Far Leftists Tear Down Thomas Jefferson, Trump Was Right And This Attack On America Will Reelect Him
While they may claim its an uprising or revolution, the far left is helping Trump much more than they could realize.Democrats in the Pacific Northwest have been defending far left rioting in such a way that one would be daft to believe this isn't helping Trump.Recently in portland far left rioters toppled a statue of Thomas Jefferson, one of America's greatest Hero's and quite possibly a world hero.Trump predicted this, he said in 2017 how long until Antifa and the far left start pulling down statues of Jefferson and Washington?These riots are now an attack on everything it means to be an American, something we can only assume will shock your average citizen.Perhaps this is why Trump and Republicans had the biggest fundraising day ever this past week raising over 14 million dollars.The far left revolution is not a fight for social justice or equality, its an accidental Trump reelection campaign happening all over the country. And as police resign and Democrats call for us to abolish the police or defund the police the outcome seems predictable.#FarLeft#TheCHAZ#Trump
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The image displayed on your screen right now, for those that are watching, is a statue that has been pulled off of its pedestal, toppled, pulled to the ground.
This individual is none other than Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.
You know what?
Trump called it.
Several years ago, Trump was talking about Confederate statues being pulled down, and he said, what's next?
Jefferson?
Washington?
And he was right.
They've now begun to pull down statues of Thomas Jefferson.
Why?
Well, because he was a slave owner, of course.
The far left thinks this a revolution or uprising.
Several high-profile leftist personalities on social media have called it as such.
In reality, I think we're actually, potentially, looking at Donald Trump's re-election campaign.
I can only imagine after the banning of books, the banning of movies, the banning of art, and the destruction of statues of the Founding Fathers, notably one of the most prominent, Thomas Jefferson, I can only imagine after seeing this regular Americans would outright reject what the left represents.
We are seeing right now across this country thousands of people marching through the streets demanding justice, shouting Black Lives Matter.
At the same time, in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio is welding the gates shut to a park in a Jewish community.
Over the past several months, while he has praised and defended the protesters, he's overtly targeted the Jewish community.
I have to wonder, why would anyone think this would bode well for the left or the Democrats?
While Trump's approval rating appears to be in the gutter, I have questions about the methodology of these polls.
Is it possible the polls are being misrepresented or they're polling the wrong groups or disproportionately polling the wrong people to make it look like people don't like Trump?
Perhaps it is.
As of right now, Donald Trump has just raised a record amount of money.
I believe $14 million.
We'll pull it up.
And nearly 1 million people have RSVP'd for his rally in Tulsa.
So why should I believe the news when they show me images of Thomas Jefferson being ripped from his pedestal?
Yeah, I gotta say, it freaks me out.
When they tell me they're banning Gone with the Wind, the highest grossing film in American history, of all time actually, adjusted for inflation.
When they begin banning books from Amazon, which some people have likened to digital book burnings.
You have to try and convince me all of that doesn't freak out regular people.
I'm sorry.
I think it does.
And I think that's why Trump is raising insane amounts of money.
And I think that's why, in my personal life, people I have known to be Democrats their whole lives have flipped.
They've walked away.
And they're now arguing in favor of Republicans.
Only five or six months ago, these same people were telling me the Republicans were awful, but something changed.
Perhaps it was all of the governors saying protests are okay for us, but don't you dare open your business.
Perhaps it was the nationwide rioting that has resulted in an occupation in Seattle.
They've never stopped it.
It's still going on.
Perhaps it was the burning down of a Wendy's.
It just won't stop.
And guess what?
The data proves it.
When riots break out, the American people demand law and order, and they vote Republican.
So dare I say, perhaps on the surface this looks like a far-left revolution, and I'll show you what's going on with this far-left revolution, notably in the CHAS, or now the CHOP, I'm sorry, they changed the name of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone to the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest.
This is a six-block radius where far-left extremists and activists and individuals have occupied the space and are no longer allowing police in.
I'll show you what they're really doing.
And then I'll show you what I think this really is.
The accidental re-election campaign for Donald Trump.
This all, in my opinion, is going to help him to an absurd degree.
There's the image of Thomas Jefferson.
I gotta be honest, man.
I gotta stop for a second.
This is... I can't believe it.
I can't believe these people pulled down Thomas Jefferson.
Listen.
He is the founding father.
He is the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.
They are not just attacking racist institutions.
They are literally attacking the very heart and soul of this country.
And that is shocking to any regular American person.
We can disagree about wars and about police brutality.
But I think most people in this country like their own country.
They stand for the flag.
Well, all of that is being torn apart, and I assure you, this probably scares a lot of regular Americans.
I am seeing what I can only describe as activation across the board in a lot of different ways.
We'll get to this, but let's get started with the story about Thomas Jefferson.
Before we do, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give.
There's even a P.O.
box where you can send things if you'd like to send me things.
But the best way you can help is actually to share this video.
The mainstream media, I believe, is... They're frequently covering a lot of these stories, but you get a contradictory message.
I try to take a more overview approach to a lot of these stories to get a better understanding of what's really going on.
If you think I do a better job than these massive multi-billion dollar corporations, sharing helps me Succeed, I guess, because they've got massive marketing budgets.
But if you just want to watch, then just hit the like button, subscribe, and let's get to the news.
Thomas Jefferson's statue toppled in Portland, Oregon, from CBS.
A statue of Thomas Jefferson outside a high school named for him in North Portland was toppled Sunday after a night of protests.
It was the latest to be vandalized or pulled over in the U.S.
and other nations during the racial justice protests that have followed the death of George Floyd at Minneapolis police hands three weeks ago.
Statues of leading Confederate figures as well as slave owners and traders have been targeted by demonstrators and in some cases removed by state and local governments.
The Jefferson Statue was the third to be taken down this weekend in Oregon alone.
Two at the University of Oregon, the Pioneer Man and the Pioneer Mother, were taken down Saturday evening.
Earlier Sunday evening, the steps of Jefferson High School were the site of a Black Lives Matter rally led by Rose City Justice.
Organizers spoke in front of the Jefferson Statue, its base spray-painted with the phrase, Slave Owner.
Sometime after the march moved on to a local park, the statue was toppled.
It wasn't clear who did it or whether they were involved with the Black Lives Matter demonstrations three hours before.
There's actually a video of it.
Yes, they were.
There's a video of people throwing the ropes around it and pulling it down.
Now here we have this.
This story from CNN back in August 15th, 2017.
When Trump said, so this week, it's Robert E. Lee.
I notice that Stonewall Jackson is coming down.
I wonder, is it George Washington next week?
And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after?
You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?
Now at first, we as regular Americans entertained the reason why these people wanted to tear down Confederate statues.
For one, a lot of these statues weren't put up during the Civil War.
They're put up way after the Civil War.
And many people said, why should we lionize, why should we prop up or idolize in any way Confederate soldiers?
So, because of this, there actually was a movement to remove many of these statues.
Unfortunately, it devolved into angry mobs pulling down statues randomly while the police stood by and watched.
Most people disagreed with the statues coming down.
In one instance recently, a man may have lost his life.
I believe he's still in the hospital.
Major skull injury when the statue fell onto his head.
Most people do not want the statues to come down.
Even many, and many of them who are in favor of it, have called for them to be put into museums.
But this is where we talk about the rapid escalation of what many of the far leftists call their uprising or evolution.
It wasn't just about the Confederacy, it's about hatred for this country, period.
Thomas Jefferson, this should be the biggest red flag to anybody who thinks this is about racism.
Yes, they'll claim that Thomas Jefferson, oh, it's really about racism, but no.
I'm sorry.
The man who created the Declaration of Independence and who laid the groundwork, along with many other founding fathers, that eventually created one of the most free and equal countries on the planet is not the same as a Confederate leader.
But they will say it is, and they won't stop until everything is pulled down.
They are quite literally trying to destroy and erase history.
They'll argue they're not, but it doesn't matter what they think their intention is.
They are mindless mobs running around with ropes just toppling statues.
I don't think that we can stand for this.
I mean, Thomas Jefferson is an American hero.
He is not a Confederate soldier that was disgraced or looked down upon by at least half the country.
Thomas Jefferson was praised by basically everybody for a long time.
He's the father of this nation.
Well, I bring you now.
I bring you now to the Left's revolution.
Here at the Chaz or the Chop or whatever it is they call it.
In Seattle, if you're not familiar, they've occupied now a six-block radius.
It's actually spanning, I think, around like 25 because of the way it's shaped.
But six square blocks.
Very decently large space where they're not allowing police to enter.
In this tweet, we see a video where a man says, quote, does any anybody know what happened to the people who did not get on board with the French Revolution?
Chopped, the crowd answered.
That's right.
Off with their head.
They are literally saying their intentions.
Now, for the longest time, I've heard from a lot of people saying, oh, they're just, you know, it's LARPing.
They'll never actually do it.
Yeah.
Just you wait and see.
They've burned down and destroyed tons of buildings.
These extremists are real.
And right now, they're escalating their tactics.
For the longest time, they've been mocked and ridiculed for being rather ineffective.
But you did have a man associated with the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club, which is active in this zone.
Firebombed an ICE facility, and tried to kill law enforcement.
And that wasn't even that long ago.
So yes, they may be very pathetic, but their intentions are there, and they are telling you.
Now, does that mean they'll succeed?
No, but it definitely means you should take it seriously, because these are not people who are playing games with you.
They mean it when they say it.
Let's see what else is going down in the Chaz.
Ah.
Raz, the self-appointed police of the zone, armed, chasing down someone accused of being a thief and then searching them.
Why?
This is to show you that in this area, there is no codified rule of law.
If you're deemed a thief, you'll be hunted down, surrounded at gunpoint while they frisk you and search you.
Now I know, we can criticize police for very similar things.
But at least when it comes to the legal system, you have some rights.
Here, people have been threatened with weapons.
Some people have been actually attacked and slammed to the ground for none other than having the wrong opinion.
A preacher was trying to preach.
Legally allowed to.
Anywhere in this country, First Amendment.
And so they pinned him to the ground, several people grabbed him, and they stripped him of his property.
That's what's happening in their revolution.
In this tweet, they say apparently the man Raz detained was accused of being the person who broke into the local business.
He allegedly returned where local business owners identified him.
I don't know what they expected to find.
Some emotional comments from another man involved in the local business.
The business is apparently within the no-cop zone.
Quote, I can't even get the police to show up.
I can't get the fire department to show up.
And this kind of mob stuff, that doesn't work.
This business owner, his business is in this occupied leftist revolution.
I'm being somewhat facetious when I say that.
And there was a fire that broke out, and they had to put it out because nobody will show up for them.
This is what you can expect from the Left's revolution.
However, the real reason I'm showing you all this is not to pretend like this is the Chas or the Chop, whatever they call it, is some kind of actual revolution.
I'm showing you this because the American people are going to see what's happening, and it's going to freak them out.
Because I don't think, in fact, these people have the ability to actually stage any kind of revolution.
But this brings me to one of the more outlandish, craziest videos I've seen.
Elijah Schaefer.
He films videos out in the streets.
He has a channel, I believe it's slightly offensive, talking to an Uber driver.
And it appears he may be recording this, you know, with other drivers' knowledge.
I'm not entirely sure.
I'm not gonna make assumptions.
But the driver explains how when he was waiting near the Chazz, two people drew guns on him and pointed guns at his head and just told him to leave.
This kind of thing.
I kid you not.
This man, probably a leftist, probably a liberal, probably not anymore.
These business owners are being told by the local government they will do nothing for you.
The mayor saying it's fine, it's a festival, while people get guns pointed at their heads.
How do you think regular Americans are going to respond to this?
How do you think the majority of suburbanites are going to respond to this?
Let me explain something to you about 2018.
Suburban districts that voted for Donald Trump in 2016 flipped two years later and voted in Democrats, shocking many people.
The Democrats need to maintain these districts to keep the House.
Do you think suburbanites are going to be like, Joe Biden will keep us safe from this?
Or do you think they're going to flip and say, please, Trump, send in the military?
58% of registered voters agreed, according to the morning consult, the military should be sent in to stop the rioting.
But the rioting and the protests have not stopped.
Let's talk about the inner workings of the Chas.
Here is a post that talks from the from the Chas subreddit.
Now, again, I am not showing you this to make you think that the Chas is legitimate.
I'm showing it showing it to you because people are going to spread this around and they're going to be freaked out by it.
This is what apparently Democrats are defending right now.
Not all of them, just the governor and the mayor and some other high profile politicians.
But in this post, it's a parody of itself.
They're talking about setting up a non-biased governing body, an advisory council for how decisions are made.
They talk about how it's got to have one black woman, one black man, and one white woman, but then someone complains it's racist.
So they got to add micro-Asian seats of 12 seats of different Asian ethnicities.
And the funny thing is, Ultimately, they deleted the post and someone said, I hope this is a troll, but please take this seriously.
I don't know how to convince you, but please take this seriously because I think this is a massive mistake.
This post basically says you can't do this.
You can't segregate people in this way.
But I think the funnier response comes before they deleted it.
It's gotten to the point where I literally can't tell who's serious and who's a troll anymore.
This is the best thing of 2020 so far.
I believe it was serious.
Now they're trying to argue that this man was in fact a troll trying to manipulate the group.
No, you have to understand.
People can't tell the difference as to what's real and what's parody anymore.
So that means the craziest things being thrown up by the left are absolutely going to help Donald Trump because people are like, I'm going to assume it's real.
Not all of it, but I see no reason why people should assume it's not real.
Now here's one of the crazier moments that took place in the Chazz.
A film crew.
They were accused of starting a fire simply because they were there filming.
And people said, hey, hey, why was this film crew here?
Look at the title.
Fire at the East Precinct and a media crew just happens to be there.
And someone yells, it started right when they showed up.
And people were like, chill, chill, stop, stop.
They're actually implying that these media people started the fire.
Let me tell you a story, man.
Try and keep it vague.
But there is someone I know who is a die-hard lefty their whole life, and after all the riots broke out, the first thing they did was they went and bought a gun.
I kid you not.
I also have close personal friends and family who are questioning their loyalties to the Democratic Party.
I wonder if they're actually trying to help Donald Trump win.
I mean that seriously.
Now take a look at the polls for Donald Trump.
Oof, not good, huh?
Check this out.
Trump's approval rating is way down from its high.
It was only a couple months ago.
Trump's approval rating hit its highest point ever.
Now his disapproval is skyrocketing, his approval is dropping.
I guess a reasonable person would look at this and say, wow, in the aggregate, mind you, Donald Trump is doing terribly.
It must be.
These people are truly rising up against him.
And Donald Trump must be on track to lose in November.
I mean, maybe.
Maybe.
I don't buy it.
You know why?
Well, come on.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
We all saw what happened in 2016.
The polls were wrong.
Now, they weren't necessarily wrong.
They favored Hillary Clinton.
They gave her, like, an 87% chance of winning.
That still does mean Trump had a chance to win.
And he did.
It just means it was long-shot odds, but the odds were there.
Some argue the polls weren't wrong.
They showed the margin and the voters voted.
The important thing you need to consider, national polls approval rating aren't necessarily the most important thing.
The question is registered voters and the question is swing states.
Some people are concerned that with the mass exodus from cities following these mass riots, maybe the real strategy is to dilute the electoral college so that you have all of these leftists now in red areas, so that these red areas flip.
And vote for Biden?
Maybe, maybe.
But I also wonder how many people are now terrified and going to come out and vote for Trump for that reason.
How many jurisdictions have seen leftists and liberals flee to their areas, stock up on food, complain, and it made them angry?
Following the COVID outbreak in New York, several jurisdictions in the Northeast were complaining that New Yorkers were basically raiding their food shelves and fleeing to their cities, and they didn't like it.
I find it really funny.
I can imagine many of these suburbanites are not going to be too happy about what's happening.
But I bring you now to the actual argument.
Violence amid protest for racial justice could mean re-election for Donald Trump.
This story from PennLive.
It's actually really simple.
They say, Omar Wasow, Princeton Department of Politics Assistant Professor, has data to support that riots are helping.
The data is showing that peaceful protests actually help Democrats.
His work shows upticks in votes for Republicans coming from white moderate Democrats in elections following violent protests.
This is especially so in counties close to protest sites.
Conversely, there are bumps for Democrats in counties near non-violent protests.
For example, he told the New Yorker last week, areas around cities that had 137 violent protests
after the assassination of MLK in 1968 saw a 6 to 8% boost for GOP presidential candidate
Richard Nixon. I know it's not 1968. Our politics are different.
America's different.
But Wasow also says violent protests are linked to a statistically significant decline in Democratic vote share in 1964 and 1972 elections.
And he told the New Yorker, there is pretty strong evidence Trump's law and order stance hurt Democrats in 2016.
Of the current election, Wausau says, the real danger for advocates of reform in Minneapolis trying to get better policing, and for those trying to pursue racial justice nationally, is that there are people who are turned off by Trump, but who have a strong taste for order.
And so if they are more concerned about racial disorder, then Trump is their racial order.
The president is clearly aware of this.
He's been pushing lots of law and order buttons.
Referring to using vicious dogs and ominous weapons.
Threatening to fill America's streets with America's army.
Calling others, especially governors, weak and jerks in the face of riots.
I gotta say, I believe it.
From Politico.
We're thinking landslide.
Beyond DC, GOP officials see Trump on glide path to re-election.
I certainly think so.
I think the media's been lying non-stop.
I think many people have started to wake up to how awful the media really is.
And I think people don't trust the polls because the polls are wrong in 2016.
Why should they trust them now?
There's some arguments that maybe.
Maybe the polls are right this time.
They corrected them.
They adapted their models so that they could be correct this time around.
They learned from their mistakes.
Moody's Analytics, for instance, said, you know, we didn't take certain things into account and now we do.
So maybe they did update.
Others argue that because of cancel culture, many people are scared to admit they will vote for Donald Trump because they'll lose their jobs.
And yep, many of them probably would.
So they'll turn to the secret ballot while publicly stating in every capacity that they don't like Trump.
I gotta admit, man, I've talked to a lot of people who have said that if you care about the money and you care about the country functioning and your kids going to college and, you know, having a better life, at this point you gotta vote for Trump, even though they hate the guy.
I've had many conversations about this.
But whether or not you hate him, it doesn't really matter.
One million tickets requested for President Trump's rally in Tulsa.
It doesn't matter if you hate him because enough people love him.
They want to see these rallies, man.
Trust me, I have been to Trump rallies.
These people are having a blast.
It is to them, it's fun.
But you gotta understand, if you've never seen a Trump rally, Trump is an entertainer, and he knows it.
He's essentially doing some kind of Jon Stewart-like shtick.
He really is.
Okay, you can criticize him for all the bad things he says, his attitude, his demeanor.
The fact that he's a mean guy, that's what Trump said, but he works for you.
Criticize him all day and night.
But Trump gets up there and he makes jokes.
He makes jokes.
He's self-deprecating.
People laugh and they cheer and it makes them feel good.
Makes him feel good.
Right now we're in this uncertainty.
People are scared.
Thomas Jefferson being pulled down?
I gotta imagine that's freaking some people out.
I mean, come on.
People who grew up on chocolate chip cookies and apple pie seeing the preeminent founding father ripped from his base and toppled by far-left extremists who think they're staging a revolution and people are gonna be like, please help us.
But think about that feeling they get, that fear, that uncertainty, the violence in the streets, the week of rioting, the pandemic.
And the Democrats are the ones locking down.
The Democrats are the ones in New York cheering for the protests while they weld shut a Jewish park.
It's not Trump.
Trump's calling to reopen, saying, get your jobs back.
I want to help you.
So why would they vote for anybody else?
Now take that feeling they have.
And offer up Trump saying, I'm gonna have a rally.
And guess what?
One million people, just about, want to be there.
They want to feel good again.
They want to feel like they're part of a community again.
And people are feeling like they're not.
Pride in America is going down.
According to Gallup, U.S.
national pride falls to record low from everyone.
It's way down.
Only 63% say that they're extremely or very proud.
42% would say they're extremely proud.
But this is down, especially from around where it was in 2001-2002.
These people aren't feeling good, man.
And I'll tell you what, people want to feel like they're part of something.
They want to feel like someone's got their back.
They want to feel like they're contributing to something bigger than themselves.
And when they don't have that, they feel... they feel bad.
So now what do you have?
The Democrats are dejected in all over the place.
Who knows what they're calling for?
No one even knows what defund the police really means.
Does it mean take a little money away?
Does it mean divert the money?
Does it mean disband the departments?
Abolish police outright?
Shut down the courts?
These things have all been promoted by people on the left.
It's meaningless and you have no idea how to even be a part of what the left is.
They eat their own so often, you have no idea what's going on.
Take a look at what happened in Atlanta.
They burned down a Wendy's!
Why?
What did Wendy's have to do with what happened to this man?
No idea.
So if you want to find a community where people say at least they can look at Trump and say, hey, you know, if they cheer for this guy, they will feel good.
You take all that uncertainty and fear.
You add it to the fact that the Trump economy was was amazing for several years.
You send them to a rally where they can stand shoulder to shoulder, people smiling, shaking their hands, giving them hugs while Trump makes them laugh and cheers for America.
And I assure you, people are going to crave this.
Not everybody.
There's going to be a lot of people who don't want to vote for Trump.
But we'll see how things play out in the popular vote.
And I could be wrong about all of this.
Absolutely.
His approval rating is tanking.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
I'm just wrong.
I don't think I'm a prophet.
I don't think I can see the future.
I think I can just read stories that say Trump's birthday marks RNC Trump campaign's single best online fundraising day ever.
They say the Trump campaign brought in $14 million across three entities on his birthday, smashing the previous record of $10 million October 2016.
Are we on track for a repeat of 2016?
Dare I say yes?
Just take a look at the United Kingdom, where December 13th they had an election, and it was one of the worst defeats the left in that country had ever seen in nearly 100 years.
Certain areas that had not voted conservative for like 80, 90 years flipped from blue to red.
Now that could happen here, and I think with all the violence and destruction, you're gonna see it, man.
The polls can say whatever they want, I am not convinced.
In 2016, I thought Trump was gonna lose, and Hillary's gonna win for sure, and she didn't.
In 2018, I thought, this is it, Trump's got it, the Republicans are gonna sweep, and I was wrong about that.
So listen, I'm 50-50, I'm wrong on both counts on this one.
So far be it from me to tell you what to expect.
I was wrong in 2016, many people were.
I was wrong in 2018 about the midterms, oh yeah, definitely.
And maybe I will be wrong this time, and you know what?
Yeah, so be it.
I'm just looking at the news as it is today.
And you've got a couple different metrics where you can make your choice as to what you think's gonna happen.
Is the fundraising more important?
Maybe not.
Maybe the fundraising is coming from, you know, a lot of people who are very fervent, but not enough of them to actually win an election.
His approval rating is down, but if you have 35% of the country, as the left is arguing, in support of Trump, but very in support of Trump, and they all donate, well then yeah, Trump will bring in a ton of money, but he won't win a general election.
There are a lot of people who have predicted Trump might actually lose.
And you know what?
Following these unpredictable events of the nationwide rioting and COVID, I think it's entirely possible.
But I'll tell you what.
The polls are hard to track.
The reason I think it's significant when the polls show an all-time high is because the polls tend to skew negative for Trump.
So if the polls were negative for Trump and he still got elected, it must mean something crazy when his polls shoot up really, really high.
With the polls, I don't know if they're necessarily a good way to judge what's going to happen, because they were wrong before.
We can look at fundraising, and we can look at ticket RSVPs, and we can look at the data.
The rioting helps Republicans.
Why would suburbanites see the rioting and think Joe Biden is the right choice?
No.
I think what's going to happen is a bunch of these suburbanites are going to say, Donald Trump, he's the only one.
He is.
But it's not just Trump.
It's about what the left is representing today.
Take a look at these stories.
ESPN hits all-time 41-year ratings low as Woke Center on Steroids takes over.
Yep.
Woke politics.
People don't like it.
How about this story?
Amazon is banning books.
Elon Musk is calling it out.
Here you go.
Magic the Gathering cards.
A trading card game about goblins, vampires, and wizards is banning cards for being racist.
And how about this?
Gone with the Wind removed from HBO Max.
They say they'll bring it back with some educational disclaimer of some sort.
Gone with the Wind, the highest grossing film of all time adjusted for inflation.
And will anyone ever beat it?
I really doubt it.
American icons, art, and history being destroyed, purged, insulted.
I can only imagine, man, you know, when they came out and said, baby, it's cold outside, had to go.
A lot of people were like, whoa, but I grew up listening to that.
How many 40, 50-year-old suburbanite Americans remember waking up on Christmas morning to a warm chocolate chip cookie and a slice of apple pie or something, hearing this song sung by their parents as they laughed and they opened presents?
Now, that's not a representation of all of America.
It's the suburbs.
It's the places where Trump needs to win.
How many of these people remember seeing Gone with the Wind, knowing what it was, or respecting Thomas Jefferson, even passively, like, oh yeah, founder of this country?
How many people really do believe in America for all its faults and respect and know Thomas Jefferson was not a confederate?
And how many of these people are now scared that their very identity as Americans is being shredded by lunatics in the street smashing windows and seizing territory in Seattle?
How many of those people are going to beg Trump to make America great again?
I'd be willing to bet it's a lot.
But I guess, as per usual, we can only just wait and see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different YouTube channel, and I will see you all then.
Something is fundamentally wrong with New York.
Now, I think it's fair to say there's something fundamentally wrong with many different places in this country.
But for the sake of this segment, we're talking about New York State.
The other day, Governor Cuomo was threatening local businesses, literally saying you would take away their licenses because of violations of social distancing rules.
At the exact same time, something like 10 or 20,000 people were marching in Brooklyn for Black Lives Matter.
Now what is this?
That the governor won't call out what these people are doing?
That they're going to claim there's going to be a second wave and it's the fault of these businesses?
This I can understand.
You see, this is them being terrified of violent riots.
You get what you want when you riot, man.
Hey, look.
The rioters said rioting worked.
They're correct.
Terrorism worked for them.
Congratulations.
Threatening to destroy small businesses.
Threatening violence.
Apparently got the job done.
Why?
Because Cuomo bent the knee to terror.
Let's talk about the absolute failures of policy.
NYPD brass, we are arresting too many prisoners on early COVID release.
Oh, surprise, surprise.
Jonathan Martinez is one of at least 250 people released from Rikers during the coronavirus pandemic, who has since been re-arrested in some cases multiple times.
At this point, I can only conclude the Democratic governors in all of these states have enforced these ridiculous policies, have completely failed in every single capacity.
You can't stop the protests.
You can't stop the riots.
In fact, they're cheering for a lot of the protesters.
Some of the governors, I think in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, I believe New Jersey, actually went out and marched with the protesters.
At the same time, COVID was so dangerous, they had to release convicted criminals.
From their jails and prisons.
And guess what?
I believe it's St.
Louis.
I could be wrong.
The AG of Missouri said that every single person they had arrested for looting and rioting, guess what?
Was someone who was released due to the COVID pandemic.
So here we are.
Businesses are completely crippled.
They're still being threatened.
They're still being targeted by the government.
And the protests carry on as though nothing matters.
How is this possible?
Take a look at this story from NBC New York.
Hundreds of prisoners released early from Rikers due to COVID concerns are being enabled to re-offend again and again without consequence, law enforcement leaders say.
We're continuing to see people get arrested over and over and let right back out.
And it really defies common sense, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said in an interview with NBC New York.
It's almost like they want everything to collapse and become just awful.
But why?
You know, I've heard a lot from conservatives that this is a plot to hurt Donald Trump, because you'll damage the economy, and that's bad for Trump, and then, you know, the coronavirus pandemic will lead to mail-in voting and stuff, and I've heard it all.
But, uh...
These are in blue cities and blue states.
I mean, think about it.
People are talking about they want to get mail-in voting.
Okay, well, the red states have reopened, like most of them, I guess.
So why would they implement mail-in voting if they don't have to and they've reopened and everything's fine?
What would happen if New York did it?
The popular vote might swing, I guess, more heavily for Joe Biden, but maybe that's what they want.
Maybe that's what they want.
They want to see 70 million votes for Joe Biden and 65 for Trump and then say, this cannot be, the electoral college must go, we can't have this, blah, blah, blah.
Maybe.
But they're destroying themselves.
People are fleeing these places.
It's almost like they're trying to make sure Trump wins.
Now, some people have said, yeah, but if they go to the countryside, they'll vote and they'll change the shape of the Electoral College.
No, it won't.
They didn't change their voting registration in the past few months.
A lot of these places, I believe most, won't allow you to register this close to the election.
So they're going to be voting absentee for the cities they were in.
Maybe next election, 2024.
Maybe that's the bet.
I have no idea, man.
But I'll tell you what.
How do you- How are- How is Cuomo and de Blasio- How are they going to explain this to residents?
Come on back to New York City, where we destroyed your business, let the criminals out, they got arrested again, and then we let them out right again!
How- Who's gonna wanna come back to that?
They say.
Of approximately 2,500 defendants sprung from Rikers early because of COVID safety planning, at least 250 have been arrested again since, according to Michael Lepetri, Chief of Crime Control Strategies for the NYPD.
Chief Lepetri tells NBC New York, the NYPD did not object to releasing older defendants, nor those with underlying medical conditions.
But he says the consequences of the larger scale release of prisoners are now showing up in the arrest data.
With those 250 re-offenders being arrested 450 times so far during the pandemic.
No, no, no, no, no.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
As soon as they cheered for these protests.
Take a look at this.
Amanda Presto says, we were allowed only 25% capacity at church with no singing.
Today was the first time we were allowed to hold mass in person.
And what is this?
It's a video of what looks like tens of thousands of people in Brooklyn standing shoulder-to-shoulder protesting.
Take a look at this one.
Mark Hemingway says, little over an hour apart.
From NBC News, they say rally for black trans lives draws packed crowd to Brooklyn Museum Plaza.
That's great.
And then about an hour apart, President Trump plans to rally his supporters next Saturday for the first time since most of the country was shuttered by the coronavirus.
Health experts are questioning that decision.
How absolutely absurd for them to argue that a controlled event where Trump can actually, they can actually temperature check people and tell sick people they can't come in is worse than tens of thousands of people marching shoulder to shoulder across the country with no checks.
Someone gets sick.
Yeah.
Maybe they want COVID.
Maybe they want to spread.
I have no idea, man.
But these people have absolutely lost their minds.
Let's read.
Let's read more of this.
So here they say, Josh Romani, a co-owner of the drugstore Prime Essentials, says he felt sad when he first saw surveillance tape of a man stealing socks and putting them on inside his store on Lower Broadway on June 6th.
I felt really bad that he got arrested for taking socks, food, and medicine.
We should have given it to him.
We would have given it to him if he asked.
Romani and his business partners, Eb Khalili, said they were appalled to learn from the news for IT that the man, identified by the NYPD as 27-year-old Jonathan Martinez, had already been rearrested three other times before throwing a rock through his store window that Saturday.
This is shocking and disturbing.
It's a bad decision by our leaders.
A bad decision, you think?
Martinez was released from Rikers on March 16th under plans to reduce jail population for health reasons during the pandemic, according to the Manhattan DA's office.
At the time, he was facing a range of charges from petty larceny—petite larceny, I guess it says—to forcible touching, stemming from at least six separate incidents since November 2019.
Martinez was being held for allegedly robbing the Sephora on East 86th Street.
He also had a violent past.
Martinez had already served a 364-day sentence for pleading guilty in 2014 to strangulation involving his girlfriend.
And this is who they let out.
You know what, man?
Look, I've mentioned before there's a constitutional question about whether or not we can keep someone in a jail if we know there's a pandemic.
But how can you justify the release of these criminals over and over and over again while you have completely disregarded the pandemic in reference to your ideological cause?
I'm sorry, man.
I just... I don't understand.
They say Danny Frost, spokesman for the Manhattan DA's office, says that while his office did sign off on some COVID-related early releases, Martinez was not one of them.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
You mean to tell me this dude wasn't supposed to be released and they're just letting people go now?
Seven days after his early release, Martinez was arrested for allegedly pulling a box cutter while stealing a cell phone from a passenger in a parked car.
NBC New York has obtained video of the incident.
Martinez was released on his own recogniz- You know what, man?
New York has become a wasteland.
10% of Rikers inmates re-arrested after coronavirus release.
Truly incredible.
Now in San Francisco, they're straight up saying they're not going to respond to non-criminal calls.
The cities are on fire, man, figuratively.
These places are falling apart.
And it seems like it's by design.
I guess the main issue for me and why I think this is happening is, When you just bend the knee to the outrage mob, there's no rhyme or reason to what you do, so naturally everything will just be broken and backfire on you.
You've got hordes of people making demands like abolish the police, abolish the court systems, abolish prisons, and yes, the rhetoric is dejected and doesn't make sense.
Some people are saying defund.
We mean take all their money away.
No, no, defund just means divert some of the funds.
No, devund means completely abolish.
They don't even know what they're talking about.
And you've got politicians pandering to people who are saying things that have no cohesive plan.
How do you go to a politician and say, we want to defund the police?
And they say, I have no idea what that means, but we'll just let the prisoners out.
Well, here you go, man.
It really does feel.
At the very least, the cities will collapse.
Now, maybe, you know, the rural areas, the countryside, the smaller towns will survive all of this.
You know, San Francisco will no longer respond to non-criminal calls.
I don't know what that means, anyway.
What is a non-criminal call?
Like, someone doing something petty, I guess?
I don't know.
They say things like neighbor disputes, school discipline interventions, other non-criminal activities.
Maybe they shouldn't have been responding to that stuff in the first place, I have no idea, but I'll tell you what.
Things are being dismantled.
Maybe that was the plan all along to dismantle everything.
They want you to live in.
They want you to see a world that makes no sense.
They want you to lose confidence in the government.
Now I'm not going to pretend like there's a grand conspiracy necessarily, but you have
revolutionary figures, violent extremists that foment this kind of stuff.
The people I know when I've covered these events over the past decade, I'll tell you
what man, they really do want to see the system collapse.
From the ashes of the old world, we will build anew.
That's what they say.
So how do you do it?
One of the things that I've heard from a lot of people, and I've talked about this before, is the chaos vote.
Voting for Donald Trump on purpose because they thought he would bring chaos.
Well, I believe that was wrong, but they were absolutely correct that the chaos would come, and it came from the Democrats, who seemingly have no plan, and all they do is screech at the top of their lungs, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, impeachment, just over and over and over, Jussie Smollett, Covington, all the things they were wrong about.
The chaos worked.
I don't know if these same people will want Trump again because in order to get chaos, you got to flip things back and forth.
But now you can see how the local governments are handling things.
And yes, it is absolute chaos.
There's no confidence in government.
The police are letting criminals out.
The police aren't responding to calls.
The police aren't enforcing social distancing orders on certain groups.
They're telling protesters they will be released without charge.
In Fort Worth, they're dropping rioting charges against some of these people.
But they're telling you that your business will be permanently shuttered unless you obey.
There is no rhyme or reason.
Perhaps it is all on purpose.
Now, do I think Andrew Cuomo is doing it on purpose?
No, I think Andrew Cuomo is scared of riots.
And so he will give the terrorists whatever they ask for because he's a pathetic, spineless little weasel who says, please don't hurt me.
But then, because, you know, like most schoolyard bullies who have no spine, he goes to the small businesses and says, oh yeah, well I know I can bully you because you won't do anything about it.
And he tells the small businesses, F you.
It reminds me of like the, you know, this bully who gets, you know, smacked around by his dad.
He knows he can't fight back against his dad, so then he goes to the schoolyard and he takes it out on other kids who he knows he can beat up.
That's what this is.
The protesters will burn your city to the ground, and there is nothing you can do to stop them.
Therefore, they won't enforce the laws.
They won't even bother.
They won't try.
They won't call in the National Guard.
They won't call in the military.
They just bend the knee.
And then they come for the regular Americans.
Now, Glenn Greenwald responded to this tweet from Mark Hemingway about the hypocrisy, saying, To justify this, Democrats have decided to claim being outside with masks is now safe.
Would have been nice to have known that when the super awesome Grim Reaper guy was shaming people for being at deserted beaches, and billions were subjected to stay-at-home orders, but here we are.
Yeah.
You see, they were making absurd claims.
Like, uh, the ocean was aerosolizing the virus and you couldn't pay me a million dollars.
They arrested a guy who was paddleboarding by himself in the ocean!
That wasn't supposed to be against any rules at all!
They told people to go out and go for walks and exercise.
The rules make no sense.
They want to make sure that the law-abiding citizens are getting beaten down and punished.
And these protesters and rioters, well, they can do no wrong, can they?
And that's the story from The Spectator.
You can't rally, we can riot.
The staggering hypocrisy of the Democrats over COVID-19.
Now, I want to make sure I clarify my main point in all of this.
When you release prisoners from prison, re-arrest them and release them again, you sow chaos.
When you allow riots without calling in law enforcement, just letting people run amok, you court chaos.
No, you allow chaos.
When you tell these people they're allowed to protest and you ignore them while battering down small business, you are courting chaos.
So the main point I'm trying to make with these stories Is the complete and utter failure of these state level Democrats, these governors, these local politicians who have repeatedly encouraged their people from before the pandemic, during the pandemic until afterwards, were encouraging their people to go out and do these things.
What did Nancy Pelosi say?
Come on down to Chinatown and meet all the good people.
Don't worry.
Don't worry about coronavirus.
What did the health experts from New York say?
Come on down party.
Come on down to Chinatown and party.
And then what happened?
Well, then it was an emergency.
Then the hospitals were overwhelmed.
Oh no, heavens!
Gotta shut down all of Trump's rallies.
Oh no, don't let Trump do his televised press events.
Gotta shut that down too.
And now, we're supposedly still in the midst of a pandemic.
By all means, come down and protest in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
Look at this photo.
Protesters crowd down Hollywood Boulevard, and they have the nerve in media right now to claim that we have no idea what's causing the spike in the coronavirus.
Listen, the riots were, what, two weeks ago now, over the course of a week?
Yeah, so the average incubation period is like four days.
So yes, we're going to start seeing a major spike.
And what did they say?
Perhaps this is from Memorial Day a month ago.
Because chaos.
That's what's happening.
It's shocking to me, to be honest, that they would try and argue that Trump would not win following this.
Now, to be fair, you see these mass protests, and all these people are probably going to go out and vote for Joe Biden, I'd imagine.
So maybe it is true.
Maybe America is just on the verge of collapse and chaos no matter what we do.
But here's the main challenge, man.
These people.
Well, I'd imagine individually are not in favor of book burnings and banning art and movies.
They provide the front, the shield, for the people who are ransacking the museum.
I mean that quite literally.
In Portland, they tore down a statue of Thomas Jefferson.
And I'll talk about this stuff later today, or if you're listening to the podcast, you probably already heard it.
But they literally tore down Thomas Jefferson.
Guess what?
Trump was right.
Again.
Look, I'm not saying Trump is right about everything, but in this regard, there have been many issues where Trump has been correct.
He said, if they tear down these statues, who's next?
Thomas Jefferson?
George Washington?
Yes.
In Portland, they tore down Thomas Jefferson.
These people don't... These people protesting.
They probably don't know about this.
They probably don't care all that much.
But I'll tell you what, man.
They will absolutely turn a blind eye as they link arms and block the museum door so that you can't get in.
And they'll sing dumb songs because they're morons while people inside are ransacking everything.
Now, I typically don't like to levy insults, but I gotta tell you, man, when someone is burning art and banning books and banning movies, and you can't see that history has begun repeating itself, so they defend the people destroying history, saying, well, they're not really destroying history.
I'm sorry, man.
These people are dangerously stupid.
They are.
Because of these crowds, you have big businesses banning TV shows.
Or at least one episode like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
This is the episode where they were doing a movie called Lethal Weapon 5.
You're probably familiar with Lethal Weapon.
And the episode was explicitly explaining why Blackface was wrong.
They got rid of it.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
You know, there was a funny story I hear all the time.
It may be true, it may be apocryphal, but it's about chimps in a research study.
Where they put a ladder in the middle of a room, and maybe I'm getting it wrong, but this is the story as it was told to me.
They put a bunch of chimps in a room, they put a ladder in the middle, and they put fruit on top of the ladder.
And whenever a chimp would try and climb the ladder, they would spray them all down with a fire hose.
Well, the chimps didn't like it, so whenever a chimp would go for the ladder, the other chimps would pull him off and beat him up, like, stop, you're gonna get us sprayed with the hose.
Eventually, one day, they removed one of the chimps and brought in a new chimp.
That new chimp didn't know anything about the firehose and the ladder, immediately climbed up the ladder to get the fruit, but the other chimps pulled him down and beat him up.
There was no firehose at this point.
The new chimp didn't understand why he was being beaten up.
One by one, they removed all the chimps and replaced them with new ones, and they completely
got rid of the fire hose.
And if any of those chimps would try and climb the ladder, the other chimps would pull them
down and beat them up.
That's just a story as I've heard it.
It may not be true, but the general idea is people will do things just because that's
the way it's always been.
And the reason I bring that up is that if they erase history, they ban shows, they ban movies, they don't allow you to talk about certain ideas.
They will erase your understanding of why there are certain rules and they just want you to mindlessly follow along completely unaware of why these things are good or bad.
That way you can't challenge them.
That way they can tell you what to do and you can do nothing about it.
What's scary is We're on a really dangerous track towards authoritarianism, and as they start digitally burning books by banning them, tearing down statues, and burning art, banning art, we're getting to the point where they're going to erase our ability to understand why they're doing it, because we know from history why they did it.
Now, will it happen today?
Probably not.
Tomorrow?
Probably not.
But I'll tell you this already.
I'm talking to some of my friends who are like, what's wrong with tearing down Thomas Jefferson?
He owned slaves.
And I'm like, because the man laid the groundwork for a country in which we got rid of those slaves, and so that's what we like.
We're not celebrating bad things, we're celebrating the good things.
We condemn the bad things, that's the point.
And we also want to remember the bad things, and it's very important we know that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, because we don't like that idea.
And so you can recognize your history, why it was bad, and what we like.
But they're tearing these things down, and they're not going to stop.
And this crowd of people, who are in violation of the rules, are the arms linked in front of the building, stopping the rioters, who are destroying art and history.
These are the people that provide cover so that when the lunatics with bats and crowbars or whatever show up to a company's headquarters, they say, we better do what we're told.
These people are empowered by the terrorists.
Okay?
I have no problem with the protests.
I have no problem with the protesters.
They're allowed to do it.
My issue is the hypocrisy that they would flaunt their right to their ideological supremacy in the face of everything happening in this country.
I have a problem with that.
So, while on the surface, by all means, First Amendment.
The ideological double standard is insane.
It's absolutely insane, and I think everyone can see it.
thing, but they did not have the sheer numbers of this group. And it was this group that condemned
the anti lockdown protesters as being stupid. And they still do it. The ideological double
standard is insane. It's absolutely insane. And I think everyone can see it, which is why it's
surprising to me that they would argue that Trump would lose unless they're the right, the regular
Americans don't know and don't care, in which case we're in serious trouble, man.
It's not about Trump.
It's not about the Republicans.
It's about the fact that the Democrats are wholly embracing the ideological outrage mob, the zealotry.
They're allowing the terrorists to get whatever they want while they're punishing anyone who opposes them because they're spineless and pathetic.
People like Andrew Cuomo.
I mean, that's got to be one of those spineless and pathetic politicians I've ever seen.
And I really do mean that.
I'm not saying that for emotional dig or whatever.
I'm trying to, to the best of my ability, explain.
This man is on his knees begging.
He is on his knees begging.
And he is giving them whatever they ask for.
That's not a leader.
I'm sorry.
Whatever, man.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
And I will see you all then.
The Supreme Court has just issued a landmark ruling pertaining to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, which covers employment discrimination.
The ruling basically says, a 6-3 ruling, that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Now, before I get started, I want to say the first and most important thing, in my opinion, Employers should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity because I mean those honestly for the most part have nothing to do with whether or not you can do a job.
Somebody who's doing a job If they do it poorly, if they do something that's, you know, unrelated to their personal issues, well, then you fire them.
If you just don't like the persons who they're dating, I think that's kind of a silly reason.
Now there are a lot of complicated questions here as it pertains to liberty versus authority, but more importantly, the letter of the law.
Conservatives right now are obviously upset about this, but for the most part, the reason they're upset isn't because they don't, you know, they don't like certain people of certain orientations or identity.
The main argument I'm seeing from conservatives is that this is legislating from the bench.
That basically, Democrats and the left have been trying for years to create legislation to get it passed.
They've been creating legislation, but they want to get it passed.
That would add orientation and identity to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to amend it, and they've been unsuccessful in doing so.
Now, with this ruling, they've effectively bypassed the legislative process.
There's a really, really interesting argument put forth that, in my opinion, the Supreme Court gets right as it pertains to sexual orientation.
However, things get murky when you start talking about gender identity because, well, as we've seen from New York's attempts at legislating this, It starts to break down and become confusing because identity is cultural.
Look, if you were to talk about what makes someone trans or not, you'd have to really define where that line is.
In our law right now, especially with this ruling, there's no requirement that you actually transition or anything like that.
People can be trans simply by saying they are, which creates A potential for, I know it's kind of cliche to say, but a slippery slope.
I'm not entirely concerned for right now what that slippery slope would entail, but I do think I can provide examples of where this may go and why this may become an issue, or ultimately why it may cause more changes.
Basically, with this ruling from the Supreme Court, I think they've opened the door to ton of other arguments related to identity, which includes
transracialism, which includes speciesism, and also otherkin, which would be people who
think they're like mythical creatures or something like that. I know some people have already
said, Tim Strawmanning, blah, blah, blah.
I tweeted about this, asking what the limits are on this protection,
and already all these lefties are like yelling.
I never said I completely disagreed with the ruling or anything like that.
I think there's a question to be had around it.
And personally, I think employers should not be able to discriminate on the basis of these characteristics.
However, I think a sane, logical person can have a conversation about what this means and where we go from here without trying to make it some tribal nonsense.
So please, for the sake of this video, This video should not be taken to be me arguing for or against anything.
I want to talk about what this means for our civilization.
Alright, let's read the story from the Associated Press.
Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination.
I gotta be honest.
It includes, in my opinion, I think, the entire spectrum of LGBTQIA2APP+.
There's some other ones.
I-I-A?
I'm not trying to be silly.
I'm trying to literally show that it's not LGBT.
It's well beyond this.
Let's read.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.
The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, known as the Title VII, that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.
Quote, An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids, a well-articulated argument that for the most part I agree with.
It's a very good point.
Think about it this way.
If there is somebody who is male... No, no, no.
Let's remove gender or sex or whatever from the equation.
If there is somebody who is in love with a male, if this person is female, you probably wouldn't question it.
If this person is male, and you do question it, you are specifically targeting them on the basis of their sex.
It's actually a really good point.
And I actually... I agree with it.
Now, the issue with transgender is different because these are cultural issues, for the most part.
Unless they issue in their ruling or in legislation, which does not exist, that trans specifically refers to people who are undergoing some kind of medical treatment or in some way you can delineate what is or isn't trans, this one actually is broken and is wrong.
Now keeping in mind, I do not believe companies should be able to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.
That's just my personal opinion.
However, I do have questions about how you define gender identity and this is the real challenge.
Let me try and simplify this for you.
If there is someone who is transgender in that they were born male and they now identify as female and they, you know, have gender dysphoria and we are absolutely trying to protect their rights and everything.
I think we should discriminate based on these characteristics that ultimately have nothing to do with whether or not they can perform the job, unless of course they affect how you can perform the job, which is where things start to get more complicated, I suppose.
In a lot of the laws we've seen in state jurisdictions, like New York for instance, They talk about your self-image, your personal view.
They talk about the fact that gender doesn't actually mean male or female.
It could mean both or neither or anything else.
In which case?
I would say on the basis of their argument, they fundamentally misunderstand what transgender is.
Or I could actually put it a different way.
I think they're taking a good faith, standard, colloquial understanding of the word transgender to apply it to this, in which case I believe it does sort of make sense.
But here are the questions I have.
The homosexual issue or the bisexual issue, I totally get.
But trans, so if there is a male who begins wearing female clothing and you can't fire them for this, what if you have a dress code?
There's a lot of questions pertaining to what qualifies someone to be transgender and what qualifies being fired for being transgender.
If your company says it's standard to wear pants and someone comes in and says pants don't conform to my identity because I'm trans and they want to wear a skirt or something, would that be considered firing them because of a violation of dress code?
Or would it be considered firing them because of their choice to identify in a certain gender?
Yes, I know there's obvious answers to this particular analogy.
Are females allowed to wear these things?
Are males not?
But it starts to get murky when you talk about what qualifies as someone identifying as another gender.
Because there's quite literally a man, I believe in Seattle, Who is literally just a presenting male, okay?
This is a person with a beard who wears normal male clothing.
Very, very well known in the trans rights community.
And this individual identifies as female with a beard and everything, saying that they're trying to break down what it means to truly be female because gender identity is a social construct.
In which case, how do you actually define whether or not someone is or isn't discriminating?
I think for the most part, there's a good faith attempt at understanding what transgender is, but they don't understand.
I believe these justices haven't really, they don't really understand the current arguments for and what trans it really is.
Let's read more and then I'll show you some better examples to try and break this down.
Justice Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas dissented. Quote, The court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing
the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous, Alito wrote in the dissent. Even
as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of sex is different
from discrimination because of orientation or identity. They say the outcome is expected
to have a big impact for the estimated 8.1 million LGBT workers across the country because most
states don't protect them from workplace discrimination.
An estimated 11.3 million LGBT people visit the U.S., according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School.
But Monday's decision is not likely to be the court's last word on a host of issues revolving around LGBT rights, Gorsuch noted.
Lawsuits are pending over transgender athletes' participation in school sporting events, and courts are also dealing with cases about sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms, a subject that justices seemed concerned about during arguments in October.
Employers of religious objections to employing LGBT people also might be able to raise those claims in a different case, Gorsuch said.
But none of these other laws are before us.
We have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of the terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today," he wrote.
The cases were the court's first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement and replacement by Kavanaugh.
So this is a six to three ruling.
I mean, this is a fair, it's fairly strong.
It's not 5 to 4.
It's not, you know, 9 to 0 or 8 to 1 or whatever.
No, you've got 6 to 3.
Decently strong.
Not the strongest.
Kind of in the middle.
But there are a lot of issues that I have to bring up.
Again, for the millionth time, I know that the left is already trying to strawman me by asking the simple question.
But I'm going to show you this from, this is New York City's example of how they define gender, expression, and identity, and non-conforming, and then I want to present you some questions I have for how the Supreme Court is ruled, and present some potential problems.
First, before I read anything, based on their interpretation of what sex means in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they have stated, for the purpose of the law, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, which specifically includes several categories, which I find very, very interesting, mind you.
It includes race, gender, national origin, not gender, I'm sorry, sex.
Here's what they're arguing.
Transgender.
In order to discriminate based on being trans, you are incorporating sex into this.
And the same thing with homosexuality.
Therefore, these two issues are derivative of sex.
I then have a question.
To what else would be protected under the exact same argument?
And would we need to go to court for any future cases involving anything derivative of sex?
Here's a question I posed on Twitter.
Not as a literal argument, as a literal question.
And maybe you guys can comment below.
There have been people who identify as transgender and trans species.
They say that part of their gender identity is tiger.
I am not exaggerating or making this up, and I am not trying to discredit or strum in.
I'm asking a literal question, so please, for the sake of this, let's just have an intelligent conversation.
If someone says that their gender identity is female tiger because gender is a social construct, would they have or not have these protections?
One could argue that a person altering their body or face in a certain way and growling and walking on all fours might not be protected because it has nothing to do with sex.
But what if they incorporate that into their identity?
You could argue that they gain the protections to be the other sex, but what if their expression of this involves being a tiger?
I mean, I'm asking a serious question because it does come up in New York City.
Take a look at their definitions here.
This is from their human rights law.
Their gender definition says, Gender includes actual or perceived sex, identity, and expression, including a person's actual or perceived gender-related self-image.
Now first, I must present the issue of how do you define gender by using gender over and over again?
You're operating under the assumption we know what you mean by gender, but gender is supposed to define what gender is, and you're not doing that!
They say.
Gender includes, okay, so perceived gender-related self-image, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristics, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.
Now, I understand.
This is what courts are for.
I actually talked to a lawyer a few years ago, asking them how would this be interpreted if someone said they were otherkin, and they said a judge would laugh them out of the room.
Because we understand what the goal of this is.
People born one of the biological sexes.
However, they go on to say that gender identity could be the same as or different from one.
Here we go.
Gender nonconforming is a term used to describe a person whose gender expression differs from gender stereotypes, norms, and expectations in a given culture or historical period.
Terms associated with gender nonconformity include, but are not limited to, gender expansive, gender variant, or gender diverse.
They say gender identity is the internal, deeply held sense of one's gender, which may be the same as or different from one's sex assigned at birth.
A person's identity may be male, female, neither or both.
Neither or both!
There.
That's the question I had.
Now.
If someone says their identity is neither, what would that mean?
Well, it has to be something, right?
Would they make up their own cultural norms for what is gender?
In which case, how do you define this?
Look, I believe that all peoples are deserving of respect.
I just want to make sure we know the rules so we don't step on anybody's toes.
That's fair, right?
If you want to make sure that I, in the course of my doing business, am respectful of your identity, I need to know what that means.
And right now, they quite literally say identity could be neither male nor female, or both.
If non-binary or genderqueer.
What does non-binary mean?
When you look at the internet list of genders for non-binary genders, there are thousands.
There is one, I'm not making this up, it's literally called hydrogender.
And they say a gender that is much like water.
I don't know what that means.
So if you're now saying that gender is literally a social construct and can be whatever you want it to be, you can't define what transgender is.
So this is just New York City, not the federal level.
The federal level, I think, is taking a very narrow view of what transgender really means.
So, this is actually interesting because this has come up with, I believe, and I could be getting some of this wrong, so forgive me, I'm not intending to.
ContraPoints, you may be familiar with.
Very popular transgender YouTuber who has actually, and again, I could be wrong, I'm trying not to, has posted about the previous generation's understanding of what trans means, meaning there's male and there's female, it's binary trans, versus the New Age Gen Z version of trans, which is literally whatever you want it to be.
Okay, let's take a look at gender expression.
They say, Gender expression is the representation of gender as expressed through one's name, pronouns, clothing, hairstyle, behavior, voice, or similar characteristics.
Gender expression may or may not conform to gender stereotypes, norms, and expectations in a given culture or historical period.
Gender expression is not the same as orientation or identity.
Terms associated with gender expression include, but are not limited to, androgynous, butch, female, woman, feminine, femme, gender non-conforming, male, man, masculine, or non-binary.
Okay, pronouns!
Has this been confusing enough for you?
I'm sorry.
We know now that there are pronouns that are made up.
Z, zur, you know, things like that.
They have literally said that it may be male, female, or neither.
Male and female, as we know, are she, her, he, him.
And the neutral is they, them.
It could be both.
What would both be?
She, him?
His, her?
I don't know.
But neither could also be these made-up pronouns, right?
Here's the question I had to a lawyer.
If someone goes in and says that their gender includes their gender-related self-image, which is female tiger, would a court rule that is protected?
I was told by this lawyer that in all likelihood the judge would... it wouldn't pass the laugh test.
A judge would laugh it out of the courtroom.
Basically, Courts are designed to interpret the law to what they really should mean, and we're supposed to have a general understanding of what these things are.
However, the problem I proposed is, if someone comes in and says, under this law I'm protected, and a judge determines that your perception of your identity is incorrect, Then why wouldn't they be able to do that to literally any other interpretation of gender identity?
In which case, we would set precedent for a very, very rigid view of what gender identity is.
Thus, gender is not a social construct, because the judge would literally have to argue, it specifically refers to this, that, and these things.
Okay, the point I'm trying to make here, with the Supreme Court's ruling, and again, I'm sorry if this is confusing, because I think it's confusing myself, is that my best understanding of this, and with the modern culture, is that there are many people who have a unique, made-up view of gender.
They say that your clothing doesn't define gender.
You have people, a very prominent, high-profile transgender person who is not on hormones or any therapy, but is literally just a biological male saying they are trans and trying to break down gender stereotypes.
Does that qualify or not?
I honestly don't know.
So look, maybe I've made my point in that it's very difficult to make the point at all, because this is all very ill-defined.
They're trying to define it, but unfortunately, there is no easy way to define what this is.
Let me just make a few quick points.
First of all, Some people have said that this ruling from the Supreme Court will result in transgender athletes competing against females, like biological males.
That's not true.
This is about gender employment only.
So the lawsuits pertaining to trans athletes, we'll still see what happens.
And I think that's, for the most part, one thing I definitely wanted to break down.
You need to understand, this is specifically about jobs.
So, how this plays out, I don't know.
I also point out, some people have said, does this mean that someone who's about to get fired could simply say they're trans and thus they can't be fired?
No, that's not how it works.
The benefit, the privilege, dare I say, is still in the hands of the employers, because the employers are the ones who define why you were fired.
Now, as the employee who gets fired, you still have to argue why you believe they fired you on the basis of sex, gender identity, or whatever.
The issue is, if your boss comes to you and says, you spilled milk on the carpet, you're fired, you'll have to argue why it was really about your gender identity or your orientation.
For the most part, this is always very difficult to prove, okay?
Even though we have the 1964 Civil Rights Act, someone could fire you because they don't like you on the basis of your national origin, race, religion, and they'll just lie.
And they'll say, you know, this person was rather disruptive, people didn't like them, they didn't get along with them, it has nothing to do with these characteristics, and how do you prove it?
Some people will keep a log of the times things have happened, but even that isn't necessarily enough.
Typically, employers may just settle with you.
But in the end, it's still not a guarantee that you won't be discriminated against.
And in fact, they're adding this, I don't think will change a whole lot.
So, look, I guess we'll leave it there.
What this will lead to, I believe it will lead to some dramatic changes moving forward.
This may actually reduce what gender identity is perceived as.
So, all the gender non-conforming stuff might actually get erased by this.
Because I believe you will end up seeing more lawsuits now which will have to find their way to the Supreme Court.
Notably, if someone says they're transgender, and that means that part of their gender being a social construct, is to wear a giant clown costume.
I'm being absurd on purpose.
The point I'm trying to make is that if gender is a social construct, And that wearing pants or a skirt does not define gender, and you can wear whatever you want.
What's to stop someone from wearing something absurd and saying, you can't make me conform to your gender standards?
Someone could end up wearing something absurd, and then a job may say, you're not allowed to wear that.
Unfortunately, they are allowed to wear that under the immediate interpretation of the law.
If a judge throws the case out saying it's too absurd and he laughs at it, then what's to stop another judge from saying, I too can throw out whatever I want?
Look, these kinds of rulings have happened in the past.
We've eventually braided the random twines together to find the cohesive path forward.
Ultimately, I think this will make some chaos in the immediate.
It will result in kind of like fairly chaotic and difficult to understand moments, but ultimately in the long run we will figure out what it means, we will start to agree on certain terms, and this actually could curtail a lot of the Gen Z non-binary trans stuff, because if the Supreme Court is ruling that it is derivative of sex, then the non-binary argument actually gets Pushed aside.
So this precedent may actually be damaging in the long run.
So I'll leave it there.
Hopefully YouTube doesn't ban me for trying to have the conversation, but hey, you know how things go.
So anyway, stick around.
The next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
over at timcast.net.
Check it out, and I will see you all then.
Because CNN is a reality TV program and no longer cable news.
They're getting roasted, and boy, are they offended by it.
Recently, on Brian Stelter's show, Reliable Sources, his guest called him an activist, called him fake news, and he got really mad about it.
But I'm going to show you some.
CNN is just trash reality TV.
That's the point.
Soledad O'Brien, ex-CNN anchor, says that she was told to only have the right kind of black guests.
That's not surprising because CNN is not news.
They don't want to get you real, genuine opinions.
They don't want to talk about actual events.
They want to put on a show for you.
So when they're called out for it, finally, to Brian Stelter's face, someone calls him an activist.
Boy, did he get angry.
Let's read the stories, though, and see what's going on.
You're not a journalist, you're an activist.
Jenna Ellis fires back at Brian Stelter over Trump's CNN threat.
Campaign legal advisor Jenna Ellis got into a heated discussion Sunday with CNN host Brian Stelter over President Donald Trump's demand for a retraction from the network.
Ellis joined Stelter on Reliable Sources to talk about Trump's comments about media and the letter his campaign sent to CNN demanding a retraction over a recent poll.
Let me give you the, did they give you the quick gist of this thing?
Citing the fact that not all of the respondents to the poll were registered voters, Ellis referred to it as junk.
CNN has defended the poll, arguing that all of those who responded to the question about head-to-head matchup between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden were registered voters.
Stelter then brought up the president's tweet, suggesting that Americans change their cable providers if they had service from Comcast, which he referred to as CON-cast, asking whether Ellis thought it was appropriate for him to use his platform in this way.
Let me make it simple for you.
Trump is an American citizen.
He's the president, and regardless, he has a right to speak his mind.
If he wants to tell people to get rid of Comcast, then so what?
Who cares?
He can do it.
Is it appropriate?
Sure!
He can tweet whatever he wants.
And if he tweets something that's illegal, then maybe you call it out, but I'll tell you what...
People have tried arguing that Trump threatening military action was like a violation of Twitter's terms because it was threatening violence.
Okay, you know what?
Just stop.
Listen, it's the president, okay?
He tweeted something out.
Calm down.
But however, I don't know if they actually bring up the context here, but the issue with the poll that many conservatives had was that it undersampled Republicans, and that means it would oversample Democrats or at least skew in favor of Democrats.
What the Conservatives were saying was that take a look at the percentage of people who vote based on political party and poll accordingly among registered voters.
Brian Stelter says that it was among registered voters.
However, I believe it was like seven or eight percentage points underrepresenting Republicans, which means you will skew in favor of Democrats.
So when the poll came out showing Joe Biden with a massive lead, Trump said it was wrong.
So here's the tweet.
Concast is known for its terrible service.
On top of that, they provide fake news on MSDNC and NBC News.
Drop them and go to a good provider.
Ellis said that Trump was simply voicing his opinion, adding, he is also a citizen.
He's the first one to actually use his platform as an American citizen to be able to call out the fake news media.
You understand that, like, someday you're going to regret this, right?
Someday you're going to regret this when your kids and your grandkids look back at this time and you use slurs and smear us as fake news to hurt news outlets Stelter claimed.
Oh!
Somebody's triggered!
CNN, you're fake news!
Brian Stelter, you duplicitous, evil, evil man.
I don't use the word evil lightly, but how dare you?
Get outraged over being called fake news when you, your network, ran a fake story about Chris Cuomo quarantining when he was actually out with his family 30 minutes from his house on some Hamptons property and got into a fight with a guy and admitted it on his serious, I believe it was serious, radio program.
We know for a fact that you published overt fake news, and you have the nerve to insult her?
Nah, I'm sorry.
I call this evil, you know why?
Because Brian Stelter knows for a fact his network lies right into the ears of the American people.
And then what does he do?
He feigns outrage to defend his lies.
I'm sorry, that's evil, okay?
Look, you can be wrong, you can be self-interested, but evil is when you willfully mislead people for some kind of personal gain, okay?
That, to me, is evil.
Stelter claimed, then adding, I think in 10 or 20 years, if we sit down and talk about this, you'll recognize how damaging it was to use terms like fake news to attack journalists who are trying to do their jobs.
You are a lying, lying, evil person.
I am trying to hold my language back, because I got some worse words that I could use, but not here, not on this show.
We keep things family friendly.
Bro, you lied.
You lie so much.
So much of what you do is lies, and you know you're lying.
Listen, this is not an argument about the opinions of Brian Stelter or Oliver Darcy, the media reporters.
This is not an argument about whether or not I think...
Trump was lying or incorrect or misleading.
I am talking about CNN doing a whole segment where Chris Cuomo comes out of his basement and goes, this is the moment I've been waiting for.
I finally get to leave quarantine.
When a week before, he was caught off of his property with his family, doing whatever shenanigans, actually gets into a fight with a guy, threatens him, goes in his radio program and says, I was out there and this guy had that bike.
We know it was a lie.
New York Times journalists have called it out.
And Brian Seltzer has the nerve.
No, I'll tell you what you say, Brian.
I am so sorry for the fake news my network has put out.
We will try harder next time.
Instead, he gets super triggered.
You know why he got triggered by this being called fake news?
Because it's true.
Look, man, people call me fake news all the time.
People say I'm lying.
Tim Pool purposefully misleads people, blah, blah, blah.
I don't care.
It's not true.
And I tell you all the time, hey, you should watch CNN, you should watch Fox News, you should watch MSNBC, you should watch Steven Crowder, you should watch Six Sex and Amory, you should watch Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman, because they have different opinions than me.
Because I don't know everything.
And you know why he gets mad when you call it out?
Because he's the guy who says, don't watch the spin, just come to us for the real news, and then he lies to your face.
Because deep down he knows he's a bad person.
He knows it.
I know he knows it.
Because he didn't used to do this.
But now he works for a reality TV network and he's probably under contract and has no choice.
Oh no, what do I do?
They want me to lie to people.
Yeah, and he did it.
He sold his soul.
And it seems like it's eating away.
Eating away at him.
So he got mad.
In 15... He keeps going.
Or I'm sorry, this is Ellis shooting back.
In 15 or 20 years, you're not trying to do your job.
You're not a journalist, you're an activist.
That's the problem.
You have an agenda.
Anti-Trump.
The American people see through this.
This president is finally holding the fake news media accountable because you're activists.
You're not reporting facts and truth.
That's right.
He is an activist masquerading as a journalist.
But it's worse than that.
Brian Stelter used to be a journalist.
He interviewed me in 2011, back after Occupy Wall Street.
He used to be a journalist.
He talked about the media.
And then he decided to take a somewhat lucrative contract with CNN to produce an anti-Trump reality TV show, where they create an echo chamber of voices, where they're all sitting there patting each other on the back, shaking each other's hands.
And he knows what he's doing.
He quit the news business, man.
Listen, around this time, there was a big push for these kinds of shows, I know, because I had people pitching me these kinds of shows.
Hey man, why don't you do something with a little bit of comedy in it?
Why don't you do something where, you know, we'll play to one side, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, that's exactly what Brian Stelter saw.
He was at the New York Times.
I believe he was at the New York Times.
And then I remember he switches to CNN.
They must have sat him down and slid that contract right in front of him and say, hey man, abandon journalism.
Become a reality TV host.
And we'll make you a lot of money.
All you gotta do is keep pretending to be a journalist.
And he did it.
You know what, man?
I have no problem saying that what I do is political and cultural commentary.
Absolutely no problem.
You can call me all the names in the book.
You can insult me.
You can call me fake news.
It's fine.
I'm gonna keep doing my thing, and I'm gonna tell you, okay, if you don't like what I have to say, I can recommend other channels.
They're going to be like, oh, that guy who had that reality TV show?
Nah, whatever.
I don't know what they're going to say about me.
To be honest, I don't care.
I'm not pretending to be this great journalist of reliable sources talking about the truth in media and fake news slurs.
No, I repeat, I'm a dude sitting in his room complaining on the internet.
And that's how I expect to be remembered.
And I'm fine if people don't like me.
But this guy wants to pretend to be a journalist.
So when he gets called fake news, boy, does he get offended by it.
Listen bro, this is the network you work for.
Soledad O'Brien, she called out the racism of your network.
Yeah, CNN is garbage.
Complete and utter garbage.
Fake news.
Look man, the fake news about Chris Cuomo isn't the only thing they've done.
Look at this.
Former CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien made stunning claims on Saturday that a network exec once told her she could only have the right kind of black guests on her show.
Reacting to the controversy that has rocked ABC News of the weekend, O'Brien reflected on her time at CNN and indicated that a network executive discouraged her to sit down with black radio host Roland Martin.
This is an interesting read.
Reminds me of the CNN exec who told me Roland Martin isn't the right kind of black person.
She didn't want me to book him on my show.
The tweet included an L at the end, though it's unclear if that was alluding to an unnamed CNN executive or a typo.
I think maybe it's just a typo.
She added that according to the network executive, New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow, who was a frequent guest of hers, was the right kind of black.
You see what CNN is?
They don't want to tell you the truth.
They don't want to bring you real, raw opinions and facts.
They want to make sure they have the right kind of people, be it for racial reasons or for echo chamber reasons.
So when Brian Stelter does his Reliable Sources show, and they recycle the same fake talking points from the same fake people who lie, you have to wonder what their goal really is.
It's not journalism.
So I hope that in the future people look back at this time and they can say something like Brian Stelter was a great reality TV host of a fake show where they pretended to be journalists.
And they can call me every name in the book and say Tim Pool was just some stupid dude who complained on the internet and boy was that guy dumb!
And I'll be like, well, you know what?
You got me there.
I'm just a dude in his room complaining on the internet.
And so is Brian Stelter.
Just some dude sitting in his room talking to his friends with his own biased opinions, pretending like he's objective when he's not.
So get off your high horse, buddy man.
The rest of us did a long time ago.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
I keep hearing about these people I don't know talking about how they plan on kneeling when they go back to playing a sport I don't watch.
But it makes me wonder.
I don't know who these people are.
Like, I don't know, there was some Browns player, I guess, a quarterback or something.
They're like, will you kneel when NFL restarts?
And he's like, yes, I will.
And I'm like, I don't know who you are, and I don't watch this stuff.
But I have to imagine that...
Leftist, socialist revolutionaries don't watch it either.
And I'd be willing to bet that, like, I mean, my assumption about the average, like, person who watches football, regular dude, maybe he's got, like, a trade, maybe he, you know, does, like, masonry, carpentry, plumbing, some kind of trade job, or maybe even works in an office, mid-level, and likes cracking open a beer with his buddies, sitting down, ordering some wings and some pizza, putting his feet up and checking out the game.
I'm pretty sure most of them don't care about whether or not you were kneeling for the National Anthem.
But I'll tell you this.
You know who's not watching football?
And this is just my assumption, but I'm willing to bet it's not Antifa.
I'm willing to bet it's not Black Lives Matter urban liberals who have thick black-framed glasses and button-up shirts who go, you know, to their midtown offices in Manhattan and complain about the racial inequities of, like, chess or something.
Well, the white pieces go first, and that shouldn't be allowed.
Let me write a 500-word essay real quick.
I don't think anybody cares.
You know, I don't think those people care.
But that's who's being pandered to.
I'd imagine that on the other stereotypical end, I can just look at any beer commercial and be like, that's probably who watches football.
Which brings me to this story.
ESPN hits all-time 41-year ratings low as Woke Center on Steroids takes over.
Apparently I'm not the only one who's noticed this, that they keep trying to inject politics in literally a show Where you watch people- I mean the show as in like on TV.
Where people talk about a game where people try to get one ball from one side to the other side.
Be it basketball or soccer or football or rugby or whatever or maybe even you're talking about hockey.
Get the puck from this one to that one and put it in a little hole.
Sports?
I like sports.
I like skateboarding.
That's my sport.
And you know what?
The last thing I care about when I'm watching sports is whether or not they're adequately adhering to some kind of social justice narrative.
There have been a few high-profile skateboarding outlets that have really laid on the pandering, but I just ignore it.
You know why?
Because The Barracks, for instance.
You may not be familiar.
The Barracks is one of the most popular skate parks and skate websites and digital producers, YouTube channels, whatever you want to call it.
They make skate videos.
People go to the skate park, they skate there, it's fun to watch.
Well, here's what they did.
They did- I actually like this, by the way.
They have done a series of clips on Instagram where it shows high-profile, really great professional skateboarders who happen to be black.
And guess what?
You know why that's fine by me?
Because they just showed me a clip of some dude doing an awesome skateboarding maneuver.
And I'm like, man, that guy is cool.
That's really cool.
Awesome.
And then I keep scrolling.
That's all I get.
What do you get from this stuff?
But will you take a knee before you do this 360 flip crooked grind down a 10 stair hubba?
Okay, maybe that went over your head, skateboarding lingo.
But if they started putting up clips where instead of just showing tricks, it was someone pandering to me about racial issues, I'd be like, dude, I'm not gonna follow this.
I'm gonna unfollow your channel.
No.
I think the Barracks is doing something right.
They wanna address issues, they wanna highlight certain people, whatever, that's fine.
I'm all about the skateboarding.
Show me the skateboarding, I'm down to watch anybody skate.
You wanna give me a football show where you just start talking about police brutality?
Hey, I'm gonna turn it off!
I don't watch football.
But if I was going to turn on something like the Dew Tour or Street League Skateboarding, those are like big events, or the X Games, you might be familiar with that.
And instead of showing me the dude doing the first ever 1260 on the MegaRamp, you showed me a guy arguing about Black Lives Matter.
I would just turn it off.
Not because I personally have anything against you.
Not because I think the arguments are wrong.
But it's because I want to watch my sport.
So I can't tell you what someone who likes football is going to think because I don't play football.
But I imagine there's something similar there.
When I watch skateboarding or other sports, I like BMX too.
And I'll watch some scootering for sure.
Because they're similar trick lines and it's a similar concept.
I just want to watch the action.
I want to watch someone doing something cool, doing a backflip, and then there's scooters flipping around all crazy-like.
I don't care what it is.
I like watching these kinds of sports.
Individual, acrobatic.
What are the action sports they call them?
Let's read this story.
They say this on Wednesday.
ESPN Studio Programming, which has become MSESPN's woke center on steroids 24-7, hit a 41-year ratings low.
That is the entire history of the network existing.
It has never had lower overall studio ratings than it did this week.
The network, which has become more left-wing than MSNBC and CNN combined over the past several weeks, has completely abandoned sports coverage.
The result?
Viewers, many of whom were willing to watch the channel even during a pandemic disaster with limited sports to consume, have abandoned it in droves.
How bad is it?
How bad was it?
We're talking full-on crisis mode level of awfulness.
Here's a quote.
Oh, no, no, I'm sorry, they say first take.
Was the highest rated ESPN studio show all day, posting just 211,000 viewers.
That was the 93rd highest rated program on cable.
Putting those numbers into context, compared to other shows airing the same day on cable, Nick Cannon's Wild and Out 15 on VH1 had 50% more viewership than ESPN's top show, Smuggler's Secret Stash.
The National Geographic doubled first take.
Not to be outdone, Craig of the Creek on the Cartoon Network posted 200,000 more viewers saying, ain't so ESPN?
What are you doing?
Dude, wow.
My ratings, I'm not saying this to brag or anything, but I get 10 times those viewers.
I think I've been averaging like 1.9, almost 2 million views per day on my content.
You know why?
It's not because people want the politics, it's because people are coming to watch what they want to watch.
Now, let me tell you something.
We did over on the... I'll break this down for you.
Timcast IRL, my nightly live show with my buddy Adam and Lydia.
Buddies, Adam and Lydia.
We talked about PlayStation 5.
Now, normally we do culture commentary, politics, and pop culture stuff, right?
It's similar to what I talk about, but more culturally.
So sometimes we talk about werewolves and UFOs.
Well, we did a segment on the release of the PlayStation 5, some of their titles, and some of the hardware.
And guess what?
Didn't do that well.
Yeah, we didn't get a whole lot of views.
I think it was like 30-40,000.
Hey, not bad.
You know, for the channel, it's relatively new.
But we've been getting like 100-200k a lot of these videos.
Now, we know why the views were low.
Because we don't usually talk about video game hardware release stuff like that, but we wanted to because it was something we wanted to talk about.
The point is, when people go to ESPN and you're handed far-left politics, they just click off.
And when people come to the Culture Commentary Show and they get PlayStation release dates, they say, I'll come back after you're done because I don't want to watch that stuff.
I respect that.
I understand.
Maybe ESPN should get back to doing sports.
Otherwise, why would someone watch them for politics?
Let me explain something to you, SPN.
If somebody wants to watch MSNBC, they'll just turn it on.
Why am I gonna watch SportsCenter for politics when Rachel Maddow can give me the rundown on Russiagate conspiracy theories?
Or Tucker Carlson can talk about the Chas, the Chas-US border.
These people, it would be like a Chinese food restaurant trying to make ice cream.
Well, look, you might make ice cream, it might be okay, but I'm not gonna go to your store and expect to find it there.
And if I show up to a Chinese food restaurant, and you're not serving Chinese food, I'm going to leave.
Apparently they haven't learned that lesson.
It's called business.
They say, even Jay Leno's Garage soundly defeated First Take.
So did something called Ant Anstead Master Mechanic on a channel called Motor Trend, which I didn't even know was a cable channel, much less a show.
They say, consider these studio show numbers from Wednesday.
Get up at just $136,000.
Yeah, yeah, okay, we get it, we get it.
He says the highest rated sports center all day had just 168,000 viewers, the lowest rated I've ever seen for sports center as well.
NBA, the jump, had only 112,000 viewers, and that's when the NBA finally had news about returning to play.
And these were just the shows that it rated.
It was likely worse for the other studio shows, which didn't even make it in the top 150 cable shows.
How do we know this?
Because all of ESPN Studio programming has hit all-time lows over the past two weeks.
So yeah, we get it.
They say this.
It's no surprise.
Ratings have been down across the board for sports programming without sports, but not like this.
Not even close.
On Wednesday, FS1's Race Hub was the highest rated sports studio show by a massive amount, posting 324,000 viewers.
Race Hub has never crushed ESPN programming like this before.
So why does this matter?
Because it's an ominous sign for sports ratings to be tanking as sports prepare to return to play.
There are many serious things going on in our country right now, and the vast majority of sports fans know where to find news about serious things going on in the world.
That's why cable news ratings have skyrocketed.
But sports fans don't want their sports commentators to be weighing in on non-sports news on sports networks.
I completely agree.
Yet here we are, right back where we were several years ago, when Caitlyn Jenner was getting an SP on ESPN.
Woke Center fails every time ESPN embraces it.
But here we go again.
ESPN has leaned right into Woke Center, this time on steroids.
And the business has collapsed unlike anything we've ever seen in the history of the network.
Jay Leno's Garage on CNBC outrated every studio program on ESPN.
How much worse can it get?
Just depends on how much more Woke Center we get.
I bring you now to the upcoming return of the NFL or whatever they plan on doing.
When all of these players start taking knees, and then the commentators during the game are saying, well, look at this, protest, protest, protest.
How many people are gonna be like, eh, click?
Some people I've heard said, I just mute it, and I'll watch the sports, I'll watch the game, and that's fair.
If I was watching skateboarding and they started talking about nonsense, I'd just mute it, watch the backflip, and carry on.
But how many more people are gonna be like, please stop, I go to sports to get away from politics, man.
I don't want to get your politics on my sports.
Now, look, I feel that way even about the barracks, okay?
This is a skateboarding on Instagram, you follow them, and I'll be watching the videos, and I'll roll my eyes, and I'm like, look, man, I get it, dude.
At a certain point, the messages, I just ignore, and I'll just watch the skateboarding, but it is getting a bit tiring.
I do politics all day every day.
I get a very brief period where I do some other things.
Maybe play some video games.
Not really all that much.
Maybe I'll go skateboarding out in the yard and just forget about it.
The last thing I need is to go out and skateboard and have somebody pander to me about politics.
Alright?
We need time off.
We'll see how things play out.
The big question I have, I guess, is if Trump is saying he doesn't want to watch this stuff, how many people are going to say the same thing?
And will the ratings tank for Major League Sports?
Are they destroying their own industry?
It looks like it.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
I don't think the left really understands Philadelphia.
I haven't lived here all that long, and I'm in the suburbs, mind you, but I learned a thing or two about people in Philadelphia.
They don't mess around.
They're also Democrats.
But my understanding is they're kinda more trade union, tough guy, union Democrats.
Many of these people didn't vote for Trump.
Many of them probably will vote for Trump.
The people who live in my area, I've talked about this, many of them don't care about electoral politics.
Some of them have told me that they're going to vote for Trump simply because they're tired of how the media has been treating them.
Take a look at this story.
Armed men gather at Christopher Columbus statue in South Philly.
Mayor Jim Kenney said one person was assaulted and reporters were blocked from coverage when a group of armed men defended the statue.
Now let me tell you something.
I'm not a fan of this.
This dude right here, we got unicorn right on the scene.
I know some of the OGs, the original Unicorn Riot guys, probably used to be friends with some of them.
They've really lost their minds, mind you.
They've put out fake news in the past.
They're all around not that bad, though.
I'm not going to blame them.
They're biased.
But when they went down to cover this, this one guy, he actually did get attacked by some people defending the statue, wearing masks.
Some had baseball bats.
Not cool.
I'm not happy about this, and I'm going to call it out straight up.
I don't care who you are.
If someone shows up to film, and they're minding their own business in filming, and you block their camera, and you're swatting at them and hitting them, sorry, that's not okay.
That's no different than what Antifa does.
It's the exact same thing.
Now, these guys aren't Antifa, but guess what?
Some of them are wearing masks.
Some of them have baseball bats.
And yeah, this guy got pushed around.
Now, Unicorn Riot's hyping it up, saying, right, the rise of right-wing violence, blah, blah.
These dudes are probably not even right-wing, man.
They live in Philadelphia.
What do you think?
Philadelphia is blue.
They're just not socialists.
Alright.
So here's what I want to say, man.
If you find yourself as one of these dudes down in South Philly, hey, I can respect defending the statues.
I really don't like angry mobs showing up and tearing down statues.
I don't care who it is.
If you want to change something in the public, the public has to agree to it.
That means take it to a city council vote.
Guess what?
Most people don't shop for these things anyway.
If the city council agrees to remove it, nobody cares, and guess what?
They come in and they safely remove it.
But we already saw what happened when these lunatics went down trying to tear down one of these statues of a Confederate soldier.
It fell down and crushed some dude's skull.
Alright, so no, not okay.
You know what I don't like?
Any of these videos, man.
Let me read this for you, because I gotta tell you.
I don't care if you're on the left or the right.
Don't go around smacking people, especially journalists, because you are, in a sense, you're taking away their free speech, you're violating their free speech, their God-given right to record, to explain what they see.
Now, guess what?
I think Unicorn Riot puts out fake news.
Not always.
Some of the stuff they do is actually pretty good.
But they're so biased, it gets bad sometimes.
Let me read this story for you.
For the second time in two weeks, armed men gathered in an effort to protect part of Philadelphia.
According to witnesses, reports, and officials, a large group of men armed with bats, hammers, and a few firearms gathered at the Christopher Columbus statue in South Philadelphia's McCrone Plaza Saturday to ostensibly defend it from vandalism.
I respect it.
Defending something is very different from tearing something down.
Standing around it and saying, nah, you can't do this, respectable.
I'm actually, you know, it's legit respect to the people who want to defend these public statues.
I'm not defending Christopher Columbus.
I actually think he did a bunch of really, really bad things.
But I think you don't have the authority to dictate how other people live their lives.
I also don't like the idea of them destroying art.
And history.
You wanna take it down?
That's fine.
Vote for it.
Put up a plaque or something.
Put it in a museum.
So these guys defending it, I respect it.
What I don't respect is them, first of all, attacking a journalist.
Be it a good one or a bad one.
Whatever you think.
They're doing journalism.
Second of all, you gotta realize how you make yourselves look bad when you smack this guy around like this.
Not okay.
Action News reports residents were there to prevent anything from happening in the statue, as Christopher Columbus comes under scrutiny amid racial activism across the country.
Several statues of Columbus have been taken down by local officials in Camden and Wilmington.
Eventually, residents and others argued, and an apparent assault occurred.
According to Mayor Jim Kenny.
We are also aware of an apparent assault caught on videotape.
Yeah, you definitely can see it from the unicorn ride, guys.
They're hitting his camera.
They're grabbing his bike.
I'm not- I'm- I'm- That- This is making me angry.
Now, this is where- This- This is the one that gets me probably the most angry, I guess.
We are no longer able to document the ongoing escalating McCrone Plaza South Philadelphia vigilante incident after Philly police ordered us to leave or be arrested.
We were told we no longer had the right to document this event.
I know it's not the United States, but you had a bunch of far leftists start screeching at this guy Dan Dix, an independent journalist on YouTube.
Now, I don't really follow Dan's coverage.
I know him, but they, look, they don't like his opinions.
He's been accused of being a conspiracy theorist and all this other stuff.
Fine, whatever, man.
I don't care what you're covering.
If you go down with a camera and you're filming stuff, leave people alone.
Don't surround them screaming at them.
But then for Dan, the cops showed up.
They actually arrested Dan.
This cannot be allowed, okay?
We can't live this way.
In the United States, I understand you got a problem with Unicorn Ride or whatever, but we cannot create a situation where someone trying to film to tell people what's going on, be it biased or otherwise, gets attacked, and then the cops actually threaten him and tell him to leave.
The incidents are under investigation at the time.
One person in the statue appeared to yell... I don't know about that, but I'm not going to repeat that phrase.
They're calling these people far-right.
I don't buy it, man, because I live in the area.
I don't think these people are far-anything.
I think they're just regular Americans.
And you've got to understand something about coming into this kind of territory.
I'm not gonna go to the Chazz, okay?
Some people have.
Jack Posobiec was there recently.
I don't think he's really had any problems.
I'm not entirely sure.
I don't think he's been attacked or anything.
That says a lot, doesn't it?
There have been problems in Chazz with people filming.
Journalists getting attacked.
But if Jack Posobiec can go there for three days filming stuff, why is this guy showing up to a statue in South Philly and getting the business from locals?
I can understand.
You've got to be careful about the areas you go into.
I've covered a lot of different... You know, I've been on the ground in a lot of places.
Let me tell you something.
When Jack goes to the Chaz in Seattle or the Chop or whatever they're calling it now, I'm sure he, you know, is incognito.
I'm sure he's got a mask on or something because he understands the locals here aren't going to mess around with him.
Now the same is true for this dude filming.
You have to recognize that when you go into these places and you are in opposition to what the locals are trying to do, you're going to get the business.
That's not making it okay, I'm not excusing it, alright?
This is really, really bumming me out to see South Philly reacting this way.
I'm not surprised.
It doesn't matter what tribe you are, people are gonna get angry.
But come on, man.
Quote, all vigilantism is inappropriate, and these individuals only bring more danger to themselves and the city, Kenny said.
Nah.
Uh-uh.
No dice.
These people didn't do anything.
They literally just stood around a statue.
Now, okay, I'll criticize the attack on this unicorn riot guy.
That's not cool.
But you're gonna call that vigilantism?
Eh, what are they really doing?
Most of them are just standing around, okay?
Definitely criticize the people who are assaulting the journalist, but the defense of a statue?
I find that okay.
District Attorney Larry Krasner said on Twitter that using a bat or anything else for an illegal purpose, such as assaulting or threatening or harassing people, is a criminal act.
I agree with that.
Prosecutors and police will uphold the law in Philly, consistent with their oaths against criminal bullies.
So save your bats for a ball game, and save your hatchets for chopping wood.
We remain the city of brotherly love and sisterly affection.
This all unfolded about a week after a group of armed men were in the Fishtown neighborhood saying they were out to defend the 26th Police District building on Girard Avenue and businesses in the neighborhood as looting was regularly occurring after protests over George Floyd's death.
I'm totally okay with that.
Defense is not the same as offense.
If you're coming out to defend something, I'm down.
I respect it.
You want to protect your buildings?
There were dudes up on the rooftops with guns?
It's legal!
Don't go around smashing buildings and attacking people.
Illegal.
Now, you wanna go and defend a statue?
Legal.
In fact, with my respect.
You wanna attack somebody because you don't like them?
Nah, not okay.
You see, here's the other problem.
Now they're gonna weaponize all of this against you guys.
And I don't think the people in South Philly really care.
Because... It's Philly tough, man.
Philly doesn't mess around.
These aren't Seattle Democrats, man.
These people don't understand this.
Nah, these are guys who are like, don't come into my neighborhood!
Philadelphia, man, it's a major urban center, but you'd be surprised.
I bet a lot of these people are not going to vote for Trump because of this stuff.
You are going to turn a blue city red, man.
Here's what Unicorn Riot said.
Our Philadelphia reporter is safe and unharmed, apart from small bruises.
This red documents the escalating right-wing violence in the last few days in South Philly, where Columbus statue vigilantes are successfully courting favor from the Philly PD's 1st District.
Oh, you know what, man?
Just shut up.
This is the problem I get.
You can play this right.
You can win the PR front.
Now I get it.
The South Philly guys saved the statue.
Not in our town, right?
That's what they're probably saying.
We won.
But you gotta think about your long-term strategy.
First of all, I don't care about strategy at all.
Attacking people is wrong.
Especially those who are filming.
But the long-term strategy is, you've got to make sure that people don't, you know, use this against you to come and actually take the statue down.
Because there will be, you know, people who mount support based on these attacks on these journalists, and they use it against you.
The same goes for the left.
When the left attacks journalists, it bolsters the right.
This is bad, bad, bad across the board for everybody.
Alright?
Here's what they said.
The clip clearly shows one man yell, kill him, as a group of right-wing Columbus statue protesters charge our reporter and beat him.
They're not right-wing.
This is Philadelphia.
But you see what they're doing now.
We will release footage soon showing repeated violent threats made towards reporters and anti-racist protesters in McCrone Plaza.
We lost count.
Yeah, the videos clearly show it, man.
So, you know what?
I don't think ultimately it matters in the long run.
What I mean to say is, you know, me talking about this.
Look, you start destroying people's property, you start destroying public property, you will see a reaction from locals.
These are people who are not going to be on any necessarily political tribe or faction.
They're not on Twitter.
All they know is some crazy extremists are showing up and attacking their town.
They probably just want to watch the football game.
But hey, as ESPN goes woke, I'm sure many of these people are being forced into the fray, and you will not like it when regular Americans are forced to stand up for their communities.
This is what regular America looks like.
These aren't your right-wing, alt-right, whatever.
These are just people who live in Philadelphia and probably go to work, fix pipes, work in plumbing, work in management, work in some offices, work at local stores, butcher shops, regular places.
These are the people who are fixing the internet or whatever, and now their community is under attack.
They're coming out for it.
And guess what?
They're not going to be on the left side.
So anyway, I'll wrap this up.
You get the point, man.
Come on, guys.
Don't attack journalists.
I don't care if they're up, down, left, right, religious, not religious, left of whatever.
Let them film.
Let them do their thing.
As long as they're not tearing down statues and attacking people, let them do their thing.
