Biden Admin SLAMMED For Ending Gas Leases Amid NEW RECORD High Gas Prices, Sending $40B To Ukraine.
Biden Admin SLAMMED For Ending Gas Leases Amid NEW RECORD High Gas Prices, Sending $40B To Ukraine.
Baby formula is reportedly being shipped to illegal immigrants while american citizens can't get any, oil and gas leases are being shut down amid record high gas prices, and the Democrats are marching in lock step to send $40 billion to Ukraine.
Republicans are mostly split on the issue but its become obvious that even AOC and the squad are on board with the war machine
#GasPrices
#Democrats
#Biden
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Biden administration is under fire for ending oil and gas leases around the country at a time of record high gas and diesel prices and a looming diesel shortage.
Problems here in this country with the shortages are getting worse, and it seems like Democrats are more interested in sending our money to Ukraine than doing anything about helping the American people.
In our next story, the governor of Maryland and Virginia have called for law enforcement to take action against those protesting at the homes of SCOTUS justices, and even the media has now admitted it is illegal.
In our last story, the memes about abortion, calling them out, A meme where Kamala says, are there any laws governing men's bodies?
Conscription!
Next question.
Let's tackle the issue and talk about the double standard among the left when it comes to the idea of choice versus pro-life arguments.
Now, if you like the show, leave us a good review, give us five stars, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Today the United States faces one of the greatest challenges and crisis periods it has ever faced.
I understand that we have had a civil war and world war, but we are very much entering one of the worst periods of strife this country has ever seen.
Not the worst, but pretty bad.
Fuel prices are at a new all-time high at $4.41.
Diesel prices are also at an all-time high, and we have a looming shortage of diesel, which means supplies that are already in short supply may not make it to your grocery store, to your big box store, even if they could be produced.
Now everybody knows about two major shortages right now.
Cat food, which some people are worried about, I get.
But more importantly, baby formula.
Amid record high gas prices and a shortage of baby formula, what do you think the worst possible thing to do as an administration, what do you think the worst possible thing you could do is amid these two major crises?
Joe Biden has done them.
First, the Biden administration has ended an oil and gas lease for, I believe, millions of acres in Alaska.
But either way, they're ending an oil and gas lease in Alaska.
Untouched, massive open spaces.
If there is one place we should be doing some kind of oil exploration or development, it's Alaska.
Now, I don't like the idea of unsightly big drills everywhere, but we're talking about a massive swath of land at a time of great crisis and major war.
Perhaps we can try and alleviate some of the tensions in this country, but I suppose the Great Reset, World Economic Forum, the climate change activists, they're all like, we would rather people just lose their standard of living and everything be curtailed and pulled back.
Okay, I get it.
OK, so that's the environmentalist.
That's the left.
They don't want you to get cheaper gas prices.
So Joe Biden shuts down, not even the first time, but he ends these oil and gas leases.
OK, so it's the Biden administration, I should stress.
OK, well, what about baby formula?
What if, I don't know, they shipped a whole bunch of baby formula to illegal immigrants at processing facilities at a time when you, an American citizen, could not source any?
It's really amazing, isn't it?
You know, they want to come out, these Democrats, and say that it is not the fault of Joe Biden.
These things are happening.
And every single time there is a direct action taken, we can point to, and they call us crazy.
It's a cult.
It is a cult.
And I will show you the proof.
I won't waste time in the lead.
Normally in the lead, I like to say, like, you know, here's what we're going to talk about.
Why don't you?
No, take a look at this.
Voting to support Ukraine with $40 billion.
Did you think that's all that happened?
Oh, I've got a spattering of bills that were passed to provide aid to Ukraine.
It's not just the $40 billion.
It is debt forgiveness.
The money you got, you can keep.
And it is unanimous among the Democrats.
You know what?
Not a single Democrat voted against this.
They don't care about you.
They are looting what remains.
It is the sinking of the Titanic, and they are grabbing the silverware as the ship goes down to jump into the emergency life raft and leave you confused holding an empty bag.
Every single Democrat, including the squad, voting for one of the largest military packages ever.
Forty billion dollars at a time when mom can't get baby formula at a time when we have gas prices at record highs.
And Joe Biden is shutting down these leases, my friends.
They are gutting this country and they are looting the coffers on the way out.
I hope you can see it.
It's remarkable.
I just, I honestly, I can't even believe, looking at these stories, when you have such anger over the baby formula issue, and then they're like, oh yeah, well, not only have they shut down a major FDA, the FDA shut down a major formula plant, but we've got one Republican coming out saying, yeah, illegal immigrant processing centers, they've got pallets.
They got baby formula.
Not you, though.
Not you, American citizen, who pays all this.
Absolutely remarkable.
Let's read the news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member if you would like to support our work.
As a member, you're keeping our journalists active and writing the news and calling out these stories.
We've brought on a couple of op-ed opinion columnists to provide analyses and deep dives into many of these issues.
Really great articles, by the way, on entertainment as well as history.
You'll want to check those out.
You'll also get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast.
But the most important thing, as always, We are using Rumble infrastructure for the website.
We are using Rumble's video infrastructure for our members only.
And we have some announcements coming up about more infrastructure that we will be implementing to get away from Silicon Valley.
As a member, you are helping to support this alternate ecosystem so we can push back on the psychosis that is censoring us, trying to control a narrative, and destroy and gut this country.
Let's read from Timcast dot com. The Biden administration cancels prominent oil and gas
leases. Oh, they did this in February. Here we go again.
One environmentalist said the government said the announcement was good for the climate, which can't
handle new oil and gas development.
The Biden administration has canceled some of the most high profile oil and gas lease
opportunities pending before the US.
Department of Interior, ending the potential to drill for oil on millions of acres.
The decision halts the potential to drill for oil in the Cook Inlet in Alaska.
Due to the lack of industry interest in leasing in the area, the department will not move forward with the proposed Cook Inlet OCS oil and gas lease sale 258, a DOI spokesperson told Fox Business on Thursday.
The Department of Interior spokesperson noted that additional oil and gas leases would also be halted in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a statement given to CBS News.
The DOI ended the two leases for the Gulf of Mexico region because of conflicting court rulings that impacted work on these proposed lease sales.
So let's slow down.
Alaska.
Lack of industry interest.
Okay.
I will concede that one.
Fine.
Industry didn't want to drill there.
But you also have court rulings impacting the work on proposed leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Alaska thing, I think, is just bad.
Now, if the industry isn't going up and doing the work, Fine.
We can put some blame on these companies.
Like, why aren't you trying to alleviate the pressure?
They're making money off it.
I don't buy it completely.
Record gas prices are bad for everybody, even these companies.
Here's what you gotta understand.
I wonder if, like many people on the left, don't get this.
Oil and gas executives, when they make money, they want to spend that money on things they like.
Be it a Ferrari, a Lamborghini, an Infinity Pool, or otherwise.
The U.S.
economy implodes They're not going to be able to buy anything.
So the goal is, a robust economy is good for those who want to be rich.
But they weren't drilling in Alaska?
So be it.
I don't understand why you would still end the opportunity to do it.
Perhaps it's more complicated than that.
Maybe they just said, okay, we're not going to do the sale and we're going to shut it down because nothing was happening on it.
Fair point.
What about the other court orders?
What about Biden banning gas leases on federal lands?
What about the Gulf?
Look, we can point out all the problems of the oil industry, but we are a country that uses oil for basically everything.
And you see all these people that are like, I see this meme where they say, the cost of wind power hasn't changed at all despite the rising oil prices.
And I'm like, you're lying.
You made that up.
OK?
Wind turbines, people call them windmills, wind turbines need petroleum-based lubricants.
So it's not going to go up that much, but those lubricants cost money.
Newsweek reports Republicans slam Biden for canceling oil lease sales amid record gas prices.
They go on to mention the Department of Interior.
Republicans were quick to criticize the decision and cited the high price of gas.
The American Automobile Association reported was at $4.40.
It's actually $4.41.
Some Republicans argued that canceling the sale of leases would do nothing to alleviate gas prices and even push prices up.
Beth Van Dyne of Texas's 24th District tweeted, Biden chooses to further cut American energy production.
And drive our gas prices higher.
Folks, they're doing this on purpose and do not care what it costs our families.
I'm not gonna sit here and give a free pass to oil companies.
Okay?
They should be engaging on these leases.
And here's the main point.
I'm not someone who's ever gonna come out and be like, Joe Biden's at fault for literally everything!
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
I don't think Joe Biden made COVID, but I think he's a bad leader.
What would happen under Donald Trump?
That's an important question.
I think Donald Trump He would convene a meeting of major oil companies and he would slam his foot down and say, you are being warned.
You will utilize this opportunity to lower prices or we will crush you.
You know, I know he would do that because back in 2015, I believe it was, it may have been 2016, Michael Moore gave a speech talking about Donald Trump's bold move in Michigan.
He went to the automobile industry and said, I will tax your cars at 30%, maybe he said 20%, and no one will ever buy them again unless you make them hear.
No one had ever stood up to them before.
Michael Moore pointed out that working class people loved to hear it.
Finally, someone was fighting for them.
And what happened?
During the Trump administration, a $3 billion investment into auto plants in and around Michigan.
What do we have now?
As things get worse and worse, wholesale inflation is up 11% in April.
This is shockingly bad.
I did this calculator thing on the New York Times.
It was like, calculate your inflation!
And it said my inflation rate was 12.9%.
Because we run a business, so there's things like automobile and gas and all that stuff.
That means, for every member at TimCast.com, The buying power we get with your membership drops by 13% year over year.
Every month it's getting worse.
Which means next year we'll be able to buy a whole lot less.
So we have to make sure the company expands faster than 13%?
Yo, that's a bold increase for a company year over year.
We'll see.
Everything may retract, so, who knows.
With wholesale inflation up 11%, we're gonna see it for sure, in the cost of goods.
Already, let me tell you guys, when we bring guests out for TimCast IRL, we gotta pay for those flights.
We gotta pay for those hotel stays.
It's getting more and more expensive.
And so, some people wonder, like, you know, what's a, you know, you choose a lot of DC-based guests.
DC-based guests, we drive here.
Gas is expensive.
We gotta drive to D.C.
and drive back.
It's a couple hours.
It's a lot cheaper than how expensive tickets are getting for airlines.
And it's absolutely insane.
Yo, $4.41.
You don't need me to tell you about it.
You don't need me to tell you about it because you know how bad it is yourselves.
Biden warns Dems' inflation will scare the living hell out of everybody.
You think?
But I think they're doing it.
I think, at the very least, you could say that the Democrats are so incapable and inept, they're unable to get a handle on the crisis that sits before us.
Or, you could go one step further and just be like, they have to be doing it on purpose.
Now, far be it for me to know the intention of somebody, what's in their mind, what's their motivation, but I can say, at a certain point, The insanity is so over the top, it could only be on purpose.
Like, you know, here's what I was saying before, a year ago, I was coming out here being like, guys, food shortages are coming.
And we had a chicken wing shortage, and we got more chicken shortages, beef shortages.
It's been a year.
What has Joe Biden done to prepare for or alleviate?
Nothing.
Okay, fine.
Say he's inept.
But I gotta say, after a year, of course he's heard about this.
I mean, the news was talking about it.
And if he did and did nothing, is it really on purpose?
You ready for this story that's gonna make your blood boil?
Fox News.
GOP rep says illegal immigrants sent pallets of hard-to-find baby formula.
Kamek's claim comes as American parents worry about a shortage of baby formula.
Pallets of baby formula are being sent to holding facilities at the border amid a shortage that has seen many parents unable to find it at their local stores, according to a GOP rep.
They are sending pallets, pallets of baby formula to the border.
Kat Kamek of Florida said in a video posted to Facebook Wednesday, Meanwhile, in our own district at home, we cannot find baby formula.
Look at this, baby formula is offered on sale at big box stores in Chicago, Illinois, and the shelves are barren.
Amazing.
Kamek posted pictures to social media of empty formula shelves in Florida next to the pallets of food being sent to the border, saying in a video that a concerned Border Patrol agent sent her the image.
Now, I will say, I didn't lead with this because it's a claim coming from a Republican.
Take that with a grain of salt.
I don't think it's unheard of, but it's not like, well, we choose who we trust.
And so, I was thinking, you know, we could lead with this, but I don't want to say definitively it's what's happening.
It is a claim, an allegation made by Kat Kamek from an alleged whistleblower.
And we have this image here.
Baby food, 84 boxes.
Do not take, do not take, and it says 24 equals 2016.
84 boxes at 24, 2016.
And you can see 2023, and what is that?
Expiration, I believe.
June 2023, 7-19-23.
Do not take.
The first photo is from this morning at the Ursula Processing Center at the U.S.
border.
Shelves and pallets packed with baby formula.
The second is from a shelf right here.
At home, formula is scarce.
This is what America last looks like.
Amazing.
Now, of course, people who, um... It's amazing.
Someone said, clearly a sign on top of the shelf says, Baby Food 2016, six years ago.
Two shelves of go-go applesauce and one of formula.
I can order formula from Amazon today to arrive in two days.
You are blowing smoke.
And someone said, if you zoom in, it's actually a count.
Well, you know, I still want to say, take it all with a grain of salt.
We do know that there is a baby formula shortage.
Joe Biden was apparently going to have a press conference on the issue, and then he canceled it.
She said the picture comes from Ursula Processing Facility in Texas, where thousands are being housed and processed and then released.
Now, I will pause again.
I'm not here to play games and stretch the truth or anything like that.
I'm here to give you my thoughts and opinions, and I always think being reasonable is important.
How many pallets were sent to this one facility?
Was it ten?
I think that's bad.
Was it five?
Probably bad.
From the looks of things, it's a couple thousand, you know, tins or, you know, whatever you call it, boxes.
The shortage is much worse than that.
We're talking about box stores and supermarkets all across the country.
So, I'm not sure that one shipment going to one facility is the apocalypse.
What I am trying to say is, there are grains of sand that make up a heap.
Joe Biden had ample warning that all of this would be coming, and it seems like They do nothing to alleviate it.
And while these stories may not be the apocalypse, it's not like Joe Biden came out and said, we're going to purposefully shut down Pipeline.
Like, hold on.
He actually did say that.
Okay.
Okay.
It's not like Joe Biden said that we should be giving our money away to a foreign country at a time.
He actually said that too.
Amazing, isn't it?
I look at these stories and I'm like, I don't know exactly how much was sent, relative to any other store, to these processing facilities.
You know, even if they're illegal immigrants, their babies need formula too, I suppose, but man, that really is America last.
That we're like, we're gonna allow these people to come in, we're gonna give them emergency supplies that our own citizens can't get access to, and you've got a very serious problem.
You've got Joe Biden, who could have called in the oil companies and had an emergency meeting to alleviate the problem, who hasn't done it.
That's it.
Joe Biden shut down oil pipelines.
He shut down Keystone.
He banned some oil and gas leases on federal lands.
The prices are driven up by this.
It's happening again.
It happened in February, it happened before, and it's happening now.
At the very least, we need to make sure we're getting formula to as many people as possible.
And they do say they're doing everything they can, I just don't believe it.
I really don't.
The New York Times says, understanding the shortage.
It's caused by several overlapping problems, they say.
Okay, let's read what they say the problem is.
Supply chain issues.
A recall by Abbott Nutrition, but hold on.
That's but one facility, right?
It's one facility, and maybe they need to get it reopened, but apparently some babies got sick.
The issue is, if we're going to claim that one recall from a food manufacturer after four babies were hospitalized is contributing to the shortage, why not shipments that are going out to illegal immigrant processing centers?
It's been a challenge for families, retailers are limiting how much you can buy, and therein lies the big problem.
Over in Germany, the development minister says the world may face the worst famine since World War II, so it's coming.
But let's talk about what else the Biden administration and the Democrats are doing.
Because while they could be providing relief to you and your family, they're not.
They're sending $40 billion to Ukraine.
The bill includes military, economic, and humanitarian assistance, and cleared the chamber 368 to 57.
57 Republicans voted against passing the massive aid package, claiming they didn't have enough time to review the 30-page legislation.
I just kind of think maybe we shouldn't be doing it.
Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022.
What was the vote?
368 to 57.
You want to know what the creepiest thing is?
Couple.
Not a single Democrat voted against this.
The only nays came from Republicans.
Surprise, surprise.
It's Freedom Caucus types.
You got Marjorie Taylor Greene.
You got Lauren Boebert.
You've got Thomas Massey.
And many, many others.
I don't want to, uh, you know, Billy Long.
I don't want to say none of these people are, you know, deserving of any real credit here.
Chip Roy.
A lot of people said outright No dice.
We're not going to vote for this.
Ken Buck.
But take a look at this.
Jim Banks.
He voted no, Republican.
You've got Barry Moore, Republican.
But you also had many Republicans who voted Who voted in favor of it?
You've got Kevin McCarthy's in favor of it, Mike Garcia's in favor of it, David Valado, uh, how do you pronounce it?
Kim Young, amazing.
But you know what's really interesting?
Frat Upton, Tim Walberg.
You've got Republicans split on this.
Democrats are in lockstep.
The entirety of the squad.
Ayanna Pressley is for it.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, where are you?
We know you're in favor of it.
Come on, AOC.
We got New York, and there it is.
Yay!
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Where's that Minnesota?
I just saw you, Minnesota.
I know you're here.
There we go.
Ilhan Omar!
Voting in favor of this.
Any idea of anti-war progressives?
Out the window.
It is weird to me that there was not a single Democrat to be like, I have questions about sending $40 billion to a foreign country at a time when we need food.
149 Republicans voted in favor of this.
I'll tell you what this is.
This is the United States being looted before our very eyes.
And they're laughing all the way out.
You know what's funny about this though?
Have you heard about the other bill that went through with nearly the same party line vote?
You didn't, did you?
Okay, I give you H.R.
7081, Ukraine Comprehensive Debt Payment Relief Act of 2022.
Not only are we giving them money, we're also saying you will never have to pay it back.
362.
Was a single Democrat opposed to this?
The answer, no.
The Democrats marched in lockstep once again on this.
56 Republicans said no.
And, of course, there's Lauren Boebert, and then there's, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and it's a surprise surprise, Thomas Massey, all saying no to this.
It really is quite incredible.
Let's take a look at what this bill is.
HR 7081 says, a bill to seek immediate bilateral, multilateral and commercial debt service payment relief for Ukraine.
Basically saying, suspension of multilateral debt payments of Ukraine.
The United States position in the international financial institutions, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada.
So, no later than December 31st of each year, the President shall submit to the Committees of Financial Services on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You get the point.
You get the point.
Okay?
It is to seek immediate debt service payment relief for Ukraine.
Well, okay.
You don't gotta pay us back.
We're gonna work with you on that one.
We're also gonna send you tons of money.
There's a bunch of other bills that are very similar.
We've got Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend Lease Act of 2022.
Foreigner in 17 to 10.
And who voted against it?
Why, surprise surprise, it's Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Thomas Massey.
Paul Gosar.
I don't see Lauren Boebert on this one, but we can pop down and see where she was on this vote over in Colorado.
Lauren Boebert supported it.
Now, this is not the same as the other bills, right?
So, I don't know exactly, I don't know if I have that one pulled up, but we can pull it up.
I don't know if it's the exact, exactly the same thing in terms of just giving money, but it's an act to provide enhanced authority for the president to enter into agreements with the government of Ukraine to lend or lease defense articles to that government to protect civilian populations in Ukraine from Russian military invasion and for other purposes.
My attitude is this.
I don't believe the U.S.
should be involved with a war in Europe, a country that is not a NATO ally, that is not an EU member state.
But here we are.
Overwhelmingly, Congress doesn't seem to actually care about what the American people want or need.
And this is S3522.
We also have a similar bill.
Providing for consideration of the bill to provide enhanced authority of the president to enter into agreements with the government of Ukraine.
It's the Lend-Lease H-Res 1065.
Now this one, all Republicans voted against, all Democrats voted for.
Truly, truly an amazing bill.
But I suppose ultimately what ends up happening, this is April 28th, they revise it and you get a similar bill and everyone's basically on board with it.
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 Glenn Greenwald says the anti-war left is dead.
presidential election. We do 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. It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Glenn Greenwald says the anti-war left is dead. The squad's 40 billion dollar war vote just killed it.
For years AOC and the squad postured as standard left-wing anti-war and anti-imperialism activists.
They railed against massive U.S.
expenditures to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and the CIA.
Now they just voted for one of the largest war packages ever.
During AOC's 2018 primary, she was unknown.
Ryan Grimm suggested I look.
I did and became an enthusiast.
I interviewed her.
She vowed to vote no on Pelosi, railed against identity politics, said establishment GOP and Dems were the enemy, denounced war budgets.
Where is this AOC?
I too was excited at the prospect of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I said, good for her defeating this incumbent establishment Democrat, the fourth in line in terms of Democrat power.
I was in favor of the Green New Deal.
I'm still in favor of some kind of Green New Deal, but they don't exist, so what am I going to vote for?
I made a video once on my TimCast News channel where I said, the government using tax funds to invest in repairing our infrastructure, I support.
Our bridges are crumbling, our roads are crumbling, let's fix them.
I'm not a big fan of government programs or anything like that in the long run because it just takes money from people, but infrastructure is the one thing I think really is, like, the best argument for taxes.
At least some.
Well, what ends up happening?
AOC puts out her Green New Deal and it was free college if you're black or brown.
And I was like, what?
What does that have to do with wind turbines?
Nothing.
Not a thing!
My friends, as everything is crumbling before us, I'd like to show you what Democrats are really interested in.
In this clip from Bill Maher. Let me play it for you.
I'm gonna jump ahead real quick, but Bill Maher is right.
13% of Americans, and this is the key issue.
Jen Perlman, who we've had on the show and I respect, says, a leftist, progressive, tuition cost when Bill Maher went to Cornell, $3,000 a year.
Tuition to Cornell today had wages kept up with inflation, $17,000 a year.
Actual tuition cost to Cornell today, $59,000 a year.
I don't care.
Now I'm a fan of getting rid of the interest rates, but Bill Maher makes the point very clearly.
13% of Americans, it's actually 12.9% I think, 12.9% of Americans have college debt.
Not a very large voting bloc.
Half of that is grad students.
Why are the highest income earners calling for a tax on the working class and poor to fund their lifestyles?
That's what Democrats are focused on.
It's truly amazing.
When you go over to the Hill, we can see economy and abortion top voters' concerns heading into the midterms.
If you're someone who thinks abortion is the number one issue, you must be rich.
Seriously.
You're probably a rich person.
If you think the economy is the biggest issue, you're probably working class or poor.
I do not believe.
That your average working class person who can't afford to pay rent, who is living paycheck to paycheck, who can't find baby formula or fill up their gas tank is going, but I also can't get an abortion!
Abortion is such a specific issue.
And while I'm sure there are many people who are concerned about it, is it their top concern?
Let's read.
Voters are split on which party should control Congress after this fall's election, but most agree the economy and abortion rights will be at the top.
A survey from Monmouth University released Thursday found that after health care registered as a top concern for 20% of voters in the 2018 cycle, priorities have shifted.
Just 16% say health care.
The poll found 26% of respondents saying the economy among their top policy positions, and 26% said abortion.
If you have the luxury of saying abortion is the main issue for you, you're probably well off.
Or at least better off than most people.
Or I guess I suppose you could be in the cult.
I don't see how you could be struggling to fill up your gas tank and then telling your congressman, but, you know, abortion's more important.
No, I think regular people are like, dude, I just need to live.
I just need to be able to go to the grocery store, have a job, live.
I don't believe that the abortion is the most pressing issue for this country.
26% said it is their top issue.
I truly find that quite amazing.
That's where we're at.
I think the reason you see abortion as a top issue is it could be pro-life individuals.
I'm not going to say it's just pro-choice.
They go on to break down the difference.
They say, I'm sorry, the split.
The public remains divided on whether they would prefer to have Republicans.
36% of Democrats, 34.
And leaners are more initially say the party does control, blah, blah, blah.
12% of the GOP intend to the Democrats.
That's basically what we see, which gives, you know, the Republicans have like three or four points advantage.
48% of Republican and 44% Democrats split.
Statistically insignificant shifts since March.
It actually does matter.
But anyway, look, moving on from this.
There are a lot of people in this country who are struggling to get by, who want a better life for their kids.
I don't think a social issue is the most pressing for the average person.
I think it's the economy.
I know they're saying it's split fairly evenly, but we can see here the most important issues in Congress, economy, abortion, healthcare, immigration, gun control, and taxes by 2022.
Actually, it looks like 25%, not 26%.
That was a typo from the Hill.
So, the economy is number one, followed by abortion, followed by healthcare, immigration, gun control, and taxes.
I'm not surprised the economy is the biggest.
I am surprised to see abortion has now become bigger than it was in 2018.
Because of the news cycle and those who march in lockstep with whatever cult leaders tell them, they're going to be like, okay, that's the new issue for us.
And you gotta have money in the bank for the most part to be able to march in lockstep with a cult, but I guess not everybody would.
I mean, if you're in a cult, you could be poor and you're going to deviate to what the cult wants because you're in a cult.
Gun control was bigger in 2018, less so today.
Immigration is up.
Healthcare is down.
I'm sorry, immigration is down today.
Healthcare is down today.
Taxes are up.
Because it's the economy, stupid.
If you were to combine taxes, then...
With the economy, it's way bigger, it's way more.
Financial circumstances for the average person matter more than anyone else.
More than anything else, I should say.
So, it's the economy, stupid.
And we can bring it back to the beginning.
Now is not the time to be ending these leases.
I understand they were like, nothing was happening, there was no interest, so we're shutting it down, but you don't need to.
What they need to do is the inverse of this.
They need to go to these companies and say, we want you, you must go and do this thing.
Donald Trump needs to intervene.
I am not a free market, small government Republican.
I've never been.
I think there needs to be restrictions on government to a great degree, but I believe this is where the government is supposed to be involved.
Not shutting these things down.
Helping make them a reality.
But good luck.
The Democrats are marching in lockstep as everything burns down.
I think we're winning.
I don't want to be, you know, just a total downer.
I think this is going to result in a red wave.
I think the past few weeks have shown victories on the horizon for those who believe in the Constitutional Republic and liberty.
So, let them do it, I suppose.
And we will win in the long term.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Okay, let's be real.
Governor Glenn Youngkin is a whole lot better than Ralph Northam.
But I don't think he's a leader.
He's reactive.
He has come out, just now we got this tweet, where he said, the federal statute is clear.
If you're parading or picketing in order to try and influence a judge, then it's punishable with jail time.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the law also says demonstration.
The gist of this is, people keep protesting in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices, and it is illegal.
And Glenn Youngkin was like, we're gonna set up a security perimeter.
No.
Be a leader.
Arrest them.
You know, Washington Post comes out.
And says, Governor's Larry Hogan and Youngkin asked DOJ to halt protest at justices' homes to halt it.
Well, he did say enforce the law, and I can respect that, but he's only coming out and saying this after he saw a reaction from angry Republicans who were like, why aren't you enforcing the law?
And then he calls on Garland to do something about it.
Dude, you're the governor.
They're state police.
Do something.
But I will say, I will say, because we're going to rag a little bit on these governors and what's going on with these protests.
Ralph Northam, the previous governor, yo, that guy was insane!
I cannot get over that video, where he's at the radio station, and I want to see, that guy should have been impeached for saying this.
You have this reporter, this woman at the radio station, and she's like, Kathy Tran has called for an abortion with no limits up to nine months, and Northam is like, Well, I'll tell you what we would do.
unidentified
The baby would be delivered, it would be made comfortable, resuscitated, it would be taken to another room, and then there would be a discussion on what to do.
So right now, outside of that psychotic episode, we end up with Governor Glenn Youngkin, who is... Yo, this dude is weak!
Eh, they're all weak, man.
I don't trust any of these politicians.
I don't trust the Republicans.
There's no leadership.
Here's what should have happened, alright?
So we have this clip Glenn Youngkin posted where he's talking with Cavuto on Fox News, and he's like, I want, you know, the law to be enforced.
Took you long enough, dude!
You wanna know what I would do if I was the governor?
Okay, the governor has law enforcement capabilities.
So if I saw people saying, we are going to go protest in front of the home of Supreme Court justices, I would respond with, you will be met with law enforcement, and if you picket, parade, or demonstrate in front of these homes, we will not hesitate to arrest you.
Now, they are slap-on-the-wrist charges.
The left is coming out like, I have a First Amendment right to protest!
You do.
You absolutely do.
We do have limitations.
And there are some people who are free speech absolutists.
I'm not one of them.
I think there are reasonable restrictions, but it is a very difficult moral and ethical question.
Moral and ethical question because there is no safe line.
There is no like, okay, here's where we can stand on free speech.
No, no, because even if you acknowledge that there should be limits on, say, like threatening
someone, and all that happens is someone says, well, if we can ban that speech, why can't
we move the line a little bit further back?
And then you're in a constant struggle to maintain where you think the line should be.
I get that.
It ain't easy.
But I recognize the the legal reasons behind why we don't allow people to protest at the homes of Supreme Court justices.
It is because the cause of justice supersedes your speech.
You cannot have speech or freedoms without the ability for there to be due process and justice.
So you cannot try to influence the courts through picketing or parading.
Here's the clip from Fox News.
Let me play it for you.
unidentified
Well, the statute is incredibly clear.
It basically says if you are parading or picketing in order to try to influence a judge, then it's punishable with up to a year in prison.
That sounds illegal to me.
And I just asked the Attorney General to enforce the law that's on the books.
If people want to demonstrate someplace off away from their home, that's their prerogative.
But again, this is not a final ruling.
It's a draft ruling.
Right.
And clearly these these demonstrations are being pulled together to try to influence the final outcome.
These people are holding signs saying, don't do this, don't do that.
And the response we get from people is, people just don't read the law.
Quote, it's absolutely hypocritical.
She said to The Notion that the justices should be afforded an extra measure of privacy because the Supreme Court wants to have domain over women's uteruses.
And yet the sidewalk in front of their homes is somehow sacred ground.
Yeah.
And that's because the cause of justice supersedes the right of the individual to protest or picket.
There's no easy answers.
I will tell you, the left is pro-free speech when they can wield it to their benefit.
They oppose it when it harms them.
If it's good for the revolution, it's good.
If it's bad for the revolution, it's bad.
A simple standard.
So they also mentioned that, you know, Hogan also in Maryland, Washington Post reports the Republican governors of Virginia and Maryland I know, I know, let me go back because I'm sure people are already saying, you know, I mentioned state police or whatever.
Yes, I think state police should greet these individuals.
I think you get arrested for non-violent civil disobedience.
But right, it is a federal statute.
Demonstrators have gathered over the past of the homes of several people blah blah blah this we know well here we go
a Bunch of I think that's a guy actually
A bunch of men and women, maybe, dressed up like Handmaids.
Because, as you know, Millennials have only ever read two books, Handmaid's Tale and Harry Potter.
Now, I have to go ahead and say, actually, Seamus said this on IRL, considering they've both been adapted into film and television, they probably didn't even read those books, they just saw the show or the movie.
But now we have people, they've gone out in front of Kavanaugh's home, Alito's home, John Roberts' home, and Amy Barrett's home.
They're all breaking the law.
Look, I don't think the people who are protesting should have their lives destroyed.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying we need to have the rule of law.
We need to know what we're allowed and not allowed to do.
And if we decide to step over that line, you get arrested for it.
People in D.C.
chained their arms together for, it was Extinction Rebellion, I think it was.
I may not like that they're disrupting people's lives, personally.
I don't like many of their causes, but the issue is We need to have push and pull.
We cannot be rigid to where it's like, if you step over the line, we crack the whip.
It needs to be like, you stepped over the line, we will respond in kind.
You sat down in the street, we're gonna take you out of the street, and you're gonna go to jail.
Typically, these people end up with court supervision charges, and that's what I think is appropriate here when they go in front of these judges' homes.
Here's what y'all need to understand about going in front of someone's home.
These justices are some of the most powerful, important, and prominent people in the country.
And because it's a matter of politics, they're particularly more vulnerable.
There are people like Johnny Depp.
Johnny Depp has to worry about crazy people.
Someone who thinks that he's stolen all of the oatmeal spoons from every Walmart in the country to play badminton with shrimp on the moon.
And they're thinking, if they don't stop him, how will they have shrimp cocktail for dinner?
Yeah, it's insane.
That's the point.
Celebrities have to deal with really crazy people.
And it's not just always some delusional person.
Celebrities have to deal with crazy people who are like, I just feel in my heart of hearts that you're my soulmate, and if I just met you, you'd understand, and it's like, yo, you don't know these people.
Supreme Court justices have a little bit of that, but not the same degree to which celebrities do.
The Supreme Court justices have a worse threat, and that is that people want to harm politicians and political personalities Because they have power over their lives.
And so when these people are showing up and saying, do not touch me, do not do this, do not do that, it's not the same thing as a fan.
You know, we have issues with this, and we tell everybody, do not come here.
People have tried coming to my home in the past, and the police have gone after them, people have been criminally charged, and now we have armed security.
I'm not going to go into great detail, but You could get shot, and I hope that doesn't happen.
We don't want anyone to get hurt, but considering the death threats... Now, that's because where we are with TimCast is a hybrid between the political and the celebrity.
You know, the Supreme Court justices are not household names.
They really aren't.
They're becoming that, I guess, because politics has become pop culture.
But I assure you, if you go to the average person and say, do you know who Sonia Sotomayor is, they're gonna be like, I've heard that, I think.
Who is that?
If you go to them and say Brett Kavanaugh, they might know, because politics has pop culture.
If you say Alito, they might be like, who's that guy?
Clarence Thomas?
That sounds familiar.
Who's that guy?
You say Brad Pitt, they're gonna be like, oh, of course.
Madonna.
Oh, of course.
You say, who else is a prominent celebrity?
Adele?
You know, people know they are.
Tim Guest IRL is a forward-facing show, but it's in the political space.
So the risks that we have are that we are politically influential, and we are also high-profile, high-visibility.
And that's why we've had, I think, eight swattings?
Yeah.
Because people don't like what we do.
So it's a combination that we fear of the crazy people and the political.
For the Supreme Court justices, if people show up to their homes, it's going to cost them a lot of money and security.
But let's be real, it's going to cost you a lot of money and security.
For a Supreme Court justice who knows that they're about to lay down a ruling that is unpopular in half the country, they can't trust that any one of these people are good people.
People have tried to commit violence against politicians Recently!
I mean, we've had all of this in the past few years.
It was worse in many ways in the past, but it could happen at any moment.
Steve Scalise got shot playing a baseball game.
So if you live in one of these houses, and these people are like, we're just peacefully voicing our opinions, what you're really doing is eroding the security that these justices have as they seek to bring about justice through the courts.
And that's why I believe it should be, and is, illegal.
But these people don't care about this.
It is outright terror.
But I can give a good shout out to our friends over at the Washington Post who finally admitted, yo, it's illegal.
The Washington Post says, yes.
Experts say protests at SCOTUS Justices' homes appear to be illegal.
They are.
Arrest them.
I am sick!
Of the inequality under the law.
These people want to come out and say, the 14th Amendment guarantees my rights under the law, and also my exemption from it.
No, that's not how it works.
I'll tell you this, you want to come out and say the 14th Amendment hereby dictates women have a right to privacy and abortion, I'll say, great, arrest them all.
You want equality under the law, you get arrested when you break it.
Yeah, that's not what they want, though.
They want power.
If it's good for the revolution, it's good.
If it's bad for the revolution, it's bad.
The Washington Post says, As Republicans and others cry foul over Roe v. Wade, protests at the homes, blah blah blah, have happened.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, There's protests three or four times a week outside my house.
So what?
You're not a judge.
But while protest is indeed ingrained in American democracy, legally speaking, the comparison between protesting at a politician, a politician at home, and a member of the judiciary is inexact.
And experts say the latter category of protest is probably illegal regardless of how peaceful they are.
An issue is statute enacted in 1950, Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S.
Code.
The law states it's illegal, with the intent of influencing any judge, to picket, parade, or blah blah blah, or to resort to any other demonstration in or near a building or residence.
Tabitha Abu El-Hajj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel's University and Law School, said the current protests at Justice's homes qualify under the statute, and the statute, if tested, would probably be found constitutional.
The statute would seem to apply both, because they appear to be picketing and parading with the relevant intent and the relevant locations, but also because the statute has a catch-all, resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building.
Timothy Zick of the College of William & Mary agreed.
The conduct appears to be within the statute's prohibition.
Picketing includes activities such as demonstrating and protesting.
The court has upheld properly tailored restrictions on pickets that target a particular home.
While the Supreme Court has rarely dealt with a specific statute, it has upheld similar ones.
Frisbee v. Schultz.
The court upheld a local Wisconsin law that banned protesting targeted at a specific home, as long as protesters were allowed to march through a neighborhood.
Two decades earlier, in 1965, the court upheld a Louisiana law that echoed the federal law's prohibition.
The laws were enacted amid an outcry over allies of Communist Party defendants picketing at federal courthouses.
A state may adopt safeguards necessary and appropriate to assure that administration of justice at all stages is free from outside control and influence.
A narrowly drawn statute such as the one under review is obviously a safeguard both necessary and appropriate to vindicate the state's interest in assuring justice under the law.
Okay!
Great!
Well, I'm all for it, right?
Great.
Here we go.
From the Post Millennial.
The FBI targeted parents using terrorism tools despite Biden AG's testimony.
They didn't, according to whistleblowers.
Here we go, my friends.
If you do not see a looming civil war at this point, I don't know what to tell you.
I mean, a lot of people disagree with me.
That's fine.
Okay?
That is fine.
But let me just say, at the very least, according to Stephen Marsh, and he's not a right-wing dude, he's fairly establishment perspective, we are in civil strife.
That means, I think he said something like, more than 70 people are dying every year over political issues.
We're not quite in a war.
I think we are, I think it's just fourth and fifth generational war.
I think when you have the Attorney General targeting parents with terror tools and allowing overt illegal activity, there is no law in this country.
There are no rules by which we feel safe to live, and I have seen it.
With the rising food costs, with gas prices, and with no rule of law, you get civil war.
May have been a quote from somebody else, but I think it was him.
So here we go.
You know, in the Arab Spring, a lot of people said that, you know, it was political which caused the Civil War, it was social media.
A lot of scholars said actually it was the rising food costs.
That food had become too expensive.
So here we are in the U.S.
All of the ingredients have been thrown into the cauldron, and we are inching ever closer from civil strife to civil war.
I think we're in it.
You know, if I was to use a broad term, I would say I don't need to quantify the steps in which you can, you know, would lead to a civil war.
I think we are in the maelstrom, spiraling faster and faster as we circle the drain.
I don't know.
Do maelstroms have a drain or just a large gaping hole in the surface of the Earth?
Well, here we are.
These governors, Larry Hogan and Glenn Youngkin, are calling on the AG to arrest these people.
I don't believe it will happen.
Previously, these governors just said, we'll keep it peaceful.
Why didn't you come out and just arrest them?
You have law enforcement capabilities as well.
And, um, maybe it's because there's no state statute against it?
Fine.
These are federal judges, and if no one's willing to enforce the law, then what do we have?
If people are going to target these families, this is the crazy thing.
These families in Virginia, that's a state matter.
The federal government is targeting these parents?
But they won't go after these picketers?
I think we got dark times ahead, my friends.
And I think most of you know.
If a conservative goes out and protests, the media will attack them, the law enforcement will come after them.
When that dude at NASCAR had a garage pole rope hanging from his garage, feds came out?
Yo, they've lost the plot.
Now we have this whistleblower coming to Project Veritas, saying that there were political actions being taken.
That's just, that's crazy.
On top of what's happening here with Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson getting this whistleblower's reveal, the FBI has labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag created by the Counter-Terror Division.
If you're a parent, and you're asking questions about critical race theory, the FBI is going to target you under terror provisions, and we knew this was coming.
We warned about it with the Patriot Act, that sooner or later they will target American citizens.
They are.
So what do we do and what can we do, man?
I don't have all the answers.
I can tell you...
The establishment and the left and the activists are unified in lying, cheating, and stealing.
I think it's fascinating, actually.
They'll call me far-right, right-wing, conservative, or whatever.
They'd like to.
Right-wingers don't call me that, though.
But if TimCast and TimCast IRL really are right-wing influential platforms, then it's clear who the good guys are.
And it's us.
I hate to say it like that, right?
No, no, you can't do it because you're just creating division.
No, no, come on.
I'm on the side, I'm pro-choice, right?
Traditionally, not the new weird pro-abortion thing.
You can call it pro-abortion as I actually said for editorial standards at TimCast.com, but I'll put it this way.
I am in favor of first trimester at the discretion of the woman.
argument within the second trimester of a question of viability, but after viability, I oppose it.
And what I mean by that is, I believe you should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy with cause if you save the life of the baby.
And that's a really great argument I heard from Seamus and Matt Walsh to differentiate on these issues.
If my position tolerates actual abortion and the actual right-wing position doesn't at all, then clearly I am not Probably just centrist, right?
If the left is unwilling to even accept a centrist or moderate position, then what you have is conservatives entertaining positions they don't agree with within reason and compromising with moderates like myself, and the left saying, no, burn it all down.
You have judges who will go after positions held by regular Americans and moderates.
I'm sorry, you have the AG.
And the left, who will say, arrest our enemies.
If the right is willing to compromise with moderates, like me, the left is unwilling to recognize a moderate at all, and it's just making demands, then it's clear who has become unreasonable.
And therein lies the challenge we face before us, is that the institutions are held by those who are unreasonable.
People like Merrick Garland, deeply... I believe evil.
You know, I watch some of these Democrats speak, and they will say things that make it... it sounds so similar to the things we say, but I'm just like, the facts aren't real.
Like, the things they propose, they're not real.
92% of abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, I believe it is elective.
No reason given.
They're just ending the life of the baby.
The Democrats tried to codify third trimester abortion, meaning if the mother's health is at risk, you can kill the baby.
It makes no sense.
If the baby is viable, you can deliver the baby or remove the baby without killing it.
For what reason would you just kill it?
Now, I understand ending the pregnancy, but why no provision saying, efforts must be made to preserve the life of the baby?
Because they are not reasonable people.
And they're willing to enforce laws and manipulate institutions to gain more power, and it's been happening for some time, as evidenced here.
Sooner or later, people will say, I will not tolerate this anymore, and I think they'll walk away.
I think we'll get to a certain point where we will see a peaceful divorce, And then, you will see a civil war.
Because the first civil war in this country, there was a peaceful divorce, a secession, and nobody thought civil war was going to happen.
Until Fort Sumter.
So at first, states seceded, and it was like, okay, now what?
And then fighting.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
In these trying times, we must suffer through many memes that are not properly thought out.
With the leaked draft opinion on Roe v. Wade and the looming decision which will likely overturn it, everyone seems to be arguing.
But as I often note, as many scholars and academics have noted, The right tends to know the left's argument, and this is likely due to the fact that the right does consume left-wing media sources at least a little bit.
About one-third of their news diet, on average, comes from mainstream or left-leaning sources.
But for the left, around 95% of their news comes from left-leaning sources, so they don't actually know the arguments from the right.
Which brings us to this meme of Kamala Harris asking if there are any laws that give the government power over the male body.
And of course there are.
But the point of this segment is just, you know, typically I'll grab a news story and we'll talk about the ideas around it, but yeah, I've been arguing on Facebook and Twitter, and so I think it's time to make some political points, ethical points, and have a philosophical discussion about what it means to be pro-choice.
I saw a meme, and it said that the real purpose of pro-choice is to give women absolute power over men.
And I thought it was silly, but the idea was, women get to choose when there is a baby, period.
And the argument is, well, it's their bodies, right?
If that were the case, and choice was about a person deciding to have a child, men would be allowed to abort financial responsibility.
Equality under the law, under the 14th Amendment, based on the left's own pro-choice definition or argument, pro-abortion argument, would dictate the woman can choose to abort the baby, the man has no say in that decision, but the woman has no right to demand the man pay for her decision, right?
Well, I actually thought the left would agree with that point because they seem hell-bent on destroying the family.
Conservatives would probably be like, no, no, no, no, we want child support instead.
Many on the left lost their mind at the idea that a woman would not get child support if she chooses to have a baby a man did not choose to have.
And I gotta show you one of the arguments presented to me.
It's fascinating.
They're like, the man chose to have sex and she got pregnant.
It's his fault and he's responsible.
And I'm like, the woman chose as well?
And then you know what I thought?
Maybe that meme about women or the leftists wanting absolute power is true.
The idea being the women can choose to ensnare the man for 18 years if she wants, or get rid of the baby, and he can't do anything about it, so they ultimately get to choose, and the man does not.
Now, this is not a joke.
I mean it quite literally.
The pro-choice argument under the 14th Amendment dictates a man shall have no responsibility to a child he does not choose to have.
He's not even killing it!
So there's not even an argument about when life begins.
But let's start with this.
This was the meme that I saw.
I'll repeat the question.
Can you think of any laws that give the government power to make decisions about the male body?
Okay.
I will play.
First of all, yes, it is illegal to sell organs.
Now, this does impact women, but specifically for men.
Men can't sell their, you know, their boys.
You can't sell to private boys.
Now, women don't have the boys.
Men do.
So, I'm being a bit, I don't know.
Making a semantic argument.
We get it.
We get what you're trying to say.
I understand.
You're saying, are there laws specifically governing men that aren't governing women?
Because everybody knows, banning abortion specifically governs women.
It's just remarkable how ill-thought these memes are, but you know what?
They work.
Allow me to arm you with the very simple answer.
Uh, duh, it's called conscription?
They've tried to draft women.
It never goes through.
I don't know where we're currently at with it.
I'm pretty sure we're not drafting women yet.
And under equality of the law, women should be drafted.
I think nobody should be drafted, but I can understand why there is a draft.
Actually, let me slow down.
I think draft is good.
I think conscription is actually good.
I really do.
I just think that 99.9% of circumstances it shouldn't be allowed.
Conscription should be a natural process by which your homeland is invaded or threatened and you stand up to defend it.
The idea that we would conscript people and then send them to Vietnam was insane.
Some country lands a bunch of boats on the shores and starts running it and killing people, and the country's being overswept.
Like, then I can understand a draft.
But this is the easy answer, and this article's from four years ago.
Kamala Harris asked, can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
Kavanaugh said, I am not aware of anything right now.
How about the draft?
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
That's right, the government can force only men!
And courts have consistently been like, women are exempt.
So, yes.
There are laws specifically governing men.
I mean, we can get gross because you can talk about reproductive processes, but there are certain things men cannot do with their bodies or things that are related to only the male body.
It is a ridiculously stupid question.
But of course, the memes keep on flying and the left eats these things up because they don't have Google, I guess?
Which brings me to the question about abortion.
We have this right here.
So in response to someone posting that meme, I responded with, I say pro-choice for the woman and man.
If the woman chooses to have the baby, the man should also have the right, have a right to choose to abort any financial responsibility.
It's still a lopsided issue as the man doesn't have a right to choose to keep the baby if the woman chooses to abort, but that's not his body.
So at the very least, it's time to end child support.
Now I know, conservatives mostly would be like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
They actually like the idea.
So let me show you this one.
Where do we have the story here?
Is it this one?
Abortion ban.
This is from March 2nd.
Dads would have to pay child support at 15 weeks under new amendment.
So in Florida, they proposed banning abortion at 15 weeks.
So Tina Scott, a Democrat, said fine, then the men have to pay child support.
And what was the response from the pro-life anti-abortion conservative crowd?
Thunderous applause saying yes!
Absolutely.
It's funny seeing these memes popping up, these women saying, if men are going to take away our right to abortion, then we won't have sex with them!
And conservatives are like, yay!
No more dating culture, no more dating apps.
It's like, you don't know what their arguments are, do you?
Well, let's talk about the ethics and philosophies around the arguments of the left, dissect them, and destroy them!
First, there is a question of the meme itself.
Can you think of any laws that give the government power to make decisions about the male body?
As if to imply there is a law about the woman's body.
Now, when it comes to abortion, it does involve the woman's body.
The issue that the left often ignores is that there is a baby's body involved as well.
Now, in response to my post, Manny said, life begins at first breath.
It's like, okay, you want to make that argument because That's convenient for you?
Fine.
But it's not a real argument.
Life begins at conception, there's no other way to define it.
Because we can actually take an egg and a sperm and put it in a plastic bag and grow a goat.
So we know that the life has already begun.
The cells are replicating, it's absorbing, it's producing.
That's the life.
But anyway, let's move on to the response I got, which is absolutely hilarious.
I gotta be honest, I genuinely believed that they would agree with my position.
Here's what happened.
The person who posted the meme said, and child support, that's effing laughable.
Someone said, wait, she got pregnant by herself?
The man has already made a decision.
Every time men have sex, they make the decision to take a risk of impregnating someone else, and yes.
That risk may involve their own financial future.
If men want to be pro-choice, then here is that choice.
Be celibate or accept the risk.
That's pretty basic.
To simplify this down to a metaphor you might more easily understand, if a bro decides to build a wicked skate ramp in their neighbor's backyard, even with the neighbor's permission, they may still be in part responsible for any accident that happens said wicked skate ramp.
And also, because it's in someone else's yard, not theirs, the neighbor will have final say if they want to keep it or not.
Both things are true.
Does that make it any clearer?
This concept goes by other names, including sovereignty, autonomy, independence, and personal responsibility.
Warning, these concepts are not for man-children.
They're for men.
Let me, uh, slow down for you, uh, slow you down there a little bit.
If I build a wicked skate ramp, if I decide to build it on someone else's property, I am not responsible.
That's not how it works.
Now, of course, you can sue a ham sandwich.
It doesn't mean you're going to win.
But burglars have broken into people's homes, gotten injured, and then sued the homeowner and won!
These stories are probably, you know, rare, but there have been circumstances where people defending themselves from criminals have been held responsible.
You can't booby trap your home.
You get in trouble for that.
If I build something on someone else's property, and it is on their property, and someone comes in and gets injured on it, it is not my fault for building the ramp.
They can try to sue over it, but it is likely they would not succeed.
It is still, I think, a stupid argument, but it happens.
If someone breaks onto my property and uses something of mine, I'm in trouble?
Yeah, that's dumb.
Of course.
The fascinating thing here is how they are not in favor of choosing.
The next person said, sorry bud, you make them pregnant, half the responsibility is on you.
You had every opportunity to make the choice to use birth control and didn't.
That puts it on you.
You two, like it or not.
I had one child and got fixed.
We'll address these faulty arguments in a bit more depth, but someone said, now you want to make a woman have a baby and then make the man not responsible to contribute to raising the baby?
I think next, we women will be put in camps and monitored, and the men will order their Viagra and now can have it delivered right to their door.
Summon a woman, watch when they get pregnant and have doctors standing by their due date, and the baby to the mother, and say, now you take care of it, you won't get any monetary help, but do the best you can.
Thank you so much, Facebook strawman leftists, for... I did not expect this response.
I thought they would say yes.
I assumed that the left would be like, yeah, because they don't care for family.
But let's break this down.
Oh, oh, my, my sweet, naive leftists.
She got pregnant by herself.
She made the decision to risk impregnating someone else.
That's strange.
That's the conservative argument.
The woman chose to have sex and got pregnant.
Remarkable.
Absolutely.
You make them pregnant.
You could have used birth control.
But are you, are you saying the woman could have chosen to use birth control?
Absolutely incredible.
Now you want to make a woman have the baby and then this one's just a laughable straw man.
We're gonna put him in camps and men can order Viagra.
A woman gets pregnant.
A woman and a man decide to copulate.
The woman gets pregnant.
The woman then says, you know what?
I want to abort the baby.
And the man says, I love you.
Please don't.
The woman says, too bad.
It's my choice.
Well, okay.
It's her body, right?
Her body, her choice?
The man then says, I want this child.
I don't want you to kill it.
Too bad, man.
I'm sorry.
You don't get a choice.
It's not your body, right?
Well, I'm sorry.
How are they pro-choice again?
They're not pro-choice.
They would eliminate half the choice in the equation.
So no, I don't call them pro-choice.
I call them pro-abortion.
Because if it was about choosing, you could at least say the man has no right to choose for the woman's body.
But in the event, the woman says, I choose to have the baby.
We were both irresponsible, but I choose to have the baby.
The man then says, well, I choose not to have the baby.
Too bad, law says no.
Men have no choice whatsoever.
When they say the man could have chosen birth control, okay, well, the woman could have chosen birth control as well, so it's a moot point.
Either you believe someone is responsible for getting pregnant, or you don't.
So let's jump over to this old post on Reddit from three months ago.
As this narrative had been emerging around banning abortion, many people expected the Supreme Court was going to rule to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Change my view.
Men should not have to pay child support if they sign away their rights to the child before birth.
Say, I understand this is posted here frequently, but I've read through every comment and it already exists, blah blah blah, and my views have not been changed.
I am a female, I have a 27-year-old female, pro-choice, politically liberal, and live in a coastal city.
So I genuinely assumed liberals would agree with what I said about men choosing.
I believe that if the men sign away their rights and custody and any involvement to the child before birth, male abortion, there should be no obligation to pay child support.
This should not apply in situations of a divorced couple, relationship that ended, yada yada, I understand that.
The post specifically refers to the US and not countries where abortion is illegal.
the top post to change their mind. Child support exists to support the child. In the event of an
abortion, no child exists. Therefore, there is no child support. So there's no equivalency between
abortion and this financial abortion people talk about so often in this sub. Perhaps and only
perhaps signing away rights to a child would only be a feasible option if both parents agree to the
dissolution of the father's rights and obligations.
Otherwise, in a world of cheap and plentiful birth control, one party shouldn't just get to say, well, good
luck with that. I'm out and casually give up one's obligations to their biological child.
Let's reread your argument, but replace man with woman.
Otherwise, in a world of cheap and plentiful birth control, the woman shouldn't just get to say, well, good luck with that, I'm out, and casually kill the baby in utero.
Someone responded, with birth control and abortion both easy and accessible, having a child is 100% a choice.
No one is forcing anyone to have a baby.
Unfortunately, until the day of artificial wombs, it is 100% the mother carrier's choice whether or not to have this baby.
If the mother gets pregnant and knowingly decides to carry and birth this child, even though the father has no interest in having a child and no interest in supporting or being part of the child's life, I believe she is making a choice to care for and support that child on her own.
Ultimately, this is a communist's wet dream.
They're going to say, yes, yes, yes, men, leave your kids behind so the state can come up.
This argument, ultimately, I believe the left would agree with.
That's why I thought they would.
Think about it.
What happens is, the father says, I'm not involved.
The mother says, well, how am I going to support my baby if I have to work?
I'm going to vote the taxpayers should.
And the government will offer up government-subsidized daycare, and you will get kids going to diversity, equity, inclusion camps where they'll be raised by the state.
So I actually lean more towards, as more of a traditional liberal, which don't really exist anymore, in the first trimester there are questions that I think leans toward, in my opinion, the woman having discretion to choose to abort.
Now, I think abortion is wrong, but there are issues of What the government can and can't enforce.
Now, at the point of viability, I believe the question is done.
If the baby can be taken out of the womb and it can survive, you can't kill it.
Abortion is over.
You can end the pregnancy in such a way that preserves the life of the baby.
I think even pro-lifers would agree with that to a certain degree.
Now you have dads would have to pay child support at 15 weeks.
You're just singing to conservatives at this point, because they're going to be like, okay, Well, let's go back.
Let's go back to this one where the person says a woman can choose, the man doesn't have to.
You're hilarious to say that abortion is easy and accessible.
Not only is it traumatizing for a lot of women, it is definitely not accessible.
For example, states like Mississippi and Missouri only have one abortion clinic per state.
Okay.
That has no bearing on the argument.
The argument is, if you are pro-choice in a pro-choice jurisdiction, choice extends to men and women.
You do not get to make a 14th Amendment argument about equality under the law and then argue men have none.
So, ladies and gentlemen, we circle back to our good friend Kamala Harris.
I'll repeat the question.
Can you think of any laws that give the government power to make decisions about the male body?
Child support!
Come on!
This is a law in which a woman can choose in your state to terminate the pregnancy or not, and the man has no choice!
And okay, the man's not the one who's pregnant.
But the government can say a man has to pay the woman.
That is a law about the male body.
And you know what happens if the dad doesn't pay child support?
They go to jail and get locked up for it.
So if you want to make that argument, I will return in kind and say, you want to get rid of the laws governing the male response to pregnancy?
I'll listen to your argument.
I think the argument's still dangerous for civilization, however.
But these people are not operating in good faith.
I get it.
Conservatives are like, don't kill babies.
Simple enough.
Okay.
The left is like, we're pro-choice.
What about these choices?
What about the choice of the man?
Oh, he doesn't get one.
Okay.
If you don't believe men deserve equality under the law, then I don't think you do either.
Let's have a real conversation.
Let's say, uh, here's the argument I like to give.
You're in a burning building.
And you're on the ground as smoke fills the room.
And you're struggling to breathe as you make your way to the door.
And then you lose strength and you fall and you say, I can't make it!
And then the door gets kicked open!
Boom!
And you look and the smoke clears!
And there it is, standing before you.
Which would you prefer?
A man or a woman?
Now, we can get into the nuance of it and say, I don't care who, so long as they're six feet tall and can carry 150 pounds of lean muscle.
But typically, people are going to say, I'd rather there be a guy.
Now, okay, if you want to talk about the true nature of civil rights and everything, we could say, what if it's like a five foot five morbidly obese man?
You'd be like, no!
What you'd really be hoping for is that it's going to be a 6'5", ultra-ripped, chiseled dude who's like, I've come to save you.
And I don't care if you're a man or a woman, you're gonna be like, yes, manly man, save me!
Let's say the door kicks open, and there stands before you is a 5'7", 120-pound woman.
Fairly average, a little bit more muscle than normal, and you're gonna be like, you're not gonna be able to carry me, and I can't walk.
Now, it's also possible that if we're talking about men or women, there are women who are six feet tall and ripped and would be able to carry you out.
So it's not really about being a woman.
What it's really about is you'd prefer someone who is bigger and more muscular.
There's a tendency among men to be bigger and more muscular.
That's the reality of these issues.
If we opt for gender-based hiring, which we do have, you want to talk about laws that give the government power over the decisions about the male body?
Affirmative action?
Where women can get preference over men in some circumstances?
Yeah.
How about, uh, I don't know, rape?
In Illinois, it's specifically defined as male on female, nothing else.
Sexual assault is a different criminal provision.
You want to go after those laws, by all means, let's have those conversations.
But the reality of the world is that men and women have different kinds of bodies.
Women have a lower center of gravity than men do, so they can actually lean up against a wall and bend straight down.
Men can't do that, they'll fall over.
Men have an ability to clear greater heights jumping.
Why?
By carrying the center of gravity higher, the same vertical lift, if you have like a 20-inch vertical, and not like something crazy, but like you jump, and you pull your knees up to your center of gravity, you will clear a greater distance, a greater height, than a woman who has a lower center of gravity, who has the same vertical, because when she pulls up the center of gravity, it's closer towards her hips.
These things are realities.
It's not a moral judgment, or a value judgment, or a civil rights judgment on any of these people.
The point is, so long as men and women have different bodies that do different things, there will be laws governing them differently to everybody else.
If you want there to be equality under the law, then there has to be.
If a woman can choose to terminate a baby, a man can choose to also terminate fatherhood.
Right?
Yeah, well, perhaps not.
They don't seem to want that, even though I think that would be the Marxist-Communist's, again, wet dream.
But I think it goes to show that people just want power.
