The Election Is Being Rigged AGAINST Trump And Its INSANELY Obvious, Democrats Are Cheating To Win
Adam Schiff reboots russiagate, social media says they will ban only Trump if he declares victory, and mail in voting is broken.Its all just so painfully obvious. The Democrats are cheating and their allies in tech and media are helping. Every possible scandal is erupting, every smear being dropped, and at the same time the Democrats warn that unless Joe Biden wins in a landslide there will be an escalation of physical conflict.If the polls were so accurate and Biden was set to win, then why all the scandals, lies, smears, and dirty games?Perhaps Democrats fear they are going to lose and Trump will win.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I read left-wing sources and right-wing sources, and I can't quite figure out what the Democrats are actually doing.
And the only conclusion I can come to is that they are cheating, they are lying, and they are preparing for extreme violence.
To what degree, I don't know, but we did just see a man lose his life.
Adam Schiff, a Democrat, came out recently saying, a whistleblower has come forward about Russian interference in the election, and I just thought to myself, are you kidding me?
And so I was sitting here going through just what is the story today?
And I gotta tell you, man, I'm just a bit tired and pessimistic because every day it's just an escalation of the previous days.
How many stories have I already done, segments, where I talk about Democrats cheating, rigging the election, and it's just more and more news every single day.
The big breaking story today is that Democrats are blocking the GOP's COVID relief package.
Why?
Probably for nonsensical partisan reasons, but the Democrats wanted to actually get rid of voter ID laws.
Why?
Why do they want to make the election less secure?
That's why I start with this tweet from Will Chamberlain.
Voting in person is high integrity.
Absentee voting is high integrity because people have to request ballots.
Mail-in voting is low integrity.
And if you want low integrity voting in one of the most polarized elections in history, we have to assume you intend to cheat.
And I think I know why.
Because we can look back to Moody's analytics from last year and see they're hitting the nail on the head for what they needed to accomplish to cause Trump to lose in November.
Meanwhile, a group of around 50 leftist organizations are preparing for violence in that scenario, telling America unless Joe Biden wins in a landslide.
There will be violence and we're planning on it.
We can see all of these smears coming out in the media.
Bob Woodward, he's got these 18 or so interviews from Trump where Trump apparently said said things.
They're now smearing him with he downplayed the coronavirus and this is being weaponized.
They're claiming that he called soldiers losers and suckers.
It is literally every single stop being pulled out to make sure Trump loses.
But they're telling us over at FiveThirtyEight That Joe Biden is favored to win.
Why?
This just doesn't make sense to me.
If Joe Biden is favored to win, they wouldn't need to go this insane.
Maybe they're really just scared that their data is wrong again and the secret Trump voters will come out and will support Trump.
We really just don't know.
What I can tell you is that, man, the dirty, dirty tricks coming from the Democrats make me want to barf.
I'm just... I gotta tell you, I'm tired.
I really am.
Because this mail-in voting thing is very obviously messed up.
The claims about Russiagate are just so played out.
And they just keep pushing forward.
Now we're hearing Twitter has joined Facebook saying that Trump can't declare victory if he wins the election.
Just Trump.
Not Biden.
Just Trump.
That's what they're doing.
It's so obvious what's happening.
Look, some people really hate Trump.
They don't want him to win.
I just want free and fair elections.
I want liberty and justice for all.
But I don't think we're going to get that.
In fact, I think what we are likely to see is chaos moving forward.
Let me just go through these stories and I'll tell you what's going on and why I believe we may be seeing some violence moving forward.
Of course, you may have heard that they're planning a 50-day White House siege and many have called for more protests in front of the White House after the election, and they're not going to tell us who won on election night.
They're trying to explain every reason why there shouldn't be a winner and why it's totally normal!
That we won't know who our president is.
So what do you think happens in that interim period?
Chaos.
Probably violence.
And that's what I'm worried about.
Before we jump into these stories, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
There is a P.O.
box if you'd like to send stuff, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
If you think what I'm saying is good and that people need to hear it, then I rely on word of mouth, so you can share it and that would really help.
Also, don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell, and let's just jump into it.
Adam Schiff.
With the eye roll of the century, I'm telling you, he said, we received a whistleblower complaint alleging DHS suppressed Intel reports on Russian election interference, altered Intel to match false Trump claims, and made false statements to Congress.
This puts our national security at risk.
We will investigate.
And sure enough, we have this from the US House of Representatives.
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I almost couldn't believe it when he posted this.
They're really just gonna go for Russiagate again?
It's not even original, it's literally the same thing they did in 2015!
I kid you not, we are trapped in a loop.
Did you see the news the other day about the gender reveal party explosion starting wildfires?
Apparently it happened the year before!
What's going on?
What is this?
Adam Schiff literally saying Russian interference helped Trump win.
Shut up!
I'm sick of it!
It's just fake.
They're absolutely desperate.
And it's making me... I'm just so, so fed up.
I'm going to show you some quick context before I go on to the next stories.
This is from October of 2019.
CNBC reported, quote, If the economy a year from now is the same as it is today, or roughly so, then the power of incumbency is strong and Trump's election odds are very good, particularly if Democrats aren't enthusiastic and don't get out to vote, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics and co-author of the paper along with Dan White, the firm's director of government consulting and fiscal policy research.
They're going to say it's about turnout.
Of the three models, he does best under the pocketbook measure of how people feel about their finances.
electoral votes, assuming average turnout. His chances decrease with maximum turnout on the
Democratic side and increase with minimum turnout. Of the three models, he does best under the
pocketbook measure of how people feel about their finances.
In that scenario, assuming average non-incumbent turnout, he gets 351 electoral votes, the
generic Democrats 187. Record turnout is vital to a Democratic victory.
Well, guess what?
Democratic states across this country shut down their economies and destroyed... They shut down their economies.
They destroyed them.
It wasn't the Republican states.
It wasn't the Sunbelt states.
Some of them did a little bit, but for the most part, they've been kind of okay.
But look at New York.
Cuomo and many other governors put sick patients into nursing homes, killing old people.
Is this some kind of grand conspiracy?
No, I'm not suggesting that.
What I think is happening, though, is that these people are trapped in this world where they have perverse incentives to destroy the country because they hate Donald Trump.
And that's that.
And look, the best example, I think, is when Donald Trump comes out against critical race theory and CNN defends it.
Did you bother to Google search what it means?
Because most people don't like that stuff.
They don't like cancel culture.
But anything Trump does, they must oppose.
And all of a sudden, Covid happens.
And that was a serious threat.
It looks like, according to the data, we may have returned immunity already.
Why is it then that so many of these states, mostly Democrat states, won't reopen and arrest people who try?
Could it be because these people are deranged and unhinged and hate Trump?
We just saw Biden and Kamala Harris suggest they wouldn't trust Trump if he put out a vaccine for COVID.
And many people who support the Democrats said something similar.
It's funny.
Now, to be fair, I've often said if a vaccine comes out, I'll wait a little bit before taking it.
But to see all of these people just immediately say, Trump said there's going to be a vaccine?
Nope, we won't do it.
As if the FDA wouldn't be in charge of it.
No, they're so unhinged, they will absolutely do everything in their power to work within the parameters that were set before them.
They need a bad economy.
They need maximum voter turnout.
So what do we get?
Take a look at this.
This is the big news from today.
And you know, to be honest, I was like, maybe I should do a story talking about Democrats blocking COVID relief.
But I don't think it's the most important thing.
They did it.
Democrats blocked slimmed down GOP coronavirus relief bill as hopes fade for any more congressional support.
There won't be.
Why did they block it?
Well, they wanted certain things they didn't get.
Take a look at one of the things they wanted.
Heroes Act would eliminate state requirements for voter IDs in federal elections.
I kid you not.
The Democrats proposed eliminating election security measures in states where they legally require it.
Why would they do that unless they were planning to cheat?
Why would they push for mail-in voting when we know it's broken and low integrity?
And now we're hearing all of these stories.
New York Times, NPR, Baltimore Sun.
Mail-in voting is broken.
Why are they pushing it?
They're cheating.
Come on, man.
I'm sorry.
I hate to go this route where I'm saying they're straight up trying to steal an election because they say it all the time about Trump.
But you're going to have to give me an explanation for why they want to eliminate voter ID laws.
They wanted reform on voter signature verification as well.
Now, Trump He said that they wanted to eliminate it.
That's not true.
They don't want to eliminate it, but you can argue that they want to eliminate it as it exists today.
Sure, fine.
But Trump said they want to get rid of it.
That's not true.
They do want to get rid of voter ID, though.
USA Today straight up says, our ruling true.
Although it's unlikely to pass, the HEROES Act would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and allow a sworn signature as acceptable identification.
Eliminating the need for voter IDs.
Come on.
Just tell me why they're doing it.
Because they're cheating.
Now here's some of the latest news as well.
Twitter's new rules will flag if Trump claims early victory.
Just Trump.
Just Trump!
Pay attention.
Facebook and Twitter have said if Trump declares victory, they will flag or remove his posts.
What?
So only Biden is allowed to win on social media?
Yup.
What do you think happens then if Trump actually wins?
But then Biden says he won.
And then everyone sees on social media Trump saying nothing.
Nothing from Trump yet, they say.
Who's gonna go to?
Is he gonna go to CNN?
CNN's not gonna report that he won if he did.
They're taking away the president's outlet to speak directly with the American people.
If Trump claims it, isn't that remarkable?
They're screaming in our faces.
But you know what?
They don't care about the likes of me because they know that low information voters aren't paying attention and won't care and don't intend to know.
They're not going to go out and they're going to find out about these things.
Facebook did the same thing.
Facebook says it will flag any Trump effort to declare premature victory.
They are telling us, only Trump, only Trump.
Come on, man.
To quote Joe Biden, come on, man, right?
Isn't it obvious?
So let's talk about some of the odds.
Let's talk about what's going on.
I think there's a good chance, actually, that Joe Biden loses, and I'll show you why in a second.
But this narrative is being, we're being smacked in the face with it.
Why?
I'm just annoyed.
I am very, very annoyed by all of this.
In what reasonable reality do social media companies create rules specifically targeting one person?
And a presidential candidate, nonetheless.
The president himself.
You can't justify that.
Now I guess they'll say, you know, if Biden declares victory too, we'll say the same thing.
But they've already told us that if Biden wins on election night, they'll just accept it.
We've got the war games.
We've got this article from the Daily Beast.
The left secretly preps for MAGA violence after election day.
They're telling us straight up.
If Joe Biden wins, we're all good.
Trump will transfer power.
We all go home.
If Trump wins, however, mass violence.
Ah, okay.
There's no scenario in which Trump just wins and we carry on?
No, of course not.
Trump won in 2016.
What happened?
Riots.
They know it.
They're going to go out and riot if they lose.
Here's what they're saying over at FiveThirtyEight.
They're saying Biden is favored to win the election, but they bring up an interesting point.
Trump wins 25 in 100.
Biden wins 74 in 100.
They mention Trump has an electoral college advantage again this cycle.
Economists don't think the lower unemployment rate signals a clear recovery.
Well, Trump needed a good economy to win, and the Democrats needed a high record voter turnout.
So what do they do?
They're pushing mail-in voting.
Even though we know it's safe to vote in person, because Birx and Fauci have said so, they're pushing mail-in voting.
Even though COVID cases are rapidly declining and almost non-existent, for the most part, I mean, there are some cases, but mortality is dramatically down.
And the mortality rate, I believe now, is like 0.02, so it's not even a major issue.
And nonetheless, you know, Birx and Fauci said, we can do it.
But they're still pushing mail-in voting.
You know why?
I think they're hoping it will maximize voter turnout.
In some states, that is what happened.
Let me show you some tweets.
Nate Silver says, Chance of a Biden electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points.
If Joe Biden gets the popular vote by only 0 to 1 points, he has a 6% chance of winning, meaning Trump has a 94% chance of winning.
If Joe Biden wins the popular vote by 1 or 2 points, like Hillary Clinton did, he has a 22% chance of winning, meaning Trump has a 78% chance of winning.
With two to three points, it goes to 46.
Still giving... I shouldn't say Trump has that much because it's not one for one.
There's third party candidates too.
But for the most part, that means Trump is favored to win.
And Nate Silver basically says the Electoral College is not really safe for Biden unless he wins five plus points in the national popular vote.
Will that happen?
I honestly do not know.
He goes on to mention a bunch of other weird scenarios that could happen, like there's less than 1 in 100 that Trump wins in a landslide.
And I think that's a fair point.
I want to clarify too, especially when I'm like, if I ever tweet something about a Trump landslide, I post it on Facebook, I don't mean it quite literally.
I'm just saying Trump's gonna win, it's hyperbole, it's kind of meant to be silly.
I think that it's closer than people realize, but it's hard to know for sure.
I will tell you that so long as there's dirty games occurring, cheating, then I think Trump's at a serious disadvantage.
I mean, you look at all the smear pieces that come out against him.
You've got the entire establishment working against Trump, including many Republicans.
Tucker Carlson, actually, accuses Lindsey Graham of convincing Trump to talk with Woodward.
Well, if Trump says something to Bob Woodward and it's bad for Trump, that's Trump's fault.
I don't care about Lindsey Graham, but some would suggest the establishment Republicans also want to stop Trump as well.
And perhaps that's the case.
So what happens?
What happens in the event that come November 3rd, Trump can't declare victory?
They've already predicted some Democratic group that Trump's going to win in a landslide.
But then the mail-in votes come in for Joe Biden and Joe Biden wins.
Let me just point out, first and foremost, why does that make sense?
How does that make sense?
Wouldn't the ballots that come in just be random ballots as it is?
If Trump was going to win the regular in-person vote, wouldn't it be easily surmisable that The votes that come from mail will be of a similar proportion?
Meaning, it doesn't matter how you're voting, if for every 1.5 votes for Trump, there's one vote for Biden, wouldn't that be similar with mail-in voting?
What they're telling us is that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail.
That's what they said in California, and I just don't see it.
Because when we looked at California's 25th district, in fact, the people who voted by mail the most, it was older people.
Older people voting conservative.
But don't worry, ignore those stats, because if Trump wins, we say, no, you're not allowed to say you won.
If Biden wins, you're good.
And if Trump wins, we're going to wait because Biden's going to win anyway.
It's like they're telling us they're cheating and we know it.
And then we're going to see some kind of violence.
Anti-capitalists who started the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations have vowed to draw wind from Black Lives Matter and lay siege to the White House for 50 days.
Now that's just, you know, that's just them exaggerating.
They say non-violent.
They want to have some sit-in, mass protest.
It'll probably happen outside the White House.
Every stop is being pulled out.
Now, I do want to mention, which is something interesting, when I hear conservatives say that these are Biden voters, Biden supporters, and they're Democrats and stuff like this, that's not true.
The far left, they don't like Biden.
But I do find it interesting that they so often support the establishment Democrats, that the riots kick up when Democrats lose.
When there's Republicans in office, the far left goes insane and starts burning things down and throwing Molotov cocktails.
So while they may not be themselves supporters, they only actually come out when they have a unified... I'll put it this way.
The far left hates Biden, but regular people who are whipped up into a frenzy into hating Trump will show up and aid the far left.
So there are some that are suggesting if Biden wins, they'll stop rioting.
The far left probably still will, but they won't have as many numbers fluffing their ranks.
So I think it's fair to say that when you see these people out on the street wearing all black and starting fires and stuff, many of them are, in fact, Biden supporters, and many of them believe Biden is a path towards them getting in a more socialist candidate.
Notably, Joe Biden did that pact with Bernie Sanders.
Now, is it what the far left wanted?
No, but many of them think that's a path in the right direction for them to make gains, something I'm not particularly enthused about.
Another big story that we saw the other day is that, from the Daily Beast, the left is secretly preparing for MAGA violence after Election Day.
I don't think they're entirely wrong, but I wonder, why would the far left stop rioting and getting violent just because Joe Biden won?
I mean, they would still not like Joe Biden, his policies, and wouldn't they still want to protest?
More importantly, it's not so much about this general far left anti-government stuff, it's about Black Lives Matter.
If Joe Biden wins, why would Black Lives Matter all of a sudden be like, alright, we're good, no more riots.
Are they Biden supporters?
Is that all they really wanted was for Biden to be president and they don't care about what policy he enacts?
Or would they keep, you know, rioting as well?
Yeah, I think that's a likely scenario.
Now here's an interesting story from prospect.org.
Something that needs to be brought up.
I'm actually... No matter what happens, we're gonna have an interesting couple of months.
They say the transition, and I'll give you the gist of what they're talking about.
If Donald Trump loses, what do you think he's gonna do with the last two months, or three months, or whatever, of his presidency?
Well, I'll tell you this.
I think one of the reasons that they're going to draw out the election as long as possible is because they don't want Trump to take dramatic action.
You see?
If on November 3rd, Joe Biden wins, They're probably gonna start panicking because, well, Donald Trump's on his way out.
What's he gonna do?
Eh, pardon Snowden, pardon Assange, pardon all these nonviolent offenders, issue indictments against certain people, release a bunch of documents, just basically say, you know what?
Establishment, F you, you can have it.
Well, what happens if the election gets delayed for several weeks and Trump doesn't know for sure?
He can't take any kind of, you know, no-holds-barred actions, Kamikaze-style, you know what, we're leaving, let's just do all the things we wanted to do with pardons and whatever.
He won't be able to do that because he won't know for sure.
I mean, maybe he still will.
You know, under the premise that he either won or he didn't, so he might as well just go for it, because even if, you know, he pardons a bunch of people, and he wins, he's still president, and you know, he got elected, so there you go.
I think one of the funny things that they point out in this is this.
At 11.45 AM on Inauguration Day, you can have Trump pardon Pence, then resign, and Pence pardons Trump.
Oh, please.
It's paranoid, delusional trash.
Nah, I really don't see it.
One thing I do find interesting is that if it was true Joe Biden was going to win, why would the Democrats be freaking out as much as they are?
Planning for violence and, you know, rigging everything, the media, absolutely all the smears.
Where are the smears against Biden?
Where's any mainstream story talking about Biden?
I'll wait.
Not very many.
Some.
I mean, we had some allegations against Joe Biden.
I think he's a creepy dude.
We had the Ukraine stuff for a while, but right now, literally everything is Trump.
It's almost like Joe Biden doesn't actually exist.
Now, there's something I find particularly interesting here with this Politico story.
I want to be in the Trump party.
GOP rides voter registration surge in key state.
Since 2016, Republicans have netted nearly seven times as many registered voters in Pennsylvania than Democrats.
I wonder what that means.
Maybe they're gonna win Pennsylvania, and that's a major victory for Trump.
I really just don't know.
In the past.
You know what?
I'm gonna wrap this up because this was just kind of a... I gotta be honest, man.
I was putting together a segment about the Democrats blocking the stimulus package and I was like, who cares?
You know, of course they did.
And so I see this story.
Senate Democrats block GOP police reform bill.
That's right.
June 24th.
The Republicans put forth police reform.
It was actually a compromise.
A lot of people liked it.
Democrats said no to this.
And that's the bigger fear I have.
There's a lot of Republicans who hate Trump.
And I think they will do what... They're establishment.
They're gonna play establishment.
So if you want to go back to the way things used to be with the establishment running the show and bombing the Middle East and you just don't care, and I think most Americans probably don't, well then, Biden's the victor, right?
Biden is your guy.
And I think many of the Republicans agree.
And many Republicans would want to see that happen, too, because they're all warmongers.
That's why so many of these establishment Republicans are endorsing Joe Biden.
Because they want a return to the status quo.
Well, Donald Trump is a populist.
I don't think... The cat's out of the bag.
No matter what happens moving forward, you can't change this.
And this is where things get scary.
Or potentially not so scary.
Well, I'll put it this way.
Why would the Democrats just block these bills?
It's because what really matters is partisanship.
They don't actually care what the bill is.
They're just going to say, no, you were bad.
We've entered the period where at the highest levels of our government, there's no real policy argument.
There's simply my tribe versus your tribe.
Well, for me personally, I'm going to put my support behind the tribe that opposes identitarianism, and that is the Republican Party.
For now.
And I hope it remains that way.
But we've seen a whole bunch of freaky policy ideas proposed by the left.
They just recently did at UM, University of Michigan-Dearborn, a whites-only cafe.
That's what the left is doing.
Democrats in California repealing Prop 29, all of this stuff.
There's violence on the streets already.
And when you add that to the idea that all we're really seeing in government is my tribe versus your tribe, what comes next?
I don't know.
If I look at all the news and I see the Democrats cheating, and that's it.
They're rigging the election.
Trump can't speak on Twitter about whether if he won, but Biden can.
It's rigged, man.
So what do you think's gonna happen?
Do you think people are gonna take this lying down if they steal the election from Trump?
I don't think so.
But they're screaming in our faces also that it's Trump who's trying to steal the election.
Yeah, I don't buy it.
We've already got the expert opinion that mail-in voting is unnecessary.
We've already seen social media companies preparing to block Trump from declaring victory, but not Biden.
Trump specifically.
Isn't that crazy?
We've got the Democrats saying they're preparing for violence in the event that Trump wins.
Think about that.
Only if they win.
I think it's obvious what's happening.
And I don't see how we navigate our way out of this one.
I don't know, man.
It's just frustrating.
I'll tell you what.
Maybe I'm a little pessimistic on this segment simply because it's just the same thing every single day.
Every day.
It's just another one-up of the absurdity in rigging the election.
But I guess we'll see how it plays out.
I don't think they're taking any chances.
I don't think Trump was supposed to win, and they're mad about it.
So we'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6pm over at youtube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
The riots in Portland seem to be simmering down.
Last night, people showed up for a dance party at the ICE facility or whatever, and there was no real agitation or excessive violence.
The cops did come out, apparently there were some warnings, people retreated and then started dancing in the street, and guess what?
Everything was chill!
You know why?
I think there's one big reason.
Because Donald Trump and the federal government's plan worked.
I've been harping on about this, how smart it was.
Everyone's saying, invoke the Insurrection Act, send in the military, shut down these riots.
Now it would have looked really, really bad.
It would have looked really bad.
Not only that, but local businesses and law enforcement would be at odds with Trump, and it would only make things worse, potentially sparking some kind of hot civil war.
I know, I know, it's a little over the top, but I mean, think about it, when you have state police And local police being told not to cooperate with Trump and the military coming in.
It just seemed like an all-around bad idea.
Here's what Trump did.
Deputize Oregon State Police, which means you arrest one of these rioters, they get federal charges.
Now you got the local authorities arresting the people, the ones who are committing the most egregious acts.
And they get charged by federal attorneys.
And it's been happening.
It's happening also in Rochester.
So when I see that things are starting to simmer down in Portland, hey, maybe it's because we just heard Antifa put out a big warning that the FBI was showing up to people's houses, and they were being charged with similar charges they got at the state level.
Yeah.
See, the DA in Portland kept letting people go.
Now, Trump, the DHS, the FBI are coming in saying, nah, you're still going to get charged and arrested.
And we're going to do it in Rochester as well.
Here's what happens.
The left gets their peaceful protest.
They show up to ICE.
They danced in the street.
But the agitators, guess where they are?
They're behind bars.
So there's no one to throw the explosives or set the fires or start the fights with the cops.
Isn't this exactly what the left claimed they wanted?
I'm gonna have to go and say, perhaps.
But here's the other big story.
Apparently, one of the individuals who was arrested rioting in Portland is a literal Democrat staffer.
So when Joe Biden says, do I look like one of these radical socialists?
No, you don't.
But you look like a guy who might employ them.
And it looks like the Democratic Party is entertaining these people who are showing up with batons and shields.
And it's literally your employees and your campaign staffers.
So here's the first story.
I got a bunch of stories to go through because I want to talk about who these rioters are and now that they're getting actually charged because his local DAs wouldn't do anything about it, everything's calm!
Fantastic.
Congratulations, Trump.
Seems like your plan worked.
Now, I will say, however, I am concerned that potentially the reason why things are simmering down is not necessarily because these people are getting federal charges.
It's because they may be headed to Washington, D.C.
In one week, they will engage in their, you know, whatever White House siege event.
And many of the organizers are probably stepping back from Portland, getting in their, you know, kitchen buses or whatever, driving across the country, which can take a few days.
Then they've got to get to D.C.
for pre-planning.
They're gonna make weapons and stuff, that's what they do.
They'll probably have like a semi-rural warehouse, where all of the far leftists are sleeping and organizing.
And I've been to these places where you can see on a table, they'll have like ten shields being put together.
It's really funny when they desperately try to act like these things don't exist.
There was a story where Donald Trump said, Somebody was on a plane, and they saw a bunch of these far leftists, you know, in thugs in black uniforms or whatever.
And Trump's perspective of it was from a game of telephone.
Somebody's on a plane, they see Antifa people, they go and tell people, Trump hears, Trump imagines this plane load of angry Antifa with clubs and stuff.
I tweeted, I used to fly like twice a week, and, uh, covering civil unrest and protest, and you would see, uh, Antifa people, and it, and, and people are like, duh, because they have like punk stickers.
No, no, no, I'm literally talking about people who have revolution fists, communists, the Antifa strike, the strike through, whatever it's called.
They would have all of this ACAB.
They'd be wearing clothes.
They'd have helmets.
And I'm like, I know where that guy is going, and I know why he's going there.
That's not a journalist.
It's a dude with a backpack covered in patches saying, you know, revolution, nothing less, wearing a helmet.
And sure enough, they'd be down there.
And it wasn't like the plane was full of them.
It'd be like two or three people every so often.
Literally not every single flight, but they don't want to admit it.
They don't want to admit it.
And so when I say that there are literal warehouses, I've been to them.
And there was one in the US, and there was one I went to, I think it was in France.
You walk in, and there's people serving food in the front.
In the back, they've got shields, they've got flags.
They bring flags because they can wrap up the flag part and have a club.
And that's like their excuse.
Like, we're just holding a flag.
That's why cops will ban flagpoles.
Or cities, I should say, will ban flagpoles.
But they do this.
But I'll tell you, man.
You say something like that, and they're all gonna go, Oh, he's so crazy!
There's no Antifa warehouse where they're making weapons!
And they'll try and play like it's not really happening.
You know why?
They want to pretend it doesn't exist.
But you gotta ask yourself, when they show up to Portland, and they have 20 of the exact same wooden shield with the Black Lives Matter fist on it, where did those come from?
Did everybody just have the blueprints off the internet, and they took their table saw in their backyard and made their own shields?
No, they're being made somewhere.
So where are they being made?
That's the next thing the Feds need to figure out.
They need to go to where these things are being produced and stop them from producing them.
I guess maybe that's a bit over the top.
Maybe they don't have a right to tell people you can't make wooden planks with symbols on them, so they can't really do anything about it.
But if they're providing material support to people who are intending to commit a crime, you got RICO, you got conspiracy, what do you got?
Come on man, Ted Cruz mentioned RICO, something like that.
We're seeing now, check this out.
Two men face federal charges from Saturday Rochester protests.
announced that two men have been charged with civil disorder during protests in Rochester on September 5th.
Good.
Glad to hear it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
They're people who are at riots.
They're accused of throwing fireworks and bashing a cop with a shield.
These may not be true, it's an allegation, but I'll tell you what.
The Feds are going to get these people, the criminals and the extremists, off the streets.
And then we can have real protests.
You know what I love?
I love reading this story from Oregon Live.
Portland protests return to ice building Wednesday after top DHS officials criticizes the city.
And they say that these Black Lives Matter supporters had a dance party.
Awesome.
You might obstruct the road.
You might, you know, make some people angry.
But this is de-escalation, man.
I love it.
I love it.
Have your peaceful protest.
Be a little obnoxious.
You know, send that message to people.
Do a dance party in front of ICE.
And you get a story that I can positively talk about.
Check it out.
Nobody gets hurt.
Cops come out.
There's some issues with overtime, I guess.
We're gonna have to foot the bill for this.
But hey, man.
We're a nation founded upon protest.
So.
If these people are going to come out and have a dance party, that is awesome.
I completely disagree with their ideology, but I will defend to the death their right to express themselves, and I'm all about the First Amendment, free speech, and protest, just so long as you're peaceably assembling.
And a dance party is exactly this.
So it's really funny when people are like, 93% of the protests were peaceful, Tim!
Why don't you praise the peaceful protest right here, baby?
Awesome!
Dude, you love to see it.
Having a dance party?
Do it to it.
I remember when you had those environmentalists in DC, and they put like a boat in an intersection and then chained themselves to it.
I think that's a bit over the top, but hey man, they didn't hurt anybody.
The cops come in, it's a little bit of a...
Nuisance.
They get arrested for it.
They get a slap on the wrist charge that is an inconvenience, and they're told, don't come back, don't do it again.
But everybody goes home.
You get your press.
You get your message.
It's like banner drops, too.
Civil disobedience.
You're not hurting anybody.
It's not permanent damage.
You're just kind of creating a circumstance in which they talk about what you're doing.
There is a challenge, as cities become more and more dense, that you might just have people obstructing roads literally everywhere.
And this is something we have to consider.
When you see one act of civil disobedience, and you're like, that's fine, they're blocking a road, they'll clear them out, and it was really annoying for people.
I know it can be annoying, but they're not hurting anybody, and they are getting arrested.
So it's a fine line, right?
It's hard to know where we draw the line.
The issue now is scale.
If we have a city of 10 million people or 9 million, like New York or something, and 50 different protest organizations all block the intersections to every bridge and every tunnel in Manhattan, now each individual group is like, we're just engaging in a small act of civil disobedience, but together all of these different groups are basically shutting down commerce into and out of the city.
That's really bad.
And that's where the challenge comes in.
At what point are we unable to respect nonviolent civil disobedience if too many people are obstructing, right?
You go back in time to when we draft up the Constitution and stuff, The likelihood that you were going to have mass groups everywhere doing something like this was less likely because these areas were much less densely populated.
Now if you have 10 million people, you could have, you know, like 5 people from different organizations not even knowing each other was doing something.
Like maybe it's Labor Day and they're like, hey we're all going to do a protest and the whole city gets shut down because of like 50 people.
So there are serious challenges to consider.
But I'll tell you this, for now, If the rioters stop, they're getting arrested and being removed.
This is a win for the left and it's a win for Trump.
But there is some negative here for Trump.
The unfortunate reality is that because Trump's plan seems to be working, Antifa is running scared.
Well, the riots are out of the press and people aren't going to give Trump credit for it.
The news cycle shifts back to COVID and to Woodward and all those other issues.
And now these people, the regular people, are not going to be realizing what Trump did to shut all this down.
We had a very dark period.
I don't know if it's over.
In one week, they could be in D.C.
and everything could be worse again.
And of course, they'll try and blame Trump and all that nonsense.
We just saw a guy execute a Trump supporter.
So this is all very, very frightening.
I'm talking to some people.
We had Robbie Suave.
From Reason, Libertarian on the IRL podcast, and he was mentioning, you know, what has Trump really done?
And I said, the DHS deputized state police.
The riots are basically shutting down now.
It's really simple.
You got 100 people and you've got 10 extremists that are starting fights.
You get rid of those 10 people.
You got 100 peaceful protesters.
Now they're getting positive press.
Good for them.
Check this out.
This is from September 3rd.
Three people previously arrested, three previously arrested protesters now face federal charges.
This is one week ago, and now today I can report to you that there was a dance party in Portland.
Wow!
So you mean to tell me that when you arrest the people starting fires, burning things down, and pushing people into extreme actions, it becomes a peaceful protest?
Amazing.
Amazing.
Why, why wouldn't Oregon do this?
Did they want the riots to continue?
Think about this.
When the DHS finally decided to implement this deputization, boom!
Over.
I gotta stress, though, I'm making a grand assumption that that's the case, but I think it's fair to say, because we're seeing this across the country, right?
I think it's fair to say, but my bigger fear is that they're just preparing and organizing and getting ready to show up in Washington, D.C.
Now, a lot of these people who have been arrested on federal charges, yeah, a lot of them are being locked up, put on bail, so I don't think they're showing back up.
They may be just heading to D.C., or many of them maybe went into hiding, because we did see an article from Time Magazine recently That was saying, people went to these protests, to these riots, carrying weapons, that they were just, oh, I just had bear mace, you know, that's why, I always have bear mace, and they got arrested, and now they're like, oh no, I face jail time, uh-oh, yeah, don't go to a riot, man, don't bring weapons.
Here's what you gotta do.
You wanna go to a peaceful protest?
Do it.
I encourage it.
I love peaceful protests, okay?
This country is wonderful.
I love the idea that I can say F you to the president or anybody I want.
I mean, not necessarily on social media, because, you know, they'll ban you.
But anyway, the idea is, we're a country where some poor working-class dude can look to the richest elitist and say, go F yourself, and that's awesome.
I can't actually swear on YouTube, but this is for family-friendly purposes, mind you.
But if I'm on the street and I want to say, yo, go F yourself, I can do it.
It's great.
So I love the peaceful protests.
I'll tell you what.
Don't bring weapons.
Don't go preparing for a fight.
If things start getting crazy because the agitators show up, get out.
Get out.
Do not let them hijack what you're doing.
Now here's the bigger problem, alright?
And always listen, man.
Sometimes the cops make mistakes.
Sometimes they lie.
I've witnessed it.
Sometimes they instigate.
But you do not win the fight with police by literally fighting them.
You win the fight with police by complying, taking the L, you know, they're gonna cuff you, they're gonna say, we're gonna arrest you or whatever, and you say, I want a lawyer, I won't be answering any questions, stuff like that.
Then once they release you on whatever charge, then you have the lawyer go after it.
Not everyone can afford a lawyer, but I'll tell you this.
I've witnessed these circumstances.
Your best bet, don't fight, don't resist, don't scream, don't kick.
What activist organizations have routinely encouraged people to do, is just to go limp.
Don't resist.
Let them carry you away, okay?
This is the appropriate peaceful protest or non-violent civil disobedience response.
The cops will do their job.
In fact, I've seen so many circumstances, and you see these celebrities.
They'll get arrested very calmly and peacefully, and the cops are very nice.
Sometimes the cops don't even cuff people.
They're like, we're just gonna, you know, have you go in the car.
It's, you know, you're being arrested on disorderly conduct or whatever.
They get released.
We carry on.
If people are getting violent, you gotta understand, if they don't know who's throwing explosives, and they need to shut this down, because they do, you might get caught up in that.
It's messed up.
I don't like it.
But what is the solution?
Just let people throw explosives?
Nah.
Well, now the solution is Trump sending in the feds, and everything seems to be chilling out.
Don't let them gaslight you, however.
Portland police arrested a Democratic staffer.
They say the police arrested Christina Narayan, who is a legislative director for the top Democrat in Oregon's House of Representatives, along with 58 others during a riot that began Saturday night and continued into Sunday morning, according to a Portland Police Bureau report.
Narayan has worked for House Speaker Tina Kotak since 2016.
So why is it?
That Oregon would not prosecute these people.
Why is it that the Attorney General in Oregon sued on their behalf against Trump?
And why is it now that the DHS, the FBI, federal attorneys are the ones shutting this down?
Could it be that the state Democrats are literally outriding themselves and are protecting their own?
Boy, I tell you what, man, you got a racket.
This is akin to organized crime infiltrating government, if you were to ask me.
They warn us.
They say, they say, Tim, white supremacists have been infiltrating the police and using that as, okay, yeah, that's terrible.
Man, we saw the Ferguson emails.
There was some racist stuff in there.
I don't want to see it.
Get them out.
How can you have equal opportunity if you have bigoted, prejudicial, and racist individuals or ideological zealots within government enforcing moral authoritarianism from their dogmatic perspective?
We need equality under the law.
I don't care if the person in government is a white supremacist or an extreme far leftist revolutionary communist or whatever.
They're both bad if they're not following the constitution and the law and they're using those prejudices to empower their side.
I don't want any of it.
So when I see, and the Republicans have no tolerance for this.
Steve King, he's like the perfect example.
He said a handful of really offensive things, the left went nuts, and the Republicans didn't vote for him!
He got primary, he's gone.
At least that's my understanding, it's been a while since I was reading about him.
They got rid of him.
And for what?
A tweet?
Look at that.
Now, Oregon, they defend the rioters.
They allow them to continue.
They release them.
They won't charge them.
And it turns out the people rioting literally work as a Democrat staffer for the state.
Well, of course they're being let go.
They're all in on it.
I'm sorry, man.
It's coming from inside the House.
The rioters are in the government.
And now you have a mayor running in Portland who's avowed Antifa.
You've got revolutionaries taking over the government of Oregon.
It's not the only place.
It's happening across this country.
That's why I'll tell you, man, it's such a bummer that Trump does these dumb things.
Look, you know, the Woodward stuff came out and Donald Trump said he knew that COVID was serious.
And I'm like, that's great.
I figured he did.
He took early action.
Then he said, I didn't want to create a panic.
And I'm like, that's great.
I'm glad he did.
Then he said, he didn't say this, but then it was pointed out that within a month he was having rallies.
And I'm like, ugh.
You know what, man?
That's Trump.
And there's things to re... That sounds horrible.
If Trump really didn't know about this, he shouldn't have been having rallies, but I'm definitely gonna fact-check to make sure what happened with those rallies because, you know, the media likes to fluff things up and lie about stuff.
But listen.
When I see stories like this, that you've got, what do you got in New York?
You've got a bunch of rich white protesters going around smashing things.
You've got Democrats in Oregon actively participating in the riots.
You've got people in the government of Oregon defending the rioters, and it's only because of Trump they got shut down.
I'll take what I can get, man.
And I'm sorry, I want the riots to stop.
Some people have said vote Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party endorsed this.
Not the riots.
But the Libertarian Party, in the weirdest thing ever, defended this idea that we must do something.
That's not what the Libertarian Party is supposed to do.
They're the third biggest political party in this country.
And what did they say?
It was Joe Jorgensen.
You know, with all due respect, I think she seems to be a nice individual, but she tweeted, it's not enough to be, you know, to be not racist.
We must actively be anti-racist.
And I'm like, what do you mean actively do anything?
You're the Libertarian Party.
We want to be left alone and live our lives.
We shouldn't actively be told to do anything.
And anti-racism is not what people think it is.
Anti-racism doesn't mean you oppose racism.
It means you support racism.
They just changed the definition.
What anti-racism means, when they use that term, they use semantic games to manipulate people.
Anti-racism means an inversion of like white cis-heteronormative patriarchy or whatever.
The idea being, the dominant political class, religion, and race in this country is, you know, like white, Christian, whatever.
Or like WASPs, you know, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, things like that.
And so anti-racism is not about stopping racism, it's about their perception of what racism is, and that's white privilege.
So it's anti-white privilege is a better way to explain what anti-racism means.
No, I believe being not racist is actually the best thing you could do, because then you judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
So, therein lies the bigger problem we see today.
That we've got Democrats out riding in the streets, gaining traction on the West Coast.
These people who are avowed racists, getting positions in government, going out and rioting, and they're being protected.
And the best chance to stand up against it?
Donald J. Trump.
How about that, man?
Look, I know, there's a lot of people who are like, woo, Trump, Trump, Trump.
I praise him for the Middle East stuff, the peace deal with Israel and UAE, Kosovo, Serbia, amazing, crossing over the DMZ into North Korea with no security.
Bravo, man.
Really impressive.
Bring our troops back?
I love it.
It's some of the best stuff we've seen in a long time.
And of course, the warmonger class, they're outraged that Donald Trump's desire to uphold his promises to the American people outweighs their bloodlust.
Sorry, I think Trump would rather tell the American people, I'm gonna do right by what I promised, as opposed to just pumping out more weapons and machines, dropping them in foreign countries, and then occupying, you know, just...
I understand the war in the Middle East is much, much more complicated than just the military-industrial complex.
But Trump's like, the American people don't want it.
And the American people aren't going to have it.
At least to the best of his abilities.
They're still trying to stop him.
So I look at that and I'm like, awesome.
I look at him banning critical race theory, mocking Bob Woodward in this audio tape about white privilege, saying you've drank the Kool-Aid, and pushing back on this, and I love it.
A lot of other things about Trump I do not love.
I don't.
But if it comes to me and extremists who are burning things down and rioting literally in the Democratic Party, and Joe Biden being too weak to stand up to them, sorry man, I'm not going anywhere near that stuff.
I want this to stop.
I'm glad to see it's dying down.
Congratulations, Trump.
Looks like your plan's working.
Let's see how it plays out in the coming week with the siege at the White House on September 17th.
Maybe it'll be nothing.
We'll see how it plays out.
But for now, I think we're starting to see an end to the riots.
I do.
We'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Right now, hashtag Cancel Netflix is trending number one in the United States on Twitter because of a film called Cuties, which depicts underage, just little girls, booty dancing and twerking, among other sexualized activities, and many people are deeply offended by it.
Of course, the media defense right now is Cuties, the extraordinary Netflix debut that became the target of a right-wing campaign.
That's right, right-wingers!
Why are they so obsessed with child trafficking?
I'm gonna tell you something, and we're gonna go into all this.
There's an argument that some people are making that's more nuanced, that the film actually is critical of the sexualization of minors and little girls, and that's true with a butt.
I still think that this film is awful.
And I think Netflix has other problems.
I'm not a fan of this and what they did.
I did cancel my own Netflix.
Let me tell you something.
There are a lot of people that I know who used to absolutely hate Donald Trump.
And something changed relatively recently.
And it's trafficking.
Trafficking arrests are up.
News reports about traffickers getting arrested and kids getting saved.
These things have been popping up periodically.
And there are people I know that are staunch libertarians, hate the two-party system, and they're straight-up saying things like, this is the final straw, I don't care about anything else, this must stop, and they're gonna vote for Trump because of it.
I actually know somebody who's a hardcore Black Lives Matter supporter, who used to be, and then the issue of traffic came up, and they were like, nope, flipped, now they're just MAGA 2020 all the way.
There are a lot of people who have a hard moral line, and this is it.
Now first, let me point out, Cuties was not the target of a right-wing campaign.
This is the weirdest thing I've seen.
In fact, the New Yorker deleted the tweet.
Everybody is outraged about this.
Now let me just cut to the chase, and then we'll read some of what he says, and I'll show you some of what's going on.
There's actually a parental guide talking about what's in the film, Warning!
I gotta tell you right now, this video may not be family friendly.
Listen, some people have said, like this article, it's actually critical of sexualizing, you know, kids and things like that.
So that means that the filmmaker got a bunch of little girls, had them go to twerking and booty dance classes, and filmed scenes where they booty dance in front of older men who ogle them.
I am not exaggerating.
In one of the clips, there's this creepy-looking guy, and he's going like, oh, and he's like watching the little girl.
It's disgusting.
And I'll tell you what, man.
I started seeing these clips from the show pop up on my Twitter feed, and I am, I am, I gotta say, man, there's very few things that trigger me and make me really angry.
I immediately unfollowed and muted these people.
No joke!
Some people I think are great.
I'm like, dude, do not be putting that in my timeline.
This is, we're, like, it is, it is just some of the most disturbing stuff I've seen.
I do not want to see, there's, there's, there's so much to this.
The core argument, however, from me is that this film and the filmmaker, they took little girls, had them do these things, and then said, but we're criticizing it, so what?
It's almost like a trick.
It's like when you see people say, hey everybody, you know, don't go and buy, you know, my new book.
Don't do it.
It would be a shame if somebody upvoted this on Reddit.
You know how people do this?
People go on Twitter, these anti-fuck people, And they'll say things like, it would be a shame if everybody showed up to, you know, this person's house and protested.
What they're really saying is, go and do it.
So when I see a movie like this, they're like, well, look, even the people in the movie are shocked by this.
Yes, I get it.
It's true.
But that doesn't change the fact.
It's like, it's not about what the movie's about.
It's about literally what they have little girls doing.
I don't- You can tell me the movies about- They're gonna win a- They're gonna take over a chocolate factory.
In the end of the film, they go off in an elevator and burst through the roof.
And I'm like, I don't care.
They filmed these scenes.
They had these girls do this.
I find it disturbing.
Listen.
Netflix has another show called Big Mouth, and people seem to love it on the left, and it's, to me, it's a line, okay?
Big Mouth is a show where you got a bunch of high-profile celebrities, and they voice, they're voicing children, pubescent children, who are exploring their changing bodies and doing things that I think, it's like, do we really need shows literally about this?
There's been things in South Park, for instance, but South Park is meant to be shock content in many ways.
So I'm not going to mention what was going on on South Park, but you can only imagine.
But to make an entire show dedicated to this, I'm like, I'm not a fan.
I think this is creepy.
I don't want to watch it.
And I'm a liberal, man.
I'm anything but a prude.
I think children is where the line should be drawn.
But I think Big Mouth gets away with it because it's not really putting kids in these situations, it's just creating gross content for people who seem to think it's funny, I guess, whatever.
But now they literally put little girls in a situation, and I think it's creepy.
Let me show you some of what's going on.
I don't want to read too much of this guy's weird article.
First, I'll mention this.
Absolutely, cancel Netflix trending number one.
So, you can see right now, when I posted this, it had 8,578 tweets.
And now, and so this was at 10.22am.
278 tweets and now and so this was at 10 22 a.m. Now it's got
49,200 just a little bit after noon. So yes, people are absolutely canceling Netflix to be completely
To be completely honest, I went right in, and I'm like, dude, I'm done with this.
I'm unfollowing people.
I don't want to see this stuff.
You know, I'm on Twitter, right?
And there are people who will spam tweet.
You're gone.
Off my feed.
So there are some people, and they'll keep retweeting the same person who does a thread.
And then I'm scrolling down, and there's like 50 tweets, and I'm like, dude, I get it.
Unfollow.
You're gone.
People posting and retweeting this stuff?
Unfollow.
You're gone, man.
I don't want to see it.
I say take a screenshot of it, explain what it is, and say it's too awful to actually share.
I apologize if Watson criticized me, saying it was a bad take.
Because people need to see this, because it's shocking.
Maybe that's true.
Maybe that's a good point.
If I didn't see it, I wouldn't be as disgusted as I am, and I wouldn't be talking about it.
The problem was that I keep seeing it.
People keep posting it.
I saw it the first time.
I got upset.
Now everyone's just spamming it.
I'm like, I don't want to see this, man.
I don't.
Here's where it gets really creepy and political.
A right-wing campaign.
What's shocking to me is that just because there are conservatives saying, yo, this is bad, the media runs to the defense of a film.
But guess what?
They actually deleted the tweet.
So let me show you this.
This is the tweet from the New Yorker.
Cuties, which has angered scandal mongers on the right, is the story of a girl's outrage at and defiance of a patriarchal order.
Is that what it's about?
They're just opposing the patriarchy!
Little girls should be doing these kinds of dances!
No, no, no, no, no.
My favorite part.
First, the tweet was deleted by the tweet author, and this response from atDazzlingBlue has a Biden-Harris icon as their profile, with the blue wave and resist, and I looked at their profile, and yeah, they're not right-wing.
And they said, cancel Netflix.
I just took a screenshot from the IMDB website.
It straight up says it's minors in adult situations, to put it mildly, because we'll try and be family friendly.
I am beyond appalled.
Who would allow their child to be filmed like this?
I don't care why they did it.
Yep.
That's the point.
I don't care what the film's about.
The film could be about a chocolate factory.
The film could be about aliens invading the Earth.
If you put this stuff in it, I'm gonna be like, I don't care.
I don't.
It's awful.
Check this out.
Anna Slatz is a sweetie, and that's her Twitter handle.
And if you go to her profile, you can see there is a sickle and hammer icon.
And she straight up says, I am a Marxist.
Criticizing pedophilic social commentary isn't right-wing, you peanut butter dong.
She says, I am a Marxist.
This should give anyone a conniption.
If someone doesn't get a conniption from the exploitation of young girl actresses who, at 11, cannot give informed consent to participate in heavily sexualized film they may later regret, that is a problem.
Straight up, nail on the head with the hammer.
Little girls who don't know what they're doing on camera.
There is a scene that people are sharing.
They're like, listen, they're trying to argue.
It's not about, you know, like pitos, right?
The little girls sneak into some club or something, and there's a guy like, hey, I'm gonna call your parents, and then they try to escape, and he grabs one, and he's like, no, I'm not letting you go, and they start calling him a pervert and stuff.
Some creepy-looking dude walks in, and he goes, what's going on?
And they're like, this guy was, you know, touching us, and he goes, what?
And then one girl starts screaming, we got into the finals of the dance competition!
Woo!
And then these two security guards start screaming, shut up.
But then I guess it's the main character, she goes, no really, we're dancers, watch.
She turns around and starts booty dancing for the guy, and there's a dragged out scene where she's like looking in his eyes, and it's just, it's not for children.
And the creepy guy's like, oh yeah, and he's like, I'm like, what am I watching?
It's creepy.
It is, in my opinion, their attempt to produce this content but be like, but we're critical of it.
Anna, you nailed it.
They have made these little girls who don't know what they're doing dance this way in a movie.
International release, and when they're older they might realize what they've done and regret it.
They could not understand what they were doing.
That's the point.
Now listen, there are some circumstances where we have films where there are underage individuals
in certain activities and we recognize it's more acceptable to certain degrees.
And I'm specifically referring to Superbad where I guess, I think the guy's name is Christopher
Mintz-Platts, Platts or whatever his name is, was a minor and they were doing like a
coming of age teenage sex scene at a party.
It's very, very different.
When you have someone who's like 17 or 16 or whatever, their parents consent, they know what they're doing, and they cover up most of what the scene is.
They're telling you basically kids, you know, they're teenagers who do these things.
I still kind of like, you know, cringe.
I'm like, I get it, man.
But he's a teenager, and they don't actually show the sexualized nature.
Again, maybe I'm just mis- I haven't seen Superbad in a really long time.
But things like this are...
Particularly different.
This, to me, is over-the-top because I just think these girls are too young, man.
Just way too young.
So, of course, in the politicized world we live in, they're gonna make it seem like it's only the right who cares about it.
Did you know that this film is rated TVMA in the US?
That's important to consider as to why people are outraged about this.
They say there are sex and nudity scenes.
The movie consists of 11-year-old girls dancing suggestively.
An adult dancer shows her breasts at the end of a dance video that two children characters are watching on a phone.
A girl watches a female rap video where naked women role-play through a dance.
A pair of tight leather pants on an 11-year-old girl.
I didn't want to read some of this stuff.
They go on to mention that there's, you know, scattered F-words.
Apparently, I don't know if this is true because, look, first I do want to be fair.
This is certified as TVMA.
It's not even rated R. It's mature.
So think about this.
I don't care what the movie's about.
I don't care if it's critical.
They put a bunch of little girls in a TVMA film, and they have them, like, watching erotic dancing and nude women and stuff like this.
This is just weird and over-the-top.
But I do think it's fair to point out the parent's guide, people can add to it, so I think people may have made some changes.
But I want to show you the real criticism here.
This is Reddit, out of the loop.
This is 20 days ago.
What's up with the Netflix show called Cuties and why is it linked to pedophilia?
The top response says, and I'm pointing this out to give you the context because apparently now the film's been released and people are upset about it.
This is from a user Railroader.
He says, From what I can gather, Cuties is a French movie about an 11-year-old girl from a conservative Muslim family named Amy, who is black.
Who hopes to join a dance crew, even though her family isn't exactly on board.
And through the crew, Amy learns more about her femininity.
Doesn't sound so bad, right?
On paper it doesn't, but there are a few things about this movie that have people up in arms.
The dance the girls are performing is twerking.
Reminder that the main lead and other girls are 11 years old.
This is booty dancing.
The U.S.
poster for the film has all the girls in provocative poses and clothing.
Again, they are all 11 years old.
Also note the contrast with the movie's original French poster on the left.
So, I don't think this is an argument.
When this post came out, when people were originally up in arms, it was because there was a poster for the movie of little girls in suggestive positions, and it was creepy.
It was gross.
They said, it was a marketing error, the film is actually about, you know, coming of age or something like that.
No, the film depicts little girls dancing for older men and it's gross.
So this is before the film came out.
They say, there are also concerns how race is a factor in all this, as the lead character is a black Muslim girl and one other girl is also black.
The film itself is TVMA, which when combined with other points does not paint a pretty picture for the film.
In short, the movie very much appears to be sexualizing young girls, and while director-writer Mae Moona Dokur has said that it is supposed to be a coming-of-age story that focuses on the questions of what type of woman a woman should allow herself to be, as well as speaking about the hyper-sexualization of young girls, the current marketing that Netflix is using does not paint a pretty picture of what the movie is trying to say.
Also note that it won an award from the Sundance Film Festival.
Also, Netflix has apologized for the poster of the movie and replaced the original image.
The poster was an actual scene from the movie, and that's what popped up on my Twitter feed, and I didn't want to see that.
Maybe I'm just an old, uh, stodgy prude or whatever.
Sure, I draw the line at kids.
Sorry, that's just me.
They also mention, somebody asks, how is race a factor?
In fact, there are leftists, social justice activists who are upset about this film.
You know why?
Because they took an 11-year-old black girl and had her booty dance for a bunch of older men.
In a contest.
And the argument is that it's creating this stereotype of hyper-sexualized, marginalized peoples, if you would, to use their language.
That it's a stereotype meant to denigrate and make them look bad.
Someone said, I'm not an expert on the topic, but I believe it has something to do with the film propagating the idea that black girls are inherently more sexual than white girls.
That, or the fetishization of women and girls of color.
As for the Muslim bit, I think that ties into a stereotype of Muslims being ultra-conservative and oppressive of women's rights.
And the idea that the main character has to abandon, fight her oppressive religion in order to find true happiness.
It is extremes on both sides.
It is absolutely extremes on both sides.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Turkey orders Netflix to remove French film cuties from its site.
Turkey's broadcast watchdog has the power to censor online TV platforms and streaming sites after a new law went into effect last year.
I'm not a fan.
It's a challenge, though.
I don't like government censorship, but I also don't like the erosion of, like, standards.
I'm sorry, man.
Like, look, I brought up that many, many people I know who used to be diehard Democrat, leftist, progressive, Black Lives Matter, are now on the board for Trump because you mess with kids and people will burn it down.
You want to see a real revolution?
Yeah, mess with kids.
Because you can have real- you can go to a regular American and say, isn't the orange man bad?
And they'll be like, yeah, sure, I guess.
Or don't you think Trump should be out of- yeah, sure, I don't know, whatever.
You might go to someone and say something like, hey, you know, Trump's kind of bad, so you'll vote for Biden.
They'll say, yeah, I guess.
Or you can go to someone who's like, yo, Biden!
Then bring in kids, and they're going to be like, I don't care about anything else.
I've heard this from many people.
In fact, it's a big piece of a lot of conspiracy theories that are going around about people in government.
I think those go over the top.
Well, when you start to see the really... I mean, look, man.
Bill Clinton was ID'd in court papers as being on, you know, Epstein's island.
That's a red flag for the Democrats.
There's a painting of him in a dress.
I don't believe in all these grand conspiracy theories, the weird stuff you see on a lot of these forums.
But I think it's fair to say, you got nasty people at the highest level.
People flying with Epstein.
We know what he was doing.
Now, Trump is going after traffickers.
I think a lot of these conspiracy theories go way over the top with it, you know, cabals and like weird titanic ritual, whatever that stuff is.
No, look, people commit crimes, sometimes people get investigated and get arrested for it.
There seems to be a decent amount of these people and it's horrifying, and they should absolutely be arrested.
As it pertains to Netflix, I think that we are seeing something worrying in the tribalism of politics.
The idea That you have avowed Marxists.
Everybody basically saying no to this film.
So why is it at the establishment, media establishment, they're saying, everyone calm down.
Netflix is like, no, no, no, don't.
It was just a marketing error.
Don't worry.
Watch the movie.
How do you have Marxists, libertarians, liberals, the authoritarian right all saying, whoa, whoa, what are you doing?
What are you doing?
unidentified
And the establishment media saying, it's just a right-wing campaign.
Cuties calls out the hypersexualization of young girls and gets criticized.
Why is anyone defending this?
You can criticize that without having little girls do these things.
And again, I think Anna hit the nail on the head with the hammer.
These girls are just, it's literally about these four girls.
To me, it's their criticisms about the messaging, criticisms about the erosion of our moral standards.
But more importantly, I believe they crossed the line by having these little girls not understand what they were doing and then literally go in this film.
Because it is impossible to criticize the hyper-sexualization of little girls if you're literally going to have little girls and train them to do these things and literally film them doing it and then release it internationally.
There's an interesting challenge here with censorship.
With Turkey banning the film, for instance.
I'm sure a lot of people are going to say straight up, no, there should be hard limits on this stuff.
And I think it's more of a challenge of our culture and what we accept.
And I think it's fair to say most people do not accept this.
Hence, cancel Netflix is trending number one.
We saw the poster.
We got mad.
Everyone did.
And they said, don't worry, we'll get rid of the poster.
But they put the movie out anyway, and everybody's still mad.
Should it be illegal?
That's a hard line to draw, and perhaps there could be, you know, legal language drawn up about the things these girls are doing, but it is a challenge.
It is.
Because you need to understand there's a fine line between general, uh... You know, actually, let me stop here.
I was reading something about Big Mouth.
Big Mouth is a show, I think it's gross, little kids going through puberty, and they, it's just, it's graphic, it's disgusting, okay?
But it's a cartoon, there's not really kids involved in it, so I guess it gets a pass.
I don't like it, I think it's nasty.
There's a question about...
Whether or not we should be... Well, I don't know.
I kind of just want it all to go away.
I don't know what else to say.
Do you make it illegal?
Look, the question is, if you have a scene, right?
There's a scene in Big Mouth where little girls get nude.
And there's a bunch of nude women and it shows everything, but it is a cartoon.
And they're explaining you should be proud of your body, and there's all different body types and different sized boobs and bodies and stuff like that.
And it is not overtly sexualized in the sense that it is encouraging activity, other than it's telling you to be body positive.
The argument that people are saying is that you need to separate sexualization from just biological sex.
In which case, showing this, they say, is arguable.
Me, personally?
I don't like it.
I don't think they should publish it, and I think it probably shouldn't be on Netflix.
But there's... I don't know, there's a big question about...
I think back to, like, how comic books will hyper-sexualize adults and all that stuff, but the intent is not to make you... Like, Spider-Man, as he's painted, isn't to make anybody aroused.
It's just like they're showing off the human physique or something.
I guess what I'm trying to say is...
I'm reticent to call for authority and authoritarianism because I don't personally know how you draw the line.
I don't know how you draft that language and I wouldn't know what to say other than, in my personal opinion, get rid of it.
Just straight get rid of it.
You shouldn't have little girls doing this kind of stuff.
But it's tough from an authority versus liberty position.
Ultimately, for me, the line is kids.
Kids are protected.
None of this.
So, I think... I guess what I'm trying to say is... I often wouldn't say this, but when it comes to keeping kids safe, I lean towards authority 100%.
I don't like what Netflix did.
I cancelled because of it.
I think they should get rid of it.
But it's kind of a weird thing because I'm not a cancel culture person.
But you know what?
I think.
I think Big Mouth is trash.
I think this is way over the line.
And I think we've found some unity between all the political factions in Netflix.
What is wrong with you?
Apparently this won an award!
That's gross.
That's creepy stuff, man.
I don't know.
Whatever.
I don't want to rant.
I'm not going to rant too much on it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCast.
That is a different channel.
And I will see you all then.
CNN's Brian Stelter recently came out with a book about Fox News and Donald Trump, and I find it really funny that CNN has, like, a dedicated show that just complains about Fox News and Trump.
You'd think they'd talk about other things.
I guess they kind of do sometimes, but seriously, you go to the Twitter feeds of, like, Stelter and some of these other people, and it's, like, Fox News all day, every day.
Thank you for giving us the play-by-play on Fox News.
And thank you for the moral superiority, CNN, in telling us just how awful Fox News and Trump's relationship is.
You know, how Trump watches Fox and then Fox says things and Riles Trump, Riles Trump.
Oh, it's so awful.
I mean, could you imagine if, like, someone at Fox News was contacting the Trump administration and Republicans and telling them what to do?
Or even, like, calling up Democrats and saying, like, don't run in this district.
Be crazy, right?
I mean, could you imagine if Fox News did what CNN did?
Oh no, look at that, CNN's fake news.
CNN's Jake Tapper urged Republican Sean Parnell not to run against Democrat Rep.
Conor Lamb.
And at first, Jake Tapper denied this.
But now we have the actual DM, this is published by Fox News.
I think it's funny that we're in this battle, right?
CNN's gonna claim Fox News is fake news, and then Fox News is gonna claim CNN's colluding to interfere in elections.
Here's the, here's the, uh, uh, uh, uh, it's looks like a direct message.
Jake Tapper said on November 8th, 2019 at 1210 PM.
Best of luck in your race. For the record, I wasn't trying to talk you out of running.
I was trying to talk you into running in a safer, our district, LOL.
Thanks for the advice, Jake Tapper.
Should Jake Tapper be telling people who are running for office to run in different districts?
I would say the answer is no.
CNN is a major corporation.
Jake Tapper's supposed to be a newsman, and that's undue influence on the electoral process of this country.
Now, I don't think it's nearly as bad as some would suggest in terms of Jake Tapper and ethics and things like that.
Just because you're a journalist or a news person.
I know some people might think it's a bit much for a CNN guy for me to say that, but okay, look, he's a news guy.
He can still have a candid conversation with a Republican and say, you're probably better off running here.
The only issue is whether or not he has a relationship with the Democrats and he's trying to help his Democratic friends.
As far as it goes with CNN, now this is a massive and major conflict of interest that Jake Tapper, using his verified account, would reach out to a Republican and say, run somewhere else.
CNN would need to disclose this.
Well, you know, I know that Brian Stelter, being a good, respectable, honorable guy, will absolutely come out and address the controversy and make a statement about it.
I'm sure CNN will apologize and in some capacity have some kind of... I don't know exactly what you do here, but I guess nothing can be done.
In the end, we just know, CNN, partisan outlet.
That's what it is.
Here's what Fox News reports.
Exclusive!
CNN anchor Jake Tapper tried to convince Republican Senator Sean Parnell not to run against incumbent Democratic Rep.
Conor Lamb for a Western Pennsylvania House seat, according to a Twitter direct message obtained by Fox News.
Tapper suggested that Parnell, a U.S.
Army combat veteran who recently delivered a speech at the RNC, would be better off running in a safer district for Republicans, according to a source close to, but unaffiliated with, Parnell's campaign, who feels the CNN anchor was unethically participating in political activism.
It's not the biggest deal in the world for Sean Parnell or for Jake Tapper.
I don't know why he was giving this advice, but it is a big deal for CNN, because CNN should not be doing that.
They say Fox News obtained a Twitter direct message that Tapper sent Parnell's account on November 8, 2019 after he officially declared his candidacy for Pennsylvania's 17th congressional district against Democratic Rep Lamb.
It's also strange because what's Sean gonna do?
Be like, oh, Jake Tapper hit me up.
I changed my mind.
I'm gonna run a different district.
That's just weird.
The Direct Message backs up a story that was reported earlier this week by Breitbart, which cited sources familiar with the interactions, and reported that Tapper communicated his views on how Parnell should not run against Lamb in a variety of communication forms, including in text messages, Twitter Direct Message, direct messages, and in a phone call.
CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Tapper did not immediately respond to a series of questions, including whether or not he would be able to fairly report on the Parnell-Lamb race.
Following the Breitbart story, Tapper denied urging Parnell not to run against Lamb to former Acting Director of National Intelligence Rick Grinnell.
Neither CNN or Tapper responded when asked about the denial.
The Parnell campaign declined to comment when reached by Fox News.
It is unclear if CNN will allow Tapper to report on the race for Pennsylvania's 17th congressional district going forward.
Quote, he boxed himself into a corner, the source said.
He wanted him to primary a Republican.
Instead of running against Lamb, he was looking out for his Democrat friend.
Now, here's the tweet.
From Rick Grinnell, he says, I just asked Jake Tapper, quote, is it true you asked Sean Parnell to not run against Conor Lamb?
He told me, nope.
So there is his answer.
Interesting, and it may be a semantic argument.
If he asked that, then Jake Tapper can say, I never said he shouldn't run against Lamb, but I did suggest he not run against Lamb because, you know, I said he'd run in a different district.
You see the semantics here.
If he said, run in a different district, isn't he saying don't run against Lamb?
Ah, but not directly, and therein lies the game being played.
Tapper, who bills himself as a non-partisan newsman, anchors CNN's weekday newscast, The Lead with Jake Tapper, and Sunday morning's State of the Union political program.
The source wondered how many Republicans have nixed the idea of running for a specific public office because the influential Tapper talked them out of it over the years.
CNN is experts at smearing people.
You've got their Sunday morning anchor telling you what you should or shouldn't do.
There are other candidates who would be like, alright, I don't need CNN coming after me.
That's true.
Imagine that.
You got the Sunday, what is it, Sunday morning anchor, one of the Sunday morning anchors, saying straight up, go run somewhere else.
What happens if you don't?
What is he going to say about you?
Is he going to use his platform and his power to smear you and, you know, hurt your career or potential private sector prospects if you don't win your election?
There's undue influence here, man.
And listen, I talked to some politicians, I have conversations with people, I mean, I had Sean Parnell on the podcast, and we'll talk about things.
That's why I've been saying, it's not the biggest deal for Tapper himself.
But it is a major deal for CNN, which likes to pretend that Fox News is the real partisan problem.
Guess what, Brian Stelter?
You wrote a book called Hoax.
I get it.
But your own staff, high-ranking staff at your organization, are having backroom conversations with political candidates, telling them what they should or shouldn't do.
And I think it's funny, coming from... Look, CNN's gonna want to pretend that they're fair and balanced, like, you know, Fox News says fair and balanced.
They're not.
Here's an interesting passage.
I want to read you some of this, just to give you some context.
Eric Wemple for the Washington Post writes, U.S.
media reporters failed their readers on the night of December 18, 2019.
That was when the House of Representatives held a historic impeachment vote against Trump, the third such event in U.S.
history.
Everyone in the national news business—newspaper, TV reporters, TV anchors, producers, copy editors—they were mobilizing for the goings-on, except for Sean Hennity, who had taped his primetime program.
He had another commitment that night, so network producers did their best to camouflage the outdated material, in part by posting fresh chyrons and the like.
And?
That sly Hannity, he got away with it!
Almost.
The scoop about Hannity's magic trick comes from the pages of Hoax, Donald Trump, you know, Stelter's book, CNN's host of the weekly show Reliable Sources, and a longtime media reporter.
The anecdote comes with a helpful takeaway.
I thought he was live, like every other host was, on every other channel, on the most important news day of the year.
How could he not be?
Because not a single person in charge at Fox had the guts to tell him no.
Are you kidding me?
You think that's a scandal?
I've done earlier recordings for my show before, not the live show, so I guess maybe, I guess.
Sean Hannity, oh no, he pre-recorded.
Tons of the primetime shows are pre-recorded.
I've been on Fox News several times.
We recorded sometimes at like 2 or 3, and the show aired at 7, and they'd be like, yeah, we air live at 7.
And then what happens is...
You'll have the host.
And this is really obvious if you watch the show.
They'll be talking to you, and then there'll be a cutaway, and then they'll be talking, and then it'll show them again.
It's because they did a pre-recorded segment, because often interviews have to be recorded at different times.
This is the big scandal?
Is this a joke?
What is this?
Before Hoax, we knew that Fox News executives had no control over their personalities.
What is this?
And what do we get?
All right, when was this article written?
September 6th.
I wonder if Eric Wemple has gone on to write about the Jake Tapper fiasco.
Let Woodward be Woodward, Kayleigh McEnany's just one-ups Sean Spicer, Tucker Carlson, Stalter's book.
No.
It looks like he didn't.
Well, listen, man.
Wemble did a good job challenging Russiagate narratives and all the medias and all their, you know, scandals.
So I'm not necessarily trying to drag him for writing about Stelter's book.
But if that's the big scandal, oh, a host pre-recorded his live spot because he had another engagement he was obligated to attend to.
Okay, I guess.
What about Jake Tapper?
A CNN high-ranking staffer with a major platform on the impartial and objective, most trusted name in news, in trying to talk a Republican candidate into running somewhere else and not against a particular Democratic individual.
Now, like I said, not the biggest deal for Tapper himself, because he can talk to who he wants, but for CNN as an organization?
Yeah, it's a major conflict of interest.
I ultimately don't think this story is the biggest story in the world, to be completely honest.
But I do think this is, like, we know CNN is a partisan player.
We absolutely know CNN is in the bag for the Democrats.
They want to pretend like they're not.
Come on, man.
We know what's going on.
And when we look to other outlets, are they going to call out CNN?
No, but they'll all call out Fox News.
Washington Post will prop up an anti-Fox News book, make money for Brian Stelter.
Whatever.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Right now, Brian Stelter's book is doing pretty well.
Number 20 on Amazon.
And Sean Hennedy's number 12.
And Sean Hennedy has 20 times the reviews of his book.
So, take it for what it is.
Whatever.
CNN.
Partisan players.
You get it.
Couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Yesterday, I covered the story about UM-Dearborn launching a whites-only cafe.
Now, apparently, it wasn't an actual cafe.
It was actually just some, like, virtual session where people would go into a Zoom chat or something.
But it was only for people who did not identify as persons of color.
Ah, yes.
In the name of social justice, we must segregate the races, they say.
What a horrible, horrible idea.
Well, From the Detroit Metro Times, they say, UM-Dearborn apologizes after it promoted a non-POC cafe so white people could talk about their white feelings.
You know, I want to just straight read you this story, but let me just clarify for you.
They did not apologize.
They did not apologize.
They apologized for the terms they used.
They love the idea of whites-only spaces, and they won't apologize for it.
But they need to give the impression to regular people who don't realize what's going on that they're not for segregation.
Why?
This to me shows, it proves, they know what they're doing is insidious and nefarious, and they want to make sure no one knows about it.
So here you go, Detroit Metric Times saying they've apologized after promoting a non-POC space for white people.
Alright, let's read what they actually said.
UM-Dearborn sincerely regrets the terms used to describe the cafe events.
The terms used to describe these events and descriptions themselves were not clear and not reflective of the university's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
I'll read more of their statement, but I wanted to make sure I made it clear in the beginning.
No, they're apologizing for the way they described it.
That's it.
It was a white-only space.
Their only regret is that they didn't describe it better or whatever that means.
I don't know.
They're not denouncing the idea itself.
They're actually in favor of this.
Here's what they write for the Detroit Metro News.
It wouldn't be 2020 if a college didn't attempt to host a whites-only event intended to give white people a platform to discuss their feelings about being white, you know, without people of color around to make them feel uncomfortable.
Well, according to a now-deleted event listing, the University of Michigan-Dearborn Center for Social Justice launched a virtual discussion group for non-POC to gather and discuss their experience as
students on campus and as non-POC in the world.
The group was advertised on the UM-Dearborn website and on Instagram as the non-POC cafe,
which would take place recurring bimonthly via Zoom.
Of course, I covered this the other day.
Shortly after announcing the group for white people, another group, the BIPOC Cafe, was launched, which was a virtual meetup for those UM-Dearborn students that identify as being from marginalized racial, ethnic, cultural communities.
Both groups were slated to take place on Tuesdays between 2 and 3 p.m.
Yeah, actually, you clicked the wrong one, and all of a sudden you're the white person in the BIPOC space.
The People of Color Only, I think they call it?
Wow, doesn't that sound, like, really racist?
It didn't take long, however, for the college to release a formal statement admitting that they took issue with how their segregated discussions groups were described.
Were described!
Yes, not what they were!
UM-Dearborn sincerely regrets I read that part.
The statement published Wednesday also says UM-Dearborn remains committed to fostering and maintaining an inclusive campus environment.
Unless, of course, they want to host segregated spaces.
But that's still inclusive.
Now, I actually want to make something clear.
I think what they did is actually legal.
That's right.
The argument for Title IX, you know, like equality in these spaces, is not that you can't... Is it really interesting?
When it comes to women's sports and men's sports, the argument that they're not in violation of Title IX or civil rights law, which is, you know, Title IX is specifically in the Civil Rights Act, the argument is that so long as they offer up the equal space, it's not a violation, right?
Think about what that means.
That quite literally means they can segregate.
Yeah.
But that's the point.
They want men and women's sports to be segregated.
Some people are arguing for ending gender segregation.
The idea is it's not a violation of the rights of women if they can't join the men's league because there's a women's league and vice versa.
In this capacity, the argument would probably be the same.
It's not racist because there's cafes for everyone.
There's a cafe for white people and a cafe for not-white people.
Therefore, they're not discriminating because you still have access to your cafe, right?
They say, They say they still want to, you know, whatever.
As for the white people, the statement says their white group was supposed to give white people an opportunity to deepen their understanding of race and racism without harming or relying on students of color to educate them.
Apparently, despite the name, the cafe events were never intended to be exclusive or exclusionary.
And UM-Dearborn assured that both groups were open to the entire campus and would have moderators present.
Except they actually said that they would have non-POC moderators for the event, and it was for non-POC.
So, okay, fine.
What they're basically saying is you can come in and hang out, but this space is for white people.
Imagine if they, like, didn't... Listen.
This is why I say it's insidious.
Because what they're doing is they're basically saying, imagine if they created two water fountains, and one person said non-POC, one fountain said non-POC, and one fountain said POC, and they said, you can use whichever one you'd like, but they're supposed to be, yeah, we get it.
They can't just come out with their whites-only events.
So what they do is they create the designated spaces that are open to all, But, we know what happens next.
It's increments.
Eventually they're gonna say, whoa, you shouldn't be doing this one, right?
Imagine what would happen if a white person went into the non-white, you know, the BIPOC-only cafe.
Do you think they'd be like, that's totally fine!
No, they'd be like, yo, your space is over there.
And if the inverse happened, they'd be much more amicable, as it were.
But the idea is to disincentivize this kind of thing.
And you know what?
This is where we're going.
This is absolutely where we're going, as a country.
Segregation is going to come back, unless we do something about it.
And I gotta admit, with the latest news of the smears against Trump, some of the things he said, I'm not entirely confident he's gonna win.
Now, I know, a lot of people are like, Tim, you just said Trump landslide last, you know, last week, two weeks ago.
I'm like, yeah, two weeks ago, it was violent riots erupting through the streets.
Now the news cycle has shifted, and although that still is a big benefit for Trump, we'll see what happens in a week when they do the White House siege.
But now we've got a whole new news cycle.
Things are starting to change, and Trump's definitely shoved his own foot in his mouth.
So now I'm like, I don't know, man.
It could just be, to be honest, that I read too much news, right?
And I think it's fair to say that when it comes to the election, regular people who are scared of the riots are probably not getting a whole lot of news.
And so when the riots hit their area or they heard about it, it was like, they immediately were like, okay, you got to vote for Trump.
And now they can put out whatever smear they want.
It's not going to work.
I guess people are going to see commercials, but whether or not people actually buy these things, maybe.
I'll tell you what, though.
The reason I'm worried, and I'm saying you gotta get out and vote, is that Donald Trump is the last line of defense against this.
And he may not even be able to stop it on his own.
And that's the scary reality.
Trump is just the president.
He's banned critical race theory.
He mocked the idea of white privilege.
I like these things that he's doing.
He's pushing back on this insane far-left, non-theistic religion.
But what do you do?
The millennial generation has a lot of people who hold this new religion.
They're not going anywhere.
They're going to get older, they're going to be working in industry, and they're going to be spreading this ideology around.
Now it may be that among the right-wing tent, whatever this is, it includes moderates and liberals now, It may be that a parallel economy emerges and quickly grows, and that could be a good thing.
And I'll give you an example, right?
I talked about this the other day, that a lot of these companies that are going broke because of the changes to our culture and other issues, they're embracing wokeness in an attempt to make money.
Why?
Woke people will watch anything, so long as it's woke.
They'll go to a woke comedy club and just go, yay, it is funny, we are happy.
They don't really like or find funny what's happening, it just panders to their ideology, so they're getting what's called claptor.
It's not laughter, it's not clapping, it's claptor.
They're clapping because they agree with what you're saying.
So when you look at the expansion of this, you have the millennials who believe all these things, they're growing.
Maybe the good news is that it doesn't matter if Trump wins.
All that matters is that regular people don't want to go to church every day and won't.
So these industries will fade out.
They'll create their ideological hubs that will shrivel because most people just want to be left alone and play video games and do their thing.
And maybe that's a good thing.
Maybe we don't need Trump.
But I'll tell you what.
I'm not taking the risk.
I'm not.
I'm gonna vote for Trump for this and a couple other reasons, mostly having to do with foreign policy.
Peace agreements, pulling our troops back, I'm happy about it.
We'll see what he does in the next few months.
But it's also that he's pushing back against us.
And we have to.
We need a cultural wake-up call to what's going on.
If we don't speak out, then you really do get a revolution.
If the worst thing we have is there's 10% of our country that believes this kooky, non-theistic religion, and they screech and scream about it, fine.
So long as we're resilient to cancel culture, we push back on the more absurd actions they take, they can believe whatever they want.
But it's also possible that because they're in mainstream cultural institutions, it spreads, the ideas spread, and it gets bad for everybody.
I certainly don't want to live in a world where we have people pushing for segregation.
Whites-only events and spaces.
And how long until they do?
How long until they say, well, it's a safe space?
How long until they set up businesses?
Because California's getting real close to it.
The state, public employment, and colleges will be able to discriminate based on race if this referendum, Repeal Prop 209, passes in November.
I don't want to see it.
I don't want to see it, man.
So this apology is fake.
That's what you need to take away from this.
They didn't apologize.
They apologized for the way they described it.
But they still did it, and they're not sorry.
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.
Thank you, ESPN.
Thank you so much.
I was so desperate to get into Major League Sports.
You know, I've never been into football or basketball.
And so I was just like, please, can you do anything to make me want to watch your programming?
And now they've gone and done it.
ESPN to televise athletes protesting and singing the Black National Anthem.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I have no idea what that has to do with playing sports.
Did you guys hear that apparently, like, the Madden game included Colin Kaepernick, and he's, like, not even in the NFL or whatever?
I guess he's a free agent, so sure, fine, whatever.
But I'll tell you what, this one takes the cake.
In terms of the Church of Intersectionality, they have found a way to put on their massive, you know, megachurch event and get you to tithe to them, because they will be, uh...
Broadcasting the Black National Anthem.
Now, look, I'll tell you what, I don't care what they do.
If they want to get woke, go broke, that's fine.
If they're getting broke so they're trying to go woke to make money, I don't care.
Americans' views of the sports industry takes a nosedive, according to Gallup.
While the industry earned a plus 20 net positive in 2019, the number sank to minus 10 this year.
I don't necessarily know what that means, but they say, the sports industry positive score in 2019 was 45%, but fell by a third to just 30% in 2020.
percent, but fell by a third to just 30 percent in 2020.
Similarly, while 25 percent held a negative view in 2019, it shot up to 40 percent. The stark contrast
is evident when examining the changes in net positive scores, which are calculated by combining the
positive and negative score into a single number.
While the industry earned... I read that part already.
They go on to mention regular sports competitions have faced significant interruptions this year amid the global coronavirus crisis.
Additionally, the Black Lives Matter movement has been part of the public conversation, including sports.
I wonder why people are upset with sports.
You know, I'll tell you why.
Listen.
I like watching skateboarding, right?
I like- there's a couple accounts I follow on Instagram.
And that's most of what I follow on Instagram.
You just show me that guy doing that tre flip down that 20 set.
I mean, actually, someone almost- I think it was Chris Joslin actually almost tre flipped El Toro. That's crazy.
You probably don't know what that means. I don't care. It was awesome.
That's what I want to watch.
You know what I don't want to watch?
I don't want to watch someone doing, like, a kick flip down a massive flight of stairs
and then it slow-mo's and their board reads Black Lives Matter
and they raise their fist in midair.
Like dude, I don't care.
Just do the tre flip down El Toro.
Let me see... I don't know.
Here's what I want to see.
I want to see a laser flip frontside crook.
Do that.
That would make me happy.
And for all those who don't understand skateboard jargon, well, too bad!
You get the point.
The point is I don't want to watch this.
I mentioned it before.
I like going to the sports bar, which you can't right now because we're, I don't know, locked down.
And having some wings and a nice... You know what I like doing?
I like getting club soda with lemonade in it.
It's really, really great.
But not this.
Not this.
Here's what they say.
This is from the Postmillennial.
ESPN has announced that they will be televising professional athletes protesting by singing the Black National Anthem, a song known as Lift Every Voice and Sing, instead of the Star-Spangled Banner, according to Front Office Sports.
In addition, the network will also show social justice movement's actions as they happen.
Our policy is to cover the anthem when it's newsworthy.
That's not going to change.
ESPN Executive Vice President of Event and Studio Production, Stephanie Drouli, said, We are going to continue, as we've done with the NBA and WNBA.
We will cover social justice movements' actions as they happen.
We are not going to shy away from that.
Drouli stressed that ESPN does not hold the view that social justice protests are political.
Can't stand this.
Lies, lies, lies, lies.
It is political.
We know it's political.
You've got politicians getting on their knees supporting these movements.
They are proposing changes to policy.
They are saying defund the police.
They are going into city council meetings and saying defund the police.
It's all political.
I'll tell you what.
You want to know what I'm sick of?
If you want to live in a world of lies, scum, and villainy, by all means, go and vote for these people.
Because they say these... Here's what they say.
They say everything's political.
Every video games are political.
It's all politics.
Then when they start injecting their fringe, psychotic, intersectional religion into all of it, what do they say?
Well, this one's not actually political.
They say everything's political.
They produce a political slogan.
And then what happens?
They use your taxpayer dollars to spray paint their cult's slogan on the street, and you paid for it!
I hope you're happy.
Then they send out the police to protect it.
Guess what?
The cops with a smile on their face don't care.
And now you get it in your sports.
I said it was coming.
Just you wait.
And it's, oh, it's not gonna end here.
You think it's gonna end with a guy, you know, getting on his knee and raising his fist and them singing a song?
Nah.
It's not gonna be over until half the players are female and they're gonna have, like, diversity quotas in football.
They're gonna be like, well, this ball's too big because now that we've introduced different people of different sizes, some people are overweight.
What do you do with the people who are out of shape and morbidly obese?
We're going to have to create a new position and a new rule to accommodate them.
And then eventually football is going to be a bunch of people sitting on hover chairs.
Who knows what it'll be?
I don't know.
Actually, that would be kind of cool anyway.
I'm telling you, man.
It didn't just start.
Okay, look, think about what happened with video games.
And you had complaints that they weren't inclusive.
Now look at where they've gone.
Remember the... I don't know if you guys know about this.
Some of you probably do.
There's a game called Battlefield.
And it was supposed to be like a World War I, you know, battlefront game, where it's like, you choose a certain character or something.
I didn't actually play it, so I don't know for sure.
But they did this promo where the character in the commercial was a purple-haired woman with a cybernetic arm, and she draws a katana and swings at somebody, and people were like, what is this game?
They were trying to be like Fortnite.
So they took a game that was supposed to be like World War I, and they pandered.
Now, a lot of people said, get woke, go broke.
And to an extent, yes.
But what I think we're actually seeing is that people are too busy looking at everyone else to figure out what they should do.
Do your thing.
If it works, it works.
What is this?
This is the psychotic realm of mainstream establishment pop culture, whatever.
Football's like, everybody seems to be doing this thing.
Let's do this thing.
And then people are like, yo, we don't like this thing.
We like regular old football.
What is this?
Here's a quote.
Look, we're going to keep our main rule, which is when it intersects with sports, we're going to cover it.
And look, we don't see the social justice movement as being political.
It's social justice.
Said Druly.
Yes, social justice, just requiring massive overhaul of public policy and economics.
Not political, though.
Whatever.
She continued by saying that she was not sure how many games the Black National Anthem will be featured on the network.
I don't know.
We will make a judgment call every week, but I can tell you that week one, the first game, you will see the anthem, and you will see Lift Every Voice.
Front Office Sports reported, The normally crowded NFL sidelines will look very different to millions of TV viewers this season.
The league is strictly limiting the number of people with field access to avoid infecting coaches and players.
TV sideline reporters like ESPN's Salters and CBS's Wolfson will have to do their jobs from the stands.
There will not be military police honor guards on the field or on field performances of the national anthem.
Ditto for cheerleaders, marching bands, and team mascots.
The NFL's 1,700 players, meanwhile, will be encouraged to salute victims of police brutality by placing decals with their names on their helmets.
The league will also stencil social justice statements, such as, end racism, and it takes all of us in- Oh, are you kidding me?
Wow!
The league will play Lift Every Voice and Sing before each game during opening weekend.
The Monday night football game, ESPN, will feature its schedule for September 14th, when the New York Giants will face the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Tennessee Titans will take on the Denver Broncos.
Amazing!
I love this timeline, man.
Isn't it crazy?
We just had a poll come out from Harris that showed viewership was down for the NBA because most people, I think it was like 39%, said, too political.
Too political!
The next biggest group was something like, it's weird with no fans, followed by 19% saying the NBA's relationship with China puts them off or something.
That 19% suggests that there are some people who are a bit more informed on China and maybe
even conservative.
In which case, would you really choose to sacrifice 20% of your viewership because you
want to play a song?
Guess what?
If you don't play the song, you get the same viewership anyway.
Maybe the bet they're making is they will gain 20% by playing it, which I really doubt.
But ultimately, I think, as I've stated before, here's the goal.
People who go to church don't go there to be entertained.
They go there to worship.
People who watch these megachurch events don't watch them because they laugh and they do it for entertainment.
Some maybe.
They do it because it's part of worship.
What they're hoping for is they will have a captive ideological audience who is watching because it's like church.
You don't watch because you like football, you watch because of Claptor.
They go, yes, this is great, thank you, NFL good.
They don't know anything about the stats, they don't care about the players, and once they have a captive, faith-based viewership, then nothing else matters.
Nothing.
They can do whatever they want.
They could change the rules so that you gotta... It's like football, but no hands allowed, so now it's only kicking the ball.
Like, whatever, who cares?
The people are gonna watch it no matter what we do.
They could start hiring people.
They could start signing team members or whatever, players at really, really low salaries because they're trash players and say, we don't want the best players because nobody's watching for the stats.
They're just watching because we sing songs.
And then eventually in 20 years, they won't even be playing at all.
You'll turn it on and it'll be a guy coming out and preaching about anti-racism.
And that's where you go if this continues.
I know I'm kidding for the most part.
I'm being a little hyperbolic.
The point is, if you're gonna lose your audience from doing this, then why don't you just do nothing and keep doing what you're already doing?
