The first topic that Liz Wheeler discusses during this show is recent developments in U.S. politics, surrounding some major changes in the leadership of the Democratic Party, including the election of a new majority leader in the House of Representatives to replace Nancy Pelosi, who is stepping away from leadership. The new majority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, reflects the ongoing conflict between the establishment wing and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and will be a key figure in determining the party’s direction going forward.
The second topic is the ongoing saga between Elon Musk and various leftist institutions, including Apple and Twitter. There have been some recent developments, including Elon Musk’s meeting with Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, and the ostensible assurance that Apple is not considering removing Twitter from its App Store. Additionally, Musk has made some statements on Twitter suggesting that the real threat to free speech in America comes from the government coercing private industry to violate the First Amendment rights of individuals.
The third topic is the European Union’s recent threat to ban Twitter entirely, which underscores the importance of protecting free speech rights around the world. It is essential that we remain vigilant in the fight against censorship and government overreach, and that we continue to support those who are working to protect our fundamental freedoms.
Hi guys. Welcome to The Liz Wheeler Show. I’m Liz Wheeler. I was talking to my youngest sister this morning. We actually talk every day. She’s 13 years younger than me, significantly younger than me, but we’re very, very close. She’s still in college, a little bit different phase of life, but when we were talking, I usually ask her about her day. She plays collegiate basketball. She’s a junior in college, so she’s, she’s busy with her academics when basketball leaves her time to do that. But she asked me about my day, about planning for the show about what I do for a living. And so I asked her, I was like, listen, what, what, what’s important to you today in, in the news, in politics? What do you think that I should talk about on the show? And of course, you know, being a 20 year old, she says, talk about group projects.
She was working on a group project for some business class that she’s in and talk about how make that political, she said, and here’s the thing, I actually do think group projects are political, and here is why, because aren’t group projects in college this attitude where everyone, not everyone, but say it’s like five or six people in a class, that was my experience in college, where five or six people are put in a group and they’re told to create something collectively, and then they’re not graded individual based on the amount that they contributed or their effort or their time, or their skill level, or their intelligence level, or their competence, but they’re graded collectively. It’s collectivism. I hated group projects. I did one of two things when I was involved in group projects. I either did it all myself because I didn’t want it to be dragged down by other people, or I basically did nothing because I did not like the situation where it was too many cooks in the kitchen.
There were too many opinions. Somebody was trying to pull it one way, another person was trying to pull it another way. And it, at the end of the day, just didn’t matter. So I either did all or nothing in a group project, which is kind of similar to what happens in a collectivist civilization where there’s just no incentive for people to really work hard because you are not going to be rewarded, I guess in a collectivist economy. It would be the fruits of your labor, but you’re not gonna be rewarded based on your efforts and the fruits of your labor. You are going to be rewarded based on this idea of equity, which is just socialism. So that’s the same with group projects. Colleges should ditch them. And corporations and companies, big meetings are kind of the same as group projects. Useless waste of time, not really about individual merit or contribution.
So I can make anything political. That’s what I told my sister. Anything has a political lesson in it. Group projects included. So there you go. What are we going to talk about on today’s show, though? Well, kind of some big developments in the Elon Musk Twitter story. This is an ongoing saga that we are, we’re here for it all the way. Elon said on Twitter, that Twitter, I guess before he owned it, of course, Twitter 1.0 interfered in elections. He said, obviously Twitter interfered in elections. So I have some questions about this that I think need, need to be answered. We’re gonna talk about that today. The European Union threatened to ban Twitter, to prohibit Twitter. They’re just over in Europe. They’re just a little blunter about what they want to do with free speech, at least here in the United States. The government pretends to support free speech while trying under the radar threatening these big tech businesses, these privately owned businesses, to stifle free speech.
Since the government’s not allowed to do it directly. They, they don’t, they don’t go to this, this kind of contortion to pretend to protect free speech in the EU. They just directly threaten Twitter. We’re gonna talk about that a little bit and what the EU’s demands of Twitter are if Twitter wants to remain legal in the eu. We’re also going to listen to Elizabeth Warren, we haven’t heard from her in a while, have we? Elizabeth Warren’s message to Elon Musk. And this is doubly funny, not funny, doubly ironic because one of the reasons that Elon has been red-pilled is because Elizabeth Warren went on this personal vendetta trying to use the power of the federal government to go after him, to demonize him and vilify him and abolish him because he is a billionaire. Now, she has a message for him today. We’re gonna listen to that and break it down.
The Democrats also have a new majority leader in the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi is as old as the hills, and she’s finally, she did file for reelection, which is kind of funny, but they have a new Democrat Majority leader because Nancy Pelosi is stepping away from leadership. So we’re gonna talk about this new majority leader, I trolled through. I cannot tell you how many hours of footage of this guy, the things that he said, what he stands for. And I think you’re going to find this very illuminating, very interesting to know exactly the direction that he will be taking the Democratic Party. There has been this divide, right, between the establishment wing and the progressive sort of squad wing of the Democratic Party. And the new majority leader reflects that conflict and tells us which part of the Democratic Party is going to take the lead well, as a whole for the party. So we’re gonna talk about that. And then of course, we are going to talk about the Trump tax. I returns six years of Trump’s federal tax returns have been sent to Democrats in Congress to a Democrat controlled committee in Congress. This is unfair. It’s beyond unfair. And we’re gonna talk about exactly what this means and how it ties into how it ties into Democrats Plan for us if Democrats are in positions of power in our government. So let’s get to it.
Okay, so the continuation of the saga that I think we’re all watching, like holding popcorn, leaning back, putting our feet up, but also, you know, in the active actively fighting alongside, we’re watching this unfold between Elon and these radical leftist institutions who cannot bear the idea of free speech. We established earlier in the week that the reason that Apple was threatening to, or appeared to be threatening to remove Twitter from the app store, Elon said that they had threatened to remove that Twitter app from the Apple App Store. We established that it’s because Apple is a woke company that serves a Marxist interest. They serve a Marxist interest by being a slave to ESG ratings. And if you haven’t listened to that episode, we did a full breakdown of it. I highly recommend that you go back and you listen to that.
Well, two things, two updates on that. First of all, Elon Musk went to Apple headquarters. He met with Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple. He posted a video on, on Twitter of the Apple headquarters, said it was beautiful. He also said that it was a productive conversation, that they cleared up a lot of misunderstandings and that Tim Cook had assured Elon Musk that they were never considering removing Apple from the App store. This is wonderful news, truly wonderful news. If Tim Cook is sincere in what he said, if this is true, this is wonderful news. It’s also, by the way, the intention that was behind my original tweet, which sparked this conversation. When I tweeted to Elon after the administrator of the Apple App store deactivated his Twitter account, and I thought that that was suspect and maybe a sign that Apple was considering doing to Twitter what Apple had done to Parler removing them from the app store
and thus, you know, removing access for us to access that app. I said, you know, Elon should make a threat of competing in the marketplace with Google and Apple who have a duopoly on phone operating systems. You either have the Android or you have the iPhone. And the reason for this is not because I want a segregated economy. It’s not because I want a divided America. It’s not because I want a parallel economy, you might wanna call it. It’s because when you have a duopoly or a monopoly, then those companies need to understand that competition can challenge their portion of that marketplace, and hopefully that threat, when it comes from a realistically, a person who has a realistic chance of levying that threat, hopefully it helps Apple and Google recalibrate their response. Meaning it helps keep them in line, right?
And that was my intention behind that tweet. It’s not because I particularly desire a Tesla phone. It’s because I was hoping that this would incentivize Apple to course correct and say, wait a second, we’re not gonna kick you out of the app store. So I’m happy that this is the development that’s happened. This is a good development and call me a a perennial skeptic here. But I will wait to see if Apple is sincere on this. But it certainly is a good first step and Elon should be applauded for meeting with Tim Cook and, and creating this scenario. So that’s the first update. The second thing is Elon said on Twitter that and this is kind of a bombshell revelation. It’s funny because it’s one of Elon’s tweets that has the least interaction. You’d think it would have the most interaction.
But this is what he said. He said, the obvious reality as longtime users know, is that Twitter has failed in trust and safety for a very long time and has interfered in elections. Twitter 2.0 will be far more effective, transparent, and even-handed. And to me, this is the tweet of Elon’s that should have made a billion headlines. Twitter has interfered in elections. That’s a significant allegation. This is far beyond an allegation of political bias, of political censorship, of algorithms designed to promote one narrative or squash another narrative. Twitter interfered in elections. These are the questions that I have for Elon Musk about this particular tweet. I hope that he answers these questions. I think it’s in the interest of our country to get answers. First of all, what does this mean? Open-Ended question there. Explain what this means when you say that Twitter interfered in elections.
Let’s start from the back of that sentence. Are you talking about presidential elections? Are you talking about congressional elections? Elections for the Senate and the House? Are you talking about governor elections? Are you talking about referendums? What are you talking about here? What elections? Is it just in this country? Is it abroad? When you say interfered, define that word. Does that mean, does that mean algorithms that have been written in a way that biases or that advantages one person and disadvantages another? Does it mean something even more serious than that? And when you say Twitter, are you talking about Twitter employees? Are you talking about individuals at Twitter? Are you talking about company policy? Are you talking about people who were lobbied or paid by an outside group to interfere to use Twitter to interfere in these elections? Were these employees as individuals, or maybe collectively, maybe this was company policy, was this done at the behest of a government official?
I think we need a lot, a lot of details about this. Who at Twitter was responsible for this interference? Who okayed this interference? Did this come from the top? Was this you know, the head of Trust and Safety? Was this individual Twitter employees at a lower level, who exactly was responsible for this and what accountability is in place for those people? I not only ask Elon, I highly recommend that he released all the information on this possible, because the Democrats are really famous for pretending that free speech is a threat to our democracy. Now, you and I know that we actually don’t live in a democracy. Our, our country is actually a constitutional representative republic. But a threat to our constitutional representative Republic is the government using private industry to do things that the government is not allowed to do directly.
There’s Supreme Court precedent that disallows the government from doing that. In my opinion, the government, and we already know that the government, the FBI specifically, did this both at Twitter and Facebook telling these Big Tech platforms that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. Or even if they didn’t say the Hunter Biden laptop story, they framed their warning to Facebook and to Twitter in a way that made it obvious for Twitter and Facebook to quote unquote, recognize the Hunter Biden laptop story as what the FBI was talking about. So plausible deniability, but we all know, we all know the reality of the situation here. That is against the law for Facebook to ask for censorship of, or not Facebook, for the FBI to ask Facebook and Twitter for censorship of individuals and stories, when the FBI itself, as a government entity, is not allowed to do that.
So the real threat to our constitutional representative Republic comes from this, comes from the government coercing private industry to violate the First Amendment rights of individuals. So, Elon, show us all the information that you have here. We’re fighting right next to you in this fight, and we wanna make sure that we get this right. Details are harder for the Left to deny. They’re harder for the mainstream media to spin. They’re harder for other Big Tech platforms to censor. So we’re here and we’re waiting, and I hope that Elon comes through on this. At the same time, the European Union has threatened to ban Twitter entirely, which to me is kind of funny because when I just described this convoluted process that the federal government, the FBI uses to try to stifle our free speech, they won’t do it directly and openly.
They won’t be blatant about it because we do have a First Amendment protection of our right to free speech. But in the European Union, they don’t even pretend they dispense with all formality, and they just say, if you don’t do what we dictate, then we will just ban you, we’ll prohibit you, we’ll squash you, we’ll censor you, you’re gone. They had some terms that they set forth to Elon Musk. They told him, if you want Twitter to be allowed in the European Union, this is what you have to do. You have to quote, pursue disinformation aggressively, which is of course a euphemism, right? Pursue different disinformation means censor any viewpoint that the radical left doesn’t want people to hear. And remember, again, this is not about Twitter or Facebook or whoever it is. It’s not necessarily a personal vendetta against me, right?
When YouTube demonetized me, it’s not that they’re looking at me and saying, Liz Wheeler, I hate Liz Wheeler. I want her to be quiet. I wanna ruin her life. It’s not personal. I don’t take it personal. The way that they’re looking at this is they don’t want you to have access to the information that I’m talking about. So it’s less that they are, it’s less that big tech is, is facing me and trying to censor me, and more that big tech is facing you and trying to use their bot, their infrastructure to block you from being able to see me, if that analogy makes sense here. So when the EU says that Twitter needs to pursue disinformation aggressively, what they mean is censor information that the left doesn’t want you to hear. The second, the second term that the EU put forth to Elon Musk is they require a non-arbitrary policy regarding reinstating accounts that have been banned.
So, in other words, they’re really mad that Elon Musk reinstated Donald Trump and others, maybe Project Veritas and a lot of the others, James Lindsay and some of the other high profile people who were unfairly banned and suspended on Twitter, a non-arbitrary policy. Like, who are you, you European politicians, who are you to make these demands of a private industry? Get out of here, get out of here. And then this is the most audacious of all. The EU demands that Twitter accept an extensive audit, if they wanna operate in the EU. What does that even mean, an extensive audit? Are we talking about finances? Are we talking about the way that the company is structured, or are you talking about Elon Musk, his personal life and his other businesses? That is what I suspect they mean. But these demands are so outrageous. Elon Musk, I mean, he may be a little more diplomatic in his negotiation than I am, because I just wanna say like, hit the road, take a walk, get outta here.
Don’t even, don’t even, I I wouldn’t even dignify this with a response. Elon Musk does the diplomatic thing like he did with Tim Cook, and he actually goes to Apple headquarters and talks the sound instead of just torching apple. Maybe he’ll do that with the EU and smooth things over. I don’t know what he’ll do, but he should not. I mean, there’s not even a question of caving to any of these demands of the European Union, but this just shows, right? This is just another example of what we’ve been talking about all week that these woke corporations are trying to, and, and the government too, and leftists and the mainstream media, all of this leftist apparatus is so afraid of free speech on Twitter, because free speech is an existential threat to the Marxist agenda. Then every time we have another example of this, like the EU threatening to ban Twitter from the entirety of Europe, this just shows us how fearful they are of us talking about reality.
It shouldn’t be that big of a threat. It shouldn’t be a matter of if people hear this, then they won’t agree with us. If you are confident in your political beliefs, if you can look someone in the eye and make a good faith argument in favor of why that person should support your political policy, your ideology, that’s what we should be doing. But if you are not confident in being able to make the case to people, then your ideology has a problem. And this is what the Left does. They refuse to make a case to us, to people. They refuse to make a case. They don’t even wanna allow the debate because they are so sure that you will reject their ideology if you hear reality. And that’s really all we need to know. Okay, so Elizabeth Warren, I feel like she’s been a little bit dormant, right?
She goes in cycles in the media where sometimes the media’s obsessed with talking about her and what she says and following her around. And then sometimes I feel like I don’t hear from her for a month or two or three months. I don’t know what she’s doing during these down times, but she’s back. She is back. She was followed, won’t followed, isn’t really the right word there, because a journalist is allowed to ask questions, but she was asked a question in the Senate about Elon Musk and her response? I’ll just let you hear this response for yourself.
Republicans say that Democrats are picking on Elon Musk.
Elon Musk is doing just fine.
But do you think that users have a right to freedom of speech, even if what they’re saying is wrong or offensive?
I think that one human being should not decide how millions of people communicate with each other. One human being should not be able to go into a dark room by himself and decide, oh, that person gets heard from, that person doesn’t. That’s not how it should work.
Okay, I listened to this, like, 12 times when I first saw it, because I thought, okay, first of all, what is she doing? She’s using like fiction writing techniques, one person alone in a dark room. Does she also wanna bring up her phone and play four boating music? I think Elon Musk actually just sent out, he just tweeted a picture of his nightstand in his bedroom, and there’s a lamp on it. So I don’t think he’s alone making decisions in a dark room, but maybe he can confirm this for us. Elon, when you make decisions related to Twitter, do you turn the light off first or are you sitting alone in a room? How does this work for you? Because it seems like Elizabeth Warren here, wants to know a couple of thoughts on here. First of all, it’s funny that Elizabeth Warren is talking about this now because she’s one of the ones who actually helped red pill Elon in the sense that when she started with her Accountable Capitalism Act, I don’t know if you guys remember this, but this was an act that essentially would put the federal government in charge of companies and corporations that were worth over a certain amount of money, which is nationalizing industry.
She wanted the government to actually seize private businesses just based only on the reason that they made a certain amount of money, which is bonkers, bananas, socialist, whatever you wanna call it. It’s like Chinese Communist Party type stuff. So crazy, crazy, crazy. And because of this Elon Musk, because she was like abolish billionaires, Elon Musk, you know, she went after him for supposedly not paying taxes when he’s paid more taxes than any other individual in the history of our country. And he actually said on Twitter that, yeah, she was part of his wake-up call for seeing how corrupt the radical left is and how Democrats aren’t what they used to be. The Democratic Party isn’t what it used to be. Second of all, when Elizabeth Warren says that one person sitting alone in a dark room shouldn’t have the power to decide who can speak and who can’t speak, I didn’t hear Senator Warren make any kind of criticism of Twitter when it was Jack Dorsey or the next CEO.
What was, was his name Agrawal, when he was sitting there banning people, banning Donald Trump, banning Project Veritas, banning James O’Keefe, banning Alex Berenson, banning James Lindsay. I can’t even think of the whole list of people. There’s like a billion people that have been, that have been censored. I didn’t hear Elizabeth Warren criticizing Twitter leadership at that time. Funny how she didn’t care about one company deciding who to platform and who to de-platform when it was the left in charge of the company and conservatives who are being censored. But now that it is a person who is not a liberal in charge of the company, and that person, Elon Musk, is actually replatforming people who have had their accounts suspended, suddenly she has a problem with this. Girl, get lost. Get lost. The other part of this is just she is such an elitist, such an elitist, like she smacks of the most despicable kind of political elitism that exists.
Because what she wants is she wants to disallow a private citizen, who privately owns a private company, she wants to prohibit that person from having the power to make decisions. But it’s not just that she doesn’t want him to make decisions. She wants to transfer that decision making power to herself. She wants to give it to government. So she thinks so highly of herself, she thinks so low of you and me and the American people, that she doesn’t think that we should have the power to make any decisions. But she and her government cronies, she wants them to have the control to make all of the decisions. If this isn’t the most despicable, elitist, snobbish, controlling ideology, this is not something that just turns off conservatives and Republicans. This is so gross and such a turnoff even to Democrats. And Elizabeth Warren embodies this. It’s not just Elizabeth Warren.
This is actually the ideology of the entire Democratic Party. They believe, the Democrats believe that they are better than we are, that therefore they should be allowed to decide things about our lives, and that we should have no power to consent, and no participation ability in our self-governance, whether this is in a governmental sense, whether it’s in a cultural sense, they think they should control everything and impose on us their radical leftist ideology. And that brings me to the new chair, not the chair, the new majority leader of the Democratic Party, Hakeem Jeffries. Have you guys listened to this guy? Have you seen his videos? Because he has sort of flown under the radar as far as the mainstream media goes. All of a sudden he’s in the most powerful position, one of the most powerful positions in the entire Democratic Party. And I spent hours, hours scrubbing through video of what he says and what he stands for.
And there are a couple things I think you guys need to see. So Hakeem Jeffries, I don’t know if you guys, maybe you’ve been following along with him all these years, but he, maybe the mainstream media’s provided this protective bubble because they identified him as ascending to power in the Democratic Party, and they didn’t want the reality of who he is to be known. I don’t know. But I scrubbed through a lot of video of this guy and probably the most troubling of all the videos, and it’s hard for me to even prioritize, which is the most troubling because they all reflect problems in different areas. But one of the most troubling videos is you won’t be able to look away from this. This is Hakeem Jeffries, and he is speaking to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
And if Justice Thomas really wants to deal with bullying in America, or this problem of people supposedly unwilling to accept outcomes that they don’t like, I’ve got some advice for Justice Thomas. Start in your own home. Have a conversation with Jeanie Thomas. She refused to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. Why? Because she didn’t like the outcome. And so instead, she tried to steal the election, overthrow the United States government, and install a tyrant. That’s bullying. That’s being unwilling to accept an outcome because you don’t like the results. Because the former twice impeached so-called President of the United States of America lost legitimately to Joe Biden. How did she respond? Instead, she said, the Bidens should face a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay on trumped-up charges of sedition. You’ve got to be kidding me. And lastly, let me ask this question of Brother Thomas, why are you such a hater? Hate on civil rights, hate on women’s rights, hate on reproductive rights, hate on voting rights, hate on marital rights, hate on equal protection under the law, hate on liberty and justice for all, hate on free and fair elections? Why are you such a hater? And you think you can get away with it? Escape public scrutiny because you think that shamelessness is your superpower? Well, Mr. Chairman, appoint of order. Well, here, here’s a newsflash, Mr. Chairman, chairman from the House Judiciary Committee, court of Orders, truth press to the ground will rise again, and truth will be your kryptonite.
Holy smokes. So for the last couple years, really since the rise of AOC, there’s been this divide in the Democratic Party, right, between what I would call the Nancy Pelosi wing. Nancy Pelosi is still very liberal, very progressive, but her defining characteristic is actually her corruption, right? There’s been a divide between that wing, which I would call the establishment wing, and this new, I don’t even wanna call it a progressive wing, it’s more of this quote unquote Democratic socialist wing, this ideological wing, the dogmatically socialist wing of the Democratic Party. That’s the squad, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar Ianna Presley, AOC. And there’s this divide at first Nancy Pelosi, you could tell Nancy Pelosi was so annoyed at these upstarts, these young congresswomen who came into Congress, and instead of just towing the line and doing what Nancy Pelosi said, they started challenging her because they didn’t believe that she was radically leftist enough.
And at first, it seemed like, well, Nancy Pelosi is just going to force them to tow the line, blah, blah, blah. But they’ve gained incredible power. I would argue that the, the radical leftist wing, the squad wing of the Democratic party is actually more powerful than the establishment wing at this point. So when Nancy Pelosi said that she was stepping aside from democratic leadership because Democrats lost the house, she would no longer be speaker, when she stepped aside, it was really a question I was so curious about who would end up being chosen by the Democrats for their leadership role? Because that, I believe, is a reflection on the direction of the Democratic party. Are they going to course correct and move away from this Marxist wing of their party? Are they gonna just stick with, you know, generic old corruption like Nancy Pelosi, or are they gonna evolve past corruption and really embrace the Marxism and Hakeem Jeffries is the answer to that question.
I mean, first of all, to address a Supreme Court justice in this tone of voice shows that you don’t have respect for the institutions of our government. If you don’t have respect for the institutions of our government, then you really don’t belong serving in government. And I say that as someone who criticizes in sometimes a very blunt way, the actions of politicians, but there is still respect owed to the office that the very highest ranking government officials hold out of respect for our nation, even if you criticize their actions. That is not what Hakeem Jeffries displayed in this outburst. What he displayed was a viewpoint of demeaning an individual for disagreeing with him publicly in the House of Representatives to claim that Justice Thomas is a hater of civil rights and women’s rights and hater of free and fair elections, and hating on freedom and liberty and justice. It’s not only false, it’s really a disgusting. To attack his wife to his face, to say she refused to accept the results of the election, and to make it seem like this is an evil thing to do when he himself. We have these tweets. I wanna show these tweets on the screen right now. This is Hakeem Jeffries on February 16th, 2018. This is what he tweeted. The more we learn about 2016 election, the more illegitimate it becomes. America deserves to know, whether we have a fake president in the Oval Office hashtag Russian interference.
And he repeated this. This wasn’t just something from 2018 that he maybe has moved past four years later. No, no, on October 14th, 2022. That’s a little bit over one month ago. He said, we will never bend the knee to the election deniers who poison our democracy. So, which is it, Hakeem? Are you a poison to democracy because you question the outcome of an election? Or are you allowed to question the outcome of an election when there was electioneering and problematic behavior surrounding it because you’ve done both. So I think you need to pick a stand here, but this shows us what the Democratic Party is going to be. This shows us that beyond Biden, whether Biden runs again, whether he doesn’t, this is going to be the Democratic Congress. This is the strategy of not just the Biden Administration, but the whole Democratic apparatus right now is best exemplified by Biden’s Gates of Hell speech, right?
Where he called us all extreme MAGA, he called all Republicans essentially domestic terrorists. He vilified us and demonized us to the point where it’s almost like, I know that this is a bombastic phrase, and I don’t mean it in a bombastic way, but it’s almost civil war talk, right? This is how you so dehumanize your fellow citizen to condition a population to commit violence against each other. And that’s so wrong. It’s so bad, it’s so evil. It’s something that we all should reject from our politicians. Yet this is what Hakeem Jeffries, this is the narrative that Hakeem Jeffries buys into when he uses this same phrase, calling anybody who doesn’t vote for his party extremists.
The threat right now in this country, to the American people, are extreme MAGA Republicans. That’s the threat. That’s the problem. That’s the crisis that we confront, extreme MAGA Republicans. Why? They are extreme on reproductive freedom.
Okay? So we’re the threat to our country. In his words, it’s not an ideology. It’s not, it’s not a disagreement on policy. We as humans, us, your family, your friends, your children, your parents, your cousins, your spouse, extreme mega Republicans are a threat to our country. And the reason that he said that is because of our pro-life views. Because we believe that life begins a conception and that all people were made in the image of God, and that as living human beings inside their mother’s wombs, we have no right to kill those children. And that it’s brutal. It’s grotesque to murder those children, those vulnerable voiceless children who can’t speak out in their own defense. That makes us a threat to our nation. In fact, he called this belief, and it doesn’t even have to be a religious belief. I know I invoke God.
I’m openly Catholic. I share that with you guys all the time. Of course, my faith informs my politics in the way that I think. But there’s a purely secular scientific argument in favor of protecting unborn children in the womb. And that scientific argument is scientifically, life begins a conception. And from a constitutional standpoint, our government shouldn’t have the right, we don’t have the right constitutionally to pick and choose which demographic of people are worthy of being protected under our law, and which don’t. We’ve made that grievous error before in our nation, and it’s caused tremendous human rights abuses, and it was unconstitutional, it was wrong. And thank God we course-corrected in those instances. But this is a similar instance to that. When we have pre-born children who are not protected, who are targeted because of their developmental stage, or where they’re located inside their mother’s wombs, this is, this is a very problematic view. And there’s a, a constitutional, secular, scientific argument in favor of being pro-life, even if you’re not a religious person. But Hakeem Jeffries says that view of pro-life view is cultish.
Yes. You stand on the side of the Constitution or you stand on the side of the cult which wants to impose its values on the rest of us.
Cultish, it’s cultish. So we have our answer. We have our answer about the leadership of the Democratic Party, what their agenda is going to be, what they believe about us. They believe that we are cultish. They believe we’re a threat to the country. They believe we’re extreme. They’ve demonized us and vilified us. They’re attempting to dehumanize us. And what comes next? What’s the logical endpoint of this? Are they going to silence us, or are they going to socially ostracize us? Are they gonna prevent us from working? Are they gonna prevent us from accessing things that Democrats are allowed to access? Are they going to target us with the FBI or are they gonna throw us in jail? Or are they gonna deprive us of due process? What exactly, what exactly do they plan for us when their setup is the vilification and the dehumanization of who we are because our politics are different than theirs. I’ll tell you the answer to this. This is the hallmark of what authoritarian regimes do. This is the precursor to tyranny. This is what Marxism does to a people. This is what communist regimes inflict on citizens. This is what the Democratic Party plans for our nation. This is what the Democratic party plans for us. And Hakeem Jeffries has answered our question of what it is, the reality of the political enemy that we will be facing in Congress. We know what it is, thanks to the words of Hakeem Jeffries, and it’s not pretty.
Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show.