?
Because you have no choice.
That's the vaccine mandate.
It is part of the largest transfer of wealth from the working class into the hands of massive multinational corporations.
It wasn't just the lockdowns which killed the mom-and-pop shops and then forced people to go to Amazon or Walmart.
It's also now our tax dollars and mandates that individuals go and get this medical product from a big pharmaceutical company.
Now, listen.
I... I say it over and over again.
Man, I think vaccines are great.
And especially, really, you should read about mRNA technology because it's brilliant.
People always like to tout the founder, the creator of mRNA and his positions, and I'm like, yeah, the dude made an awesome thing.
I think it's fantastic.
I don't think they're unsafe.
I've certainly seen the stories.
Yes, adverse events do happen.
That's why VAERS exists in the first place, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
I know a lot of people say I repeat this, you know, in every segment I do, because not everybody watches every segment, so forgive me if you have heard this, but there are a lot of people that I believe Just generally distrust vaccines.
OK, well, I'm not an anti-vaxxer.
I don't think there's a grand conspiracy to, you know, like Utopia or Kingsman.
I don't see it.
I do think that Pfizer is like, we're going to get paid tonight, baby.
Yeah, people want to make money.
And so the company says, look, we've got the data.
The vaccines are safe and effective.
Their effectiveness is waning, according to this one story, so now they're recommending boosters.
There's a lot of money being made there, okay?
And so, while the vaccine may be effective for a certain amount of time, like six months, I think, perhaps, there's, okay, so then maybe you don't want to get COVID immunity, or maybe you don't want to get natural immunity, because it means getting COVID, which is scary, and yeah, people I've known, we've had people here get it, and it sounds scary.
So maybe you do want to get the vaccine, but I'll tell you this.
Even if it is good and recommended, you have to recognize that there are massive corporate interests in mandating this.
I oppose the mandates.
I think if you want to go to the doctor, the doctor could prescribe you a whole range of things you've never heard of, and you just trust your doctor.
See, that's another thing, too, I think people need to understand.
Look, You go to the doctor, and you're like, doctor, my butt hurts.
And the doctor says, here's Phanodendrozole.
And you're like, thanks, doc!
And you don't even know what it is.
So, some people do Google search and do research, and I think it's important that you actually look into the medications you're being prescribed.
Because, uh, sometimes, you can get something that you might be allergic to, you can get something that might, like, hey, maybe you engage in scuba diving.
And this medication says, do not scuba dive, you know, after taking this medication.
You really gotta know that stuff.
Also, a lot of it says don't drink alcohol.
You've really got to know that stuff if you want to be safe.
That's why I do recommend talking to doctors about counterindications, because at the very least, they're going to have the FDA inserts.
They're going to have information on potential side effects.
Not every doctor is a good doctor.
Not every plumber is a good plumber.
Check this out.
I'll read you some of this, but I want to talk about natural immunity, because I think, you know, we get the gist of what we're learning from the Veritas Expose, but here are some quotes.
Nick Carl, a scientist at Pfizer, says, when somebody is naturally immune, like they got COVID, they probably have more antibodies against the virus.
When you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus, so your antibodies are probably better at that point than the COVID vaccination.
Chris Kross said, you're protected for longer if you have natural COVID antibodies compared to the COVID vaccine.
I work for an evil corporation.
Our organization is run on COVID money.
Rahul Kandek, probably pronouncing it wrong, if you have COVID antibodies built up, you should be able to prove that you have those built up.
Now, Here's why I think this is important.
Learning this from actual Pfizer scientists, who work at the company, who are giving their candid opinions, I think is very important, because there is a, quote, fight over natural immunity and vaccine mandates.
Now, this article from Yahoo News, I think, actually does a really good job of explaining what's going on, but I do think that you need the Project Veritas story to understand That you have Pfizer scientists who disagree with the mainstream narrative, they're under threat of NDA, and they are outright telling people in private, yes, natural immunity is good.
Well, that should be a major argument, a major debate point when talking about natural immunity.
That being said, I want to stress that point.
Natural immunity means getting COVID.
Okay, I personally don't want to get COVID.
I can't speak for anybody else.
You live your life the way you want to live your life, and you make the choices for yourself.
I am liberty-minded, and I don't think the government should be stepping in and mandating any of this stuff.
But that being said, I'm not sure getting COVID is a good thing.
However, the point here is, if you did end up getting it, You should be able to cite natural immunity.
I certainly think so.
But you see where this argument leads us?
We're no longer talking about the mandates in general.
We're now saying, Bill de Blasio, you allow people to do antibody tests.
He'll go, aw, shucks.
Okay, I guess.
Show me your papers.
No, no, no, no mandates.
No mandates, okay?
That being said, when it comes to why people don't want to get the vaccine if they've already gotten it, regardless of mandates, I understand that point.
Take a look at this story from Yahoo News.
They say, among some of the arguments against the COVID-19 vaccine mandates is that immunity from a previous COVID infection should count as an alternative to vaccination.
The topic has received a lot of attention due to the NBA.
Last week, NBA player Jonathan Isaac said, you know, he wouldn't get the vaccine because of natural immunity.
The natural immunity argument has also emerged as a potential legal challenge to states and federally mandated vaccination policies.
In New York, a vaccine mandate for more than 650,000 hospital and nursing home workers has prompted a flurry of lawsuits across the state, brought by nurses and others who are seeking various exemptions, including one for people who have had COVID-19.
We don't do this for anything else.
Look, COVID is bad, but it's not the apocalypse.
The main issue, man, and this is really tough, I do not like the establishment authoritarian narrative.
I do not like the establishment authoritarians.
I do not like the mandates.
But COVID is a novel virus, which means it will rapidly spread through the population, which means even with, you know, I think it's .2 or .02, I don't know the percentage, you know, of the death rate.
I think it's like double the flu.
You will see a lot more death than the flu because people have varying degrees of immunity from two different strains of the flu.
The same was not true for COVID.
And also that being said, yeah, maybe lab leak, all that stuff.
I don't know.
The point is, two things can be true at once.
COVID is honestly kind of scary.
Wash your hands.
Take it seriously.
But that doesn't mean the government should have the authority to dictate over our lives and force us to undergo medical procedures.
Sorry.
I just will not accept that.
Now, when it comes to things that are substantially deadlier, I think everyone has their line, like airborne Ebola.
Yeah, or a zombie plague.
We'd probably lock ourselves in our basement.
COVID is bad.
And a lot of people are willing to take the risks, because risk percentage plays a role in how much people are willing to give up in terms of freedoms.
Here's what they say.
What does scientific evidence say about which offers better protection, natural immunity or vaccine immunity?
The answer, like most things, is complicated.
Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco, says the data available is mixed, with some studies pointing to natural immunity being as effective as some of the vaccines, and others suggesting the opposite.
When data is mixed, we say we have equipoise, and we keep on studying.
I have tremendous respect for that statement, honestly.
We keep on studying.
That's great.
Now, a lot of people don't trust Big Tech and Big Pharma, and they say, oh, science is bought and paid for.
The left has been saying that forever.
The left has been saying climate change science is bought and paid for.
So, I don't know.
That's why I weigh it all.
I don't just immediately assume every study is evil, corrupt.
I try to take a look at it, then I try and talk to some experts, get some varying opinions, and do my best.
It's nigh impossible, mind you, but you gotta, you gotta, you gotta, you know, research.
They say, the CDC, however, is recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for everyone who is eligible, regardless of whether they've been infected with the coronavirus.
Now, well, let me read this.
According to the CDC and health experts supporting the guidance, one reason is that research has not yet shown how long protection from the virus lasts after recovering from COVID-19.
In addition, the agency says one of its recent studies, which went through a rigorous multi-level clearance process, showed that vaccination offers higher protection than a previous coronavirus infection.
The peer-reviewed study of 246 Kentucky residents concluded, unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 were more than two times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again.
However, they go on to mention other studies.
Proponents of including natural immunity in the mandate's equation are also based on their argument on scientific data.
They point to certain studies over the past year that have shown that natural immunity offers significant protection against reinfection.
These include studies out of the Cleveland Clinic, Washington University, and Israel.
The Israel study, however, has been the one that's received the most attention.
According to the 778,658 person study, which is, let me just remind you, massively larger than 246
people, people who recovered from prior infection and remained unvaccinated were 27 times less
likely to experience symptomatic reinfection of the Delta variant when compared to those who had
not been infected and received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
Now, there's differences here.
One, this study was not peer-reviewed, which it means something, it does, but it still is a study.
And they're specifically referring to the mRNA Pfizer vaccine, whereas the other one was, I think, just in general vaccinated or not.
Look, I can't tell you what is right or what is wrong.
I do think it is good that Yahoo is just presenting the data and then saying, figure it out.
By all means, if you don't have a medical professional that you know and trust, then you've got a lot of problems because what happens if you get like, you know, I once was, I was skateboarding and I think I strained or damaged, what is it, the meniscus, the lateral meniscus?
It's been a long time.
The thing in my knee, some cartilage or joint in my knee was strained, so it was like swelling.
And so the doctor prescribed me some anti-inflammatory steroid or something.
I was like, okay doc, I have no idea what this is.
I have no idea.
Methylprednisolone or something?
I don't know.
It's been a long time.
Um, it's a skateboarding injury, and they were like, yeah, you don't want the swelling to get bad, so you want it to go down.
And what, should I have just trusted the doctor to give me the right thing?
Well, yeah, what am I supposed to do?
I don't know what this stuff is.
I googled it, I looked it up, this was a long time ago.
I was like, you know, 16 or 17 at the time.
But yeah, it resulted in swelling, my knee was, I fell on my knee skating, like...
I was trying to do a kickflip backside nosegrind and I slipped out, if you know what that is.
Anyway, I digress.
I say, okay doc, patch me up, send me on my way.
Now we have a lot of people who distrust the establishment to the point where they don't trust their own doctors anymore.
Do a good search, figure it out.
I can respect Yahoo News presenting the different information.
When we see a lot of people talk about the ivermectin studies, and they say it's good news, you know, and they recommend it.
I'm not going to recommend anything, okay?
It's not FDA approved for use in treating COVID, and there are questions about why that may be.
A lot of people are distrustful.
But I'll say it, I said it once, I'll say it again, just because I don't trust the neocon democratic establishment and their media apparatus, Doesn't mean I will just immediately trust what I hear from, say, Bret Weinstein or anybody else.
Now, I certainly trust Bret Weinstein, and I don't trust the media.
If Bret Weinstein told me to, like, you know, quick duck, I would.
If the mainstream media said it, I'd probably think about it for a second, and maybe even, you know, I don't know, look.
The point is, if someone gave me advice, and it was someone like Bret Weinstein, I'd be more inclined to take it than I would from the mainstream media.
But, that doesn't mean that on issues of medical stuff that I don't know about, I would blindly trust anybody.
In the end, I think we have to just, you know, make the decisions for ourselves, do our research, make sure we're using trusted sources.
And I don't mean trusted establishment sources like I use NewsGuard.
No, I mean like, look, there's a lot of bunk websites and creepy crackpot conspiracy websites.
You gotta be careful of the stuff.
I've got family members that send me these articles from freedompatriotpressadventure.info and I'm like, what is this?
You always gotta track down the root source.
I do trust mainstream media more than I trust those websites, but I certainly trust independent media way more than I trust independent media, and more importantly, I don't need to trust any of it when I can look to the source material myself.
And that's the important thing you have to do.
You can read these studies.
You can actually take a look.
And this can help you inform you when you're going to make these important decisions.
In the end, all of this is still pointing towards approved vaccine mandates, which I say are wrong.
I do think that what Project... This is one of the most important stories.
I mean, Project Veritas is hitting it out of the park consistently.
This is seriously important to understand.
First, I think we know the profit motive of big corporations.
To have employees at Pfizer saying this, I think is important.
But I do think you need to keep in mind, three people at Pfizer.
It's difficult.
I mean, that's three sources.
Normally in journalism, three sources saying a thing typically is enough to go to print.
Nowadays, they don't do that.
They say, an anonymous source told us X and we believe it.
What Veritas got here is weight on the scale.
Definitive, perfect, look man, these are trying times and things are hard to know, you know, it's hard to know what's true and it's hard to know who to trust.
But I'll tell you this, getting an inside view at Pfizer and their opinions, Wow.
That certainly does put some weight on the scales in this natural immunity debate.
As much as that is important and earth-shattering information, I just want to stress, do not lose sight of what's happening.
This is great work from Project Veritas, but we should not be saying the conversation is between this kind of vax mandate and that kind of vax mandate.
The conversation should be, you can talk to your doctor, And there should be no vax mandate because people shouldn't be forced to undergo a test or any kind of medical treatment unless their doctor is the one who advised them, they have informed consent, and they make the choice for themselves.
Because if they can mandate this, they can mandate anything.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
If you watched Bannon on the TimCast IRL podcast or saw me talk about it, you'll know that he said, when the parents find out what schools are doing to their kids, they will be rising up.
On his return appearance, he said, I didn't realize it was going to be this bad.
So things are escalating a whole lot.
And now we have Attorney General Merrick Garland saying authorities will target school board threats.
NBC News reporting, a national school board group asked the administration to help investigate and stop the increasing threats over policies, including mask mandates.
Don't threaten people.
Don't attack people.
Violence is not gonna help you in this one.
It's cannon fodder for the establishment, but there are some very serious conundrums and challenges, and I understand the frustration and the anger that parents have, but violence ain't gonna solve it.
Now, there is a big challenge when you see these protests, where parents were trying to vote out the school board, and the school board just says, nope, it doesn't count.
So you end up with these crackpot weirdos who are indoctrinating your kids and you can't get rid of them to get your school back.
Well, there is still an option.
Take your kids out of these schools.
Period.
I'm not going to mince words.
This is dramatic escalation.
You see, threats are wrong, and the authorities should be investigating threats, but is this really a matter for the Attorney General and the Feds and the FBI, the DOJ?
Something!
Something doesn't add up.
My stars and garters, my friends, it seems like this one has struck a chord.
The establishment is recoiling because parents are particularly unhappy with what's happening with their kids, to the point where they're going full federal authority on this one.
NBC News reports Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday directed federal authorities to hold strategy sessions the next 30 days with law enforcement to address the increasing threats targeting school board members, teachers, and other employees in the nation's public schools.
In a memorandum, Garland said, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools.
To address the rising problem, Garland said the FBI would work with U.S.
attorneys and federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal authorities in each district to develop strategies against the threats.
Wow!
Well, my friends, as I already stated, you shouldn't be threatening people or attacking people.
These are school board administrators.
You don't want to be like Antifa.
But I gotta say, harassment?
Okay, now hold on there a minute.
Intimidation?
What does that mean?
You see the slippery slope?
Now, it's one thing when I can say violence against administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.
Well, of course, that's wrong, and you shouldn't threaten people.
That's wrong, too.
But what is harassment?
Okay, well, you shouldn't harass people, but what is harassment?
Is this an issue where parents are going to school board meetings and saying, we will vote you out.
We will come for you.
We will not let you do this.
And they say, oh, that's a threat.
Yeah.
I don't see why the federal government is getting involved in this, other than the machine, the establishment, the cult, requires your children to be fed to the machine.
And this is why I take such issue with so many people who are like, I will sacrifice my values to feed my children.
Because the end result is you sacrificing your children.
Short-term gains, long-term losses.
I hope you guys realize that you will not comply your way out of tyranny.
There's a lot to be said for the tyranny.
You know, I thought about this.
Climate change, global warming, economic, ecological collapse.
And I think there are too many people.
And I thought, you know, something I asked Alex Jones on the show, you know, back in November, we've had him on since then, but I was like, what if they're right?
What if we're just, you know, yeast eating the sugars and farting, you know, ourselves to death?
That's what happens.
I mean, the yeast consumes all that can be consumed and then toxifies their environment.
And, you know, Jones said, I think about this.
It's a difficult question.
I mean, what if the elites are correct in that the planet is dying and everything they've tried, everything they've done to treat humans and people like good people just didn't work?
Telling people, hey, do this.
It doesn't work.
You know what?
That may be the case.
But what isn't the case is that we should live the way they want us to.
You know, I think about a future in which we actually solve the problems of climate change and all that stuff.
There's dead zones in the ocean.
There's, you know, colony collapse disorder.
There's a lot of bad things happening.
And then these elites come and they say, we want you to live the way we want you to live to make the world a better place.
And I say, but I see you not wearing masks.
I see you defying every order you made.
So why are you coming after our children with the lies?
They want to create a world where our children grow up with social credit scores, they own nothing, and they're happy, as it were.
It is a cultural revolution that will result in two distinct classes.
The nobility of permanent wealth, controlling the masses, and the masses of pure ignorance, just kept down.
Of course, there will be smart peasants who will probably rise up and reject this, but, you know, they'll have absolute surveillance control of the state, making it very difficult for anyone to do anything, let alone eat.
That's what's been happening.
I can't tell you how many leftists say, Tim, there are no vaccine mandates because you could always choose to leave.
And I'm like, okay, semantic argument, there are mandates, but yeah.
And I argue that to an extent.
The vaccine mandates are wrong because they're excising people from public accommodation and public facilities, utilities.
I also think people still have the choice to leave, that's true.
But that doesn't make the vaccine mandates okay, and that doesn't mean there are no vaccine mandates.
They're going to say, quote, While spirited debate about policy matters is protected
under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or
efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. Well, I
completely agree.
Look forward to you investigating Antifa, Merrick Garland.
The action is in response to an urgent request last week from the National School Boards Association.
The group, which represents school board members around the country, asked President Joe Biden for federal assistance to investigate and stop threats made over policies, including mask mandates, likening the vitriol to a form of domestic terrorism.
Are you kidding me?
We go through a year Of firebombs and rioting and smashed windows all across this country.
And they say that is just peaceful protests.
Yeah, I am not going to live the way these crackpot psychopaths want me to live.
Sorry, it ain't gonna happen.
I will not go quietly into the night.
The Association asked for the federal government to investigate cases where threats of violence could be handled as violations of federal laws protecting civil rights.
It also asked for the Justice Department, FBI, Homeland Security, and Secret Service to help monitor threat levels and assess risks to students, educators, board members, and school buildings.
The group's letter documented more than 20 instances of threats, harassment, disruption, and acts of intimidation in California, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio, and other states.
It cited the September arrest of an Illinois man for aggravated battery and disorderly conduct for allegedly striking a school official at a meeting.
In Michigan, a meeting was disrupted when a man performed a Nazi salute to protest masking.
of course, that was probably to say that the people enforcing it were Nazis.
We are coming after you.
A letter mailed to an Ohio school board member said, according to the group, you are forcing
them to wear a mask for no reason in this world other than control.
And for that, you will pay dearly.
It called the member a filthy traitor.
In making the announcement, Garland said the Justice Department would use its authority
and resources to discourage the threats and prosecute them when appropriate.
In the coming days, the department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.
It's about time you woke up and realized you are under occupation.
You are under occupation.
Antifa, with impunity, destroys you.
Concerned parents say, I don't want this, and they say, shut your mouth.
Or they will come for you.
You are under the occupation of an authoritarian cult that believes insane crackpot nonsense.
And they want you to follow the rules, undergo medical procedures, have your children be indoctrinated, or else.
Congratulations on how far your compliance has already got you.
I'm sure your children will have a very bright future thanks to the hard work you've put in.
Oh, but Tim, you don't have any kids.
Yeah, well, that's true.
I can still tell you this.
I ain't wrong when I say your kids will inherit dirt.
In fact, worse than dirt.
They'll inherit the gravel they will chew when they're working the gulags and being tortured.
School board members are largely unpaid volunteers, they say.
Parents and former educators who step forward to shape school policy.
Choose a superintendent and review the budget.
But they have been frightened at how their jobs have suddenly become a culture war battleground.
Yes.
Because in this country, people have shared history.
The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence.
And these school board members tend to be people who reject those things for the cult.
The cult that's occupying this country that doesn't believe in the Declaration, doesn't believe in the Constitution, doesn't believe in its own history.
That's why I say occupation.
When you have a nation and says, these are our heroes, and this is how our country was founded, and then a military force invades and says, no longer will you speak your own language, worship your own idols, or speak to your own heroes, we will tell you the founding of this country.
I saw a story on Reddit.
It was really interesting.
It's like a short film about this man in China.
And he wants to travel the world, so he takes a globe and he spins it.
And then he puts his finger down on Ireland.
And he decides he's going to go to Ireland.
And so he looks up the official language of Ireland, which is Gaelic.
And then he starts becoming fluent in Gaelic.
And finally, when he's completely fluent, he says, now I can travel to this country.
And then he travels to Ireland.
And he goes up to someone and starts speaking Gaelic.
And they don't speak Gaelic.
They speak English.
Because they were under occupation for, I think, hundreds of years.
I'm not an expert on Irish, you know, UK history or anything like that.
And there's still anger and animosity with Northern Ireland.
And you get my point.
They were told to forget their own language.
They were not allowed to speak.
They were not allowed to believe what they believed.
They were under complete occupation.
In today's day and age of fourth and fifth generational warfare, you cannot simply go out and do what they did and flog people and demand they stop speaking.
You have to censor people.
You have to control the institutions of information.
But you can't just take over.
You can't just send out a crier of the occupying force and say, this is the truth, because the people will say, I don't believe you.
You can, however, send occupational propagandists into media organizations to have them report what you want reported.
You can have the official government enforce what you want enforced.
Oh, the U.S.
is all too skilled at this with many other countries that they've done this to, and it's certainly happening here right now.
So what happens when Antifa goes around and destroys your life and your livelihood?
They will do nothing.
When a man in Kenosha was bludgeoned over the back of the head by Antifa and left bleeding on the ground, where was Merrick Garland?
Where was the mainstream media?
It is only thanks to the intrepid independent journalists and the Journalist's Daily Caller and the Riot Squad that we were able to actually see what had happened.
And when a young man, Kyle Rittenhouse, said, I'm going to defend my community, maybe misguided, maybe irresponsible, he was defending himself, and now he's on criminal trial.
Why?
Well, how dare you attack agents of the occupation?
When you are under occupation, you do as you're told.
Truth be told, not every part of this country is under occupation.
Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, West Virginia.
You can still get by in these places.
And I tell you this, the last place these far-left extremists, cult members, would want to protest would probably be West Virginia.
Because boy, they would not be too excited to see what happens when constitutional carry states say no.
It would be bad.
It would be really bad.
And we don't want that to happen.
In a statement, Chip Slavin, NSBA Interim Executive Director and CEO, praised the Justice Department's swift action and pointed to the detrimental impact the threats of violence and intimidation have had on the education system.
Over the last few weeks, school board members and other education leaders have received death threats and have been subjected to threats and harassment, both online and in person.
The department's action is a strong message to individuals with violent intent who are focused on causing chaos, disrupting our public schools, and driving wedges between school boards and their parents, students, and communities they serve.
Okay.
Well, it's really simple.
The parents should just dress up like Antifa, and wave Antifa flags, and say they're anti-fascist, and they believe that what these people are doing is authoritarian fascism.
Now, what's the media gonna say?
A bunch of people claiming to be Antifa showed up, but they're not really Antifa.
Well, if they're wearing the masks and flying the flag, I mean, maybe that's the big problem.
Maybe conservatives have been put off from just saying they are anti-fascist.
I know the roots of anti-fascist communism in Weimar Germany, but perhaps they should just say, look, we oppose fascism too, which includes you!
And then, when you have a large group of black bloc, and it's people who oppose violence, and some Antifa guy tries to get violence, they stop him.
Maybe the real thing you do is go to the school board meetings wearing masks and hoodies, and waving the Antifa flag and say, we oppose fascism.
Let them know you do, because I know you do.
And then what?
Antifa keeps disrupting our school board meetings.
Incredible.
Christopher Rufo tweeted this out.
He says, the letter follows the National School Board Association's request to classify protests as domestic terrorism.
This is the Office of the Attorney General.
In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment and intimidation.
So this, you know, we know.
The Department is steadfast in its commitment to protect all people in the U.S.
from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment, which we know is not true.
We know it's not true because of what's been going on in this country for the past year or longer.
Now, Antifa hasn't been as active as they were last year.
But we still saw a shootout in Portland.
Now, that man was arrested, so okay.
There is a line, apparently.
But the right?
You show up with a Gadsden flag and the media will scream bloody murder.
And the feds will come after you.
You burn down a pawn shop and execute a retired police captain.
Nothing.
Nothing.
From The Guardian, California school board official pleads for protection from protesting parents.
This was from a few days ago.
That's right.
The parents are snapping off.
We got this story.
Protester breaks glass door during Iredell Statesville school board meetings in North Carolina.
Not a fan of this stuff.
I don't like the destruction.
You have to be non-violent, persuasive, resourceful.
Certainly, there are moments in history where violence was warranted.
I mean, the U.S.
had to go into Nazi Germany because a line had been crossed.
Now, I certainly think that if we were witnessing people build concentration camps and round people up, and we knew what was going on, maybe then, yeah, you'd want to actually stop that.
The Civil War, for instance.
Violence was wrong.
It was extremely disturbing to see, and it was sad to hear that this, you know, this is part of our history, and it happened.
But the reality is, there was something truly morally repugnant to stand up against.
Today, however, there is that challenge of, while sometimes you have no choice but to physically stop someone from committing an atrocity, today you have such popular support That we're no longer dealing with physical conflict, we're dealing with passive persuasion and resourcefulness.
That's how you win.
Convincing people to join you.
From CNN, school board meeting cancelled as crowd protests mask mandate.
We have this story as well.
Pitt County School Board continues mask requirement despite protest.
This is why people are getting increasingly angry.
They're getting angry because even after their protests and demands, the school board doesn't care.
They won't change their policies.
They won't change their plans.
They completely ignore the protesters.
Well, and as they say, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
That's a scary thought.
We don't want that to be the case.
Of course, you're not going to hear about what's happening across this country against Joe Biden from the mainstream media.
Red State, however, says massive March chants F Joe Biden after NYC suspends thousands of unvaccinated school employees.
Let's make it simple.
A teacher that is willing to be respectful and accurate with your child to teach them American history also is much less likely to be vaccinated because Republicans are more like, there's an overlap, right?
It's not a direct correlation, it's an overlap.
The teachers who are being suspended, or fired, are most likely the ones who would be independently minded.
This really does remind me, in essence, of Captain America Winter Soldier.
The villains wanted to launch these massive helicarriers, flying aircraft carriers, and load them up with an algorithm that could track deviants.
People who are going against the grain, against the establishment, and instantly execute all of them.
Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that's what's happening, but you can see they're purging anybody who is ideologically opposed to what it is they're doing.
Those who are vaccine zealots are also likely critical race zealots because they just fall in line.
So, what can we do?
Well, take your kids out of these schools.
It's the first thing you can do, I guess.
You know, and honestly, I don't have all the answers.
I really don't.
There are challenges, you know, we try to understand what's happening, we try to figure out a good strategy, we want to be peaceful, we want people to be respectful, we want peace, we want civility.
But we're getting something different.
And so perhaps the end result will really just be some kind of... man.
Peaceful divorce?
National divorce?
Followed by major conflict?
You know, for a while I thought if there was some, you know, state declaring secession, I was talking about this even last week, I don't think the Feds could do anything.
But now I think what'll happen is if, say, New Hampshire declares, you know, we're seceding from the Union, You would end up with all the Democrats saying this is an illegal secession, you can't do it, demanding federal help.
The media would call them, you know, insurrectionists and say conspiracy theorists, insurrectionists have taken over the legislature and passed... They would probably claim it was voter fraud and all that stuff.
And then they would rally the rest of the country to federalize National Guard to go in and take the state over.
Now, that's a bold move to make.
I don't know if they could exactly do it, but I certainly think the U.S.
won't just let states say no.
However, there is the alternative of soft secession, like California saying federal law no longer applies to immigration, Texas saying federal law no longer applies to the weapons we manufacture in the state, And New York saying we're going to actually require passports for people to come here and you need your IDs.
So now you need an actual ID and medical card to be able to get any service in New York.
Meaning outsiders, you're gonna have a tough time of things.
The country is breaking apart.
And if it happens in one fell swoop, like in 1860, then maybe there will be a response.
But it's not happening that way.
It's just crumbling.
It is decaying.
The bonds are snapping, and people are at each other's throats.
Andrew Yang said on CNN that tensions in this country are at Civil War levels.
Wow!
CNN's saying it.
unidentified
I remember all those leftists were like, Tim's crazy for thinking there could be a civil war.
Take CNN's word for it when they say that, when they have guests saying that.
Anderson Cooper was talking about hyperpolarization and the escalation of this country, and Andrew Yang said, yeah, the anger in this country is at civil war levels.
So maybe, y'all need to be paying attention to that.
And maybe you should realize that you will not comply your way out of this.
What does that mean?
It means move to the country.
Move to New Hampshire.
Move to Florida.
Move to Texas.
Move to West Virginia.
Get a homestead.
Start preparing to take care of yourself.
Get off the grid.
All that stuff.
I'll tell you this.
If you've seen everything that I've talked about so far, the dramatic escalation, non-stop.
There was a shootout in Portland a couple weeks ago.
A proud boy got shot.
And you're like, this is where it stops, things will get better.
Alright, you're free to think whatever you want.
I'm not always right.
But I'll tell you this, when the trajectory is escalation, I don't see how it just stops here.
When you have, you know, Merrick Garland saying we're going to investigate harassment, people on the right are going to say no.
And it's going to cause a shock to the system that wakes up more people.
It's like a Chinese finger trap.
The more both sides are pulling, the tighter the trap is becoming, and if eventually they keep pulling, it's going to break.
