From CNBC a senator, is introducing a bill that would blow up the business models for Facebook, Youtube and other tech giants, and that is a terrible headline goals as absolutely not what is happening. We can For some reason, there are many people in media who want to run to the defence of these big tech company. Don't ask me why, in my opinion, there are control. Stealing our private data doing really bad thing. Behind closed doors. All for profit is causing massive damage to public discourse. Yet time and time again we see people in media rushing to their defence, even though the new Yorker It has complained that Google has destroyed local journalism, undismayed billions off of their backs, the store we have today. Senator Josh Holly's, introducing legislation that will put restrictions on section tooth they're, pretty protections for those are not familiar section, two thirty essentially provides immunity to an online play

form from liability based on what someone says on their on their on their site, though it is really complicated, but it doesnt work like this. If I own say the Wall Street Journal and I publicly on the front page You can see the Wall Street Journal for that debate. They ve chosen to make a statement. However, in their comments section, there are not responsible. So when it comes to Twitter, Facebook, Youtube etc. You can't see you tube, because I say something have to come to me their their lot. They're they're not liable for that it. For those issues, a lot of people are confusing section: two: thirty, with a first amendment, defence Admittedly, I've done as the something similar in the past, but there is an interesting argument. Section two thirds grass immunity to these companies under the premise that they are platforms. That's the rhetoric on natural. Legally what they're saying that the idea is if eighty anti a phone company were to remove. People, based on what they were saying that that's

here is a violation and they're, not a platform, very publisher they're, taking an editorial stance. So a lot of people view Twitter. You too valuable, Google, whatever as a phone company, but these companies like to have both ways they like to simultaneously argue that they are not the speaker and this work is this work is important. We gotta lotta second section to thirty, says that website will not be deemed to be the speaker of that content. If there legally removed from that? Why are these companies using a first amendment argument to take down content? Their argument is that they can, if anything they want, because they have no legal obligation to speak as a first moment argument its I agree, but I was think regulation exists for a reason and that when companies growth, the large on be done about its areas. Where do let's read through this story and forgot the hell's going on and I've got some real the interesting quotes because I'll tell you what the these these two giants, have flat out said they refute protected. First,

the model blowing collar they have given in response to this story. I'll tell you what men, I warned the twitter people on the job, twitter people on the jargon podcast regulation will come and then, If they were like you well, you know we know what they like and we know what we can do. No you don't. I was right- and this is not the first time or will it be the last time before we get started- had overcome, cast our consultation on it. If you'd like to support my work, because once again we are talking about censorship and of course I'm done criticising the companies on which platform on whose power for my own, I am using so you know, as a Paypal option is crypto option a physical address, but, of course, So long as they don't. You know, I guess, remove me at some point like comment. Erin Subscribe. Because for the time being, I am producing content here from CNBC, they say: Senator Josh, Holly Republican is turning The heat on an issue that is pure energy to spark outrage in Silicon Valley he's a well known tat. To introduce legislation on Wednesday that would remove

Companies receive under section two: thirty of the communications decency act of mandatory six, the CD eight protects online platform such as Facebook, online platform such as Facebook, Twitter and Google's youtube from alive. Ability for the content users post, however, companies will be able to earn immunity from the crackdown if they submit. To buy annual audits to prove their algorithms and content. Removal practices are politically neutral, what they absolute, which absolutely will not be able to do because hate speech rules are not politically neutral It would mean that have to remove those but wait Until you see the statement they issued where they said they do not want protected first moments to speak on their platforms, which will get you in just a second The idea of limiting section two thirty immunity has earned by partisan support in recent years, as the companies have struggled to keep offensive and illegal content, ranging from propaganda to foreign influenced election meddling off their platforms,

appealing the immunity provision could force these companies to use an editorial system where every pre piece of user user content would have. We voted for illegal or libelous material before its posted. Instead, relying on Muslims and human checkers to scan it after it was already online and had a chance to spread to millions of people the terrible article I want to say no. It won't do this this would fundamentally alter the business models of companies that depend on huge volumes of user generated content, including all the big social networks. What the law would do is one of two things. The argument being put forward is Either you are neutral in your enforcement of certain rules or you are I vote for what people say, as it should already be room repealing unity provision could force that sure what this could also do. This law, specifically

is force these companies to recognise legally protected speech things they personally don't like, but who elected them to determine what we're alive talk about anyway, the provision the law, would put a research based on the size and revenue of the companies are wouldn't effect, smaller networks, which is a good idea. You dont want to put constraints on small, smaller businesses, but these big tech giants have a disproportionate amount of influence over public discourse and yes, the economy. So it's about time the public reclaimed that portion of the comments comments to a certain degree. I would argue- and it's gonna happen- listen it's not about left right top down. They mentioned in the stores got by partisan support. There are people on the law four outrage at the censorship. It's their waking up to their late to the party I gotta say, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation recently launched something called tossed out, which is a reference to tee o s terms.

Where they set. These rules are are arbitrarily taking out activists. They are plain and simple, legally protected speech, regardless of left right centre top gun, whatever should be allowed, how you enforce it we'll have to figure out what it meant. Needs to be protected. Let me let me real, but more as they all these bill. The ending support for internet censorship, would maintain immunity for small and medium sized companies. Only companies, with more than thirty million active monthly uses in the U S. More than three hundred million active monthly is worldwide and more than five. Million dollars and global annual revenue, would have to comply. However, These companies could earn immunity through external audits, wherein they would have to prove to the Federal Trade Commission at their algorithms, The content removal practices are politically neutral immunity. Ratification would require a super majority vote by the EP. Tc companies would have to reapply every two years. Listen, I don't see how you could actually prove your politically neutral.

That seems to be absurdly complicated beyond what what they would have to basically just revert the thus the sites to legal speech period you can't argue their politically biased if they allow anything, it's legal, but guess what that will. Result. In a lot of a lot of awful things, people beset by welcome to the real world the store There's proponents of maintaining section. Two thirty immunity argue that it is not only protect tech companies. The electronics Dear Foundation has argued that it also protects traditional media companies for liability for comments that users post on their websites, for instance- yes, but the key section of say: CNN Com are not going to exceed three hundred million monthly global user. Whenever I really really doubt it unique users,

so they go on to say that in April in April, how Speaker Nancy, Blowsy, told recounts car switcher that section two thirty is a gift to them and I don't think they are treated with the respect that they should, and so I think that could be a question mark in jeopardy. These comments came before outrage over videos of policy. Giving a speech in May were doctored to make her seem intoxicated videos that took on Twitter refused remove. Now I assure you under any regulation, which can only ratchet in one direction because of the first amendment They would absolutely allow more videos like that Nancy Policy, interesting. We alot of people on the left are arguing for regulation to prevent speech, but the government can't do that. What do you think the Tec Giants had to say in this quote? Michael Becker Man, this is the Internet Association president said seedy a tooth.

He is the law that allows online companies to moderate and remove content that no reasonable person wants online, including content that could have a quote political viewpoint. The bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice either host reprehensible, but First amendment protected speech. Or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism, that shouldn't be a trade off and guess what that wouldn't be allowed. You duplicitous lie I can't stand how these people lie and target your heart strings of illegal activity which is not protected and would be removed. You can't threatened someone or admit to a crime or commit a crime you can like. There are laws about transmitting malicious messages, threatening people etc. This is a placidus manipulation to try and give them a personal political protections? No

internet companies shares under Holly's goal of ensuring online platforms are somewhat somewhere. Individuals can freely and safely share their views, not true. We ve heard it from Jack Dorsey. He wants his personal view of healthy conversations. I can respect that, but I don't agree with your opinions. So why should you an unelected billionaire? Have the right to restrict what leat with citizens have a right to say in this country. You have a desperate, portion amount of control on what we're alive do and say, and the economy and its time for some regulation notice how they always try to claim that's one presenting first amendment speeches, reprehensible and then ITALY, jobs to the most extreme of human trafficking. Is that a joke ass, a joke? Isn't it because that is not what animals arguing. Where are you? Someone has a right to their opinion to say something. Like I dislike acts, there have been people like Megan Murphy Band she was first suspended from Twitter for saying men aren't women, though that's the kind of

in its being removed. That is not yet that's arguing, the reprehensible to some people and not to others to others. Consider true. Why should you have the right? Who elected you? No one and no that statement from Mcmurphy is in no way similar to trafficking so interesting, there's another statement made by General Council General Council for net choice and they right a play, the same exact gain in corals about General Council for not choice. Another tech industry groups at the bill would turn popular sites into hubs for extremism. I dont entirely. Disagree from Kansas City outcome. It wouldn't Ternata Hobbs necessarily, but absolutely would protect pretty pretty ridiculous speech Senator Holly's bill creates an internet where content from the clan, what display, alongside our family, photos in cat videos full stop. Once again, these these companies are hell bent on lying to you

Section two thirty would not prevent Facebook, Twitter or Youtube from restricting algorithmic promotion period on twitters timeline. If you choose to follow someone if someone chooses to retreat. Yes, you will see that content, but you can see who's to block it. On Facebook, there is no the obligation of Facebook to promote algorithmic leave this content. They are conflicting or just completely ignorant what is actually going on on his platforms and what these regulations will do on Youtube. There is no right to algorithmic reckon a nation or manipulation, but there is a principle that if there are going to welcome the republic to speak your life, Golly protected speech should remain without suppression or removal, Youtube and Ages and what's called a limited state restriction. They find legal speech that this boy order line, as they call this content that doesnt violate their rules and they removed

all ability to share, search, comment, etc. That is suppression. No, it is asking you took twitter Facebook to promote to their front page. That is absurd. This content would never appear next your family photos unless you elect Fort to appear we're talking about the right for american citizens and, to a certain extent, other citizens of the Eu to engage in legally protected speech. Yes, that can be hateful. I dont like that either, but I dont you being the arbiter of fact, truth and health in the conversation, so I'm not the only one who thinks I think so, congressmen politics are and met gates have called for the removing article nineteen seventeen from the? U S, and yet this is a essentially an international version of section two thirty, which is part of the new trade agreement. That trunk proposed this article from poor just last week so as to protect free speech, reform of section two: thirty, don't put it into the? U S: embassy eight Matt Gates has been a strong critic of section,

thirty and how these tech companies manipulate and flaunt what that the use of this life of this. Our immunity, this protection, I did a story a while ago and other sources pulled out, so I'm gonna say it's my understanding I want. I want to say what we with other source hold up. I don't act like its definitive, but I've covered very stories were. Facebook simultaneously argues that is a publisher akin to the New York Times and other times in August, a platform when they org there are platform they're doing it to say you can't hold us responsible, because we just platform we don't choose. However, they omit some cut that they refused access to certain companies which essentially monopolistic innocence, is my understanding of Iraq. However, the story they refused access, companies and claimed what we're a publisher we can choose who appears on a platform you can't do both

is a legal distinction between the two, but we can see what they're trying to do their trying to flaunt the law to get it. Both ways pick one you're like the phone company or you're like a newspaper in reality, they're like the phone company, but they don't want to play these games. Unfortunately, these are the rules, and it's about time. We got some enforcement. This writer Adam Kendall, the contributor for four, says in an effort to justify the giveaway, which a second to thirty big text, offenders, clay, article, one thousand nine hundred and seventy nine section. Two hundred and thirty itself protect free speech. This claim could not be further the truth in reality, section two thirty protects big tech censorship in the. U S, reforming the law is the first step in the: U S: reform laws, the first up to restoring the the flow of ideas online and expanding the reach of its principles. For the? U S and is but pure.

Yes expanding its reach. The dossiers pure Folly, Congress Past section two thirty, with two main provisions, each with a different purpose. First, online platforms cannot be treated as people sure or speaker of any information provided by other. In other words, Facebook cannot be held liable for defamatory torches or otherwise illegal content which its users post ear Congress. Why to protect upstart internet companies by limiting their potential huge liability for every statement posted on their platforms by relieving them. Liability, resulting from user generated content. Congress gave the Billy, internet forums, the same protection as a new stand, library and other distributors received under common law for the content they distribute the print sex. A good samaritan provision in immunized platforms for restricting content that they believe in good faith to be seen: lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively, violent harassing or otherwise,

actionable whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. This provision aims to remove this. This forum, it aims to remove disincentives from filtering out of sin and violent content. Congress passed this provision in reaction to previous judicial rulings. Some courts had ruled that efforts by internet forms to censor and remove obscene content rendered them liable for all user generated content. Thus, the good Samaritan, except exception I was such limited censorship, while still giving the platforms immunity for all other types of user generated content. However, he goes on to say: are the last two decades some courts have broadly interpreted section to thirty two give platforms, total immunity for any tortuous or the content and even allow them to disobey takedown orders issued by courts after formal legal judgments? Silicon Valley has had less luck in using the good samaritan provision to grant themselves an unwritten, right to censor courts have generally held only grants in

pity for removals made in good faith and have declined to broadly interpret otherwise objectionable material to include any all information or content. As the southern district of California held in Sherman, the young twenty fourteen as Google and facebook- come indispensable intermediaries for online speech. They have also, increasingly Susan. I use them or to censor views they disagree with, while they start off with noxious trolls and the fringe right. They have gradually on after more and more mainstream conservative voices and even some liberals and moderates who offend their sensibilities in this, they eviscerate their public promises to be free platforms, open to all yes, and they often use section two thirty to defend themselves. Against suits challenging their failure to live up to their promises. He goes on. I don't wanna necessarily just read the argument from Forbes here I want to end with two very important points

This is a story from real, clear politics which apparently the Rio Rep met gates to twitter. This is from July of last year. You tell Congress. One thing, but in court your lawyer says something different. In his testimony he says what I want. Understand is, if you say I enjoy rights under the first amendment and uncovered by section two thirty and Ten to thirty itself says: quote: no provider shall be considered the speaker. Do you see the tension that creates? The issue here is that Twitter is argued under the first moment. They cannot be compelled to host the speech of someone they. Like what, if Twitter itself considers itself to be the speaker under the first moment argument, but section two thirty, oh

it protects them in so far as they are not the speaker they're taking it both ways. You can't do that I'll say this is an extremely complicated problem. I dont know what the right regulation is. I dont know what we should or should do, but I'll tell you this. These companies have regulation coming. We need something we can't let them control public discourse through some international Norman they arbitrarily decide and then remove illegal speech of american citizens from public discourse. We are in a world right now, where Twitter, Facebook and Google Recognise Russian interference played a role in the twenty sixteen election. That means foreign citizens know how to manipulate our platforms to cause divisions in our country, yet the legally protect Speech of our own citizens is restricted under their rules. Why? can we allow foreign actors to lie, cheat and steal, but then

Conservative in another Panhandle vocal Homa can't send out a tweet about how they feel, but with the present is doing because it runs a foul of arbitrary rules. We cannot have that as a standard, at least in my opinion- and that brings me to a political example from just the other day. Vocs Veo acts is considered a far. My party in Spain are not super familiar with who they are or what they want. Nor do I particularly care in this context. It problem important, though that what they want and other contacts. The point here is vox- is a growing and prominent political faction. You may not like them. Fine serious attack on the freedom of expression and and dissemination of a political party, the decision to remove a channel as a serious attack on the freedom of expression and and dissemination of a political party. You too I spend your. We require an explanation and that the account be enabled as soon as possible apparently do of copyright amounting to shore, but also this

Would you want to live in a world where corporations can arbitrarily excised public speech? Let me make one then clear for all the people on the left, especially those who apply. How the citizens united ruling there is an anger many people on the left that super packs work, actually Broncho existence under this is citizens United ruling, which, as individuals can donate effectively the amount of money to supermax unrelated political action committees that don't coordinate with the politicians because, essentially the money, a speech corporations, are people etc etc are complicated. Let me ask you this: if you don't like the idea of corporations, being people if you don't like the idea of massive international corporations with billions of dollars, putting a disproportionate of weight on public discourse to to shut down legal speech.

Why would you stand by and watch Youtube? Google twitter Facebook do just that. It's confusing to me, I don't know, but I'll and with the report would bring you back to the main point regulation is coming. There is by partisan support an jot. Josh Holly's bill is just the latest. There have been several state level legislate bills that have been presented minor stand. Is there in flux right now so failed. Some are still going through the process I show you regulation is coming. Facebook knows that they ve been hiring anti trust lawyers. There has been an trust regulation looming for Google, whether or not this will impact speeches yet to be seen but and deregulation investigations, I'm saying in terms of legislation you better, damn well believe Republicans are seeing what's happening, the story with Pinterest James O, Keefe, It was a whistle blower from Pinterest Pinterest came out and said they are sent

bring certain voices. It is political entirely political and in response to that video, my comment on it on Youtube was taken down now some dangerous president for journalism and art and our culture and our country that Youtube would move my commentary and public information, because it offended the sensibilities of Pinterest, who gave Pinterest that right regulation is coming and they better damn well believe it, and naturally their outrage Thanks rang out surrounding mortgages, coming up Youtube outcomes, lashed him cast new study at six p m and for frozen the podcast. This all will be up. Round our six thirty everyday tax breaks out. I will see you in the next story: Zog, cause you're Cortez. The other day compares what's going on on the southern border to concentration camps. She even goes as far as to say. Never again.

A comment on this amount of video. Talking about it. Why said she's jumping the shark? This is her getting quite crazy and then, following all of this right look I made my point. I think she's she's nuts But something interesting happened. It became a much bigger story. And for some reason, the left jumped on board to defend her comments. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: these are not by Any definition should I should say by some definitions, their concentration camps shore, but but but by many, but by any modern connotation and explicit encyclopaedic definition. They are not and don't take my word for it. How about and cycle media Britannica which refers to an interment centre for political prisoners. Members of national or minority groups were confined for reasons of state security, exploitation or punishment. Usually executive decree or military ordinary. You may sanctum

what those kind of sound like what's having on the board, except they are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detained and relocation centres for the temporary account nation of large numbers of displaced persons. They are not concentration camps, that's absurd! More importantly, when you do a Google search, you very clearly get one specific definition. The first thing that comes up is Britannica, which I just read you and you also get all of this stuff about World WAR to Germany. So yes, your incorrect and Let me just also add to this. I did a story yesterday about years ago, people from the Congo who travel to Angola who fly to Brazil, who then make the journey up through Colombia, several south american and central american countries to finally make it through Mexico to come to us

in border and then I guess, a coronet? What has to get in line for a concentration camp? That's insane its absurd. Now. I certainly detest the conditions at these concentration camps. If you haven't read about them, you should they call one place. The freezer is a really dangerous and gross places. The problem we don't have the funding for them and, according to the New York Times they said, Congress needs to give trumped the money. Not to let us get to the main point. What do you think comes next when cause you're Cortez says never again, these are concentration camps. What do you think comes next? you think people just sit on their hands when someone four million followers on twitter. Yes, a very prominent is one of the most prominent politicians. Now, whether you like it or not, she is Those lives dream, I think you're like seven thousand live. Yours, creates national story where you now have two sides or

whether it is or isn't many people might say, TIM. Nothing will come of this right. It's just more political posturing, they're trying to smear chopper twenty twenty shore, but it only takes one crazy person who says first, they came for you, then they came from it never again, she said never again, so I assure you we aren't. We are working towards this point where you will end up with these resist. Hence type to watch Rachel, meadow everyday, who believe Russia Gate all other nonsense and the fascist are coming and they're gonna be whipped into a frenzy and they genuinely believe their fighting against world WAR to Germany, this is the rhetoric we are seeing and its being defended. So here's what I wanna do. I personally disagree with what you I believe she needs to absolutely walk it back and Anne and present some rationality. Listen, my opinion is not rooted in any kind of support, for conservatives are Trop. I think we ve got serious problem. The border, I'm my opinion, is closer to that of the New York Times, give the funding to help border security and provide for these vessels.

But can I just stress my opinion falls in line with Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is not a fringe position. It is not left right, it is literally just an academic approach that concentration camps are distinguished from refugee camps, detention centres or occasion, centres for temporary did a temporary accommodation for large numbers of displaced persons, which is quite literally what is happening or the commission's good they're. Not there really bad. I am appalled by that. My response vote for funding allocate more money. Is that but wrong wanting to provide food and shelter? Let's do this. Let's go through some of the things I ve pulled up, some really interesting comments, CNN C and and even the funding, the semantics, which I think is very dangerous. First, we have Julia. I off, I believe, on plants in your name incorrectly, but she says high actual do here. Who is who has lots of who lost dozens of relatives in the Holocaust? Concentration camps predated the Holocaust, for example, the Soviets had them before the Nazis. Yes

and Goulds that I've also kindly ask List Canyon, Mega Mccain and other self appointed defenders of the jewish people. Who actually have skin in the in the game to stop using us as political football or, at the very least, call out your own party members. So let me explain to you the problem with the Twitter Roddy political posturing. Here we have someone who is saying that she is jewish who lost family, and I, certainly unwilling to ask your opinion and respect it. You have more understanding of this than I do the problem is. We also have this, then he Johnson tweeted an actual holocaust survivor who said, stop saying this you're wrong. Who do you agree with the left and the right have both found holocaust survivors who have argued is or it isn't there was one video put out a camera by what what which outlet I was able to find it where they had some old women who survived the Holocaust, saying it is that's like we are. We are in the face of this dangerous future.

Fascism, etc. The rhetoric is there that the actual survivors of this, then you to the daily collar, bring this survivor, whose has no we're not. How dare you who do what? Whose side are you want? It's really just semantics. Its people argument is, or is it to the point of July? Off with Add David Harr Song, you sang that's wise to use quote, never again right because she was talking about the Boer war. Listen, as I showed you on Google and Britannica. There is a clear connotation and understand of what concentration camp really means and for some reason, for political points there, defending O Cassio Cortez and I've got another thats really interesting, but let's move on so made. You dont want to trust the two survivors the left in the right have brought up. We have the story from us why an expert on concentration camps as it's exactly what the? U S is running out

border. The reason I bring us up is not to base, I think, can be concentration camps about being deck, decay, Deca or onwards. Absolutely the problem is here's. Here's my thought. If you want to make a statement about internment, detention centres. You know why they're saying concentration camp there not saying it, because it's the base semantic definition. There saying it because of the connotation for what it is. In fact, there are many people on the left who have tweeted that many of the twitter only left us. I have the tweets. I dont want to drag people who are smaller channels and smaller journalist, so I'll leave that out. These people are higher proof,

but they sat effectively. Let's call them what they are, so everyone understands what's happening. Yes, they are, they want that connotation. Ok! Well, that's crazy and, in my opinion, it's going to lead to people doing crazy things before we go on. You know the next to the next, but I want to highlight, as Dave Dave Reuben calling out CNN, because CNN Jack Cuomo defended this. But my question then, is like what do you think happens next. What do you think comes next? If people really believe this, if CNN is going on tv and saying we know what these are, we know what's happening, they then conflate nationalism with world war to Germany as well. What do you think happens next, when you repeatedly tell the population this large faction of resistance types? This is literally happening. They believe it we'll Chamberlain drags on Omar, whose concern not the language illegal aliens saying imagine complaining about the language,

this language, while referring to border detention centres as concentration camps, but he goes on to highlight that this is a semantic campaign. The goal is to change the definition of the word they want to redefine. Nationalism is bad and expand concentration camps to include detention centres. He says, if not the first, they wanted to change the definition of racism and white supremacy. Conservative, sometimes mistakenly, assume that words of a fixed or objective meaning they don't at most a best reading and there's one thing: I explain to people as well: dictionaries, don't tell you what a word means they tell you,

our commonly used, what what people are trying to convey by saying it. So a dictionary can say something is true, but if people decide to use a word and different way than the words usage becomes something entirely different. This is the goal of many of these people, as well defined at a semantic campaign. The goal is to get many. People are left to expand the definition, because then you solidify the connotation is: what's happening, southern border concentration camp, one hundred percent; no, they are temporary detention facilities. They have formal conditions. What there's food there's shelter? People are getting sick, we need more supplies and more resources. Nobody is cutting off their food. Nobody is trying to exterminate anybody. In fact, many of these people are being released under asylum claims. The problem is that we have record breaking numbers of people coming up through South America and even from Africa is a serious crisis that even the major newspapers have acknowledge,

but someone brought up by an interesting is an interesting thread. Maybe a bit partisan, it's a writer for bright Bart, so take that for what it is, but he said the biggest idiot in Congress drove a dumptruck full of flaming toxic waste off a cliff and most of the left leaped into the void after her yelling Auschwitz, bad and never again have and claiming that never again has nothing to do with you know what actually happened. I don't u, Germany. On that day, Tromp launched his re election, but it was the slowest pitch Democrats could have talked over home plate when Trot stepped up to bed. He couldn't have orchestrated a better launch if he could have hypnotize dams into doing whatever he wanted. The gems played perfectly into trumps pitch as the only defence Middle America has against a gang of raging leftwing cooks, the public knows the dams are trying to erase the southern border and they don't want that. I want to read into too much more of what he said, but the first point I want I want. I want absolutely highlight, got go after that

oh cause your protested, something nonsensical and extreme, and she drove off a cliff and instead of anyone willing to say, walk back of sea, they chased after what we are seeing here is common in this current political era, very common. When you have people on the left saying something extreme, and because the others say hey

walk back like Republicans or conservatives, then all of a sudden you'll see a bunch of people on the left, defending it for tribal reasons. I am shocked that anybody would try and defend what you saying but its tribalism. They do not want to concede anything. So, even though you have the major newspaper same as a crisis, even though we have people from Africa flying to South America making their way up in doing all these things, they don't want to admit it's a crisis. They want to just arguments immoral, that it's wrong. That's racist and then people say that the democratic for open borders swelled- that's actually not true. Bernie Sanders makes a really great point, but the Democrats are not the Woke Twitter, Roddy and the Woke Twitter Roddy are pushing the Democrats in ridiculous directions. So if you refuse to fund border security and the New York Times says Congress, do this the Wall Street journal-

this crisis, if the major papers of this country which linked but we knew at times, leaning left, are saying we have a problem and the Democrats try to obstruct they're following in line with democratic socialists who have protested, saying abolish borders, not hyper Billy They ve literally hauled up silencing abolish waters, crack socialists dont dictate what you know. Anyone is supposed to be doing necessarily there. A small group of people relatively small. The Democrats as a whole have based

really just hid from the issue, while Bernie Sanders has had no problem sang than in others too many populist. Rather, I want to come here and I can respect that. The Democrats are trying to win and because of the Woke twitter rotting because of Cortez, they refuse to met, take strong positions on border security, they refuse to fund border security, and I want to give trumpets victory and they don't want to side with passive liberals, and therein lies the big problem. Politics today is dominated by moderates conservatives and far left activists. Passive liberals are not engaging. You may be a passive liberal, watching this video and you're not engaging you're. Not I told us to one of my friends I was talking to her and she said she supported Bernie and over politics probably fall like two thousand eight Democrat obama- and I said the reason things are going to Helen Handbag is because then woke Twitter ADI left is leading the pack and passive liberals are just being drawn,

in the cart and are not paying attention to not saying anything. So then you get these politicians. You know policy policy has done good to resist a bit. Absolutely she's criticized Cortez. You end up with Biden, refusing to engage in a lot of ways, but also still pandering to this woke added to terrorism. Talk about white man's culture and stuff like that, because is passive. Liberals are not engaging, there's no there's no incentive for any of these democratic politicians trying play to the base these people their hoping we just vote Democrat regardless. What they need to do is convinced the far left to stay on their side because they the they need those numbers. So as much as you could say, absolutely like regular Democrats are not in favour of open borders. The problem is the woke. Technorati is leading the pack and they're following them off the cliff and I'll. Tell you what can happen. If democrats don't get strong on borders, you will see it flash I mean? Tromp is already that backlash. Bernie and tromp we're both strong on borders, burning the strongest necessarily but Bernie has been a really interesting case, because, when asked about ice,

abolishing ice. You refuse to say it and he's just a comprehensive immigration reform. What is it even mean its clear that Bernie understands the important a border security? It is clear that many of these Democrats will vote in favour of border security ten years ago, know exactly what they need to do, but they dont want to say it. Because they're scared of twitter and they're scared of these digital media outlets, who believe that their ivory tower opinions represent America. They dont so there putting themselves on fire or cause. Your court has said some nonsensical thinks he is not a particularly bright individual, I'm not trying to be mean which he has had gaff after Gath after gaff. Ok, thinking, accounting errors are literal money thinking, tax breaks are spending cash. She has made many misstatements as reported by Polyte effect and the Washington Post. There's no need to defend her when she says something good defender. She wants a team up with tat crews to restrict lobbying for politicians spot on. I think,

he's gotta right there and sort of TED crews. So I pritchett that that bipartisan you no action to me is incredible, but when she says things about forty thousand are in our green doc. The green new deal thing and then put it down and moves, and it was a mistake. It was early draft. Why would you ever right about fighting house? Why would that ever come up? It's because their immature and they don't know they're talking about it, made a huge mistake to try to walk back so yes, oh Cosmical has repeatedly makes mistakes, but instead of saying it was a mistake and we can accept that they double down and defend her. And now you have people on CNN on Twitter, rushing toward a fat setting up she's, right yup, and now this solidifies national level rhetoric for a while people are on the woke left. The activists were saying: what's going on, southern border is our our concentration camps, but it was just the woke left. It was just this fringe group welcome. Socrates has lost

Third, that rhetoric now to the national level and all of a sudden these journalists and high profile individuals are rushing toward offence for the sake of tribalism. Abkhazia Cortez does not represent America, in fact, according to a pull, admittedly from a pact that doesn't necessarily like her her fate, her favor ability is very low and our own district. However, we have seen legitimate poles shown it to be the case law. A long story short of Kosovo has won through on exploit called Julie called primary in, and we know this junk you give young Turks has talked about it. That was the goal to upset. You know longstanding Democrats, because their districts only vote blue Nancy policies at a glass of water with a d on it would widen, and policies or court has as districts we get it. Court has isn't representative of America. She may represent a certain woke. You know activist base less than eight percent of the country,

tribes, but not Americans, and I think you know. The reason I am very critical of this is for one. I act on principle if cartels says something nonsensical I'll call it out. I just did a whole video about trumped, saying you know wanting to ban burning american flag, and I said Absolute Lee not and can do so into the same thing. Absolutely not principle comes first, there are certain things we want to protect and live by and which Tribune. But what we can see here is that principles went through the window or cause your protest is going to escalate. What what? What look, I know what you want to call it. We call it a violent escalation of some capacity,

But when you have millions of people who really do believe Trump is worse than world war. Two Germany's leader, you don't on about what you think they're gonna, do people always say never again, there's that famous palm first they came for the union's etc. That was a lesson in not sitting idly by when these things start to happen, but fortunately there not. These are people who are lining up at our borders trying to come in not people who are living in the country being rounded up and kicked out, although Trump is playing Matthew Vacations, it still is a bit different. There's, certainly in our going to be had about making sure we do everything in it and it's humane away as possible and that's the side I fall on

am. I certainly fall on the side of providing funding to make sure we can take care of children and protect loss of life and shore comfortable conditions, but we do need a disincentive eyes to behaviour because we can't handle it. The borders are being overrun, see BP has said in an official statement. This is a full blown emergency. I don't know what the solution is. I certainly don't like seeing people suffer and we should solve this problem, but simply posturing on your bad and your luxury apartment in DC about how this is. Basically, you know happening all over again. Does nothing imagine being that person to think it really is happening, so you do you son your bed and do nothing she's in choosing power. Actually propose something vote to fund the stuff we have to solve. The problem tell me what the alternatives are. Do we just shut him down? Let people wonder out some people have action told me. Yes, ok will then consider what happens now

families, children wandering through the wilderness in the desert, with no food or water. Does that make sense? It really doesn't. Do you want to open the borders? While the Democrats say they don't? The Democrats have repeatedly said they're not for open borders? Ok them. What do you want to do if not for open borders than you agree that something should be done and law enforcement will need to. You know, detain people for an amount of time temporarily attainment, while we figure out where they get relocate to write. Apparently, that's not good enough, It seems like no matter what happens. The Democrats just complain about an offer, no real solutions, so I'm listening, I'm waiting. Resolution? I'm not happy with its work on the border. I certainly think it's dangerous act like we're in World WAR to Germany, but I want to see a solution of the border more than anybody and I'm asking the Democrats please provide something. Instead, nothing they just escalate,

The rhetoric and it's gonna get bed. So I don't know I don't you know. Is this we go on for a million years I'll leave it here, stick around the next time it will be coming up at one p m and on common below I'm new, to thank you from the pot guest leave a review I'll see you on the excellent female athletes have filed a complaint. We the federal government. I believe the Department of Education over Trans women competing in women sports they claim is a violation of sex discrimination, laws of violation of title nine, This is where it all gets interesting. I frequently set, as you try to expand civil rights to more and more groups, you'll actually find. There is a point at which some groups lose rights, for instance, this circumstance who is right should transom and have a right to be recognised under, say. The equality act to compete in women sports or do biological females have the protection under sex discrimination law, which one do you protect, because you can't

TAT both as much as many people try to argue that transit and don't have an advantage they do. It doesn't mean, though, always win what science is fairly clear, and that's not my opinion. It comes from a Trans woman scientist. I forget- I forgive I your name, but she has given payment abstain in saying that trans woman must undergo hormone replacement therapy, otherwise have a massive advantage and is acknowledged by many people's eyes. You know I've talked of a scientist about that and pre. Natal testosterone has a massive advantage and muscle development and so too complicated issue, to say the least. So the question I will Does it I won't make it terminations up to you who should you protect, show than should our civil rights law protect the Trans women who want to compete as women or protect biological females, under sex discrimination law we have from a Adsl media dot org, is for the alliance for defending freedom for faith and for justice. They say female,

least challenge Connecticut policy that a bottle just girls, only sports. Eighty five complaint asks deity to investigate discrimination and enforce title nine protections. They say: Boston, alliance for defending freedom, attorneys representing teen, track athletes, Selina Soul and two other middle minor girls submitted a complaint Monday to the? U S department education office for civil rights, asking it to investigate illegal discrimination against the Connecticut athletes? Ever since the Connecticut, Inter Scholastic Athletic Conference, adopted a policy allows biological males who claim a female identity to compete and girls athletic events. Boys have consistently deprived soul and the other female athletes of honours and opportunities to compete at elite levels. So this sum there's historians down from the daily wire which gets more to the core, and then what will take a look at the actual complaint, but you may remember this woman. My

understanding is that she came in opposition in the race displace. She works like a place or something which would have quality. Fighter for you know like next level? Athletics and a scholarship actually, look just read it. The details wrong from ITALY, wire, On Monday, eighty have attorneys representing Selina Soul and two other minor female track. Athletes omitted the complaints to the: U S: Department, education, we read that per the Sea ice C. I a sea policy soul, was forced to compete against female, identifying biological males and a high stakes track competition where to try. Gender sprinters beat the field are taking first and second place by significant margins soul. And a place missing an opportunity to compete in front of college coaches by two places, and that means, if these two transom and didn't compete, she would have. She would have succeeded Quote, I'm very happy for these athletes and I fully support them for being true to themselves and having the courage to do what they believe in Seoul told Host Fox NEWS,

told Fox NEWS House, Lord Ingram, in February, but in asthmatics, if an entirely different situation is scientifically proven that males are built. To be physically stronger than females, it's unfair. What someone who is biologically male, who has not undergone anything in terms of hormone therapy against, says gender girls? This is true, and there is an action physicists scientists to transmit who agrees that, for there are people, who would argue, doesn't matter even if they do undergoes hormone replacement therapy. I oughta what you're Rogan, but there are some dead where he talked about bigger hands, bigger joints, more striking power on average taller. So what explain to people when it comes to this issue because I see the lot of twitter ADI Leftist saying all there's no advantages, and there was one threat by our true his rider saying that one of He's trans athletes didn't even when got sixth place and no one

her highlights the fact that these trans athletes don't often win, and that's a good point- and I mention I will say what Europe you're absolutely right, but it misses the actual argue The argument isn't necessarily that we expect Trans women to win every competition. It means that if you have a hundred women, the only you know, six of them will be considered at the cream of the crop, the best of the best. If you take a hundred men and even with hormone replacement therapy, whenever they compete against women, you will have a disproportionate amount of those men competing at higher levels the women you see, I'm trying to say it's what averages it's, what the amount of work being done? There's one viral meme where it says you know one particular individual was ranked two two hundred then three. Ninety then transition and became national record breaking champion. It's not about what first place in this circumstance. If these two transmit, who one even got fifth and sixth place, it means that this young woman soul would have bit what would have

I've been displaced. So it's an issue of the best of the best in terms of women competing against average biological males who have transition to female. Why should say what traditions woman, because their stone biologically female and that's another really important distinction to Youtube. I believe you to India tweeted about this there's absolutely distinction between gender and biological sex, at least according to academic. You know breakdown activists would have you believe that these transgender women are female they're. Not they are biological males who have transition to woman, not female. They will never be female. Ok, that's not a bigoted statement. That's just you know you can, oh and I am totally down. I understand the argument, but we are litter. We are dealing with at its core biological male, visible, Female, regardless of the hormones are taking. The recent distinction is important is because civil Rights law protects on the basis of sex. So I think that a lot of activists

ought to blur the line between gender and sex on purpose, so that transmit would be granted similar protections, but the law, clear as of right now, unless there's a change, it is not my opinion. There is, in my view, and in my opinion, that bilateral sexist real utterances, in my opinion, interesting arguments made that transit, our biologically male, were born biological email and are just taking hormone therapy. Do come to have them compete against biological females would be sex discrimination. I would argue, but we'll see what the Department of Education actually says, there's another throughout the twenty eight ten. Nineteen taxis and males consistently deprived the female athletes who are part of the complaint of dozens of metals opportunities to compete at higher level and the public recognition, critical to college, recruiting and scholarship opportunities, and eighty of news really the complaint notes that c I a sees policy and its results and its results directly violated the requirements of title nine.

Federal regulation designed to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls ass years. An interesting part, if you want to argue and girls you're gonna get into a debate over whether or not it's for Trans AM and because they believe, transmit our women or whether nuts about biological sex. In fact, It says sex that the losses that set that's the important essential girls deserve to complete, compete on a level playing field. Atm legal counsel, Christiana Holcomb, said forcing female athletes to compete against boys is grossly unfair. And destroys their authentic opportunities tunnel. Nine was designed to eliminate discrimination against women in education and athletics, and women fought long and hard to earn the equal athletic opportunities that title nine provides allowing boys to compete in girls. Sports reverses nearly fifty years of advances for women. Under this lot. We should force these young and young women to be spectators in their own sports,

Selina and her now and our fellow female athletes train countless hours to shave mere fractions of seconds off their race times they put in that effort, in hope of the personal satisfaction of victory and opportunity to participate in state and regional meets or a chance at a college scholarship. But girls competing gets. Boys know the outcome before the race even starts. They can't win. Boys will always have physical advantages over girls. That's the reason we have women sports. Well, that's true! You can make an argument about hormone replacement therapy, but for the time in this particular instance? My understanding is that the to transmit, who one we're not undergoing hormone replacement therapy, they were just completely biological males identifying as amend competing against women. So we have this is this: is it point, and I was a little bit of it cause. I don't wanna, it's really it's really really along, but that this is actually really interesting. I've been driving for a long time to show the best Highschool indoor, eight hundred metre times and twenty nineteen. They talk about physiological differences. I will

Thus, in the description I know, I said I often forget I'll try out of linked this description blows. You can report yourself but really really interesting to show us out table nine seventeen at sea, I see class and women's outdoor track. Two hundred metre results. May thirty. Four in seventeen first place a male Andrea year. What time was point three of a second faster for Cromwell, then Erika Mickey, a female, so they they week. We can also see here that Andrea Year were great. Nine was a third place falling behind too. Else. So I'm gonna wanna make sure I stress this position of the article male Andrea Year, what adrenaline displaced one individual rights of that's that's important, there's lots of go through, which I don't think I'm going really really long, but about again on a link it. They make a really really like this. While this is this is it. This is insane note of this. Denied state championship, deny participation because of

biological males competing as women, regardless of their position, these our biological females being displaced so they're they're, saying as a civil rights violation and that's what I've been saying look at I'm in the UK, you have Muslims, arguing with the algae beady community, which marginalized group are you going to protect another fighting with each other? In fact, the Muslim and it was chatting actually like anti out things and it caused a controversy. You can't protect everybody, because not everybody agrees with each other so I dont know what the solution as I certainly want to ensure people where people are protected, but at a certain point these lines start to break down. Look at these women who are denied championships or participation. It's really really interesting, stuff, soldiery, the beginning of the cause of the other plant and then we'll wrap it up. They say to whom it may concern. We submit this complaint on me. Half of minor Selina soul on behalf of minor second complaint and third complaint, a minor league the complaints are minors and because they fear retaliation. We respectfully request at the ocean are true,

their identities as confidential. To the extent consistent with conducting a thorough investigation of the allegations contained in this complaint in the attached exhibit a discrimination complaint form. This worthing, starting really interesting because we're gonna have to see who the left sides with. Naturally, you ll see conservatives will defend the biological females. You will see moderate liberals absolutely bent defending biological famous people like Joe Rogan donor organs. Very very he's like relatively far left is like these, the Bernie Sanders camp he's very pro. You be I but Joe it is very much in favour of defending biological females. You have you no radical feminists, gender critical. They call themselves who would sign with the female but then you have intersections feminists, of which majority of extreme Woodside with the Trans woman, which left is the one you agree with and that's why you know. I think that is an important distinction that we talk about. The left and right you'll see progressive treatments. I'm not on the left- well, certainly not enough

I will send out the right either. I don't care for your tribes, but look at this issue which left do I fall into there's, not just one anymore. It fractured. While majority of of Democrats what modern policy there's still a large group that once progressive policy and that's going to galvanise happen very often, I would probably fall and into the defence of biological females, because it is a protected category. Women's athletics are meant to protect violet Finally, female individuals, I have no problem with working out a solution. Perhaps there is like a, gender category, I honestly, don't know I certainly make sure the rights of trans individuals are protected, that little face discrimination, but it is particularly different. It's not the same thing. A trans woman is not the same thing as biological female. While we want to protect the civil rights of of of you know: I've this isn't the way you do it because now you're infringing on the rights of the females so you're gonna its amen, civics right. Where we are

one of its kind of exciting and it's kind of cool too, to see these conversations, because these are new conversations and new developments in civic policy that we're gonna, see developed and in fifty years will now exactly what we will. Our won't do and there will be a strong opinion in our culture on what the results of this battle was. I don't know I dont know if it will be, but I live there, I will make sure to link this description below you can read it stick around next week we will be at four p m eastern you to become slashed him cast the arrangement on the pot casually different, so that'll so bettering out I'll, see you in the next story. So it's about time I'm the Democrats are starting to address the border crisis, this stuff from the hill Democrats? Maybe U turn on calling border a manufactured crisis, but I'll tell you what they arguing blaming true at least some of them are claiming that he's made worse and now, there's a real crisis. Ok, please, the President addressed illegal immigration. The Democrats referred

used to fund the border wall. Fine, there's an argument: the issue, though, as migrant Caravan started coming can, we theories abound, I could you not. They were right, conspiracy theories, that George Soros was funding. The migrant caravans don't care for those conspiracy theories At the same time, you are Democrats calling it a man Patrick crisis as migrant caravans we're forming and marching to the? U S who was man battering that seriously. If you have my caravans top didn't make that up so either they were come when the ignorant- or they believed in some kind of weird conspiracy things. Nonsense, but I'm glad there dealing The issue now read the story from the hill. Before we get started, TIM cast outcome slashed on it, you'd like to support my work, because I talk about issues that they want me to talk about, and so they'll probably ban me at some point. But if you want to support me, you can go there. You know the drill from they'll demo I've been a. U turn on the claim from earth.

This year. That present trumps concern about illegal immigration at the southern border was a manufactured crisis Democrats. Now acknowledge there is a genuine humanitarian crisis and are preparing to pass legislation. That would provide as much as four point five billion dollars in federal aid to address the surge of migrants from Central America spot on. Bravo, you I'll never see me gloat. Although you could call that earlier sub fine. Whenever, but I will. I will commend the Democrats for stepping up and doing the right thing you. You always want to give people the chance if they drag their feet the beginning, and we put I sure on them and their turning around now and offering a four point: five billion in aid good job welcomes the fight hope This money will be enough to help alleviate the crisis, because whether you are for or against the people were coming. Whatever your position as we can recognise, the conditions are bad and we need funding to solve the problem. Whatever the road that mate, wherever form that may take good on the Democrats were finally stepping up. Let's see what happened, they say:

bridging number arrests, media reports of smugglers, renting children to desperate migrants to help them gain entry into the Eu S and stories of children dying in. U S. Custody in custody have changed the narrative, earlier this year, Senate, minority leader, Chuck, humor and Nancy blowsy acute its trop of exaggerating problems at the border, to Stoke fear among Americans and distract from the turmoil of his own administration. After prompt, issued an oval office address to the nation on January, eighth, proclaiming the boar situation, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul, humor and plus gave a side by side we by which, I might add, was really creepy and everybody thinks so even the devil threats thought that was weird and greedy. I don't know why they did it. That's just strange this president, just use the backdrop, of the oval office to manufacture a crisis, Stoke fear and divert attention from the top oil and its administration humorous. In the midst of a thirty five day, government shut down sparked by a partisan disagreement over funding border barriers,

Other Democrats made similar dismissals, the president, as manufacturing humanitarian crisis. It is solely trumps fault, not the Democrats, you know what really bothers. While voluntary Bernie Sanders went Bernie, say Bernie Sanders a leading contender epidemic. Presidential nomination, admonished Trump and video statement. Mr President, we don't need to create artificial crises. We have enough real ones. I am. I am grossly offended I am seriously offended right, not that my offence should matter to anybody. It's a purse, Nothing, I'm not one who subscribes to the belief that if your offended, you somehow earn something nobody I'm upset, because I feel that if these democratic got off their key sectors, that are a word that means but right and actually did something about this problem. Back in January, we could have prevented the crisis as it stands today and that What's really disconcerting to me, they don't like dropped so much

They ignored a legitimate problem on our border and let it faster and to the point, work. Now, referring to what worsening the borders as if its world war to germany- I kid you not it's no one's fault, but the Democrats now now. I want to make sure in saying this. I am critical of these past statements, but have tremendous respect on stepping up now and doing the right thing you if they're gonna, step up process bill. The last thing I do is disincentives that behaviour Alan incentivize. It favours out. So again you have my respect now that you're willing to step up and do the right thing. That's the only thing we can ask no raise its remind me of like if you have a kid and you can do something wrong and then a they lie to you, because I don't get in trouble. If you, if you please if someone to tell the truth and you really fine, I'm your encouraging them to keep lying. So you have recognize what, when someone's, truly sorry if that doesn't think wrong and help them to be there for them it it's it's hard to know when you have to be tough and when you have to be

but I will say it's about damn time Trump subsequently backed down in a greater open the government, despite getting only one point: three billion for border barriers lesson. What Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee voted for earlier the year, but again druggist declared an emergency. Democratic and before the Memorial Day recess recess, when they were few to add a triumph request for four point: five billion dollars in emergency border funding to a disaster relief bill. The president signed into law two weeks ago with a steady stream my heart wrenching stories- and I popping statistics- has changed the political environment on Capitol Hill and now appears a bipartisan beyond the border, is imminent. Damn shame, it took media pressure to make it happen. I will say that happened. I will say that and if they just agreed to this early on even compromised, we could have avoided the strife. People have died. Ok, can I stress this. Yes, children have died. There was a trans womanhood. They didn't need to that? The border patrol the facilities they need

money and Trump asked what the Democrats drag their feet and people died. Saying it's only their fault, I'm not saying two things get better at the same time, I'm just saying, while you can blame them for other areas. We can focus on those later we're talking of the border right now. It's plainest plain and simple. If we didn't have the stupid politicking, we could have prevented this loss of life and we could have actively solve the crisis before it got to earnest is today pulling shows. Voters have grown more concerned about the migrant surge at the border since the government shut down over trumps border, while early this year, a Washington Abc newspaper, published in late April, found that more than a third American, saw illegal immigration as a crisis, an increase of eleven percentage compared to January, and you know what really scares me that the demo That's might only be taking this action now because of the polling that their concerned about twenty twenty. I want to look strong on borders. Well, my motives be damned

happy it's happening, but it is disconcerting because who knows what would happen if they use this and then when and then just ignore the problem again, not that I'm giving any clue the conservatives or to trumpet disregard either. I think Trop is definitely plying this up as a campaign you- and he knows it plays well with Americans, but outside of political assumptions. We can say one thing: tromp was right. The whole time you'll go like the guy. You can it is wrong about of prosecutions, but trumps at hey, there's a problem on the border right. This spoke to voters and there was a problem on the border. The Democrats didn't think it mattered. While they were wrong, it did matter and now, if a big problem, but also it matter to the poles, if you wanna be Trump, you were wrong. You played the wrong hand, you wanna be tromp. You needed to be on top of this issue

we'll see what happens, they had a Harvard caps. Harris Pole survey published in early may find that fifty six percent of U S, voters that they believe there is a growing humanitarian, humanitarian and security crisis at the border. While forty four percent, it was a manufactured political crisis ceiling. Humor last week, described the Democrats plan to address the crisis. In a floor speech and two of its main elements mirrored a plan being pushed by Linsey Gram, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee grams, had to say that he is in talks with Schumacher to merge the proposals and expressed hope that reforms is allowing migrants from Central America to apply for asylum from their own countries or from Mexico and to provide I'd money for more immigration, judges on the border to idea, that humour as also endorsed, could be added to the border supplement bill spot on. Bravo to Graham and humor, I dont care politicking, let's, let's put the past behind us and say for whatever reason: let's get the job done.

We'll get the job done and then we'll go back to being each other's throats over political issues. Fine, but if we can agree on something and do it I'm happy to hear it, No we're Cortez has broken and crews went on there. Being bill bipartisan action, in my opinion, is excellent, and they should both be commended for their certainly things are criticised grand for an instruction wherefore. But if they're coming together to solve the problem, you have my support. So I do want to get too are one specific issue, though, down in the bottom asked to say: if it was the right it was, it was right to call the border, the and manufacture crisis earlier this year, Schumann, blamed Trump for making conditions much worse. The bottom line is very simple: the board The situation has been made worse and worse and worse by president Trompe said: Schuman argue that arms policy of removing young young children from their parents and attention is inhumane and called the president's. Very strategies for slowing search just calling. Where a border wall and threatening tears against Must Mexico erratic now use

as send a million immigrants back home every day he has a new policy, none of which have none of which have now I've been followed through on. Well, let me just say this: if you now recognise this problem is going on for a long time. Here's how I'm kind of see it jobs that we had a problem or a bathing water and you ignored it now you're mad his planned and work. While I'm sorry, he didn't have your support in solving the problem. Again, we the absolutely agree that Trump saw problem. We all, greed exists now and solutions towards it may have made it worse. Right will operate under that premise. That means we can recognise. Tromp has been right about there being a problem, the first place, and perhaps if people get off the politicking, you could help solve the problem. If you are of the opinion that trumps actions have made worse than you need to recognise that what first, let me say this I ve been in Afghanistan. But Schumer Assange Trump make the problem worse, but then agreeing to give trumped the four point: five billion he asked for initially everything is making. It then, why would you give him more money, but regardless

least something is happening. So look man. You know my biggest ripe going into all these. These bees This argument has been the Democrats just obstructing obstructing, So you want have an argument to manufacture crisis. I think IRAN, fine, it's not my opinion, can I was at the New York Times Wall Street Journal but of Democrats are getting on board. They have my respect. Please solve the problem, that's all I really care about when we look at the local jurisdictions, that have been impacted by the store asking for help, and it's about damn time. The Democrats stepped up. If the Democrats have a problem with what Trump has do They should have stepped up sooner. I'm glad there stepping up now we can both argue over What is the right course of action? But if we can come together and allocate some funds, just Do something to get the problem solved, we're gonna be we're gonna, be ok is good news. Is no story out, because our happy hearing this code as much as the thought, Does it there's a lot of people will probably wanna gloat about that the Democrats finally giving in fine whatever you we're going to solve these problems. Hopefully, so you know if we can get everybody on board to grow this good.

I will add the far left progressive side of the democrats- probably won't be on board with this and that users against the Democrats, but also this final thought my respects to the Democrats for stepping up plain and simple, but let but let this be a complement to them. Regardless of the past, we can move forward. I want to make sure it's clear, ok, next, video coming up in a few minutes ago, I will see you shortly from Fox NEWS as Democrats debate, reparations for slavery pulls suggest. Americans are not convinced, but let's be specific in this regard, the poles or for referring to cash compensation. I personally disagree with cash compensation. But I do agree with social programmes, and I do think this a lot to be done to offset the ramifications of historical racism. Hear me out if you're someone who too degrees and we'll, have a good conversation, because I am also going to take criticism from many people who have said ten, you supported tolls. He gabert, but

She supports operations that entity politics. I agree with you and I want to address this we'll get to this. I have this off from the tolls. He gathered some right it where even her fans are critical of it are a critical of her decision to support reparations. So, let's make chewing, gets us but specific and break the down- and I can explain to you my stance on the issue, but will start with the news the reality most Americans don't agree with it Fox New says as Democrats. Consider, the idea of reparations to black Americans for slavery pulling indicates that the public is far from convinced about the idea House. This year, we Democrats on ones they were holding a hearing in the constitution Civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee on H, our forty a proposal why Sheila Jackson Leave of Texas to set up a com. Tend to study and develop a response to the question of reparations for slavery, but pulling sex That such a commission would also need to change their minds of a significant number of Americans for the move to get support. A Fox news,

April found that sixty percent of Americans oppose paying cash reparations to descendants of slaves, while just thirty two percent support it. A Rasmussen pull in the same and found that just twenty one percent of likely voters think taxpayers should pay reparations to black Americans who can prove their descended from slaves. However, in finding that could put Twenty democratic presidential hopefuls in a bind. The fox pull found that among Democrats, primary voters, fifty four percent, they were likely to support a candidate who back reparations while thirty three percent said they were not likely. Additionally, data? progress founded upon last year that well the measure had only twenty six percent of Americans in favour. It had met positive support among voters under forty five, a point taken. My point taken merest born twenty. Sixteen

found that, while sixty eight percent of Americans were opposed, reparations, six intend black American said they were in favour. A number of twenty twenty presidential candidates have dabbled in talk of reparations, although they have yet to really dive the controversial waters remaining vague about the extent of their plans, their Koala Harris suggested to the Rio in February that it could include a generic tax credits to families making under a hundred thousand dollars a much less controversial proposal. I bet it's actor that factual isn't sound all that bad. To be honest, but there's a lot of caviar, so, let's region, I would necessarily agree with that, but I think it's. Interesting proposal instead of just giving our cash. That would require the individuals to four one. Be working in generating income and so is essentially attacks. Credit instead of the government, actually paying anything out, makes a lot more sense. Welfare can be very, very damaging. It would really really can and

there's been data to correlate the rise in poverty with the rise of welfare. So there's a lot of caviar and social programmes. I think you do broken down with a little bit more. That will get into my thoughts on the matter. Elizabeth WAR and gone a step further and said that native Americans to be part of the conversation, not necessarily disagree, but I've got a lot to be said. Corey Booker, who testify at the hearing. Wednesday has introduced a Senate version of these built to study. The question is testing. He says the: U S has yet to truly acknowledge and grapple with racism and white supremacy that tainted this country's founding and continues to cause persistent and deep Rachel disparities and inequality. I once they wont load testimony from activist an actor Danny, Glover and author taught in a hazy coats who wrote an influx Twenty fourteen essay on the case for operations for the Atlantic, so I think I think I will rub their common talk a little bit about it. Maybe I'll come back and I also want to talk about tools. He gathered another Democrats, but let me say this: it's been a long long time since the era of slavery and its actually been an agenda.

Nation or too since the arab segregation. There are still people alive today who lived through segregation. A few things that are absolutely true. When you look at national level averages, it is much more likely that immigrants and descendants of white people are more, We do have had property passed down which conveys an advantage, a privilege as it were. However, there is a much bigger problem in the eye you have operations. It's been a really long time as they mention in the article. Some people have to prove their descendants, but, more importantly, there are people who are black who emigrated here in the past fifty years, so it can't be blanket a blanket sweeping operation. Based on identity based on your race. There real ramifications of historical racism, and let me give you an example,

the documentary on Saint Louis County, of which Saint Louis as many people don't know. This is actually like. Ninety five different cities, S got a pretty sordid passed, they launched product per thousand. I think you can call it proved ego and it found disrepair government running hasn't been work, as as many of you might might resume what this did, those accredited dependency and credit poverty. It created a slum, the government built it didn't maintain it. It fell apart and then people are living in squalor and this bread, crime and poverty and its very, very complicated or can be wrong. But let me talk about the ramifications of where we are today. You have a lot of people who live in the jurisdiction in the sailors County jurisdictions, but because there are many small towns. One thing we see happen is that, while I don't necessarily think it's overtly race based anymore. There still is a social component at play certain jurisdictions that are predominantly black right. So what does things we learned about is something they called going on: tour in Saint Louis

so somebody who lives in Ferguson and has a job to towns over which could be like five miles. Here's an item that far they could get and in France for driving for the same for that for one in France, External five rights opened this way. What say you live in Chicago and you'll be of a bus entail. Let you dont know you're driving a working it pulled over. They got a bus. Tell I that's a twenty two ticket, get it fixed. You say, god dammit you pulled over again. I gotta take it forward, I usually back. Ok, ok, I understand and you take care when you know, What what state you live in Ferguson and you got to drive through three or four jurisdictions to get to work. You get pulled over to get a ticket. You keep driving to work because you can't you can't ditch your job, because you just found out about until you get pulled over again. New jurisdiction gives you a new ticket. You keep driving you pulled over again etc, etc,

the issue is in these communities there, the direct result of segregation in the past. The problem is, I think we have today is that while we ve gotten rid of segregation, it's there. There still is irrational component to the poverty, but poverty goes across. Racial lines says why TAT, too: technically, not in favour of operations because of the connotation of a race based policy. I don't like that idea. There are certainly white people who are poor today who are facing the same problems as the black family unity. The left, there's privilege and all these things, and while that's true to a certain extent, I recognise the concept of privilege. I don't think it's a sale about being white. I think it's about majority and culture. You know the way you act a huge role and their there have solely biases among the majority for sure I don't like the idea also drawing lines in the sand today, based on race because of things that happened in the past, While I am one who absolutely recognizes the ramifications of history,

racism as it persist today. I do not think we solve the problem by high. Putting that specific grace and then giving them money? your resources. So let's get to the point of tolls he gathered. I do not agree with her and in this capacity for them part. You know somebody says they want to pass a bill to launch an exploratory committee. I really don't see the problem with that. I'm a conversation could be had eyes. I think conversation is a good thing, but it would seem in this thread is, while others were a few months ago, tolls for president twenty twenty and read it says totally. Gabert co sponsors reparations legislation. While three other presidential candidate has been talking about reparations, tells Gabert has been in the background. Helping to get reparations. Legislation was pushed through. There's only a few comments. It's not a big threat, but I thought would be interesting to hear the opinion of actual supporters of tossing the first comments as terrible decision. It completely eliminate scabbard from any chance of winning the White House These psycho leftist ideas will guarantee trumpets another four years and I dont want to go.

Therefore years I can't believe tolls he went and did this. So let me stress you can a fan of policy and disagree with this particular stance. I will, Are you this for all those who are curious? There's only one real reason I put I dont get it tells you ever Anti war, anti intervention and I could get a strong, pretty sure she is a major the national guard. I have tremendous respect for that He seems to be some one of great principle. She has defended free speech. She has rejected the divisiveness identity politics. While I understand you're not perfect. I just played into this I'm willing to recognise the faults, because I think is a net benefit. Late, and I mean no disrespect and talked to tell see. Andrew Yang is more likely. My first choice mostly because he's a domestic policy aficionados Right Yang, has done a tremendous amount of live work and addressing domestic policy, and I

A lot of respect for that, and I know what I want to get into you'd have supported Democrats or whatever I want. I want to point out that you know what a lot of people you know criticise, Gabert for supporting vibrations. That criticism does not fly over my head, I hear it and I absolutely agree with with many of the criticisms pointed out as do her own fans. So I think is a real challenge and let me let me stress, on like. I want to reiterate my view of vibration, just break break clearly and quickly to the best of my abilities. Social programmes are good to alleviate certain problems. How in our country. We tend to see one like proof I go. I could get my details wrong, but in general product housing, the government, I can take care of it, don't do a good job. I was taking care of people, so while social programmes can be beneficial, they have to be quick and they have to expire

why may Social Liberal, I believe, a government? Absolutely plays a role in health care and schooling and and and welfare, and things like this, what is being done poorly and its corrupt, and maybe a good argument that the government can't get over its own corruption. But I disagree. I think it is changing and we need safeguards and is probably one of the most difficult things to pull off. Admittedly, the left, libertarian spectrum of the political compass is the most difficult position to be in its easy to be a laissez faire capitalist, let the market decide and market forces take off, but that we see big tech giants called causes. Problems. The authoritarian spectrum regards left or right is bad period. Authoritarianism, bad bad, bad dunker, but we are, though, and and an easy-

Ah my mind: you like these people, who just Arthur Terence use force to subjugate people against their well, yet that's easier, isn't it and then the left, libertarian quadrant? You have people who believe we can implement real reforms and programmes and community cooperation based community efforts to solve problems that exist. Alan Jazz, it's not as simple as our pants get people money, and that tends to be the conversation. How about you know? Just we just pay people, none of that could make things worse. As usual, the market decide when it comes to issues of reparations. I think the bigger question is social programmes for the poor and we have to make sure we are not feeding feeding someone. A fish were teaching them to fish, to feed them for the rest of their lives. The government in absolutely play a role in teaching people to fish, but when the government plays a role in giving people fish, you don't actually solve any of the problems. That makes sense right.

Waste going from his eyes? I maybe people, agree or disagree. I think we should have government programmes and I think they should be ridiculously Britain Eyes, and they should always have an expiration date of a very short amount of time, maybe not why don't we absolute we'll figure it out but dumb business comment which I don't wanna highlights as I free concerns there, the descendants of, in some cases, a single slave. How does the actual fair amount from a single person get distributed, among whom no Was how many descendants right one that there could be? Seven hundred people today who does at with war the descendants of one person to bear, invites difficult. They too, How do we undertake the task of digging through ancestry? Completely agree, especially when even my ancestors were, for the most part documented, like people, didn't Sarah leave file and consensual. You know that the Sensus and all these things, so it's hard to know for sure, especially for me on my mom side, came from a different country, no idea, none whatsoever, three

the first repayment opened the floodgates for legitimacy of a million and one lawsuits and litigation in the future overhaul whatever was decided upon us. Fair was not enough, and not only that we're. We draw the line on what is or is it just? We can also we agree that our constitution as a term many things were unjust, but the question is: if there hundreds of the sentence for single individuals. If we can't accurately tracked ass, if some of these people have already become wealthy, I think we're just it's been too long and the real the real solution for reparations is community. Engagement is programmes as educational programmes is not giving money. But definitely allocating funding from wealthier neighborhoods, I can afford it to poor neighborhoods to repair infrastructure there There are certainly a conversation to be had, but I am one who believes that if you have a city like New York and even very wealthy areas where they ve over abundance of tax, and then you have a really impoverished areas falling apart with crumbling roads, your problem

We want to allocate some of the extra tax money from the Upper West side to you, like Crown heights, which they supposedly do, but I lived in Brooklyn and I have seen how these buildings are falling apart- and I understand there's no private investment for these things at its expensive but may be something needs to be done because, as a community as a country, America, we are only as strong as its weakest link. While I think we ve moved on from getting to terrorism of the past week I do think there is a solution that is not race based that is class based, let's get beyond the race stuff. Ok, that's that near and dear to my heart, because my family dealt. Let's get to the point where we can say it's about your class and and your education, because that will help many people of marginal. Communities, but it will also help some poor white people good. If your poor on your and you're a u unpledged, then I think we can do more exciting to lift you up again. Final thought: teach to fish, don't give a fish I'll leave it there.

Round, one more time in coming up. It's probably already up I'll, see you in a few minutes or now. I have to say, is a really confusing story, and I dont necessarily know if it's important or not, but it made me think that I have some questions on very unkind. Used the stories from Sea NBC, not calm, Mastercard launches, true name cards, to make paying with credit cards easier for Trans and non binary communities. Very simple. Actually, they found apparently mask. I found that there's no legal requirement for you to have your legal name on your credit card to me. That's kind of a bad idea. For those of you who are familiar with banking or with the DE envy, you can act we use your credit debit card as a form of identification. It's its added value Does your actual state idea driver's license or passport, but it is considered a form of idea if we can

but whatever name on our cards, we want a kind of opens the door to really weird things which I'll bring up we'll get too so before it gets dark. Had overtime cast our com, slash donate as this is a controversial issue, and I may get you know censored. How does a donation offered through Pay PAL Crypto option a physical address, but, of course, like comment share, subscribe, engagement really helps, but let's get to the story. Mastercard, announced on Monday June. Seventeen that's true name card initiative which will allow Poor chosen names to appear on the front of consumers Cards Many members in the algae, bbq community particularly trend A non binary. People have run into issues purchasing items of the credit card and been faced with discrimination. In fact, Ask your card shared research that found nearly one third of individuals who have shown ideas with a name or gender and did not match their presentation, reported negative experiences, including being harassed, denied services, Andorra, TAT, those things are really bad, and so I am not saying I disagree with it with the idea I want to press,

some of the conundrums, but I do want to point out at least one thing I recently went to Atlantic City and I had a good time. That's that's! at last. I wasn't Alexei dynamics in good time is a long story, but not to say somebody is getting more than there was fights when I want city I won, it was great. We, a really great story by the way. But anyway you the facial, hair, glasses and be my idea, has none of those things I'm not wearing glasses, I'm not wearing a hat, my faces shaven. So I look very different and guess what I got flak from basically everyone, because when you want to play, you found your idea. They check it and I one lady stare at mighty and then look at me and had the idea to your boss and stared at it and they just stared at like Why can't, I guess we're trying to see if, like out flinch, unlike Run Fort Knox like whenever you're ready the point, is it isn't it? You have being trans or non binary Sometimes you people dont trust your ideas.

You don't believe your name and it's an issue have just not looking like your idea. So I think this is what would be called washing pink washing is when these company embrace algae BT, Q rhetoric or ideas in an effort to pander to the mainstream for press. They wanted a virtuous is a virtue single right. They also sponsored apparently this street corner says you know: gay Lesbian, by Trans, queer, etc, and and and this applause plus street, as well Nobody believes these companies are actually sincere and their beliefs. While I said I think it's fair point out. A lot of the employees probably really are. I think we become a particularly liberal society. I don't mean liberals and left any liberals and like welcoming of freedom to unfortunate, that the left is kind of co opt into the word liberal, but I guess conservatives give it to him too. A calm liberals, but not like liberal and true sense of the word right like classical liberalism, the idea of live and let live in freedom within it,

good job of moving away from authoritarian dogma and into a more free society. Unfortunately, we have the rise of authoritarian on the left and I found a good thing, but You know I was so Mastercard probably does have employed to feel this way, but again its corporate nonsense. What will have We don't want of one of the problems, so I want to rent it for starts with their name? That's who they are? That's their identity, Randal, talker, chief inclusion. Officer for Mastercard, tell CNBC make it with Mastercard. True name you can choose your name on your credit card, your debit card and your prepaid card, which is amazing and that's just problematic. I mean so here's the thing. What say a woman steals my card. She can then just claim. Oh, it's true name card. Like and then people build up their creating precedent that you're on your credit card should even have a name on it. There's a your name is on the card, so you can look on the back and look at a signature, so I undressed and the desire to provide people the ability to be reckoned I used as their name or whatever, but perhaps the issue

should be to have a card or to legally change your name or something like that Britain arbitrary standard where you can get a credit card or debit card with any name on it? What's to stop me from making my name dragons, I mean, I mean I've, never really cool, like imagine like you're a restaurant and the waiter comes back on Mr Slater your your receipt is available. You can sign there. Thank you very much and I have a pretty cool. Maybe they wouldn't objected. I don't know, but I bring us up because then you're going to see a lot of people putting a lot of weird things and debit cards are tied to banking, and this, where we start getting, you know wishy washy with legalities. All of us we diaphragm. Mastercard is hoping this initiative will spark conversation within the industry and is urging our businesses to apply these standards, so financial products can reflect their owners. True identity, we're paying it forward, not because it involves because it's who we are ass, an organization Tucker, says Mastercard plans to have true name cards on the market by early twenty, twenty Mastercard. Also partnered with the New York City.

Vision on human rights to create an all inclusive version of the iconic street side at the corner of gay and Christopher streets in New York, city, West Village, adding rain, adding ring ST signs for each letter in the algae bt you I plus acronym this is this: is it in time for world pride, which takes place in New York City this June and the fiftieth Diversity of the stone, while riots we're going to be one of those forces for good good within our industry. I'm pretty sure the stories new right. Yet from just a few days ago, so also this. I want to make a few important points on social justice. I have absolutely no problem with social justice activism on it's on the surface. I actually support it. There's a difference between social justice, activism and what people refer to social justice warriors usual. The US and other social justice warriors a drifter somebody, you claim to be fighting for costs. Wasn't when you look at business like Mastercard and they claim to support. You know this- that our whatever yeah, I don't believe it do your cooperation with stockholders shareholders and using an office thinking

How can we generate positive attention, while this is massive massively, so you know socially acceptable, Let's talk about this, the sign, however, I think it's actually great, so we know problems. I think it's called it. This in no way is negative towards anybody in this the important distinction- or we talk about issues of social justice or you, bagging, someone down, so you feel butter, or are you creating art and being a positive force for change? I think it's wonderful that they want to create art that represents. Certain people who felt like they haven't been represented or had to hide what they are out of a fear of discrimination or violence, and I am glad that we I ve been a society that allows people to live and let live This also means, though you have to let others live and let live and the social justice, warrior types are those who would actually try to remove you from the community. Mean that goes around, I'm not gonna be beating about, but I want to talk about this royal as me, because around while the cycle of diversity, where it says first people say: hey you

Four spaces exclusive and its end is discriminated took to us once therein, they say hey, you should change this to be more accommodating. Then they change it to say I beg you, shouldn't be involved, so go make your own site. And the next one is pay this new spaces discriminating into. Let us in its something like that which get the point. What what the big problem is in terms of today's social justice is absolutely none of this this to me. I think it's all great. More importantly, I think its corporate pink washing with it pretend to be in favour of these things are now it's not necessarily great Britain, but fine, fine, if Mastercard Watson make it whatever name on your guard, fine, whatever there's other problems I'll talk by then a second, but these are pause, the things you know when you see a movie like wonder woman, not to rehash old issues, what you like as a positive thing, give strong female needed to get moving, have the marvel takes the negative where she's Mitchell she like breaks breaks guys hand or something instills motorcycle. Like that's being mean, so I certainly think I guess the punchline drive home as positive or negative

You know we can be welcoming an inclusive of everybody or you can have people who want to wield power. But let's get to the point about putting whatever name you want on whatever card them Your problem here, in my opinion, is the loss of legal identification. Where, where do we from here. If now banking is tied to no name, where do we go? If you, card is literally no name on it. That's a security issue, I don't really know it would matter, I do think you'll see a ton of people exploit this and I do think you're gonna see a wave of people go beyond us. I want the scarred because I would put Jim cast an eye I put a bunch of weird and crazy things just because school you know I personalized my card put puppies on it. I would love to put like you know. You know some funny name about animals or something? Why do we need you have this, and why do we need this vital distinctions? Is it is it that difficult for an individual to go to the DE envy and is legally change their name? I mean that's apart the process right.

I understand that people don't want to do that, but I kind of think maybe you should. I don't know if we're entering a point where, like removing I mean it's already. Let me back up. I will say this and this approach. More controversial. I think it's put, it does become problematic when you allow, I want to change the I'm an f on their idea to fit there like identity and while I certainly want to respect the individuals who want to find a different way there is, there is a dramatic difference between a biological, Helena, biological female, regardless of your trans, if our trans or not, a trans woman is not a female. You can argue that Trans woman is a woman, but not a female. So what's happening. Is While this to me is no big deal at all for the most part organizer, there could be some issues that I think are generally walk, into is in erosion of basic legal standards of why we classify people in the first place? maybe we shouldn't sure have that argument.

But then we just saw earlier today that there was a civil rights complaint filed because biological females are made to compete against tranquil. So long story short, you know, I don't know. I thought this is really interesting, and so I want to make a video about it. I dont know if it's it if it warranted it, but I thought those a conversation we have in the future issues, and I don't want to. I don't want around, because its relatively short story- lots of those, who finally feel happy you're. Getting your turn him on a card. You have you have my respect. I mean no disrespect and fourth the argument about financial security. I think it's a bigger issue, so Stop talking now takes four hanging out I'll. Have I'm already assigned more dynamic, podcast everyday, around six, thirty p m and I will see Wolden s story.