Why James Talarico is Embarrassed by James Talarico

Añadido: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]Ladies and gentlemen, James Telerico regrets being James Telerico.

[00:00:04]>> In 2021, uh, in a speech during debate over transgender issues, you said, "God is non-binary." What did you mean by that?

[00:00:13]>> Well, you know, I think um I was being intentionally provocative with that statement. I'm Rich Larry of National View and of course that was the Democratic Senate candidate down in Texas, James Telerico, in an interview with Ed O'Keefee of CBS News trying to explain away this infamous comment he made not too long ago that God is non-binary. This was in the course of a debate over trans issues in the Texas legislature. So what's going on here?

[00:00:38]Well, obviously in political terms, we have a real general election now in Texas. For better or worse, I would say definitely worse. Republicans have nominated Ken Paxton as their candidate for Senate and are beginning to focus again on this series of really weird and idiotic things that Tel Rico has said over the years, very much including that God is non-binary. So, I'm going to explain in this video why the crab walking away from all this stuff that Tel Rico is now trying to do is wholly unconvincing, beginning with this one.

[00:01:09]So, first of all, he tells O'Keefe, I was just being provocative, but there are lots of standard ways to be provocative if you're a progressive in the trans debate, right? We hear these kind of lines all the time. You can say conservatives are trying to harm trans kids. Tel Rico himself has said that, but it's only Tel Rico among prominent people that I'm aware of who said that God has said that God is nonbinary as a way to be provocative. whereas this wouldn't this line wouldn't even occur to most people and it's because and this will be a theme of this video. Telerico is trying to distort the Bible for his own ideological purposes and it's totally perverse. Here's more from the O'Keefe interview.

[00:01:54]>> But what it means is that God can't be defined by human categories. The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians says that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Uh, I'm always going to stand up for Texans who are being picked on by the most powerful, most corrupt politicians in the country.

[00:02:12]>> All right, so let's focus on part of the statement here where Tel Rico is saying God is beyond human categories. Of course, that is true, but it doesn't get him where he wants to go and justify that God is supposedly non-binary.

[00:02:25]Almost always, there's complexity here and subtlety here. God is referred to in the Bible as father, as husband, as king, as father of our Lord. The original Hebrew, very gendered language, the gender god is always male. Now, he does refer to himself at times as having a love for us like a mother for her children, but that also gets Telerico doesn't get Tel Rico where he wants to go with the whole non-binary thing because traditionally that's been interpreted as both male and female reflect God. And you get the truest reflection of God and all of God's love when you get the male uniting with the female in traditional marriage. So in no way does any of this justify or suggest that God exemplifies modern feminist gender theory. It does doesn't. It's crazy. Now he mentions Paul at the end of that statement. Now, what's interesting here is he's mentioning Paul in the course of trying to back off his non-binary statement or say it was too provocative. He also mentioned Paul earlier this year in a CNN interview where he was trying to justify his God is nonbinary statement and defend it.

[00:03:48]Take a listen to that real quick.

[00:03:49]>> God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary.

[00:04:00]>> What is your response to them using that and explain what you were talking about?

[00:04:06]>> Well, I understand that that comment is a little provocative. I said it on the House floor when the extremists in the Republican legislature were picking on school kids who were different. But I don't think it's controversial theologically. Most Christians would acknowledge that God is beyond gender.

[00:04:25]In fact, the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians said that in Christ there is neither male nor female. And so if someone's got a problem with that statement, they shouldn't take it up with me. They should take it up with the Apostle Paul.

[00:04:38]>> Now, what he's referring to is a wonderful line from Paul from Galatians that Telerico said in another past interview meant that Paul was kind of woke for his time. Doesn't mean that at all. Let's look at the line real quick.

[00:04:54]This is Galatians 3:28. If you're a Christian, you know this verse because it's so central. There is neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither bond nor free. There is neither male nor female.

[00:05:04]For ye all are one in Christ Jesus. Now, this such a tremendously profound verse saying all these distinctions don't matter because we're united in our faith in Christ. And that's what's most profoundly important. But this isn't Paul endorsing queer theory. This isn't Paul saying there's no such thing as male or or female or there lots of things in between. No, that is a preposterous claim. And you can go to all sorts of other verses from Paul saying the opposite. We have 1 Corinthians. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God. Once again, 1 Corinthians, for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Ephesians 5, wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church and he is the savior of the body. We go on and on. The point is that Telerico shouldn't be trying to use the Apostle Paul to justify his views on gender. And by the way, the difference between that CNN interview a little earlier this year and the CBS interview just shows you what a game is being played here. All of a sudden, Tel Rico is emphasizing how he regrets it and shouldn't have said it, even though he's still basically maintaining, oh, the Apostle Paul believed the same thing. Now, speaking of gender, here's another one. Let's go back to the O'Keefe interview.

[00:06:33]>> Again, in 2021, while debating a bill that restricted transgender student athletes, you said, "Modern science acknowledges six biological variations based on chromosomes to argue that sex is a nuance spectrum, not a strict binary."

[00:06:46]Do you still believe there are six biological sexes?

[00:06:50]>> I know there are two sexes, men and women. I also know there's a very small percentage of people who have these chromosomeal abnormalities, and I believe they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

[00:07:01]>> That's so bad. Let's go back briefly and just recall how emphatic he was about the sixth gender thing at the time. I want us all to be aware of is that that modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes. In fact, there are six, which honestly, Representative Hefner surprised me too.

[00:07:24]>> Surprised me too because I I you know am not well verssed in this this issue area. I'm not a scientist. I'm a politician a lot worse than a scientist.

[00:07:32]>> He's so emphatic there, right? There are six genders. They're not five. They're not seven. There's six. And this is what the science tells us. And now he just want to say wants to say, "Oh, I was thinking of people with chromosomal abnormalities." Well, if that's what he was thinking at the time, he could have said it. He could have said back then, I believe there are two genders, but by the way, there's some people with rare conditions and we should treat them with respect. I don't think anyone would disagree with with that, but that's not what he said because that's not what he meant. And that's not that wouldn't have served his purpose, which is to try to give a patina of authority and science around the most radical view of what gender is. Now, by the way, he's doing this two-step as well on the question of whiteness, past statements of his about how terrible whiteness is and how guilty white people should feel. And here is an interview where he was asked about that.

[00:08:29]So, we've got uh white skin gives me and every white American immunity from the virus, but we spread it wherever we go through our words, our actions, and our systems. We don't have to be showing symptoms like a white hood or a confederate flag to be contagious.

[00:08:44]One from 2020.

[00:08:46]>> Yeah. And I think an important thing to recognize with all the attacks that are coming from MAGA toward our movement right now, all of them depend on taking these things out of context. all of them uh depend on um cutting some of the quotes before they end or cutting them at the beginning to kind of paint them in the worst possible light. And so for that in that case it was a tweet that was part of a larger thread about uh how we all have a responsibility to combat racism. And so would I word it differently? Would I use a different metaphor? Maybe. But I still believe that racism is wrong. And I still believe that we all have a responsibility to combat it. And I think it's telling when some people are triggered by that. And so, uh, I of course looking back at some of these old statements from from years ago would maybe word them differently or communicate them differently, but the values, uh, that I hold are still the same.

[00:09:41]>> So disingenuous and might be the worst thing we've heard of all the clips I've gone through here in this video. what he was saying. And by the way, there is nothing in the context of that ex thread that justifies what he was saying. He was denigrating whiteness, but he wants to pretend that all he was doing was opposing racism. Now, we all should oppose racism, but you can and should oppose racism with also without denigrating whiteness, right? We should be opposed to racial categories. We should treat all people equally, which means you don't denigrate whiteness. You don't denigrate blackness. you don't do any of that. But he wants to pretend that what his critics object to in that past statement is his opposition to racism when that is not the case at all.

[00:10:28]That's a disgraceful smear of his critics. It is so nauseatingly dishonest. Then there's this, this isn't the most important thing, but is telling as well. the question of whether he's a vegan at O'Keefe interview. Again, >> the other one they keep harping on and it's perhaps the most curious of all.

[00:10:52]They they they they say you're a vegan.

[00:10:54]>> I'm not a vegan. I'm an eighth generation Texan. I've been eating barbecue since before Ken Paxton's first indictment. And this campaign basically runs on on Texas barbecue. Uh if all they have is lying about me being a vegan, I feel pretty good about our chances this November. It's amazing how he laughs it off. Just as a reminder, this is the statement, original statement we're talking about.

[00:11:16]>> We have, I think, heard more and more um issues of animal welfare. I think not just because it's the right thing to do and the moral thing to do, but also it's, as all of you know, necessary to fight climate change. It is now existential that we try to reduce our meat consumption and that we try to respect animals in all aspects of society. And so I I am proud to say that our campaign um has officially become a non-meat campaign. So we um have we are um we are only buying vegan products from from our local vegan businesses.

[00:11:50]>> So how do you go from several years ago your campaign at the time embracing veganism to save the planet and for the sake of animal welfare to now your campaign running on barbecue. He gives no explanation in that interview because he can't advance one. This guy is a fake. He embraced every single moronic, fashionable left-wing cause several years ago. Now he realizes it's politically inconvenient, so he's trying to find a way out. In short, James Telerico is embarrassed, as maybe all of us should be by James Tel Rico. Hey, by the way, comment, like, subscribe. I guarantee you won't regret it. I'm Rich Lowry.