New Trump Ad Just Triggered Woke Journalists Exposing Fake News Bias, He Bought The ENTIRE Frontpage
Washington Post actually sold Trump a front page take over ad and good for them.Leftist and Woke Journalists of course are outraged comparing the media site to Judas selling out Christ asking if the pieces of silver were worth it.The ad from Trump calls Joe Biden far left and claims that Kamala Harris had radicalized him.The reality here is that journalists are angry because the ad is effective. Trump's polling took a sharp increase after Kamala was announced likely because people do not like her but also partly due to Trump's ad campaign.Both Trump and Biden have launched massive ad buys across the country so why do they only get mad at Trump's ad buys?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Right now on the front page of the Washington Post, mainstream news is a big old banner for Donald Trump's campaign, which reads the radical leftist takeover of Joe Biden is complete.
The ad, of course, is disparaging Kamala Harris as the VP pick.
And then they insinuate by choosing her.
Joe Biden himself is far left.
Now, of course, journalists across the woke spectrum are furious.
How dare the Washington Post sully their good name by selling ad space to Donald Trump?
And the reputation of the Washington Post is now at stake, they say.
You know, it's not just these banner ads.
They've got Trump, Pence logo, and they actually sold a full website takeover.
That means when you first go to the site, you see a massive video player for Donald Trump's campaign.
Now, to me, I think it's just, look, it's an election cycle.
So, of course, they're going to be buying ad space across the board.
But these woke journalists are angry because Donald Trump routinely drags the press as fake news.
They claim that his ad is all lies.
And I'm just like, what do you think political ads are?
But in their woke outrage, they expose what most of us already know.
They're biased against the president.
They don't like him, they want him to lose, and the media industry is absolutely biased.
I think this was a very clever play.
And it comes shortly after we heard Donald Trump bought the YouTube banner ad, which is the most expensive ad space on the internet, so they say.
But some are arguing this was actually a really bad move by Donald Trump.
You know why?
Well, look just below the ads for Trump and you see a bunch of negative news about the president.
They say people are going to come to the Washington Post.
They're going to see negative stories about Trump.
And now Trump is effectively funding this good journalism.
That's wrong, actually.
You see, people who go to the Washington Post aren't following the news.
That's why they go to the Washington Post and not other sources.
They don't go to alternative sources or independent news channels.
They just read whatever the narrative is.
Trump, with these ads, is cracking through that narrative, and it will greatly benefit him.
It's very different when Joe Biden or, say, Mike Bloomberg advertises on my channel, because people who go on YouTube and look for news are seeking out other voices to challenge the mainstream narrative.
And thus, it is no surprise that Donald Trump's approval rating is going up.
At least in one poll, Rasmussen, they see a massive increase in approval.
Trump now at 51% with a four-point positive swing.
And this increase in the polls, it's actually twofold.
And that's why Donald Trump is buying these ads.
You see, Trump's polls are improving around the time they announced Kamala Harris was the VP.
And that may be the main reason.
So, of course, the Trump campaign, being very smart, doubles down and goes for the attack.
They've spotted the weakness of the Democrats.
Kamala Harris was a big mistake.
And now they are playing to it.
And I'm willing to bet this is going to work very, very well.
Now, wait until you see the extreme meltdown from one journalism professor and the outrage from these journalists, and it just goes to show the industry, in my opinion, is tainted.
There is no ethics.
There's no objectivity.
It's broken.
Let's get started, and before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is actually just subscribe to my channel.
About half the people who watch my videos aren't subscribed, so just go below the video player, hit the subscribe button, hit the like button, the notification bell, and if you really want to help, share this video.
But let's read this, let's get right into it, and I want to show you this Twitter thread.
from a professor named Jeff Jarvis.
And I have to say, I mean, no disrespect, but I need to highlight this in a very critical manner.
You see, I know Jeff Jarvis.
I've known him for quite some time.
And I believe he has totally lost his sense of reality.
And this thread, I'm sorry, is completely unhinged.
Take a look at this.
He tweets, No, Washington Post.
No, no, no.
How dare you?
Were these pieces of silver worth the price of your soul?
The Post not only sold its front page, but also sold a takeover.
Who the F decided this?
I am so ashamed of you.
And they let Trump S on the pages of the Washington Post and its journalism throughout.
Shameful.
The Biolas insult to democracy darkens the post's homepage four times.
Democracy dies in darkness indeed.
Some people aren't seeing the ad, are you?
I don't know how the targeting works.
I am, for the moment, a post subscriber.
The inside ad is apparently frequency delimited.
It appeared on the Kamala Harris story once, and then not again, saving Trump pennies.
I just retweeted people in half a dozen languages across the world expressing their shock at what the Washington Post did this morning.
This harms the reputation of an institution we deeply depend on.
And one more awful thing about this ad buy.
The Trump-Pence logo sitting next to the Washington Post logo as if it were editorial navigation to a news site.
Awful.
Just awful.
The publishers of the Washington Post, Fred Ryan, must be held to account for this business decision.
It would appear Washington Post journalists may not have seen the Trump takeover of their newspaper this morning as they have in-house accounts.
I've let a few know.
I await the reaction of the newsroom to what their publisher has done to the reputation of their institution.
I want to know how this ad buy was approved and whether the newsroom was shown it and signed off.
And don't at me with any crap about the Post taking ads from anyone.
They are sophisticated enough to know they were used in this case to own the libs.
They were Donald Trump's toy and he kicked it to the wall.
And there it is.
I mean, I got a little more to read to you from Jeff Jarvis.
But he's straight up saying he doesn't like it that Trump was owning the libs.
Why?
What do you mean?
He bought ad space.
Whether it was right or wrong, it's an ad.
If a company runs an ad, yeah, ads can be deceptive.
They're trying to persuade you.
That's how ads work.
The Washington Post relies on advertising and subscription revenue to stay afloat.
But Jeff Jarvis doesn't like it that Trump owned the libs.
He even says they were used, in this case, to own the libs.
Is he implying that Trump actually did own the libs?
Is what Trump said correct?
Or is he simply saying that was the goal of Donald Trump?
He actually calls for the Post to return the money.
Return the money, Washington Post!
It is tainted, and now so is the newspaper.
No, keep the money.
What?
He says, I find it charming that some of you want to blame Google for the Trump takeover of the Washington Post.
No, it's not programmatic.
It is an explicit buy.
The Times wrote about it.
That's right.
The New York Times wrote about it.
It was a major seven-figure ad buy.
So what?
It was done during the DNC.
This is what happens during presidential campaigns.
I mean, listen, journalists could at least pretend to be objective.
Many are, saying, well, I, for one, disagree, because now they should offer up equal space, blah, blah, blah.
Not here.
So I can appreciate that Jeff Jarvis is at least being honest and pulling the mask off and saying straight up, we just don't like Trump owning the libs.
He says, I am also amused at the news people who, just like Facebook, are trying to demand policies that can be applied against all ads, including this morning's Trump ad takeover.
Maybe they'll have more sympathy for Zuckerberg the next time one of its billion ads is grading.
Only this isn't one of a billion ads.
This is an ad that took over the D front page of one of the two most important newspapers in the nation.
And here's the ad.
Or, I'm sorry, this is the ad.
I'll just show you.
When you click it, this is what you get.
It says Sleepy Joe wrong for America, Joe Biden failure, Biden kneels to the left, China Joe voted for most favored nation status for China.
They say with Kamala Harris on the ticket, the radical left-wing takeover of Joe Biden is complete.
Let me tell you why Jeff is really mad, and why these other journalists are really mad, and why Fast Company has actually written an article saying, Trump's Washington Post ad buy stands in stark contrast to paper's motto, sparks furious debate.
It's because the Kamala Harris attack vector is working.
It is improving Donald Trump's standing.
People do not like Kamala.
It was a serious mistake.
Progressives don't like her.
The DNC is a disaster.
And Donald Trump and his campaign are smart.
They're five steps ahead of the Democrats.
The Democrats only now, just saying the Pledge of Allegiance, supporting this country, only just now are they slowly starting to call out Antifa.
Because they realized this was helping Donald Trump.
Some speculate the reason they chose Kamala Harris was because she's tough on crime.
But she's also considered to be one of the most progressive, if not the most liberal, candidate in Congress.
People don't like her.
And following the announcement that she was the VP, Trump's approval rating skyrocketed, Joe Biden's national polling started to decline, and Trump started to narrow that.
According to a CNN poll, in 15 states, battleground states, Trump is within one point of Joe Biden, well within the margin of error.
Meaning, They made a serious mistake with Kamala Harris.
And what we're really seeing is Trump exploiting this.
And when you see Jeff Jarvis and other journalists outraged, it's because it's working.
They are mad.
They are losing now.
Take a look at this story from Fast Company.
The digital home of the Washington Post, that venerated beacon of American journalism, is currently in exercise in cognitive dissonance.
Visit the paper's website currently to witness a configuration of words and images that all cancel each other out.
At the top of the paper's famously goth-tinged slogan for the Trump era, Democracy Dies in Darkness, flanked by tiny ads for Trump's re-election, Just beneath the masthead, a larger version of the ad, stretching across the entire page, reads, The radical leftist takeover of Joe Biden is complete.
In all caps, like one of the president's inflammatory tweets.
And finally, beneath this invective, the headline, Harris accepts historic VP nomination.
We will speak truth.
And when you click that headline and read the actual article, you get more Trump ads.
I'm actually, listen, I think the Washington Post was being fair in selling this ad space.
Trump asked to buy it.
They said, okay, he's a presidential candidate.
They're just mad that the Washington Post actually played fair for once.
They don't like it.
They want these news organizations like them to be in the bag for the Democrats.
Well, too bad.
They say, the flat image in the tweet above doesn't convey the ad buy's full effect.
Scrolling through WaPo's website, the ad at the top expands to fill the whole screen, demanding readers either X out or click through.
It's a total troll move on behalf of the president, debasing the newspaper that he frequently disparages as the Amazon Washington Post.
What could be a greater slight at the publication's expense than forcing its owners to acknowledge they're not in a position to turn down Trump's money?
Needless to say, many in the media world were left aghast by the decision.
Oh, calm down!
Seriously!
They run ads all over YouTube.
Do I complain?
I laugh when Bloomberg buys ads on my videos.
I laugh about it.
Whatever, man.
I don't care.
I'm gonna do my thing.
You do your thing.
They're just mad that it's working for Trump.
Matthew Gertz tweeted, The Washington Post's website is covered in Trump ads this morning, including a pre-roll video.
It is shameful for the paper to take money from a president whose denunciations endanger journalists and may have contributed to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Oh, please.
Of course, they include Jeff Jarvis's epic meltdown.
We have this tweet from someone from Dan Sinker.
The Washington Post running a full Trump campaign homepage takeover complete with full screen video
ad seems like a remarkably self-destructive decision.
Whatever amount of money you were paid was nowhere near worth the compromise to your
integrity.
And I'm gonna have to say, I, uh, I'm not convinced.
It was a seven-figure buy.
Not directly to the Washington Post, but in general, I'm pretty sure they got paid a hefty sum of money they're very happy with.
Now, to be fair, I would personally never take, never, a direct ad sponsorship from any presidential candidate.
Not Trump, not Biden, not Bloomberg, not Hillary.
Nobody.
I've said, here's who I like, in certain instances.
That's just my honest take, and I've made donations.
But I wouldn't take money from anybody.
The Washington Post made a choice to do this.
And maybe you can be critical of them for this, but I'm not, ultimately.
Look, I know what I won't do.
I don't care if the Washington Post does or doesn't do it.
They show this woman, Amanda Crumley, and now they're just showing regular old Democrats complaining.
I don't care if Democrats are complaining.
Ian Bremmer, however, Fast Company adds, and then I'll read the Ian Bremmer tweet, as confused and as upset as many were to see the paper's unlikely ads, some voices in the media ecosystem found ways to put them in perspective.
Ian Bremmer saying, Lots of people criticizing the Post for running this Trump ad.
I could not disagree more strongly.
The Post would lose integrity if they refused to run it.
I agree with that.
It is a presidential campaign.
Choosing sides would be not to run the ad.
So if Biden wants to buy ad space, they sell to him as well.
Now here's where it gets interesting.
They have this tweet from Sonny Bunch.
He said, Here's a left-wing thing I don't really understand.
Complaining about Donald Trump paying for ads in the Washington Post, a purchase that will fund journalism that will undoubtedly be damaging to Donald Trump.
That's just, I'm sorry, I don't agree with that.
I believe that's incorrect.
You see, like I said earlier, When you come to my video, you've seen something.
It says something.
You say, I want to learn more about this.
If you click a video where I'm like, Democrats are dumb, you have chosen to engage that content.
If you then see a video before, during, or after where they're saying, no, we're actually, here's what we're doing.
I think you've chosen to explore content.
You're outside the narrative.
Now, it's not imperfect.
I think that if Joe Biden and Bloomberg buy ad space on Google and it runs on my videos, it does help them quite a bit because it puts things in perspective.
It allows them to say their piece.
I can respect that.
The same as I can respect the Washington Post for running Trump ads.
However, the people who go to the Washington Post aren't looking for anything.
They're just scrolling through and reading whatever.
And that's kind of true for YouTube, sure, but the Washington Post is where normies go to read their news.
They're now seeing narrative-shattering advertisements.
I think, ultimately, it'll be a great benefit.
We do have some, you know, so Jeff Jarvis mentioned people in other languages were tweeting this out, but these people, I don't care about their opinions.
I mean, these are just regular people who speak different languages who are outraged because they hate Donald Trump.
Now Jeff B., I pull up these tweets because it is a Twitter spat when people have meltdowns, he said, if you enjoy embarrassing Eric Garland-style meltdowns, this is a heck of a thread.
And he links to Jeff Jarvis.
He says, no matter how odious Trump is, he's President of the United States and the nominee of one of two major parties.
I'd like to see a thesis as to why Washington Post should accept advertising by the Democratic Party and Biden-Harris, but taking it from the GOP is like turning into Judas.
Which is what he said about the pieces of silver.
He goes on to say, I mean, that's obviously a rhetorical ask.
We all get why running ads for one side is okay, but running them for the other side is like selling out Christ.
Because one side is good, and the other side is evil in the eyes of the person making this statement.
This is Jay Rosen style toxicity.
Well, you know what?
That's literally what journalism is.
These professors are far left.
They love to sing my praises when I was on the ground covering Occupy Wall Street.
It was fantastic.
Now that I'm, you know, in the newsroom, essentially, and providing commentary and analysis, punditry, essentially, now they're upset with me.
Many of these people say, you know, I don't know what you're doing now, but these have always been woke, progressive, outraged journalists who wanted to support a particular ideology.
In fact, when it comes to Jeff Jarvis, I was at VidCon, which is the largest, you know, social media, video conference, digital media conference in the world, mostly YouTubers.
And Jeff Jarvis was leading a panel with several other progressives where they actually said there are no honest conservatives in news.
Which is just, as I remember it, okay?
So maybe, it's been several years, so keep that in mind.
But I was angry.
And I yelled at Jeff Jarvis afterwards and I said, if you want an honest person to actually sit down and have a conversation about media, All you did was get a bunch of progressives, not journalists, pundits, up on a podium to preach about conservatives were bad.
That's not news.
And I said, you could have asked Ben Shapiro.
Mind you, this was several years ago.
But he was uninterested.
I was angry.
It was a violation.
Of ethics?
And it was an insult to any intelligent person to go up and pretend that you're a journalist when you're not.
And now we can see it.
I mean, the mask has been off these people for some time.
We know the media is fake news.
Take a look at this.
The New York Times.
Trump campaign makes huge digital ad buy during Democratic convention.
That's normal.
And they mentioned that he bought with, you know, he bought from all of these different outlets, including Fox News and YouTube and the Washington Post.
It's not a big deal.
It was on YouTube.
It was on many different news websites.
And I don't know why they're pretending like they're shocked.
Here's what they say.
Republicans contend the Trump campaign will be able to reach a large audience with their approach.
Quote, You're going to have a very effective message penetration because the people who are served an unskippable ad want to see that content after the ad, so they are willing to spend 15 seconds watching your message.
It's not like television where an ad comes on and you can go to the bathroom or leave the room until the show comes back.
That unskippable inventory has the ability to not only add a lot of scale, but a lot of quality to your digital buy.
Like I said, that's the real reason they're angry.
It works.
But check this out.
This is the ad on YouTube.
It's massive.
The most expensive ad buy you can get on the Internet.
Trump knows what he's doing.
Now, I want to bring you here to a news story.
A news story, not news story.
It's from August 5th.
The Biden campaign announces largest ad buy ever by a presidential candidate.
No outrage.
No outrage for the outlets he chose?
I mean, this was all over TV, right?
They say, pretty soon it'll be hard to escape Joe Biden on your television, on your radio, on your phone.
The Biden campaign on Wednesday is announcing that what it says is the largest TV ad buy ever by a presidential candidate with $220 million set aside for commercials to air through the fall and another $60 million budgeted to reach audiences digitally on social media or gaming platforms.
Gaming platforms, mind you.
Biden's team is planning to reach voters in at least 15 states with messages that feature the former vice president speaking directly to the camera about the response to COVID, the pandemic, and the economic fall.
They mention all these different battleground states and blah, blah, blah.
You get the point.
Joe Biden did not buy the banner space on YouTube.
The Democrats didn't buy this.
That was shocking to me.
They're doing a digital DNC and they didn't buy the premium space during their own convention.
They gave it to Trump.
Man, I am really, really surprised by that.
That says to me that they're not serious or, when combined with this information, they are epically mismanaging their ad buys.
Right now, Donald Trump's approval rating is through the roof.
Rasmussen says, Early notice.
Triple checked.
Real Donald Trump daily job approval percentage is sharply up today on exceptionally strong overnight results.
We can take a look at RealClearPolitics and we can see, now many people don't like Rasmussen, and I do think you need more than just one poll to determine the president's approval, but Rasmussen has Trump at 51% approval to 47% disapproval.
And the reality is, it's not just Rasmussen.
The Inquisitor reports August 19th, Joe Biden's lead over Donald Trump drops in new poll after selecting Kamala Harris as running mate.
Now, they are referencing Rasmussen, but I want to point out that CNN said Donald Trump's approval rating is going way up in 15 different battleground states, putting him within one percentage point.
That is why Joe Biden is buying in many of these states.
In fact, it may be the exact same states, the key battleground states.
It's not working.
Joe Biden's ad and ads, in my opinion, are relatively ineffective and Trump's are effective.
So you can see the journalists for what they really are.
Democratic campaigners.
I want to elaborate just in the last few minutes of this segment.
On media polarization in this country and why I think that Joe Biden's ads are going to be ineffective and why Donald Trump's are going to be effective.
Pew Research published this January 24th.
U.S.
media polarization and the 2020 election, a nation divided.
Deep partisan divisions exist in the news sources Americans trust and distrust and rely on.
They have a little bit of data right here.
Democrats express more trust of most news sources asked about.
Republicans express more distrust.
Fascinatingly, interestingly, they say, from 30 sources, Democrats trust more than distrust.
Republicans distrust more than trust.
These sources that the Democrats trust are mainstream media.
So what do you think happens when Donald Trump runs?
Actually, let me stop.
I'll start with Biden first.
What do you think happens when you go to the Washington Post and they have nothing but anti-Trump stories?
Orange man bad, Bannon arrested, big breaking news, people get a negative view of Donald Trump.
So when they run Joe Biden ads, I don't think it's going to have much of an effect because people are already seeing information about Trump being bad, making Joe Biden's massive ad buy kind of pointless.
The media is doing the job for you, Biden.
You could sit back and they will disparage Trump all day and night.
You need say very little.
But what would happen if Donald Trump were to buy that ad space and counter the narrative?
Neutralizing it.
And that's the point.
As some have tried to argue, it's cognitive dissonance, like they said at Fast Company.
Trump puts out the ad, but so what?
Everything on the page is just countering it.
So you mean that Trump's ad buy is countering the constant stream of negative press?
Sounds like that's really good for Trump.
Putting Joe Biden ads would just saturate the already negative message.
So once again, allow me to say, as we watch Donald Trump's approval ratings start to go up, and albeit only a little bit, he's currently at 43.7% approval in aggregate, which is basically a presidential average he definitely needs to improve.
While we're seeing all this happen, the journalists are freaking out!
Shocked and outraged!
Not every single journalist, mind you.
Okay, I'm not trying to say literally every journalist is doing this, but many of them.
This is one of those moments where you can really find out where the bias is.
And as we've learned in recent news, with this study coming out of University of Illinois at, I believe it's Urbana-Champaign, the Beltway Bubble.
That tricked everyone into believing Hillary Clinton was going to win is smaller now and the isolation of these journalists is worse than it was in 2016.
When you take that into consideration and you see the polls in 15 battleground states have Donald Trump within one point, within the margin of error.
I think we might see a decisive Donald Trump victory.
And he'd need it.
With the mail-in voting fiasco, with the constant accusations that he's cheating, and now there's this post office conspiracy theory, Trump's going to need a very clean victory.
But I'll tell you what I think.
Right now, I think Trump's going to win.
I think they know he's going to win.
I think that's why they're kind of just whatever, just doing whatever, picking Kamala.
They know he's going to win.
They want to sort of virtue signal for now, make it look like they care, when in reality they expect to lose so they can come back in the next four years or so.
But during the next cycle, Donald Trump's re-election, they will claim he cheated.
They will look for blame anywhere they can put it, other than themselves.
Just like 2016 all over again.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
They dragged him out, beat him, and robbed him.
For those that missed that story, there was a guy in Portland while this marauding band of far-left Black Lives Matter people were just romping about.
They were robbing and harassing and attacking a trans woman.
This guy gets out of his truck and tries protecting the trans woman, and of course, the crowd didn't like that.
He ends up getting back in his vehicle, they chase him, he crashes, they pull him out, beat him within an inch of his life, and then rob him.
Now there was one guy, his name, they call him Kees Love, Mark Kees Love.
You see him run up and just full force punt this man in the face.
Let me remind you.
The guy who got punted in the face was trying to protect a trans woman in Portland, and they beat him within an inch of his life.
He was transported to the hospital with serious injuries, a big gash in his head, there's blood everywhere.
It was a horrifying photo.
Good news, though.
4chan tracked down who the guy, uh, this guy Marquis Love, they found him.
The dude's basically on the verge of crying.
He's on the run, begging for money, posting to social media, saying he's gonna go to prison.
And that dude who got kicked?
He's raised over $120,000 on GoFundMe.
And boy, do I have more good news for all of you.
Facebook has announced they are going to start taking down Antifa accounts.
Yep.
Groups that promote violence, and that includes Antifa.
Hey, finally, right?
Because guess what?
Last night, I believe this was in Portland, these extremists are organizing on social media, and Andy Ngo called it.
Andy Ngo literally posted this photo where it's like, here's Antifa planning this action, and they're probably going to end up at the ICE facility.
Lo and behold, it's exactly what they did.
You'll love to see it.
Justice.
Take a look at this man on the verge of tears.
He says, might go to jail for murder tonight for a racist when all I did was fight him.
Look it up on Twitter, put money on my books and come see me.
Marquise Lee Love, 9-8-1994.
No, don't put money on his books.
I'm sure they will, though.
They're gonna rally around him, they're gonna give him cash, and they're gonna try and get him out of prison.
We'll be lucky, in my opinion, if he actually does get prosecuted.
Now, I guess, you know, look, we've got a video of him running up.
Listen, this dude who gets- who nearly died, okay?
He's sitting on the ground, doing nothing.
He's just sitting there, and this guy Marquis runs up and just punt.
Full force kick, right in the face.
The dude whips his head back, smacks his head on the ground.
This dot- this dude, Marquis Love, literally tried to kill a man.
They often say that Antifa isn't responsible for any death or anything like that, and I would argue that, to an extent, they're correct.
It's part of the far-left tactic to make sure they don't cross a certain threshold, so the press doesn't get wind of this.
But they do have a tendency to attack journalists, and they've grown out of control, and now it's backfiring.
You see, 30 people have died so far in the George Floyd riots, so this is just fake news at this point, when they say, oh, Antifa is not responsible for any- Shut up.
It's not even about Antifa.
Fine.
Fine.
I'll tell you this.
You know what, press?
You're right!
Antifa isn't responsible for any death.
Black Lives Matter is.
Black Lives Matter is responsible for it.
It's weird to say.
But no, they're responsible because these people who are going out are chanting Black Lives Matter.
The riots are about George Floyd.
They have it painted on their shields.
And yes, 30 people have died.
I'll tell you this.
They burned down a building in, I believe, the Pawn Shop in Minneapolis.
A month later, they found a body.
Somebody was in there when it got torched and destroyed by Black Lives Matter.
You gonna tell me that they're not responsible for this?
The death count for Black Lives Matter, just in the past couple of months, 30.
30 people.
And that's why I get really mad when people say, oh, the riots worked, and I always respond to these tweets or these Facebook posts, like, and all you have to do is crawl over 30 corpses to get there.
Congratulations.
They seem to think they're morally justified in the death they bring.
I'm not a fan.
So let's get into the news.
This is from the Daily Mail.
I just wanted to sit here and show you this guy's face.
He posted this to Snapchat.
And look at him, he really looks like he's gonna cry.
Yeah, well maybe don't try to commit murder.
Maybe leave people alone, and stop running around, destroying things and attacking people, and you wouldn't have to worry about this.
The Daily Mail says, a Black Lives Matter protester on the run from cops after being positively identified as the man who kicked a truck driver in the face in Portland on Sunday is begging for cash.
Police are searching for Marquise Keeslove, 25, after he fled the scene of a brutal attack on Adam Hayner, who was knocked unconscious and suffered two black eyes in the vicious beating.
Heiner was identified as the victim in a GoFundMe campaign, which claimed he was trying to defend a transgender woman from being robbed before he was set upon by protesters.
Claimed there's photos of it, there's videos of it.
Props to this dude.
Apparently, the media's even tried dragging this guy, the victim, a little bit, because he posted memes critical of George Floyd himself.
But he also posted some memes that seem to support Black Lives Matter.
He just seemed to be a regular guy.
And so it appears, regular dudes chillin' in Portland, and then he sees these people harassing a trans woman, he gets out and he's like, yo, chill, leave her alone.
And what happens?
They stomp him out.
Dude kicks him in the face.
These people, this dude Marquis, he is evil.
But it's the banality of evil.
I don't think he's actually planning, you know, some evil scheme to go and hurt people.
He's in a mob.
And the mob just romps around, causing pain and suffering to all of those around them.
And he was part of it.
And that action, he added, it's the snowflake in the avalanche.
The snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche.
He said, I was just trying to fight a racist.
Dude wasn't racist!
You're just saying that because you are a lunatic.
You almost got me swearing.
This guy deserves to go to prison.
We'll see what happens.
He apparently has a massive rap sheet.
Since fleeing the scene, Love has been posting messages on Snapchat according to The Sun.
How pathetic.
Might go to jail for murder tonight for a racist when all I did was fight him.
You didn't fight him.
You ran up behind him while he was sitting on the ground and punted him in the face, nearly killing the man.
Fight him.
Nah, you're a pathetic coward.
Now you're running and hiding.
Take responsibility for what you did.
You're proud to fight a racist?
I'll tell you what, walk up and say, yeah, yeah, I did it.
No, you're a coward.
On the books is a reference to money held for inmates for the prison commissary.
The Portland Police Bureau say they have left Love, a recently fired security guard, a number of messages urging him to hand himself in, but have so far received no response.
They say they have a probable cause for his arrest.
He has a lengthy criminal record, which includes charges for domestic assault, interfering with public transport, driving without a license, domestic harassment, and gun charges.
Well, he's on the run, but here's the good news.
The good news is this.
The Adam Hayner Fund, started by Brian, $122,255.
They posted a video, Adam was trying to help someone, and was then attacked.
Yeah, man.
If you try to intervene, to stop the mob, They'll stomp you out.
They'll try to kill you.
But here's the thing.
These far leftists, they know not to use guaranteed lethal force.
They want to make sure the damage they cause is severe enough to scare you.
But minor enough to avoid major national press.
In this instance, this dude, Kees Love, overstepped that, kicked somebody in the face, and nearly killed him.
And now, the story's big.
But we've seen, as I've stated, 30 deaths already caused by Black Lives Matter.
So what are they protesting for?
The riots killed 30 people.
They're the bad guys.
That's it.
In Chicago, after the widespread looting throughout the city, I can't believe there are still people who support this.
Has the national organization come out and condemned this?
Have they come out and said, during a protest, I know it's not really a protest, for Black Lives Matter, a man was kicked in the face.
We condemn this in no uncertain terms.
Nope.
Not a peep.
In fact, when the looting happened in Chicago, Black Lives Matter came out and said, yay!
And they cheered.
And they said, release them.
And then continued to hold these marches, these protests, fighting with cops.
They don't care.
About the pain and suffering they cause other people.
And they love to put up these memes where they're like... I saw a story posted to Reddit.
And it was talking about, you know, 83 nights of rioting in Portland.
And one of the comments was... People wonder why the riots are still happening.
The rioters are wondering why there won't be any changes.
You wanna know why?
It was actually a defense of the riots.
Yeah, it's because they're not demanding anything.
I'm not kidding.
They've made some nonsensical demands, some of them, but most of them have no demands.
This group that attacked this guy, Adam Hayner, they weren't demanding anything!
They were just running around the city, smashing things and beating people up.
It was just a marauding band.
I love that word, by the way, marauding.
Just romping about, beating and attacking people.
You don't know what they want, because they don't know what they want.
There's no approved demands.
In fact, there's this White House siege plan to start on September 17th, where all these people are going to protest.
And on the website for AdBusters, the magazine that proposed the idea, they say, what's our one demand?
We don't know!
Our one demand is to sit with you and try and figure out what we want.
They don't want anything.
They say defund the police.
And then you try and ask them what it means, and they can't give you a straight answer.
They say, some people say it means just take the funding away from cops, period.
Some say it means totally abolish them.
Some say it means just take some of their money away.
So that way, when you say Joe Biden is for defunding the police, they immediately use the most nonsensical definition, abolish the police, and no, that's not true.
Joe Biden does not want to defund the police.
He just wants to take away some of their funding, reallocate it towards other programs.
But that's the other definition, right?
So the point is, they will say someone like Joe Biden supports reallocating funds from the police, and that is defunding the police, right?
Sounds fine.
And then when you say it, they go, no, that means abolish the police.
It's a semantic game they play.
So now, look, I want to show you what's going on with social media.
And I'm gonna start with just this post right here from Andy Ngo.
A far-left state senator in Utah has released a statement after it was revealed he gave a donation for paint that was used to vandalize public property and intimidate the DA at a criminal BLM protest.
Utah State Senator Derek Kitchen donated to this criminal BLM vandalism outside the DA's office.
It was a threat.
He even specified that his donation was to go for paint.
Further, on 27 June, he liked a tweet where a cameraman was threatened for publishing video of the vandalism.
You know why he's scared?
And this guy's, this politician's walking it back.
He's walking it back because a state senator in Virginia is being charged with two felonies and they will come for him next.
Yeah.
You thought that you could come out and just romp about destroying things and beating people with 30 dead and no one would come and arrest you?
You thought you would not have to pay penance?
No, you're going to get charged.
The Feds are coming after people.
Operation Legend, which is not related to the riots, has already arrested, I think, 1,500 people.
So you are going to get arrested.
And you are going to have to deal with the actions you took.
But let's talk about social media.
I highlight that to make the point about how, you know, politicians are directly involved.
But now I want to talk about social media.
Andy No says, The Youth Liberation Front organized the riot overnight,
where the Multnomah building in Portland was smashed and set on fire.
This was a new target for them.
The next gathering is announced for Elizabeth Carothers Park.
This means they will likely attack the nearby ICE facility.
Lo and behold, Andy No was 100% right.
This tweet from Andy was on the 19th at 5 a.m.
Portland Police, the 20th at 1.53 a.m.
To those near Southwest Bancroft Street and Southwest Bond Avenue at the ICE building, the gathering has been declared a riot.
All persons, you know, near this area must disperse.
By traveling to the north, you are ordered to disperse immediately.
Failure to comply with this order may subject you to citation, arrest, or the use of tear gas, crowd control agents, and or impact weapons.
Andy Noh called it.
And the reason that's significant is that these groups use social media overtly, straight up, with no fear.
Yet, you may be familiar with Laura Loomer.
She recently won her primary in Florida.
And this is big news.
Big, big news.
Twitter won't let her back on, even though she is now the Republican nominee for Florida's 21st congressional district.
But they allow overt terror.
And I say overt because they quite literally name themselves, advocate for destruction, tell people what to do, where to go, what to bring.
That is super liminal.
To quote the Simpsons joke, I don't know if you're familiar.
Subliminal, liminal, superliminal.
They're just straight up coming out and saying, hey everybody, go do this!
Here's the place!
And they've been doing it for a long time.
And for the longest time, they've gotten away with it.
Well, here's some good news.
Facebook bans Antifa accounts, other groups promoting violence.
Interesting.
Did you notice that the DNC, they opened with a pledge of allegiance?
I kid you not.
Does anyone really believe, I guess the anti-Trumpers, that the Democrats care about this country at this point?
I don't think so, because they've allowed this, and they only now realize, oh, you mean people don't like, you know, destroying things and rioting?
The Democrats have no principles.
They have been removed from principle a long time ago.
Maybe they never did.
Maybe that was an illusion and a delusion suffered by people formerly who believed the Democrats were the good guys.
Well, I don't anymore.
I think that they don't actually care.
And to see them come out now with a Pledge of Allegiance, cheering for America, makes me laugh.
Because they keep defending this.
They call it peaceful protests, even at the DNC.
They don't care about this country.
They don't care about the people who live in these cities.
And all of these places where the violent rioters are allowed to roam free are run by Democrats.
So no, I don't believe it.
And we've got that one politician I just mentioned, and we've got that lady in Virginia, actual Democrat politicians being charged, well, this one politician being charged with two felonies.
As well as many members of the NAACP and public defenders.
So, no.
You're not going to convince me they actually care.
For them to come out now just shows they feel like they bet on the wrong horse.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
You thought that Americans were cool with this?
How stupid do you have to be?
Well, good.
Now they're finally getting nuked.
And you know why they're getting nuked?
Because the Democrats finally realized they were bad.
Now, all of a sudden, Facebook whips into shape and says, ban the Antifa accounts.
Oh, but I got a good one for you.
How the media is still trying to defend them.
From the post-millennial, they say, Facebook is taking action against Antifa and other offline anarchist groups that support violent acts amid protests.
Admins released a press statement today updating the site's policy toward violent networks in the United States titled, An Update to How We Address Movements and Organizations Tied to Violence.
Today we are taking action against Facebook pages, groups, and Instagram accounts tied to offline anarchist groups that support violent acts amid protests, U.S.-based militia organizations, and QAnon, Facebook officials prefaced the statement.
Facebook admins already remove content calling for or advocating violence and ban organizations and individuals who proclaim a violent mission under the site's dangerous individuals and organizations policy.
You know, it's really interesting here.
Teespring.
I use Teespring, many people do.
Sometimes you might see t-shirts, you know, appear under this video.
That's Teespring.
They recently banned Antifa.
Just blanket ban.
I'm impressed.
Because there's a bunch of pro-cop stuff and, like, right-wing stuff.
That's not banned.
Antifa's finally getting purged.
Well, they're violent, terroristic extremists.
You see, you know what happened?
The riots started, opposition to Black Lives Matter skyrocketed, and it's Antifa's fault.
I've been saying for a long time, it's not Antifa out there in the streets, it's Black Lives Matter.
The 30 dead, that's Black Lives Matter.
It's true, though.
I'm not trying to play a semantic game.
Quite literally, the people who are out in the streets are not yelling, you know, F fascism.
For the most part, they're waving Black Lives Matter flags.
Well now, you see the Democrats, Facebook, and these other platforms like Teespring realized, uh-oh, it's making Trump look good.
It is helping Donald Trump, and he's going to win because of it, so let's get rid of it.
Now they realize.
But hey, a little too little too late.
But you know what?
To be fair, I believe credit should be given where credit is due.
If they're going to do the right thing now, I'm going to bemoan, you know, be upset with the fact that it took them this long.
I'm happy they're finally doing it.
Here's a quote.
However, we have seen growing movements that, while not directly organizing violence, have
celebrated violent acts, shown that they have weapons and suggest they will use them, or
have individual followers with patterns of violent behavior, officials conceded.
Now I want to be clear.
I am absolutely against censorship.
But there is a line.
And that line is terrorism.
Calls for violence.
They have banned many people who haven't called for violence.
I'm not super familiar with these US-based militia organizations or QAnon.
I think they might be referring to, like, the Boogaloo movement as well.
Some of these people really dance the line on jokingly advocating for or overtly advocating violence.
I'm not... I don't know enough about QAnon or Boogaloo or whatever these militias to... I'm not saying that directly about them, but I'm saying there are a lot of people who are saying things that are getting dangerously close to...
Calling for, you know, violence or conflict or something like that.
But Antifa does it all day, every day.
That's the funniest thing.
They complain.
The media complains all day and night about far-right groups, for which there are weird extremists.
But the problem is, here's one thing I see with the left-right spectrum.
When you get a crazy dude, who's like a white supremacist, and he runs around doing crazy things, why would you claim that is in any way related to, I don't know, a moderate conservative who just wants their factory reopened because, you know, of the COVID lockdown, or supports Trump so he can do a better trade deal?
There's no relation to those ideas, but they say it's right-wing.
They lump it all together.
On the left, you quite literally have media members, Democrats, extremists, activists, supporting the same ideas.
The same exact ideas.
Yeah, take a look at this.
For those who... so Andy Noh tweeted, is this some sick joke? And the tweet was... is now gone
because it was put in protected mode. Michael Murph says, for those who didn't see the tweet
before it was protected, the deliberate dismissiveness is so ridiculous. Davy Elba says,
in Facebook's QAnon takedown today, Antifa was lumped in with other militia groups
potentially encouraging riots.
In my reporting, there's not been a single incident where Antifa has been tied definitively to concrete real-world harm.
So I asked FB, one out of five, and, oh yeah, there was a ratio coming.
Davey Elba, I believe, is with the New York Times.
I don't know if it's going to show the account.
Let me pull it up.
Davey Elba, New York Times reporter, tweeted, there is no incident where Antifa has been definitively tied to concrete real world harm.
Right now, there is a Black Lives Matter Antifa extremist, whatever you want to call him, on the run because he almost murdered a man.
And this is what the New York Times gives you.
And this is why it took so long for these tech companies to react.
Because they're dumb.
But also, ultimately, I'll just say this.
I blame the media.
The media has been co-opted a long time ago by far-left extremists.
Well, the Democrats finally realized it was hurting them.
Trump's approval rating was going up amid the riots.
Black Lives Matter support was going down.
And they went, hey, wait a minute.
This is bad for us.
We can't support... Oh, no!
Oh, no!
Too late.
Right now, there's a massive banner ad running on the Washington Post, probably many other sites, where it shows Joe Biden looking up all confused with fires and rioting behind him.
And it says, with Kamala Harris on the ticket, the far-left radicalization of Joe Biden is complete.
I bet they regret it now.
But let me just wrap up by saying, for one, always, always, credit where credit is due.
You ban them now, I'm gonna praise you for it.
I'm not gonna play this game where it's like, I'm still mad at you.
No, you know what?
Good.
I'm glad they're doing it.
I hope they find this dude Keith's love.
I hope he faces justice.
We've seen him on video, but I will still say, Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I'm a big fan of the Constitution, so have him stand trial.
I'm glad they're starting to get rid of all these Antifa accounts.
Maybe this will help to end a lot of this violence, but it's going to have to come from the Democrats.
The DNC may recognize this, but the local Democrats, the district attorneys, the state's attorneys, the governor, the mayor, they don't seem to get it, and they're doing nothing about it.
So hopefully now, that at the DNC they're saying, hey that's a bad thing, it'll now trickle down.
And I'll give them credit where credit is due for saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
But I just don't believe them.
So they can try and do the right thing, I can respect it.
I will make sure I give credit when they do good things.
But I'm gonna tell you right now, I don't trust you.
Because for too long, you have supported this.
Defended this.
And it's creepy.
And it's scary.
Yeah, that a major political party would actually entertain what this is.
Well, now you have made your bed and you will sleep in it.
And Trump is starting to plaster the internet with ads calling the Democrats far left for supporting all of this.
They're going to try their hardest to distance themselves.
Because I tell you this right now, I've said it, I'm a single-issue voter at this point, and at this point, it's the violence, the riot, and the looting.
Especially when it comes to Chicago, because I have family there, and they raised the drawbridges, and now I'm worried about my family that's in Chicago.
I'm like, maybe I need to help them get out.
So the Democrats finally realized, a lot of people have become single-issue voters.
Trump, yeah, maybe he could go out and say all the worst things in the world, and then promise he will end the riots and people would still vote for him.
So now they're taking action.
A little too late though.
But again, 100%.
I want to see them do it more.
Let's see them, you know, actually come out and condemn Antifa and the rest of these extremists.
I'm not convinced they care that much, though.
They wielded that power because it benefited them.
But, hey, maybe they'll actually ramp up the enforcement against them.
Maybe they'll start arresting them.
And that's what I want to see.
So if they do it, then I will absolutely thank them for finally doing it.
For now, the only person I actually trust to actually deal with it is Trump.
That's just the way it is, and that's their own fault.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
We've got major breaking news pertaining to the We Build the Wall project.
Steve Bannon, former White House advisor, has been indicted, as well as the project's founder, Brian Colfage, I believe he's the founder, and two others, for funneling money to Brian Colfage.
This project, for those that aren't familiar, is where everybody donated to this GoFundMe.
They raised like 20 or something million dollars to actually start building out a wall, My understanding is they did build some small portions of it.
They were doing the work.
But the indictment has to do with the fact that Brian Colfage had said over and over again he would not be taking any money.
But according to the indictment, they were secretly funneling funds somehow to Brian Colfage.
I believe the total amount was about $350,000.
This is a weird story because I have to imagine if they just said, we're gonna raise money to build the wall, and we're gonna take a salary, there would have been no issue here, but this whole thing is weird.
Apparently they were paying off personal expenses, credit cards, buying boats?
So let's go- I want to go through this story, but what's interesting about this...
Is that a year ago a year and a half ago actually many conservatives were raising red flags about this saying we don't trust it and now what I find particularly Well, predictable.
The media is blaming Donald Trump, Trump Jr., and other conservatives when, quite literally, they're the victims of this.
Okay?
First of all, innocent until proven guilty.
Let's see what the allegation, you know.
We're gonna look at the allegations.
We'll look at what the indictment says.
In the indictment, apparently, there's text messages where this dude is saying, salaries will never be disclosed.
But on Twitter, he's saying, I'm never gonna take a penny.
So it sounds, it sounds a bit dirty.
However, we're also in an election year a few months out.
And of course, the media is now blaming Trump.
Trump Jr.
Like I said, listen, the people who were defrauded out of their money in this scheme and the people who supported this were all being tricked.
If the allegations are true, that would make Donald Trump and Trump Jr.
The victims of the fraud.
Because they've come out in support saying, hey, that's great, you know, build the wall.
And now it's being used against them.
Let's do this.
Let's start with the news story and see what's going on.
I want to show you some of the tweets that are happening.
I want to show you what the wall project was, where it was.
And I also want to point out some media hypocrisy, as I often do.
The New York Post says, former White House advisor Steve Bannon indicted on fraud charges.
They say, Steve Bannon has been indicted on charges he defrauded donors to a $25 million campaign to build a border wall, federal prosecutors in Manhattan said Thursday.
Bannon and others are accused of ripping off donations to the We Build the Wall GoFundMe fundraiser that was launched in December 2018.
Audrey Strauss, acting U.S.
attorney for the Southern District of New York, said the defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction.
Bannon, the former chief strategist for President Trump, personally pocketed $1 million in contributions meant for construction of the border wall, funneled through a non-profit under his control, prosecutors allege.
Meanwhile, We Build the Wall founder Brian Colfage, 38, promised donors he wouldn't take a single penny from the pot.
But Bannon and their cohorts, quote, secretly schemed to pass hundreds of thousands of dollars to Colphage, which he used to fund his lavish lifestyle, Straw said.
Though it was an initial hit, raising $17 million in its first week of launching, GoFundMe yanked WeBuildTheWall saying Colphage, a Purple Heart recipient, needed to transfer the funds to a non-profit organization or else they'd be returned.
Colphage, Bannon, and Andrew Botellotto, 56, a venture capitalist Bannon was already working with, formed the non-profit WeBuildTheWall Inc., which promised to fund the private construction of the border wall.
Donors were reassured that the funds wouldn't be misused because they'd have to opt in to having their donation transferred to the nonprofit.
As Colfage insisted he would not take a penny in salary or compensation, the indictment said.
The Brazen crew capitalized on Colfage's promise with Batalado saying, it removes all self-interest taint and gives Brian Colfage sainthood, according to the filing.
The alleged cover allowed Bannon, Colfage, Batalado, and a fourth man, Timothy Shea, to broker a secret deal to pay Colfage $100,000 up front and then $20,000 a month in payments that were allegedly passed through Bannon's non-profit and a shell company controlled by Shea, court paper said.
Bannon, however, made it clear he was running the show, prosecutors allege.
So here's what it sounds like.
Well, here's a quote.
There would be, quote, no deals I don't approve.
It sounds like Colfage started this, and I'm just going to speculate here.
Colfage started this.
They were trying to figure out a way to actually take control of the project, so they promised him money through Bannon's non-profit.
I don't know the full nitty-gritty details, but what you need to understand is that if at any point the GoFundMe money went to the non-profit from Bannon, and then in any way, any money, for any reason, went to Colphage, they can say, I mean, straight up, the money's mixed, it's a mixed bag.
If the non-profit took the GoFundMe money, and the non-profit, even if it got money from somewhere else, paid Colphage, There you go.
They're gonna say, this is a weird thing, how finance works.
And it's not necessarily true, but in some circumstances, this is how it might actually be played out, and you gotta be careful of this.
Let's say the GoFundMe raised $20 million.
They send that money to the non-profit.
But the non-profit also raises $10 million from somewhere else.
Well, now the non-profit is the project.
That means any money they raise from somewhere else that goes to him, Too bad.
The GoFundMe money, that is the project.
Whether you give money to it or not, you have one pool of cash.
If that pool now pays out, they can say that GoFundMe money was used to pay him.
However, what it seems like is being alleged is that they tried to manipulate the game, as it were, to say, oh look, we are putting money into this, we're gonna pay him, it's unrelated, but in reality, essentially, we're buying out the project.
That's just how it sounds so far.
Let's keep reading.
Some of the payouts were concealed as payments to Colfage's wife for media, with others marked for social media.
Quote, As far as the public knows, no one is getting paid.
Colfage Texas texted Badalado.
He also wrote, salaries will never be disclosed.
By May 2019.
I mean, that's just not true.
That's, I mean, that's, that to me is insane.
Because non-profits have what's called, I believe it's called the 990, where they release all of this information, and we know who's getting paid what.
That's why they're tax-exempt.
By May 2019, the nonprofit faced mounting scrutiny from the public after failing to start construction on the wall.
At the time, Coalfage repeated claims that the group would break ground in a matter of days.
He also told donors, there's no update because we are remaining silent for a very good reason.
Five months later, the foursome caught wind that the feds were probing their alleged scheme and began using encrypted messaging services.
They also changed WeBuildTheWall's website to remove any mention that Coalfage was not being compensated.
Adding, a statement that Colfage would start receiving a salary in January 2020.
All told, Bannon raked in $1 million through his nonprofit, with some of the funds going toward Colfage's monthly payments and other personal expenses, prosecutors claimed.
Colfage, a triple amputee who lives in Florida, allegedly swiped more than $350,000 belonging on a boat, luxury SUV, golf cart, jewelry, cosmetic surgery, personal tax payments, and credit card debt, the indictment said.
Look at this.
and Shay 49 also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donor funds.
The four men are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one
count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Each charge carries up to 20 years in prison.
All four were arrested Thursday morning with Bannon 66 scheduled to appear in Manhattan
federal court later this afternoon.
I don't understand why they didn't just say from the get go.
This is Brian's fault.
Look at this.
January 13, 2019.
Media is lying.
Our GoFundMe campaign is smoking hot.
It's not being cancelled or all refunded.
We are building the wall mile by mile for 50% of the cost.
If you donated before January 11th, just opt in on at GoFundMe.
Maybe this is bunk.
Maybe this is just the feds just going after Bannon and they're using it to make Trump look bad.
I don't know.
We're gonna have to see how the charges play out and I am not a legal expert, but I'll tell you this.
Maybe the argument from Colfage and from Bannon is that they changed to a new non-profit and told people to opt in.
Therefore, the new non-profit would be paying him.
I don't know.
I just think it's really dumb that he tweeted.
I thought it was pretty clear.
I made a promise that I would never take a penny.
100% of fundraising through GoFundMe donations will only go towards the wall.
100% means 100%, right?
Board won't see any of that money.
Donations will be accountable by an audit committee as well.
We've heard a lot of this and in the end, At least according to these allegations, it doesn't seem to be true.
We have the official statement here from the Department of Justice.
They say, Audrey Strauss, the acting U.S.
State's Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector General of the New York Field Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service, announced the unsealing of an indictment charging the four people.
We understand this.
They say, Straw said, As alleged, the defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction, while repeatedly assuring donors that Brian Colfage, the founder and public face of We Build the Wall, would not be paid a cent.
The defendant secretly schemed to pass hundreds of thousands of dollars to Colfage, which he used to fund his lavish lifestyle.
We thank the USPIS for their partnership in investigating this case, and we remain dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud wherever we find it.
So first, Margaret Brennan noted that Bannon was taken into custody today, apparently on a boat, and by the Postal Service, which I gotta just throw in there, it's kind of strange.
It's just, hey, it's 2020, it's weird.
I think it was Ford Fisher who tweeted, if you had Steve Bannon arrested by the Post Office on your bingo card for 2020, mark it off now.
Or he said, any of you have this?
It is very, very strange.
We also have this, which notes, this is from the indictment, basically says the same thing.
They say, Bannon, through a non-profit organization under his control, received over a million dollars from We Build the Wall, which Bannon used to, among other things, secretly pay Colphage.
And that's the point I was making earlier on.
The money came from We Build the Wall to a different non-profit, and then Bannon's non-profit paid Colphage, probably for something else.
The way the scheme would work is, They pay Ben as non-profit for marketing services or consulting, then Ben as non-profit hires Colfage and says he's a consultant and pays him.
You can't do that.
It's secretly shuffling money around.
I guess that's the indictment.
We'll see.
We'll see for sure.
This is interesting though because while the media is trying to blame Trump and Trump Jr., and I'll show you that in a second, The Daily Caller and many other conservatives have been raising the red flags about this January 14th, 2019.
And if you look now, Trump supporters are calling him fraudsters and calling them out.
And it looks like the victims of this are Trump supporters, Trump himself, and Trump Jr.
In this old story, I'll just give you the buzz notes here.
Triple amputee Air Force veteran Brian Colfage is refusing to answer basic questions about his new non-profit organization that will use the funds raised by his viral $20 million GoFundMe to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Colfage announced We Build the Wall, Inc.
on Friday, but documents submitted to Florida reveal the non-profit was created over two weeks ago in late December.
Colfage is directing check donations to a separate organization, WeFundTheWall, Inc.
With a P.O.
box in Houston, the Daily Caller News Foundation has been unable to find any record of its existence.
Charity Watch President Daniel Boruchoff says Colfage's new non-profit raises a huge red flag.
Let me read you how they wrap up the, you know, the story.
They show, you know, filing numbers and everything.
They say, Colfage now says his highly experienced team is highly confident that we can complete significant elements of the wall in less time for less money than the federal government.
All contributions collected by Colfage's GoFundMe after Friday will be automatically routed to WeBuildTheWall, Inc.
And Colfage claims Sunday, one-third of his 340,000 donors had already opted into the nonprofit.
Some people have said online that if the people who gave the money don't care how it was spent, it's not fraud.
That is not true.
Because a lot of people might not know, a lot of people might actually be upset, and if you get one victim, well then there you go.
That's why I don't understand why Colfage didn't just say, I am going to embark on this project, if I'm expected to do this, I expect to be compensated.
He could have said that from day one.
And more importantly, instead of funneling money to Bannon's non-profit and then to Colfage, assuming the allegations are true, they could have just said to everybody, we know that we promised in the beginning, But Brian needs support.
He's a triple amputee and he's been working on this very hard and we think he deserves a salary.
Most people probably would have said yes, you can change your mind and then it probably wouldn't be so easy to do.
But listen, what is bothering me the most right now is this.
Here's Don Jr.' 's endorsement.
And this is true.
Build the Wall website is still up. Here's Don Jr's endorsement, and this is true. It's there.
He says this is a private enterprise at its finest, doing it better, faster, cheaper than
anything else. And what you guys are doing is pretty amazing. It started from a grassroots
effort, and it's doing some wonderful things for an important issue. Donald Trump Jr.
All that says to me is that fraudsters made promises they did not keep.
We're going behind everyone's back. And Donald Trump Jr.
trusted them and was taken advantage of.
All that says, when Trump Sr.
was asked about it, he said it was a good thing.
I believe people have also mentioned that.
It's the same exact narrative.
It was Trump and his supporters who were defrauded of an issue that Trump had been pushing to make somebody some cash.
Now my understanding is they did actually build wall.
It doesn't seem like they built all that much though.
Now, Chris Hayes of MSNBC chimes in saying, here's what he says.
This is also such a perfect encapsulation of the entire Trump and longstanding conservative
grift about running government like a business.
Michelle Goldberg responds, yeah, if it came out of the writers room, you'd send it back
for for being too on the nose.
It is not a perfect encapsulation.
The problem with people who think business people can run government better is that they think that, you know, when you run a business and you're the boss, you can snap your fingers and get something done.
When you're working in government, you can't do that.
The problem is like any con man, any grift, they're ripping people off and they're using a cause.
It's a con.
You know, when someone cons you, it means confidence.
It's a confidence trick.
A con artist is a confidence artist.
They built up confidence in many people by claiming to support a cause that Trump and his supporters wanted and ripped them off as per the allegations.
For all we know, the charges they'll lose.
For all we know, Bannon's going to be like, look at all of these things that we did.
It was above board.
I don't know.
Innocent until proven guilty.
And I will stress, I said the same thing of Antifa on the far left.
The guy who was accused of snipping the brake lines.
I always say innocent until proven guilty.
However, let's be real, all of this is going to be weaponized and used against Trump.
Steve Bannon, there was one tweet where Trump is quoted as saying that Bannon's doing great work outside, that it's better that he's not in the campaign because of the great things he's doing, and then Trump says, you know, it's great, but they're all basically involved.
They are now going to try to victim blame, as it were.
All of the Trump supporters who put money into this and all the conservatives who had been ranting about it endlessly for over a year ago are being smeared as though they were too stupid or they were in on it.
No.
You've got the Daily Caller.
You've got many people pointing this out.
Many people who are raising red flags.
And they were conservatives.
And the victims are the Trump supporters themselves.
So why won't the media say they were... It was a grifter.
It was a right-wing grifter.
This is what they wanted, right?
This is exactly, well, to be fair, he says, the conservative grift running a government like a business is wrong.
It was absolutely a grift.
So over at the website, when you go to WeBuildTheWall, which is still up, they mention two locations where they've built wall.
I gotta add, however, take a look at this.
Project number one, Sunderland Park, New Mexico.
Flying El Paso International Airport.
They say the address is 1000 Brickland Road, Sunland Park, New Mexico.
There's directions, they do a private tour.
Public visits are free.
Disclaimer.
Wall and land is owned by We Build the Wall and reserve the right to remove anyone for any reason.
This wall is decently long, but it's actually not really that long at all.
Maybe, look.
Maybe the goal of this was really just to defraud people.
They found a cause that everyone would rally behind.
They did maybe as much work as they could do.
I don't know.
Maybe they ultimately just wanted to rally support behind the cause, make a point, and get paid.
I don't know.
We'll see how the indictments play out.
But over on Google Maps, we can see Well, this is where it is.
American Eagle Brick Co.
is the address they give, and it looks like the wall is right here.
Unfortunately, I can't actually go down and look.
You know, I can do a street view.
There was nothing here before, just this, you know, monument and stuff.
So they did build some wall, but I'm gonna be honest with all of you guys.
It's not that much wall.
People could very easily, I would imagine, just walk around or whatever.
It looks like maybe the topography here was restricting people from moving, so this portion did shut down a known smuggling route.
And I believe that's the point they were making.
One important thing you need to understand about all of the wall stuff that Trump is doing...
A lot of people on the left like to say Trump hasn't built any wall.
The main goal has been security.
While Trump did very bombastically say, a big beautiful 30-foot concrete wall, sea to shining sea, I'm paraphrasing and trying to be silly, mind you.
But Trump did say, you know, a big beautiful wall, you know, paraphrasing.
And ultimately what ended up was select bollard fencing in key areas, because it makes more sense.
Trump gave all of his supporters his big vision, and the left likes to act that his supporters aren't happy with it.
No, many of them are, because this was targeting key smuggling routes, areas where it was really easy for people to get in.
This says Project No.
2, Mission Texas.
Flying McAllen International Airport.
And they say public visits and private tours are coming soon.
The wall is on private property.
Owners reserve the right to remove anyone for any reason.
So I don't know as well if we can actually... I don't think there's a... There might be a street view here where we can... No, there's no street view here.
So we can't actually look at what this wall is because, again, it's private property.
But it looks like they were actually, you know, doing some work.
And it's unfortunate.
This is how things are playing out.
But look, like I said, red flags.
Now, I do want to make sure I highlight this.
Ari Fletcher, in a totally separate story but still relevant, Guess what the difference is among these three stories of guilty pleas and indictments that made the New York Times front page and the one that was buried on page 16.
Take a look at this.
New York Times front page.
Mueller inquiry.
You know, Russia.
Mueller, uh, you know, what does it say?
Manafort indicted.
We have the next front page.
It says, you know, another indictment.
Then we have another page here, pleading guilty Cohen implicated, but then when it was, ex-FBI lawyer expected to plead guilty in the review of the Russia inquiry, page 16.
Rachel Maddow didn't talk about it on her show, she just talked about salacious Cohen gossip, and the New York Times didn't put it on the front page.
This is something I think is important to highlight in how the media operates.
They're going to go nuts on this story.
They're going to blame Trump.
They're going to blame the victims.
They're going to smear them.
That's what the media does.
And when it comes to the actual indictments, you know, with Russiagate, they're going to ignore the story.
That's what they do.
Beginning of the end.
When it all comes out, he will have nowhere to hide.
And at the same time, Donald Trump... Here's what it says.
says a federal judge has thrown out President Trump's effort to block the Manhattan district
district attorney from subpoenaing his his financial records.
The reason I'm just highlighting this is because of Scaramucci's beginning of the end statement.
Keep in mind how the media operates, even when it's when it's shown that there was,
you know, malicious actors targeting the Trump campaign.
The It's not the beginning of the end, is it?
Could we say the walls are closing in on Obama and Biden?
The media runs protection for them.
So take what they say with a grain of salt as it pertains to the Bannon indictment, and we're going to have to see how this case plays out, but there you go.
It's big breaking news.
Rarely do I have actual hard-breaking segments.
The story came out, you know, shortly before I recorded this.
By the time you saw it, you've seen it, there's probably more developments, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
The next segment is coming up over at my main channel, which is separate from this one.
It's youtube.com slash timcast.
Check it out, and I will see you all there at 4 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
We got a major Get Woke, Go Broke update on Goodyear tires.
You may have seen the story.
A photo got released showing that Goodyear said some political slogans like Black Lives Matter are okay and others aren't, notably MAGA or Thin Blue Line.
After this controversy erupted, Donald Trump called for a boycott of Goodyear.
I don't know if he actually said boycott.
He may have, but many conservatives said it's time to play the same game the left plays and boycott these companies.
Well, Goodyear Fell into a well-placed trap.
I am impressed.
They issued a statement.
It was a very weak statement.
It didn't really walk away from anything.
It claimed like, oh, we didn't make that.
It doesn't mean that just because they didn't make it doesn't mean they weren't telling their employees what they could or couldn't do.
Now the best part.
Leaked audio has come out proving them wrong, proving they lied, and it's even worse.
In fact, the restrictions weren't just about Donald Trump or Thin Blue Line or, you know, Blue Lives Matter or whatever.
It was quite literally along racial lines.
This might actually now be in the realm of illegality.
So the conservative boycott is likely going to continue, and we'll talk about this, and I'll give you another quick update on Get Woke, Go Broke with the NBA and, you know, MLB, just because there's similar stories, but this is the main story, so let's just read this one from WKBN First News.
They say, audio from Goodyear training session reveals more about zero tolerance policy.
Trump tweeted Wednesday about the single image that was leaked, urging people not to buy Goodyear tires, citing their ban on MAGA hats.
They say, quote, Democrat, Republican, Trump, Biden, Sanders, whatever, that will no longer be allowed in the plant.
New audio from a training session at a Goodyear plant in Topeka sheds more light on a conversation with employees about the company's zero-tolerance policy.
Now, I'm going to stop right there.
If they said, no political slogans or whatever, I don't care who it is, I'm fine with that.
They didn't, however.
They say, a photo leaked from the meeting had a list of what was acceptable and unacceptable at the workplace, but the new audio gives more context to that conversation.
WIBW obtained that recording.
The meeting references racial graffiti in the locker room.
Quote, Some people may wish to express their views on social justice or inequity or equity issues such as Black Lives Matter or LGBTQ pride on their face coverings, shirts or wristbands.
That will be deemed approved because it applies with a zero-tolerance stance.
The speaker on the recording said during the meeting.
However, if any associate wears all blue, white Lives Matter shirts or face coverings, that will not be appropriate.
Quote, let's try and comply with these so you know everybody feels good in this factory.
I want to make sure guys, make sure guys, think about what we do in this factory.
In this factory, right?
We all work together to make tires.
That's what we do, the speaker said.
That's what we get paid to do.
So let's continue to do that and do the right thing and keep this place what it has always been, a good place to work.
Do the right thing.
Yes, you can talk about equity issues so long as it favors their ideology and it's the right thing.
But if you say all blue or white lives matter, now that would not be appropriate.
Now I'll be fair, I'm not a big fan especially of the playing the game of what is acceptable and what isn't.
I don't know necessarily what the intent is behind all blue or white lives matter.
The white lives matter stuff I've seen has been like white nationalists and white identitarians who have promoted it.
I'm not a big fan.
I think people are allowed to speak their mind.
The same as Black Lives Matter, if people peacefully protest, I'm all for the First Amendment.
But, regardless of my opinion, there's a fly in front of me, the issue is, in fact, they made it racial.
They straight up said, you can't say white lives matter, you can't say black lives matter.
That is probably a violation of civil rights law.
Again, whether you agree or not isn't the issue, it matters what the law is.
So now, Goodyear may actually be in a bit of trouble.
They say Trump tweeted Wednesday about the single image that was leaked urging people not to buy Goodyear.
So I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't think he actually said boycott.
He didn't.
The Akron based company employs about 63,000 people.
Goodyear released a statement following the president's tweet saying in part the company has zero tolerance for any form of harassment or intimidation.
Now we know it's overt bias and yes.
Racial bias.
They say that's why slogans or messaging that falls outside the scope of racial justice or equity issues is not allowed in the workplace.
I'm sorry, man.
If you're gonna start playing games about what race is acceptable in terms of sloganing, you are doing exactly what you say you're not allowed to do.
The president accused them of playing politics.
United Steelworkers Local 2 will host a rally against the president's call for a boycott.
Congressman Tim Ryan and Reps Tavia Galansky and Emily Sykes are expected to be there as well.
And of course now the far left has started claiming that Donald Trump is calling for a boycott of American goods because their competitors aren't American.
Apparently that's not true.
There's a ton of tire makers outside of Goodyear and I'm sure there's many small businesses that could use a lift up.
If these companies want to play politics, well then they're going to lose business.
You see, the only reason they allow this is because they know.
Like we've seen at Taco Bell.
When they fire people who say Black Lives Matter, the press goes far and wide and the left will quit.
In a famous video, there's a guy wearing a Black Lives Matter mask.
The Taco Bell manager says, you can't wear it, I'm sorry.
And he says, then I'm not coming in.
They say, then we're gonna let you go.
And he goes, fine.
He ends up getting fired or quits or something like that.
And that's the conviction of the left.
Because of this, the company backpedaled and said, okay, you can wear Black Lives Matter.
But what about any other slogan now?
You see how the game is played.
Conservatives are starting to stand up.
The left is gonna get mad about it.
Because these companies are already starting to realize, guess who actually has money to spend?
Well, you know what?
This is a major get-woke-go-broke because now the president is coming out against them masterfully played.
Listen.
They put out the image.
Then they waited.
I don't know if it was on purpose, but I'll tell you what.
They put out the image and waited.
Goodyear then stepped right in it and said, actually, here's the thing.
You drip out a little bit, make them set their own, you know, they set themselves up for failure, walk into the trap, and then you get them.
Get woke, go broke, Goodyear.
That's too bad.
But it's also a Get Woke, Go Broke NBA MLB update.
You see, These major sports, they want to wear the shirts, they want to entertain a political ideology that supports the Democratic Party.
They'll claim it doesn't, but it does.
They're clear party dividing lines here.
Because there are different perspectives on what it means and what it represents.
And I'll tell you what, right now, you've got 83 nights.
Maybe 84?
I don't know, whatever.
I think last night was the 84th night?
No idea.
80-whatever nights of rioting under the banner Black Lives Matter.
30-plus people dead.
So, yeah, there's a big difference in political opinion around that shirt this gentleman is wearing.
Well, of course, ratings woes continue for woke NBA MLB.
Breitbart says both basketball and baseball hit screens this summer, filled with pay-ins to Black Lives Matter protests during the national anthem and an avalanche of sloganeering on signs, stadium floors, and fields.
And on player jersey backs, along with the intrusion of this political activism on TV during the games, the two leagues have literally blasted social media with one woke proclamation after another.
Four weeks ahead of the debut of the shortened 2020 seasons, NBA and MLB sports reporters brayed about how important the league's returns were and insisted that fans were hungry for sports.
But both leagues have struggled to limp past a few million viewers for any particular game.
And overall TV ratings have dipped below the pre-pandemic numbers, according to Sports Media Watch.
The NBA ratings have fallen and MLB is weak.
The NBA has struggled to average more than 1.5 million viewers and baseball is in no better shape.
For the NBA's opening week, the league averaged 1.56 million viewers, down from the already lackluster pre-coronavirus average of 1.62.
Baseball has seen a smattering of numbers that hover, in most cases, well below 1.5 million average viewers.
The numbers for the NBA are particularly worrisome, given that many of the low-performing games are playoff seeding games that have taken place in primetime.
These are supposed to be the biggest games to date, games that will decide playoff matchups, though fans just aren't tuning in.
I wonder why.
Amid the chaos and the calamity, many of us just want to get away.
But also, many people are tuning in to pay attention to politics.
They want to know what's going on.
Politics has become pop culture.
It's kind of weird to see my ratings through the roof, because people want to know what's going on in the world.
And I'll tell you this, people don't want to watch woke sports, man.
I just want to watch the dudes play games, compare stats, and see some good players, you know, accomplish some records and break some, you know, get some higher scores and just do better.
Sports is an escape.
I want to watch video games, sports, just whatever, to get away from the crazy sometimes.
There is no escape anymore.
Our whole lives right now are just inundated, slammed, with politics left and right.
And there's no escape.
So when you see nothing but Trump ads and Biden ads, and you've got your team, whether you're Team Joe or Team Trump, Maybe you just need something where you can turn it on and kick back.
So you know what?
There's some new video games that are out.
Hey, Skater XL.
Love it.
I've been playing the demo for quite a while.
The new game's out on PlayStation.
Man, it is great to just sit back and play a game where I got a little skateboard dude doing kickflips and doing whirlybirds and whatnot.
Whirlybirds aren't a real trick, I'm kidding, by the way.
Skateboarders probably cringed and then laughed when they realized I wasn't serious.
But there's also the new Tony Hawk game.
And I bring this up because these games are not woke.
In Skater XL video game, I can just have my dude launch off the big, you know, the big air ramp, do a nice, you know, mute grab.
I'm saying that specifically for a reason.
And then just, it's outside of the realm of politics.
But what do you get with all this stuff is insanity.
I don't care about any of this.
I don't want to watch.
I would love to go to a bar.
I kid you not.
Sit outside with some outside TVs and have the game on.
I've never been a big sports guy.
I've never been a big basketball or baseball guy.
Baseball, I'm more of a fan of baseball than basketball.
Because I like the... It's sort of, you know, strategic and methodical.
You see the guy get up, you wait, there's the pitch, you can watch.
And so there's break periods where you can eat, whereas NBA is like very hard action, right?
I'd love to go to a bar, sit down, order some wings, and just have the game playing, talk with my friends.
I'm not going to do that right now.
It's not going to happen.
I'm not interested.
I am unenthused by what they're doing.
Now, I'm going to sit home, I'm going to order takeout, and I'm going to play my skateboarding video game as an escape.
Now as it pertains to tires, you know what?
I won't buy tires if they're gonna play these games because it's only fair that if I'm gonna say we gotta stand up against this insanity, that I do the same.
And a lot of people are gonna do the same as well.
Same is true for sports.
I'm not gonna watch it.
I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
Controversy is erupting around a new Netflix film called Cuties, which is extremely disturbing.
It is about pre-pubescent girls twerk dancing, and there's actually a poster advertisement of little kids in suggestive positions.
Needless to say, basically everybody is cringing at this, angry at this, and demanding Netflix get rid of this.
There's some interesting information pertaining to this film that many people don't understand.
But I think the reason many people don't understand what the film is, because for some reason Netflix thought it would be appropriate to call the film Cuties and have premubescent girls in suggestive positions, it's kind of disturbing.
But here's the hilarious part!
4chan bans all images from upcoming Netflix movie Cuties, and what's really funny about it is that I mean, it's 4chan, and they said Netflix may tolerate this crap.
We don't.
And it's true, 4chan doesn't.
Netflix has issued a statement about it, but in one viral image that I don't know if it's real or not, actually refused to condemn Uh, that's these certain activities and people are like, you couldn't even say you're opposed to, you know, abuse of children?
It's really creepy.
I think you need to understand the context of this film, though.
Apparently, the film is supposed to be mocking Western feminism.
How they sexualize kids.
That was apparently the point of the film.
I think Netflix didn't realize this and actually made disgusting advertisements for it.
But here's the story from Newsweek.
They say.
The French film, which is due out September 9th, tells the story of an 11-year-old girl joining a dance group called Cuties.
The French title for the film is Mignones.
I'm pronouncing it horribly.
Amy, 11 years old, tries to escape family dysfunction by joining a free-spirited dance clique named Cuties as they build their self-confidence through dance.
A synopsis in the description for the YouTube trailer states.
The film had already received backlash from people, including a petition calling for Netflix to take the film off its service.
Many users took issue with a poster that depicts the film's stars in revealing clothing, as well as stating that the main character joins a twerking dance crew.
Netflix has since updated the poster and changed the language on the service to reflect a free-spirited dance crew.
That doesn't change what the movie is about.
It's still weird.
In a statement, a Netflix spokesperson said the film was misrepresented by the poster and description.
I think that's actually true.
Some creepy weirdo at Netflix had no idea what they were doing, or whoever made the film.
It's weird, weird, weird.
We're deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Mignone's Cuties.
It was not okay, nor was it representative of this French film, which won an award at Sundance.
We've now updated the pictures and description, a Netflix spokesperson said in a statement.
The film did indeed make its debut at the Sundance Film Festival in January to rave reviews.
It currently has an 82% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Yeah, well that just sounds like Hollywood, if you were to ask me.
And yes, 4chan is straight up saying, we ain't having it.
Do not post any imagery from this show which sexualizes children.
Any posting images or videos in this manner will receive permanent bans.
Netflix may allow this crap, 4chan does not.
A screenshot shared to the 4chan subreddit points this out, as I mentioned.
There have been other threads on 4chan posted that have continued to criticize the film ahead of its release, as well as the streaming service's decision to release it.
In a since-archived thread, one user asked other posters what they thought of the film.
Is it about exploring femininity, or is it abuse of children, the user wrote, receiving many responses criticizing the movie.
One user made a post defending the film, saying the film is actually a commentary on sexualizing young girls, and the people making the criticism missed the point.
This film is about how internet culture is sexualizing young girls, and how hyper-sexualization of women by entertainment media is damaging to girls.
This film is made by Muslim women who is critiquing modern feminism.
The outrage caused by the film is literally proving every point she is trying to make about society.
Cutie's director, Maimona Dekure, has indeed spoken about some of the sexualization that she witnessed that inspired the film.
In an interview with Screen Daily, the director explained that the inspiration came from seeing young girls perform in suggestive fashion.
They dance in very suggestive manner.
There also happened to be a number of African mothers in the audience.
I was transfixed watching with a mixture of shock and admiration.
I asked myself if these young girls understood what they were doing.
De Coors further explained that in her research for the film, she found that social media played a larger part in influencing the ways young people portray themselves.
So I think this is actually accurate because in one of the, in the trailer, you can see the girls, they're doing these dancing, and then they're asking how many likes are they getting.
It is gross stuff.
But perhaps the film was actually designed to be criticizing Netflix!
What Netflix actually ended up doing!
A press contact for 4chan did not respond.
And that's just the story.
So, Netflix issued a statement saying, We're deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used.
It was not okay.
Mike Cernovich responded, Your film is Islamophobic.
It's kind of funny.
Now that they're apologizing, I guess?
Maybe it is.
Many people laughed at the comment.
But friends, I have to make a point about Netflix and this film.
If this film really is critical of, you know, how media manipulates children in very disgusting ways, I have to wonder why it is that they have not banned the show Big Mouth.
Big Mouth is one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen, which depicts pubescent children in extremely disgusting situations.
Big Mouth is a show on Netflix with multiple seasons, and it depicts children going through puberty, and overtly shows... I'm sorry, man, it shows overt sex acts and nudity of children.
Now, it's a cartoon, mind you, and maybe that's why they get away with it, but what the ever-living...
I'm not gonna swear here.
But when Netflix did this, and people said, uh-oh, another Netflix controversy, I said, oh, is it Big Mouth?
Did Big Mouth do another thing?
Because I've watched that show, I can't believe.
You know what, man?
I'm not one for moral outrage, I'll tell you what, but there's a line, I guess, and it's kids!
Come on!
I don't know if you've ever seen that show, but there was one big controversy where, in one of the episodes, there's little girls with older women, and they're all just straight nude, and it is a cartoon, but it's a straight depiction of all of these women nude, and the children nude, and the point was, they were trying to be, like, they claimed it was body positivity.
Nah, I don't buy it.
I don't.
We know a lot about Hollywood because there have been whistleblowers.
I'm not talking about any crazy conspiracy theories.
I'm talking about, like, Weinstein, dude.
These creepy men.
Right?
Recently, we just had Rose McGowan.
She posted a tweet, made an accusation against a dude who abused her when she was 15 years old.
You keep hearing these stories, and at a certain point you have to say, uh, it's kind of a common theme in this industry.
Then Netflix puts out these posters, and you're like, this is disgusting stuff!
And they actually have a show!
About kids!
Doing these things!
Man.
I tell you what.
It's no wonder that many people believe in the more extreme conspiracy theories.
I'm not interested in this stuff about, you know, Clinton or whatever.
Within reason, I think, you know, Bill Clinton obviously has done some pretty messed up stuff, and we're going to learn a lot of these things.
But I think the important takeaway is when it comes to the conspiracies, just chill.
Wait for the hard evidence to come out.
And I'm not surprised people don't want to believe the mainstream press when the press defends Bill Clinton, for instance.
I made a tweet.
It went viral.
And I made a point about Bill Clinton being in the flight logs.
I made a point about, you know, a witness IDing Clinton on Epstein's Island.
And actually, Facebook said it was fake news.
It wasn't.
And the company that did the fact check refused to change it, even though they acknowledged, to me personally, it was factually correct.
So it's no wonder, when we know they're doing these things, they do it in our faces, that it takes this kind of outrage to make it stop.
I don't know if Big Mouth should be cancelled, I mean, I hate the show, I think it's really gross, and it's one of the reasons I don't like Netflix.
I was talking to some family and friends about it, and they didn't believe it was a real show.
They did not believe it.
And I said, go on Netflix, look at it.
Watch the show.
And they said, if what you're saying is true, no, I won't watch it.
Maybe the reason that show is allowed is because it's got a bunch of celebrities that do the voices for it or whatever, but I still don't care.
In line with the inappropriate artwork of Cuties, we're seeing a bunch of media try and push the line.
We've had controversies with major media outlets like Salon and the New York Times defending these things, and they were forced to take it down.
It's like they're trying to test our limit.
That's why Big Mouth is still on the air, but Cuties gets removed.
I don't know, man.
Moral outrage isn't really my thing.
But like I said, I think most people have a line, and I think most people have a line at kids.
But I don't know what's gonna stop it, because these people make money, and perhaps it will just take constant activism calling them out.
I'm not going to watch this film, Cuties, because of what they displayed in it.
But if it's true it's actually criticizing, you know, the industry and how social media is doing this to young girls, then that's probably a good thing, right?
My question then would be, if that's true, did anyone at Netflix actually watch it?
And who, in their right mind, thought it was a good idea to make this poster of little girls in these positions?
Because you gotta realize, no matter what the film's about, someone said, okay, have them wear these clothes and then do these positions, and it's like, nah, no, no, no, no, no.
As long as they make money, they'll keep doing it, and it looks like they have an audience for it, and that's creepy.
Because I don't think Netflix is gonna take it down, they're just changing the artwork.
Yeah.
Creepy stuff.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
Donald Trump has closed the gap, and it seems that he is now on a path towards victory this November.
I've often talked about how it seems the Democrats aren't really running, that this is a throwaway campaign because they know they're going to lose, but outside of all of the polls and everything, it doesn't even matter at this point.
It looks like Trump is actually on track to win.
First, I want to show you this poll from Rasmussen, then I want to read to you about these battleground states.
Rasmussen report says, in a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
We'd like to thank Liberty Nation for sponsoring our daily presidential tracking poll this week.
And we can see in their image that Donald Trump is currently a total approval with for Rasmussen.
Which leads me to one big question before we read this story from CNN.
Obama at the same time, 49%.
Donald Trump has a higher approval rating than Obama did at the exact same time.
Which leads me to one big question before we read this story from CNN.
Why is all the news negative?
How is that possible?
They praised Barack Obama.
That's the bias in the media.
So consider this a bit of an addendum to my main channel segment over at youtube.com slash TimCast, that is a different channel, where I talked about what journalists getting triggered.
We can see that Obama wasn't doing nearly as well, yet the media still loved him.
Well, all of that aside, let's talk about today.
Donald Trump is running for re-election.
The election is very, very soon.
And CNN says, Biden and Trump matchup tightens as enthusiasm hits high.
CNN reports.
Joe Biden's lead over Donald Trump among registered voters has significantly narrowed since June, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
Even as the former vice president maintains an advantage over the president on several top issues, and his choice of California Senator Kamala Harris as a running mate earns largely positive reviews.
I don't think so, CNN.
They say, and on the eve of the party conventions, a majority of voters, 53%, are extremely enthusiastic about voting in this year's election.
A new high in the CNN polling in presidential election cycles back to 2003.
Yes, but how many of those are just for Trump?
Overall, 50% of registered voters back the Biden-Harris ticket, while 46% say they support Trump and Pence, right at the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Among the 72% who say they are either extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this fall, Biden's advantage over Trump widens to 53% to 46%.
It is narrower, however, among those voters who live in the states that will have the most impact on the Electoral College this fall, and boom, there it is.
Yes, we know California, New York, Washington, blah, blah, blah.
We know they don't like Trump.
What about the battleground states?
They say.
Across 15 battleground states, the survey finds that Biden has the backing of 49% of registered voters, while Trump lands at 48%.
Full stop!
There it is.
Trump's secret voters pushes him above the finish line.
The pool of battleground states in this poll includes more that Trump carried in 2016 than were won by Hillary Clinton.
So it was 10 in 2016 and 5 for Clinton.
Reflecting the reality, the President's campaign is more on defense than offense across the states.
Taken together though, they represent a more Republican-leaning playing field than the nation as a whole.
The movement in the poll among voters nationwide since June is concentrated among men.
They split about evenly in June.
But now, 56% back Trump, 40% back Biden.
I am one of these dudes.
Although I never backed Biden, the riots were a real slap in the face, I will tell you that.
And they're still going on.
Those between the ages of 35 and 64, they tilt toward Trump now, but were Biden leaning in June and independents in June, Biden held a 52% to 41% lead.
But now it's near even 46% Biden to 45% Trump.
Listen, this trajectory shows Trump is on track for victory.
It's funny because I don't I don't like the polls, right?
The polls were wrong in 2016.
The Beltway bubble is worse today than it was.
If Trump's doing this well, 49 state landslide.
Okay, maybe not.
Maybe that's a bit much.
But I really don't see the Democrats winning this.
Not now.
Especially not now.
Because you gotta consider, if Trump is on this track, then he's on an upward trajectory.
Is this going to be a bull-polling market for Donald Trump?
I would say yes, because the riots have not stopped.
The Democrats did the Pledge of Allegiance at the DNC.
The DNC is a disaster and being made fun of.
Everybody's mocking them.
They rejected the progressive proposals, and the progressive wing of the party is bigger than the liberal or conservative wings of the party.
Therefore, the Democrats have just spiraled out of control, and they're about to fizzle out.
They're now trying to come out against Antifa.
Facebook now wants to ban Antifa.
Too little, too late.
That's why it's all happening.
What Trump is doing is working, Kamala is a bad choice, and Trump's improving because of it.
They say, Trump has also solidified his partisans since June.
While 8% of Republicans are Republican-leaning independents in June said they would back Biden, that figure now stands at just 4%, and the president has boosted his backing among conservatives from 76 to 85%.
But the survey suggests that Trump's voters are a bit more likely to say they could change their minds by November, 12% say so, than are Biden's backers.
And that's probably just people like me.
Donald Trump added more people, get it?
With more moderates saying they'll vote for Trump.
But things may change.
The percentage will go up.
But the hard numbers, it's important.
If Trump has 100,000 diehard voters, I'm just a random number, random sample.
I know it's probably way more than that.
Millions.
Let's say 100 people say they're diehard for Trump.
That means he has 0% who will defect.
But Trump picks up 50 new voters from the moderate section.
Now the numbers are going to skew in favor of, well, you know, now we have 20% who say they may change their mind.
Right, because they're not the diehards.
You see how this is played.
CNN says most voters say their choice of candidate is about Trump than it is about Biden.
Nearly 6 in 10 say they support the candidate they do because of their view of Trump.
29% say their Biden vote is more to oppose Trump.
30% say they are casting a Trump vote in support of him, while only 32% say Biden is the deciding factor.
19% are voting in favor of Biden, 13% casting a ballot to oppose him.
And I am pretty much in that opposing him category, for sure.
Overall, 54% disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as president, and 42% approve.
That's an uptick since June, and about on par with Trump's ratings from earlier this year.
It still lands the president near the bottom of the list of historical approval ratings for presidents seeking re-election.
Just ahead of their nominating conventions, Trump lands ahead of Jimmy Carter, 33% approval, and George H.W.
Bush, 35%, but below Barack Obama at 48%.
Well, I showed you before, Rasmussen has Trump above Obama.
So, you know, take it with a grain of salt.
These are individual polls, so who knows?
That's why you can't really trust them.
George W. Bush was at 49, Clinton 53, and Reagan 54.
Trump's favorability rating remains underwater.
Nationally, 43% see him favorably, 55% unfavorably.
A bit worse than Biden's, 46% favorable to 47% unfavorable.
Wow, that's interesting.
In the battleground states, though, voters' view on the two candidates are almost even.
52% have an unfavorable opinion of Biden, 54% of Trump.
Both candidates are viewed favorably by 45% in most states.
Now, here's the one I don't believe.
They say Kamala Harris is a good pick.
And this, to me, just throws the whole polling out of whack.
But here's what's relevant here.
If CNN, which typically says Trump sucks and is doing bad, now has him polling in battleground states within one percentage point, How big is that gap, really?
I mean, in favor of Donald Trump.
You see where I'm getting?
We know, according to Rasmussen, his approval rating is going up.
If you trust them, and they were at one of the most accurate polls in 2016, then, well, they may be right.
CNN, which is consistently negative, and like many of these other outlets, got it wrong thinking Hillary Clinton was gonna win.
I'd suggest they're off.
If they're giving Trump this high of a margin, It looks like Trump's gonna win, man.
It really, really does.
But I'll tell you this.
Keep in mind, there's a lot that could change in the next couple of months.
It's August 20th, November 3rd.
On September 17th, the far left is going to engage, they say, in a siege of the White House, a non-violent protest for 50 days until the November 3rd election.
We also have mail-in voting.
We're not going to have an election night.
No one knows what is going to happen, and this could get dragged out, and they will claim Trump cheated.
Maybe that's the real goal.
If these protests go nuts and Trump is forced to take action, they might try to make Trump look bad, but I'll tell you what, we got more polls coming out that people want the protests to be stopped.
And that's why Donald Trump was smart to be the law and order president.
That's why they chose Kamala Harris.
And that seems to not have worked very well because even though they're saying they think she's a good pick, Trump's approval is going way, way up.
So you tell me, Right around the time they announced Kamala, Trump skyrockets.
Maybe Democrats were holding out, hoping that the Democrats would actually put forward some viable candidates, and they did not.
They put forward awful, horrible Harris and Joe Biden.
And now they're looking at, you know, relative to Trump, they're pretty bad.
So Trump, starting to look a whole lot better.
And that's kind of freaky to me, you know?
We've come to this point.
I'm seeing a lot of, you know, a lot of libertarians like to mock both parties, and I'm like, listen, Jo Jorgensen, you know, with all due respect, she endorsed the far-left intersectional ideology, and that was horrifying, because it's overtly authoritarian.
Libertarians should not be preaching religion.
They should be defending the right of individuals to practice whatever they want.
That's why I think we're facing a true existential threat.
And I'm not kidding.
More and more we're hearing about this creepy new religion that's seeping in.
I have always been particularly You know, secular, I guess.
Separation of church and state, all that stuff.
Though I consider myself to be, you know, I would say non-theistically religious of some sort.
I believe in God, but not these religions.
I'll put it that way.
I've never been a big fan of moral authoritarianism and religion in government.
