IRS Job Listing Requires Use of DEADLY FORCE Sparking OUTRAGE, Democrats Just Massively Expanded IRS
IRS Job Listing Requires Use of DEADLY FORCE Sparking OUTRAGE, Democrats Just Massively Expanded IRS. Democrats claim middle and lower income people will not face more audits but this is misleading.
You do not need to be audited in order for the IRS to extract more money from you. Democrats know this is the case but are misleading people in order to massively expand the IRS.
Republicans are pushing to defund federal law enforcement agencies especially now that Trump has been raided by the FBI.
#irs
#democrats
#trump
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
An IRS job listing requires the use of deadly force.
You'll have to use a gun as well.
Many are outraged at this because the Democrats recently massively expanded the IRS.
But the truth is, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division's been around for a long time.
Still, many are concerned the Democrats are going to be extracting more money from the working class and lower-income families.
In our next story, Donald Trump suggests the FBI may have planted evidence at his Mar-a-Lago home.
And in our last story, an 80-year-old woman was banned from a swimming pool at a YMCA because she was outraged that a male was in the girls' locker room with little girls.
Now, a protest is planned.
If you like this show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
We are being assured by the IRS they will not be auditing middle-income individuals.
And I'll put it simply for all of you.
You're gonna pay more in taxes.
It's not about audits.
For anybody who knows how taxes work, for anybody who's experienced this, you file your taxes and then often you get a refund because you usually pay a little more than you need to.
But for many people, you've gotten a letter in the mail a few months later saying actually you owe us a little bit more.
You don't need to be audited for them to say you owe us more money.
It's about paying your fair share, right?
Well, the big news sparking outrage, on top of the existing outrage, is that the IRS is hiring agents that must carry a gun and use deadly force during dangerous assignments.
Yeah, literally.
There's a job posting for the IRS that says one of the requirements is that you use, you're willing to use deadly force against people.
But wait!
It's not just about criminal enforcement here in these United States.
You could be part of an international attache.
In fact, the IRS Criminal Investigative Division is actually part of a global tax law enforcement system.
Now, for all the outrage around this, I gotta do a little bit of a fact check, or a context check, and just say, friends, this organization has been around for a very, very long time.
There's been much news about the IRS's armed special agents.
It's not new information, but I appreciate that people are now learning about the fact that the IRS has dudes with guns, and they're not too keen on seeing that force expanded.
Now they are hiring.
I don't know to what extent they will expand the IRS special agents that have guns, but with 87,000 new staff members, some of them, I imagine, would be part of their criminal investigative division.
So people are upset to hear this.
The concern is that with a massively expanded IRS, they're going to be going after regular working people.
The response from the left is lies.
Media Matters has published an article claiming that the right is truly outraged because what will really happen is the IRS is going to go after the donor class.
You want to know how you can tell easily this is a lie?
Man, they really like lying to you, right?
Is that in 2016, Vox.com reported the Democratic Party has become the party of the wealthy, not the Republicans.
Sorry.
So what are they trying to claim?
Yeah, people on the right right now may not like the IRS, may not like taxes, but they're not concerned about the ultra-rich.
I mean, Steve Bannon himself has said numerous times, even on Timcast IRL, tax the rich, you are being ripped off.
No, in reality, It's the prominent uniparty and democratic establishment donor class that may be worried, but in reality, it's going to be going after regular working people.
They will try to obfuscate this, they will try to lie, but it will affect you.
They said, don't worry, we're not going to audit you.
Yeah, they're not.
But if you get tips at your job, if you take cash, there's going to be more scrutiny.
You don't need to be audited for them to send you a bill.
They're expanding.
They want to collect more tax revenue.
And I will simplify it for all of you before we get into all this news and then talk politics.
What's easier?
Going up against a billionaire who can file a lawsuit and hide their money in Panama?
We're going against you.
Sending you a bill in the mail for 50 bucks, and then saying, do something about it.
You really gonna hire a lawyer over 50 bucks?
No, you're gonna pay it.
And that's it.
It is easier to get millions of dollars by telling regular people, give me 50 bucks.
There's a funny urban legend about a con man.
He wrote like a thousand letters to restaurants all throughout his city.
It may have been in London, I'm not sure.
Saying, when I was at your restaurant, they spilled a drink on my tie and stained it, and it cost me $7 to get it cleaned.
I want you to pay the $7 bill.
Well, most places are like, I don't care, it's $7.
And they sent the man a check.
You'd have gotten away with it, but then he added a... I think it might have been $7 or $9.
He added a TY, so $7.
He added a zero to it, and then put TY, so it said $70.
And then a lot of people realized they gave away $70, and that's how he got convicted.
But you get the point.
You're gonna try and scam a million bucks?
You're gonna try and go after a rich dude?
He's gonna argue tooth and nail for why he doesn't owe you those taxes.
No, they're coming after you.
And the IRS Criminal Investigative Division, they got guns for those that resist.
Let's read the news and see what people are so upset about.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com and become a member.
to support our work. As a member, you get access to our exclusive members-only shows like the
Timcast IRL Uncensored After Hours podcast. We do those Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. Check it
out. We've had a lot of really, really great guests. You'll also get access to Tales from
the Inverted World, an audiovisual experience, hour-long episodes, usually, from Shane Cashman,
who recently investigated the lost Confederate gold.
We've got new documentaries coming.
Every time you become a member, you are helping us make more stuff.
That's what we're investing in, so I'm eternally grateful.
Don't forget to also smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's jump into the story from American Military News.
They say, The Internal Revenue Service is hiring new special agents that will be required to carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force during possible dangerous assignments according to a job posting on the IRS website.
Now, I must stress, currently at this time, You can't load the job listing.
The page has become unavailable.
A lot of people... It seems to be insinuated by some that they've taken the page down.
It may just be it's getting hugged to death.
What that means is so many people are now trying to look at what the IRS is doing that they're overloading the website.
They say.
The special agents will be part of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, described as the service's law enforcement branch, which is designed to combine accounting skills with law enforcement skills to investigate financial crimes.
The position's major duties include maintain honesty and integrity, work at least 50 hours each week including irregular hours, Be on call 24-7 including holidays and weekends.
Maintain physical readiness to quote, effectively respond to life-threatening situations on the job.
Carry a gun and quote, be willing to use deadly force if necessary.
Participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments.
The IRS is offering a salary of $50,704 to $89,636 per year for the position.
The job advertisement has been posted since February, but it's gaining renewed attention in the wake of Democrats' latest bill, which includes nearly $80 billion in funding for the IRS.
The massive funding boost will allow the IRS to hire nearly 87,000 new employees, more than doubling the service's current size and making it larger than the Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and Border Patrol combined!
Bro, they are coming after you!
You don't need this massive institution to go after, like, 700 billionaires.
You need it to go after 225 million tax-paying Americans.
And they still won't be able to go after everybody, but they're gonna go after a lot of people.
The Biden administration claimed on Tuesday that no one making under $400,000 per year will face new audits as a result of the funding.
Notably, an amendment to the bill that would have forced the IRS to follow that standard, limiting the audits to those making $400k or more, failed 50-50 in the Senate.
Wait, what?
Every Democrat voted against the proposal, whereas every Republican voted in favor of protecting low and middle income earning American taxpayers from an onslaught of audits from an army of new IRS auditors funded by an unprecedented nearly 80 billion dollars infusion of new funds.
How could that be?
The Democrats are the ones saying they're not coming after you.
According to IRS data, More than half of the audits performed in 2021 targeted taxpayers making less than $75,000 per year, as reported by the Washington Post.
Additionally, over 40% of audits were aimed at taxpayers who received the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a measure to help reduce poverty.
Senator John Barrasso, Republican from Wyoming, said the funding will put the IRS on steroids.
You don't need that many IRS agents to go after a few people they say are very, very rich.
Adding, families, farmers, and the small businesses of America, that's who's going to bear the burden of this legislation.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
The Washington Post reported that experts believe lower income earners are more often
targeted by IRS audits because they don't have the means to push back, unlike wealthy
people who can hire accountants and lawyers to fight IRS enforcement.
Duh.
Hey, it's not Republicans doing this.
It's Democrats.
Okay?
Not that I like the Republican Party.
Hey, they can go too.
Here's the website.
Jobs.irs.gov.
We're hiring special agents.
Click here to apply today.
No thank you.
They say, criminal investigation is the law enforcement branch of the IRS.
Our mission is to serve the American public by investigating potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code and related financial crimes in a manner that fosters confidence in the tax system and compliance with the law.
As a Special Agent, you will combine your accounting skills with law enforcement skills to investigate financial crimes.
Special Agents are duly sworn law enforcement officers who are trained to follow the money.
No matter what the source.
All income earned, both legal and illegal, has the potential of becoming involved in crimes which fall within the investigative jurisdiction of the IRS Criminal Investigation.
Because of the expertise required to conduct these complex financial investigations, IRS Special Agents are considered the premier financial investigators for the federal government.
Criminal Investigation Special Agents are part of a diverse workforce that mirrors the taxpaying public we serve.
Okay, first, let's try to be balanced, fair and balanced.
Why does the IRS need armed agents?
Technically, they don't.
I mean, let's be real, they don't.
If the IRS investigates and discovers a crime, they need only alert the FBI, not big fans of them, I suppose, or federal law enforcement agencies.
The IRS doesn't need to do this themselves.
But okay, let's say they want to specifically look at federal financial crimes, tax-related crimes.
Well, then yeah, I mean we're dealing with mobs, we're dealing with drug dealing, cartels, all that sort of stuff, trafficking even.
Yeah, I mean, they're probably going to need weapons to defend themselves.
And regardless, look, I think people have a right to keep and bear arms.
Everybody.
I think cops is going to have guns.
I think people is going to have guns.
You know what I'm saying?
So, if somebody is committing a crime, yeah, people are going to show up and they're going to be armed.
It's going to be cops.
It's going to be law enforcement.
It is what it is.
I'm not a fan of the expansive federal law enforcement apparatus, but I'm just not shocked by this.
Guys, a lot of people are acting like it's a new thing.
It's not.
The IRS Criminal Investigation Service has been around for some time.
Now, what Wikipedia claims is that Department of Treasury U.S.
Special Agent for the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, they have been around since July 1st, 1919.
By all means, please, my friends, tell me that taxation is theft.
I hear you loud and clear.
My point is only this.
It is not new.
But I'm glad many of you are finding out that it does exist.
Heading over to Twitter, we have journalist Ford Fisher, who's given us a bit of a breakdown on this, and there's some interesting context.
He mentions much of what we've already read about the IRS and armed agents and who they are.
He says, Between March 1st and June 1st, 2022, the Criminal Division of the IRS ordered, let's just say, about $700,000 in ammunition.
Hollow points, the IRS told Verify in an email.
2018 report, the IRS was shown to generally spend about $675,000 on ammunition a year
in the previous seven years.
Okay, so a lot of people are saying, why is it that the IRS is buying bullets?
Because they have a criminal investigative division.
I've known about that for a while, but maybe we'd argue they don't need it, and we think federal law enforcement should probably be defunded to a certain degree.
You know, I can agree with that.
I can even agree with defunding the police in general.
Now, I know crime is skyrocketing and criminal justice reform in these big Democrat cities ain't working out too well, but it's where they live and it's what they want, so I'm willing to give it to them.
Plus, I prefer duly elected law enforcement over political appointments anyway, so bring on the Sheriff's Department.
Ford Fisher says, The job listing for special agents at the IRS links to the Department 2021 Annual Report.
Here are a few images.
Here's a guy training with a shotgun.
Well, okay.
To be fair, applying for the job doesn't exclusively mean participating in operations within the bounds of the United States.
IRS-CI has special agent attaches strategically stationed in 11 foreign countries, the report explains.
Can we get a show about that?
IRS criminal investigations.
Law and Order, IRS-CI.
Can we get that?
I'd watch it, I guess.
You didn't pay your taxes, ma'am.
I'm just running a small sewing business.
Too bad.
So here's the best part.
Over at the Wikipedia page for this division of the IRS, it says,
the IRS CI is a founding member of the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement,
a global joint operational group formed in mid-2018 to combat transnational tax crime.
IRS CI is also a member agency of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Tax Force,
a federal drug enforcement program concerned with the disruption of major drug trafficking operations
and related crimes such as money laundering, tax and weapons violations, and violent crime.
Well, okay.
Well, all right.
I guess I get it.
Ford brings up the job listings page that I linked to and screenshot at the beginning of this thread is now unavailable.
On the IRS website.
Well, I'm all about the context here.
So, it seems like this is not taken down on purpose, because I've shown you the website.
It's just not loading properly, probably because it's going viral.
Many, many people are seeing the link.
They're clicking it because they want to see if it's real, and lo and behold, many people are learning for the first time.
The IRS has a criminal investigative division.
And they're armed.
And they kill people when they need to.
You know, use of deadly force.
Whatever.
All right.
Fox Business says, middle-class Americans to bear brunt of IRS audits under Democrat inflation bill.
Analysis shows Americans making less than $75,000 will be subject to 710,000, 863 additional
audits, according to the analysis. I'd like to give a round of applause to all the people who
voted for the Democrats who are ramming this bill through expanding the IRS and will now
bear the brunt of audits they voted for.
Larry Elder.
Fantastic guy.
Brilliant guy.
We had him on Tim Kess' IRL.
He was telling us a story.
He ran for governor in California.
He talked to, um, I believe he was saying he talked to two individuals, and he asked them questions about crime.
They said crime's bad.
He asked them questions about how the Democrats are handling things.
They didn't like it.
He asked them about, like, mandates and stuff like that.
They didn't like it.
And he was like, you didn't vote for me?
You voted for the Democrats?
And they were like, oh.
He's like, how many Republican friends do you have?
And they were like, none.
And there it is.
These people don't get what they're voting for.
They're basically... ...stirring themselves.
It's sad.
But the media lies.
You know who lies?
Our good friends over at Media Matters.
Ah, John Neffel.
Actually, no, John Neffel.
I haven't seen him since Occupy, but I met him at Occupy.
I love this.
80 out of 100.
Congratulations, Media Matters.
You are considered responsible despite the fact that you publish conspiracy nonsense.
Thanks, News Guard.
You do a great job.
Media Matters Writes.
Right-wing media conspiracy theory of a militarized IRS is really about protecting wealthy donors and sponsors from paying higher taxes.
I'm just going to say this.
It's an opinion piece, and it's a very, very stupid one.
I can only imagine that John Neffel is willfully lying to people and misleading them because, my friends, first and foremost, he says the Inflation Reduction Act doesn't create an army of anti-MAGA IRS agents, regardless of what the right says.
They're referencing a true story about the Tea Party being targeted by the Obama IRS.
But more importantly, that's not the principal concern.
And, uh, they're not trying to protect wealthy donors.
Wealthy people are already in tax havens.
They already know how to avoid taxes.
We know this.
The issue is, I believe even the Washington Post mentioned, most people who are going to be audited or pay more in taxes will be middle to lower income people.
Did you do the Google search, John?
I guess not.
Media Matters writes, Right-wing media figures are arguing that a key part of the new legislation meant to increase federal tax revenue from high earners and corporations is secretly designed to militarize the IRS and unleash the agency on conservatives.
In fact, the new bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act provides $80 billion blah blah blah.
Although the IRS in the past has spent a relatively small amount of their funding on ammunition, only agents from the IRS Criminal Investigation Division are allowed to carry weapons.
There is no evidence to support the claims the agency is targeting conservatives.
There is.
It literally happened with Obama and the Tea Party, but okay.
He says, the suggestion is clearly a red herring designed to obfuscate the real purpose of the new
legislation. The right wing's media response leading up to the bill's passage has been
to resurrect a debunked conspiracy theory that the bill will turn the IRS into a militarized
police force and will increase the agency's audits of working and middle class families
while ignoring billionaires. All right, all right, all right.
Let's just go back here.
This is American Military News.
NewsGuard certified 100 out of 100.
Hey, more credible, says NewsGuard, than Media Matters.
They reported.
The Washington Post reported that experts believe lower-income earners are more often targeted by IRS audits because they don't have the means to push back, unlike wealthy people who can hire accountants and lawyers to fight IRS enforcement.
Mr. John Neffel!
Come on, buddy!
Did you Google search this?
At all?
No, I didn't think so.
It's absurd, but this is what they do.
They're just trying to drag Tucker Carlson and Matt Gaetz, I guess.
Me?
My citation is The Washington Post.
Not a big fan, but hey, I'll take what I can get when they're the ones reporting it.
Here we go.
NewsNation, with 87,000 new agents, who will the IRS be looking at?
NewsNation is also NewsGuard certified.
100 out of 100.
Okay.
So who are they going to target?
They say, staff up to take aim at the country's highest earners.
The act which is expected to pass the House, blah blah blah blah blah.
Ben Wilkerson, a managing attorney at North Mississippi Legal Services, said these audits are sometimes tilted against lower-income earners.
You.
Thank you, Democrat voters.
You voted for this.
There's no rhyme or reason I can figure out to who gets audited.
Wilkerson has helped hundreds of low-income families impacted by IRS audits.
He said going after these individuals is less work and gets done quicker, while wealthier filers have the resources to fight the agency.
I want to help you understand something.
In order to live, I believe it was 10 years ago, there was a study done, it may have been MIT or something, Harvard, $87,000 a year.
A funny number.
Maybe 88.
No, actually, maybe it was 77, and I'm confusing the 87, but anyway, around there.
With that amount of money, you could pay your bills, you could have a house, you could have new clothes, you could raise a family, and have two weeks of vacation, as well as medical care.
Now, if you have those basic necessities, and you're living a comfortable life, you don't have anything to invest.
If the IRS came after you, you'd have to take from those basics to combat the IRS.
Well, you probably can't do that.
Let's say they came to you and said, you actually owe us another $1,000 in taxes.
You'd say, it's going to cost me $2,000 to fight this.
I can't fight it.
Just give them the thousand bucks.
It's cheaper, unfortunately.
Let's say.
You make a million dollars.
A million bucks a year.
You only need $87,000 to have that sustainable living, right?
What do you do with the rest of the money?
Luxuries?
Maybe investments?
The IRS comes up and says, you owe us $7,000.
And they say, seven grand?
That's a lot of money!
Hey, I'll give two grand to my lawyer to fight this.
All of a sudden now, you're looking at a larger amount of money.
It is true.
If the IRS goes to a millionaire and says, you owe us $1,000, they may just be like, yeah, whatever, here's $1,000.
Don't know, don't care.
But $1,000?
From 700 billionaires and 700 grand?
They ain't gonna fund anything.
But $1,000 from 100,000 people.
Now you're pulling in a million bucks, right?
But you're not going after a million people.
You're going after 200 million people.
Not all of them can give you what you want.
But 200 million people giving you $1 each?
No one's gonna fight it.
And then you make money.
But think about if they go for $10 each from 200 million people.
Now you're looking at billions.
700 billionaires ain't gonna cut it.
And if you start increasing how much you try to get from them, rich people are gonna say this.
If they want 50 grand from me, and it's gonna cost me 10 grand to fight them, I will.
You lose.
If they want 10 grand from me, and it's gonna cost me 3 grand to fight it, I'll try anyway.
Poor people don't have the money.
There may be something else here though.
Take a look at this from The Intercept.
Could Trump go down like Al Capone?
Writes James Risen for The Intercept.
Elliot Ness got Al Capone on tax evasion.
Merrick Garland may get Donald Trump in a leak investigation.
Could he go down like Al Capone?
Al Capone, ah, the notorious mobster!
They couldn't get him.
They tried.
So what ended up happening?
Al Capone went down for tax evasion.
Ain't that something?
And this is where we are.
The reality of what the IRS will be doing will likely be to weaponize areas of the government So that they can lock up people they need to lock up.
Look, the Criminal Investigation Division, they go after financial crimes, mobs, drug dealers, trafficking, etc.
Many people on the right slammed police after the Summer of Love.
Not all of them, but it was years ago Trump supporters were throwing thin blue line flags on the ground and stomping on it.
Okay.
The Washington Post writes, Following concerns about being unfairly targeted by unchecked members of law enforcement, a new movement has emerged calling for agencies to be stripped of power and funding.
Rampant distrust and fears about abuse of power are fueling calls to push back, to limit authority and constrain personnel counts.
This isn't the left's defund the police.
It's the right's stop the FBI.
It's the GOP's explicit opposition to boosting staff at the IRS.
Over the weekend, the Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act, a concisely named bill that includes a range of new measures, blah, blah, blah.
And of course, here we go once again, they're mentioning staffing levels at the IRS.
They say the additional $80 billion in spending is projected to yield $124 billion in revenue.
Through better enforcement.
But for obvious reasons, Democrats are eager to make clear that only higher income Americans will see more frequent audits.
The name of the game, my friends, is media manipulation.
That's what's going on.
How do you maintain a legion of voters when your policies make their lives worse?
You lie to them.
And that's what we're seeing.
This is what media matters is.
Laughable.
The Washington Post, American Military Times, all of these outlets are saying it is going to be you that bears the brunt of the increase in the IRS powers.
But they're going to write these articles saying it's to protect the wealthy.
That's why the Republicans are so angry.
Please, please break free from controlled reality and realize what they've been telling you is just not true.
These are the institutions that are made to control your lives.
They're inside breeding, concocting all the lies that they use to control your minds.
And this is what drives me to call them out.
I'm sick of it, man.
They want to come and they want to extract what they can from you.
And they need you to be blind.
Have you ever seen those horse carriages in New York City?
Or anywhere else, I don't know.
I've only seen them in New York.
But I was recently in New York and I was reminded of something.
Because I've seen them before.
The horses We're blinders.
So they can't see anything.
They can only see forward.
They can only see what the man driving the carriage wants them to see.
They don't want him to look left and right.
Just keep walking forward.
Chained and pulling that cart for the man up top.
That's what they want of you.
It's the same thing.
To keep your eyes in blinders so you keep marching and pulling that carriage for them.
Break free, my friends.
I know, if you're watching this video, you probably already did.
But let's keep fighting to keep showing people the lies.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be at 8 p.m.
tonight over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
We don't know exactly what's happening with Donald Trump and the FBI raid on his home.
We think we know.
It's being reported that they were looking for documents that may have been classified.
But that really doesn't make sense.
Now look, I'm not suggesting anything else.
I'm just saying something is missing from the story.
And of course something would be missing from the story.
The search warrant is sealed.
So I'll put it this way, and I'll put it very simply.
I don't know if there's a grand conspiracy or anything like that.
Typically, I'm not a fan of making assumptions about things without evidence.
What I can say is, Trump's home was raided by the FBI.
They had actually told him to lock the door in the past few months, and then it's being reported they actually broke the door, so something right there is getting weird.
What we do know is that we don't know exactly what's going on or why.
And if it was just about securing these documents, as many have reported, why not just release the sealed warrant and let us see exactly what this is about?
Donald Trump has issued another statement suggesting FBI agents may have been planting evidence at Mar-a-Lago.
Let me slow down and walk you through the very simple, strange circumstances.
A few months ago it was reported that the FBI instructed Trump, his people, to secure the room.
But then they came and broke the lock.
They said, well, that's weird.
They had been working with Trump and his people to look into the documents that he did have.
Why break their way into this room?
Well, when you learn that the judge who signed off on the search warrant previously worked for Jeffrey Epstein.
Yes, and that's strange.
In strange circumstances, nonetheless.
That is, he was a federal prosecutor and then He opened a private practice working for Jeffrey Epstein, switching sides, as many have suggested, and then actually represented Epstein's lieutenants.
Epstein then received a plea deal, which I think mostly kept him out of federal prison.
So something seems strange.
And the theory as it goes now, not that I'm suggesting it's true or anything like that, is that within the FBI, there is not a single structure that we are looking at.
I'll put it this way, let me slow down.
I've talked to people who work for the federal government, and what they've told me is a lot of people think the FBI is monolithic, that the CIA or these other agencies and institutions are monolithic.
That's not what they tell me.
Now again, I've only talked to one or two guys, and a source of mine from one of these agencies said that within the federal agencies, it is split like the culture war is.
That in the United States, we have this divide of ideology.
It exists within these institutions as well.
The problem?
The anti-woke are too scared to speak up.
Because the other side's a death cult.
So they don't.
And then you end up with, you know, FBI agents investigating garage pull rope.
But not going after more serious crimes and offenses, maybe like Hunter Biden.
Now, Hunter Biden may actually be indicted, so I don't want to overlook that.
I'm not here to defend the FBI, but at least to point out, we have reported that Hunter Biden may actually be indicted.
But come on, we'll see.
Here's where things get weird.
Now, I don't know about Donald Trump's statements about FBI agents planting evidence.
We'll take a look at what he said.
But if it is being reported, take a look at this, that lawyers received instructions to secure Trump's document room months before the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago, If the FBI said, hey, secure this room, it's unsafe, and they did, why then would the FBI come and break the lock?
Well, if you're operating under the assumption the FBI is monolithic and, you know, they said, hey, lock it, then they show up and break it, it doesn't make sense.
But if you're operating under the assumption that the FBI is actually fragmented or fractured, this makes a lot more sense.
Could it be that there are elements in the FBI that are acting independently or separately from other elements in the FBI?
I'd have to say probably.
Aren't there like 40,000 FBI agents?
So it may not be the same top-down structure.
The FBI agents that ordered Trump to secure the room may not have been taking directions from the head of the FBI, from Wray.
These office agents who smashed the lock may have been.
Don't know.
Now, of course, the theory is rogue elements, you've got a judge who worked for Epstein, and FBI agents breaking a lock doesn't sound like they're part of any kind of official structure.
What I mean to say is, the actual top-down structure apparently was already working with Trump.
They wouldn't need to have broken in.
You get the point.
Again, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.
I think any good journalist would ask questions and then, you know, form a hypothesis and seek answers.
But to put it simply, I would say this.
The simple solution, as often it always is, They were worried about documents being destroyed, so they broke the lock.
I mean, it's just much more simple.
Donald Trump suggests they planted evidence.
Look, these things can happen.
They're within the realm of physical possibility.
I don't outright dismiss their possibilities, although the corporate press would demand you do.
I just want to point out the potentiality.
FBI agents say to Trump, lock the door.
An Epstein judge says, get in there and get those documents.
The FBI agents weren't the same ones.
Or, had they been acting appropriately, they could have just asked and said, hey, open it up.
Unless, of course, these agents were not the same agents, unless, of course, Trump would have challenged these particular agents, you see, it may not be monolithic.
But I don't know.
I don't know.
I can only say this.
We don't know what's in the sealed warrant.
Here's a story from Newsweek.
Former President Donald Trump has suggested that the FBI could have been planting evidence at Mar-a-Lago during a raid that the agency carried out on Monday.
Trump took to his social media site Truth Social early on Wednesday and criticized a search of his Florida residence, where FBI agents reportedly seized a dozen boxes as part of an investigation into a handling of presidential documents.
The FBI and others from the federal government would not let anyone, including my lawyers,
be anywhere near the areas that were rummaged and otherwise looked at during the raid on Mar-a-Lago,
Trump wrote. You know, I can put it simply. I don't believe there's any kind of conspiracy.
Um...
Conspiracy typically implies secret actions taken by two or more people for unethical or criminal ends.
What I think is most likely here is that the FBI is not as monolithic as people think.
And the reason why this happened likely is because there's different leadership structures.
It's really that simple.
Now granted, This goes to the highest level.
I really doubt a group of FBI agents did this without the approval of Ray, the head of the FBI.
So, you know, we'll see.
Quote, everyone was asked to leave the premises.
They wanted to be left alone without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or hopefully not planting.
Why did they strongly insist on having nobody watching them?
Everybody out.
Obama and Clinton were never raided despite big disputes.
FBI agents carried out the raid on former President's Palm Beach home on Monday after a warrant was approved by Florida Federal Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart.
Now here's where it gets really interesting.
Apparently the website, which lists the judges in Florida, removed Bruce Reinhart's page.
It now cannot be accessed, or at least I've seen several reporters stating as such.
Some are arguing that it's because of protests.
Hmm.
I don't think they did anything to protect the judges in the Supreme Court when they issued their rulings, but different court, I suppose, so fine.
Strange, nonetheless.
Of course, many are outraged.
Quote, scam after scam, year after year, it is the radical left Democrats.
It is all the radical left Democrats really know.
It is their lifeblood.
They have no shame.
Our country is paying a very big price, Trump added.
Now, there's other big news that Trump is going to testify to Letitia James, the state's attorney general in New York.
We'll get into that in a second.
I want to show you this.
Lawyers received instructions to secure Trump's document room months before the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago.
Interesting.
The sources told CNN aides added a padlock in order to secure the room.
On Monday, Trump confirmed reports the FBI executed a warrant.
Sources told ABC News the search was related to 15 boxes of documents Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago following the end of his presidency.
During the FBI's search Monday morning, the agency was verifying that no other documents were still at the resort after the National Archives retrieved the documents in February, a source told CNN.
Investigators met with Trump's lawyer at Mar-a-Lago months ago to evaluate the documents Trump had taken during his time at the White House.
Trump was also present during the meeting, albeit momentarily.
The CNN report does not specify when exactly investigators met with Trump, but said Trump aides were interviewed about the documents by the FBI in April and May.
It was, I believe, NBC.
Reported.
They broke the padlock.
I think it was NBC, I could be wrong.
So they ask for a padlock, it gets put on, then they break it.
It doesn't make sense.
Unless, of course, again, FBI not a monolith.
Now, what's being implied here by Business Insider is that this is much less nefarious than many people might think.
That they were simply going there to make sure that there were no other documents.
And that's why they didn't tell anybody, and so they broke the lock, and they went in, and... Huh.
Okay, maybe that's true.
But if they were working with Donald Trump and his people, why not just ask?
Unless their goal was to dig up dirt on Donald Trump.
Was to try to find something to inhibit him from holding office.
We know there's a law that the Democrats are pushing that says anybody who conceals, mutilates or otherwise documents must forfeit their office and they would not be allowed to hold office again.
So that's why Trump is not suggesting the planting of evidence.
It's simple.
They could have walked in.
I think what we're seeing here is they're trying to catch Trump in something.
I think this is entirely political.
I mean, of course, Mark Elias suggested that, that they have an opportunity to remove Trump, but more importantly, the Washington Post ran a story saying there's other ways to stop Trump from running for office without prosecuting him.
So, uh, I didn't come up with the idea.
It's what I truly find funny about how the corporate press handles the commentary that I do.
Tim Poole suggests this in Wild Theory, and it's like, I just read you, dude!
I read the Washington Post that said that's basically what they're doing, and I went, huh, how about that?
Maybe y'all shouldn't do that.
But then they like to attribute all of these things to me.
Yeah, I'm just a dude reading the news and then complaining on the internet.
Try again.
Thomas Massey.
Coming out.
He says the Biden administration has crossed a line.
We can't wait two more years to correct it.
After the 2022 elections, Congress must use the power of the purse to rein in the DOJ and FBI.
Any Republican who tells you that's not possible is too addicted to big government to fix this.
Yep.
One person responded saying, sorry, can't agree.
Every administration always says they'll investigate the sins of the previous administration, which are always considerable, and no one ever does until now.
Quite frankly, this sets a good precedent.
Well, you know what?
I'll tell you.
There is one morsel of positivity.
The executive branch actually getting some scrutiny regardless ain't always a bad thing.
But we know there's a double standard.
So, um, yeah, no, sorry.
In the end, I just see this as ripping this country apart, and it's tough.
It's tough.
I want to see accountability for the executive branch, but when Hillary Clinton, the Clintons, and the Uniparty get away with everything they do, and it's only Donald Trump who faces scrutiny, you're not going to play that game with me.
That's not the scrutiny I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the military-industrial complex.
I'm talking about the bureaucratic state.
I'm talking about the FBI and the CIA.
And what Thomas Massey is saying is to use the power of the purse to rein them in.
Cut their budgets!
Defund the FBI.
Hey man, shout out to our good friends on the progressive left.
People like Hassan Piker.
Bro, you want to defund the FBI?
How about the one thing we can agree on would be that and we do it.
Is that okay?
Can we all just agree on that?
Can we get, like, the Freedom Caucus, some Republicans and Democrats to come together and agree?
Ah, but you know what?
The Uniparty would never allow it.
You may get 20 or 30 votes between Freedom Caucus and progressives being like, we wanted to fund the FBI, and then every single other rank-and-file or otherwise, they're gonna be like, nope!
No, they're not gonna let that happen.
Of course not.
Here's the issue.
The Daily Wire.
Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe the U.S.
has a two-tiered justice system.
Yeah.
Yeah, uh... Why wouldn't you believe that?
The National Issues Survey of more than 1,000 likely general election voters conducted between July 24th and 28th by Trafalgar Group found that 79.3% of Americans believe that the United States has a two-tiered justice system with one set of laws for political insiders and another for average Americans.
Notably, large majorities in both parties agreed with the idea.
Now, probably for different reasons.
Because Democrats are going to be like, Donald Trump will never be held accountable.
And the Republicans are like Hillary Clinton will never be held accountable or Joe Biden is more relevant at this point.
The survey asked respondents, what is your opinion of the current state of the American justice system?
79.3% said there are two tiers of justice in the American justice system.
One set of laws for politicians and Washington DC insiders versus one set of laws for everyday Americans.
Just 11.6% of respondents answered that there is one system of justice with laws applied to all Americans equally.
Another 9.1% of Americans were unsure.
Yeah.
You know, I'll put it this way.
Donald Trump, he ain't a saint, okay?
There are many things I'd criticize the man for, but I don't see the criminal activity.
I don't, sorry, don't see it.
They lied about Russiagate.
They lied about his character.
The media smeared and slammed him every other second.
And it was all bunk.
And there are some things that I absolutely think should be criticized.
I often point out the State Department advertising Trump's resorts.
Or how about Trump tried to have, I think it was the G7 at Trump Doral.
Hey, we blocked that.
Trump said, fine, fine, whatever.
Not a fan of that stuff.
I don't think Trump is perfect.
But Joe Biden, what he did with his son, the quid pro quo, never an inquiry.
Come on, when Donald Trump was trying to investigate Biden, they said it was a quid pro quo and we got an impeachment.
Can't we get nothing, even a morsel of accountability for Joe Biden?
Yeah, it is a two-tiered justice system and it ain't Trump.
Trump was run over the coals for four years.
Well, for longer than that.
They accused him of working with Russia even before he got elected.
Insane lies!
Where is the accountability for any of these people?
You know, for those of us who actually pay attention to the news and know what the truth is, we see it.
The left, they're in a cult.
They're in a cult.
I mean, just literally.
And so they don't see it.
But I'll take defunding the FBI.
I think it's funny when Hassan's like, haha, Steven Crowder wants to defund the FBI.
That's funny.
It's like, bro, he's been saying this for years.
But you're in a cult.
You don't read the news, you don't follow people, and you don't know their opinions.
You just march in lockstep with the narrative, not realizing that all around you, people like me and other right-wing individuals Have been saying, maybe we should defund and abolish the police.
Where are you at, bro?
Come on.
I've been talking about this for years.
We had Michael Malice on.
He talked about cops arresting people for having guns, and I'm like, fair point.
Maybe big city police departments should be abolished.
Let them, and it's twofold.
Let the Democrats have what they want when they say it, and see what happens to their cities.
Fine.
Or how about we recognize that police in big cities are violating constitutional rights all day every day.
Okay, fine.
Fine, I agree.
Abolish the police.
I like sheriff's departments.
Duly elected law enforcement.
But it's really funny.
I have tweets going back, like, three years saying, defund the police.
Or, yeah, like, I think, maybe like two years.
And the leftists are like, you support the police!
And I'm like, bro, I don't think you watch my show.
Well, it is fair to say, to a degree, I support the police more than I agree with what the left in their defund the police ideology.
I certainly agree that we need accountability.
And we need criminal justice reform and prison reform.
But this is my point.
The left, maybe.
We would actually get something done here if they weren't in their cult.
And actually realize that when it comes to issues of like, I don't know, the ATF, the DOJ, the DHS, we probably agree on a lot of those things.
So where you at?
Honestly, I don't know where they at.
Breaking down the results by party, the survey found that strong majorities in both parties and independents believe in a two-tiered system.
66.7% of Democrats believed in a two-tiered system.
Out of Republicans, 87.8% agreed.
And then out of independents, among those who had no party affiliation, 77.2% said there was a two-tiered justice system in America.
Now why is that?
For two reasons.
Why is it that Democrats, although they do think so, think so to a lower degree?
Because they're the cult!
Every time we get a poll like this, Democrats tend to favor the machine, because you're in a cult.
When Republicans are criticizing the government, and the law enforcement agencies, and the justice system.
Not a cult.
They're the ones pointing the finger at the machine being like, broken!
Broken!
And the Democrats, while they do have some, overwhelmingly support the machine.
And it's why the Democratic Party has become whiter and wealthier while claiming white people are the problem.
Yo, dude, look in a mirror!
Y'all are in a cult.
Quote, what we're seeing reflected strongly in these numbers is the sentiment that, quote, there is no equal justice in America has become an almost universally held opinion.
Yep.
And I'll throw it to the Daily Wire again.
Judge who approved FBI raid disparaged Trump, shared woke content on Facebook.
The system is broken, my friends.
The judge in the Alex Jones trial, people are posting these photos showing like woke memes and blue hair and stuff, and they're saying that this judge was biased against Alex Jones from the get-go, not giving him a chance to defend himself at all, and it's crazy.
The judge who approved the raid disparaged Trump.
That's not impartiality.
You should recuse yourself!
But there is a two-tiered justice system.
And I think what we're seeing with the FBI, this raid, shows there may be a fracturing in the federal agencies, that the culture war reaches the highest level of government.
Don't forget, Project Veritas had a brave whistleblower from the FBI give them documents, so clearly not everyone in the FBI is on board with whatever's going on.
So what is going on, man?
I think the system is being ripped apart, and I think the culture war extends to every facet of this country.
You probably see it in a dentist's office.
You probably see it in a supermarket.
There's a great app.
We had the guys from Public Square, PublicSQ.com on yesterday.
There's an app you can download that will show you businesses that support American values.
So you can make sure you're not giving your money to people who hate you.
This is the emergence of the parallel economy.
Download Public Square, man.
I am super impressed and excited for this app, because I'm going to be using it every day.
Anytime I need to go do something, I'm going to be making sure that the businesses I shop at have made a pledge to American values.
But that just goes to show, a parallel economy is emerging.
And what that precipitates is unknown, but it may be dark days indeed.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Plato famously said, the penalty for not engaging in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors.
Well, I don't know what Plato meant by that because we here in the United States, we don't have inferiors.
We are all created equal.
But I think it's fair to say that the penalty for not engaging in politics is that the world will change around you and one day you will find it is not just.
And we're learning this about the older generation.
I've had conversations with people who are a bit older who have disassociated themselves from the political world and they're shocked to discover unjust things have been occurring all around them.
Which brings us to this story.
Protests planned against a mayor who backed ban of 80-year-old granny from YMCA over concerned about biological males helping little girls undress in locker rooms.
Okay, okay, whoa!
Hold on there!
Maybe you saw the story.
80-year-old woman was trying to go swimming at a YMCA.
She's in the women's locker room, and she sees a male person.
Identifying as a woman, of course, and she said, get out.
The person said, no.
She went to complain about it.
She got banned.
Because, you know, transphobia or whatnot.
Well now, it's a rude awakening for this 80-year-old woman.
I have sympathy for this 80-year-old woman, I really do.
And to a certain degree, I have... I don't know what the right word is for it.
Disappointment?
Look...
So many of these people walked away from the political world.
Keep voting for these people!
And they say things like, it's not possible, you're wrong, you're lying, it can't happen.
Share this story, why don't you?
Take this video, share it with your friends.
I know, sometimes it doesn't matter.
Larry Elder told us that he tried showing an article to a friend to prove that they were wrong about Trump and they wouldn't even read it.
That's the reality.
But I'll tell you what's happening.
We'll get into the story, but I want to say something.
I told this story on TimCast IRL.
Forgive me if you've heard it, but for people who haven't heard it, it's important in this context.
I was sitting at dinner with a friend in New York City.
This is a liberal guy.
He's not super political, but he's a liberal, he votes Democrat, he hates Trump, all that stuff.
But he's not super political.
So we're hanging out.
And I said, you know, their view of me is, you know, his view of me is kind of like, oh, Tim's more conservative leaning, but whatever, you know.
And I said, I'm not conservative leaning.
I'm like actually fairly left leaning on a ton of issues.
But it's just that the modern left has gone so far left, I guess just perceivably I've become right wing.
And of course, he's like, well, I don't know, you know, blah, blah, blah.
I said, look, dude, I'm pro-choice.
I'm pro-choice.
But the Democrats are trying to pass abortion in nine months.
And he said, what?
No, they aren't.
That's ridiculous.
And I picked up my phone without a beat and I pulled up the bill because I do this for a living.
I said, bro, just read it.
And he reads it.
And what does it say?
Abortion.
Up to the point of birth.
No restrictions.
For the health of the mother, even if the baby is viable.
And they said, oh, but it says for the health of the mother.
So the baby can survive outside of the womb, but for the health of the mother, you can abort the baby.
What does that mean?
Well, they thought it meant that If the mother would die.
And I said, oh, okay, okay, so the mom's gonna die if she carries the pregnancy.
Okay, but the baby is viable, right?
Okay, so why kill it?
Can't you just take the baby out and the baby'll live?
They were shocked.
And they said, uh, he said, uh, I need to read this.
I can't, you know, this is a guy who's like 40 years old.
And I was like, bro, I'm not making this up.
80-year-old Washington state woman banned from YMCA after demanding trans employee leave locker.
The reason I just told that story is because we had Ritchie McGinnis and his mom come on the show.
Ritchie McGinnis, of course, is the famed journalist who tried to resuscitate the man, or I don't know if he tried to resuscitate, but tried to assist the man who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse.
Ritchie's a good dude, a good friend.
He brought his mom on the show.
His mom, I think she was like 70-something, oblivious to all of this and said, no, certainly you're all wrong, this can't be happening.
I said, feminists are the ones who are pro-war.
And she went, what?
No, they're not.
And then I said, right now, if you were going to find a person who was in favor of intervention in Ukraine and the funding of war, it would likely be a pussy hat wearing person, not a MAGA hat wearing person.
And Richie was like, yeah, actually, that's true.
And she was surprised.
This 80-year-old woman doesn't understand what's happening around her.
At no point in your life are you absolved of responsibility for the world around you.
And again, I don't mean to disparage this old woman who doesn't understand what's going on.
But you cannot release your grip From the tether of political reality.
Otherwise, one day you will wake up and you will not recognize the world and you will be the problem.
It's like I Am Legend.
Read it if you haven't.
Don't watch the movie.
The movie's meh.
The New York Post.
An 80-year-old Washington state woman was permanently banned from her local YMCA pool after demanding that a transgender employee leave the women's locker room.
Quote, I saw a man in a woman's bathing suit watching maybe four or five little girls pulling down their suits in order to use the toilet.
Port Townsend resident Julie Jeman recalled of the July incident to Seattle radio show host Dory Monson.
I asked if he had a penis and he said it was none of my business.
I told that man to get out right now.
The incident occurred on July 26 at the Mountain View Pool, which is a City of Port Townsend facility operated by the Olympic Peninsula YMCA, according to a local news outlet, Port Townsend Free Press.
Juman said she was alerted of the trans employee being in the women's locker room while she was showering and heard a man's voice.
She told Monson that she alerted a pool staffer to the incident and was stunned when the staff member told her she was being discriminatory and was banned from the pool forever.
The staffer also allegedly said the police would be called.
She didn't ask me what the problem was.
If I was okay, nothing about me.
It's as if she was just waiting to pounce on me.
Remember the story about the spa?
I believe it was in San Francisco.
Where a woman said, there's a naked man in the locker room and they were like, you're being discriminatory against trans people and it turned out the person actually was just someone convicted of like exposing themselves to people.
Something like that.
The Port Townsend Police Department told Fox News Digital that no official police report was filed, but the department provided an incident report on the matter.
The incident report details that Jamaan had an emotional response to a strange male being in the bathroom near young girls, and is hoping to not be trespassed from the pool, according to a phone call from an officer had with Jamaan.
The report also noted a phone call from the YMCA detailing that Jaman was reportedly in the facility's locker room screaming at an employee and refusing to leave.
I'd like to point something out.
We did not create bathrooms for men and women because sometimes people wear dresses.
Bathrooms are not social constructs and are not predicated upon social construct.
Bathrooms were created and constructed around biological differences.
You see what's happened?
When men and women as terms become social construct, they have subsequently changed the law without actually getting a consensus through a democratic process.
Men and women's sports were not created because sometimes people wear dresses.
Okay, they were created because there are males and females who are biologically different.
By conflating men and women with a social construct, they now say, well, then why don't you create a male bathroom and a female bathroom?
This is a women's bathroom.
And trans women are women, therefore.
That's what they've done with the language.
That's how it's played.
Quote.
I'll read the quote in a second.
Aaron Hawkins, the marketing and communications manager of the YMCA, told Fox News Digital
that the permanent pool ban followed a buildup of incidents where Jaman violated the facility's
code of conduct.
She said the permanent suspension was not solely due to the singular incident in the
Wynn's locker room.
Julie Jeman was permanently suspended due to repeatedly violating our code of conduct, specifically using disrespectful words or gestures towards YMCA staff or others.
Abusive, harassing, and or obscene language or gestures toward YMCA staff or others, Hawkins said in a comment to Fox News Digital Monday.
This is the individual in question, the transgender YMCA worker who was allegedly harassed by the elderly woman.
Well, I can say good for her for standing up for what she believes in.
identify as women are using the women's shower and dressing room. Well, I can say good for her for
standing up for what she believes in because, as I mentioned early in the segment, those who refuse
to engage in politics are doomed to be ruled by those, I'll put it differently, by those who hold
values at odds with their own.
You have to engage in the process.
Now, there's a protest planned, and this is what we can see.
They say, following the banning of an 80-year-old woman from her local YMCA, they say protests have been planned in Port Townsend, Washington, against the city's stance on the matter.
Let me show you what the city's stance is.
Amy E. Sousa says, this is a transgender proclamation being declared by the mayor of Port Townsend in response to the city having pushed back from banning an 80-year-old woman from the YMCA.
They said, whereas the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law Study found that transgender people 16 and over are four times more likely to be crime victims than cisgender people.
Whereas half of all trans people are abused or assaulted in their lifetimes.
Whereas PBS NewsHour reported, FBI reported, you get the point.
Now therefore, I, David J. Faber, Mayor of the City of Port Townsend, do hereby proclaim that the City of Port Townsend values our transgender residents and visitors and urges all residents and visitors to be respectful, welcoming, and kind to everyone regardless of gender identity.
I further proclaim that discrimination and prejudice in any form, especially against transgender people, are unwelcome and have no place in the city of Port Townsend.
Which brings us to the protest.
Amy Sousa, the event's organizer, told the Post Millennial that she's known Julie Djimon, the woman at the center of the YMCA controversy, for about 10 years, and noted that Port Townsend is her hometown.
On Wednesday, the council issued a proclamation, which I just read.
They say, The proclamation will be up for public comment and consideration by the City Council on August 15th, where Sousa and at least 50 others plan to hold a press conference outside of the City Hall, in opposition to both the proclamation, as well as the City's stance on the matter of Juman being banned from her local YMCA pool.
J'mon, a resident of the city for about 40 years, was banned after she discovered a biological male by the name of Clementine Adams, a staff member for the YMCA, chaperoning a group of girls with a day camp to the bathroom.
J'mon asked about the individual's genitals, which is probably not the right way to go about it, mind you.
At the time, a manager at the YMCA told the Postmillennial that Jaman had not been banned for that alone, but rather repeatedly violating their code of conduct.
In the wake of the late July event, Faber issues a proclamation stating the city's acceptance of trans individuals.
So, uh, we read that.
Overall, it states, the city of Port Townsend values their transgender residents.
Read that.
Speaking with the Postmillennial.
Sousa said that her event will gather on the City Hall steps shortly before the Council considers the proclamation, where she said the microphone will be open for anyone to speak, and added that Jamaan would be speaking at the event as well.
She said that people from all over the Seattle area will be coming to the event, including feminists as well as women who wouldn't consider themselves feminists and men who don't consider themselves feminists, but who this issue deeply touches.
Sousa said that at the center of this is the issue of discrimination.
She noted that the YMCA says they don't discriminate based on things like age, sex, race, or gender identity, but wants to bring up to the City Council that the YMCA is denying provisions and protections based on the female sex.
Sousa said that she would be bringing the issue forward to the council as sex-based discrimination.
Because if you deny women and girls provisions for our bodies, for our sex, that is discrimination.
Which brings me to...
Another issue related to the impossibility of the Civil Rights Act.
I'm a fan of the Civil Rights Act.
We should discriminate against people.
But as you can see here, in an attempt to protect based on gender identity, they are now being accused of not protecting based on sex.
It's impossible, isn't it?
Okay, well, what about religion?
Religion is often protected.
National origin is protected.
To what degree?
In Birmingham, the UK, there were a bunch of Muslims who were protesting LGBT curriculum in schools, saying it was discriminating against them and they didn't want it.
An LGBTQ activist came and started bullhorning, saying they were doing it for you.
How do you have a law protecting the rights of, say, a Muslim minority in a certain area and an LGBTQ minority when they both don't agree with each other?
It's not possible, is it?
In this instance, how do you protect females and give them a safe space when you also protect gender identity, allowing males into those bathrooms?
It's interesting.
The challenge, I suppose, will not fly, and I've mentioned this before, and it's something y'all need to understand about the law.
Why is it that schools, say, in California, are allowed to have a women's computer club?
Well, doesn't that violate Title IX, sex-based discrimination?
You see, Courts have ruled that so long as everyone gets offered the same thing, it's not discrimination.
Which is weird, because that sounds like separate but equal.
Yeah, we said you can't do that.
You see where this is going?
In the early days, the idea was if there's a bathroom for white people and a bathroom for black people, then it's not discrimination because everybody gets a bathroom, right?
Well, no.
The Civil Rights Act said that is discrimination, you can't segregate.
You cannot do that.
Thus, they got rid of gender segregation and, I'm sorry, racial segregation and just created bathrooms everybody can use.
Now we have sexual discrimination.
Bathrooms segregate based on sex.
And the argument is, well, there's a bathroom for everybody, so it's fair, right?
Hmm.
Actually, it's not.
Men's bathrooms have urinals.
Women's bathrooms don't.
You see where this is going?
What ends up happening is you're going to have individuals who are going to have legal birth certificates saying that they're male or female, but they're going to have the opposing parts.
So you will have a male, legally, as a woman or female on their birth certificate, going into the women's bathroom where there are no urinals.
Well, that's discrimination.
You can't have that.
So this is where it's going.
We will, in my opinion, based on what this seeks, see an end to sex segregation.
I don't see how women's sports exists.
I mean this literally.
I don't see how it exists.
There is no men's sporting teams.
There are teams where anyone can compete and men are the ones who win and end up on those teams.
Women's leagues ban men.
Well, that's discrimination, isn't it?
How is it legal, then?
I mean, I gotta be honest.
Serious question.
How is it legal to have a WNBA?
I mean this seriously.
If you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, how could you deny a man a right to play on that team?
It doesn't matter if it's gender identity or not.
Just because these things haven't been litigated doesn't mean the arguments aren't there, logically.
And therein lies the issue.
Cultural enforcement is substantially more powerful than litigation and statutory law.
We have a law saying you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex.
What is the argument, then, to denying a 6'6", 250-pound athletic male from joining the WNBA?
What's the rule?
How do you get that?
Well, I suppose the argument is men can join the NBA.
Yeah, but so can women.
The NBA does not discriminate.
So explain to me.
This is where we're headed.
The WNBA can't exist.
Women's tennis can't exist.
Women's sports in general literally will not be able to exist.
All that will happen is they will be eliminated.
And there's no, look, why would we have two leagues?
I suppose you can have the major league and the minor league.
Okay.
All right, we'll do that.
All the women's teams then become, what, minor leagues?
Well, that's not fair.
You can't call a minor just because the people in the other division are better, or you get rid of them.
That's the direction of things.
Bathrooms will become unisex.
That's the direction of things.
We already saw it in the UK, where I covered this years ago.
Changing rooms.
Instead of saying, OK, fine, we're going to do all-gender bathrooms, they said, just do one big bathroom.
It's cheaper, and we can get in trouble if we don't.
So they make one facility, they don't label it.
What happened was we saw assaults against women skyrocket.
I guess giving some criminal men the opportunity increased the likelihood that it happened.
That is where this is all headed.
Now to my first point.
This 80-year-old granny is very active politically right now.
I wonder how active politically she's been.
But I think about Richie's mom, when she came on the show, and she did not understand what was happening to the world around her.
And I wished she did.
I wished these older people would stop just blindly believing the lies!
But they don't care!
They don't care!
They don't pay attention!
So forgive me, boomers.
Because I get a lot of messages from boomers saying, hey man, I'm a boomer and I watch your show and I understand all this stuff.
I get it.
But so many boomers have resigned themselves to ignoring what is going on.
They refuse to do the work themselves to fact-check.
Don't get me wrong, millennials do the same thing, but millennials are born into the cult.
And it's because many of these boomers refuse to actually do the work.
In fact, there, Donald Trump, he's a boomer, isn't he?
Is Trump a boomer, or is he older than that?
I don't know, I think he might be, what, silent generation?
Man, I don't know.
Old feller, huh?
You need to be politically active.
You need to vote.
And you need to make sure that come this election in November, you get every one of your friends.
You do not leave anyone out.
You post everywhere, guys, are we going to vote?
That's it.
Go and tell them to vote.
Trump had that thing, MAGA 3X.
Every person should bring three other people with them to vote.
That's brilliant.
Yeah.
There you go.
Otherwise, this stuff is going to keep happening.
But I think I see where this is going.
I don't see how the Supreme Court can carry on this path.
I mean, it's a conservative court, so they overturned Roe v. Wade, which is crazy.
Never thought it was going to happen.
Where will we go with their decisions moving forward?
It's the important question.
But these cities and these states are going to do what they want.
And the cultural differences are going to become more and more pronounced.
Look, I was in New Jersey.
I was in New York, then New Jersey, and now West Virginia.
Man.
From deep blue to deep red.
That's right.
Because people are saying, I don't want to live in this place.
These people are nuts.
I think it leads to something much more serious.
Possibly, you know, a civil conflict of sorts.
But please, do not resign yourself to ignoring the world around you, or you will wake up one day as this 80-year-old granny, confused as to why your world changed without you.
