All Episodes
April 12, 2022 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:21:57
Democrat States To MANDATE Sex-Ed For Kids In An Inversion To GOP Parental Rights In Education Bills

Democrat States To MANDATE Sex-Ed For Kids In An Inversion To GOP Parental Rights In Education Bills. Democrats push mandates on teaching children about adult and mature topics. Republicans have been pushing reforms in many states barring teachers from withholding information from parents and teaching children about certain mature topics. Seemingly to counter this Democrat states have been advancing mandates on this exact type of education. The Biden administration is clearly on one side of the issue calling on parents to affirm their children proving that this country has already been ripped completely in half #Democrats #Republicans #Biden Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:19:47
Appearances
Clips
j
josh hammer
00:31
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Today is April 12, 2022, and our first story.
In several Democrat states, they are mandating that children be taught sex ed, in an inversion to what we're seeing from the Parental Rights and Education Bill in Florida.
Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals are so far at odds seeing these laws, I believe the country has already been ripped in half.
In our next story, inflation hits a massive 8.5%, and the Biden administration is extremely worried.
Jan Sacky says, it is extraordinarily elevated.
And in our last story, a major attack occurred in New York.
This is breaking news.
There may be updates, but 13 people were brought to the hospital.
At the time of recording, it seemed eight people had been shot.
That number may be increasing.
Crime is skyrocketing in New York, and many New Yorkers are fleeing.
Now, if you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Now, I'm sure most of you know what the Parental Rights in Education Bill is.
It limits classroom instruction on issues relating to identity and orientation in grades kindergarten to third grade.
That's it.
Teachers in Florida would still be allowed to talk with their children about LGBTQ issues, just not in the form of classroom instructions.
Define it however you want.
The bill also prohibits teachers and school employees from telling kids to keep secrets from their parents.
Well, the saga of what the left calls Don't Say Gay continues, but this time it's an inversion.
We have a story.
Maryland Department of Education will require pre-K students to learn about identity and expression.
And in New Jersey, children are being taught about explicit adult activities they can engage in.
I know it's kind of hard to speak in innuendo and vague terms, but to keep this family-friendly, I have to.
And therein lies one of the big points here.
YouTube has rules.
I cannot describe what is being taught to these children without running afoul of these rules.
Advertisers would pull out of this segment if I explain in great detail what they're telling these children.
Certainly that says something about what's happening to our culture.
But here we go.
I don't think it matters in the big picture for most Americans right now if you are in favor of what Maryland and New Jersey is doing or opposed to it, or if you're in favor of what Florida is doing or whether you're opposed to it.
The issue is that these laws that are diametrically opposed show this country has been ripped in twain.
There is no circumstance where moderate liberal types and conservatives will agree with the left on these issues.
I look at these stories and I am shocked that they're instructing minor children, pre-pubescent children, on what I would describe as mature adult activities.
But the left, regardless of what the argument is, has taken the stance that it harms LGBTQ people.
I don't think they care.
I don't think there's going to be convincing them this is wrong.
And blue states will adopt these bills that are an inversion of the bill passed in Florida.
We have another story coming up.
This time about a woman who was trying to give her child trans-affirming care, as the left likes to describe it.
She was diagnosed with Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
The left is acting like this was the government attacking this woman because she was just trying to help her children.
But perhaps we should take the diagnosis for what it is, and not eschew authority when it flies in the face of our ideologies.
In which case it stands to reason there may be circumstances in which parents are abusing their kids because they suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.
There are certainly circumstances where parents are intolerant of certain ideas, and they don't want their kids to be engaging in certain behaviors, but in the grand scheme, in the big picture, It is entirely up to parents to decide what is right for their children, I think, so long as they're not physically abusing them.
That is to say, if a parent wants their kid to go into some kind of psychotherapy for disorders, for depression, well, then the parents make that decision.
If the parent is beating their kids, now we've got a problem, and those kids should be taken away from abusive parents.
I think in the big picture, When you see how most Americans support the Parental Rights and Education Bill, you'll see that what Democrats are doing in states like Maryland and New Jersey will be unpopular and will lead to Republicans sweeping the next several elections, as data predicts.
Of course, you never know.
You never know.
For all we know, the data is wrong.
The data has skewed in favor of Democrats for the past several elections, but hey, maybe it's wrong, right?
At this point, I am unwilling to believe that regular, working-class Americans would agree with what Democrats are pushing.
It's just impossible to believe.
Maybe that's naivety.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe we're wrong.
Maybe there are people who just don't care about their children.
Let me break it down for you.
And I'll give you, of course, my thoughts on these bills, because I am not a staunch conservative on these issues.
But I certainly think the Democrats have gone absolutely insane.
Before we get started with the story from TimCast, head over to TimCast, become a member to help support our work as a member.
You're keeping all of our journalists gainfully employed, and you'll get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast, and you'll just help keep the lights on at TimCast.
But don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this video right now with your friends, and head over to youtube.com slash popculturecrisis and subscribe to Tim Cass' latest show.
One of our latest shows.
Actually, Chicken City is our latest show, but one of our latest shows that we're now going to be getting heavily behind.
Popculture Crisis explores pop culture issues around Hollywood.
If we want to affect culture, Because politics is downstream from culture.
We need shows about pop culture that are not overtly political, but present the lens from our perspective on pop culture issues.
That means talking about celebrities.
It means talking about TV shows and talking about what we like and don't like in these shows.
And the next step is, we're gonna make our own shows.
But again, go to youtube.com slash popculturecrisis, subscribe now, and let's read this first story from timcast.com.
Maryland Department of Education will require pre-K students to learn about gender identity and expression.
Now, I want to pause for a second.
On the surface, it's not so bad, right?
You could explain to children that there are different families.
The question is, to what degree do you get into what would be described as classroom instruction?
That's where things start getting disturbing.
The Maryland State Department of Education requires expansive instructions regarding gender and sexuality throughout a student's education.
Furthermore, the department prohibits teachers and administrators from being required to disclose if a student identifies as transgender to their parents.
You see, this is an inversion to what we see in Florida.
I do not understand, okay?
I am not a religious conservative.
I'm moderate, fairly moderate, even left-leaning on a ton of policy positions and economic positions.
But why?
For what reason?
Would the government have the right to keep information on children away from those children's parents?
Certainly the parents know what's best, right?
This is where things get crazy.
According to the framework, pre-K students should recognize and respect that people express themselves in many different ways, to meet the gender identity and expression requirement, and acknowledge that there are different types of families.
single-parent, same-gender, intergenerational, blended, interracial, adoptive, foster,
as part of the Family Life and Human Sexuality section of the state's health curriculum.
Kindergarten students are expected to name a range of ways people identify and express their gender
and agree that, quote, it is important to treat people of all gender identities
and expressions with dignity and respect. Now, I certainly think people are deserving of
dignity and respect, but respect is earned. So deserving, I simply say you're given the
opportunity to earn the respect.
It shouldn't be guaranteed to everyone, though I think we should respect people's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they see it.
Should children be granted, be given more advanced educational materials on these issues?
Not kindergarten.
When I was in kindergarten, we were going through ABCs, basic, you know, history and science, like really rudimentary stuff.
Now, I had been homeschooled, so I had learned math and reading before most of the people I went to school with, but I never, never between the ages of five and nine had any conversation with teachers about their lives, about sexuality, or anything like that.
It wasn't until I was around maybe 10, we had, uh, I think I was, it was, it was 9 or 10 years old.
We had general sex education and the parents had to sign permission slips because it's up to the parents to decide.
But I was going to a private Catholic school at the time.
When I was about 10 or 11 and started, uh, working with my family's cafe, then I started to get, uh, started to experience more adult circumstances in terms of seeing people who had relationships, mothers, fathers, uh, gay, gay couples, lesbians, and all that stuff.
And my parents decided when it was right to explain What any of this stuff meant.
Fairly liberal household.
My parents were always about love is love.
You know, mind your own business.
Let people live and do what they want to do.
But it was my parents' choice to teach me when they felt it was right.
And signing permission slips for sex ed.
unidentified
Now, they're going to say, 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.
See you on the tour!
tim pool
First, second, and third graders are all expected to recognize and respect
the various ways people may express their identities.
By fourth grade, students will be asked to identify sexual orientation as a person's physical and or romantic attraction to an individual of the same and or different gender.
This is getting into what's called gender ideology.
If public schools are doing this, I'm gonna pause right here and say, yo, if the parents decide it's right for their kids, fine.
The issue with these schools, the issue with Florida, the issue that I take, the left is attacking Florida because Florida is requiring parents know about what's going on, and the parents have voted in individuals who say, not from kindergarten to third grade.
Parents can decide.
If a parent thinks, you know, five-year-olds are of the right age, well, I can certainly disagree with them, but I'm not that kid's parent.
I am absolutely, and will always be of the mind, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
With respect, you live your life so long as you're not abusing kids.
Now, of course, conservatives may see this as abusing kids, My point is, the same position I held about people being able to live their lives, about a gay couple adopting and raising kids, hey man, that's all on you.
Be good to these kids.
Raise them right.
I think the same thing is true if parents in Maryland think it's good for my kids.
I think ultimately what we're seeing from this is, the Democrats are doing the opposite of what Republicans are doing.
The country is being split in half.
Conservative view on this is absolutely at odds.
Now here's where it gets really interesting.
Seventh graders are expected to identify solo, and let me just say, because I can't read these things on YouTube, funny, right?
Just, um, overtly adult activities.
Hardcore, direct, reproduction, all that stuff.
Along with possible outcomes of each.
And as well as recognize racism and intersectionality and describe their impacts on sexual health.
Middle schoolers in the state will be required to describe how intolerance can affect others when aspects of their sexuality are different from one's own.
Look, again, by all means, all of you with your opinions, comment and express them.
I am going to grant you the right to your opinions and point out what I see here as the country being ripped in half.
New Jersey.
New Jersey Sample Lesson plans to push videos for 5th graders on graphic sex-related content.
Video tells kids, let's just call it self-gratification, a few times a day is a healthy way to relieve stress.
Man, that's crazy.
I'm in Chicago on the South Side.
I went to public school.
We did not have any of this stuff.
So what has changed?
I don't know.
The country has been ripped in half.
The left has drifted off in a cultural direction that is leaving conservatives behind.
And that's just a fact.
Let me show you this right here.
I have this.
Don't say gay is popular.
You don't say.
This is where things get interesting.
And you know, I've shown this before.
It's from April 1st.
Here's what the Wall Street Journal says.
Ron DeSantis this week signed the educational legislation.
We get it.
When Americans are presented with the actual language of the new Florida law, it wins support by more than 2 to 1.
The public opinion strategy's overall 61% said they supported the Parental Rights and Education Bill.
Even more notable is the breadth of that sentiment.
Democratic voters in the poll supported the law 55% to 29%.
Among suburban voters, which could be a decisive group for the midterm elections, it's 60 to 30.
Parents, 67 to 24.
Biden voters, 53 to 30%.
Respondents, no.
Respondents who know someone is LGBTQ, 61% to 28%.
It's just so strange.
63 to 30 percent.
Respondents know.
Respondents who know someone is LGBTQ, 61 percent to 28 percent.
It's just so strange.
What is happening?
I went on Candace Owens' show today.
Amazing, by the way.
Candace's show is fantastic.
She is brilliant.
We had an excellent conversation and she made excellent points.
And I pointed out, she was saying, you know, more moderate people, more middle-of-the-road people are going to find themselves on our side.
And I'm like, but that's right.
That's me.
That is your side.
I've not been a conservative.
Here you are, Candace.
Daily Wire, conservative show.
I was always, growing up in Chicago, fairly liberal.
I was always in favor of gay marriage, as many now Trump supporters were.
And I said, I'm on this couch in the middle seat.
I look to my left, there's a left.
I look to my right, there's the right.
We all recognize what this sofa is.
And we all recognize we're sitting here on this couch.
Now the fellow to my right, he's got popcorn.
The person on my left has got candy bars.
I honestly gotta admit, I like those candy bars.
Not a big fan of popcorn.
I looked to my left one day, and the left has gotten up off the couch, and they've gone to the other side of the room, and they're eating crickets or something, or cicadas.
I mean, literally!
And I'm like, okay, I don't know what they're doing over there, but there's... Okay, I guess I'll have popcorn.
You get my point?
Silly analogy, but you get my point.
Look, I've always been, growing up, my family owned a cafe on the north side of Chicago in what's called Boys Town.
And so we were always very much in favor of LGBTQ rights.
But now when you're talking about going to 5 to 9 year olds and teaching them, to 5th graders, and teaching them about these things, and doing it by what is effectively mandate, I disagree with that.
It's the same argument, for the most part, as it comes to choice versus life.
Growing up in Chicago, I was always pro-choice.
A liberal, Democrat family.
And we went to Catholic school.
But the issue was simple.
Safe, legal, and rare.
I remember my dad saying to me, abortion's wrong.
It is.
But sometimes there's the health of the mother that's in question.
Sometimes there's the health of the child.
Sometimes there are circumstances beyond our control.
And you know what?
It's none of our business.
But it should be rare, because it's wrong to use abortion as contraception.
He would always say, you know, you've got to be responsible.
But this is a liberal Chicago family.
And, you know, my mom felt similarly.
It's a bad thing to do, willy-nilly and for no reason, but sometimes the government should not be involved.
There should not be requisition, regulation forms and applications.
It should be, you go to your doctor, your doctor says, I'm sorry, I've got terrible news.
The problem is, from that, we now see that the overwhelming majority of abortions are done with no reason at all listed.
And still, for libertarian reasons, I'm just concerned about the government mandating someone provide their body to someone else.
And it's a difficult position because there's no real middle ground.
But I can certainly say this.
There's a begrudging concession that the right was willing to make with the left in that safe, legal, and rare.
And even the right was like, we're unhappy with it, it's terrible, but we're gonna live together.
The left has now gone pro-abortion.
There was a tweet by David Pakman that, you know, Seamus of Freedom Tunes was telling me about.
If you're not familiar with Freedom Tunes, it's a political satire show.
And he was saying, you know, Pacman said nobody wants to encourage abortions, but his responses on Twitter were from people saying, yes, we do.
In fact, it is true.
There are environmentalists who encourage people to terminate their children, to not have kids.
This is the left and the right being split and being so far at odds.
I don't know where we go, other than you've heard me say it, some kind of civil war.
Maybe it'll be a peaceful divorce, I'm not sure how that happens.
But it seems like the country's being ripped apart.
If Maryland and New Jersey are enacting policies that most people, including Democrats, don't agree with, I don't know how this country survives.
Maybe we find a way.
But if this is the case, what happens in November when Republicans win overwhelmingly?
Is the progressive left going to sit back and just be like, we're okay with this?
Or are they going to say, the fascists have won!
It's getting as bad as we thought!
Take a look at this story from The Independent.
Alabama legislators pass nation's first bill making gender-affirming care for trans youth a felony.
State lawmakers also approve anti-transgender bathroom bill and don't say gay measure.
Four days ago.
Call it whatever you want.
The fact remains, these states, we are so far at odds with each other in terms of hyperpolarization, especially with lockdowns.
The political polarization will result in geographic polarization.
I moved to West Virginia, the second most Trump-supporting state in the country.
You know why?
They leave me alone.
And I am still a moderate, slightly left-leaning individual on so much.
But I can sit down with someone like Glenn Beck and Dave Rubin and, you know, seeing their conversations, we can agree to disagree but agree to live together.
Right now, what we're seeing with the left and the right is not possible.
When they say gender-affirming care, what are they talking about?
They're talking about irreversible surgeries.
They're talking about irreversible chemical medication.
And we're talking about Alabama saying children should not be allowed to undergo these procedures.
There are certainly questions here.
I asked on Twitter.
Should a child be allowed to get cosmetic or plastic surgery if they're depressed and it would make them feel better?
And many people said, well, it was a gag tweet for the most part.
The answers were yes, I think it was I don't know, and I don't want to get fired.
I don't want to get fired being no, obviously.
Most people said no.
We knew what the context was, but some people pointed out, well, slow down.
Cleft palate, things like that, you know, we'll do corrective surgeries for kids who have, you know, slight minor issues that won't affect them, you know, it'll actually positively impact them moving forward.
Okay, I understand that.
No, I agree.
Someone gets scars, or someone gets injured, or someone has a slight abnormality.
I mean that with no disrespect.
A cleft palate or something.
And we'll say, we can correct it.
It's totally fine.
It won't have any impact on their kids or their lives.
In fact, it will improve their lives.
I understand.
Some people mentioned getting your ears tucked back.
I said, I don't like that.
I personally don't.
I think if kids got ears that stick out, people are making fun of them.
Kids are gonna make fun of people.
I don't like the idea of giving some kids surgery because kids make fun of them.
Sometimes kids get made fun of.
You gotta teach your kids to be resilient, to be strong, to be proud of who they are.
That was the idea behind the LGBT movement.
Be proud of who you are.
That means if you got ears that stick out.
No, I get it.
Ears sticking out are a normal thing.
But some kids might be embarrassed by it.
I don't like that.
Some kids get nose jobs.
That's ridiculous.
A cleft palate?
Alright, alright, I can see that one.
But now we're talking about permanent, reproductive harm?
Some of these kids won't be able- are gonna be sterilized.
And you know, herein lies the challenge.
I was talking to, it was Charlie Kirk and Will Chamberlain.
Conservatives.
We were talking about a case where a police officer went into a neighborhood where they didn't want cops, and the cop ended up shooting a woman who was wielding a knife.
I said, look, the cops shouldn't go there.
If the people say we don't want cops, cops don't go.
And Charlie and Will were like, you're a libertarian.
The conservatives think the law should be enforced equally regardless of what these individuals want.
The law must be enforced.
And I said, I get it.
I do.
I disagree, but I understand your perspective now.
And this is what we see.
You've got two factions, and both think the law should be enforced in one way.
The right these days is more willing to be a bit lax and libertarian, but that's given an opportunity to the left to be more authoritarian.
So the left now wants these procedures in conservative areas.
Big city urban Democrats who don't like guns want to ban guns from rural areas.
Well, that doesn't make sense, does it?
We can argue that they're just ignorant.
They don't know.
But I don't believe that.
I think they know.
I think they know that people who live in the middle of nowhere might have a wild hog problem and need a weapon to deal with it.
They just don't care.
They want to take away your guns.
They want to rule over you and they will not back down.
Republicans are content to be left alone, more so than they used to be.
And therein lies the big problem.
Why we can't coexist.
And it's a scary thought, but we're not.
Law and Crime reports ACLU sues Alabama Attorney General over devastating new law making medical care for transgender youth a felony.
Medical care for transgender youth?
If a kid wants their nose removed because it makes them depressed and they're freaking out, would we cut it off?
No.
Yet it is deemed morally, socially acceptable among the left that a young woman's breasts or a young boy's genitals should be because they make them uncomfortable.
I mean, that, I don't understand.
I cannot accept the premise, because it's illogical.
If across the board they said, a child says they're depressed because they don't like having two hands, so we're going to remove one, a perfectly good functioning body part, I would say, wow.
If the logic was that any time a child felt depressed due to a body part, we removed it, I'd be like, Well, at least there's logic behind it.
But there's none today.
They won't cut off a kid's hand.
They won't give a little boy breast implants.
But they will cut off a little girl's breasts as she's going through puberty because... gender, um, medical care for transgender youth, I suppose?
Now, I disagree with that.
I think most of you do as well.
I think it's wrong.
I also think there's an interesting question here, the left probably does have an answer to, because I think I know what their answer would be.
Where was this issue before the advent of hormonal therapies and plastic surgery?
Didn't exist.
I'm sure some people might argue, well, people just lied to themselves and they weren't their true selves.
I agree.
I certainly think there were transgender people well before hormone therapy existed, and as it's become more and more acceptable, more people are coming out as trans, and I have nothing but respect for those who are brave enough to be their true selves, 100%.
The issue I take is, when a child doesn't understand their lives, when a child is prepubescent and hasn't had the hormones in their body to tell them, or these feelings, to permanently alter them or block puberty, I think, personally is wrong.
Now look, I'm not a doctor, so okay.
That's why I fall back and say, it's up to the parents to decide what is right for their kids.
The state should not be.
The parents should be, because the parents are the ones who are supposed to be raising these children and making sure they survive and flourish and are happy.
It doesn't always work out that way.
But why would a teacher, who's going to be with that kid for one year, have more priority over the parents who are with that child their whole lives?
It makes no sense.
There's no logic.
I want what's best for people.
I believe there are some children who actually are transgender. 100%.
The problem I have is, when they start teaching kids about overtly mature things behind the parent's back, without the parent's knowledge or permission, and tell the kids to keep these things a secret.
Parents can decide.
If a parent says, I want my kid to learn about some of these things at a young age, I'd say, it's up to the parent, I'm not the parent.
If a parent said, I want to expose my kid to overt adult hardcore imagery, I'd be like, that's bad.
That's wrong.
But what do you do?
josh hammer
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 I'm not the parent here, and how would the state even know what the parent was showing these kids?
I do think there is abuse.
America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool
I'm not the parent here, and how would the state even know
what the parent was showing these kids?
I do think there is abuse.
I think the most important point here when discussing about what makes sense in terms of law
is addressing the logical issue.
If you were to take the materials they give to these kindergartners
and go into your workplace and open these books and show them to your coworkers,
This is a point Robbie Starbuck made.
You'd be sued for sexual harassment.
The business would be.
You'd probably be fired.
I think in reality you'd be warned, hey, don't bring that stuff in here.
There's an interesting point to be made on this.
You could then argue that they're violating your rights because you were just trying to explain LGBTQ issues.
Maybe that would work, because the businesses might get scared, but think about what that means.
What have we already seen?
You know, the left wants to say, we're all intolerant for being concerned about this.
I saw a video of an 11-year-old boy stripping on stage for a bunch of adult men.
They call it a drag show.
It's stripping.
They argue it's not stripping, but anybody who's been to a strip club knows it is.
They make it up.
They lie, they cheat, they steal.
This article I find fascinating from harpersbazaar.com.
Roxanna Asgerian says, She just wanted to help her trans child.
She was accused of making her sick.
This is fascinating.
Courts are increasingly using Munchausen Syndrome by proxy diagnoses to separate trans kids from their families.
Maybe it's correct!
Is that right?
Erin was in the midst of divorce proceedings when the custody trouble began.
She was sharing custody of her four children, ages three to nine, with her soon-to-be ex-husband, when the children reported feeling unsafe at their father's.
At times, he was drunk and violent, they said.
In 2017, one of the children called the police, and two of them reported that their father squeezed their necks and lifted them up by their necks when they misbehaved.
After that incident, their father was arrested for child endangerment.
Child Protective Services got involved, but didn't open a case.
I want you to remember what I just read.
I'm gonna come back to it.
However, the trouble didn't start because of Erin's husband's abuse allegations.
It started because she was supporting her youngest child, who was assigned male at birth, but had increasingly asserted she was a girl.
Gender-affirming care is widely recognized by the mainstream medical community as being the best practice for treating kids with gender dysphoria, and has been shown in research to significantly reduce negative psychological outcomes, including suicidal ideation in trans children.
But because Erin was following the recommendations of medical specialists, she was dragged into a lengthy custody battle that bled her dry financially.
A court-ordered psychological evaluation found that Erin was mentally ill, and mentioned that Munchausen syndrome by proxy was suspected.
Ultimately, she lost custody of her four children.
For the past two years, her kids have lived full-time with their father.
The article tries to paint the father as a bad person, and that being with the father is bad for the kids.
However, the article tries to make an appeal to authority as per its argument, but then rejects that same authority when it arrives at a conclusion counter to the author's opinions.
Let me break it down.
She asserts that the police were called.
The father had lifted their kids up by their necks.
Child Protection Services got involved but didn't open a case.
Writing that as definitive.
Well, what if that didn't happen?
I don't know.
Let's take it as it is.
Okay.
Let's say this is true, the father did that.
For some reason, the authorities decided not to open a case.
What do we say from this point?
I have no evidence.
I can't say Child Protective Services was good or bad at their job, only that ultimately a case didn't happen.
Occam's Razor would say, In the absence of evidence, the solution that requires the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct.
That is, there was not enough evidence to assert the father did anything wrong.
I can assume that Child Protective Services were corrupt, but that would require a leap of faith.
Faith that I can't make.
Occam's Razor suggests not enough evidence to suggest wrongdoing.
Think I want to say, The mainstream medical community says this is the best practice, an appeal to authority.
However, when the authority then deems the mother is suffering from a mental illness, making the child sick, the article rejects the premise and says it's being used against her.
Choose one.
Are we appealing to authority or not?
Now the kids are with their father.
What I can say is this.
Let's ride the appeal to authority.
Child Protective Services did not open a case for some reason.
Nothing there then.
No case.
The authorities then said the mother was mentally ill.
Gave the children to the father for full custody.
This article is trying to make it seem like the mother is the victim when she very well may be abusing her children!
Now am I supposed to side with someone the state has said is mentally ill?
I gotta be honest, sometimes I absolutely would!
But here we are.
The breakdown is here.
It's just absolutely strange to me.
But I suppose if you operate based off of emotion and not logic, these arguments would work for you.
It doesn't work for me.
And I've always considered myself to be moderate, slightly left.
When I was younger, I was far left.
This is where we are today.
If a Republican or conservative or someone like Ben Shapiro came to me and read this and broke down those arguments, I'd agree.
I'd say yes.
Logical fallacies across the board in these arguments.
The only conclusion I can make is that a mentally ill woman was abusing her children.
I feel for these children.
I hope they're safe.
How could I assume otherwise?
The framing of the article is that they're using this to separate kids from their families.
Using it?
Or how about they're protecting children from abuse?
It's remarkable.
She just wanted to help her child.
She was accused of making her sick.
unidentified
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
tim pool
Wait a minute.
No, no, no, no.
The court ruled she was abusing her children.
That's it.
The headline should read, court rules mother abused her child and was forcing a dysphoria onto her child.
Do I believe the state will always be right?
No, absolutely not.
Could the state be wrong?
You betcha.
Could the mother be right?
She could.
But you can't appeal to authority and then reject the authority's conclusion in the end.
I want to show you something that I think is fairly obvious to people who are conservative, but maybe not so much to moderates.
Ben Shapiro.
Let me show you, I think this is the tweet right here.
David Cleone said to Ben Shapiro, this is several years ago, you're a virgin and literally don't know what you're talking about, in response to some argument.
Ben Shapiro responded, I have two children and unlike you, apparently, I know how babies are made.
Ben then said, by the way, I'm pretty proud of the fact I was a virgin until marriage.
I don't see that as an insult.
It's a moral standard.
Mocking those who wait until marriage is pretty disgusting.
That's a religious conservative for you.
I understand Ben Shapiro.
I wonder why it is the left doesn't understand or mocks the idea.
Perhaps it's because I went to a Catholic school for, you know, six years.
Kindergarten to fifth grade.
And I understood the arguments that they made about sex before marriage, but I grew up in Chicago where most people were pretty left and were doing this kind of stuff.
Young people were hooking up the whole time.
I did not live in a world that Ben Shapiro lived in.
I did not grow up believing in abstinence before marriage or anything like that, whatever you call it.
It wasn't really a cultural factor.
I understand Ben Shapiro is— I'm sorry, did I call him a Christian conservative?
Jewish conservative.
I may have said Christian.
Ben Shapiro is Orthodox Jewish.
So of course he believes this.
I understand he believes this, and I believe he's correct when he says he's proud of it.
Of course he is!
This is the world he's grown up in, the world he sees, the world he understands.
I want to understand Ben Shapiro.
I hear what he says, and I say, okay, wow, yeah, I get it.
Below him, we have Alice Vaughn in 2019 responded, it's a moral standard.
No, it's not.
But it is.
Alice, why would you assume it's not a moral standard for someone like Ben Shapiro?
It literally is.
They view it as a strong moral issue.
Ben Shapiro wrote a year before this, Sex before marriage won't make you happy.
Now, Ben's citing real data.
He's correct.
They find that people who get married and have only ever been with each other, in terms of sex, tend to be happier.
The left has argued against this, saying, well, yeah, if the woman doesn't know what good sex is, then of course she's content with what she's got.
I don't disagree with that assessment. It's probably true.
So the argument then from the left is women who get a plethora of encounters
know what a good encounter is or what satisfies them more.
unidentified
Yeah.
tim pool
But does that change the fact that... does that mean Ben is wrong?
No, Ben's right.
They're both right.
So ultimately the left chooses what makes sense for them.
But then why would they mock Ben Shapiro for choosing to remain a virgin before marriage?
It's a different world to the world I grew up in.
But I believe Ben when he says he's proud of it.
There are many people that I know who are religious who are very proud of the fact that they did not have relationships, you know, adult encounters until they got married.
That's a strong moral position for them.
I bring this up because you can see the difference in moral values.
This one I think is obvious, but it's getting more and more profound.
Where the media will lie, cheat, and steal to push these ideas.
And, you know, Maryland and New Jersey are doing the opposite of what Alabama, Idaho, Florida are doing.
At what point does the country just get ripped in twain?
Or I should say it already is.
But what, at what point does it become severe?
You know, we're hearing stories about women fleeing Texas.
We've got, uh, here we go.
Actually, I have the story pulled up.
More Texas families with trans kids plan to flee the state.
I can't fight offensively when I'm already down on the ground just trying to fend people off my kids.
Okay.
If this is the world they live in, perhaps they should be allowed to go live in their world in a different state.
That's why we have state laws.
But certainly then hyperpolarization will become geographic polarization and something's gonna happen.
I'll leave it there, man.
Comment below.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
We're here at the Daily Wire HQ.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is that time of the month where I inform you that inflation is the worst it's been since the 1980s.
I believe now it's been five months where every time the Consumer Price Index comes out, we go, whoa, inflation is really bad, and it's the worst it's been since the 80s.
CNBC reports consumer prices rose 8.5% in March, slightly hotter than expected, and the highest since 1981.
Now, I love this, because if we actually were to calculate inflation based off how we calculated inflation in the 80s, then inflation would be in the double digits, near 15 or 16%, and it would be the worst since World War II.
But of course, the economy changes.
And you can trust the government constantly updating how they calculate inflation.
There are some crypto calculations people are coming out with where they say it's actually 13.9% inflation.
Take it with a grain of salt.
I don't know.
They also say food inflation is probably near 23 or 24 percent.
So yes, regardless of how you cut it, who you want to believe, even the Biden administration knows this is apocalyptic inflation.
The Daily Mail reports Biden tries to get ahead of more dire inflation news and is already blaming Putin.
Saki warns price rises will be extraordinarily elevated because of the war in Ukraine before latest figures are released Tuesday.
But this is not the crux of the story, my friend.
You see, the big news is gas.
Gas prices going through the roof.
We've seen states suspending their gas tax because politicians are panicking.
People are angry.
There are already food riots in some countries.
I think Sri Lanka and Peru are dealing with food and inflation riots.
In Shanghai, People are locked in their homes, and they say because of COVID, but they also don't have food.
And there's drones flying overhead saying, please stay inside your home.
Resist your soul's urge for freedom.
And so what are we getting out of all of this?
This is the funny story that I think really exemplifies the hypocrisy of the Biden administration.
The Verge reports, the Biden administration gives a green light to a fuel that could be even dirtier than regular gas.
Yes, my friends, it's called E15.
Some have argued E15 is actually better for the environment.
It's 15% ethanol.
It's typically banned in summer months because of its, I guess, volatility.
But my understanding also from many left-wing publications is they say it's banned in summer months under the Clean Air Act.
Joe Biden is going to issue a waiver allowing people to sell E15 year-round, which is to suggest we might actually get worse air, and this could be, well, it could be substantially worse for the environment.
Now, the reason why I find this funny is because when I see that the Biden administration, the Democrats, that are all about climate change, climate change, saying they want to make even dirtier gas, even worse for the environment, because of the economy, I have to wonder what their real intention is.
And I'll tell you what I think it is.
I do not believe that Democrats, or for the most part, these left activists, actually care about climate change.
I do believe that laymen on the ground, people who see these stories in the media, do care about climate change.
I do think there is an issue with overpopulation.
I'm not saying that it is an absolute fact the planet is overpopulated.
I believe there's overpopulated areas, like in big cities, where the population density creates excess waste and makes it very difficult to dissipate a lot of this waste.
But I do think we're headed towards some kind of crisis, however you want to cut it.
Do I think it's as apocalyptic as many in the Biden administration or the Democrats believe?
Not really, I think it is an issue.
Do I think the world's going to end in 12 years?
No, I think that's silly and absurd.
I do think our planet is being harmed.
There's dead zones, there's the windshield phenomenon where bug, bug, uh, count, like, uh, the bug count, whatever you want to call it, Populations are decreasing.
People have noticed that they're not hitting bugs when they drive down the road anymore.
I do think there are issues, but I think we're being lied to for the most part, as evidenced by the fact that people who claim to care about climate change are more concerned about economics.
Why?
Probably because retaining power is more important to them than whatever cause they claim to represent.
But it also might be that the Biden administration, the Democrats, the establishment, They know that we're not going to compete particularly well as it pertains to fuel.
Now, under Donald Trump, we had some energy independence.
We became a net exporter of oil.
The Democrats, I think, are more concerned about competing with China as they grow as an economic power.
All of this is basically, oh, oh, this is the reason why we have to get off fossil fuels.
The real reason being we can't compete internationally, although we probably could to a certain degree, but they don't want to, think we can't, and so what they really want is alternative or renewable energies.
The challenge with that line of thought, in its entirety, If that were true, we'd have more nuclear power plants.
So the only thing I can see is, the Democrats pretend to care about climate change, but don't, just because they want to retain power, and they're basically burning the whole system down, and it's resulting in an apocalyptic scenario for everybody.
Here's what I want to get to in the crux of this.
The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party.
Barack Obama buying beachfront property.
Well, I checked.
Barack Obama's beachfront property will be totally wiped out by climate change.
So a lot of people make that talking point.
Why are these powerful individuals buying waterfront property?
So I looked up the map.
And sure enough, there's an interactive map showing Barack Obama's property being wiped out by only a little bit of flooding.
So I find that particularly funny when they try and claim they care about the environment.
But let's talk a little bit economics first.
We have this in the Daily Mail.
President Joe Biden's administration tried to get ahead of more dire inflation news as the March Consumer Price Index report will be released Tuesday.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during Monday's briefing that the White House expected headline inflation to be extraordinarily elevated due to Putin's price hike.
Oh, it just makes me want to vomit.
It's all Vladimir Putin's fault.
Inflation was high before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.
Food prices were going up before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.
I don't like the war.
I don't like what Putin is doing.
I would like it to stop.
He does play a role.
Russia's—the war in Ukraine does play a role.
Fertilizer costs, food costs.
But stop trying to pass the buck, Joe Biden.
It's your fault you had an entire year to deal with this.
So don't come at me.
Donald Trump was president in 2020.
His leadership played a role in this as well, but it was many Democrat governors.
The whole system imploded.
And now Joe Biden's like, here's a scapegoat, a Russian guy.
Once again, that's the only thing they seem to have to offer.
Look at this.
unidentified
U.S.
tim pool
consumer prices inflation.
Now, what I don't like about this is that they say in 1983, 3%.
How are you calculating this?
And then right now they say 7.9.
Actually, 8.5, which is absolutely insane.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly report.
This we understand.
So here we have from CNBC.
They say surging food, energy, and shelter costs helped account for the gain.
Real worker earnings fell by another 0.8% during the month as the cost of living outpaced otherwise strong pay gains.
My friends, if you have not received an 8.5% raise, then you have lost buying power.
And that to me, I mean, that sounds fairly apocalyptic.
Because every month we hear it's getting worse.
Have you gone to the grocery store lately?
I did.
We're being told by some that by the end of the year, by fall or, you know, by November, it might cost you upwards of $1,000 per month for groceries.
Whereas right now, I think the average is something like $400, and it's still way up.
I'm telling you guys, I said this before, in 2020, I was like, I went to the grocery store and food was expensive!
It's getting more and more expensive.
I have to wonder about all this.
Because the end result is people are going to buy less, they're going to own less, and then maybe the idea is once they've adapted to owning nothing, they'll be happy.
I suppose that's what many of these powerful special interests are believing.
Now, I don't know exactly how this will end up playing out in the long run, but I do think fertilizer costs skyrocketing, mean food's gonna go through the roof.
So I've told you guys my thoughts on this.
We had John Rich on the show yesterday, and we talked about taking care of your friends and your family with emergency supplies wherever you get them.
And it's fascinating how There is a mentality on the left to mock and belittle the idea of purchasing emergency supplies.
So I bought emergency food for my company, for my friends, my family, and probably not enough, it's not really that much, but they mock the idea that you should be prepared for a disaster.
When you literally have Joe Biden's administration screaming in our face, famine, food shortages, and inflation.
And people still think they're going to mock the idea of taking care of yourselves.
Wonderful.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this story from The Verge.
The Biden administration gives a green light to a fuel that could be even dirtier than regular gas.
I wonder about this.
More air pollution?
Is it going to contribute to climate change?
Yeah.
Don't come to me and tell me these people care about the environment when they're more concerned about the economy.
And you know what?
That's fine.
I'm not an environmentalist, or I am not an environmental scientist.
I do consider myself fairly an environmentalist in terms of, I would love to protect the environment.
Greener pastures, cleaner air, cleaner water, all that good stuff.
But tell me, what about The economy, to these people, should be more important than the environment.
I think their priorities are clear.
I think they just lie to people so they can gain power.
The Verge reports.
In an attempt to lower high gas prices, the Biden administration wants to turn to a fuel that's potentially even dirtier than regular gasoline, the White House announced today.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to issue an emergency waiver that will allow the year-round sale of a fuel called E15, which is banned in most of the U.S.
during summer months when smog is a bigger risk.
E15 is a gasoline blend with up to 15% ethanol, a fuel made with plant material.
The move is supposed to save Americans money while reducing dependence on foreign oil, foreign oil supplies, because ethanol can be made with domestically grown corn.
I don't know.
Maybe you can reopen the Keystone Pipeline.
Maybe you can allow companies to frack.
They're not doing that.
So maybe you would then come to me and say, no Tim, they do care about the environment.
They're doing E15 because it's better than fracking and it's better than these alternatives.
Okay, well, I have more evidence to show you the hypocrisy, but let's read a little more to give you context, and then I want to show you the map which shows Obama's house being wiped out by climate change.
Goodbye, I guess?
What are you investing for?
Nothing?
Is someone supposed to be enticed to buy that property off you when you're the one saying it's going to be wiped out in, what, 12 years?
Maybe longer.
The Verge goes on to say most gasoline in the U.S.
is already mixed with up to 10% ethanol.
The summertime ban has been in effect since 2011, and was based on concerns that more ethanol in fuel might lead to more smog.
The added boost of ethanol could increase the amount of smog-causing pollutants entering the atmosphere.
Those pollutants can react with sunlight to create more smog, a big problem during sunnier summer months.
Growing all that corn to make the fuel can potentially also result in more greenhouse gas emissions.
Hmm, really?
So, worse for climate change?
Fans of E15 have argued for years the fuel isn't significantly worse for air quality than other gasoline blends.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have recently introduced bills that would lift restrictions on E15.
The Trump administration also tried to roll back the summertime ban in 2019, but a federal court blocked the effort.
Fascinating.
I am not at all shocked that Republicans and Donald Trump would be acting towards or trying to lift this ban because they're not the ones screaming the end is nigh about the environment.
I'm also not surprised that Democrats would do the same thing, because I think they're duplicitous.
I think they're lying to you about what they really care about.
What they really care about is pandering for political points.
And if that means we gotta lower gas prices, they'll do it, even if it means abandoning their climate change position.
They need crises.
They need something to rally you up about.
Oh, the world is ending and Republicans don't care.
Vote for us.
We'll save you.
And then when people are like, I don't care about that.
Gas is too expensive.
They say, oh, no, no, no, no, don't worry.
We'll do what the Republicans wanted to do to lower gas prices, even if it means screwing over the environment.
They're lying.
The purported cost savings with E15 are a matter of debate.
The White House fact sheet says E15 can save consumers 10 cents per gallon of gasoline on average.
But while it might be cheaper, ethanol has about a third less energy than gasoline.
So the cost at the pump has to be low enough to offset the slight loss in fuel efficiency that comes with a higher portion of ethanol in the fuel.
At the moment, E15 is not very popular in the U.S.
anyway.
It's sold in just 2,300 gas stations in 30 states.
But that could start to change.
The fact sheet distributed by the Biden administration mentions that the EPA is also thinking about additional action to facilitate the use of E15 year-round.
The administration's strategy to spur the development of homegrown biofuels is critical to expanding Americans' options for affordable fuel in the short term and to building real energy independence in the long term.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So you mean to tell me That we're gonna sell gas with 5% more ethanol, and it's gonna save us 10 cents, which is like, what, 2.5%?
So ultimately, it's not gonna do much, if anything, to help anybody?
Okay, let's talk about climate change.
The moment you've been waiting for.
The story everybody likes to talk about.
The Obamas recently just bought a $12 million house on Martha's Vineyard.
Take a look inside the seven-bedroom waterfront mansion.
Reportedly.
Barack and Michelle Obama just dropped $11.75 million on a house in Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, Julia Wells reported for the Vineyard Gazette.
The seven-bedroom home is almost 7,000 square feet and sits on 29 waterfront acres, according to the listing.
It comes with an outdoor swimming pool, sun decks and balconies, a boathouse, and a private beachfront.
The home's asking price was originally $14.85 million.
The former first family has spent summer vacations on Martha's Vineyard,
which is a popular summer destination for the wealthy.
Okay, well, Insider posted photos of the property.
It's publicly available information.
And so... Alright, alright.
I just... They have the source.
They show you exactly where everything is.
I'm not gonna post the address, but the address is publicly available.
unidentified
Alright?
tim pool
So here's what I did.
I looked up InsideClimateNews.org.
NewsGuard says that they are certified.
Okay, come on, are you gonna show me?
100 out of 100.
NewsGuard rated Inside Climate News 100 out of 100.
Climate change's worst case scenario, 200 feet of sea level rise.
Burning all of the world's known fossil fuel reserves has a scary result.
Submerging New York, Tokyo, Shanghai, and other cities.
New research shows.
Okay, okay.
200 feet?
Well, we're not gonna burn all of the world's known fossil fuel reserves.
But that's not even that much.
Are they talking about, like, the U.S.
reserves and a bunch of other countries' reserves?
Because burning all of that ain't that much.
Certainly, they must mean the stuff in the ground.
Okay, sure, maybe if we ignite all of the fossil fuels and get carbon all up in the atmosphere for every source, sure, 200 feet.
Is this a shock headline?
Well, that's what they're telling people.
Let me give you the lowdown.
I bring you, my friends, to coast.noaa.gov.
And this is the area of Barack Obama's private beachfront.
On the left, you can see this meter.
Water level.
Now, it's obstructed by my beautiful face, but here's what I can do on the left.
I can raise the water levels foot by foot.
Let's raise the water level one foot.
Okay, now we've got a floodplain just near the water.
No big deal.
Two feet.
Whoa.
Now we've got a serious alert.
Potential flooding for the entirety of those who live in this area.
In this, uh, what is this?
Edgar Town Great Pond.
Okay.
Let's say three feet.
At three feet, Barack Obama's property has already begun to submerge.
This is just three feet.
A three foot water increase.
At four feet, Barack Obama's property has now lost maybe, I think we're looking at 20 to 25 percent to flooding.
At 5 feet, this property's more than half gone.
At 6 feet, this property's basically gone.
7 feet, and I think the house is still there.
Let's just go to 10 feet and go, it's wiped out!
At 10 feet sea level rise, everyone with this beachfront property, this private beach in this area, is totally submerged.
Some houses have made it, but not Barack Obama's.
And it makes me wonder, why would Barack Obama invest in a property that is expected to get wiped out by climate change?
They're lying to you, that's why.
Look at this, this entire peninsula is just gone.
What, when, when does that come back?
Alright.
So, and this is according to Noah.
I'm not saying any of this is correct.
I'm saying a lot of it's probably sensationalized.
Look at, there's like a bunch of houses right here in this little peninsula.
Barack Obama lives on one of these.
I don't wanna, you can easily Google it and see, but I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna show.
But yeah, at 10 feet, he's gone.
The Obama property just wiped out.
15 million bucks down the drain.
Now let's go back to that climate change article.
And what they say is, when they're not fear-mongering, is that... Let me just read a little bit.
I think what they said was 10 feet.
Here we go.
Winkleman and colleagues found that seas could rise nearly 10 feet each century in the first thousand years under this scenario.
Okay.
10 feet in a hundred years in a worst-case scenario?
What are you doing?
The reason why the Obamas don't care to buy beachfront property is because they'll have long moved on before any of this sea level rise actually happens.
Alright.
So maybe it is sensationalizing to say that at a 10-foot sea level rise, the Obama property is wiped out, because that's going to take 100 years in the worst case scenario.
Sure.
Then why is Noah.gov showing us this 10-foot sea level rise, scaring us, terrifying us?
They play dirty games.
Lies.
Cheating.
Stealing.
If you want to talk about a foot of sea level rise, there's almost no impact other than a new floodplain near the Obama property.
So what?
In the next 30-40 years, that's what we can expect?
Maybe a foot?
I mean, it's bad.
It's bad for a lot of places around the world.
The Maldives, for instance.
If that's even true, But we're talking about 10 feet in 100 years at the worst case scenario.
So what's not even the worst case scenario?
You're saying that if we just keep going the way we're going, which is like at moderate production levels, then it could take 500 years to get to 10 feet or what?
What's your number?
Why would you let me even look at 10 feet?
Why would I care about this if it's gonna be happening so gradually and only in the worst case scenario?
The problem I have with this, you go back in time to the turn of the century in New York, and they said we had a horse poop problem.
Yes, they said in 20 years there will be so much horse poop on the streets, you will be unable to live because people were going through the cities with horses.
Probably stank, something fierce I'd imagine.
So with horses pulling, you know, carriages, they thought there would be piles of manure everywhere.
Then the car got invented, and the manure is all gone.
But with the car, we still get climate issues.
We get carbon emissions.
Could it not be that we'll just innovate our way out of this problem as we do with like every problem?
That's the reality.
I think for as much as the Democrats are screaming in everyone's faces, the reality is they know we'll be okay.
Now maybe it's fair to say they know we'll be okay because they're screaming about it.
I think they know we'll be okay because whether we scream about it or not, the gradual climate change, ocean levels or whatever, impacts, will shock people to the point where we will begin to innovate away from these problems.
We don't know what we don't know.
We don't know what we've yet to discover because we haven't discovered them.
What I can tell you is, in the face of climate change, the Democrats are more concerned with the short term.
The left should be mad about that.
Joe Biden wants dirtier gas, dirtier air.
Okay, well, why don't you go talk to him about it?
Because he's more concerned about the economy.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the economy.
If we're going to innovate our way out of any problem, it's going to be with a functioning economy where people can work and innovate.
And shutting everything down probably would just screw us over.
It's a crazy thought.
You know, don't bail water because the ship's sinking.
We gotta get the boat to land.
And it's like, well, hold on there a minute.
Bail water, and we'll make it to land.
If your idea is that your ship is taking on water, so all we gotta do is get out of the water, you're gonna sink.
If your idea is, let's do the work and bail the water, and focus on getting to land to get out of the water in the long term.
You gotta talk about short-term goals, long-term, long-term goals.
It seems to me like much of what we get from the Democratic Party, and don't get me wrong, the Republican establishment, is garbage.
Lies.
Manipulation.
They don't care what's happening.
You know, you're hearing these stories from Marjorie Taylor Greene and the Freedom Caucus about how they don't even vote on bills.
It's like a handful of Democrats and Republicans just going, All in favor of this bill?
Bleh.
Shouldn't members of Congress be voting on all this stuff?
No, they're fundraising.
I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, I tell you what.
I think they're just gonna say whatever they gotta say to make money.
You know what?
Whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Major breaking news coming out of New York.
Multiple people shot in New York subway attack involving explosions.
Apparently a man, some describe him as 5'5", wearing some kind of worker vest, dropped a smoke bomb of sorts before opening fire on several people.
13 people have been transported to local hospitals after the Tuesday morning attack.
We have new information coming in.
On all of this, I want to read you this story, this breaking information.
Keep in mind, the information you're about to hear, it's graphic.
I'm not going to show any graphic images or anything like that, but this is major news.
Multiple people were shot during rush hour Tuesday morning.
Several undetonated devices were discovered.
The incident broke out around 8.30 a.m.
at the 36th Street Center for the DNR lines in Sunset Park.
The suspect is still at large as of 10.05 a.m.
Eastern, so it's been a couple hours since then.
There may be some developments.
According to officials, 13 people have been transported to area hospitals after the shooting.
Early reports said only five had been injured during the attack.
Two of the five shooting victims were said to have been seriously wounded.
Police said a man, possibly wearing a gas mask and orange construction vest, fled the scene to an unknown location.
Explosions were heard at the subway station, while investigators said they were not sure what type of device was detonated.
Early reports said it may have been a smoke bomb.
We're getting more information here now from the Daily Mail.
They say a gunman wearing a gas mask and orange construction vest is on the run in Brooklyn.
In Brooklyn, sorry.
After shooting at least eight people on a packed subway train in Sunset Park during rush hour.
Shortly before 8 30 a.m.
the gunman described by witnesses as a 5 foot 5 black man weighing 170 pounds wearing an orange construction vest and gas mask is believed to have let off a smoke grenade on the northbound N train as it moved towards 36th Street in Brooklyn.
Witnesses from the train car say they thought fireworks were being let off before they realized someone was in fact shooting at passengers in one end of the car.
Eight people were shot, including one who is now in serious condition, but a fire department source said 13 in total were injured.
Four suffered smoke inhalation, and the 13th injured is a pregnant woman.
The terrified passengers were then trapped on the moving train until 36th Street.
Video shows them spilling out onto the platform as soon as the doors opened, coughing as smoke billowed out of the subway car.
Some passengers carried wounded victims off the train and laid them on the platform.
Now, I have questions about this.
There's a video going around.
It doesn't show a whole lot.
It shows the train come to a stop, the doors open, and people rush off the train.
The person filming stays to keep filming.
What about the threat resulted in people feeling comfortable staying put where they are, especially on a train moving through the subways?
I would imagine that if I were on a train and someone opened fire, I'd pull the emergency stop and get off that train, or at the very least, use the doors between carts to get away from that train where shots are going off.
I'm wondering if the person who was shooting was targeting specific individuals.
Why wear a gas mask?
So no one can see what you look like.
Why let off a smoke bomb?
So no one can tell who actually did it.
Why stop shooting at a certain point?
This could have been a targeted attack.
It's all speculation.
I don't know.
What I can say is that crime is getting really, really bad in New York.
I don't know why something like this would happen.
I mean, it's horrifying, but the reality is sometimes bad people do bad things.
I'm not sure there's anything you could really do to prevent this stuff.
And that's something that many people need to recognize, that while this person needs to be brought to justice to prevent them from doing something like this again, how do you prevent someone from taking this kind of action?
Guns are already, for the most part, illegal in New York City.
That means this person illegally brought that weapon in.
There is no circumstance in which you could have prevented this person who wanted to get a weapon from getting that weapon.
Making the weapon illegal did not change anything.
And I don't know what's going on as far as motive.
What we know right now is just people were seen fleeing in New York.
The 36th Street subway station, as you can see in this image, is in Brooklyn near Sunset Park.
One witness told the New York Post, the gunman, A 5'5 black man weighing 170 pounds fired too many rounds to count.
It's unclear what type of weapon he used.
I thought he was an MTA worker at first because I was like, I didn't like pay too much attention, you know?
You've got the orange on, the witness said.
Yav Montano told CNN that he was on the northbound N train between 59th Street in Brooklyn and 36th Street when a smoke bomb went off inside the carriage.
It was crazy.
I take the N-Train every morning to get to where I need to work.
From 59th Street to 36th Street.
The N-Train is Express.
It's where all the dramatics happened.
I'm in the third part of the Express N-Train.
The smoke grenade went off two minutes before we got to 36th Street Platform.
The train was inching towards.
It seemed like it was planned.
Now, now, hold on, man.
I got some questions.
You mean for two whole minutes?
Or the guy starts shooting, how long does that shooting take?
But for two whole minutes, this is occurring.
Yo.
Why did the shooter stop?
What were his targets?
I think these are important questions.
The smoke bomb and what I thought was fireworks, but I'm hearing it was gunshots.
I have no words for what I could see.
I was in the car.
I was in the front end of the third car.
Everything happened at the back end.
People started migrating to the front of the car.
I don't know if people know this.
It's one of those old things where they locked the door to stop people traveling between trains.
There were people in the other car who saw what was happening, and they tried to open it, but couldn't.
There was blood on the floor, a lot of blood trailing on the floor.
At the time, I didn't think it was a shooting.
It sounded like fireworks, people trampling over each other, trying to get over each other.
Thankfully, the train moved to the next stop, and everyone filed off the train.
NYPD units are now scouring the city's empty subway tunnels looking for the gunman who is feared to have jumped onto the tracks at 36th Street and fled.
An amber alert has been issued across New York City.
Here we can see many police responding to the area.
Wow, man.
So as of right now, it seems the perpetrator is still at large.
Samil Toseglu, who runs a store opposite the station, told how his terrified 17-year-old daughter was on the train on her way to school when it was attacked.
My daughter was going to school and was on the same train when it happened.
She said there was smoke and she was told to get into the other train.
She's now safe and it came to my office before I sent her home.
She is okay but a little surprised.
I didn't think it was that serious but she told me people were yelling that it was a man with a gun and maybe a bomb.
An FDNY spokesman, Fight Department, told the Daily Mail originally, the call came in as smoke in the subway station.
Upon arrival, officers found multiple people shot and undetonated devices.
Thirteen people are injured.
I have a lot of questions about this.
Important ones.
The door was locked between train cars.
This does sound planned.
People said they thought it was an MTA worker.
Could it have been an MTA worker who locked the train car before committing this egregious act?
There's fog of war and then there's fog of chaos.
There was already other reports, you know, we're talking about this with several people here.
I'm over at the Daily Wire HQ and there's some people hanging out.
And they were showing images of suspects that looked Asian.
I don't think we know for sure.
Could it have been this 5'5 black man?
Perhaps.
But I am not entirely convinced.
What I can say is it's a shocking and sad story.
I hope everybody is okay.
I hope everything is fine.
I hope they catch this guy.
But my friends, the people of New York, they know how bad things are getting.
So we'll have more information on this probably later tonight, which we'll bring up on TimCast IRL.
So make sure you can check that out.
That's about the best I can give you.
Please be safe out there, everybody.
Pay attention to your surroundings.
Maybe stay away from these areas.
Let the police do their job.
And I gotta tell you right now, for all the defund the police crowd, Who would deal with something like this?
I know, I know, you're gonna be saying, Tim, you talk about abolishing the police too and you criticize New York.
Yes, but it's not because I think the police as an institution shouldn't exist.
It's because I think the police were targeting regular people and they weren't doing their jobs.
Especially during the rioting.
But I do absolutely believe that policing is good.
We just need, I think we do need to clean up the system a little bit.
And I think for the people in these big cities who want, they want to abolish the police, by all means, then you can ask yourself the question, how many social workers will it take to deal with a situation like this?
Ultimately, I don't think there's any real solution.
An armed population I don't think would solve this problem.
I really mean it.
I'm all in favor of 2A.
I own a bunch of guns myself.
But you got a guy in a train.
A jam-packed, you know, situation.
People are shoulder-to-shoulder.
Smoke bomb goes off.
No one knows what's happening.
Ain't no good guy with a gun gonna be stopping something like this.
Perhaps it would be a deterrent.
Perhaps someone could have eventually stopped him, but would have resulted in more people getting hurt.
I honestly don't know.
I don't know if there is a real way to solve for things like this.
And that just leads me to say maybe when it comes to egregious acts of violence, we have to recognize that bad people sometimes do bad things.
Life isn't going to be easy and safe.
Sometimes it will be dangerous.
The people of New York seem to understand what's going on.
Take a look at this story from the Daily Mail as we move on.
Why now is the time to quit the rotten Big Apple.
59% of New Yorkers say their lives would be better if they left the city.
And their number one complaint is no surprise.
And how much you want to bet?
Crime.
A startling 59% of New Yorkers now say they would be better off leaving the city on the back of soaring crime rates and the high cost of living, according to a new poll.
Hey, after what we're seeing right now today with this horrifying story, again, I hope everybody is OK.
I know there are injured.
I hope they're going to be all right.
I'm not surprised people don't want to be here.
Now, I can't blame anybody except this crazed gunman.
That's a reality.
You can't blame guns, you can't blame Biden, you can't blame the police.
Bad people do bad things.
Life is not going to be a fairytale.
Bad things can happen to good people.
But I gotta tell you, man, with that being recognized, there are too many people in this city who vote for bad politicians, who appoint bad cops.
Our good friend Luke Rutkowski, you guys know him.
We are changed.
He interviewed a guy on the subway in New York when a guy with a knife started stabbing people.
And he started fighting this guy and the cops did not intervene.
I don't want to get involved.
They waited until this hero stopped a deranged knifeman who was stabbing people.
And the police were like, we have no obligation to intervene to protect you.
So why should we intervene to get the back of cops when they're shutting down our stores, when they're arresting salon owners?
It's mostly in these big cities.
But to all these people in these cities who complain about police and want to get rid of them, this is what happens when you do.
Crime is skyrocketing.
They say, Crime was the leading issue on voters' minds, with 41% of respondents saying public safety was the most pressing issue, while 19% cited inflation and the high cost of living in New York.
The poll results come as figures show crime has risen 44% since the start of 2022, despite Mayor Eric Adams' promise of a crackdown.
He's not cracking down.
What are they doing?
Anti-gun unit.
Guns are already illegal, and they ain't stop stuff like this.
They're not stopping people from shooting each other.
All they're doing is infringing on the rights of people who aren't hurting people to extreme degrees.
What do you do?
What do you do when someone is violent and intent on being violent?
Banning the weapon doesn't stop it!
That's what they do.
They infringe on your rights.
That's what they do.
More than half of the respondents also took issue with the overall quality of life in New York, with 23% rating it poorly and 36% as only fair.
About 32% said quality of life was good, and just 9% said it was excellent, while crime and cost of living make up 60% of the residents' top concerns, with homelessness coming in at 9% and housing at 8%.
Other issues like healthcare, police reform, education, job creation, etc.
etc.
We understand.
We understand.
Look at this.
Felony assaults are up 19.1%.
Rape is up 15.8%.
We've got shooting victims up 14.5%.
We've got robbery up 47.2%.
Overall crime 44.13%.
But hold on.
percent. We've got shooting victims up fourteen point five percent. We've got
robbery up forty seven point two percent. Overall crime forty four point one three
percent. But hold on, murders are down eight point six. Now you may be saying
Tim, murders are down, that's good news right?
No, I'm sorry.
It's only sort of good news.
The reason murders go down is because of reporting capabilities, not because people are trying less.
Felony assaults are up 19.1, and felony assaults often become murders.
If someone is a victim of a felony assault, or a shooting victim, That could become a murder.
But it seems first responders are doing their jobs.
People are able to report this.
So if we've got a 14.5% increase in shooting victims, do you think that means criminals are like, better shoot them in the non-vital organs?
Or the legs?
No.
It means likely that first responders are doing their job better than before.
I got a lot of issues with cops, with the police departments, with their corruption.
But it mostly has to do with corrupt Democrats in big cities appointing cronies to be police, and them just treating everyone like garbage.
When the riots happened, I said, you know, this is exactly why you need police.
Who's gonna complain when the cops go out to stop rioters, except the rioters and their friends?
Our regular people are gonna say, stop the riots, what they should be doing.
Cops didn't do it.
You know, I don't blame them.
Because the cities demonized them.
But then the cops started arresting people over COVID restrictions.
And I said, these are the regular people who had your back.
So no.
No.
As an institution, I understand the power and importance of police and the problems along with it.
But I don't know how you solve for any of this.
The police could not have prevented this.
This guy had a plan.
And it is a terrifying plan.
And we're seeing just crimes skyrocket.
So, you know, here we go.
Daily Mail.
Hundreds of New York City prosecutors are quitting over low pay and new laws that create reams of paperwork and long hours that leave assistant DAs burnt out.
It's almost like the Democrats want criminals on the streets.
Isn't that how it seems?
You get stories like this.
They then say, oh, look, only we can keep you safe.
Vote for us.
Maybe it's an opportunity for Republicans to win by coming out and saying, you Democrat voters, you the Democrats, you have voted for this over and over again.
It's about time you voted in different leadership.
Otherwise, the crime will just only get worse.
It's not just New York.
The U.S.
Postal Service has suspended service in Santa Monica amid violence.
This is an unusual but necessary step to protect our employees, said a USPS spokesperson.
unidentified
Wow.
tim pool
What's the saying?
Whether rain, nor sleep, nor hail, nor whatever, the post office is always working.
There's a blizzard, the post office is working, but this one?
It's just too much.
It's just too much for postal workers.
The crime has skyrocketed too much.
I don't know how y'all are living in cities right now.
I understand.
Growing up in Chicago, people think it's the apocalypse, and you're fine.
I also know a lot of people who died from drug overdoses, and I know about the gang violence.
I know people directly involved in it growing up.
Why?
At this point, you'd want to live in a city with a skyrocketing crime rate.
59% of New Yorkers know they should flee.
Maybe they can't.
But Joe, your cost of living is so insanely high.
Maybe it's your job.
I get it, man.
It's not easy.
It is not easy to deal with.
This is scary, what's been going on with crime.
I know a lot of people would come to me and say, how did you live in Chicago?
And I'm like, look, you live your life in Chicago.
It is not like people are shooting each other every 10 minutes.
There's just a lot of murders.
I think it was like 800 or some odd out of a city of millions of people, so you'll hear about it, but you typically don't see it.
I've seen and heard, you know, one thing here or two with gunshots.
People involved in violence.
I've been shot at a couple times, so yeah, it happens.
I was in South Korea several years ago.
And I met a couple from South Africa.
And they said, it's not as bad as people think in South Africa.
And this woman's like, I've only been, I think, carjacked maybe five times.
So it's not that bad.
And I was like, what?
Five times?
Yo, I've never been carjacked in Chicago.
And Chicago's bad.
I think it's relative.
That people from an area of high crime think it's normal and they're like, oh, you know, it's only five carjackings.
I remember a story about a guy in Chicago.
Somebody walked up to his car, pointed a gun at his chest, and said, get out, and the dude hit the gas, and so the dude just went, pop pop, and killed him.
Crime exists, man.
Police won't stop all of it.
They can stop very little of it, to be honest.
But they can go after the people and prevent it from happening in the future.
They say an armed society is a polite society, perhaps.
A lot of this high crime is happening in areas where they overtly ban guns.
Out here in Nashville, you know, we were talking to John Rich the other day, he's like, not a whole lot of crime, violent crime, you know, in a lot of these areas, because people are armed.
Everybody's got guns.
You take a look at West Virginia, and what do you see?
You see a lot of, uh, you know, you see a lot of non-violent crime.
You do see a decent amount of violent crime, but that's in, like, the cities.
You come out to the countryside, and it's like, don't come near my property, because we all got guns armed to the teeth.
West Virginia doesn't have very big cities, but it's got a couple, and they have crime there, because people are armed, and even if you're armed, there's no guarantee.
But I think people should be armed.
I don't know what would have happened if that gunman in the train pulled out his gun and someone next to him was armed.
Maybe they could have seen it happen right away and just stopped this before it happened.
I oppose the death penalty.
But I only oppose the death penalty in the sense that you've captured and subdued an individual.
And the reason for it is I don't trust the state to execute innocent people.
Or to execute, to not execute innocent people.
I don't trust them to be right when they say this person is deserving of death.
I certainly think there are people who are deserving of death.
And it's, and it's, it is sad, but this guy on this train, he could have been stopped before he shot all these people.
And I'm sorry, if you feel you have the right to engage in violence that will take someone else's life, you've forfeited your own.
You better pray someone doesn't stop you, because... They will end your life.
I don't like the idea of killin'.
I think most people don't like the idea of killin'.
I think there is a handful of people who probably are okay with it, but most people are not.
When it comes to these cops who shoot and kill people, they have panic attacks.
They break down crying, they have PTSD.
No sane normal person wants to kill another person.
You gotta be crazy.
Callous, cold, and evil.
That's why I don't like the death penalty.
But man, what we're seeing with Democrat policy across the board has been terrifying.
Crime has just been going up like crazy, and I think what we see in New York with this attack is remnants.
It's a byproduct of the escalating crime, the emboldening of this behavior.
People think they can get away with this stuff, and they are.
Look, pay attention to what's happening with this story.
We'll keep up with it.
We'll talk about it on IRL.
What I can only say is, we need to recognize that tragedies happen.
We can't just panic, throw our arms in the air, and then try and pass more draconian laws.
It won't change anything.
You look back.
People survived in the 1800s and 1900s, and we had war and conflict.
And we had guns rapidly advanced near the end of the 1800s, and people survived, and here we are today.
We gotta recognize the risks that come with life.
We need to hold people to account when they violate our laws and hurt people.
But to hold people to account who didn't do anything to be held to account for makes no sense.
What I worry now with what happened in New York is you're going to see an attempt at draconian laws.
They're going to say, oh, Biden was right about banning weapons.
Taking away the rights of individuals who did nothing wrong makes no sense.
It will not stop this.
Stay safe out there, guys.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Export Selection