July 1, 2025 • 37 mins
The Supreme Court just issued a huge ruling against LGBTQ indoctrination in schools... and LGBT influencers are not taking it well. I break it all down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani gets exposed as a full-out communist, and Republicans make a strange critique of his eating habits.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So the Supreme Court has dropped a lot of really
terrible rulings, one of which is effectively imposing a don't
say gay regime on the entire country.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
The rulings is today is Today. That ends in why
so LGBT influencers are crashing out for no legitimate reason.
We're going to break down the latest ridiculous outrage and
meltdowns over a big Supreme Court case on LGBT indoctrination
(00:32):
in schools and so much more on today's episode of
The Barad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we
take on the craziest ideas across our media, the Internet,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective. Guys, I
don't know how exactly this shot will come out or
if you guys will like it any better than the
(00:53):
corner yesterday. I'm still doing my best. I need to
figure out what I'm going to do for a final
studio set up in my new apartment. Bear with me,
and just you know, the reflection over my shoulder is
the reflection of a ring light. It is not, in fact,
a looming planet or sun about to crash into the Earth.
(01:14):
Now without me yapping about more nonsense, let's talk about
our main story for today, which is the absolutely patently
absurd online meltdown over a new Supreme Court ruling that
requires opt outs for LGBTQ educational lessons in public schools
consistent with parents' religious objections. Here's some reporting from CNN
(01:38):
on the story as it broke.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
The Court sided with a group of religious Maryland parents
who want the option to keep their elementary age children
out of lessons involving books with LGBTQ content. President Trump
celebrated this as a win for the Court's conservative majority.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That's really ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools,
they lost control of their child, and this is a
tremendous victory for parents.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Now, before we get into the TikTok meltdowns, which are
unhinged even by TikTok standards, I think we need to
just square up about some of the facts of this case,
and in particular look at some of the books that
were involved. So, as the Supreme Court explained in the opinion,
which might shock you, I actually read, this all happened
(02:27):
when in twenty twenty two to twenty twenty three, that
academic school year, the Montgomery Board of Education in Maryland
introduced so called LGBTQ plus inclusive texts and rolled them
out in lesson plans. Now, originally they included an opt out,
a parental opt out, which they already have for some
(02:48):
other things, including i think their sex education courses, where
parents could fill out a form and have their child
not be present when these textbooks or texts were read
to the class. And it's important to note, guys, that
this was for very young children. This was specifically for
kindergarten through fifth grade that these books were approved. And
they originally did have this opt out, but then they
(03:11):
removed the op out option because so many people took it,
so many parents requested that their children be opted out
of this curriculum, which you'll understand why when you see it,
that it became unworkable, so they ended the option altogether.
As a result, a bunch of these religious parents sued.
This included actually not just like traditional Christian evangelicals, but
(03:34):
also Muslim parents. Hence why the name of the case
is Mahammud eat All versus Taylor, Mahammoud being a Muslim plaintiff.
So it was a diverse coalition that sued demanding opt
out to be reinstated, citing their religious freedom rights under
the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court just issued a
(03:55):
preliminary ruling in their favor. Now, unlike the people losing
their craft on TikTok, I actually read the opinion and
the dissent from Sonya sardamyor one of the liberal justices,
and I was very intrigued to know what exactly was
this LGBTQ plus inclusivity curriculum. Yes, it turns out its
(04:16):
progressive brainwashing propaganda. Shocker, this is my shocked face. So
one of the books that was approved again for K
through five education at this public school is called Intersectional Allies.
We Make Room for All, the brainchild of three women
of color sociologists. Intersectional Allies is a smooth, gleeful entry
(04:39):
into intersectional feminism. The nine interconnected characters proudly described themselves
in their backgrounds involving topics that range from a physical
disability to language brokering, offering an opportunity to take pride
in a personal story and connect to collective struggle for justice. Yeah,
that doesn't sound ideological or propagandistic at all that you
(05:02):
want to push intersectional feminist ideology on kindergarteners with a
picture book. The Supreme Court opinion included some excerpts from
this book that make it clear what we're dealing with here.
Intersectional Allies includes a page by page book discussion guide
that asserts, quote, when we are born, our gender is
(05:23):
often decided for us based on our sex, but at
any point in our lives, we can choose to identify
with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender. The discussion
guide explains that Kate, who is one of the nine
characters in this book and is a transgender child. The
discussion guide explains that Kate prefers the pronouns they, they
(05:46):
are them, and then asks the audience, which is impressionable
young elementary school students, what pronouns fit you best? So
where are not simply talking about books that like mention
a gay couple exciting? We are explicitly talking about ideological propaganda,
pushing confusing and incoherent and deeply controversial and ideological notions
(06:08):
about gender and sex onto people as young as kindergarteners
in public schools on the tax sparadim And they weren't
even allowing an opt out. Yes, and here's the second
book I want to take a look at. It's called
Born Ready, The True Story of a boy named Penelope.
This book is by Jody Patterson, activist and chair of
(06:29):
the Human Rights Campaign Foundation Board, who shares her transgender
son's experience in this important picture book about identity and acceptance.
Penelope knows that he's a boy and a ninja. The
problem is getting everyone else to realize it again. This
story is told from the perspective of Penelope, who at
one point says, if they would all stop and listen,
(06:52):
I tell them about me inside. I'm a boy. When
Penelope's mother later assures her that if you feel like
a boy, that's okay, Penelope responds, no, Mama, I don't
feel like a boy. I am a boy. Penelope's mother
then agrees that she is a boy, and Penelope says,
for the first time, my insides don't feel like fire.
They feel like warm, golden glove. Later, after the family
(07:15):
starts treating Penelope as a boy, Penelope's brother complains that
you can't become a boy, you have to be born one.
This comment draws a rebuke from Penelope's mother quote, not
everything needs to make sense. This is about love now.
You might be wondering, maybe these texts were introduced as
part of like a curriculum where these ideas would be
(07:36):
debated and discussed. Like this notion that young children really
can have a gender identity. All of this is deeply
ideological and controversial, but maybe like a defense of it
would be that, hey, they're just introducing these ideas and
then they're going to discuss them and debate them potentially,
But even then, I mean K through five, I don't
really buy that I could be convinced of that argument
(07:56):
for like high school or even late middle school potentially.
And more importantly, resources that were included in the case
make it quite clear that these were not lessons for
discussion or debate. There was one message and one agenda,
and then a wrong answer that teachers were instructed to
shut down if students espoused it. Reading from the Supreme
(08:18):
Court opinion here. The board also contemplated that instruction involving
the LGBTQ plus inclusive storybooks would include classroom discussion. In
anticipation of such discussion, the board hosted a professional development
workshop in the summer of twenty twenty two, where it
provided teachers with a guidance document suggesting how they might
respond to student inquiries regarding the themes presented in the books.
(08:41):
For example, if a student asserts that two men cannot
get married, the guidance document encourages teachers to respond by saying,
when people are adults, they can get married. Two men
who love each other can decide they want to get married.
If a student claims that a character can't be a
boy if he was born a girl, teachers were in
courage to respond quote that comment is hurtful. And if
(09:05):
a student asks what's transgender, it was recommended that teachers explain, quote,
when we're born, people make a guess about our gender
and label us boy or girl based on our body parts.
Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. So to me,
there's really no dispute that what we're dealing with here
(09:27):
is ideological propaganda being pushed onto kids in public school
classrooms at public school expense, and then parents not even
having the option to opt out of it. The Supreme
Court agrees that that is an unconstitutional infringement on their
free exercise of their religion, because bringing up your children
in a religious environment and your teachings is an important
(09:49):
part of your religious freedom and public schools are not
supposed to be pushing a alternative religion on them. But
you would think the Supreme Court had just banned gay
pe people from existing in American public life from the
reaction on TikTok and elsewhere to this decision that bordered
on outright hysterical. Let's take a look at the first
(10:12):
delusional TikTok response to this Supreme Court ruling from an
interesting individual who is a transgender woman.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
So the Supreme Court has dropped a lot of really
terrible rulings, one of which is effectively imposing a don't
say gay regime on the entire country. The ruling uses
religious freedom to require that parents be able to opt
their kids out of lessons that involve books with queer
people in them. Involve those books, how exactly mmm, whatever
(10:42):
is enough to make a bigot not like it? I
suppose they don't say, and that's on purpose. You might
be wondering, are opt outs really that bad? Yes they are.
This case exists in the first place because Montgomery County
Public schools could not keep up with the number of
opt out requests from bigoted parents and still be able
to act actually educate their students. So now the only
(11:03):
option left to schools like them will be to completely
eliminate LGBT people from all their lessons, a problem that
will only be exacerbated by the massive underfunding of schools
and the vagueness of this ruling. This increases the already
too high stigma and hatred and ostracization of LGBT people everywhere,
all across the nation, but especially the queer kids at school,
(11:24):
and it won't stop there, because the ruling creates a
precedent that says religious freedom is a good enough reason
to not allow schools to teach kids about people and
things that just exist in the world, even when we
know for a fact that doing so will cause harm
to other groups, the kids in class or society as
a whole. This religious supremacy precedent could be used to
(11:45):
band teaching things like evolution, or the idea that women
can be in the workforce, or probably that other religions exist.
Because we all know that the Supreme Court will ever
find use for this precedent when it aligns with their religion.
Trust me, this Court will find a way to weasel
out of standing by religious freedom when someone brings a
case that their religion requires an opt out for something
(12:06):
that these zelots want to force your children to learn.
These people don't care about consistency, they don't care about
rule of law, and they don't care about protecting children.
Their politics are just power and domination, and their only principle.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Is you, well she seems stable. I mean, there's so
many things wrong with what we just watched that I
hardly know where to begin. I mean, the first being
that don't say gay is not an accurate framing of
this case. This doesn't refer to things that can be discussed,
(12:43):
you know, in class or in school buildings just in general.
It doesn't say that you can't even mention gay rights
or gay people in history textbooks or in works of fiction.
It's just specifically about lessons pushing LGBTQ plus inclusivity as
a specif agenda item. And you would really think, and
(13:03):
so that's not the same thing as don't say gay.
It's really not. And you would kind of think if
you were a thinking person at least, that is that
if you in a community received so many opt out
requests for your lesson plan that you literally could not
manage them all, that might prompt some introspection that like,
(13:24):
maybe we're doing something wrong, maybe we're not serving our community, well,
the community that based taxes, that runs this whole operation
and funds us. But instead with people like this, they
just think, oh, in Maryland, there's a whole county full
of bigots. No, maybe you're just doing weird stuff that
is going too far. And the fact that so many
(13:47):
people want to opt out of this is like a
good sign that maybe you should not be doing it,
or at least not in this form. And I don't
understand how this person basically says like, oh, they're banning
teaching about this. They're banning teaching about again, this is
opt out. They're not even banning teaching about this, And frankly,
that would be defensible. We could have a whole other
(14:07):
conversation about that, but that would be defensible at this
point for some of this stuff. And then this notion
that oh, well, stuff like this increases stigma for LGBTQ
people across the nation. I just don't buy that. I
don't believe that the fact that third graders in public
(14:27):
schools won't be told that you can have they them
pronouns means I, as a gay person will face more
stigma or even that a trans person out in the world,
will you know, I actually think, if anything, it might
be the opposite that otherwise tolerant people may become resentful
of gay and trans people in general if they feel
(14:49):
their kids are being brainwashed with unreasonable and ridiculous ideas
by this community. And it wouldn't be fair to blame
people like me for that, because of course we don't
support it either, do a lot of like trans adults even,
But that is kind of the way the human brain works.
So if if one of these things was going to
increase stigma, it's not the opt outs, it's the lack
thereof like seriously, and it's just I mean, it's kind
(15:12):
of telling that this person really thinks that these conservative
Supreme Court justices their whole ideology is just f you. Yeah,
it couldn't be that they have just a different perspective
on like deeply held principles and conflicting questions of constitutional law. No,
it just must They just must be evil people like
(15:33):
that's to me the sign of a very closed mind.
Now I want to watch another TikTok video from a
very large like woke teacher on TikTok, who basically, I mean,
this response to this ruling is absolutely unhinged. Let's take
a look at his video pre.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
K Posky's parents. I'm about to piss you off right
now because you'll be teaching in the fall the Supreme course.
If you're an apter child of a lesson because it
goes against your religion, that's totally fine, totally agree. So
send them to in private school or and here's another
solution for you. If you want to opt you a
child of a lesson I created because it goes against
your bigotry, mind you a lesson that is age appropriate
and educational. Then you can wait for it. Homeschool them.
(16:13):
You can homeschool your child. There's the thing you're not
going to do because if you had to spend eight
hours a day teaching your child like I do, Oh,
you wouldn't do it, babes. It is that because you
don't know how to parent your own child to let
alone teach them and must be so really, you don't
use school as a place for them to get an education.
You use it as childcare. But here's the end. If
you don't homeschool them and don't send them in private school.
I'm not teaching two different lessons, and I'm not coming
(16:34):
up with two different lessons. So make sure come August
when you do your back to school shop and go
grab your Rosart crayons, go get yourself a red Make
America a Great Again book back because you're going back
to school. Because it's important to me that every student
in my classrome is represented. So if a child is
raised by their two dads, or their grandparents, or their
one mom or their immigrants, they are welcome in my
classume and they are going to learn about themselves. So
(16:54):
if you don't like my scholarly sourced, age appropriate empathetic
lessons out there, then you teach your own. Okay, you
teach your own. I'm a teacher and i'm a therapist. Baby,
I'm not a gymnast. I'm not bendin for you anyway.
School starts at seven thirty after Labor Day, so I'll
see you there.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Hey, so that was unhinged. Now. I don't know if
this guy is still a teacher, or if he's a
public school teacher, or if he's gone just like full
influencer mode instead and no longer actually teaches. I don't
know if he does teach, particularly in a public school.
I mean you should. He should instantly be fired. I
(17:32):
mean he just suggested that, like he in his classroom,
will defy the Supreme Court and continue in a practice
that has been adjudged to basically violate people's First Amendment rights. No,
you're a public servant. You work for the taxpayers. You
(17:53):
don't get to violate their rights and brag about it
on social media and keep your job like that's diabolical
to me in the same way this argument, Well, then
then send your kids to private school or homeschool if
you don't want to learn them to learn about gender
queer three year olds? Would they then pronouns is so
annoying and so absurd. No, they have a right to
(18:15):
access the public education that they are extensively taxed to
fund without their religious freedom being violated by you pushing
propaganda and not even letting them opt out. And they
don't have to just pay twice for education. Oh yeah,
also pay all these heavy taxes in Maryland and in
your local communities or wherever in the country, and also
(18:38):
pay private school tuition. A lot of people can't afford that,
and they don't have to same with homeschooling, a lot
of people can't afford to do that, and they don't
have to. They are forced to pay for these public schools.
So these public schools, and actually it's compulsory under Maryland
state law to send your child to school, so then
the schools have to actually serve them and accommodate their
(18:59):
constitutional rights. And if you refuse to comply with the
Constitution of the United States and our highest courts, you
should not be employed by any branch of the United
States government, or its state governments, or its local governments,
or anything of the sort. And I just thought this
was totally unhinged and smug and condescending and really really
(19:22):
gives LGBT a terrible name in this kind of perspective. Now,
I do think one critic, Mercedes Chandler, who used to
be MAGA but I think is a outspoken liberal now,
I thought she made an interesting, if slightly vulgar point.
Take a listen to this.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
I believe that a parent should be able to opt
out of a class, course or curriculum that they think
infringes on their freedom of religion. I believe that, Maggie.
You don't believe that because yes, your child now can
opt out of the storybook LGBTQ reading, that's fine, But
your child's classmates have to steer at the Ten Commandments
on the wall and then the next day have to
come in and start reading the goddamn Bible. I'm looking
(19:59):
at you, Texas. I live here and you find Oklahoma.
Speaker 7 (20:02):
Okay.
Speaker 6 (20:03):
This is my problem with things like the Supreme Court
ruling today is because we get these continual protections for
Christianity when we live in a nation that is freedom
of religion, which means freedom from religion, and that is
not being upheld. We have separation of church and state
for a fucking reason. So yes, if you get the
right to say, you know what, I don't want my
little Jimmy listening to the lgbt Hugh storybook, that is fine.
(20:26):
But you should also agree with that his classmates should
not have to be forced to stare at the Ten
Commandments every day when they walk into that school. You
should be okay with the fact that there's going to
be children who should be allowed to opt out of
Bible readings, but you don't want that. You want them
to be forced to read the Bible. You want them
to be forced to read the Ten Commandments. Well, you
opt your little Jimmy out of the classroom so that
he doesn't have to listen to the God Forbidden lgbt
(20:48):
Hugh storybook. That is my problem. It's the hypocrisy.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
So thank you for all the F bombs. I will
have to edit out one by one. They are Mercedes
And I don't necessarily agree with everything she said in this,
but I think she has a point in general that
if you tolerance is a two way street. So if
you are a Christian or a traditionalist Muslim and you
don't want your kids raised on, you know, or taught
(21:12):
this LGBTQ plus indoctrination in public schools, that's fine. I
support you, but you should also agree that, like your
religion shouldn't be pushed in the classroom either. And when
we come to the Ten Commandments, when we come to
Bibles being taught and introduced in not in like a
neutral way or a historical way, but in a way
that clearly pushes Christianity, you should also be against that
(21:36):
for consistency's sake. And I imagine that actually a lot
of my Republican or MAGA followers and listeners actually probably
would be. But to the ones who who aren't, I
do think there is a hypocrisy there that you should reconsider. Well,
what do you guys think? Can you believe the backlash
the Supreme Court case is getting it? Honestly, it just
(21:56):
seems like common sense to me. But I want to
hear from y'all. Do let me know what you think
in the comments below. Make sure you subscribe to this channel.
If you aren't yet, do hit that like button while
you're at it. Send in your voicemails with your woke
Carr stories or your personal life situations that you or
questions for me that you might have. Anything you want
my perspective on or my feedback on. Send those in
(22:18):
at the link in the description and I might just
listen to it this Friday for my voicemail Friday episodes. Now, guys,
we got to check in with Zo ron Mom Donnie,
the likely next mayor of New York City who won
the Democratic primary beat out Andrew Cuomo. You know, because
he's such a flawed candidate but has some really deeply
(22:38):
radical ideas that are coming to light and I want
to talk about. And this is a good example. So
Zo run really is full socialists. Take a listen to
what he said about billionaires.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
You are a self described democratic socialist.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?
I don't think that we should have billionaires because, frankly,
it is so much money in a moment of such inequality,
and ultimately, what we need more of is equality across
our city and across our state and across our country.
And I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires,
to make a city that is fairer for.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
All of them. What how like comical is it to
say billionaire shouldn't exist? And I look forward to working
with billionaires to build a better in New York City
when I'm mayor what you think they're going to want
to work with you when you don't think they should exist.
That would be like a politician saying I don't think
YouTubers should exist and I'm going to ban YouTube and
(23:39):
I look forward to working with YouTubers when I take office, Like,
we're not going to work with you, we're going to
oppose you, and if you win, we're going to relocate.
So that was just a bizarre kind of hypocrisy there,
or inconsistency there for me, And it gets at the
broader problem that listen. I can understand why people envious
(24:00):
of billionaires and the massive wealth that they enjoy, but
trying to destroy their existence through socialist policies in New
York City is only going to encourage them to relocate
out of New York City and take their tax revenue,
their spending, and all the economic contributions they provide, and
their businesses in some cases with them. So here's some
(24:23):
reporting from Olivia rein goold Over at the Free Press
about billionaires already telling her they're getting out of town
if Zorn becomes New York City's next mayor. To a
listen to her.
Speaker 7 (24:34):
Right now, there are so many people on Twitter angry
with me because of my latest story on Zoorn mom Donnie.
For the past week, I have been speaking with billionaires
for the Free Press about what they would do if
zooron Mom Donnie, a thirty three year old socialist, becomes
the next mayor of New York City, and many of
them told me that they would consider just leaving and
(24:55):
maybe even closing down their businesses. That is what the
CEO and owner of Gristadies, the local supermarket chain in Manhattan,
set so on Twitter I'm getting so many replies because
it's all people celebrating, saying good leave, we don't want
billionaires here. The problem with that is that Zohron's agenda
(25:16):
is very, very expensive. His housing plan alone would cost
one hundred billion dollars. The size of the city's entire
budget is one hundred and ten billion dollars, to give
you some scale. Doron's plans hinge upon the ability to
hike up taxes on the one percent on corporations. But
what he's failing to consider is what if they just leave?
(25:37):
Because several billionaires this week told me they would consider that.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
So I think this is the most obvious counter argument
against Zooran's plan to eliminate billionaires in New York City
or whatever. That it will work, just not in the
way he wants it to work, like he envisions a
scenario where he can take all their money and redistribute
it to his socialist ends and help the peopeople. In reality,
(26:01):
they're just going to leave, and the portion of their
money in the economic activity that already was being contributed
to the city and its people will go with especially
because I mean, you can use accountancy and tricks and
loops in the tax code to still live somewhere for
five and a half months out of the year, but
technically you live somewhere else for six and a half months,
so that's where you pay your taxes. You can do
(26:22):
business in other places, like, there's so many ways to
get around this. They wouldn't even have to entirely abandon
New York City to do it.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
Now.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
The other problem there is that this would really any
sort of punitive policy designed to destroy billionaires would destroy
incentives as well for them to continue to work and
produce or invest and expand companies past a certain point,
and would have all sorts of economic impacts that are
harmful for people. And it's all based on, I think
(26:51):
a fundamentally flawed premise that we need to obsess about
income inequality. I actually think that's truly secondary, and what
matters is people's objective living standards, not arbitrary comparisons to
other people. Like with a lot of these billionaires, for example,
their wealth is mostly in stocks and in the value
(27:12):
of the companies that they own, and so their wealth
massively fluctuates with the stock market, and depending on when
you measure it, inequality may be way more severe one day,
you know, the wealth of one of these billionaires versus
the average New Yorker versus a few weeks later, if
the stock market goes down a lot and they lose
(27:35):
all this wealth. Inequality is if you measured it that
day much lower. In reality, like your life hasn't changed.
Your life is not worse or better, even though inequality
metrics would be totally different. There is something to be
said about inequality in terms of, like the people in
your life around you not having some effect socially and economically.
I'm not saying it's totally insignificant, but the idea that
(27:58):
you are worse off because some other person, like one
individual billionaire, has a lot of money, is just not true.
It doesn't affect your life, and if anything, oftentimes, I'm
not saying all billionaires are good. There's certainly bad ways
to become a billionaire, but oftentimes someone becomes a billionaire.
Look at Jeff Bezos for doing something amazing for society,
(28:19):
for creating untold thousands or if even millions indirectly of
jobs and tremendous value for people who use the services
every day. And so yeah, sure he made a ton
of money, but if anything, the wealth he contributed to
all of society is exponentially greater. And the huge amount
of tax revenue that his companies and I'm sure him
personally have put it back into the economy and local
(28:42):
governments is massive as well. Also, it just fundamentally comes
down to kind of a question of human freedom for me, Like,
I really don't think the government should be able to
decide how much money people are allowed to earn or have. Like, no,
they set up rules that are fair so they can't
(29:02):
hurt other people while they're enriching themselves. But beyond that,
if people keep succeeding past a certain point, the government
shouldn't be like, no, you can't. We don't allow that
to exist. And they would do this through like a
ninety percent top marginal income tax rate or a massive
wealth tax or something like that. And so what would
happen is nobody's going to keep working once they hit
(29:25):
that tax rate, nobody's going to keep investing once they
hit this punitively high tax rate. So it's just the
economic activity past that point won't occur. And they want
us to believe that we'll all be better off. I
just don't buy it. Now. The strongest argument that I've
heard against billionaires, at least on this surface, is that
we can't allow in a democratic society individuals to have
(29:46):
the amount of power that a billionaire has, because they
can influence our politics with all their money and what
have you. And I'm skeptical of concentrated power mainly in
the government, but also in individuals and in private institutions.
So that is compelling to me on the surface. But
I guess one I would say, a government powerful enough
(30:08):
to prevent billionaires existing is already a bigger problem than
any individual billionaire. And are they even that powerful? Can
they really control and dominate our politics? I don't think so,
first and foremost, because there are billionaires and super wealthy
people on either side of the aisle. Funding causes to
(30:30):
both extremes, so they're in competition with each other, and
clearly neither just gets whatever they want. I mean, look
at Elon Musk. He is currently crashing out right now
and attacking Trump and attacking Republicans because they're passing a
massive budget bill that he doesn't like and he's unhappy with.
After he funded all their campaigns and give them so
much money and supported them, and they were like, Nah,
(30:51):
we're not doing what you want. We're going to do
what we think we need to do. So I just
don't accept this idea that like money is everything in
politics and the which people control all our political system.
If that was true, Michael Bloomberg would have been the
Democratic nominee in twenty twenty, right, Like he came in,
he injected himself in and spent all this money and
(31:11):
then it didn't get the nomination. It's just money in
politics is not a nonexistent thing, but it's vastly overhyped
because at the end of the day, people care about
votes from voters. I just don't buy that. I think
it's probably the most compelling argument they have, but I
just it still doesn't work for me. Now still, I
will say that I'm really concerned by Zoorn, especially because
(31:35):
it's not just you know, him wanting billionaires to not exist.
He's a full out Marxist. He's a communist. I mean,
listen to this clip of him saying so that explicitly
their goal is to seize the means of production, which
is like just straight out of definition of what Marxism is.
Take a listen to this, what the.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
Purpose is about this entire project. It's not simply to
raise clash consciousness, but to win socialism, and obviously raising
class consciousness is a critical part of that, but making
sure that we have candidates that both understand that and
are willing to put that forward at every which moment
that they have, at every which opportunity that they are given.
We have to continue to elect more socialists, and we
(32:16):
have to ensure that we are unapologetic about our socialism.
There are also other issues that we firmly believe in,
whether it's BDS right or whether it's the end goal
of seizing the means of production, where we do not
have the same level of support at this very moment.
And what I want to say is that it is
(32:36):
critical the way that we organize, that we set up
our you know, set up our work and our priorities,
that we do not leave any one issue for the other,
that we do not meet a moment and only look
at what people are ready for, but that we are
doing both of these things in tandem, because it is
critical for us to both meet people where they're at
(32:58):
and to also organizing organis for what is correct and
for what is right, and to ensure that over time
we can bring people to that issue.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
So we're not talking about a social democrat here or
some like liberal who just wants a little more taxes,
a little more regulation, a little more redistribution of wealth.
We're talking about a Marxist. We're talking about somebody who
openly supports one of the most destructive ideologies in human
history that costs untold millions of lives and devastation in
(33:26):
the twentieth century. That is concerning. I really don't think
anyone with those views should be anywhere near political power.
I just don't, and that all of that criticism is
entirely legitimate against him. But you know, it's not, though,
like the weird and vaguely racist things that people are
nitpicking him over. For example, he's getting attacked right now,
(33:47):
including by elected Republican politicians, for daring to eat rice
with his hands during an interview. Let's take a look
at the club.
Speaker 6 (33:58):
So the third holy grail of taboos in American politics.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
You have socialism of Islam and then you have Palestine.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
And you are really going for the trifecta.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
Let's go, baby, let's go tell me why is Palistine
a part of your politics?
Speaker 4 (34:12):
When you grow up as someone, especially in the Third World,
you have a very different understanding of the palace and struggle.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
So this clip was shared by the end Wokeness account
that says zo Ron says his worldview is inspired by
the Third World while eating rice with his hands, And
it was clearly kind of shared with the idea that
it is bad to do this or it is crazy.
And I do find it kind of funny that an
end wokeness account is like so offended by the manner
(34:42):
in which someone consumes a rice. But I digress. The
Republican Congressman Brandon gil saw this video and tweeted, civilized
people in America don't eat like this. If you refuse
to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World, sir,
(35:03):
I would like to humbly suggest that you calm down.
It is really not that deep. It is really not
that important. Like, who actually gives a shit if someone
eats rice with their hands. That's not something I would
do it. It's a little odd, I guess, But how
is that significant? And how is it like so much
(35:26):
worse than all the food that we Americans regularly in
American society eat with our hands, Like you're telling me
it's worse to eat rice with your hands, sticky rice,
than it is to eat ribs that'll get you all
sticky and messy, or pizza in your hands will get
all greasy. If the if like hygiene is the concern,
I just don't see that. And it is weird because
(35:47):
you're like suggesting that he leave the country over the
way he eats a certain food in one random clip,
Like it's just not that deep, and there's something about
it that's vaguely comes off as racist. I'm just telling
you it does. Now I will. And also I just
think it's a waste of time, Like this is the
(36:09):
guy who says we need to defund the police for
queer liberation. This is the guy who is an open
Marxist who wants to seize the means of production. And
y'all can't do better than this, y'all, seriously, this is
what Republicans are. I mean, not all of them, but
some of them are wasting energy on it's just stupid
and dumb. And obviously, now, if you wanted to make
(36:31):
a more serious critique of Zoran in this clip, again,
who cares. But if you wanted to what you could
actually point out is that he's kind of cost playing,
like he's eating this with his hands, because apparently that's
what they do in some other nations. And he claims that,
you know, he grew up in the Third World, but
he had extraordinarily you know, successful and affluent parents, and
he came to America at like age seven, So he's
(36:51):
almost like costplaying and leaning into this in a way
that's not authentic. Maybe that would be a more legitimate critique,
but just acting like he's some savage subhuman because he
dared eat rice with his hands, even though that's the
thing people do in a lot of the world. And
it's really not that deep. It's just totally tone deaf
and bizarre to me and incredibly lame. But what do
(37:14):
you guys think? Do you stay up at night because
somewhere a socialist politician is eating rice with his hands?
Let me know in the comments. Please do make sure
you're subscribed if you aren't yet, I do with that
like button before you go. And that'll be it for
today's episode of the Barad Versus Everyone podcast. I had
more I wanted to get to, but we ran over time,
(37:36):
and I guess we'll be back at it tomorrow. So
with that, guys, we'll talk again real soon.
So the Supreme Court has dropped a lot of really
terrible rulings, one of which is effectively imposing a don't
say gay regime on the entire country.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
The rulings is today is Today. That ends in why
so LGBT influencers are crashing out for no legitimate reason.
We're going to break down the latest ridiculous outrage and
meltdowns over a big Supreme Court case on LGBT indoctrination
(00:32):
in schools and so much more on today's episode of
The Barad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we
take on the craziest ideas across our media, the Internet,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective. Guys, I
don't know how exactly this shot will come out or
if you guys will like it any better than the
(00:53):
corner yesterday. I'm still doing my best. I need to
figure out what I'm going to do for a final
studio set up in my new apartment. Bear with me,
and just you know, the reflection over my shoulder is
the reflection of a ring light. It is not, in fact,
a looming planet or sun about to crash into the Earth.
(01:14):
Now without me yapping about more nonsense, let's talk about
our main story for today, which is the absolutely patently
absurd online meltdown over a new Supreme Court ruling that
requires opt outs for LGBTQ educational lessons in public schools
consistent with parents' religious objections. Here's some reporting from CNN
(01:38):
on the story as it broke.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
The Court sided with a group of religious Maryland parents
who want the option to keep their elementary age children
out of lessons involving books with LGBTQ content. President Trump
celebrated this as a win for the Court's conservative majority.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That's really ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools,
they lost control of their child, and this is a
tremendous victory for parents.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Now, before we get into the TikTok meltdowns, which are
unhinged even by TikTok standards, I think we need to
just square up about some of the facts of this case,
and in particular look at some of the books that
were involved. So, as the Supreme Court explained in the opinion,
which might shock you, I actually read, this all happened
(02:27):
when in twenty twenty two to twenty twenty three, that
academic school year, the Montgomery Board of Education in Maryland
introduced so called LGBTQ plus inclusive texts and rolled them
out in lesson plans. Now, originally they included an opt out,
a parental opt out, which they already have for some
(02:48):
other things, including i think their sex education courses, where
parents could fill out a form and have their child
not be present when these textbooks or texts were read
to the class. And it's important to note, guys, that
this was for very young children. This was specifically for
kindergarten through fifth grade that these books were approved. And
they originally did have this opt out, but then they
(03:11):
removed the op out option because so many people took it,
so many parents requested that their children be opted out
of this curriculum, which you'll understand why when you see it,
that it became unworkable, so they ended the option altogether.
As a result, a bunch of these religious parents sued.
This included actually not just like traditional Christian evangelicals, but
(03:34):
also Muslim parents. Hence why the name of the case
is Mahammud eat All versus Taylor, Mahammoud being a Muslim plaintiff.
So it was a diverse coalition that sued demanding opt
out to be reinstated, citing their religious freedom rights under
the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court just issued a
(03:55):
preliminary ruling in their favor. Now, unlike the people losing
their craft on TikTok, I actually read the opinion and
the dissent from Sonya sardamyor one of the liberal justices,
and I was very intrigued to know what exactly was
this LGBTQ plus inclusivity curriculum. Yes, it turns out its
(04:16):
progressive brainwashing propaganda. Shocker, this is my shocked face. So
one of the books that was approved again for K
through five education at this public school is called Intersectional Allies.
We Make Room for All, the brainchild of three women
of color sociologists. Intersectional Allies is a smooth, gleeful entry
(04:39):
into intersectional feminism. The nine interconnected characters proudly described themselves
in their backgrounds involving topics that range from a physical
disability to language brokering, offering an opportunity to take pride
in a personal story and connect to collective struggle for justice. Yeah,
that doesn't sound ideological or propagandistic at all that you
(05:02):
want to push intersectional feminist ideology on kindergarteners with a
picture book. The Supreme Court opinion included some excerpts from
this book that make it clear what we're dealing with here.
Intersectional Allies includes a page by page book discussion guide
that asserts, quote, when we are born, our gender is
(05:23):
often decided for us based on our sex, but at
any point in our lives, we can choose to identify
with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender. The discussion
guide explains that Kate, who is one of the nine
characters in this book and is a transgender child. The
discussion guide explains that Kate prefers the pronouns they, they
(05:46):
are them, and then asks the audience, which is impressionable
young elementary school students, what pronouns fit you best? So
where are not simply talking about books that like mention
a gay couple exciting? We are explicitly talking about ideological propaganda,
pushing confusing and incoherent and deeply controversial and ideological notions
(06:08):
about gender and sex onto people as young as kindergarteners
in public schools on the tax sparadim And they weren't
even allowing an opt out. Yes, and here's the second
book I want to take a look at. It's called
Born Ready, The True Story of a boy named Penelope.
This book is by Jody Patterson, activist and chair of
(06:29):
the Human Rights Campaign Foundation Board, who shares her transgender
son's experience in this important picture book about identity and acceptance.
Penelope knows that he's a boy and a ninja. The
problem is getting everyone else to realize it again. This
story is told from the perspective of Penelope, who at
one point says, if they would all stop and listen,
(06:52):
I tell them about me inside. I'm a boy. When
Penelope's mother later assures her that if you feel like
a boy, that's okay, Penelope responds, no, Mama, I don't
feel like a boy. I am a boy. Penelope's mother
then agrees that she is a boy, and Penelope says,
for the first time, my insides don't feel like fire.
They feel like warm, golden glove. Later, after the family
(07:15):
starts treating Penelope as a boy, Penelope's brother complains that
you can't become a boy, you have to be born one.
This comment draws a rebuke from Penelope's mother quote, not
everything needs to make sense. This is about love now.
You might be wondering, maybe these texts were introduced as
part of like a curriculum where these ideas would be
(07:36):
debated and discussed. Like this notion that young children really
can have a gender identity. All of this is deeply
ideological and controversial, but maybe like a defense of it
would be that, hey, they're just introducing these ideas and
then they're going to discuss them and debate them potentially,
But even then, I mean K through five, I don't
really buy that I could be convinced of that argument
(07:56):
for like high school or even late middle school potentially.
And more importantly, resources that were included in the case
make it quite clear that these were not lessons for
discussion or debate. There was one message and one agenda,
and then a wrong answer that teachers were instructed to
shut down if students espoused it. Reading from the Supreme
(08:18):
Court opinion here. The board also contemplated that instruction involving
the LGBTQ plus inclusive storybooks would include classroom discussion. In
anticipation of such discussion, the board hosted a professional development
workshop in the summer of twenty twenty two, where it
provided teachers with a guidance document suggesting how they might
respond to student inquiries regarding the themes presented in the books.
(08:41):
For example, if a student asserts that two men cannot
get married, the guidance document encourages teachers to respond by saying,
when people are adults, they can get married. Two men
who love each other can decide they want to get married.
If a student claims that a character can't be a
boy if he was born a girl, teachers were in
courage to respond quote that comment is hurtful. And if
(09:05):
a student asks what's transgender, it was recommended that teachers explain, quote,
when we're born, people make a guess about our gender
and label us boy or girl based on our body parts.
Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. So to me,
there's really no dispute that what we're dealing with here
(09:27):
is ideological propaganda being pushed onto kids in public school
classrooms at public school expense, and then parents not even
having the option to opt out of it. The Supreme
Court agrees that that is an unconstitutional infringement on their
free exercise of their religion, because bringing up your children
in a religious environment and your teachings is an important
(09:49):
part of your religious freedom and public schools are not
supposed to be pushing a alternative religion on them. But
you would think the Supreme Court had just banned gay
pe people from existing in American public life from the
reaction on TikTok and elsewhere to this decision that bordered
on outright hysterical. Let's take a look at the first
(10:12):
delusional TikTok response to this Supreme Court ruling from an
interesting individual who is a transgender woman.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
So the Supreme Court has dropped a lot of really
terrible rulings, one of which is effectively imposing a don't
say gay regime on the entire country. The ruling uses
religious freedom to require that parents be able to opt
their kids out of lessons that involve books with queer
people in them. Involve those books, how exactly mmm, whatever
(10:42):
is enough to make a bigot not like it? I
suppose they don't say, and that's on purpose. You might
be wondering, are opt outs really that bad? Yes they are.
This case exists in the first place because Montgomery County
Public schools could not keep up with the number of
opt out requests from bigoted parents and still be able
to act actually educate their students. So now the only
(11:03):
option left to schools like them will be to completely
eliminate LGBT people from all their lessons, a problem that
will only be exacerbated by the massive underfunding of schools
and the vagueness of this ruling. This increases the already
too high stigma and hatred and ostracization of LGBT people everywhere,
all across the nation, but especially the queer kids at school,
(11:24):
and it won't stop there, because the ruling creates a
precedent that says religious freedom is a good enough reason
to not allow schools to teach kids about people and
things that just exist in the world, even when we
know for a fact that doing so will cause harm
to other groups, the kids in class or society as
a whole. This religious supremacy precedent could be used to
(11:45):
band teaching things like evolution, or the idea that women
can be in the workforce, or probably that other religions exist.
Because we all know that the Supreme Court will ever
find use for this precedent when it aligns with their religion.
Trust me, this Court will find a way to weasel
out of standing by religious freedom when someone brings a
case that their religion requires an opt out for something
(12:06):
that these zelots want to force your children to learn.
These people don't care about consistency, they don't care about
rule of law, and they don't care about protecting children.
Their politics are just power and domination, and their only principle.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Is you, well she seems stable. I mean, there's so
many things wrong with what we just watched that I
hardly know where to begin. I mean, the first being
that don't say gay is not an accurate framing of
this case. This doesn't refer to things that can be discussed,
(12:43):
you know, in class or in school buildings just in general.
It doesn't say that you can't even mention gay rights
or gay people in history textbooks or in works of fiction.
It's just specifically about lessons pushing LGBTQ plus inclusivity as
a specif agenda item. And you would really think, and
(13:03):
so that's not the same thing as don't say gay.
It's really not. And you would kind of think if
you were a thinking person at least, that is that
if you in a community received so many opt out
requests for your lesson plan that you literally could not
manage them all, that might prompt some introspection that like,
(13:24):
maybe we're doing something wrong, maybe we're not serving our community, well,
the community that based taxes, that runs this whole operation
and funds us. But instead with people like this, they
just think, oh, in Maryland, there's a whole county full
of bigots. No, maybe you're just doing weird stuff that
is going too far. And the fact that so many
(13:47):
people want to opt out of this is like a
good sign that maybe you should not be doing it,
or at least not in this form. And I don't
understand how this person basically says like, oh, they're banning
teaching about this. They're banning teaching about again, this is
opt out. They're not even banning teaching about this, And frankly,
that would be defensible. We could have a whole other
(14:07):
conversation about that, but that would be defensible at this
point for some of this stuff. And then this notion
that oh, well, stuff like this increases stigma for LGBTQ
people across the nation. I just don't buy that. I
don't believe that the fact that third graders in public
(14:27):
schools won't be told that you can have they them
pronouns means I, as a gay person will face more
stigma or even that a trans person out in the world,
will you know, I actually think, if anything, it might
be the opposite that otherwise tolerant people may become resentful
of gay and trans people in general if they feel
(14:49):
their kids are being brainwashed with unreasonable and ridiculous ideas
by this community. And it wouldn't be fair to blame
people like me for that, because of course we don't
support it either, do a lot of like trans adults even,
But that is kind of the way the human brain works.
So if if one of these things was going to
increase stigma, it's not the opt outs, it's the lack
thereof like seriously, and it's just I mean, it's kind
(15:12):
of telling that this person really thinks that these conservative
Supreme Court justices their whole ideology is just f you. Yeah,
it couldn't be that they have just a different perspective
on like deeply held principles and conflicting questions of constitutional law. No,
it just must They just must be evil people like
(15:33):
that's to me the sign of a very closed mind.
Now I want to watch another TikTok video from a
very large like woke teacher on TikTok, who basically, I mean,
this response to this ruling is absolutely unhinged. Let's take
a look at his video pre.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
K Posky's parents. I'm about to piss you off right
now because you'll be teaching in the fall the Supreme course.
If you're an apter child of a lesson because it
goes against your religion, that's totally fine, totally agree. So
send them to in private school or and here's another
solution for you. If you want to opt you a
child of a lesson I created because it goes against
your bigotry, mind you a lesson that is age appropriate
and educational. Then you can wait for it. Homeschool them.
(16:13):
You can homeschool your child. There's the thing you're not
going to do because if you had to spend eight
hours a day teaching your child like I do, Oh,
you wouldn't do it, babes. It is that because you
don't know how to parent your own child to let
alone teach them and must be so really, you don't
use school as a place for them to get an education.
You use it as childcare. But here's the end. If
you don't homeschool them and don't send them in private school.
I'm not teaching two different lessons, and I'm not coming
(16:34):
up with two different lessons. So make sure come August
when you do your back to school shop and go
grab your Rosart crayons, go get yourself a red Make
America a Great Again book back because you're going back
to school. Because it's important to me that every student
in my classrome is represented. So if a child is
raised by their two dads, or their grandparents, or their
one mom or their immigrants, they are welcome in my
classume and they are going to learn about themselves. So
(16:54):
if you don't like my scholarly sourced, age appropriate empathetic
lessons out there, then you teach your own. Okay, you
teach your own. I'm a teacher and i'm a therapist. Baby,
I'm not a gymnast. I'm not bendin for you anyway.
School starts at seven thirty after Labor Day, so I'll
see you there.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Hey, so that was unhinged. Now. I don't know if
this guy is still a teacher, or if he's a
public school teacher, or if he's gone just like full
influencer mode instead and no longer actually teaches. I don't
know if he does teach, particularly in a public school.
I mean you should. He should instantly be fired. I
(17:32):
mean he just suggested that, like he in his classroom,
will defy the Supreme Court and continue in a practice
that has been adjudged to basically violate people's First Amendment rights. No,
you're a public servant. You work for the taxpayers. You
(17:53):
don't get to violate their rights and brag about it
on social media and keep your job like that's diabolical
to me in the same way this argument, Well, then
then send your kids to private school or homeschool if
you don't want to learn them to learn about gender
queer three year olds? Would they then pronouns is so
annoying and so absurd. No, they have a right to
(18:15):
access the public education that they are extensively taxed to
fund without their religious freedom being violated by you pushing
propaganda and not even letting them opt out. And they
don't have to just pay twice for education. Oh yeah,
also pay all these heavy taxes in Maryland and in
your local communities or wherever in the country, and also
(18:38):
pay private school tuition. A lot of people can't afford that,
and they don't have to same with homeschooling, a lot
of people can't afford to do that, and they don't
have to. They are forced to pay for these public schools.
So these public schools, and actually it's compulsory under Maryland
state law to send your child to school, so then
the schools have to actually serve them and accommodate their
(18:59):
constitutional rights. And if you refuse to comply with the
Constitution of the United States and our highest courts, you
should not be employed by any branch of the United
States government, or its state governments, or its local governments,
or anything of the sort. And I just thought this
was totally unhinged and smug and condescending and really really
(19:22):
gives LGBT a terrible name in this kind of perspective. Now,
I do think one critic, Mercedes Chandler, who used to
be MAGA but I think is a outspoken liberal now,
I thought she made an interesting, if slightly vulgar point.
Take a listen to this.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
I believe that a parent should be able to opt
out of a class, course or curriculum that they think
infringes on their freedom of religion. I believe that, Maggie.
You don't believe that because yes, your child now can
opt out of the storybook LGBTQ reading, that's fine, But
your child's classmates have to steer at the Ten Commandments
on the wall and then the next day have to
come in and start reading the goddamn Bible. I'm looking
(19:59):
at you, Texas. I live here and you find Oklahoma.
Speaker 7 (20:02):
Okay.
Speaker 6 (20:03):
This is my problem with things like the Supreme Court
ruling today is because we get these continual protections for
Christianity when we live in a nation that is freedom
of religion, which means freedom from religion, and that is
not being upheld. We have separation of church and state
for a fucking reason. So yes, if you get the
right to say, you know what, I don't want my
little Jimmy listening to the lgbt Hugh storybook, that is fine.
(20:26):
But you should also agree with that his classmates should
not have to be forced to stare at the Ten
Commandments every day when they walk into that school. You
should be okay with the fact that there's going to
be children who should be allowed to opt out of
Bible readings, but you don't want that. You want them
to be forced to read the Bible. You want them
to be forced to read the Ten Commandments. Well, you
opt your little Jimmy out of the classroom so that
he doesn't have to listen to the God Forbidden lgbt
(20:48):
Hugh storybook. That is my problem. It's the hypocrisy.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
So thank you for all the F bombs. I will
have to edit out one by one. They are Mercedes
And I don't necessarily agree with everything she said in this,
but I think she has a point in general that
if you tolerance is a two way street. So if
you are a Christian or a traditionalist Muslim and you
don't want your kids raised on, you know, or taught
(21:12):
this LGBTQ plus indoctrination in public schools, that's fine. I
support you, but you should also agree that, like your
religion shouldn't be pushed in the classroom either. And when
we come to the Ten Commandments, when we come to
Bibles being taught and introduced in not in like a
neutral way or a historical way, but in a way
that clearly pushes Christianity, you should also be against that
(21:36):
for consistency's sake. And I imagine that actually a lot
of my Republican or MAGA followers and listeners actually probably
would be. But to the ones who who aren't, I
do think there is a hypocrisy there that you should reconsider. Well,
what do you guys think? Can you believe the backlash
the Supreme Court case is getting it? Honestly, it just
(21:56):
seems like common sense to me. But I want to
hear from y'all. Do let me know what you think
in the comments below. Make sure you subscribe to this channel.
If you aren't yet, do hit that like button while
you're at it. Send in your voicemails with your woke
Carr stories or your personal life situations that you or
questions for me that you might have. Anything you want
my perspective on or my feedback on. Send those in
(22:18):
at the link in the description and I might just
listen to it this Friday for my voicemail Friday episodes. Now, guys,
we got to check in with Zo ron Mom Donnie,
the likely next mayor of New York City who won
the Democratic primary beat out Andrew Cuomo. You know, because
he's such a flawed candidate but has some really deeply
(22:38):
radical ideas that are coming to light and I want
to talk about. And this is a good example. So
Zo run really is full socialists. Take a listen to
what he said about billionaires.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
You are a self described democratic socialist.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?
I don't think that we should have billionaires because, frankly,
it is so much money in a moment of such inequality,
and ultimately, what we need more of is equality across
our city and across our state and across our country.
And I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires,
to make a city that is fairer for.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
All of them. What how like comical is it to
say billionaire shouldn't exist? And I look forward to working
with billionaires to build a better in New York City
when I'm mayor what you think they're going to want
to work with you when you don't think they should exist.
That would be like a politician saying I don't think
YouTubers should exist and I'm going to ban YouTube and
(23:39):
I look forward to working with YouTubers when I take office, Like,
we're not going to work with you, we're going to
oppose you, and if you win, we're going to relocate.
So that was just a bizarre kind of hypocrisy there,
or inconsistency there for me, And it gets at the
broader problem that listen. I can understand why people envious
(24:00):
of billionaires and the massive wealth that they enjoy, but
trying to destroy their existence through socialist policies in New
York City is only going to encourage them to relocate
out of New York City and take their tax revenue,
their spending, and all the economic contributions they provide, and
their businesses in some cases with them. So here's some
(24:23):
reporting from Olivia rein goold Over at the Free Press
about billionaires already telling her they're getting out of town
if Zorn becomes New York City's next mayor. To a
listen to her.
Speaker 7 (24:34):
Right now, there are so many people on Twitter angry
with me because of my latest story on Zoorn mom Donnie.
For the past week, I have been speaking with billionaires
for the Free Press about what they would do if
zooron Mom Donnie, a thirty three year old socialist, becomes
the next mayor of New York City, and many of
them told me that they would consider just leaving and
(24:55):
maybe even closing down their businesses. That is what the
CEO and owner of Gristadies, the local supermarket chain in Manhattan,
set so on Twitter I'm getting so many replies because
it's all people celebrating, saying good leave, we don't want
billionaires here. The problem with that is that Zohron's agenda
(25:16):
is very, very expensive. His housing plan alone would cost
one hundred billion dollars. The size of the city's entire
budget is one hundred and ten billion dollars, to give
you some scale. Doron's plans hinge upon the ability to
hike up taxes on the one percent on corporations. But
what he's failing to consider is what if they just leave?
(25:37):
Because several billionaires this week told me they would consider that.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
So I think this is the most obvious counter argument
against Zooran's plan to eliminate billionaires in New York City
or whatever. That it will work, just not in the
way he wants it to work, like he envisions a
scenario where he can take all their money and redistribute
it to his socialist ends and help the peopeople. In reality,
(26:01):
they're just going to leave, and the portion of their
money in the economic activity that already was being contributed
to the city and its people will go with especially
because I mean, you can use accountancy and tricks and
loops in the tax code to still live somewhere for
five and a half months out of the year, but
technically you live somewhere else for six and a half months,
so that's where you pay your taxes. You can do
(26:22):
business in other places, like, there's so many ways to
get around this. They wouldn't even have to entirely abandon
New York City to do it.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
Now.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
The other problem there is that this would really any
sort of punitive policy designed to destroy billionaires would destroy
incentives as well for them to continue to work and
produce or invest and expand companies past a certain point,
and would have all sorts of economic impacts that are
harmful for people. And it's all based on, I think
(26:51):
a fundamentally flawed premise that we need to obsess about
income inequality. I actually think that's truly secondary, and what
matters is people's objective living standards, not arbitrary comparisons to
other people. Like with a lot of these billionaires, for example,
their wealth is mostly in stocks and in the value
(27:12):
of the companies that they own, and so their wealth
massively fluctuates with the stock market, and depending on when
you measure it, inequality may be way more severe one day,
you know, the wealth of one of these billionaires versus
the average New Yorker versus a few weeks later, if
the stock market goes down a lot and they lose
(27:35):
all this wealth. Inequality is if you measured it that
day much lower. In reality, like your life hasn't changed.
Your life is not worse or better, even though inequality
metrics would be totally different. There is something to be
said about inequality in terms of, like the people in
your life around you not having some effect socially and economically.
I'm not saying it's totally insignificant, but the idea that
(27:58):
you are worse off because some other person, like one
individual billionaire, has a lot of money, is just not true.
It doesn't affect your life, and if anything, oftentimes, I'm
not saying all billionaires are good. There's certainly bad ways
to become a billionaire, but oftentimes someone becomes a billionaire.
Look at Jeff Bezos for doing something amazing for society,
(28:19):
for creating untold thousands or if even millions indirectly of
jobs and tremendous value for people who use the services
every day. And so yeah, sure he made a ton
of money, but if anything, the wealth he contributed to
all of society is exponentially greater. And the huge amount
of tax revenue that his companies and I'm sure him
personally have put it back into the economy and local
(28:42):
governments is massive as well. Also, it just fundamentally comes
down to kind of a question of human freedom for me, Like,
I really don't think the government should be able to
decide how much money people are allowed to earn or have. Like, no,
they set up rules that are fair so they can't
(29:02):
hurt other people while they're enriching themselves. But beyond that,
if people keep succeeding past a certain point, the government
shouldn't be like, no, you can't. We don't allow that
to exist. And they would do this through like a
ninety percent top marginal income tax rate or a massive
wealth tax or something like that. And so what would
happen is nobody's going to keep working once they hit
(29:25):
that tax rate, nobody's going to keep investing once they
hit this punitively high tax rate. So it's just the
economic activity past that point won't occur. And they want
us to believe that we'll all be better off. I
just don't buy it. Now. The strongest argument that I've
heard against billionaires, at least on this surface, is that
we can't allow in a democratic society individuals to have
(29:46):
the amount of power that a billionaire has, because they
can influence our politics with all their money and what
have you. And I'm skeptical of concentrated power mainly in
the government, but also in individuals and in private institutions.
So that is compelling to me on the surface. But
I guess one I would say, a government powerful enough
(30:08):
to prevent billionaires existing is already a bigger problem than
any individual billionaire. And are they even that powerful? Can
they really control and dominate our politics? I don't think so,
first and foremost, because there are billionaires and super wealthy
people on either side of the aisle. Funding causes to
(30:30):
both extremes, so they're in competition with each other, and
clearly neither just gets whatever they want. I mean, look
at Elon Musk. He is currently crashing out right now
and attacking Trump and attacking Republicans because they're passing a
massive budget bill that he doesn't like and he's unhappy with.
After he funded all their campaigns and give them so
much money and supported them, and they were like, Nah,
(30:51):
we're not doing what you want. We're going to do
what we think we need to do. So I just
don't accept this idea that like money is everything in
politics and the which people control all our political system.
If that was true, Michael Bloomberg would have been the
Democratic nominee in twenty twenty, right, Like he came in,
he injected himself in and spent all this money and
(31:11):
then it didn't get the nomination. It's just money in
politics is not a nonexistent thing, but it's vastly overhyped
because at the end of the day, people care about
votes from voters. I just don't buy that. I think
it's probably the most compelling argument they have, but I
just it still doesn't work for me. Now still, I
will say that I'm really concerned by Zoorn, especially because
(31:35):
it's not just you know, him wanting billionaires to not exist.
He's a full out Marxist. He's a communist. I mean,
listen to this clip of him saying so that explicitly
their goal is to seize the means of production, which
is like just straight out of definition of what Marxism is.
Take a listen to this, what the.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
Purpose is about this entire project. It's not simply to
raise clash consciousness, but to win socialism, and obviously raising
class consciousness is a critical part of that, but making
sure that we have candidates that both understand that and
are willing to put that forward at every which moment
that they have, at every which opportunity that they are given.
We have to continue to elect more socialists, and we
(32:16):
have to ensure that we are unapologetic about our socialism.
There are also other issues that we firmly believe in,
whether it's BDS right or whether it's the end goal
of seizing the means of production, where we do not
have the same level of support at this very moment.
And what I want to say is that it is
(32:36):
critical the way that we organize, that we set up
our you know, set up our work and our priorities,
that we do not leave any one issue for the other,
that we do not meet a moment and only look
at what people are ready for, but that we are
doing both of these things in tandem, because it is
critical for us to both meet people where they're at
(32:58):
and to also organizing organis for what is correct and
for what is right, and to ensure that over time
we can bring people to that issue.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
So we're not talking about a social democrat here or
some like liberal who just wants a little more taxes,
a little more regulation, a little more redistribution of wealth.
We're talking about a Marxist. We're talking about somebody who
openly supports one of the most destructive ideologies in human
history that costs untold millions of lives and devastation in
(33:26):
the twentieth century. That is concerning. I really don't think
anyone with those views should be anywhere near political power.
I just don't, and that all of that criticism is
entirely legitimate against him. But you know, it's not, though,
like the weird and vaguely racist things that people are
nitpicking him over. For example, he's getting attacked right now,
(33:47):
including by elected Republican politicians, for daring to eat rice
with his hands during an interview. Let's take a look
at the club.
Speaker 6 (33:58):
So the third holy grail of taboos in American politics.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
You have socialism of Islam and then you have Palestine.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
And you are really going for the trifecta.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
Let's go, baby, let's go tell me why is Palistine
a part of your politics?
Speaker 4 (34:12):
When you grow up as someone, especially in the Third World,
you have a very different understanding of the palace and struggle.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
So this clip was shared by the end Wokeness account
that says zo Ron says his worldview is inspired by
the Third World while eating rice with his hands, And
it was clearly kind of shared with the idea that
it is bad to do this or it is crazy.
And I do find it kind of funny that an
end wokeness account is like so offended by the manner
(34:42):
in which someone consumes a rice. But I digress. The
Republican Congressman Brandon gil saw this video and tweeted, civilized
people in America don't eat like this. If you refuse
to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World, sir,
(35:03):
I would like to humbly suggest that you calm down.
It is really not that deep. It is really not
that important. Like, who actually gives a shit if someone
eats rice with their hands. That's not something I would
do it. It's a little odd, I guess, But how
is that significant? And how is it like so much
(35:26):
worse than all the food that we Americans regularly in
American society eat with our hands, Like you're telling me
it's worse to eat rice with your hands, sticky rice,
than it is to eat ribs that'll get you all
sticky and messy, or pizza in your hands will get
all greasy. If the if like hygiene is the concern,
I just don't see that. And it is weird because
(35:47):
you're like suggesting that he leave the country over the
way he eats a certain food in one random clip,
Like it's just not that deep, and there's something about
it that's vaguely comes off as racist. I'm just telling
you it does. Now I will. And also I just
think it's a waste of time, Like this is the
(36:09):
guy who says we need to defund the police for
queer liberation. This is the guy who is an open
Marxist who wants to seize the means of production. And
y'all can't do better than this, y'all, seriously, this is
what Republicans are. I mean, not all of them, but
some of them are wasting energy on it's just stupid
and dumb. And obviously, now, if you wanted to make
(36:31):
a more serious critique of Zoran in this clip, again,
who cares. But if you wanted to what you could
actually point out is that he's kind of cost playing,
like he's eating this with his hands, because apparently that's
what they do in some other nations. And he claims that,
you know, he grew up in the Third World, but
he had extraordinarily you know, successful and affluent parents, and
he came to America at like age seven, So he's
(36:51):
almost like costplaying and leaning into this in a way
that's not authentic. Maybe that would be a more legitimate critique,
but just acting like he's some savage subhuman because he
dared eat rice with his hands, even though that's the
thing people do in a lot of the world. And
it's really not that deep. It's just totally tone deaf
and bizarre to me and incredibly lame. But what do
(37:14):
you guys think? Do you stay up at night because
somewhere a socialist politician is eating rice with his hands?
Let me know in the comments. Please do make sure
you're subscribed if you aren't yet, I do with that
like button before you go. And that'll be it for
today's episode of the Barad Versus Everyone podcast. I had
more I wanted to get to, but we ran over time,
(37:36):
and I guess we'll be back at it tomorrow. So
with that, guys, we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.