Happy Scribe Logo


Proofread by 0 readers

Today is March 2nd, twenty twenty one, and our first story, media personalities are warning that we must take Republican secessionists talk seriously as Republicans in four different states have now entertained the idea of or literally called for seceding from the United States.


In Texas, the GOP has actually endorsed a bill that will allow Texans to vote on secession. Our next story, Dr. Seuss is officially canceled after a study discovered racial undertones and six books are pulled from publication. And our last story, Cuomo is facing extreme pressure.


Even Hillary Clinton is now calling for an investigation over claims of sexual harassment and even assault from the embattled governor. Let's get in to the first story. Whenever I get into a conversation with someone about a potential civil war or some kind of mass uprising, the one thing I often hear is that, well, nothing will really get hot until the government tries seizing people's guns. And I mostly agree with that.


But I don't think the government is going to show up one day, starts seizing guns and mass. They're smarter than that. There will be new laws.


Certain things will be grandfathered in.


And in the end, people will just slowly have their rights eroded away from them and not realize it. But there's a news story from New York Times about a lawsuit in New Jersey, which even The New York Times says is a clever manipulation to extract private information from a gun manufacturer because their real intent is to force gun control using a manipulation of the legal system. That kind of thing happening with even the admission of The New York Times says to me, people are getting fed up in this country and I'm not sure how much longer people are going to just sit around.


We have a story from NBC Pro Trump.


Republican secession rhetoric in Texas and elsewhere is more than a punch line. And I don't know how much how seriously I take these calls, but there have been many calls from many Republicans, actual politicians, for some kind of secession, outright secession, or as many people have put it, a peaceful divorce.


Certain blue states can join the United States of Canada. And then the meme says the recipe called Jesus land, although I don't think that's really the divide in this country, it's actually happening.


There have been numerous articles from prominent publications talking about why we must take secessionist talk seriously, because we're hearing it more and more.


And in this article from NBC News, they actually highlight several states like Wyoming, Mississippi, Florida and Texas who have had some politicians call for some kind of secession.


More worryingly, I suppose, for everybody is that Texas actually proposed a bill to allow people to vote on secession.


And there's actually some kind of debate happening as to whether or not Texas would actually be allowed to leave the union.


I don't think it could happen. But just because I don't think so, because I have an optimism bias doesn't mean it can't. We heard recently in a segment I did last week that several counties in Oregon, one county in Colorado and several in California want to secede from their states, make their own state or join a different state.


That's the kind of conversation that I think happens before people outright want to leave the United States.


But we've seen what happens in see what happened in the past when several states tried to leave the union. Grant basically said the people of the U.S. paid for your admittance to the union through blood and treasure. You can't just leave. There is a debt to be repaid.


But what happens when people are willing to sacrifice everything because they feel that the law isn't working for them? The government doesn't represent the people. A lot of people don't realize this, but Texas has their own declaration of independence. So I'm not a big expert on Texas history. My dad's from Texas, but that's about it.


But they did declare independence at one point and many people in Texas still feel like they have a right to do so. In fact, most importantly, I mean, the United States itself was formed by a Declaration of Independence. Well, let's take a look at why these media personalities are scared and saying you must take this seriously. There actually is a fear that whether or not anyone wants to believe it could happen, there are people actively pushing us towards it happening.


And we may have that bias that it can't happen here, but maybe it can. Before we get started, make sure you head over to Tim Dotcom and become a member to get access to exclusive segments. Martin Kaste, Isarel podcast. We said of this website as a safety net, in the event that we get banned, you know, my channels as well as the people who work with me, the things we produce.


So we have a ton of exclusive full podcast episodes, if you like the Tim Kestral podcast, go to Match.com, become a member of that membership, helps help support my work. And we're actually hiring and expanding.


So a lot of really good, good things coming and hopefully we don't get banned. But in the event we do, it'll all be here.


But don't forget to like share subscribe hit that notification.


Now let's read what NBC News writes and go over all of the states talking about secession. And then I want to show you what's going on, this gun control stuff, because I really think this could be a very serious catalyst.


It's getting creepy. NBC News Casey Michael writes, Pro Trump Republican secession rhetoric in Texas and elsewhere is more than a punch line. This kind of seditious rhetoric could would spell disaster for the supposedly United States of America. Wow. Very bold. Subedar there, my friend.


He writes, For the past few months, a long buried idea has been creeping from the fringe into the mainstream Republican discourse. Secession following President Joe Biden's victory in November, GOP officials from Wyoming to Florida to Mississippi have floated the idea. Claiming that the time for a national fracturing may be near while there's something of a seasonal flavor to this injection of rhetoric, Republican honchos like former Texas Governor Rick Perry openly discussed secession following Barack Obama's rise to the presidency.


For instance, the recent round rounds feel qualitatively different as journalist and author Richard Kreitner, an expert on American secessionism, recently wrote, it's time to take secessionist secessionist talk seriously.


Well, there is conversations around secession. We have this story from The Washington Examiner. January 18th, Wyoming GOP chairman floats secession after Cheney votes to impeach Trump. We have this story from the Orlando Sentinel where they mention Tom Vayle, treasurer for the Lake County Republican Executive Committee, saying we may have only one choice to preserve any freedom secession. I expect to need the state legislature and governor to endorse this. To choose otherwise may mean submitting to the coming totalitarian regime.


We also have Mrs. Mississippi Republican calls for his state to succeed from the Union after Biden victory. He meant succeed, not succeed.


But we also have this going on in Texas. Check this out. February 1st, Texas secession bill formally filed in state legislature. Rep. Kyle Biederman's proposal would allow for a referendum on Texas secession. The vote might actually happen. People might actually vote for this. What happens when the state of Texas actually votes to secede from the union? Probably nothing. But that is a worrying precedent. And we have an update here, which I'll get more into in a second from just earlier in February, about a month ago, Texas Republicans endorsed legislation to allow vote on secession from the U.S. state.


Party Chairman Allen West is the latest Republican to come out in support of declaring Texas an independent nation.


My friends, the conversation is happening. There have been many prominent personalities saying we need a peaceful divorce.


Perhaps that's the best way out of this. Hyperpolarization don't ask me, but there you go.


That's four states and probably not the only ones where people are feeling this way. But bear in mind, one or two people in the political parties saying it doesn't mean it's a mass movement.


So I look at these stories and I'm kind of like, yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, I'll see it.


I'll believe it when I see it.


But we've got we've got New York. I believe it's a what was this one? We got New York Books, The New York Review. Why it's time to take secessionist talk seriously for much. KREITNER And we have the story from NBC News. So certainly the media is starting to get worried about it, or perhaps they're just trying to drum up some real debate content to get clicks. Keep that in mind. This may be just several people who are angry.


It may be something we've heard in the past. I mean, this guy even mentions Rick Perry said something similar when Obama got elected. It may just be a whole lot of nothing.


But I will point out I had a lot of conversations with people in the cast in our podcast who do bring up that we may need a peaceful divorce before a civil war.


Believe whatever you want to believe, maybe these these journalists, these writers are correct, maybe they're exaggerating for views and clicks, I don't know.


It's up to you to decide. Let's read more in reference to the quote about taking secessionist talk seriously, they say, and it's not difficult to see why.


In the wake of the failed pro Trump insurrection in Washington, far right American militia militias buoyed by former President Donald Trump's empty claims that the election was stolen, have increasingly agitated for the breakup of the U.S.. As the head of one paramilitary group that has worked closely with conspiratorial Rep.. Marjorie Taylor, Green recently revealed they'd formed alliances with other far right groups to advocate for Georgia's secession. One of the primary Facebook pages promoting the rally turned riot was also called Red State Secession.


Meanwhile, mainstream outlets like Fox News joke approvingly about secessionist movements in places like Northern California, despite the movement's clear comfort with political violence. While the range of employees at Glenn Beck's outlet continue to call for the breakup of the U.S.. I like to point out, I'm sure there are many people who are taken aback by the claims made by NBC News. Oh, it wasn't an insurrection. Oh, how dare you besmirch Marjorie Taylor Green?


That's the point. The article itself is proof of the divide.


They view Republicans as an evil other as Donald Trump as an evil fascist. Well, the Trump supporters view the Democrats much in a much similar way.


So certainly if both people are staring at each other in the eyes screaming, you're the villain, it's only a matter of time before people start fighting to defeat that villain, unless, of course, they stop. And part ways. That's the conversation around secession. Again, I'm not advocating for this. I'm just reading you what they're writing. He goes on and it's not just a tiny fringe that's thinking about these concepts anymore. As the bright line. Watch a group of researchers from places like Dartmouth University, the University of Rochester and Chicago noted in a study released earlier in February.


One third of Republicans said they support secession. Disturbingly, half of Republicans across the former Confederacy plus Kentucky and Oklahoma are now willing to break off to form a newly independent country on their own site.


They say this there's a quick vote fifteen thousand seven hundred fifty three votes on NBC.


Should Texas be allowed to secede? We move this little slider bar and it gives us the numbers. It says 69 percent say Texas should not be allowed to. And about I believe that's 23 percent say they should be at about eight percent are kind of in the middle.


Well, it's certainly not enough to actually allow Texas to secede.


The question is interesting because, well, this poll doesn't poll just people in Texas.


It's whoever read the article from all around the country, maybe even the world. I'd like to see this poll in Texas now. The Texas Tribune writes that they cannot secede anyway.


So there you go. He says, Perhaps not surprisingly, Texas is leading this charge. As The Daily Beast reported, a Texas state lawmaker, one who attended the capital rally on January six and claimed it was the most amazing day, recently filed the first serious secession bill the country has seen since the Civil War. The Texas Republican Party promptly endorsed the bill, which would give Texans the right to vote in a secession referendum later this year, with Texas Gov.


Greg Abbott refusing to denounce the legislation. I hate that. Refuse to denounce. Get a get out of here. Did he endorse it now?


OK, fine. But but note, he said the lawmaker was at the Capitol rally. You see what they try to do. The rally was not those breaking into the Capitol. They call that the insurrection. The rally was a bunch of people waving little American flags and listening to Donald Trump speak.


He goes on, of course, state level secession remains illegal in the US, as the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 2006. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the civil war, it is that there is no right to secede. But that hasn't stopped conservatives from defending the bill, claiming that it's simply giving Texans a voice.


It's unclear if these figures think Texans should be able to vote on other illegal acts in the interest of expressing their voice.


Tread carefully, my Goodsir at NBC News.


California engages in illegal activities all the time, notably around drug use and illegal immigration.


We have to make sure we're talk when we talk about this stuff. We're talking about what we as humans decide is moral and just and not necessarily legal. Legal does not mean ethical. There have been many atrocities committed in the name of the law and legality.


So, again, tread carefully now. Secession being illegal in my opinion. I understand. Fantastic quote from Ulysses S. Grant. It was brilliant. I mentioned in the introduction to the segment that the other states in this union have paid with blood and treasure for your admittance, for you to just leave now after everything we've done for you.


Well, you got a big problem, but he goes on to say that. People who feel that the government does not represent them have a right to rebel. Just keep in mind, if you lose, you will live subjugated by those you feel to be your oppressor is a very interesting bit of writing and is very intelligent. It's true.


So whether it's illegal or not, I think is is besides the point, we as a country know exactly what it means to illegally declare independence. Those words mean nothing to me. At least I understand. You may say you may say it's illegal. But I'm not advocating for when a large group of people simply say we don't care if the government doesn't have the confidence of the people, how do they enforce it by force?


So what are we going to see federal police and National Guard going to Texas and overthrowing the local government and holding new elections?


I mean, if it got to that point, yeah, very well.


Maybe because Texas is not going to able to resist the might of the entirety of the U.S. Mind you, he goes on to say, While much of the secessionist rhetoric remains couched in claims about things like fiscal responsibility and burdensome federal regulations, it doesn't take much to discern the ethno nationalism driving the push. Just like so much of Trump in America, secession in places like Texas is rooted in a combination of native nativism, xenophobia and white racial grievance. Which I've talked about when you have a Sacramento school district telling white children to form racial affinity groups.


What did you think was going to happen?


It's almost like the end result of everything is to just burn the whole system to the ground. Now they're complaining about what the left is encouraging. Oh, they'll denounce the alt right and tell them, you know, you're banned from social media, but then they will advocate for much the same thing.


I wonder if the real reason they banned the outright is they don't want anyone to be overt in their discussions about what they're trying to do. Now he ends the article by saying. The devastation in Texas highlights but a small sample of how awful an actual secession push would likely be, as University of Houston Professor Robert Zaretsky wrote this month, the spirit of secessionism carries terrible human costs.


And he's exactly right. It's a terrible proposal with terrible consequences of which Texas is getting a taste right now. Thankfully for Texans, the federal government and the rest of the US can help the struggling state back to its feet and back to its rightful place as one of America's economic and cultural leaders. And hopefully the state's Republican Party and Republicans elsewhere will drop once and for all all kinds of seditious rhetoric that would spell disaster for the supposedly United States of America.


Let me just remind you of something, how much money did the United States give in foreign aid to say, like Honduras and Guatemala and Mexico and many countries around the world?


How much money are they giving to Israel? If your argument is that Texas should not succeed because they would face devastation from inclement weather? Well, I would assume the U.S. would still provide monetary aid to them the same as they do to a bunch of other countries in the name of security. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Texas will secede, but it's certainly happening. Take a look at this from February 1st. They say, after weeks of touting his secession bill on social media.


State Rep. Kyle Biederman, a Frederiksberg, formally filed the proposed legislation on Friday, which would give Texans a chance to explore opting out of the union in a referendum. Biederman began talking about the potential to exit Texas exit in early December, saying it's his response to a federal government that is out of control and does not represent the value of Texans. In a news release published after he filed the bill, Biederman said HB one three five nine would not allow for immediate independence but create a referendum that, if approved, would lead to the creation of a committee that would develop a plan for secession.


Quote, For decades, the promises of America and our individual liberties have been eroding, he said in a statement. It is now time for the people of Texas are allowed the right to decide their own future. This is not a left or right political issue.


Let Texans vote. I agree, let them vote. I do support the vote on secession. I'm not saying I support secession.


I believe that human beings are governed only by their consent. When you have fifty one percent of this country, vote for a certain political party who passes certain laws. Well, welcome to Democratic Representation, where constitutional republic. Some of the problems of this are mitigated by jurisdictional boundaries, but, well, that's how the system works.


But what happens when you have a perpetual minority that says we're not going to to live this way anymore?


By their own admission, Democrats recognize that Republicans are a minority government, that over the past several years, Republicans in the last two, I believe Republican presidents did not win the popular vote.


So they're calling for a popular vote presidency. Get rid of electoral college. You realize what that means. If there is a unified faction of a large amount of people that remains in the minority, they simply won't be subjected to rule by the majority. If you say we outnumber you by a few million, therefore you will abide by our rules, period and never win another election again.


Well, they'll simply say, OK, bye, then why would we be here if you don't want to live the way we want to and we don't want to live the way you want to? The divide is right down the middle.


Well, then maybe we should break up.


You see, the interesting thing about this secessionist movement is it's not rooted necessarily in a grand moral dilemma.


Slavery in the eighteen hundreds was extremely divisive and there were many states that were for or against and internally there were still conflict. In fact, Virginia shattered into Virginia and West Virginia, a free state and a slave state. Today, it's mostly just you are a very different political ideology from ours. It's not about one particular issue. It's about just an entirely fractured worldview.


Now, I understand during the civil war, there were some similarities, similarities in that regard, but there was a major moral issue.


The reason it's important is that people in the north felt that was their moral duty to stop slavery in the south. I support that. The north one, they were the good guys, in my opinion.


Don't get me wrong, I recognize a lot of the arguments about liberty and freedom. But the North was saying y'all can't have this institution remain.


I know many, many individuals want to talk about states rights, secessionism, the right to secede from the union and all of those issues that I understand it wasn't cut and dry to just say slavery, but that was the principal moral issue. It led a lot of people in the north.


Hans Christian Haeg, for instance, whose statue was desecrated by Black Lives Matter activist to fight to end slavery for the union.


See, he wasn't fighting for the union itself.


Maybe he was, but he was an abolitionist, which means you got a ton of people on moral ground saying we will come to the south and we will end what you are doing. And it just so happens preserve the union. The U.S. right now doesn't have that grand moral issue. For the most part.


People are just saying tribalism, the right, the left.


I don't like you. You don't like me. And they disagree on basic facts. I doubt you will see Republicans say we must storm the beaches of New York and take the city back to liberate. What? No, they're saying you can do whatever you want. And when it comes to city states like New York, they may complain about guns and stuff, but they don't really care about the red states, what the red states want to do. In fact, they argue while the red states would be a third world country if they left.


Sounds good. Sounds like there is no moral dilemma. And if the country wanted to peacefully divorce, there would be no good reason to fight other than to preserve the union.


Keep in mind. All right.


I absolutely think it is paramount that the United States remain together and we must find a way to end this divide because we don't want China to take over.


And a divided United States into two different countries would be a disaster. Many people will say it can't happen here. That doesn't mean it's true. But Texas Tribune says taxes can't legally secede from the U.S. despite popular myth. Historical and legal precedents make it clear that Texas could not leave the the union, at least not legally. That's the important thing legally.


So what if Texas voted for it and the government approved it and they just said, we consider ourselves to be free of the US? What's the US going to do? Send a National Guard, federalized soldiers to reclaim Texas? Like I was saying, kick out the politicians and install their own temporary ones.


Maybe this ultimately could be the. If I'll put it this way, if secession moves forward in this way, I believe that the ultimate outcome will be the loss of jurisdictional power. And many of these states, they will no longer be considered in some ways, sovereign jurisdictions.


They'll just be considered. It'll be more like counties and then maybe the borders could change.


But if this push happens and they lose, it will be the I think it would be the absolute end of the idea of statehood.


For the most part, they will still have their names. They will still other jurisdictions, but much like counties, a lot of people don't know who represents the county or the or the cities.


It would just become a federal United States government. They say every few months. The question seems to come up. If Texas wanted to, could it secede from the U.S.? Simply put, the answer is no.


Historical and legal precedent make it clear it could not leave, at least not legally.


The ideas most often raised by conservatives in the state who are angry over some kind of policy coming from the federal government. And the calls seem to be more frequent when a Democrat is occupying the White House, they go into then mentioned Biederman and his bill and all that. Well, check this out. Texas Republicans have endorsed the legislation to allow a vote on secession, as I pointed out.


I'm in favor of that as well, voting on secession, because I believe people have a right to vote on what they want on whatever, if someone said I believe there should be a bill to allow people to vote on whether or not they should build a giant cylinder, a giant spherical or a circular disk to block out the sun so the local nuclear power plant can charge more for electricity, then let them vote on it.


I guess if people want to have a vote on something, let them vote now. But you don't just vote willy nilly.


There needs to be an actual referendum process. People need to be notified.


So let them vote on secession. If the people voice their express themselves and say we do not feel represented, we will then see that. And that will mean something needs to change.


And even if they vote on it, what do they say? There will be a committee formed, a conversation will happen and will figure out what we're going to do.


I'm fine with that as well, because maybe then the federal government says, OK, Texas, what can we do?


Texas may then say, here's what we're willing to abide by and then maybe there'll be some negotiation. But I pointed this out already. If forty nine percent of the people never have a chance to be represented in the government and we get a Democrat supermajority dominating everything, what's the point of the country in the first place? We're not talking about some Republicans. In some places. We're talking about entire states and we're talking about the majority of the blue states.


And I mean the state itself, like Illinois, for instance, the Chicagoland area is Democrat. The rest of the state, for the most part, is not. So all of these other areas in these states are going are going to be upset. They're never being represented. And what do you get?


Like I mentioned in Oregon, they want to leave Oregon and join Idaho where they feel they will be better represented.


What's the difference at the state level and then the federal level, I understand legally and by precedent there's a difference, but if you have states that feel at the federal level they're not being represented, then they're going to start doing these things, calling for secession.


One of the biggest catalysts that I think is going to drive this is Joe Biden's gun control policy and maybe not a gun person, but at least hear me out, because it's not so much about guns.


It's about the tactics being used by the left to gain power and assert themselves. They know that under our current form of government, it actually is quite difficult to get things done. When you have a Republican minority, they still hold a substantial amount of power. That's the point of the republic to protect the minority, to preserve the union.


But the Democrats are using nefarious tactics and nonsensical laws to ban people's rights to right to bear arms and free speech and many other rights.


I mean, the NSA is basically violating the Fourth Amendment every single day. Political rights. Biden considers regulating ghost guns, other executive actions to curb gun violence. The president's movement on guns has so far been more meetings than action goes guns. For those that aren't familiar.


I'm not an expert on this, but my general understanding is that when you basically mill your own weapon and there's no serial number, you can't legally sell it.


But you can use it for personal use. It needs it needs to be serialized if it's going to be transferred or sold or something like that.


Now, Joe Biden has been has had no problem talking about his plan to end our gun violence epidemic. He's got a ton of pretty insane policy positions, in my opinion. One of them is allowing people to sue gun manufacturers when someone commits a crime.


I mean, I think that's just one of the dumbest things ever.


If someone intentionally takes a baseball bat and hits someone with it, DSU, the baseball bat manufacturer, and people are playing baseball.


It's not for that use. Why are they why would they allow this?


It is a manipulative and sneaky tactic to damage companies.


They know they can't pass the law because more than half the country I mean, I think the majority of this country, the large majority, support Second Amendment and wants guns. It's only these urban liberals, for the most part, who support the stuff.


A lot of people, unfortunately, who support gun control just don't understand how it would work.


Well, they know they can't pass the law, so they use manipulative, subversive tactics is a better way to put it.


Well, then people can sue the gun manufacturer. Then when the gun manufacturer goes out of business because it's literally a gun, it's a weapon. Well, then there won't be guns, will there? But I bring you out of the story, one that I think may be the most worrying, which could be a catalyst for serious anger and action.


As I pointed out in the beginning, when I talk to people about the stuff, they typically say, well, not until they come for your guns.


Right. The New York Times writes the most important gun lawsuit. You've never heard of. A case in New Jersey about Smith and Wesson's advertising could expose secrets that the industry would prefer to keep hidden.


I'll just break it down for you as a commercial of a woman concealed carrying, and then she goes to the gun range.


I guess the argument is that it's misleading or something to that effect.


That's essentially what The New York Times alluded to. New Jersey has filed a claim against Smith and Wesson arguing that they're committing advertising fraud. They say gun manufacturers have long been immune from liability for gun crimes and deaths because of federal laws that protect them.


But Phil Murphy, the Democratic governor of New Jersey, a longtime gun control advocate, decided to do something novel in October. His attorney general, Gharbia Greuel, sent a subpoena to Smith and Wesson from the state's division of Consumer Affairs as part of it, as part of an investigation into advertising fraud, seeking a trove of internal documents.


No industry has any particular immunity from cases about claims it makes and advertising in truth.


The subpoena is a Trojan horse to expose publicly for the first time the inner workings of the gun industry.


To put it simply, The New York Times is telling us that Democrats are using subversive tactics as a Trojan horse to circumvent the law and legal protections of private businesses to cause them damage. I'd love to see something against Facebook, for instance. Now, they love Facebook. I'm kidding.


I don't want the government to use manipulative and illegal tactics. I think it should go through the proper system and then go on to say blah, blah, blah. It is suggested that officials in New Jersey sought to bypass the legislative process and engage in abusive litigation, along with investigative investigatory and other tactics, to create sufficient pressure to compel Smith and Wesson to voluntarily adopt reforms consistent with the activists gun control agenda.


The New York Times writes this.


Let's call New Jersey's reply what it is disingenuous. The court knows and clearly Smith and Wesson knows that the advertising fraud investigation is not garden variety anything. But the motive of the probe for the purposes of the law is besides the point, the case will rest. On whether Smith and Wesson breached state laws that prevent companies from misleading customers, I suppose the issue is what they're saying is in the ad which aired in New Jersey, a woman is concealed carrying.


Yeah, I guess they're saying they know you can't concealed carry in New Jersey. New Jersey has some of the most insane gun laws in the country. So what's the argument?


They're advertising to people something that can't be done by their own laws? Perhaps I'm not going to get into too much about this. I just wanted to point out the Democrats are willing to use, let's call it, extra legal tactics to get what they want.


Do you think Republicans and even Blue Dog Democrats and Second Amendment pro to Democrats are going to sit back and be accepting of this?


Well, they're I think pro to a Democrat is kind of an oxymoron. The company, Phenix and Ammunition has this thing. When you go to their website, it makes you they ask you, did you vote for Joe Biden? And if you click yes, it brings you to Biden's gun control page. You leave the website and you can't buy their ammo unless you say you did not vote for Biden. The people who voted for Biden, who claim to be pro to a don't know anything about what they voted for.


The people who voted against Joe Biden, be them actual conservatives or not, seem to recognize what's happening.


Do you think people will just sit back as the Democrats pull things like this? I don't believe so.


Like I said, I don't think it's going to be an overnight thing where they snap their fingers and come and take your guns.


But I do think people are eventually going to snap when they keep hearing about what's happening, the moment they try and say this or that or this will be illegal, you're going to see this powder keg light up and talk of secession is legit. NBC News and what's what was the other website?


It was a New York books, The New York Review.


They seem to think it's time we get serious about this conversations because people are having them and there may be a vote sooner or later. We'll see how that plays out. I leave it there. Next segment will be tonight. Tim cast iron. Go to YouTube. Dotcom slash Tim Casadevall for an 8:00 p.m. live show where you can comment and Supriya Superjet and then we'll read your comments.


It's a lot of fun. We'll talk about a lot of stuff. So thanks for hanging out and we will see you all then.


The leftists have finally come for Dr. Seuss, six books will be taken out of publication, and Joe Biden has bucked predecessors, omitting Dr Seuss from his read Across America day proclamation after Virginia school system drops iconic children's books because of racial undertones.


Let me give you the quick synopsis for this video. I think that many of these people on the left claiming to be social justice activists are actually white supremacists.


And I mean in the literal sense and I think they try and use the phrase white supremacy to mean something else. Let me stop. Actually, I'll have a better way to explain this.


There was a viral meme. Some dude just on Facebook wrote this thing up explaining why the left was so hell bent on changing definitions and controlling the meaning of language. And he said it's actually really simple. The reason they call everyone a white supremacist and they smear the right, it's because they're the exact same as the alt.




And if people actually realize what they're doing is racist racism and culturally insensitive, well, they'd probably reject it.


That's why they're now referring to colorblindness, for instance, as racist as true racism, they argue they're anti-racist. Well, there's a reason why they use the phrase anti-racist, because it's not the same as saying don't be racist. They create a new word with a different definition.


To be fair, the the concept of anti-racism has been on for some time, but it's a way for them to argue that the moderates, individuals who believe in civil rights, and Martin Luther King Jr. as Dr. King's dream, they're the true racists.


But it does create a problem because then how do you explain Dr. King's dream that one day his children will be judged on the content of the character, not the color of their skin?


Now, when it comes to Dr. Seuss being banned, honestly, I don't really care. There are some really old depictions that were fairly racialized.


I don't want to call them racist because they're drawings from a different time.


I'm not sure Dr. Seuss's intent was actually to be to disparage people, but there's certainly racial undertones, that's for sure.


One of these drawings is being that's being scrutinized. I'm not even convinced is all that bad. And I can even show it because I don't think it's that bad. Some of them I can't show, no joke. In which case I understand why they're now getting canceled.


Sure. And I'll point this out to six books not being published anymore.


A lot of books aren't published anymore. Do we really care when, like, any book falls out of print?


So I don't care all that much. If you want the Dr. Seuss book, you can still get it. Someone will still make it. Just the company that prints isn't going to shore.


I do think it's kind of dumb. Don't get me wrong. And I wonder what the real reason for canceling this guy is. And I got some ideas.


You know, I think, you know, the left really hates it when I bring this up because they say things like to quote, the left are the real racists pool.


OK, well, not the entirety of the left, not the progressives and not most liberals, but certainly strong elements of what we would call today.


The left. I'll just put it this way. The left has been infiltrated by legit white supremacists.


I'm not even kidding. And they use these clever tricks to be able to implement policies that will ultimately harm them. A really good example of all of the products that have been canceled as of late, Aunt Jemima, cream of wheat.


Mrs. Butterworth.


They tend to be depictions of people of color. Yet Mr. Clean and Little Debbie and Wendy and these other brands are fine.


There was a guy on Twitter. I have his video. I think it's was on Tock. He points this out and it's something a lot of us have pointed out. Why is it that so many of these white leftists are trying to remove minorities from prominent brands even when the families of these brands are saying, stop, don't do this?


I'm pretty sure it was Aunt Jemima, the family of the woman who was the model for Aunt Jemima.


They get paid. They get they get royalties. They they like the image. The left are the ones taking it away.


The right right now, conservatives and the moderates and many moderates are the ones saying let them have their brands.


Like I think it was Uncle Ben, for instance, maybe Uncle Ben, Cream of Wheat. You have the black chef. Apparently, he was like a legit black chef, like a real guy, and was used as the model for this brand because surprisingly back then, they thought it was a good thing and would help them sell their product.


Get this, in today's day and age, Aunt Jemima, the company thinks it would hurt their sales to have a black woman on the box of pancake mix. Why not? Because of conservatives, but because of the left.


I'm doing air quotes here because whatever this faction is, you now have major corporations saying we won't have a person of color on our brand because it will hurt sales. That's why they're doing it. And it's because the left is threatening them. So I ask you, who are the racists, who are the racist? Let's let's read through this and we'll talk about the Dr Seuss thing now. I want to point out, I don't care all that much about the Dr Seuss thing.


I love it.


I tweeted when they when they announced the potato head, they are dropping the mister from Mr. Potato Head, making him gender neutral. Apparently it was a bunk headline. It was fake news. The reality was the brand name for the product was Mr. Potato Head and the company, I think it's Hasbro said. But we do have Mrs. Potato Head. So why are we calling it mister when we want to sell Mrs. to get rid of the mister and sell both under the name Potato Head and you still can buy Mr.


or Mrs.. The AP, I guess, made it seem like they're making a potato gender neutral.


I never cared. I thought it was dumb. So what? Give me a gender neutral potato and I'll slap whatever I want on it. But someone took one of my tweets where I said, how is the potato even gendered anyway? And then made it seem like it was right wing outrage. And I'm like, actually my tweets fairly in line with many leftists. It's weird how this works.


Depending on where they assume you are, they'll interpret your tweets in different ways. So I so rest assured they're going to come out and be like Tim Poole's freaking out about this is not I don't care.


Take the books out of print. Fine. Whatever. I think there are some images that, yeah, probably were racially insensitive. So, yeah, whatever I got look, go by the book right now if you're really concerned about it. I look, I'm against book burnings and book Banning's and all that stuff, so I don't know man.


It is what it is the difference with this and say the products taking the spokesperson or the origin of the mascot off, that's very, very different.


You know, that's them saying they don't want nonwhite faces to be prominent.


That to me is extremely racist. Well, the story about Joe Biden, I think it's fairly simple. They say President Joe Biden did not mention Dr Seuss during his proclamation for read across America. Bucking a more than 20 year trend, President Clinton's Obama and Trump have all mentioned Seuss in conjunction with a day designed to encourage schoolchildren to read more. Biden's omission comes as a Virginia school district dropped the author from its list. Luden schools say they have shifted the emphasis of the March 2nd date district claim district claim research in recent years has revealed strong racial undertones.


That's insane.


They're implying that, like the who's of Whoville are actually a racist depiction or something.


As they say. It came following a 2019 report called The Cat is Out of the Bag, Orientalism, Anti Blackness and White Supremacy and Dr. Seuss children's books.


What these people are nuts.


Man Read Across America Day had traditionally focused on Seuss books, but since twenty seventeen, the focus has shifted to celebrating a nation of diverse readers.


All right. Well, apparently the news is six books, I think. I think it's six books that I say yes. Six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published because of racist and insensitive imagery, Dr. Seuss Enterprises revealed on Tuesday. Now for for YouTube and anybody else, I'm going to be showing one of the images they claim is racially insensitive.


But I would like to stress I am, in fact, an Asian man from an Asian family. And I'm allowed to I better be allowed to respond to this.


What they say is a racist depiction of Asians in this image. They say it's a so-called Chinaman who eats with sticks.


I in no way find this offensive in any capacity now, OK, I'm not Chinese.


I'm Korean and Japanese, mostly Korean.


But what's the problem? It's just a guy wearing traditional clothing. Is he right? It's like I don't get it. Why are they removing this? I think well, look, I don't know what their intentions are. I can't read their minds. I can only tell you what their actions will produce and let me explain what their actions will produce.


When they say you can't have a depiction of traditional Chinese clothing and a guy eating with sticks, they remove that imagery.


What do you think kids will see in the books they read now? They're not going to see this.


They're going to see a sea of white faces.


It's almost as if they're doing it on purpose. I wonder if any of these people. No, no, no, no. I don't even need to wonder. I've actually talked to a lot of people and I've asked them, do you actually know what the alt right believes?


Now, it's not identical to what the lefties and the ultra right really gets mad when I mention the similarities or refer to the leftist identity, Harian, because they want that word on the left, doesn't want that word, but that's what it is. Identity based policy and law, government based on identity. It's really what they all want. So in the end, if two people have the exact same ideology, the only argument is the the core.


It's not even the core political policies between them. I'm pretty sure a bunch of the alt right have have advocated for universal health care and curtailing freedom of speech.


It's almost the same thing. The difference is the overt nature of whether or not they want white people to be on the forefront.


The other day I did a segment where I talked about in the Sacramento school district.


They want to create white racial affinity groups to teach children about their shared culture and history so they can come to terms with what it means that their privilege, what their privilege has done to the world.


And I'm like, do you think that if you remove all of the all the people of color, all of the marginalized people and minorities from products, from books, and then tell all the white kids to go together and form a racial collective, you think they're going to despise themselves?


You think they're going to now advocate for social justice, they're going to advocate for themselves. They're sick and tired of being told they're wrong or they're or they're bad inherently.


Take a look at one of the stupidest stories. Ex CIA Director John Brennan says he is increasingly embarrassed to be a white male during TV debate on Republican response to U.S. Capitol riot.


My friends, they would say that two plus two equals five, because if you actually had the ability to to to put things together and calculate as to what was going to happen from all of this, you'd probably be worried about what they're doing.


Let me let me break it down for you.


Sacramento school district back in September wants all the little white kids to be in white racial affinity groups to talk about their shared history and the impact their privileges had on the world. Now, that's very much like I don't know what Klan meeting when a bunch of white people get together and then and they start asking each other, what is the impact been for white people on the world? They don't say bad things. Why would they when these people when these young people here, CIA, you know, Brennan, say he's embarrassed to be a white male, do you think that people choose to hate themselves?


Some will. Some will be self-loathing and many are. You've got a lot of male feminists who are very disgustingly self-deprecating and it's pathetic, but most guys probably would not do that.


OK, how about half of guys? How about half of white people in general? If you take all white people say you should be embarrassed to be white, then remove all the people of color from all these major brands, get rid of any book that has a depiction of someone who is a nonwhite culture.


Tell all these white people to talk about their shared history. What do you think they're going to do?


Half of them might actually be social justice and say, aren't we bad or whatever, but the other half might actually be like, hey, look at all the really awesome stuff.


We invented the telephone, the plane going to the moon. Sounds like we did great, huh? The problem is. You hyperfocus, you take these people and put them into racial groups and you tell them to focus on what their race means, they're going to start voting in the interests based on race and 60 percent of the country is white.


That's why I have to wonder if the true goal of all of this is and always has been white supremacy.


Because, look, I don't I often talk about this. I can't read anyone's mind.


I don't know what their intentions are.


It is said the path the path to hell is paved with good intentions.


So maybe it's a bunch of well-to-do liberals with good intentions doing everything in their power and accidentally emboldening white identity.


Arianism, I guess. Or maybe they've actually been infiltrated by people who are smart enough to know how to manipulate a system and they understand doing this will create what the alt right basically wants.


There was there was this point, the Sarah Junky's who is this, a New York Times writer.


And she was posting insane anti white racist stuff on Twitter for years. She was doing it. And when she got called out, The New York Times said, yeah, well, she was just fighting back.


So it's allowed on 4chan. A bunch of white nationalists were celebrating.


They were saying they they wished for a thousand more Sarah songs in The New York Times because it would trigger a white racial awakening.


They want white people to feel aggrieved.


They want them to feel embarrassed and ashamed because it's a negative feeling. They can't get rid of nothing they can do.


And then they want to get rid of all of these images of people and cultures that are not white so that white people find repreve only with their own race. These people are white supremacists, in my opinion.


Fine. Call them social justice activists, whatever you want.


But the reality is we've seen in many communities, particularly with like Farrakhan, the overlap between the white supremacist or white identity and ideology is fairly similar.


The difference? Well, with black and determinism, things like Black Lives Matter. They're in favor of black communities. They are segregating college graduations. They're segregating dorms. Did you know this, that dorms are segregated at some California universities? No joke. And they say it's a good thing. We have the Sacramento University saying racial segregation. I'm sorry. This is this is us going back in time. It absolutely is. Check this out. In this tweet, Matt Kromer says, quote, He's quoting a guy in a Tic-Tac video.


I don't know the guy's name. Liberals are no different than they've ever been. Their tactics may have been different, but they don't want people of color anywhere they go.


And he shows Mrs. Butterworth's Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's and Cream of Wheat.


It's actually a fairly well put together video I don't necessarily want to go into. The liberals are are no different thing. I can certainly say the Democratic Party has historically been the party of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Those are facts. A lot of people in the media don't want to admit it, but it's true.


And they say it was a great flipping. Something happened. I disagree. I think what happened was actually hold on. There is to a certain degree some kind of flip. But when they say that the party switched and and the and the Republicans had the Southern Strategy, you want to become racist? I don't think that's true.


I think the Democrats realized there are subversive methods towards opposing, you know, certain ideologies, that there's an old parable.


I guess supposedly it's a racist parable anyway.


But the idea is that, like, some dude is like walking through, you know, he's traveling around and he sees a bunch of people and they're pointing a stick.


They're pointing spears at a watermelon, freaking out. They're terrified. They don't know what it is. They're scared. So the guy walks up and says, what do you do? It's a watermelon. And he just breaks it open. And then when people see the insides, they'll scream, Oh, he ripped it up.


It was bad that they run freaking out. And he's like, wait, come back. It's just fruit.


Then another man one day is walking by and he sees once again the people are all freaking out, pointing their sticks at the watermelon. And then he says, Quick, everyone run from the monster, come with me. And they all run with him by joining them and approaching them on their level, he was able to gradually convince them to then eat the watermelon. And then a year later, they're all cultivating and eating watermelon. I heard that story once someone told me it was racist because that's something to do at the Middle East.


So maybe that's the case.


The general idea is if you act as one of the group and approach them on their terms, you won't shock them or surprise them.


What I see in all of this stuff, the banning of these books, the banning of these depictions is exactly that.


White supremacists approaching liberals on their terms, telling them here's why it would be good to get rid of this imagery, remove it from the public eye, and then they do it. And then what do you think's going to happen in two years? I will say it again. When you have 60 percent of the country white, most of them, the overwhelming majority, having no idea what any of this stuff is, no idea what the culture war is.


What do you think's going to happen? It's fairly obvious they're going to eventually be smeared.


Insulted, they're losing jobs, they're losing scholarships, they're being told that they're evil and wrong and bad. But guess what?


They're in the majority. So, you know, it's going to happen.


They'll just say, OK, we're supposed to vote based on our identity groups, our affinity groups. OK, we vote for us. BOEM congratulations.


That's what I was talking like the other day with California. They wanted to get rid of the civil rights law from their constitution. And I did tell my friend this.


Like you realize most of California is white, right?


If you tell people they are, they are. You know, they're supposed to vote based on race.


Do you think all of a sudden white people will just start hating themselves and being like, we're going to vote to make our lives worse? People will almost exclusively vote for themselves. You could you could go up to somebody and say only people who, you know, can do backflips will get a thousand dollars and people going back.


I know. Back up. I'll vote for that. The people get to back up to be like, no way. That's not fair. It's just typically how it goes, right, in this image or in this video. I'm sorry.


This guy shows these firebrand's cream of wheat, Uncle Ben's Land O'Lakes even. Look at that. They took the Native American off. And he points out, here's the things that remain. KFC is fine. Quaker is fine. The Burger King guy is fine. Little Debbie, Wendy's Chef Boyardee son made raisins, birds.


I don't know what Captain's Birdseye is. All of the white icons, Mr. Clean, even all these other mascots. Absolutely. OK, I got this meme that was posted by Luke.


We are change. Apparently it's from Duncan Colton.


Got to give credit where credit is due and you can see Mr. Potato head climbing the ladder to heaven and in heaven.


We have the Washington Redskins. You have the Cleveland Indians. I think it's Cleveland Indians. Right. You have Paul Patrol, Land O'Lakes, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Gina Carano. Mr. Potato Head was not canceled, that that was fake news, but I thought this is interesting in in what was being depicted as being in heaven because save Gina Carano and the dog from Paul Patrol, it's all depictions in some capacity of nonwhite individuals.


Aunt Jemima, the Land O'Lakes lady, a lot of Native American stuff. Apparently the my understanding is that a lot of these Native Americans either did not care about the names Redskins or actually thought it was cool or it was funny.


There's also a funny meme that some guy, some guy had a shirt that had Caucasians and it was like a white guy and it was like all these lefties were high five and each other, like, yeah, you show him. And it's just like, but it's funny, I thought that shirt was funny. What's the problem? We like it. Can't we all just get along?


I guess it's strange to me that you have this this this image of a Native American chief, I suppose, and white liberal said get rid of it.


It's mean. It's bad. It's like, OK, I guess there were some Native Americans that upset with it. Apparently now there's like another Native American tribe that's that's angry at Jeep Cherokee.


So sure are fine, whatever. But what's the end result? You remove all of these things, you isolate and you segregate.


Look, man, fine, whatever. Get rid of Dr. Seuss, I don't care, I'm just telling you all what's going to happen. We are moving towards identity Arianism, racial segregation and the calls for racial identity and laws are going to result in white people over overwhelmingly voting for themselves.


So I hope you're I hope you're happy leftists and I hope you're paying attention, but I'll leave it there. Next segment coming up at 1:00 p.m. on this channel.


And I will see you all then. According to the most trusted name in fake news we don't like, Cuomo now says every late night host in perfect robotic unison, You know what my problem is with you guys over at the Babylon Bee?


You're writing satire, but it's still technically true. You're just mocking what they actually do.


OK, so so this is actually a satirical article. And it's true, though, they didn't literally say we don't like Cuomo now, but whenever stuff like this happens, they all basically have the exact same opinion. How boring is this turning on the TV? And they all say the same exact thing, cheese.


But you know why I say it's the spirit of what the Babylon is saying is true. This is how crazy things are getting. Hillary Clinton backs investigation into Governor Cuomo over harassment allegations and says his accusers and all New Yorkers deserve answers.


When you lose Hillary Clinton, you are out of the club having to. Tulsi Gabbard, Tulsi Gabbard came out and endorsed Bernie Sanders and then all of a sudden they hated her. She was the golden child of the Democratic Party.


They loved her. And then she came out like, not Bernie. And so then they went out and roasted her.


There was even a point where it's a long, complicated story.


Hillary basically said something to the effect that I'm going to be very careful with my language here.


Many people took to mean that she was accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian, you know, Russian asset or something like that, not a not an actual citizen of Russia. And that's what happens. Hillary Clinton had a lot of power in the party.


And I think this actually shows the the failures and the collapse of the establishment political unit party.


I mean, Democrats and Republicans combined.


Hillary Clinton is feckless. She's a terrible leader.


And so when they basically didn't have Obama leading the pack, they had this like B tier Hillary Clinton. And don't get me wrong, I know she's like a world leader or considered to be powerful and wealthy, but she's not got anything on Obama.


And, you know, look, even Bernie Sanders had more charisma than Hillary Clinton. And that's surprising because Bernie is a crazy haired old man.


But anyway, I digress. Today's segment is about Cuomo. He's getting me tuned. And there's a big questions. Why is this happening? Why all of a sudden do they not like Andrew Cuomo? I think it's fairly obvious. For one, me allegations are really easy for the left to digest.


More importantly, it is click bait. You know, Cuomo actually actually killed 13000 people.


Maybe that number is a little off. But let me just break it down. For those that aren't familiar, he put sick people into nursing homes. I'm sorry. You have to be insane to think that was an accident. Now, we don't know exactly why he did it.


I can't read. No, but we know we can't read his mind what they had.


The mercy, that big medical naval vessel they had the Javits Center, which is this big convention center with all these hospital beds, and neither were anywhere near capacity.


I think the mercy was like empty, like one person on the whole thing. And then the Javits Center was like thirty percent capacity. So why did Cuomo say these people who had covid put him back in the nursing homes? Why do that?


Apparently in Michigan, they put young people in nursing homes, too, and then one dude beat up an old guy. Why would they do that? Some speculated, was because they didn't want to give Trump the W, make Trump look good.


He helped set up these emergency field hospitals and in this naval vessel can't have that.


So they said, yeah, it's from nursing homes. We're not going to give Trump this one. Now, whether or not you want to you want to believe that Cuomo knew it would result in death.


Now it's up to you. But he did cover up the numbers. You probably know the story. A lot of people I don't care.


And that's the crazy thing about this. I've done many segments on Cuomo deserving prison and not just him. Let's talk about Wittmer and Newsom and all the rest. And I got that list.


We'll bring it up. But this is the funny thing. How convenient is it for Democrats that when this wave is coming and these people should be in prison for what they did, the media latches on to the easy narrative?


Let me ask you if you were responsible for the deaths of 13000 elderly individuals, which what story would you prefer to dominate the airwaves?


You murdered thirteen thousand people or you were inappropriate with three women? Yeah, Cuomo probably is breathing a sigh of relief.


I'm sure when the scandal broke out that they covered up these numbers and they were, you know, the cover, but they were scared Trump would investigate them. I'm sure the dude was wiping away bullets from as he was sweating bullets freaking out.


Then the story goes, oh, I'm getting me to finally, says Cuomo, finally, he's so excited that it's happening. Here's a story. A third woman, Chris, a CNN anchor. Oh, actually. So we'll start with Chris Cuomo.


This is hilarious. Chris Cuomo won't even talk about it.


Chris Cuomo, the guy on CNN who did the prop comedy with a giant cutups, and they laugh together.


A dad. You know, I'm so proud of you, brother, and things like that.


Nowzad Well, I'd like to talk about it, but I can't. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo said on Monday that he was aware of the accusations about his brother. Obviously, I'm aware of what is going on with my brother and obviously I cannot cover it because he is my brother. Now, of course, CNN has to cover it. They have covered it extensively and they will continue to do so.


These people are so miserable and just the the dirtiest, most duplicitous I'm sorry at this point.


How many times have CNN fooled people? You know, it's like, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice. Shame on me. CNN's fooled people like ten thousand plus times.


Just pick a random number because it's probably approaching infinity or whatever critical mass.


They just keep doing it.


Well, I'd like to talk about my brother and the things he's done, but I can't for obvious reasons. Don't don't remember, though.


Don't don't consider that he literally did a back and forth of his brother during the covid pandemic when his brother was the story.


Governor Cuomo was the one who was, you know, overseeing New York's response as the governor, and they had no problem breaching that ethics, that line in ethics for ratings to have silly back and forth jabs.


And all these Democrats are like, oh, Cuomo, we love you so much. He wins an Emmy for his press briefings. He he writes a book about dealing with the pandemic, even though we're still in it all.


The meanwhile, he was abusing women. Hey, how about that?


Chris moved on, having thanked his audience for being straight with me as I've always been straight with you.


I swear, if you still believe this man after he faked being in quarantine, I got a bridge to sell you.


The new accusation on Monday night led to a first call from a Democratic member of Congress for Cuomo to resign, Kathleen Rice, who represents Long Island, said it was time for the three term governor to go. Rice spoke after an rush, now 33, told The New York Times she met Cuomo at a wedding in September 2019.


The governor, now 63, had given a toast to the newlyweds and Rauch, a former member of the Obama administration, and the 20 Biden campaign, thanked him for his words.


She claimed that he then touched her naked back and she removed his hand.


OK, so hold on.


Like, did he put his hand on your back? Is that really it? Don't make me defend Cuomo.


Apparently kiss the woman. Now that over the line. Evan Hill tweets, A third woman has accused Governor Cuomo of unwanted touching, saying he placed his hands on her face and asked if he could kiss her at her friend's wedding. A friend took a series of pictures of the incident as it occurred.


OK, now this photo is going viral because you can see this young woman's got this look on her face like, no, get away and don't do it, Cuomo.


I feel bad for because that's probably nasty. But I mean, I got to be honest, was Cuomo when he kissed this woman? I mean, serious question.


Did he. Was it a kiss on the cheek or was it an unwarranted romantic, you know, kiss on the lips?


No, I mean, I think it matters because, like, what if he kissed her hand? All right. I'm I'm inclined to assume he was acting inappropriately. I believe these women I mean, you look at this picture and this lady is clearly not happy, but is this proportional?


I want to focus on the fact that Cuomo is a scumbag who, you know, killed 13000 people, at least as the media portrays it, that seems to be the case. Instead, we're talking about this meta stuff. It's so easy for the left to digest is click bait.


It riles them up. And I wonder if they're also throwing Cuomo under the bus, too, because he gains too much power. During the pandemic, he became too prominent.


They were actually saying get rid of Joe Biden, bring on Andrew Cuomo.


And I wonder if the establishment was like, no, we we don't want Cuomo. We wanted Biden, they wanted Biden. And Cuomo is more popular. Well, here's one way to take down his popularity.


He said she was aggressive, then cupped her face as she said he was aggressive, then cupped her face in his hands and asked, Can I kiss you? A photographer captured the moment with Rotch looking distressed and taken aback. That's that's true.


You can see the photo. I was so confused and shocked and embarrassed that I turned my head away and didn't have words in that moment. Daily Mail for a comment she told The New York Times, It's the act of impunity that strikes me. I didn't have a choice in the matter. I didn't have a choice in the physical dominance over me at the moment. And that's what infuriates me. After the encounter, Rush said her friend looked at me and said, Are you OK?


Was such a genuine concern in her face that I realized how obviously inappropriate it was.


Oh, please. Just because someone asked if you're OK, this is what this is what they do. What Cuomo did, yeah, inappropriate, he should he should be yelled at for this, he grabbed him by the face.


I don't know if he kissed her and if he kissed her. OK, that's over the line.


But it seems like he just asked her, did she say no or did she allow him to do it either way? You know, him asking unless she explicitly said, yes, you may, then he absolutely assaulted this woman, crossed that line. But what's what what is the lasting damage?


OK, we want a proportional response. I think Cuomo should be booted from office. And I'm not willing to to you know, I don't believe in the ends justify the means. Right. This idea that we should need to come out of office simply because he's a really bad governor.


I don't like how that's how that plays out. I want Cuomo in court.


I want him testifying, explaining why he did this, why he covered the numbers up if he gets forced out of office because of these things, OK, I guess it's a good thing.


But we need closure. We need the people of New York State and the American people to see exactly why he's being thrown out there.


Other governors who had done this, they're going to they're going to boot him out over this metoo stuff, which, look, if he did, he deserves to be. But don't sweep the other crises under the rug. Maybe once he's out of office, someone will follow up.


I really doubt it, but I'd like to see it. Later, she tried to find the governor at the reception to give him a piece of her mind but couldn't track him down. I would have rather just said at that night said, I want to say that wasn't OK. She added, I felt so uncomfortable and embarrassed when really he is the one who should have been embarrassed.


On Monday night, Rush told the New York Post that the photo of clutching her face speaks for itself. The photo pretty much sums it up gross what the every woman has to go through this in the 21st century.


Dude, let me just stress she's right with the WCF. Like, don't take your hands and put it over a woman's face and then say, can I kiss you?


There's there's flirting with women, there's hitting on women, there is picking up women. And then there is being a 61 year old man walking up to a 30 year old woman grabbing her face and saying, can I kiss you? Not that's not how you do it.


Like Cuomo might. Cuomo might benefit from reading the book, the game or watching some of those pickup artist TV shows, because this ain't it, bro.


This is not it. Watch his accusations.


Follow those made by Lindsay Boylen and Charlotte Bennett, who both alleged harassment. Both Boylen and Bennett tweeted their support for Rush on Monday night. This doesn't make me feel validated. It makes me sick, said Boylen. I feel nauseous thinking about Anna's experience.


I am sending her love and like Charlotte and I are with you, Anna Bennett said. I stand with Anna Rotch and I hear you.


I see you. I'm sorry. His inappropriate and aggressive behavior cannot be justified or normalized.


I'm glad he's getting called out OK, but my fear is that often in the in the court of public opinion, the response is disproportionate to the crime.


Cuomo acted very inappropriately.


He should get a stern scolding and talking to. To be fair, we did mention this to the podcast.


There's probably things he's done we don't know about. I mean, these women have come forward. But does that really mean that's the only women who have been, you know, inappropriately touched or, you know, harassed?


Assuming it's harassment? I stress to harassment is specific. You have to do something more than once for it to be harassment. This is this is true.


When you're in a workplace, you have to be given a warning.


So let's because let's be reasonable, right. Let's say let's let's say you're a dude. There's a woman and you walk up to her and say and you give her a compliment and then you put your hand on her shoulder and say, would you like to go out sometime?


That's not harassment. If she says, please don't ever touch me again is inappropriate in the workplace and I do not feel comfortable with you.


Ask me asking me these questions. The warning has been set if if the guy does it again now it's harassment because already been warned, then you got to go. And I'll tell you this too. If you're in a workplace, I don't care if it's a man or woman and they come on to you and you don't like it, then you should just give a passive note to your manager.


I know a lot of people might want to hear this, but no, seriously. And just say it like it's to the extent that you feel you were wronged. Right. The point is, if it were me and someone asked me out, I'd say, not interested. Have a nice day. End of story.


If they, like, grabbed my face and squeezed my face and said, can I kiss you? I'd be like, do don't ever do that again. Then I would go to management and say, I've given them a warning right now.


It's no big deal. Will carry on with work, no issue.


Don't worry about it. I just want to note that it's been said because then after that it becomes harassment. So I don't know exactly what was going on, these women, but I want to point that out. Chris Cuomo at the top of Cuomo primetime tonight, obviously, I'm aware, blah, blah, blah. Here are the women who are accusing him. Charlotte Bennett's 25.


That's crazy. A 62 year old man making inappropriate comments to a 25 year old woman. Get out of here, Grampa. I try to root robbing the cradle.


She's now I'm not OK with that boiling. Now, 36 was working at the New York State Economic Development Agency in twenty eighteen when Cuomo kissed her on the mouth. OK, he has denied the incident ever happened.


I got to be honest, I don't believe Cuomo. Look, the difficult thing here is that you need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. The left likes to say in the court of public opinion, you don't.


If society just deems it to have been wrong and they believe her, so be it.


And that's true. I don't necessarily agree with it. I think Cuomo is a sleazebag and I'm willing to bet he did this. I mean, you got a photo of him grabbing that woman's face, Cuomo, you scumbag, OK, what he did with the nursing homes, more important, way worse.


You want to tell me that this this this guy who is 62 at the time, I'm assuming, kissed a woman on the lips without a permission? I'd be like, hey, man, that's a bold accusation. Do you have any evidence? And then you also come and say, here's evidence that he put sick people into nursing homes, killing thirty thousand people. And I'd be like, wow, the kissing thing seems trite, quaint.


I believe it. I believe this guy is a really, really bad dude.


Again, I don't like that they're using this to try and get him out of office.


I want him out of office on the charges, criminal charges of at the very least, negligent homicide.


It's his fault. They're going to say that he's apologized. He said he has a tweet. What did he say where he was like? I now realize that my here we go, Jesse.


MacKinley tweets, Cuomo said, I now understand that my interactions may have been insensitive or too personal and that some of my comments, given my position, made others feel in ways I never intended.


Great sticks and hammer with the fire says in the comments. Democrat partizans with severe mental issues defending Chris Cuomo and his grandma killing is spot on sticks.


I got this post from Becker News. It's from Kyle Becker. You may see him on Twitter. The Coronavirus five. These model Democratic governors are now facing political disaster. That's right.


It wasn't just Cuomo who killed all these people. There were a bunch of other governors that did basically the same thing. In fact, Charlie LeDuff, who is this really is is really well-known local reporter in Detroit.


You've probably seen his stuff because they're a bunch of big viral hits from his work. He's kind of like an anti-corruption guy. He may be suing Wittmer over over this to get the data out. And he's not he's not a strong partizan.


He's not a Republican. Take us out. Andrew Cuomo.


Bekker New says New York Governor Cuomo once made a remarkable admission that may prove to be his administration's epitaph. Epitaph Incompetent government kills people. 15000 deaths are now understood to be directly tied to.


Cuomo was disastrous executive order in March that mandated that nursing home residents be that tested positive for Koven at medical facilities be returned to nursing homes.


I mean, dude is crazy.


In a conference call with those who had a conference call whose comments were leaked to the press, Cuomo refer to President Trump's pressure on the governor. According to secretary of the governor of the governor, Melissa DeRosa, he starts tweeting that we killed everyone in nursing homes. He starts going after New York. New Jersey's Democratic governor, California Democratic Governor Newsom starts going after Gretchen Whitmer. Cuomo is now under heavy fire from the left.


This we know Governor Cuomo has selected former federal Judge Barbara Jones to conduct an independent investigation. All right. Yeah, we'll see.


He's not the only one. So while we can talk about the meta stuff and criticize him for being a sleazebag, don't lose sight of the big picture. Gretchen Whitmer. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been one of the most heavy handed and arbitrary governors in the U.S. when it comes to handling the pandemic.


Now, Republican state legislature legislators in Michigan are calling for an investigation into Whitmore's handling of nursing homes based on a decrease in what a quote was, quote, Governor Whitmore's regional hub policy placed patients with and without covid-19 in the same facilities and may have exacerbated the death toll in those facilities.


Whitmore's policies have been so disastrous for the Wolverine State that bordering Indiana business owners branded her the Indiana Business Person of the Year.


Wow. A billboard has gone up just south of Michigan border and Angola, referring to Gretchen Whitmer as Indiana Business Person of the Year for Twenty Twenty Lockdown's spot on along Interstate 69.


Why was it because people in Michigan were fleeing to Indiana for for food and stuff like that? Gavin Newsom, check it out.


They say Gavin Newsom was another golden boy who lost his shine as the pandemic wore on. One of the earliest states to lock down the policies proved to be utterly futile, but extremely costly for millions of Californians.


In November, he was famously exposed for his hypocrisy at a private dinner. More recently, he is facing a backlash over yet another private event in a state where indoor dining is banned. The narrative is that it's OK because everyone was wearing a mask.


Not that's not true. Newsom is facing a recall effort that is over one point five million signatures.


But due to the state of California suddenly kicking into overdrive to remove as many signatures as possible, it will likely take more to put the effort over the top.


I love how they're doing signature verification now. Phil Murphy, New Jersey has been the worst managed state in the U.S. when it comes to covid response, barely edging out Cuomo New York.


One of the reasons is yet another disastrous nursing home order. In August, the Department of Justice had issued a request to four states that had issued orders that senior residents return to nursing homes. A petition is calling for the New Jersey governor to be investigated. More than seventy three hundred residents of New Jersey's nursing homes, veterans, veterans homes and Long-Term Care Facilities have died from covid-19. Nearly half of the state's coronavirus deaths have occurred. Among these vulnerable populations, whistleblowers have hinted that dangerous policy directives, misrepresented data and arbitrary decision making by the Murphy administration contributed to a wildfire of infection and death in these facilities that could have been prevented than the Bensen Tom Wolf, also guilty of the deadly nursing home order.


I mean, I can just say that right, because you get it.


Following New York state legislators call for an investigation into nursing homes, nursing home deaths. Pennsylvania GOP members are requesting an investigation into Gov. Tom Wolfe's policies that sent covid-19 positive residents back into nursing and personal home care facilities.


It's just. That's what they were doing, how many people lost loved ones, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers. Because of these, Cicotte, this is this sociopathic sociopaths, the sociopaths. Why do they do it? Is it because they're inept? OK, kick them out of office, they should all resign immediately. Is it because it was negligent homicide? OK, well, then charge them criminally, get them out of office immediately.


There is no circumstance after this where these people should remain in office. None. You want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were trying their hardest. They made mistakes. Good. Now, after killing these people, get rid of them.


What do we get? Well, there have been calls for the resignation of some of these people, not many Democrats, many are defending them, and now Cuomo is getting netcode.


I guess if he's out of office, fine, it's still a good thing, but I want to see these people on a perp walk. You can't do this.


I can understand that sometimes being a leader means you make hard decisions and sometimes people lose their lives. But you will never convince me that these people should or should not be charged. When you have the Javits Center and the mercy, you better give me a good reason in your trial because you'll be charged, you'll go to trial, and then we'll hear why you did it.


Maybe maybe there's a good reason why they did it, maybe innocent until proven guilty, but we're going to ask you, why didn't you use the Javits Center?


Cuomo And when he's like, no, I have no answer. OK, negligent homicide. I'll leave it there. We'll see what happens.


This guy next. Eichmanns coming up at 4:00 p.m. over at YouTube. Dotcom slash. Tim casts a different channel from this one.


And I will see you all then.