Reports Claim Putin IS DYING Escalating Danger, Biden BANS Russian Gas Amid Gas Price Crisis
Reports Claim Putin IS DYING Escalating Danger, Biden BANS Russian Gas Amid Gas Price Crisis. Biden previously shut down oil and gas leases in the US driving prices sky high.
The Democratic party establishment is hoping to convince you its Putin's fault gas is skyrocketing. While that will be true soon due to the conflict in Ukraine the prices were already going up previously.
As for Vladimir Putin's health, perhaps its all propaganda meant to confuse and demoralize Russians.
#Ukraine
#GasPrices
#Russia
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Several outlets claim that Vladimir Putin may be dying.
Intelligent sources working for the Pentagon say that his puffy face could be a sign of steroids, and that he may have terminal bowel cancer.
Or, it's all propaganda meant to demoralize the Russian side of the conflict.
We won't know for sure, but if he is dying, that makes him even more dangerous.
Our next story, Joe Biden has banned gas and oil imports from Russia, Shell will stop all Russian oil and gas imports, and gas costs have already reached an all-time record high and are expected to get worse.
In our last story, The Parental Rights and Education Bill passes in Florida.
Democrats falsely call it the Don't Say Gay Bill, but this may be one of the most infuriating stories because the bill is just about parents having a right to know what their kids are being taught.
Now, if you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Is Vladimir Putin dying, and with his last breaths, staging this war to preserve his legacy?
Maybe.
Or maybe it's all just propaganda.
In the past several days, there have been a series of stories claiming that Western intelligence suggests Putin is terminally ill.
That because of his somber look, he may be in constant pain with bowel cancer, or perhaps he has Parkinson's.
I'm not entirely sure I believe the propaganda.
We've been seeing tons of news about how Ukraine is winning, how Russia can't possibly win, how they're being slowed down, and then, abruptly, it's like Russia claims another city.
I don't know exactly what's happening, but there are many reports suggesting that Russia is winning.
The West is unwilling to engage directly in a confrontation with Russia because that would result in nuclear war.
And if it's true that Mad Vlad, this story, is true, and Vladimir Putin is either dying or crazy, That would be even worse for the West.
Because if Putin's got nothing to lose, he can take whatever he wants.
And maybe that's why he is acting erratically.
Or it could just be they're trying to demoralize Russian soldiers.
The truth is, while many are claiming that these Russian soldiers are regretting their actions and they were lied to, we're seeing endless propaganda of Russian soldiers who are like, they told us we were liberating Ukraine.
We also see that Vladimir Putin absolutely does have support.
Several high-profile individuals, models, artists, a gymnast, coming out now in support, seemingly, of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
There certainly are people who believe that Vladimir Putin is right.
The problem is, in the West, we get heavily censored.
They want to make sure the only information you see is that Ukraine is but an innocent victim and the West is not involved.
Well, the reality is, Ukraine's far from perfect.
Russia did invade Ukraine.
In my personal opinion, Russia is at fault.
But the West absolutely is working with Ukraine to get them to join NATO or the EU to join a Western bloc.
Russia doesn't like this.
And the West, the U.S., absolutely is interfering with Russia's energy operations, which they use to bolster their economy.
So, of course, Vladimir Putin is upset about this.
My view, ultimately, is that if Putin can't win in an influence conflict, that people in the West are telling people in Ukraine, join the EU.
It's better off for you.
If that works, that's too bad for Vladimir Putin.
I'll be the first to say that Joe Biden is crooked.
I think he was playing dirty deals with Burisma in Ukraine.
But invading Ukraine because they're not siding with you, I think, puts you in the wrong, absolutely.
But now we have another reason for concern.
Joe Biden today announced the banning of Russian oil and gas imports.
Now, we're already seeing the highest gas prices we have ever seen.
Wheat prices up 70 percent now with this latest ban.
Rest assured, my friends, it is going to get bad.
There's some speculation that gas will reach over $10 a gallon.
I know I did discuss this in a previous segment, if you watch all of my videos, but many of you haven't, so I think it's worth revisiting in the context of Joe Biden formally announcing he will be banning, or I'm sorry, that he did ban.
It's done.
No more imports of Russian fuel.
Oil or gas.
So it could get bad.
If it is true that Vladimir Putin really is dying, and it could just be propaganda, like I said, then we are dealing with a man who is unhinged and unleashed, and will take whatever he wants.
So I don't see the point in making the American people suffer if Western intelligence truly believes he's terminally ill.
Back off, let the guy move on, and then stop whatever his Russian forces are doing.
This is one of the reasons I don't believe the story.
If it really was true that Putin was dying, the U.S.
would just be like, we're chillin'.
We're going to keep doing our thing.
Bye-bye.
Do your thing.
Because how long does Putin really have?
And truth be told, Vladimir Putin is 69 years old.
He's already getting on in years.
The average life expectancy of an adult human male is what, like 72 years old?
So Putin's getting close.
Let's read this news and see what's going on with this story.
Before we do, however, head over to TimCast.com and become a member if you would like to support our work.
As a member, you are keeping all of our journalists employed so they can write these stories and bring you true facts.
As a member, you get access to exclusive segments on the TimCast IRL podcast, and you're generally just supporting all of our work, and we greatly appreciate it.
It's kind of a pay-what-you-will, right?
But don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's read this first story from The Daily Wire.
Mad Vlad.
Western intelligence suggests Putin is terminally ill.
Reports.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, 69, could be seriously ill, perhaps suffering from terminal cancer or some other malady, according to reports citing a former intelligence officer who now works for the Pentagon.
In other words, let me just come out right out and say, I think this is propaganda.
The unnamed source, oh I believe it now, is claiming that Putin is suffering from terminal bowel cancer, with his puffy face a sign he is enduring chemotherapy or on steroids, Yorkshire Live reported.
The source says this diagnosis could have encouraged him to be more aggressive and attack Ukraine, so he can leave a legacy knowing he is dying, the Daily Star reports.
He added that analysts have been studying Putin who think he has a terminal illness.
In the past.
We have seen him smile.
But in 2022, there are few pictures of him looking happy.
His look suggests he is in pain, and our people suggest his angry look is most likely as a result of him being in agony.
Our people are confident he is ill.
He is concerned about COVID as he keeps his staff at a distance.
Or, he could be concerned about it because he's 69 years old.
The Daily Star reported that retired British Royal Navy Admiral Chris Perry suggested Putin is a man in a hurry, adding that an alleged terminal illness could explain his invasion of Ukraine.
Quote.
He has been using these very long tables to interview people, Perry told the UK paper.
I think his immune system might be suppressed at the moment, so he is a man in a hurry, the star cited the Pentagon employee.
An ex-military intelligence officer now working at the Pentagon said analysts have been studying Putin and believe he is gravely ill.
In the past we have seen him smile, so we already know.
The Sun, another UK paper, weighed in with a piece headlined, Mad Vlad.
Five clues.
Bloated and unhinged, Putin could be seriously ill.
I gotta be honest, I don't believe it.
It sounds to me like they're trying to antagonize and insult Putin.
If Putin really does want legacy, let's assume Putin is not terminally ill, not suffering from cancer or Parkinson's disease.
He just wants to stand up and embolden the Russian Federation and bring back that Russian Empire.
The West coming up with stories saying they think he's terminally ill puts him in a weakened position.
It could be they want Russian soldiers to think they're fighting for a madman who's dying, so their morale drops and they can't fight.
Or they want Putin to know they will smear him historically and make him look like a weak, dying old man.
They say political scientist Valery Solovey has previously claimed Putin has cancer as well as symptoms of Parkinson's disease.
He claimed the Kremlin boss had emergency surgery in February 2020.
Speaking that year, Professor Solovey said of Putin's twin health traumas, one is of psycho-neurological nature, the other is a cancer problem.
If anyone is interested in the exact diagnosis, I'm not a doctor and I have no ethical right to reveal these problems.
Which says to me, they're just pushing a narrative.
The second diagnosis is a lot, lot more dangerous than the first named diagnosis, as Parkinson's does not threaten physical state, but just limits public appearances.
But there is a fatal diagnosis.
Based on this information, people will be able to make a conclusion about his life horizon, which wouldn't even require specialist medical education.
Or to put it simply, they looked at pictures and video and they speculated.
And from this, you will get this.
If you do a Google search for Putin Terminal, what do you get?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Basically, every single search result.
Talking about from all of these different sources, all of them news guard certified that Putin is dying from terminal cancer.
Now, of course, if you search for Putin, you don't necessarily get the same thing.
I searched for Putin terminal specifically.
What I'm trying to highlight here is that many outlets are relaying this message.
Why?
They want people to believe that Putin may be dying.
I don't know exactly if this is just sensationalism.
Of course, I made a thumbnail saying, Intel sources say that Putin is dying.
I don't know what else I would title it.
And we talk about Biden and gas.
I think it's certainly propaganda.
But it could be.
There's something called reputation management.
So I know, I've met people who work in this field.
What they do is they seed stories.
Let's say you are a celebrity and a story comes out where it's like you tripped and fell on the ground and you're embarrassed.
Reputation management firms will find a way to seed a different story to push those stories out of the limelight and make sure people don't see it.
What happens then is these companies will seed stories to journalists who work with them or in on the take.
Maybe they bribe them.
Maybe they just send out a press release.
But they do a series of tactics that results in tons of outlets repeating the exact same information in a very short amount of time.
Makes you wonder.
These outlets, take a look.
Scotsman, Nottingham Post, Langs.Live, ExaminerLive.co.uk, MSN, which is just relaying Yorkshire Live, Leeds-Live, RSVP-Live, Lincolnshire Live, Daily Star.
These are not the New York Times, this is not Mainstream, this is not even the Daily Mail.
These aren't necessarily very, very large UK outlets, but they are UK outlets, they are Newsguard certified.
It could be.
This is a propaganda tactic, ceding information to many outlets, which would just love to run the story that Putin may be dying because people will click it.
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 momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
But you know what, you know, I I have that question in my mind.
If I'm going to do a thumbnail saying Putin is dying because that's the story everyone's pushing, how do we address it?
The reality is, at the very least, you'll get my thoughts on this potentially being a psychological operation, propaganda, or clickbait.
You can criticize me, by all means, feel free to do so.
But I think if someone clicks this story because they've seen it, and then they get this, you know, this contrary narrative, I suppose it's a healthier view.
But this is everything you're getting.
Now, over the LA Times, we do have mainstream American sources writing something similar.
This story's back from February 28th, just over a week ago.
Ill, unhinged, or calculating?
Russia's Putin keeps everyone guessing.
I don't think so.
I mean, I have no reason to believe that he's dying.
He could be.
Anybody could be.
You wouldn't know, would you?
They say the Madman Theory is a long-standing political trope.
Redolent of Cold War era rivalries, the idea is to throw opponents off balance by making them believe you are so volatile, so hostile, and so irrational that there's simply no telling what you might do next.
Is he genuinely unbalanced, they ask?
Or just letting everyone think he is?
in Ukraine, world leaders and diplomats, intelligence analysts and Kremlin watchers
are all trying to decipher Russian President Vladimir Putin's mental state,
particularly in light of his latest nuclear saber rattling.
Is he genuinely unbalanced, they asked, or just letting everyone think he is,
or some combination of the two, or something else?
Some veteran observers are wary of drawing conclusions from afar.
Look, said Sam Green, director of the Russia Institute at King's College London,
the difficulty that I'm having analytically is that I don't know how I would be able to distinguish
between a Putin who is crazy and a Putin who just understands the world
in a very different way than I do.
But others who have kept a close eye on the 69-year-old Russian leader
during his more than two decades in power believe some fundamental personality shift has occurred.
Whether because of physical illness, drawn-out isolation prompted by the COVID pandemic, the insularity and sycophancy of Putin's inner circle, or a burning sense of historical insult coupled with aspirations of imperial grandeur.
In recent photos and footage, he even looks different, puffy-faced and sometimes seeming to move stiffly.
I personally think he's unhinged, James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence said Sunday.
Oh yeah, I trust that guy.
I worry about his acuity and balance.
The one thing that I think here does lend itself to the idea that Putin may be unhinged is that there was a kind of personality shift as of recent.
Seemingly, you look at some of these videos and he does seem to be behaving differently.
I don't know if that means anything, though.
And maybe it's just people seeing what they want to see.
Maybe he's not smiling or laughing anymore because he's planning on going to war.
He was on the World Economic Forum website.
Apparently, he got removed.
Maybe he was involved in something and decided not to be?
I think it's fair to say that Putin is taking a bold action in invading Ukraine, and it's resulting in severe economic damage to Russia, and Russia's going to have to rely on its allies, some of whom are backing away from him.
So it certainly seems like Putin is acting in a desperate fashion.
They say Putin's rambling, grievance-laced public statements, since the Ukraine crisis surged to the fore, have been deeply unsettling to a world audience.
On Sunday, he announced he was placing the country's nuclear deterrent forces on alert, railing against a Western campaign of punitive economic sanctions.
In other speeches, he has denounced Ukrainian leaders as drug abusers and fascists, all the while insisting that Ukraine, a sovereign nation for more than three decades, is not even a real country.
The Russians' perspective is that Ukraine is a part of Russia.
And I mean, truth be told, if you go back long enough, Kiev was the capital of Russia.
So interestingly, Russia seemingly lost Ukraine with the fall of the Cold War and Vladimir Putin wants it back.
Such behavior is notable in a leader who has long cultivated an international image as a cool-headed, cold-blooded calculator of cost and benefit, ruthless to be sure, but on some level rational in his pursuit of geopolitical goals.
My friends, are we going to really play this game and look at how Vladimir Putin is walking around and what he's saying and act like that means we know he's sick?
OK, let's play Hillary Clinton.
Ah, but the mainstream press said you can't do that.
Hillary Clinton's not sick.
You can't diagnose that.
And then she had pneumonia.
Let's talk about Donald Trump.
They said all these same things about Donald Trump.
I don't know.
I just think that enough of these stories have emerged to make it interesting in the Daily Wire's talking about it.
Let's assess whether or not Putin really is unhinged, because if he is, then we're playing a game of chicken against someone who has nothing to lose.
No, I mean seriously, think about it.
A game of chicken, both cars speeding towards each other, and whoever's scared and pulls out first loses.
But what if the other guy is dying?
And they're just like, eh, whatever.
Yeah, maybe you shouldn't play chicken with someone who can't lose.
Vladimir Putin may be cold and calculating, but he also may be sick.
I don't see any reason right now to believe these stories, to be completely honest.
And I hope you all take it with a grain of salt.
Something to consider.
The Hill reports, Vladimir Putin is desperate.
Okay.
I agree with that.
He's certainly being pressed out.
He's losing the influence campaign.
The West is gaining more and more control over Europe, and the Western bloc has been expanding, and Putin is being shut out.
He wanted to expand the Russian Trade Federation?
Too bad.
Ukraine didn't want to do it.
Regime change happened, whether it was the West or not.
Why couldn't Putin engage in the same tactics?
Seemingly didn't work for him.
He's losing.
So this is desperation.
The Daily Beast kinda steps it up, saying, Putin isn't just insane, it's far worse than that.
Glimpses into Putin's inner sanctum offer horrifying clues about the state of mind of the man with his finger on the nuclear button.
Yes, Putin is insane.
I don't think Putin is insane.
They say, is President Putin clinically insane?
Is he choreographing madness and threats of a nuclear holocaust to frighten the West?
Or does Putin know precisely what he's doing?
The questions are reasonable, but ultimately unanswerable.
There is a data point, however.
However, Russian and German scientists at Moscow's aptly named Research Institute of the Brain in 1925 sliced and diced 30,953 sections of Vladimir Lenin's Cytoarchitecture for indications of genius!
Amazing.
The result of that research remained a mystery, as does a solution to the enigma of whether the heir of Lenin's throne, Vladimir Putin, believes his own hype or is experiencing buyer's remorse over an invasion that caught the rest of Kremlin unawares.
Sadly, work has not yet begun dissecting Putin's cerebrum for clues.
Short of delving inside his mind, Fiona Hill, the former senior director for Europe and Russia on the U.S.
National Security Council during the Trump administration, did a splendid job of purifying Putin's sense and sensibility in a recent interview.
Putin is increasingly operating emotionally.
It's re-establishing dominance over what Russia sees as the Russian Imperium.
We're treading back through old historical patterns that we said we would never permit to happen again.
I don't much care for Fiona Hill's views because she was wrong about Donald Trump and working with Russia and Putin, etc.
But of course the narrative certainly exists.
Across the boar on the West, you will hear that Vladimir Putin is crazy.
Well, I want to show you this from Reddit.
Are you sure you want to view this community?
This community is quarantined!
Really?
Yes, it's r slash Russia.
I don't know why or when this community was quarantined, but what that means is the posts on the Russia subreddit no longer appear on the All section.
They no longer appear on the front page.
You have to seek out this page specifically to see what they have to say.
Why it would appear?
The people who are posting to the Russia subreddit are not breaking any rules.
But they're on the side of Russia, saying they're looking for Ukrainian fakes, manipulations, and propaganda.
They're saying, here's images of support, support of Russian army, in Novocherkassk, Rostov region.
And they show people posting ZV.
You can see it from above.
Perhaps there are a lot of people who do support Russia.
In this story, which I briefly showed earlier, Russian gymnasts investigated for wearing pro-invasion symbol on World Cup podium.
So which is it?
Are people all over Russia protesting and saying they don't support Russia and they don't support the war?
Or I should say they don't support Putin and they don't support the war?
Or could that be Western propaganda?
Strange, the children of these oligarchs who are posting no war They're on Instagram.
Instagram is a platform controlled by the West.
Now, truth be told, TikTok also shut down services in Russia, so there may be a lot of young people who are outright saying, I am unwilling to get behind Vladimir Putin because I'll lose my livelihood.
That's the power of propaganda and influence campaigns.
And maybe that's one of the things that triggers Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine.
It's not just that Ukraine is starting to join up or have sentiment in favor of the West, it's that Russian citizens are.
In this story, Ivan Kuliak, 20, received a bronze medal on March 5th for his performance on the parallel bars of the international competition held in Doha, Qatar.
During the ceremony, Kuliak wore a Z symbol made of tape while standing next to the Ukrainian gold medal winner on the podium.
The sports governing body, which is known by the abbreviation FIG, spoke out against the athlete's shocking behavior.
In a statement online, the FIG said on March 6th, it would ask the gymnasts ethics foundations
to carry out disciplinary actions against the artistic gymnasts.
Kuliak's political demonstration came the day after the FIG expanded the strict regulations
and acted against officials and athletes from Belarus and Russia.
The organization initially announced in February 26th that in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine,
flags from Russia or Belarus were prohibited from being displayed,
and that neither nation's national anthem could be played at any fig sanctioned events.
All fig events scheduled to take place the Allied Nations were canceled.
The organization asked the FIG Foundation for Solidarity to earmark aid for the Ukrainian Gymnastics Federation and its athletes impacted by the war.
As a sporting governing body, our first duty is to protect all our athletes, including to protect them from political pressure.
On March 4th, the FIG said it was necessary to increase the emergency measures following recommendations from the International Olympic Committee.
So what does this mean?
Here's one guy.
Certainly the idea that no one in Russia supports the war is wrong.
Certainly this young man who is fit and an athlete seems to support Russia.
I don't know what the Z means.
Maybe it has nothing to do with it.
Or maybe it shows that people really do support Russia in Russia.
Why wouldn't they?
How much you want to bet in Russia they're saying the opposite?
They're saying many people in the U.S.
are questioning NATO involvement.
Russia Today is constantly being shut down.
They ceased operations in the U.S.
People who worked at Russia Today are having their podcasts and their channels, their social media censored or suppressed.
One reporter is being labeled Russian state media even though they don't work for them anymore.
The propaganda is thick and it's creepy.
But I'll tell you what's not propaganda.
This update here.
Now, arguably, this is the bigger story, but I think we've heard quite a bit about gas prices going up.
But for those that haven't, Biden announces Russian oil import ban and warns gas prices could increase even more.
Well, gee, Joe Biden, maybe then you shouldn't have shut down oil and gas leases over the climate cost.
NPR reports, President Biden on Tuesday announced a ban on U.S.
imports of Russian oil and gas, the latest move to try and punish Moscow for invading Ukraine.
The U.S.
is targeting the main artery of Russia's economy.
That means Russian oil will no longer be acceptable at U.S.
ports, and the American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin's war machine.
It's arguably true.
The problem is, the U.S.
needs oil.
Russia has oil.
When the U.S.
does this, it means the cost of gas per person will go up.
Well, take it from our good friend George Takei, who said, consider it a the price of freedom to pay more for gas.
Amazing.
The American Democrat establishment elites are basically telling everyone, let them eat cake.
Pete Buttigieg said now twice, just buy an electric car because everybody knows y'all got 40 grand lying around to buy an electric car.
Everybody knows you can afford to finance your electric car and then install in your garage, assuming you have one, an electric car charger.
No.
It's complete and utter arrogance to assume that people can do this.
But Russia has oil.
And that means so long as other countries want oil, they can still buy it.
China may be able to grip Russia by the balls and say, look, you can't sell to the U.S.
anymore.
You have to sell to us.
We're going to give you a good price, but it's going to be a bad price relative to what you were selling it for previously.
At 130 bucks a barrel, China could be like, we'll do 100 bucks a barrel.
We'll get a big discount, but who are you going to sell to?
And Russia can simply just say, okay.
If that means, it means Russia will take a hit to a certain degree on selling oil, but the U.S.
won't have oil.
Russia is already taking a hit.
They seem to be ready to stand up and accept whatever's about to happen.
Take a look at this post from Tom Elliott.
Stephen Colbert.
Today, the average gas price in America hit an all-time record high of $4 a gallon.
Okay, that stings.
But a clean conscience is worth a buck or two.
It's important.
I'm willing to pay $4 a gallon.
Hell, I'll pay $15 a gallon because I drive a Tesla.
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 We do not live in a communist dictatorship planet.
Competition exists.
This means when the U.S.
All of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
We do not live in a communist dictatorship planet.
Competition exists.
This means when the US says, we're cutting you off, Russia, and you have a budding global
superpower, China.
China can say, ooh, competition.
And Russia can be like, the US?
We will just sell to China.
China will become stronger, get a cheaper deal.
Russia will be emboldened by this.
It's remarkable.
The ignorance.
But speaking of ignorance and the naivete and the elites, I want to show you this tweet.
This is from PetiteNikoko on Twitter.
Do people not understand that rising gas prices equals everything gets more expensive?
And she highlights this tweet from James Surowiecki.
Verified Twitter blue check who says, if you're an ordinary person and you're using 30 gallons of gas a week, something's wrong.
One person said, people live in the country and drive lots of miles.
It's a thing.
He responded, it's a thing for a very small percentage of the U.S.
population.
Wow.
These people vote.
James, please, my friend, let me help.
Most people may live in urban areas.
However, that includes many suburban areas.
While there is a large portion of the population of this country that takes public transport, you do realize that buses use gasoline as well.
And that means poor people who live in cities and don't drive will see the fare for public transport go up.
You do realize that when fossil fuels go up, Electricity goes up.
You do realize that people live in suburbs and commute to the city back and forth, maybe 15 to 20 miles a day, which means you're burning 40 gallons, 40, it means you're driving about 40 miles, which for many people could be about one and a half gallons per day.
You also have to go to the grocery store.
You also have to go pick up your kids from school.
You use a car.
Now, maybe 30 gallons of gas is a lot for an individual, But still, it's a bit absurd to think it's only a very small percentage of the population.
Not small, that live in rural areas that have to drive much more than that.
In the next tweet, someone said, You said something's wrong if you use 30 gallons,
yet truckers, contractors, farmers, ranchers, oil field workers, etc. use much more than that in a week.
That's not something being wrong. That's people providing you with the services so you can hang out in your city
worry-free.
To which this man responded, those people all drive for work. They're by definition not ordinary. They're unusual.
How about Ubers?
The people who are driving your Uber.
They're going to have to charge you more money, James.
When you live in a big city and you say, I don't use that much gas, do you take Ubers or Lyft?
You're gonna be like, why was it 50 bucks to drive one mile?
And the driver's gonna say, gas is at $7 a gallon, my friend.
It affects you.
You're gonna go to the grocery store and say, why is my McDonald's cheeseburger now 20 bucks?
And they're gonna say, the trucks that bring it in use diesel.
These people don't seem to get it.
They really don't understand how this is going to impact everyone.
I don't have a lot of faith in these people.
Take a look at this poll here.
Poll finds Republicans and Independents would stay and fight if America was invaded.
Democrats said they would flee.
Yeah, I'm not surprised by this.
Take a look.
68% of Republicans said they would stay and fight if the U.S.
was attacked.
57% of Independents said they would fight.
52% of Democrats said they would flee.
Are you surprised by any of that?
Democrats move into red areas that are nice, vote for things that gut and destroy them, and then when it gets bad, they say, I don't want to live here anymore, and they leave.
Great.
I think we need voter overhaul in this country.
I think it needs to be that you have to have certain ties to a community in order to vote in an area.
I don't think you should be allowed to just move a place and then vote.
That's how it used to be.
I certainly think in some ways voting should be easier, in some ways voting should be harder.
The left says, make voting as easy as possible, and I'm like, no!
Because then you move to my neighborhood, vote for a bunch of dumb stuff, and then leave.
Remember when Andrew Yang was like, I'm gonna move to Georgia so I can vote, and everyone's like, that's dirty.
Dirty tricks.
Rich people being like, I'll sponsor people to move into an area before an election so you can vote?
That's nuts!
And it should be illegal.
But take a look at this man.
I'm supposed to agree with people who would flee.
You know what?
36% of independents said they would flee.
25% of Republicans said they would flee.
And I gotta be honest, I fled.
I did.
I lived in New York.
It got bad.
I fled.
I lived in Jersey Side, Bayonne.
It was getting worse, so I fled.
I now live in a red area.
But from here, I will not flee.
So there is a fair point.
I wouldn't leave the country, but I can certainly understand that if you are in the minority and crazy cultists are taking over internally, leaving makes sense.
To put it simply, if someone came to me and said, I'm going to leave the United States because the United States itself has gone bad, I'd say, that I understand.
The Democrats say it all the time, I'm gonna move to Canada if Trump wins, and then no one did.
Why don't you move to Canada?
Come on.
Some of these people are already Canadian, claiming they were going to leave and go back to Canada, and they didn't do it.
Right.
If a foreign invader like China or someone stormed the beaches, I'd be like, how can I help get off our land?
Right?
This is our home.
If the government was taken over by a crackpot cabal, woke cultists, and they were oppressing people, and someone came to me and said, it's time to leave, I'd be like, I get it.
Because we've asked that question before.
At what point do you leave a country?
Like many people fled 100 years ago in Germany.
At a certain point, people said, it's time to leave.
When do you do that here in the United States?
I don't know.
I really, really don't.
Vast majority of Americans say, ban Russian oil.
Quinnipiac University poll finds, they say, a new Quinnipiac poll released on Monday found that if America was invaded, Republicans and Independents would stay and fight, but the majority of Democrats would flee.
And where would they go?
No wonder, no seriously, where would they go?
I don't think it matters where they would go.
I gotta be honest, I don't think most would flee.
I think most would just panic.
Many would flee.
We saw them flee from their big cities.
For now, I think we just need to make sure we as individuals remain resilient.
Putin may be dying, and if he is, expect things to get a whole lot crazier.
Maybe he's not dying and it's propaganda.
Okay, in which case, things might be a little bit more stable.
But then we can see the banning of gas, so any way you cut it, I think things are going to get, they're gonna get worse before they get better.
The funny thing is, I was talking a lot about Cold Civil War previously.
That hasn't stopped.
Seriously.
There's like crazy stories already and it's just, we're being slammed like an armed intruder at some base or something, I don't know.
I think it's entirely possible that the gas prices and food prices exacerbate internal conflict.
But now we're dealing with international war?
Man, I tell you.
I hope you're calm, I hope you're not panicking, I hope you're paying attention, and I hope for the best.
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 all then.
Shell has announced they will stop all Russian oil and gas purchases.
Gas is already at a record high, it's never been higher, and now wheat prices have surged 70%.
So you can expect, with this latest move from Shell, and the potential banning of Russian oil and gas, the costs of hard goods, they're going to skyrocket.
I'm not going to tell you what you should do with your money, because I don't know.
For all we know, tomorrow Vladimir Putin comes out crying on TV and says, I was wrong to invade!
My people need food!
Maybe.
Probably not.
So, I'll tell you what I'm doing.
I'm buying stuff.
It's kind of scary, right?
Inflation's already at near record highs.
Depending on which metrics you use, you could say it hasn't been this high since the 80s, or it hasn't been this high since World War II.
I think the World War II metric probably makes more sense, but far be it from me to claim one is better than the other.
I'm not an economist.
I can certainly say, though, I bought some silver recently, I bought some bitcoin, and we're doing this expansion here at TimCast, so I was like, just buy everything we need for our new studio, for the new space, now, before it's too late.
And we got lucky!
When we decided we were going to start building this new headquarters, our contract guy was like, let's buy everything now.
And I was like, yep.
Because we both pay attention to the news.
And we knew that lumber, steel, and all these goods are going to skyrocket.
If gas goes up, everything goes up with it.
I mean, for the most part.
So right now, we haven't banned the importing of Russian oil and gas.
You can still do it.
Some have criticized the U.S.
for buying oil and gas from Russia amid this war, because we're helping arm the Ukrainians, but then also giving money to Russia in exchange for oil, so it's kind of playing both sides.
Look, I'm not going to speak morally on what anyone should do.
Maybe it's the right move to ban oil and gas from Russia, maybe not, but I'll tell you this, your costs are going up, and I hope you are prepared for it.
Take a look at this.
Vladimir Putin, Russia's now warning of $300 oil, threatens to cut off European gas if West bans energy imports.
Man, sounds like exactly what the Great Reset folks always wanted.
Greta Thunberg is probably saying, how dare you, Putin, not do it sooner?
Because this is exactly what she wanted, right?
Greta Thunberg came out and she said, We don't want to wait until 2030 or 2023 or whatever.
We want it now!
Ban fossil fuels!
Because she doesn't know what she's talking about.
Because she's a child.
And I'm not surprised.
I don't blame her for being ignorant.
I blame the people who prop her up.
Oh, man.
You see, in France, there was this thing that happened a few years ago called the Yellow Jackets or the Yellow Vests protests.
Emmanuel Macron put a tax on gas to try and dissuade people from using it.
And what happened was, like, a year and a half of rioting.
Protesting, yes, but some rioting as well.
Because people were like, yo, we can't afford this.
Well, thanks to the war in Ukraine, it's gonna happen.
The cost of fuel is gonna skyrocket.
But don't worry, my friends, don't worry.
We need only look to our good friend, Pete Buttigieg.
Why, he says, you don't have to worry about gas prices if you buy an electric vehicle.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
I hope you can afford it.
I hope you can afford the, you know, $40,000 Tesla or whatever it is.
I'm sure there are cheaper electric cars, but they are fairly expensive.
Maybe you can get one used around 20 and you can finance it.
Sure.
And you'll have to because you won't be able to afford gas without getting a loan anyway.
That's the meme going around.
I just closed on a loan to get a full tank of gas.
You can go on Craigslist, you can go on, you know, whatever these, you know, car websites, and you can find a used vehicle for a grand or two.
And it won't be a nice car, but it'll get you from point A to point B. And this will allow you to keep working and functioning.
But, uh...
There are many activists, many climate change people types.
They don't want that.
They don't want you using fossil fuels.
They don't care how you do it.
So, of course, Pete Buttigieg comes out and says this.
The funny thing is, look, Mayor Pete is trending.
Just go back in time to November 29th.
Buttigieg said the exact same thing.
So let's take a look at what Russia's warning about, because here's where it gets big.
Shell is backing away, right, from buying Russian oil.
Maybe we don't need a ban.
Right now, there's some bipartisan, you know, I say bipartisan because it never really means anything, but there's people on the left and the right that are like, we shouldn't be buying oil from Russia.
Okay.
Maybe we stop.
What happens?
Let's talk about $300 for a barrel of crude.
You know what that's going to mean for you?
You could probably expect, let's do some basic math.
Let's say right now it's like 5 and we're looking at 120.
Let's say it's about 6.
I think $300 for a barrel is going to be like $12 a gallon.
You got a small little sedan or hatchback or something.
13-gallon tank, tiny little car?
You're talking 100 to 150 bucks to fill up the tank.
What is that?
Man, that's gonna be brutal.
Y'all are gonna want to downsize.
My first car was a Mazda 323 hatchback, and it got like 40 or 50 miles to the gallon, some ridiculous number.
I don't know, something like that.
Because it was a tiny little hunk of junk.
And maybe it was funny trying to cram people in it and I could barely sit in it, but hey man, that's what you're gonna be driving.
Or actually, you probably won't be driving anything.
Russia warns of $300 for a barrel.
CNBC reports, quote, It is absolutely clear that a rejection of Russian oil would lead to catastrophic consequences for the global market.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said Monday in his address on state television.
The surge in prices would be unpredictable.
It would be $300 per barrel, if not more.
Novak also cited Germany's decision last month to halt the certification of the highly contentious Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, saying, We have every right to take a matching decision and impose an embargo on gas pumping through the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline.
So far, we are not taking such a decision.
But European politicians, with their statements and accusations against Russia, push us towards that.
Let me break it down for you.
With all these companies around the world shutting off services to Russia, Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and PayPal all shutting off gas to Russia, shutting off services to Russia.
Russia can simply say, okay, how about if we're already having our economy crippled, we cripple yours back, and we shut off our gas into Germany, Nord Stream 1, we shut off our natural gas through Ukraine with Gazprom, and you know what?
We keep it for ourselves, because right now it's being reported that gas is like two bucks a gallon over in Russia, because they got gas to spare.
If they're exporting, and they have all of this fuel, they're going to use it.
They'll use it for themselves, which will make Russian-made goods for Russians cheaper.
And if they start negotiating trade deals with China, and China agrees, then Chinese-made goods are going to be going into Russia.
People in Russia will enjoy cheap gas, cheap heating, cheap products, and in the United States, it's going to be $10 a gallon for you.
And if it hits that, How much it's gonna cost for any other good that has to be transported.
You think wheat is expensive now?
Wait until transporting it costs twice as much.
That's the crazy thing.
All your cereals.
Except for your corn cereals, I guess.
We're gonna, what, stop making wheat and start making more corn?
We already make tons of corn here in the U.S.
But that's what, that's what'll happen.
Anything derivative with wheat in it.
Any gluten products.
Oh man, the vegans are going to lose it.
Because you're satanic.
Sorry.
With the price of wheat surging, you want to get wheat gluten for your food?
It's going to be tough.
It's going to be tough.
His comments come with Russia's onslaught of Ukraine, as we understand, into its second week.
The UN has said 1.7 million refugees have left Ukraine since Russia's invasion.
Now, I'm not here in any way to defend what Russia is doing.
I'm not a fan.
A lot of people do point out there is the Azov Battalion.
Many of these people are Nazis.
You do have very serious issues.
You have the regime change in 2014.
You have a conflict between the U.S.
and Russia.
Hey, I'll tell you this.
I don't trust the Biden administration.
Under Donald Trump, we weren't having these problems.
So I can tell you, it's not a problem of the United States.
No, the United States is actually pretty awesome.
The problem is the corrupt regime.
I like how people call it the Biden regime, because they called it the Trump regime.
It's just like, sure, whatever.
Joe Biden's the problem.
The Democratic establishment, the neolibs, and the neocons are the problem.
They want war, they want conquest, they want this fight, and it makes everyone suffer.
The World Economic Forum Davos Group types, the people who want the Great Reset, these elites who think they know better for you are the problem.
Because I assure you, I have heard the arguments of decentralization vs. centralization.
There are people, many of these elites, who believe, without the guiding hand of better men, humanity is doomed to fail.
The great filter, as it were.
One of the solutions to Fermi's paradox, the idea that intelligent life at some point wipes itself out.
Now perhaps, we on this planet are but yeast, consuming and farting ourselves to death.
It's a scary thought to be completely honest.
The idea that humans would just keep consuming fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere until the biome collapses and then humans along with it.
I certainly would not want that to happen.
So let's think about this idea then.
These better men of the World Economic Forum, the Great Reset, people like Greta Thunberg think they're smarter than you and they know better.
And so they must be in charge to prevent the destruction of humanity.
But they're wrong.
They are just simple humans who can only see one thing.
They think they're smarter than you.
I don't know what we need to do to make it past such a great filter.
I don't know if we can.
I don't know if we can't.
I don't even know if there actually exists one.
I do know that a network of a million computers is equally if not more powerful than a supercomputer.
And I think it's fair to say the combined computing power of all of the computers on the planet absolutely supersedes the power of all of the supercomputers on this planet.
Building a supercomputer is very difficult.
And even if a supercomputer is capable of calculating to a great deal more than your average home computer, there's just substantially more home computers.
Think about that in terms of governance.
You have billions of people on this planet.
The decentralized network of individuals all seeing, thinking, and struggling and striving to solve these problems.
It is substantially better for us than individuals going, I think the world should be the way I want it to be.
Greta Thunberg is too young to understand anything about the world.
So she would kill millions of people.
Herein lies the challenge.
If you have to kill tens of millions of people in order to save the planet, what's the point of being alive on this planet as humans if we are destroying ourselves?
Now that's a good question.
Because it can go in either direction.
The climate change people can ask the same question.
The decentralization people can ask the same question.
The end result is decentralization tends to be the better solution.
Don't get me wrong.
I believe even with decentralization, you need strong nodes.
That is to say, we don't want a completely flat system that appears like TV static of people doing random things.
You do want pockets of influence and merit, as it were, proposing solutions and challenging questions, and then having those solved by the greater network of individuals.
We don't have that, though.
We have a bunch of global elites who think they're smarter than you, and they know it!
So you gotta live the way they want you to live.
Well, I'm not confident that single powerful entities guiding, you know, the direction of this planet is the appropriate way to solve problems.
Now, I'm not saying that there is a grand conspiracy cabal of, you know, evil villains or going, yeah, haha.
I'm saying that you have this consolidation of power, this centralization of power that happens naturally over time, and these wealthy elites think they're smarter than you and wield that power in a very centralized fashion.
This is why we have antitrust laws.
I think it's very, very important.
I gotta get to the important points.
And this one's right here for all of you.
It's Biden's fault.
Let me show you this.
Gas prices reach all-time high.
The potential ban on Russian oil imports may see gas prices continue to surge.
And they will tell you it's Putin's fault.
No, it's not.
Biden halts oil and gas leases amid legal fight on climate cost.
Excuse me?
Gas is at an all time high.
And Joe Biden on February 22nd shut down oil and gas leases.
Now, of course, I can see these sophists saying, it's actually Vladimir Putin.
You see the issue?
No, shut up.
Joe Biden shut down Keystone.
What this did was it sent signals to investors that supply would not meet demand.
Demand would be going up, but supply would not be there because Keystone was shut down.
Joe Biden banned fracking on federal lands.
Now, I don't know if fracking is good or bad.
Certainly, there are many proponents of it.
The point is, this does result in an increase in prices.
Banning new fracking?
Yes, because supply will not meet demand.
Then, Joe Biden in February, just a couple weeks ago, halted oil and gas leases over a legal fight on climate costs.
Take a look at this.
The Biden administration is delaying decisions on new oil and gas drilling on federal land and other energy-related actions after a federal court blocked the way officials were calculating the real-world cost of climate change.
The administration said in a legal filing on a February 11th ruling, "...will affect dozens of rules by at least four federal agencies.
Among the immediate effects is an indefinite delay in planned oil and gas lease sales on public lands in half a dozen states in the West, including Wyoming, Montana, and Utah."
I'm not going to pretend that Biden is the single factor in this.
There are elements of the federal government that are all playing a role.
I'm not saying that it was the wrong decision to halt oil and gas.
I don't know.
I can just tell you this.
Gas prices have reached an all-time high because of policies of Joe Biden's administration and, you know, it appears federal courts in the executive branch.
When they come out and say it's Russia's fault, they're doing two things.
They're passing the buck onto someone else because they don't want to take responsibility for what they did.
And they're trying to encourage war.
No.
It's not Russia's fault.
It may be Russia's fault soon.
Well...
In the future, in the near future, if gas prices skyrocket after a banning of Russian oil and gas, well, we can blame Russia to a certain degree.
Russia wanted to invade Ukraine, kicking off this major conflict, and now Shell is saying they're backing away from Russia, not going to be buying oil and gas.
The prices aren't going to stop here, my friends.
The price of gas is going to be higher than you've ever seen.
Well, gas right now is higher than you've ever seen.
That's true.
Gas will get higher than you could possibly imagine.
I recently, I purchased, um, we bought, we've bought like copper wire.
We do, look, um, I don't wanna, you gotta understand this about prepping and preparation and things like that.
We're a business here.
We build stuff.
We have components, we have, um, we need replacement parts, we've got 3D printers, we do a lot of tinkering and experimentation, and, um, That means we need components more than the average person.
So, we've bought, like, copper wire.
We bought screws and bolts and things like that.
Just general, basic building materials and things.
And emergency food.
We have a lot of emergency food.
We have a bunch of these 30-day emergency food buckets.
And when people come out, I show them like, you know, like, here's some of our emergency food, and people are like, wow, look how much you have, and I'm like, we have 30 employees.
One bucket for us is a single day for our staff.
All right?
Actually, I'm sorry, two buckets make up 30 days, so each bucket is 15 days.
And I'm like, this, these two buckets right here, it's one day for our staff.
Now, hold on, not every single one of our staff members works here, so it's basically like, For every 30-day emergency food kit we have, we're talking like a day and a half to two days of food for the people who are here working, in the event there is a major disruption.
Which means we probably only have a couple weeks worth of emergency supplies.
Which means for an individual, there's a ton, a big stack of buckets, but I'm like, dude, we run a company.
We not only have guests, but we also have, you know, we have a lot to consider.
Trade, neighbors.
We've bought a lot of emergency supplies, not because I think the apocalypse is coming.
I do think we're going to see a major period of strife as per the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
Perhaps this is the fourth turning and things will get worse.
The reason I personally purchased a large quantity of emergency food, and we also have things like beans, rice in these 30-year buckets, the reason I bought these is not because the apocalypse is coming.
I bought them because inflation is coming, and I was right to do so.
I told this story before.
I went on Amazon.
We needed a tablet for... We needed tablets for forms people have to sign when they come here, just like appearance waivers and liability, things like that.
Because we have a skate park.
We have a skate park in the house, which means anybody who comes here has to sign a park liability waiver.
It's just how they make you do things.
So even though not everybody's gonna skate, we have to do it.
So we had to buy a tablet.
I went on Amazon and I put one in the cart.
And I forgot to buy it.
The next day I came in and I opened up Amazon it said price change alert and had gone up like a hundred and thirty bucks or something like that.
And I was like if I had just clicked buy yesterday I would have saved a hundred or some odd dollars.
That's insane.
So a while back when we saw the food shortages under COVID, I was like, inflation is coming.
We knew that they were printing money like crazy and pumping money like crazy into the system.
So I said, okay, I'm gonna buy a bunch of these food buckets.
Not because I think I'm gonna be huddled in the backyard with blankets on and a warm fire as we're trying to boil water from the river.
No.
It's because In a month or two, this $50 bucket is gonna be $100.
Because of inflation.
Because of shortages.
Because of massive demand.
So I said, you know what?
I'm gonna buy it now.
And then it lasts 25 years.
I'm not gonna... I'm gonna forget about it.
We got a bunch of these bean buckets.
30 years!
It lasts 30 years.
So I was like, okay.
Well, I'd rather not be sitting on U.S.
dollars.
I'm not telling you what to do.
This is my personal opinion.
I would rather not have U.S.
dollars.
I want to make sure we can spend it.
Considering the inflation, people have been saying just buy what you can as fast as you can and don't sit on the money.
And the scary thing is that makes inflation worse.
Just buying things because you want to get them faster.
And that makes inflation worse, and that's scary.
But who wants to be the one holding the hot potato?
So I figured, if there is the prospect of major shortages, we can use food.
It's not just speculation of inflation or anything like that.
It's like, we wanted it, better to buy it now.
Right now, we're building two new studios.
We have our mobile RV studio, which we're building out, and we have our...
We have our new production facility, which is going to be an expanded facility, so we can do more work and things like that.
So we got to buy cameras.
I'm just like, buy everything we need for it now.
Because you sit on these U.S.
dollars, and I should say, I'm worried that if I sit on these dollars, if inflation really is in the double digits, 15%, I'm losing 15% of my buying power, what, every year?
That's scary.
That means all the hard work you're putting is being stripped away?
I don't know, man.
I bought some silver, I bought some bitcoin.
I'm buying any kind of hardware I possibly can that we need.
Instead of waiting and sitting around, I'm buying it now and we're getting the job done.
It's kind of good in a sense because it's letting a fire under us to get the things we need.
Often, projects get delayed because it's like, Tim has to be the one to approve and sign off on these purchases and then I'm too busy and I don't do it.
Now I got a fire under me and I'm like, we better do this now!
I am worried about where things are going.
We're hearing this.
Take a look at this story.
Nickel surge raised the input cost for an electric vehicle by $1,000, Morgan Stanley estimates.
Nickel.
Yeah, like nickel.
It's a pro article or whatever, but the price of nickel is surging this week because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
So Pete Buttigieg and all these people can come out and be like, oh, you know, buy an electric car.
Yeah, it's $1,000 more expensive.
How long does it take you to make $1,000?
And now they're saying just buy an electric car?
Well, They just tacked on more.
And if you're somebody who's only making like 20 bucks an hour, what is that gonna cost you with taxes?
Is it gonna take you a month or two months to try and save up?
Longer, probably.
You've got bills to pay.
What about your health care?
You can't just get rid of your car.
Uh-oh, gas prices are through the roof.
Good luck, they say.
This is crazy.
I'm not gonna sit here and pretend.
Pete Buttigieg is at fault for this.
He's just some idiot who's telling you just buy an electric car and just let them eat cake.
Sure.
I don't blame him for the cost increase.
But I certainly think our leadership is mismanaging everything.
And I certainly think there are elements of this climate change, Great Reset bunch, World Economic Forum people, who are happy this is happening.
Because like they said, you will own nothing and you will be happy.
And you know what?
Food is included in that owning nothing.
Surge in wheat prices expected to seed more suffering.
Take a look at this.
We are looking at 2008 Great Recession crash levels.
If you are old enough to remember what that was like, tell the younger folks.
I remember when the 2008 crash happened, and that would've put me in my early 20s.
I went to go apply for a job as a dishwasher, and there was a guy wearing a suit with a briefcase handing in his resume.
And it was like a $7 or $8 an hour job or something.
Maybe it was like $9, I can't remember what the minimum wage was.
And I was like, okay.
Truth be told, I probably would've gotten the job over that 30-something-year-old dude in a suit, because the diner's gonna be like, If we hire this 30-year-old dude in a suit, he's gonna take another job the moment one opens up.
This younger guy who just wants to wash dishes will probably just take and work here for a while.
Ultimately, I didn't take it, though.
I just walked away.
I was like, I don't want to play this game.
Whatever, man.
And when I played guitar in the subway, and I actually made like 30 bucks an hour on average.
When I would play guitar outside of Wrigley Field, it was like 100 to 200 bucks an hour.
No joke?
But you could only play for like the hour before and after the game ends.
So I was making like 300-400 bucks per game.
A lot of money.
It's easier, it sounds better, you know, easier said than done.
It wasn't like we could go out every single time and make that, but for like one day's work, and then, you know, we'd wait for a while, there wasn't always a game or something like that, we weren't always able to do it, and truth be told, it doesn't always play out that well, like when, you know, it was the Cubs stadium, but I ended up doing fairly well, able to pay my rent and make a living just playing guitar.
And I suppose for me back then, the bigger issue was I wouldn't go out for every game.
I'd go out and be like, whoa, I made like two, three hundred bucks.
I don't got to work this week!
And then I'd go hang out with my friends or go skating or something.
I'd have my rent paid.
But that was way better than, you know, working as a dishwasher.
Playing in the subway, you'd make like seven to twelve bucks an hour.
Playing top 40s, you know, like CCR and stuff, I would make like 15 to 20 bucks an hour.
So it was, but you can only really play for like two or three hours because you can't just sing and play non-stop all day every day.
So it was just a, you know, worked out for me.
Is that where we're gonna go though?
The direction we're gonna be in?
When the price of wheat skyrockets, here's the bigger issue.
You're going to have people unable to... I'll tell you this.
We already get messages from people saying, falling on hard times, can't afford to be members at TimCast.com.
We get it, man.
You know, do your thing.
I know that our company is doing well, but in the event that all of this keeps getting worse, what's going to happen is people stop buying ads, our revenue goes down.
People can't afford to be members, our revenue goes down.
So I think we were hit really, really hard when the pandemic started.
Our revenue was slashed by like 70% or something like that, I think.
It's been a long time.
And I was like, okay, this month is gonna get rough for us.
But we didn't have that many employees.
If the same thing happened today, we would be dipping into our coffers to make sure we can keep everyone employed and hope that we can weather the storm.
I hope that doesn't happen, but I certainly understand.
You guys got to take care of yourselves first and foremost.
Make sure you're doing right by your family.
Take care of your friends and family first before you worry about other things, because survival for you is important.
But I will say to everybody who is able to and has maintained their memberships at TimCast, allowing us to run this business, you're appreciated more than you know.
I think that when it hits the fan, you must prioritize your food over Podcasts and media content.
I understand a lot of people say to me, you know, truth-telling and media and breaking through this, like explaining these things is very, very important to make sure people can have an opportunity to stand up and fight back and understand what the world is going through.
I agree.
Media, journalism, reporting.
When you're a member at TimCast.com, you're funding our journalists who are reporting the news.
It's not just about the work I'm doing because, you know, I'm on YouTube, right?
But TimCast.com, the money that goes there is funding these reporters, and we're working to expand every day.
If you can't, take care of yourself.
It's more important.
But I do believe the work we do is important to make sure you understand why it's happening so you can vote properly and make sure we strive for better futures.
I'll leave it there.
I wish you all the best.
I hope you're paying attention to this stuff.
I hope you've taken care of yourselves, your friends, and your family, and you're prepared for what's to come.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I'll see you all then.
Republicans in Florida have successfully passed the Parental Rights and Education Bill.
It's a bill that makes sure parents have the right to know what is being taught to their children, and makes sure that parents can object or file complaints if things are being taught to their children that they don't like.
Somehow, this bill, the Parental Rights and Education Bill, I'm not a fan of names, by the way, and you can call a bill whatever you want, but the bill is specifically about this.
Somehow, Democrats have started claiming in the press that it's the Don't Say Gay Bill, even though the bill has very little to do with any of that.
So that's what it is.
Don't say gay.
That's what the Democrats are calling it.
Now, I've criticized them and said, if you want to play games and give it a name, how about we call it the anti-grooming bill?
But how about you actually just read the bill and see it has very little to do with discussing sexual identity or orientation?
In fact, the bill does not ban teachers from discussing sexual orientation with children.
Hey, wait a minute!
They said don't say gay!
They produced video after video after video of them saying gay gay gay gay gay all of the time!
The bill doesn't prevent teachers or staff from discussing these things.
The bill doesn't prevent students from discussing these things.
The bill prevents teachers from engaging in certain curriculum within the school and grants the rights to parents to know what is being taught.
The first provisions are specifically about parental rights to know.
That's it.
Yet even now, the Washington Post says, don't say gay bill, and they omit what the bill is actually about.
Washington Post reports, Florida legislature passes bill to restrict LGBTQ topics in elementary schools.
The Florida Senate on Tuesday passed controversial legislation that regulates lessons about sexual orientation and gender identity in public classrooms, despite concerns from activists and student groups that argued the bill would have a chilling impact on gay, lesbian, and transgender students that are eight years old or younger?
The DeSantis administration has been a bit more firm.
Christina Pashaw, the spokesperson for DeSantis, said that if you oppose this bill, you're a groomer.
If you're going to four-year-olds and discussing with them things that they don't know, you are grooming them.
Children have a right to be children.
It is incumbent upon parents to discuss sex ed with their kids.
I have no problem with sex ed in schools at a certain age, but it's up to parents to decide, which is exactly what this bill is.
Why are Democrats embracing some kind of opposition to this bill in ridiculous ways?
I'll tell you.
First, I think there absolutely are groomers who want schools to groom children.
They want to groom your kids.
This means they are setting them up to have some kind of behavior.
They want your children to be exposed to certain adult materials and content.
Okay, I think that's wrong.
Now, I think many of the other Democrats are simply just going along with it because that's what they do.
Because when you're not a person of principle, and you're told, we always support the LGBTQ community.
You will always support it, no matter what is presented in front of you.
Now, I actually did fundraising on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign for gay rights.
I'm very much in favor of gay marriage and these rights.
And I have no problem saying, yeah, if you don't want eight-year-olds learning about this stuff, I have no problem with it.
But when they come out and they say, this is about Republicans attacking the LGBTQ community, I'm like, no, it isn't.
It literally isn't.
Read the bill.
This is what's important.
The legislation, which Florida Democrats and LGBTQ activists refer to as the Don't Say Gay Bill, now advances to DeSantis.
In recent days, DeSantis has indicated he will likely sign the legislation, saying it is designed to shield Florida's youngest students from exposure to sensitive topics in the classroom.
We are going to make sure parents are able to send their kid to kindergarten without having some of this stuff injected into some of their school curriculum, DeSantis said at a news conference on Monday.
Let me show you the manipulation.
I'll tell you this.
You want to argue this bill?
Fine, I don't care.
You want to say the bill is bad?
Fine, I don't care.
Okay?
If you don't like the bill, present your argument.
What I don't like is the manipulation and the lying.
From these scumbag Democrats, they just lie non-stop.
It's infuriating.
Here's the actual bill from the Florida House of Representatives.
It is the Parental Rights and Education Bill.
It requires the district school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law for notifying students' parent of specified information.
Okay, I see nothing wrong with that.
Next.
Requires such procedures to reinforce fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding upbringing and control of their children.
Okay, that sounds like a good thing.
I mean, the parents should have a right to choose for their children.
I see no issue there either.
from adopting procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel
from notifying parents about specified information or that encourage students to withhold from
parents such information.
I see no issue there either.
What's the problem?
I see no issue.
Parents should have a right to know what is going on.
Schools should not be allowed to withhold information about the kids from their parents.
Parents are the taxpayers who are funding these schools.
Many people, even people without kids, are funding these schools, and we have a right to know what you are spending our money on.
It's called transparency, and it's called our money funding your systems.
But wait, there's more.
Prohibit school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification and involvement in critical decisions affecting students' mental, emotional, or physical well-being.
That is fantastic!
Prohibit school from discouraging?
So if you've got a kid who's depressed, the teacher can say, don't tell your parents?
No, sorry.
You see what they're doing?
They want to groom your kids.
Think about it.
Let me read more.
Prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels.
Requires school districts to notify parents of health care services.
Authorizes parents to bring action against school district to obtain declaratory judgment.
Provides for additional award of injunctive relief, damages and reasonable attorney fees, and court costs to certain parents.
Oh, only one small portion of this, maybe a sixth, maybe less, seventh, includes anything about identity, and it only is for certain grade levels, and it only covers curriculum.
It doesn't prohibit the teachers from discussing this with their kids.
Oh, hold on.
But it says prohibits classroom discussions.
That's right.
Classroom discussions where the teacher is talking to all of the students about sex ed.
I don't care.
That's the parent.
If you're a parent of these kids, you decide if you want to talk to your kids about this.
Why are Democrats so hell-bent on having parents not know what their kids are being told?
Hell-bent on making sure schools can discourage children from talking to their own parents?
And hell-bent on making sure kindergartners are being taught things about identity, orientation, and general sex?
Parents should be the ones to decide.
Period.
It requires school boards to adopt a procedure to comport with provisions of law notifying parents of specified information.
Okay.
Now, here's what really sickens me.
This bill is not anti-LGBTQ.
It's not.
Think about it this way.
If there is a kid who is depressed because, I don't know, his dog died, the teacher right now can tell the student, don't talk to your parents, do as I say.
Well, that's wrong.
The teachers should not be allowed to do that.
That is wrong.
For what reason are Democrats asserting the right to tell children not to talk to parents under the guise of LGBTQ activism?
But that is only one narrow component of this bill.
That means they are willing to allow your children to suffer in depression if it means some kids who may have mental issues related to their identity Don't get discouraged, or I'm sorry, don't get encouraged or are discouraged from talking to their parents.
If a child is gay, should talk to his parents.
If a child is trans or anything, definitely should talk to their parents.
And the parents, who have custody of the children until they're 18, should discuss with them reasonably and rationally what the solutions are.
Why is it that the government institutionalized learning facility feels that they are better judges of what a child should be going through?
Think about it this way.
What's the argument?
I've heard the argument from many people saying that, well, what if the parents aren't supporting?
Supporting of what?
Supporting of depression?
Oh, you're talking about specific LGBTQ issues.
Well, who's to say who is right or who is wrong in terms of the well-being of the child?
Certainly not I. It's not my child.
If I were to judge things, I would say the parents ultimately take action based on what's best for their child, because they're the parents.
A teacher, I certainly think, should look out for the well-being of a child, but should still defer to the parents.
So, what is this?
What is it they're trying to do?
As the saying goes, socialists don't have children, they have yours.
Why should a stranger decide for the parents what is right for their kids?
Now let's talk outside of LGBTQ issues.
Why should a teacher be granted privy access to a child, to their complaints, to their fears, to their problems, over the parents?
They are trying to strip that connection from parents and their kids.
Now here's the other question.
So let's go back to that first point I made.
The assumption is, what if the parents don't support the kids?
What if the teachers don't support the kids?
What if a kid comes out to a teacher complaining that they're depressed because they're gay, and the teacher is anti-gay?
And what if the teacher says, don't tell your parents it's true, they'll shun you and hate you, you're a naughty child, and says awful things to them?
You see, they're only thinking of this in one direction, as if all teachers will always be supporting of kids and these identities.
No, I think there are a lot of parents.
How many memes have we seen where it's like a dad's, you know, it's like, the kid comes up to their parents and says that they're gay, and the dad goes, I don't care, do the dishes.
And they laugh, ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Or they say something like, we always knew, son, but you still gotta do the dishes, ha ha ha ha ha, because, you know, oh, you're gonna do the chore instead.
We've seen a lot of those memes, right?
That is to say, there is an equal likelihood, in fact, I'd argue in many of these jurisdictions that are big cities and more left-leaning, it is entirely more likely the parents would be more accepting.
Regardless, what if the teachers are anti-gay?
You see, therein lies the real problem here.
There's no principle on the side of the left.
They seek only to steal and seize power.
Now this one I'm impressed by.
Christina Pshaw wrote, the bill that liberals inaccurately call Don't Say Gay would be more accurately described as an anti-grooming bill.
I don't think either of those are true, but I certainly think the response is funny and apt.
That was the point that I made on IRL a few days ago.
I said, you guys see that anti-grooming bill that Democrats are upset about?
Because they're pro-grooming?
Yeah.
I like the meme, OK Groomer.
This is where we are right now, my friends.
Biden to request $2.6 billion to promote gender equity worldwide.
Take that $2.6 billion and subsidize gas or something.
I really don't think that would be a solution to all the problems.
$2.6 billion probably wouldn't cover, for the most part, the gas costs, and I don't know if subsidy is a good idea.
The point is, I would much rather see $2.6 billion spent on, I don't know, energy.
Energy investment, be it renewable or otherwise, as opposed to gender equity worldwide.
We are in a major crisis right now.
Gas prices hit a record high.
Inflation is through the roof.
Wheat prices jumped 70% this year.
And Joe Biden's priority is this.
This is why I just can't stand.
And do you get honesty from the Washington Post?
No.
They don't actually tell you what the bill does.
The bill, officially called the Parental Rights and Education Bill, would prohibit Florida schools from teaching students in kindergarten through third grade!
Look at that!
About topics involving sexual orientation and identity.
Third grade!
We are talking about seven and eight year olds.
Lessons for older grades would have to be age-appropriate, which Democrats argue is a vague way of stifling all conversations about LGBTQ issues.
Republicans downplayed that risk, saying the legislation prevents planned lessons but does not ban discussions between students or prevent teachers from answering specific questions from a student.
You know what?
I'm not a fan of the Republicans either.
Why?
Because they do half measures.
Now look, I think this is actually a good bill.
Teachers should not have a right to discourage students from talking to their parents.
Parents should have a right to know.
But the thing is, whenever it comes to these bills, and I don't want to cite this one specifically, but Republicans always go halfway.
Republicans are like, no, no, no, no, it still allows the teacher to talk to the students, just not in a curriculum.
And I'm like, uh-huh.
So let me get this straight.
Republicans put forth a bill that says you can't teach in the curriculum, kindergarten through third grade, about these topics.
But the teachers can one-on-one discuss it, or not necessarily one-on-one, but can discuss it in more private settings with the students.
Republicans didn't even ban teachers from talking to individual or small groups of kindergartners about sex.
They didn't.
Because they didn't go that far.
And the Democrats are still taking issue with it.
You see, this is what happens.
Republicans do a half measure.
Democrats complain like it's the apocalypse.
Democrats end up winning because Republicans don't go far enough.
Perhaps it should be fair to say there should be a bill banning teachers from discussing topics related to sex with children under a certain age.
Republicans didn't do that.
It's just official curriculum.
Because Republicans want to be reasonable.
And they want to say, no, no, no, we want to make sure discussions can happen.
I find it interesting that if a child is confused about something, and let's not, let's take it away from the LGBTQ community, because I'm talking about anything.
A kid can come in and say they, you know, they feel depressed about a certain issue.
The response should always be, if a child is experiencing distress, the teacher should say, you should talk with your parents.
They love and care about you, and they're there for you.
Now, sometimes you have bad parents.
You hear these stories about kids getting beat or locked up.
Okay.
If a child reports physical abuse, then I believe the teacher should say, we are escalating this to law enforcement.
As for emotional abuse, I don't think we can quantify very easily what that means.
See, the Democrats' view of things is that if a child says they're gay, the parents must agree with the child.
What if the child is wrong or confused?
What if the child just needs loving support and guidance?
What if the kid isn't?
There are certainly stories of people who thought they were gay and then realized they weren't.
Especially a child who hasn't even gone through puberty yet.
So why are these kids talking to teachers about this stuff anyway?
It's not a thing these kids even know about.
One of the problems I have with a lot of what's happening is that there's a conflation between gender and social constructs and biological sex.
And so what you hear is... Let me put it this way.
How does a child know if they're gay or trans?
Typically, what happens is, they'll say something like, a little boy will say they like dresses or want to play with dolls.
But those are social constructs.
We have to be very careful if we're dealing with transgender youth, because I certainly believe they can exist, they do exist.
If we're dealing with these children, we don't simply say, because you want to be non-binary, oh, socially, not biologically, that you should undergo any kind of physical alterations.
This is the challenge.
Personally, I would like to see any child who is experiencing any of these issues receive the help they deserve, but it's got to come through the guidance and assistance of their parents who know what's best for them.
Sometimes you have bad parents, and sometimes then you get intervention, but it's got to be under the strictest of circumstances.
I believe most parents, the overwhelming majority, have in mind what's best for their children.
Now, for these kids who are actually dealing with these issues, because of course they exist, Like I said, they should get everything they need.
But what happens if you have a child who's simply confused?
And then you get a teacher who isn't interested in helping the child, is only interested in pushing an agenda.
They can harm the child.
And therein lies the real problem.
If we are to believe that most parents want what is best for their children, that would mean if the kids actually are LGBTQ, then good parents will do right by those kids.
But if you have teachers who are only going to see these kids for a year, maybe a couple years because one year they have them in their class, the other years they're in and out in other classrooms, so maybe they'll see them around, but one year and we're going to give teachers the right to supersede parents?
That to me is shockingly insane.
I will point out though, to all of these parents who send your kids to college, why?
Why send your kid to any college?
And I mean it.
We were talking about this last night.
DePaul University in Chicago.
I believe it's a Christian college.
I could be wrong.
I'm pretty sure it's Christian.
Ben Shapiro went to speak there.
Protestors came, and so they wouldn't let Ben Shapiro on the campus.
They said they would arrest him for trespassing or something if he stepped one foot further or something like that.
I can't remember.
And then he said something like, you know, about them thinking that a 5'5 Jewish man is a threat.
It's fascinating to me because you'd think.
While Christians and Jewish people have different beliefs, there's a large overlap with the Old Testament.
Christians have the New Testament.
You'd think that Ben Shapiro's morals would be more in line with a Christian colleges than woke far-left cultists, but they still kick him out.
You want to send your kids to a college?
By all means.
Don't be surprised when they come back with their heads shaved, with their- with piercings all over their body, and them saying they hate you and everything about you because you're an evil colonist, white privilege, blah blah blah.
How about you just do right by your children and take them under your wing and teach them what you can.
Teach them how to be good at what they can be.
Teach them to practice.
Give them a musical instrument.
Give them a sport.
If you have a young child right now, seriously, get them a musical instrument, period.
If you have a child right now, not only get them a musical instrument, get them into some kind of sport.
Personally, I was always a big fan of individual sports.
Skateboarding.
I did play some team sports with my friends, but kind of just whatever, like we played hockey a lot.
But for the most part, it's just...
Skateboarding is good.
Individual sports.
Team sports are good.
Build team building.
I like individual sports because it teaches you to be reliant on yourself.
With skateboarding, if you want to do it, if you want to 50-50 that handrail, you have to choose to do it.
No one will help you.
It's very individualist.
With team sports, you get a lot of people who rely on others.
I'm not a fan of this.
There's good things about it and there's bad things about it.
You get a kid in team sport, they may become the quarterback, the star.
Or they could just become someone who is told what to do.
Now that is some people.
Not everybody is a leader.
But I think if you get your kids playing music, and you get your kids skateboarding, or rollerblading, or scooting, or BMXing, individual sports, they're gonna say, there's no cheating.
There's no points.
When you go to the skate park and you wanna do a kickflip backside lip slide down a rail, it's a cool trick by the way.
You're not gonna lie about it, no one's gonna believe you.
They're gonna say, show me the footage.
I didn't film it?
Yeah, right.
I won't believe it unless I see it.
Some people lie, but there's no cheating.
You have to prove to yourself.
You have to take the risks yourself and earn for yourself the accomplishment from within that you did it and you know you've proven to yourself you've done it.
Because no one cares to hear you claim you did something.
No one does.
You get the rumors, like, you hear Johnny did a backside flip down that 10 stair and people are gonna be like, I don't care.
Show me the video of it and I'll be impressed.
But don't talk.
Let's go skate.
You gotta take your kids under your wing and stop putting them in these institutionalized learning facilities, because look what they're doing.
The bill is literally just to make sure parents know what's going on.
That's it.
Know what's going on.
And the Democrats are trying to stop you from knowing what's going on.
