 What did I just watch? It looked like libs of TikTok, laying the hack reporter Taylor Lorenz out like the letter T, and now you must see for yourself. Folks, we talk a lot on this channel about the left's propensity to carve themselves out exceptions to their own rules. But holy schnikey. Taylor Lorenz is the human embodiment of, it's different when we do it. Let me give you a quick breakdown for those not familiar with this saga. Lorenz is a far-left nut job activist and COVID-larping enthusiast posing as a reporter. A few years ago now, I think, she showed up to the actual front door of a journalist who goes by the name libs of TikTok. For what would be the start of an ongoing media campaign to silence libs of TikTok by blaming her for the actions of people she has no connection to or control over? You may be asking yourself, what does this libs of TikTok do that's so horrible? For the most part, she just reposts the public postings of left-wing extremists who are often teachers, doctors, or other public servants who are promoting far-left ideals. Basically, she shines a light on all those things the left and the Democrats would rather stay under the radar. So now these people are trying to get libs of TikTok straight up charged and imprisoned for random anonymous people supposedly sending bomb threats to people or institutions libs of TikTok reports on. Keep in mind, all she's done is report these stories or repost the public postings of left-wingers. They even tried to blame her for a non-binary student supposedly being bullied to death, but that turned out to be a complete lie. With that in mind, check out some clips of this insane interview. Lorenz is straight up deranged, wearing a mask outside years after COVID, just completely nuts. A recent NBC investigation found at least 33 instances where you posted about a specific person or institution, and that person or institution was immediately bombarded with death threats and violent threats, including bomb threats, other violent threats. That's a pretty significant correlation. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Interesting because I can think of a very recent instance where the left, Democrats, and the media got people to show up to the homes of Supreme Court judges in order to threaten them ahead of their judgment on Rovers Wade, which is illegal for most people, but of course it's different when Democrats do it, which did result in an assassination attempt on multiple judges. So any moment we're going to see charges against all of those people, right? No, you idiot! By simply reporting a story or reposting the videos somebody already publicly posted is ground for incitement. Most of our media and the Democrat Party should be behind bars after the 2017 quote, This is for healthcare, domestic terror attack on Republican congressmen. How do you, you know, what do you have? Yeah, I don't know if you saw, but I got like tons of death threats the past this week after the entire medium machine came after me. So are they responsible for those? I don't think that there is the same correlation. Are you receiving bomb threats? She's in boys. She did it. She said it. There it is in real life. You can almost see the moment her brain cracks and switches to emergency gymnastics mode to explain why her reporting of lives of TikTok that by her own standards results in death threats is completely different than lives of TikTok's reporting of her. The reason bomb threats are more violent than death threats. I'm receiving death threats like, hi, I'm going to come murder you. Yeah, and I definitely sympathize with you there. Like literally the article goes live and then I get those threats. I get the same thing when a Fox News article goes live. So are the, is the journalist responsible? The journalist who goes to the article? I would say, um, Oh, that was different. You know, there's a different responsibility when we're talking about media. And I, and I guess to me, a death threat is different than a violent bomb threat. A death threat. I'm sorry, but I just wanted to pause here for a moment and point out the fact that she's demonstrating literally what I'm constantly talking about. Left-wingers carving themselves at an exception from their own rules. And I, and I guess to me, a death threat is different than a violent bomb threat. A death threat, I think we're kind of getting normalized to them. Unfortunately online, we get a lot of them. Probably you and I get them constantly 24 seven. Perhaps neither of you or the media or Democrats are responsible for the actions of random people. If we went down this road, it would have to be enforced on a completely partisan basis. Otherwise, like I said earlier, Lorenz and her friends in the media would all be behind bars. Why, you don't speak up about the sexualization of kids? I don't think it's a problem. I don't see, I guess I don't see as much. If I saw an example of a child being sexualized, of course I have a problem with, you know, certain things. I, I will, I will actually, you know, I will say, Do you think we should give kids born in school the images of like gay sex? I, so I had, again, I went to public school and in public school, at least when I was growing up, we were absolutely given literature, you know, explaining sex, educating people. It had pictures of like anal sex? Oh, absolutely. What the hell are you talking about? Oh, absolutely not. I love how she acts so special about having gone to public school and then just totally lies about it. I also went to elementary school in the 90s and I can assure you that they weren't showing as gay sex or any sex for that matter. There may have been some very basic sex ed that we had to get permission slips for, but it was nothing like the stuff in these books which should not be in public schools. Pictures of like anal sex? Oh, absolutely. And it actually talked about condom use. What grade? God, I mean, I don't remember, but certainly probably middle school. I think that's when we had sex ed. So you think like books like gender career, this book is gay. We should give that to kids in school. I have not read those books, so I don't know. But I do think that it's important to educate kids about sexuality. So we should give kids like pictures of gay sex in middle school and actually elementary school, some of them. I guess I'm wondering what you consider that. Do you want to see a picture? Well, I don't know, but... Why am I not surprised that Lorenz, the hard-hitting, just-the-facts, hard-nosed journalist hasn't even looked at the books that she's supporting in the public schools. See, I just cannot believe that this is true. Either she's into this stuff or she purposely does not want to look at it because then she might be on our side. Why would she notice the rest of the mainstream media doesn't show these books either? And the reason is probably because they're too explicit. And if they show them, then they wouldn't have their whole book-banning narrative. I mean, are you talking about the ones that you've posted on your Twitter account? I guess those don't look like what I received when I did sex ed. I have not read those books, so I don't know. But I think sex ed is important because it actually helps. So you didn't have those types of things when you were in school? Oh, no, we had sex ed. I'm saying the images I posted on my Twitter. When you had sex ed in school, did you not get books with graphic imagery? With pictures of gay socks? I don't remember how old you are, but I grew up in the 90s when HIV and AIDS was a big thing, and we certainly learned about gay socks. I just want to point out that she's lying right now because earlier she said that she hadn't seen anything that lives at TikTok was talking about. But she just admitted there that she did see the pictures that lives at TikTok reposted. And now she's going to try to play this semantic game about how, oh, no, she had sex ed when she was in school, but she just admitted that it wasn't like that when she was in school. Again, we're seeing her brain start to do all these gymnastics to make sure that she stays on the right side of her ideological religious tenets. And this is a Washington Post columnist for God's sake. So those pictures I posted on my Twitter, you had graphics like that? I actually don't know. I don't remember, to be honest. Yeah, she's a liar. But I do think that it's really important to... By knowing those pictures, you seem to know very well what those pictures are. Do you think that... I don't, I don't. So you kept referencing them? Well, I've seen you post things, but I don't know. I mean, are you talking about the ones that you've posted on your Twitter account? I guess those don't look like what I received when I did sex ed. That's just a one. But I think, yeah, I guess I feel... Because we need to put this into context. Yeah. Well, we won't know the context of course, because we don't know the context of how those things are being taught. What? This person is completely out of her mind. All I can say is that in a country where the media has less and less relevance, the Washington Post should be disgusted with themselves. And the fact of the matter is, if she wants the whole lives of TikTok to these standards, then she herself should also be held to those standards. But as you saw, just like I always tell you, all she did when confronted with this was try to carve herself out a little exception, but trying to claim that there's some sort of violence difference between bomb threats and death threats. This is the tier of person that are in our media claiming to be respectable journalists. Alright folks, that's all I have for that one. If you want to watch the full interview, you can find the link in my description. If you're still watching, you might as well hit that like button, and I'll see you all on the next one.