The View Calls For ARREST Of Tucker Carlson And Tulsi Gabbard For Pushing Pro Russia Propaganda
The View Calls For ARREST Of Tucker Carlson And Tulsi Gabbard For Pushing Pro Russia Propaganda. The hosts said people used to get arrested for this and called for a DOJ investigation.
To be fair, it wasn't overt but it was direct enough for me to say The View called for the arrest of these individuals. The establishment Democrats and republican neocons want war. They hunger for it and anyone who opposes their propaganda will be attacked.
Meanwhile NATO 30,000 troops starting a war game on Russia's Border as the US claims Putin may be preparing for a biological weapon or chemical weapon attack.
#Ukraine
#Russia
#TuckerCarlson
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is March 14th, 2022, and our first story, The View, effectively has called for the arrest of Tulsi Gabbard and Tucker Carlson for pushing Russian propaganda.
They say that people used to be arrested for doing what they're doing and the DOJ should investigate.
Which is basically saying, arrest these people.
Things are escalating quite quickly in the United States.
The culture war is still on in full force, and war in Europe is still a possibility.
In our next story, even Bill Maher is now giving credit to Trump, asking why Putin invaded under Biden and not Trump.
And in our last story, Netflix is hit with four felony indictments over the film Cuties.
They're being accused of publishing adult content featuring children.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review.
officials are warning that Russia could be preparing for some kind of biological or chemical attack in Ukraine.
Some journalists are warning that Russia could take control of biolabs in Ukraine and release deadly pathogens and then blame the U.S.
for it.
That comes from CBS.
Meanwhile, NATO has amassed 30,000 troops and 50 warships near Russia.
For a war game, and they're saying, don't worry Russia, this is just all one big training exercise.
Now that's all happening and there's a real fear of some kind of World War 3.
I do think it's fair to say we're in some kind of World War 3, but people keep looking back at history to determine whether or not we are in a predicament.
Modern warfare will not look the exact same as it did 100 years ago, so it's hard to know exactly what's going on, especially with the fog of war, especially with propaganda.
Which brings us to our main story.
While many of you have been wondering about, is there a World War 3 in Eastern Europe?
Many of you have been thinking to themselves, weren't we on the verge of some kind of civil war?
Both are true, I suppose.
View, The View on ABC, their hosts entertained the idea and they called for a DOJ investigation of Tulsi Gabbard and Tucker Carlson, saying that they used to arrest people for doing stuff like this and the DOJ should look into them.
No.
I wrestled with the idea of saying they're actually calling for the arrest because they didn't literally come out and say they should be arrested.
But I think they're trying to dance around the issue.
What would a DOJ probe be for?
What would the purpose of a DOJ probe on Tulsi or Tucker, what would the purpose be?
Well, they're doing a criminal investigation, right?
And then they say they used to arrest people for doing stuff like this, right?
Yeah, they're implying they should be arrested.
Why?
Because they're pushing pro-Russian propaganda.
Well, hold on there a minute.
Tulsi Gabbard addressed what Mitt Romney said about biolabs.
Tulsi Gabbard said, these come from U.S.
government sources, and you have CBS making these claims.
You see, there lies the terrifying picture.
It's not about whether or not there are biolabs.
There are.
It's not about whether or not the U.S.
is funding them.
Okay, that's questionable because we don't know exactly who's funding what where.
We know the U.S.
does have some funding of some biolabs.
Getting specific is more difficult.
It's not a question of that.
It's a question of do you support the establishment machine?
Do you support the narrative?
Are you pro-war?
Will you challenge the U.S.
establishment?
At the same time, Jen Psaki's coming out making claims about Russia hacking the 2016 election.
You can see, this is what we call the hierarchy.
The establishment left, mainstream corporate press, can say whatever they want, regardless of the facts, the issue at hand is, are you with us, or are you against us?
And now we have a very real prospect, and you need to listen to this.
To all the people who would dismiss it, pay attention.
The View, ABC, Disney, mainstream corporate press, at the very least, advocating for the idea we arrest a former member of Congress and a pundit over their opinions on warfare.
Realize that to get from point A to point B, which point A is a furry society and point B is totalitarianism, you need to have that gradient.
You need to have those points in between.
A better way to say it is, a lot of people see us at point A, freedom, to a certain degree.
Maybe we're at point B already, losing some of that.
And point Z would be that great authoritarian regime.
And they say, we're too far away, we're not going to get there.
Then you should be worried about ABC's The View advocating for the arrest, prosecution at the federal level of high-profile American personalities who say, I dissent.
The Daily Beast even calls it Red Scare 2.0.
Yeah.
Pointing out or calling out people who say things that don't align up, don't line up with the establishment, and then calling for their arrest.
Let's read this.
And I want to show you.
The scary thing about this is that Tulsi is actually correct.
And what she's saying isn't being disputed by the officials.
She's simply an opposition figure.
These same people at The View, or people like them, would scream that Vladimir Putin is locking up protesters and locking up his opposition, and then with a straight face turn around and say, you should lock up ours.
Dark days indeed, my friends.
Let's read the news, and I'm going to talk to you about what the current level of tension is in Russia and Ukraine, and the fears of these chemical attacks.
But, the context is what's happening here in the U.S.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member in order to help support our work.
As a member, you're keeping all of our journalists employed and funded, because that is basically how we fund the entire operation. It's through memberships. You'll
also get access to exclusive members only podcasts from Timcast IRL and our other shows.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's read the news, see what's going on. The Daily Beast reports The View wants DOJ to
probe Tucker and Tulsi for Russian propaganda. After Navarro said the DOJ should look into
people who are shilling for Putin, would be noted they used to arrest people for doing stuff
like this.
Several hosts of The View on Monday suggested the Department of Justice investigate Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former Democratic rep Tulsi Gabbard for peddling Russian propaganda, with one panelist even noting how in the past such transgressions have resulted in arrest.
I'd say that's a veiled call.
They're outright saying that if you ask for a DOJ probe into a person, what's the point?
So they can come out later and say, hey, those opinions you have, we agree with them.
Have a nice day.
No, the Department of Justice, it's a criminal investigation.
In recent days, both Gabbard and Carlson have been proponents of the theory the United States is developing dangerous bioweapons in Ukraine, a centerpiece of a Kremlin disinformation campaign to justify the invasion of its neighbor and potentially blame a Russian chemical attack on a false flag operation.
Clips of the ex-lawmaker on Carlson's show discussing bioweapons in Ukraine have been showcased across Russian state media, alongside the Fox News host saying Russian disinformation is true.
Furthermore, it was reported this weekend that Moscow has pushed the state-controlled press to promote Carlson as much as possible because he sharply criticizes the actions of the United States and NATO.
Where Republican Senator Mitt Romney calling out Gabbard on Sunday for parroting false Russian propaganda that may well cost lives, the Women of the View took turns on Monday describing the former Democratic presidential candidate and the Fox News star as apologists for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
I think Tucker Carlson takes things a little too far, in a certain sense.
I think he gets a lot of facts right, but maybe pushes them a little bit more than I would be comfortable pursuing.
But I think he's better than Hannity.
I think he's better than the mainstream press.
You see, the problem is, Tucker Carlson wants answers on why we should be involved in this war.
Tulsi Gabbard, of course, opposes U.S.
interventionist policies.
I also think getting involved in these wars is a big, bad idea.
That is what separates Tulsi Gabbard from the CBS News journalist, for instance.
I'll show you those clips.
Let's read more.
I think Mitt Romney is absolutely right, by the way.
So what this is, is the Russians are spreading propaganda to try and create a pretext for potentially using chemical weapons against the Ukrainians, said conservative guest host Alyssa Farah, a former Trump official who is now a CNN contributor.
They're parroting what Tucker Carlson parrots on Fox News and Tulsi Gabbard is saying, it's helping them get away with acts against Ukrainian civilians.
I honestly...
Don't think it is.
But think about the context here, the prospects here.
What does she mean by this?
Tulsi Gabbard is anti-war.
She doesn't want us intervening.
How is what she's saying helping Russia get away with it?
The only way Tulsi Gabbard's criticisms would help Russia is if it inhibited the US or NATO from intervening and getting involved in that war, which we're not supposed to, right?
I mean, that's Tulsi's goal.
No, it seems the only way that Russia gets away with what they're doing is if the U.S.
isn't involved in any way.
I'm not saying direct ground involvement.
So that's what they're implying.
Co-host Anna Navarro weighed in, imploring the Fox board of directors to step in and say, we cannot be Russian state TV.
Money.
Liberal co-host Joy Behar chimed in.
Is it money?
Hostin replied, who's paying him that money?
I'm not making any allegations, but it's just, it doesn't make sense that he would do this kind of thing.
I mean, he also says the United States helped encourage the Russian invasion.
I'll put it this way.
The US and Russia are at odds and in conflict.
They have been for a very long time.
It involves Syria.
It involves gas pipelines.
It involves Ukraine.
The US was winning this conflict and doing things I typically think are very bad.
Russia, knowing they were losing an influence campaign, decided to intervene with hot fire.
I don't like the administration.
I don't like the establishment.
in civilian destruction. I think ultimately Putin lost and he's in the wrong here. I don't like the
US administration, I don't like the establishment, I don't like US imperialism. But if the game is
we're going to fund politicians we like and put pressure on countries by use of money and
influence, it's infinitely better than hot conflict Putin is losing.
I think it's all bad, to be completely honest.
But if I had to make a choice between influence conflict, propaganda, and hot war, I'd take the influence.
And the truth is a lot of people in Ukraine are happy with what's going on.
Again.
Not a fan of the conflict of manipulation.
I believe Ukraine, Syria, and any other country should be left to their own devices and self-determination.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Asserting that Carlson isn't just getting dropped by Fox News, Navarro went on to urge
the Justice Department to probe Carlson, Gabbard, and others.
I wonder who those others could be.
I think that, I think DOJ, in the same way that it is setting up a task force to investigate
Russian oligarchs, should look into people who are Russian propagandists and shilling
for Putin.
If you're a foreign asset to a dictator, it should be investigated.
And in fact, I remember when Tulsi Gabbard, and I hate that we're discussing this, I think to myself, who is this woman?
She's a failed presidential candidate.
She only practically exists on Twitter, and if that's correct, we're giving her oxygen, is what makes her relevant.
But we are talking about her on hot topics.
On the other hand, how do you not call out something that is repeating false Russian propaganda and that has been brought down?
Moderator Whoopi Goldberg, meanwhile, took Navarro's suggestion several steps further.
They used to arrest people for doing this stuff, did they?
If they thought you were colluding with a Russian agent or putting out information or taking information and handing it over to Russia, they used to investigate stuff like this.
And I guess now, you know, there seems to be no bars and people are not being told to hate Putin.
Putin doesn't need a reason to be hated.
It's pretty much clear.
Well, I'll give him that one.
I think there's real reason to criticize Vladimir Putin.
I do not like the man.
I think he is a terrible leader, and I think it's evidenced by the fact that he is losing control in Eastern Europe.
When we take a look at what the US and NATO does, what they're doing in countries like Ukraine and Syria, and we look at what Vladimir Putin is doing, by all means, you can criticize the United States.
Putin is losing.
He's been losing for over a decade.
He maintains a stranglehold over Russia.
In Russia, activists get arrested for speaking out.
The dude clearly has no grasp of how to run a country, how to combat information warfare, and he's losing on all of those fronts, resulting in urban conflict, which leads to civilians dying.
The dude's a terrible leader.
Oh, I know, I know.
So is Joe Biden.
Look at gas prices.
Look at everything that's happening.
It's a bunch of failed leaders punching each other in the face, I guess.
I don't like any of them.
I don't see a reason in any way to justify what Russia is doing.
And I don't think Tucker Carlson necessarily or Tulsi Gabbard wants to do that.
In this tweet thread from Tulsi Gabbard, which I highlighted in a previous segment but I'll briefly go through now, she calls out Mitt Romney this morning, highlighting a few important points.
The Pentagon fact sheet, March 11, 2022, has numerous statements directly and indirectly confirming the existence of biolabs.
The U.S., through the Biothreat Reduction Program, has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since 2005, supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.
We then have this tweet.
I believe, I believe this is, this is not it.
Let's, uh, here we go.
Face the nation.
CBS Dave Martin says a Pentagon official he talked to this morning said there is no movement of chemical weapons into Ukraine, but the concern is that Russia may move to seize a biomedical research facility, weaponize a pathogen, then blame it on Ukraine and the U.S.
So at least according to media.defense.gov, there is funding of biolabs in Ukraine.
They say, right here, this is defense.gov, okay?
The U.S., through the Biothreat Reduction Program, I believe it's program, is it, uh, yes, Biothreat, Biological Threat Reduction Program, has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since 2005, supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.
PTRP has improved Ukraine's biological safety, security, and surveillance for both human and animal health.
Now, let me slow down there a minute.
I am a reasonable person.
I don't want to accuse the U.S.
of funding biological weapons research if that's not what we're seeing.
From this fact sheet, the U.S.
is seeking to make these facilities safer.
But that does mean the U.S.
is cooperating and has helped build, this is a fact, two bio labs.
Now, these two labs, it's been reported, or actually we pulled up the U.S.
Embassy website, .gov, another one.
These are food protection and consumer goods protections.
But the U.S.
is funding 46 different labs.
What are these labs doing?
That's the question that we have.
Now, Russia and China are claiming that these are bioweapons facilities and the U.S.
is involved in them.
Maybe.
I don't know.
I'm not going to accuse the Russian of doing that.
I think certainly every player here has a reason to lie.
Russia and China want to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine, so they'll exaggerate to the most dangerous or absurd degree.
The U.S.
obviously would want to deny any of that because, well, you don't want to do things that are wrong or be accused of actually doing some kind of illicit research, so they'll deny.
The reality is the labs exist.
What's going on?
The people don't know.
I'm not going to sit here and play games with Russia's assessment.
I think Russia's lying.
I think there's a good chance there's pathogen research here.
That's what we're hearing from CBS.
I think there's a good chance Russia would cause damage to these facilities in the process of their invasion, and then they'd blame the U.S.
I think it makes perfect sense.
I also think it's fair to say the U.S.
is probably doing screwed up stuff.
The reality is it's war, man.
I can sit here as an American and just be like, America can do no wrong.
I don't care.
America does lots of wrong, and I'll call them out if they do.
What I want to know is the truth.
That's what I want to know.
Meanwhile, here's a video from Julia Ioffe.
Can someone please subtitle for this incredible video that shows modern Russia and its quintessence?
It's a video showing a woman talking about why she doesn't like the invasion.
She gets arrested.
Another woman walks up and says she supports the invasion.
She gets arrested too.
Yeah.
Arresting dissidents who are standing around in the street who are simply talking about ideas is bad.
Truth be told, I don't know the full context of these videos.
For all I know, this is an area where they were like, we've got a security threat, we're locking it down, please move quickly, and they're taking these people not to arrest them, but to just kick them out.
I have no idea.
I think it's very likely Putin is just, you know, arresting these people.
That seems to be particularly likely.
Let's talk about this double standard, though.
Jen Psaki told TikTokers that Russia hacked our election here.
That's not true.
Absolutely not true.
They didn't do that.
There may have been some small-scale things.
Of course, Russia plays influence games, but for the most part, it's a lie.
It's just, these are the games they play in terms of Propaganda.
If you support the establishment, you can make these claims.
If you oppose them, you can't.
I can't say I'm surprised to see The View calling for, effectively calling for, the arrest of dissidents in this country.
But are we going to sit back and just entertain these overt and outright lies?
I highlight the Jen Psaki thing because I think it's fascinating that she would say that to TikTokers.
It shows you the power of the establishment, how they're willing and able to bend the rules and get away with what they want.
It shows that these are the people who claimed Trump saying Hillary should be arrested over the emails.
Oh, we can't have that.
They're now doing the same thing.
I think it's a combination of things.
It's a combination of international and internal conflict.
And we'll expand upon this.
Fox News.
This was a shocking story to me.
Parliament of NATO country Estonia calls for immediate establishment of an OFLI zone.
There's not really airstrikes taking place, as far as I know.
But a no-fly zone is an effective declaration of war.
We now have the first NATO member to formally call for the implementation of a no-fly zone amid Russia's war in Ukraine.
This is why you need to understand the propaganda efforts they are pushing forward.
We are marching towards full-scale war.
NATO has amassed 30,000 troops and 50 warships on Russia's border.
Technically.
It's in Norway, so likely the Baltic area, Kaliningrad.
Okay.
Norway, I believe, does technically border Russia to the north, but that's how it's being reported.
Call it what you want.
I don't know exactly what part of the sea these warships are in.
Do you think that right now sending 30,000 troops and 50 warships for a war game is a coincidence?
No, it's not.
The Hill reports, U.S.
Ukrainian officials brace for possible Russian chemical attack.
Who do you believe?
I think it's fair to say.
Actually, I'll give you my personal opinion.
Are there biolabs in Ukraine?
Yes.
Are they funded by the United States?
Yes.
Are they funding weapons research?
That I don't know about.
That I'm not entirely convinced.
Saying that the funding is specifically weapons requires evidence we do not have.
It's possible?
Sure.
The U.S.
is doing a lot of biological research in a lot of places, to be honest, and we don't know exactly what for.
Could the Biological Threat Reduction Program be completely what they say it is?
Yeah, and I tend to think the truth is closer, the simple solution, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions.
We don't need to make any assumptions.
The U.S.
is assisting, even slightly, with research involving pathogens.
I believe the most likely scenario, even if only by a few percentage points, is that Ukraine is doing research on pathogens.
It is not inherently in the space of militarization or weaponization.
The U.S.
is assisting in many ways.
They've said they have been.
Russia will exploit this.
Absolutely.
I don't trust Russia.
I trust the U.S.
more than I trust Russia.
And I don't trust the U.S.
all that much, if at all.
But the least amount of assumptions we can make The U.S.
has funded some low-grade labs.
They've asserted some of these, the U.S.
has said they've built two BSL-2 labs, biosafety level two labs.
These are typically not going to house weaponization programs, because you want biosafety level four.
Two?
Kind of weak.
There could be some pathogens in there, but you're likely not going to be experimenting with gain-of-function researcher weapons like that.
Maybe, but probably not likely.
It's because of that, I think the U.S.
is probably more so to be trusted.
But unless we get hard documents and evidence, we won't know.
And truth be told, you gotta believe who you believe.
There lies the big challenge.
Is Russia going to engage in a chemical attack?
Well, let's play this out.
Why would they?
Well, chemical attack wipes out their enemy combatants very, very quickly.
It's powerful.
Why would Russia do that?
To gain a decisive victory over key areas of Kiev or other cities they're trying to control.
Why wouldn't they do it?
They don't need to.
I mean, the issue with a chemical attack is do you really need to?
Kinetic weapons work well enough, and it would push the U.S.
into war.
I mean, take a look at this from CNBC.
If Putin uses chemical weapons for Ukraine, it's a game changer for NATO.
The clever thing for Putin to do is use just enough force to win, which means slow and steady, without giving NATO a casus belli.
Probably pronouncing it wrong.
But a cause for war.
A justification of entering the war.
And so long as Russia keeps doing what they're doing at this level, NATO seems not willing to get involved.
But now you've got reports from the West that Russia could engage in a chemical attack.
Well, let's play this one out.
If Russia knows a chemical or biological weapons attack would pull in NATO, they'll avoid doing it, because NATO's got no cause for war.
NATO could respond with their own false flag, saying, we need to make it seem like Russia did this, because we want to enter, otherwise Russia wins.
Choose who you trust.
I don't know.
I'm not here to play nationalistic games.
I'm not here to support Russia.
I think Russia's lying about everything because they need a way to win and justify their war.
We saw this story from ABC.
March 11th.
Russians reportedly bringing biochemical weapon suits into Ukraine, U.S.
official says.
What if he's telling the truth?
It's fog of war, man.
You decide for yourself.
I honestly don't know.
I really can't tell you what to believe.
A senior administration official told ABC News Friday that the U.S.
is getting reports that Russians are starting to bring in biochemical weapons suits into Ukraine.
The reports come as Russians accuse Ukraine and the U.S.
of developing biochemical weapons, which the U.S.
has denied.
We believe it is an ominous sign they are possibly doing it for cover.
According to the official, As much as one-fifth of the Russian forces is currently inoperable,
meaning they are either dead, wounded, or do not have the support or equipment needed to continue.
But even though the Russians are bogged down, they realize that everything depends on taking Kyiv
and continue to put all that effort into that, according to the official.
There are also concerns about boxing Putin in, as well as his consistent and casual mentions of nuclear
weapons.
According to the official, that is one of the reasons he has not been publicly labeled as a war
criminal because we just don't know what he will do.
Interesting.
Is Russia bringing in biochemical weapon suits to sort of make some kind of faux evidence that the
and Ukraine are funding some kind of research?
Oh no, look at the suits we're bringing in.
Oh, because there's something dangerous here.
Are they bringing in the suits because they plan to use chemical weapons?
Maybe.
Maybe.
It's a question I posed to a friend I mentioned in an earlier segment.
Forgive me for repeating it if you're listening on the podcast, but why would Putin use chemical weapons and why would he attack civilians?
Well, the issue isn't so simple.
Sometimes, civilians are used as shields in urban warfare.
One side might build weapons or artillery or missile launchers or whatever in civilian areas like hospitals, knowing that if you attack them, they'll show a hospital on fire and say, see, look what you've done.
Propaganda is everything.
The reason why, to wrap it all back up to the view, the reason why we see them calling for Tulsi Gabbard and Tucker to be investigated, nay arrested, is because they want to shut down information that could drive American sentiment against the United States' cause for war.
If the U.S.
really is preparing for some full-scale warfare, You gotta make sure you have enough people who support it.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
According to Rasmussen, will Russia use nukes in Ukraine?
Most voters are concerned.
They say the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 77% of likely U.S.
voters are concerned that Russia will use nuclear weapons in its invasion of Ukraine, including 41% who are very concerned.
Only 38% of voters believe it is likely that Russia would use nuclear weapons to attack the United States, including 11% who think the attack is very likely.
52% don't think a Russian nuclear attack on the U.S.
is likely, including 16% who say it is not at all likely.
If they did, it would be something truly dramatic.
I believe Russia would only use nukes if they're losing.
I believe they'll only use nukes if NATO gets involved.
I don't believe they'll use it on civilian populations directly, but the U.S.
would absolutely frame it as though they did.
That's war.
If NATO has these 30,000 troops in Norway, not if they do, But if these troops and warships make their way to, say, Kaliningrad, or Russian territory, or even Ukraine, I would not be surprised if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons or nuclear artillery.
That is to say, don't imagine an ICBM flying through the stratosphere and then slamming towards the, you know, slamming towards the Earth.
I believe they explode above the Earth.
In a massive mushroom cloud.
Imagine artillery firing, you know, kiloton bombs, or, you know, 500 kiloton bombs, or gravity bombs.
Low-scale nuclear detonations, but still more powerful than what we've seen elsewhere.
They've already been reported to have used thermobaric explosives, which basically create a vacuum, sucking the oxygen out of the area, which, well, it kills a lot of people.
What would Russia be willing to do?
I don't know.
It seems like we're on a collision course.
The scenario I often like to give people is, imagine you're walking through the forests.
You're in the middle of the woods, hundreds of miles from civilization.
You're lost.
You're hungry.
You have nothing but your weapon, you have a rifle, small bag with some food, and a small little canteen with some water.
You don't know where your next meal will come from, you don't know where your next drink of water will come from, outside of those resources you have.
Off the distance, you see a man walking towards you, also with a rifle, also with some food.
You don't know who they are?
What do you do?
I give this scenario to a lot of people, and they tend to give me a lot of varied responses, but a lot of people like to play this noble effort of, I wave and say, hello sir!
Hey!
This idea that you would see a stranger, also lost in the middle of the woods, and your immediate reaction would be like, let's team up!
All of a sudden, you say, so let's say you yell, you wave your hand.
Hey, the person yells a word you don't understand.
Garabzdo!
And you're like, I don't know what that means.
You don't speak the same language.
You don't know what this person wants.
You don't know where they come from.
What do you do?
It's easy to say, no, no, most people are good and we'd approach and find common ground.
What if that person Has no food.
What if their canteen is empty and they see you with food and water?
And they think, I would rather kill than die.
You don't know.
And therein lies the challenge.
We don't know what Putin really wants.
That's why it's important for voices like Tucker or Tulsi to talk about say these bio labs or what they're saying.
It's important to engage in these conversations.
There's some.
Prospect for peace here.
Good news in that Ukraine seems to be backing, they're slowly backing down because Russia is winning.
Russia, I believe, is likely engaged in slow warfare to avoid giving NATO the justification for an invasion.
But this means Russia will win in Ukraine.
NATO is not going to like that.
I don't know exactly what Russia wants.
And that makes it challenging.
The left will paint, I'm sorry, the West, yes, and many of the left, the neocons and the neolibs, will paint Putin as a comic book villain, a one-dimensional villain who just murders civilians because he's an evil despot.
No, he certainly wants something.
That's why negotiations are important.
But if we can't understand, or we're unwilling to tolerate what he wants, war seems inevitable.
The US, NATO, whatever, NATO countries, let's leave it at that, with 30,000 troops in Norway is absolutely a provocation.
Recently we heard that the U.S.
was going to be halting a Minuteman III ICBM test out of fears it could cause escalation with Russia.
But then they go and do this?
The only logical solution is they now want an escalation with Russia.
I think NATO will want Russia to attack first so they can claim the moral high ground.
But what's the point?
The reality is it doesn't matter who attacks first.
So maybe it would be NATO.
They need only have their propagandists and media personalities tell you what happened and you'll believe it.
Which is why they want Tucker Carlson off the air.
It's why they want Tulsi Gabbard out of the picture.
It's why they would go so far as to say arrest them.
When the media comes out and says it's true, you believe it.
Truth be told, I don't know that NATO has these troops near Russia's border.
It's just been reported.
I did watch a video of The View, where they called for, effectively called for the arrest of Tulsi and Tucker.
I've seen reports about biochem suits, I've not seen them.
And therein lies the challenge.
We're constantly told things as part of a narrative, and why should we believe it?
These are the same people that believed Jussie Smollett, or lied about the Covington kids, or lied about Kyle Rittenhouse, or lied about Ahmaud Arbery.
The same people who lie to us every single day would then tell us to fall in line, or else.
So I dare say, when they come out now and tell you Tulsi Gabbard is wrong and pushing Putin's narrative, but then Tulsi backs up what she's saying with facts, who's really at fault here?
I think Tulsi doesn't like intervention, obviously.
I think she opposes the establishment, and they don't like her for it.
Her and Tucker agree on a lot of things, but it's outside of policy.
I mean, it's mostly foreign policy.
Economically, Tulsi and Tucker are at odds.
On gun rights, they're at odds.
But the big issues right now, foreign policy, they seem to be in alignment.
The establishment can't have that.
I wonder if they'll come for my channel, if they'll come for Tim Kast's IRL.
I wonder.
I hope war doesn't escalate.
I honestly, at this point, hope that Ukraine just bows out.
Just finally gives in and says, what are your demands?
Not that I want Ukraine to fall, I think Russia's evil at this point, but if it prevents World War III, at this point we should be looking to take what we can get.
I want to show you one last thing.
I mentioned this in a previous segment too, so forgive me if it is, you know, repetitious in a sense.
Repetitive.
What's happening?
No foreign biological laboratories operate in Ukraine, U.S.
Embassy and Snopes, say.
Did Tulsi Gabbard mention foreign labs?
No.
What does foreign mean?
There are biolabs in Ukraine.
So, why are they bringing up foreign labs?
Operate in Ukraine?
What does it mean to operate?
The words they use are important because the reality is there are biolabs.
There are many.
In fact, I just showed you from Defense.gov, there's 46 labs that have received assistance or funding from the U.S.
So, why are they lying?
That I find to be very, very strange and disconcerting.
But it shows you why they want to shut down Tucker and Tulsi.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
Last Friday night, Bill Maher said it was worth asking why Putin invaded Ukraine under Biden and not Donald Trump.
And that's kind of remarkable.
I know that Bill Maher has sort of been waking up to the reality of the fake news narrative, but for even him to come out and give any kind of credit to Trump, it's quite amazing.
I mean, look, Bill Maher has always been fairly anti-SJW or whatever because he's a guy who kind of believes more in libertarian ideals, not completely.
But for him to actually defend Trump for any reason?
Well, you can see we're making progress, especially among more moderate liberal types who are kind of getting fed up.
And I think this story here about Bill Maher shows that the narrative is being, it's being shattered.
Tulsi Gabbard has a really important tweet about the invasion, about biolabs.
She says, Mitt Romney, you have called me a treasonous liar for stating the fact that there
are 25 plus US funded biolabs in Ukraine, which if breached would release and spread deadly
pathogens to the US and the world, and therefore must be secured in order to prevent new pandemics.
Bizarrely, she then goes on and I'll read through more of these tweets.
But the reason I bring this up is because I don't even play it as hard as say Tulsi Gabbard was
in terms of when the first stories came out about biolabs.
I said I thought it wasn't true, because what happened was there was a meme.
I think it's a fair point for me.
There was a meme showing attacks in Ukraine and biolabs.
They didn't sync up, you know?
Like, they were kind of close to each other, and someone was saying, look at all these attacks by Russia, they must be going after biolabs.
And I'm just like, these attacks and these biolabs are not in the same place.
And if you're wondering why there are so many attacks in close range, well, it's because they build biolabs in major metro areas or close to them.
And in a war, or at least here, Vladimir Putin was attacking major urban environments.
He's not going to go attack an empty forest, is he?
So that's, you know, I don't think Trump, I'm sorry, I don't think Putin was targeting them.
But in terms of why he invaded under Biden and not Trump, I think you need to look only so far as ISIS.
I want to break down for you the realities of what we've been seeing over the past 10 years, at least as far as I think I understand it.
And again, it's not easy to understand.
But I want you to know that, you know, when you see the story about Bill Maher, there's a reason why I like to highlight, sometimes, when he says something, because he's supposed to be this narrative-pushing liberal guy.
He had been for a long time.
Secular atheist, liberal Bill Maher.
And over the past several years, he's been almost breaking through that mesh layer into realizing what's really going on.
Perhaps Bill Maher knows that he knows what's going on.
Perhaps he knows the truth.
Perhaps the narrative has already been shattered.
But in order to get more people to wake up to what's going on, he just kind of plays it slightly on the left, but entertains these questions.
I was having a conversation with a friend just a few days ago, and I asked them what they thought about Ukraine.
This is somebody who just gets their news from the mainstream media, is not very involved, doesn't really care about this stuff, and they said, you know, it's really, really bad.
I said, do you think Vladimir Putin is bombing civilians?
And they were like, yeah, of course.
And then I said, why?
For power?
To just show people how powerful he is?
And I was like, does that really make sense?
I mean, no, look, let's, for real.
I mean, does that make sense for someone to just bomb civilians that people know they're powerful?
I don't think, if you're trying to win a war and gain control of a region, you can't just massacre noncombatants.
That would be bad for your strategy.
However, For Ukraine, we know the President of Ukraine has lied about radiation.
I get it.
The President of Ukraine is desperately in need of foreign intervention.
How would you go about getting it?
Oh no, Russia's killed a bunch of civilians.
Now you have to intervene.
You see, there's a red line.
That's what they say in war.
There's a red line.
And we heard it in Syria.
You know, if Assad uses chemical weapons, that's a red line for us.
Yeah, well the U.S.
basically and the U.S.' 's allies were somehow providing funding.
U.S.
allies is probably the safest way to put it, but you know, I think the U.S.
was definitely involved when you look at it.
The safest way to put it is that way, but when they said there's a red line, If they do something so bad, we'll be forced to intervene.
Okay, well, when you tell that to, when you say that, do you think that Zelensky doesn't understand this concept?
So we sit in there, Russia is doing surgical strikes, hitting, you know, specific targets, trying to split the country in half.
Zelensky is losing.
Ukraine is losing.
I think you gotta look, you gotta avoid the propaganda.
That's what this is really all about, at least for me, propaganda.
And what can he do to get NATO to intervene?
He needs Russia to cross the red line.
But why would Russia?
Why would Vladimir Putin say, bomb civilians, then NATO gets involved?
Why would he do that?
That doesn't make sense.
Why would Ukraine do it?
To trigger a foreign response.
But let's be real.
There's a lot that goes on in war.
Vladimir Putin could be counting on the fact that NATO will not get involved no matter what.
So it is possible he's bombing civilians.
I'm not saying he's not.
In fact, no, I think it's fair to say Vladimir Putin absolutely is bombing civilians.
What I mean to say is the question of, is he intentionally targeting them?
And that's a different question, a question of intent.
What we're seeing across the board is propaganda manipulation.
Tulsi Gabbard brings the facts.
She actually says with sources, Pentagon fact sheet March 11, 2022 has numerous statements
directly and indirectly confirming the existence of US funded biolabs. The US through their
bio threat reduction program has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since
2005 supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.
CBS Faced the Nation, March 13, 2022, correspondent David Martin, said a Pentagon official told him their concern about the existence of such biolabs in Ukraine.
The concern is that the Russians will seize one of these biomedical research facilities that Ukraine has, where they do research on deadly pathogens like botulism and anthrax.
Seize one of those facilities, weaponize the pathogen, and then blame it on Ukraine and the U.S.
because the U.S.
has been providing support for some of the research being done in these facilities.
Full stop.
But we were told this wasn't true.
In fact, even right now, even right now, I love this.
Do I have the tweet pulled up?
Maybe I don't have it pulled up.
It's from me.
So, let's just pull up my Twitter real quick.
And I'll show you what I tweeted recently.
So, I said, whenever Twitter does this, I assume the opposite is true.
This is a notification I received in the What's Happening section on Twitter.
It says, Ukraine conflict.
No foreign biological laboratories operate in Ukraine.
U.S.
Embassy and Snopes says.
Ah, because good ol' Snopes on par with the U.S.
Embassy in terms of credibility.
I don't know what that says for the embassy or for Snopes, but I assume it's something bad.
No foreign biological labs.
I hate these people so much.
They're, you know, I don't like to hate people.
I don't like to make shows about who I hate.
And it's something I'm really fresh- Let me sidetrack real quick.
I see so much from many of these conservative outlets, and what they do is they hire new hosts, and it's like, we got a new show, and it's called, like, The Talking Step, and it's like, with new host, and they just talk about things they hate, people they hate, and I'm like, ugh.
It's just frustrating.
Now, I get it.
You know, I do political commentary.
I definitely talk about these people and people I hate.
But over at TimCast.com, we haven't launched additional shows about people we hate.
We've done a pop culture entertainment show.
We've done a mysteries show.
We're doing the vlog show.
Because I don't want to just keep making content about who we hate.
It sucks.
That's what everyone's doing.
And you know, surprisingly, the stuff we do obviously doesn't do as well.
Now, Chicken City.
10,000 subs in a week!
Look at that!
A show about chickens, balking and stuff.
That's- that's- that's- that's some hope right there, I'll tell you this.
But back to the point at hand.
No foreign biological laboratories.
I'll tell you why.
If there is one group of people I hate more than anything, it is the big tech- it's- it's- it's the establishment.
No foreign!
You see the word they added?
Foreign!
No one's arguing they're foreign.
No one's saying that other countries are operating these.
No.
Some people are saying there are U.S.
biolabs.
Okay, sure.
But we didn't use the word foreign.
You see the game they're playing?
You know, what most people are saying is that Ukraine has biolabs.
They do.
The U.S.
has provided funding for some of these.
They have.
The U.S.
has helped build some of them.
Yes, they did.
That's a fact.
And the U.S.
is cooperating with some of the research in some of these Ukrainian biolabs.
Okay?
Which means U.S.
funded.
First, they said there are no U.S.
biolabs.
And that was technically not true.
You see the truth?
Conspiracy theory becomes the truth in six months.
I hate these people with such a passion because they are the most disgusting individuals.
They lie.
They spit in your face with every lie they say.
But you know what gives me hope?
The lies aren't sticking.
The lies aren't working.
No foreign biological laboratories operate in Ukraine, so saith Snopes.
Well, I don't care what Snopes in the U.S.
Embassy has to say.
I do take note of the sources that Tulsi Gabbard has literally included, like media.defense.gov.
That's the government website.
Saying that, uh, yeah, CBS faced the nation.
Now truth be told, Tulsi Gabbard quoting face the nation, I don't know, you know, she's quoting somebody who's quoting somebody.
But I'll tell you this.
When Tulsi Gabbard says, CBS reporter says Pentagon is concerned about these labs, Defense.gov says the U.S.
has provided funding, so the question we then have is a legitimate question is, does Ukraine have biological laboratories?
Are they being funded in any way or supported by the U.S.?
You then get these fake fact checks where it's like, there are no foreign laboratories in Ukraine.
That's not the question!
But you see the dirty game they play.
That's propaganda and manipulation.
Which brings me back to Bill Maher.
And his question, which I think is a good question.
Or, I'm sorry, the question he says is worth asking.
Why Putin invaded Ukraine under Biden and not Trump?
Well, I'm not sure.
I don't want to drag the wrong person, but I quoted somebody.
They said, because under Trump, he was basically playing to the Vladimir Putin agenda.
He was giving Russians everything they wanted.
So Putin just sat back and let it happen because he was winning with Trump doing his bidding.
What he was really saying is Trump took actions that de-escalated and was ending war.
Things we like.
Trump flattened ISIS.
Trump!
That's right!
You know, Trump was a nasty guy in a lot of ways, and I guess that translated pretty well to destroying ISIS.
The only problem?
The U.S.
liked ISIS.
You see, the problem was, the U.S.
likes doing this thing where they fund insurgent groups, and then have those insurgent groups fight and destabilize an area, so the U.S.
can then come in and pick up the pieces.
You see, in Afghanistan over the past several decades, the U.S.
has been funding, well, it started with the Mujahideen against the Soviets, and they turned into Al Qaeda.
As many of you know, because you've heard me say it a million times, the U.S.
wanted to build a pipeline through Syria, through Turkey, into Europe to offset Russia's Gazprom gas monopoly.
I say monopoly loosely, but they control a large portion of natural gas into Europe, allowing them to very much set prices.
If Western powers could get these gas pipelines into Europe, it would have to go through Syria, but it would lower the price of gas substantially for Europeans.
Good for the West.
Syria said no.
Conveniently for the United States, we were looking for a way to get rid of Bashar al-Assad when civil war erupts.
Even convenient still, rebel groups become ISIS and start, like, just obliterating and destroying parts of the Middle East and bring Syria to its knees.
How convenient for the U.S.
agenda.
How convenient for the U.S.
that somehow, I love this story by the way, a plumber saw his truck In Syria.
Mark 1 plumbing truck makes another appearance.
Original owner must feel coincidental regret.
So this guy, Mark.
Feel bad for the guy.
Mark 1 plumbing.
He sold his truck.
That's it.
He sold his truck to a dealership.
The dealership never removed his decal.
The dealership apparently sold the truck, which got sent to Turkey, and then somehow given to ISIS.
It's quite amazing, isn't it?
So, let me say this.
A Texas plumber, whose old work truck was acquired by Syrian jihadis, mounted it with a large gun.
Well, hold on there a minute, my friends.
How does this happen?
How do jihadis?
They were saying he was an ISIS supporter.
ISIS slurs to his business.
It's interesting.
The jihadis seen with the truck were associated with the Ansar al-Din Front, not ISIS.
It's unclear if rebels still use the truck.
One recent video purporting to show.
Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let me just show you this.
Let's get more specific.
America's allies are funding ISIS.
The Islamic State, now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.
So we're trying to build a pipeline from Qatar through Syria and then all of a sudden they're providing funding to ISIS and ISIS is destabilizing Syria?
Coincidence?
Let me tell you why Vladimir Putin didn't invade Ukraine.
Under Donald Trump, he flattens ISIS.
He starts wiping them out.
Trump does not care for a pipeline that has nothing to do with the United States.
Trump absolutely cared that Vladimir Putin not invade Ukraine.
So Putin's sitting back and he says, okay, Our ally Syria is going to be able to regain control.
ISIS is being shut down.
Trump is doing that.
Okay.
Trump also fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria.
So Putin had a real reason to be upset about that.
But Trump showed that he was willing to take aggressive action when needed.
Trump also showed That he was doing what most regular Americans wanted and that in the end was better for Russia.
So you can say, but this was Putin's agenda.
What's Putin's agenda in this instance?
That he doesn't want the U.S.
destabilizing its ally in Syria so that Qatar can build a pipeline?
Was that it?
Russia has their agenda.
Putin obviously wants the Russian Federation.
He wants the Soviet Union.
He wants some strength.
He refuses to bow.
I think he's a bad guy.
But with Trump, Trump was doing things I thought were good.
ISIS is bad, Trump getting rid of them is good.
Our allies providing funding to ISIS, bad.
Our vehicles from the United States ending up in the hands of these people, bad.
There's a lot more to go through I don't have pulled up.
It's all propaganda.
And you have to wonder why it is now that so many people believe that Vladimir Putin is just an evil guy who decided to randomly kill civilians and go into Ukraine.
There's a reason, of course there is.
Vladimir Putin is not a comic book villain.
Joe Biden is not.
We don't live in a world of one-dimensional motives.
unidentified
I am Vladimir Putin and I'm going to take over the world!
There are despots, there are You know, sociopathic individuals who are willing to hurt others to gain what they want.
But there are reasons and logic behind it.
You understand these motives, you can understand what's going on.
And the reality is, under Trump, this would not have been happening.
Just a fact.
How the U.S.
fueled the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
The sectarian terror group won't be defeated by the Western states that incubated it in the first place.
June of 2015, from The Guardian.
So now it goes back to Bill Maher, to many others asking these questions.
Why didn't they invade under Joe Biden?
I mean, I'm sorry, under Trump, but they did under Joe Biden.
Joe Biden's a bad president.
The Democratic establishment is starting to lose.
The narrative is starting to crack.
That's why I highlight Tulsi Gabbard's tweets about the biolabs, because the narrative is that the establishment is desperately trying to cling to some kind of false reality, begging you, please don't know what we're doing in your name.
I'm so sick of it.
I just am so sick of it.
So I was talking to that friend I mentioned earlier and they said, why can't we all just get along?
And I'm like, the world doesn't work that way.
You know, I'm not going to sit here and entertain what the Democrat and the neocon administration, the neolibs and the neocons do.
I'm not going to sit here and cheer for their war and insanity, but I'm also not going to pretend to be naive.
There's a reason as to why the Democratic establishment does things.
Now of course, like Vladimir Putin, he's got his self-interest.
Strange how so many Democrats, and yeah Democrats and some Republicans, have kids working in Ukraine.
It's not just Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
A lot of interest there.
Because these are people who see the U.S.
agenda.
The administrative state has a plan.
Build a pipeline through Syria over a long period of time.
Offset gas monopoly.
Make a bunch of money.
In the end, they justify it because they're like, we're gonna be helping our allies in Europe.
We're gonna be bringing down costs for our European allies.
This will allow us to gain more control and influence globally and help compete against China and Russia, our adversaries around the world.
Thus, our values can be retained and expanded.
Seems to be the general idea for being generous.
You then end up with people like Joe Biden, Pelosi, Romney, et cetera.
You get people who say, well, um, I get we're doing that.
But can I make myself and my family extremely wealthy in the process?
We're gonna do it anyway.
Might as well.
I wet my whistle a little bit.
And you end up with that corruption.
Here's the problem.
What values are really worth spreading at this point?
Individual liberties with international cooperation.
Sounds fantastic, doesn't it?
A degree of personal and global responsibility.
Yeah, it sounds good to me.
And that is to say, We respect the individuals who want to live and let live.
We recognize that we as humans do have some responsibility to the world and to others.
We find a happy medium.
We discuss things logically and intelligently, respectfully.
We do have to take emergency action at some points.
But we don't just decide to be comic book villains who would trample over people and steamroll through what we want because we think we're smarter than you.
That, I think, is the problem.
What ends up happening is, everybody thinks they're justified in their actions because they're the heroes of their own story.
I believe that decentralization of authority and power is the best path forward.
You can compute better, faster, stronger, etc.
Single individuals who think they're smarter than you can hyper-focus on an issue, not see the big picture, because, of course, no single human can, and then they... Catastrophe.
No single human is going to save the planet.
So I think we need decentralization of authority.
The reality is China and Russia want power.
They do not agree with our values.
The problem is, the United States doesn't even agree with its own values.
And right now the prevailing values of the institutions of the United States are woke cultism.
So herein lies the big problem.
When I see the United States fighting for its interests, I say, I'm an American, I like the United States, I like its founding values, and I think the values that, uh, not all of them.
I like the values we've instilled over time.
The founding values was where the seed planted that allowed us to grant more civil rights to more people than any other country on the planet in the history of this planet.
Good thing.
But where are we at now?
Cult authoritarianism of racists.
The critical race theorists are overtly racist.
They want to create race-based reality.
It's psychotic.
And I don't want the planet to function under those values.
So then I look at what the U.S.
is claiming to do and I say, there is no greater good in your actions in starting these wars.
There is no greater good in what the U.S.
is doing with biolabs.
There's no greater good for China.
There's no greater good for Russia.
So the fact is, to me, it's a bunch of mostly villains.
And I look at the U.S.
and there's one thing I can say.
Well, if the U.S.
wins, at least my interests are taken care of.
But I'm just to a point where I really just don't care about these powerful interests internationally who put the boot on your neck and claim it's for the greater good.
Sorry, I'm not interested in perpetuating your lies for whatever dumb reason.
Yeah, I will resist Chinese authoritarianism, Russian authoritarianism, and U.S.
authoritarianism.
It's all bad.
I do think, to a certain degree, it's better that the U.S.
defeats its adversaries around the world, but the U.S.
has become increasingly corrupt.
It's just a zombie entity of some ridiculous cult and a bunch of politicians who are exploiting the system to enrich their families.
It has become a zombie.
However, when I see people like Bill Maher and regular people finally waking up, I say maybe there's an opportunity.
Russell Brand, for instance, you know, he's not American, but in the West, seeing this, maybe there's a way to excise the malignancy within the United States and restore the value of individual liberties and bring about real global cooperation that instills these individual liberties.
I don't know how we'd do it, but I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Netflix has been hit with four new felony indictments over the film Cuties.
These indictments are specifically accusing Netflix of, uh, basically production and distribution of adult films featuring children, is one mild way to put it.
You may remember the film Cuties.
It generated a whole lot of negative attention because it's a film about pre-pubescent girls engaging in adult activities and being groomed.
The interesting thing is the left defends this film outright.
And I really do think this is the perfect example of there being two completely different realities.
One, In which you have people who are just shrieking banshees who demand you adhere to the cult and the other who have, I don't know, morals and principles.
Yeah, I know, maybe it's a bit reductionist to frame it that way.
One side is evil and the other side is good.
But I think when you actually look at...
The perspective of the left and how they're defending the film Cuties.
I don't think it's unfair to say I think it's fine to point out the moral world that you and I live in has no bridge, no overlap with the moral world that the cult lives in.
The reason I say that is, I can understand the nuance of a film, and I can understand, let's just say, surreptitious behaviors and deceptive practices.
The left simply says, if the movie supports our worldview, we defend it.
In this film, it depicts several pre-bubescent girls, there's an extended scene in which they engage in overtly adult dances and behaviors, And it's kind of bad.
I mean, it is literally bad.
There's also a scene where the little girl takes pictures of herself in compromising ways.
None of this stuff should have been included in the film.
The left's general defense of this, when I say the left, I mean the cultural culture war left, is that, but the film is seeking to criticize hypersexualization in modern culture.
Yeah, don't play games with me, dude.
You don't need to show little girls doing these things to make a critique about these things.
You can show the little girls seeing things on TV, and the actresses don't need to be included.
Let me put it this way.
The film Cuties literally has little girls doing these dances.
You want to criticize it, you could be like, alright, little girl actresses walk on stage, scene cut, girls leave stage, now you show the disgusted audience.
Never are these little girls forced to act out or do these things.
The problem is, in this world view, we're not just looking at a movie as some alternate reality.
We're looking at it as, there are literally little girls who are hired, brought onto stage, and taught to dance like this.
The left?
Again, they say, but it was to critique it, I don't care.
So now Netflix is hit with four indictments.
Good, I'd love to see this move forward.
And I'll tell you my friends, cancel culture.
It's a real thing, why?
Because everybody has their threshold.
And this is a great example.
The left says, if you say a naughty word that goes against our power, you should be cancelled.
If your father says a naughty word, you should be cancelled.
It actually happened to that race car driver.
In our world, we say, if you hire four pre-bubescent girls and teach them to do graphic adult dancing, and then put that movie out for people to watch, you should be cancelled.
I mean, to a certain degree, criminally charged.
Here's the story from Hollywood Reporter.
Now, this story is from last week, but I do have an update showing you the left and their defense.
Hollywood Reporter says, Netflix takes on Texas.
Attorneys analyze the quote, outlandish fight over cuties.
A district attorney in Tyler County, Texas claims Netflix's cuties amounts to, Adult films featuring children.
No, actually it isn't.
Apparently the federal courts have already said, what do you want us to do?
This is a state prosecution.
They're filing criminal charges against you.
I mean, this is kind of crazy.
Think about it this way.
Let's say that you are accused of a crime.
You've not yet been convicted of said crime.
So you go to the feds and say, shut it down.
The Fed's response?
This is a state authority issue.
The Feds don't get involved in this.
Interesting, right?
Netflix is asking a Texas federal judge to get Spider off its back.
Ah ha ha ha ha.
The streamer says Tyler County District Attorney Lucas Babin, a former actor best known for his role as Spider in School of Rock, is abusing his power and the court needs to intervene.
I actually think he's not.
And I actually think he's taking appropriate action.
But we'll get into that.
I'll explain.
The fight stems from Netflix's 2020 release of the French film Cuties, a coming-of-age story about an 11-year-old Senegalese immigrant who joins a dance group.
Oh, is that what the movie is about?
Coming of age!
I remember such great coming-of-age films like American Pie, where the actors were all over 18 or a little bit older.
I remember, how about this?
Oh, was it Superbad?
The guy, Christopher Mintz-Platz, who played McLovin, I think he was 16 at the time, and they did a scene where he was, you know, hooking up with a woman.
His parents had, my understanding is this, his parents had to be there, and they all agreed to it, but also, the important thing is, 16-year-olds, while they're minors, and I'm kinda like, it's kinda cringe, I get the point of the movie, adult supervision, and he's still post-pubescent?
Is that the right word?
Still not a fan though.
You know, I'm kind of like, 16-year-olds, they're going out and doing stuff.
The issue here is these are 11-year-old girls engaging in these activities they don't need them to engage in for the sake of the film.
You want to make an argument, the film's going to critique it.
You don't need to actually bring 11-year-old girls on stage to do lewd dancing for three minutes.
That's the weird thing about this.
So no, let's say it's not coming of age.
11 year olds are not coming of age.
You see what else they're doing here?
11, coming of age.
No, coming of age is 18.
Yes, of age.
Someone who is of age.
That means 18.
Not 11, not 12, not 13.
You see what they're doing?
So this movie is not a coming of age story.
It's a movie about old men who groom little girls into doing this.
I'm not even exaggerating.
There's like a scene where some guy is like lustfully looking at a child.
It's messed up.
The movie intended to criticize the hypersexualization of young girls, garnered widespread acclaim at Sundance, but became controversial for showing sexualized dance moves.
Yes, for like three minutes, having little girls actually do this.
They could have shown a different dance troupe.
They could have shown adult women.
18, that's fine. 20.
And it could have had the audience being like, oh wow, look what they're doing.
Then it's like, and now the little girls!
And the little girls go on stage, and the audience looks shocked.
And then, it like, scene transitions, the little girls are off stage.
You have these little girls actually trained by these... Wow, man.
That's, it's just so gross.
Anyway, here's the news.
The controversy culminated in Babin charging Netflix for promoting child erotica, content that depicts children in a lewd manner, which it did.
However, however, this is interesting.
What has happened in the year and a half that followed led to Netflix taking the rare step of seeking a federal court's intervention to stop the prosecution.
The streamer argues Babin is knowingly pursuing a losing case to harass it.
I don't agree.
It's insane prosecutorial overreach.
It literally isn't.
I mean, the law exists.
Check it out.
Netflix in October 2020 was originally charged for violating a state law that criminalizes material that depicts lewd exhibition of children.
Well, which the Texas legislature dubbed Child Erotica.
The state enacted the statute in 2017 to cover content that falls outside of adult content with children in it.
The indictment became no longer viable after a Texas appeals court in October 2021 found the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment in an unrelated case, which I find kind of gross and weird, but I want to make sure we're very careful around First Amendment issues.
I'm just kind of questioning Can they get this law better?
Because lewd depiction of kids?
I guess the issue is...
What constitutes a lewd is difficult.
If you have someone who's producing family photos and they have, like, little girls in bathing suits, there's some creepos who might want to see that, but is a family allowed to take photos of their kids wearing bathing suits?
And there's a challenge, I suppose.
But I think there's that line of, you know it when you see it.
When you have little girls wearing, like, skin-tight unitards doing lewd dancing, I think that's obviously different from someone taking a photo of their family, but the statute was unconstitutional.
The first Texas District Court of Appeals concluded the law is too broad.
A teenager who takes a lewd photo of themselves, for example, could hypothetically be found in violation of the statute.
So could anyone who even watched Cuties.
Okay, fair point.
The court pointed to Babin's indictment against Netflix as one of the basis for its holding.
It's currently written that the statute could apply not only to Netflix, but to those persons who viewed the offending visual material, reads the court order.
Let me slow down there a minute.
It could apply to Netflix?
Why shouldn't it?
I mean, now think about it.
Is this the court saying that large multi-billion dollar corporations are exempt from the law if they want to produce adult content featuring children?
That's insane!
The law should absolutely apply to massive multi-national billion dollar corporations when they break it.
After Babin refused to voluntarily dismiss the indictment, Netflix in November pursued a constitutional challenge.
A filing in criminal cases that challenge the lawfulness of certain charges.
Netflix emphasized in its petition that Babin never had probable cause to seek the indictment in the first place, and had no hope of prevailing in the case, even setting aside the statute's First Amendment issues.
The argument lies in the obscenity standard created by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Miller v. California, as well as the statute itself.
The High Court found in that case, The First Amendment safeguards obscene material as long as it has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
A bold move, baby!
Bring it on!
I'll tell you why.
I think Babin is correct.
Laws need to be clarified in judicial hearings.
These things need to be adjudicated so we can have clarification.
A legislator can say, I hereby propose this law, and we say, that seems a little too vague.
Instead of getting rid of it, you say, judge.
Tell me the scope of this law.
Someone gets criminally charged, they can file a suit, the judge will then say, uh-uh.
In this instance, we have a very serious question about what Netflix is trying to pull off.
Can you make erotica featuring children so long as you include some kind of critique in it?
I understand fair use laws have really broad application because the idea is of critique, but if you're gonna apply that standard here, we are in for a disgusting, morally abhorrent future of child exploitation, and, uh, not a fan.
Think about it.
Cuties, it crossed the line.
You want to make this film?
I have no problem.
You don't need to actually have the little girls do these things.
Netflix says we're allowed to distribute this, at least, because we've included critique.
Serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Amazing.
So, um, the First Amendment safeguards obscene material.
This is obscene material featuring kids, and therein lies the big problem.
How would this argument not apply to really graphic images?
I mean, seriously, how does the court determine, when you have these little girls dancing, it is lewd.
How do they determine that that will allow this lewd behavior of children, that sexualized and everything, because of their critique?
Why doesn't the court draw the line there?
It's my question.
If you're going to make an arbitrary line, draw it here and say no.
Amy Sanders, an attorney and media law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, says it's absurd to question the artistic value of cuties when it's been lauded for its timely exploration of how children are impacted by a highly sexualized and media-driven culture.
And you don't need to have the little girls actually do these things to have that critique.
The idea that there is no First Amendment protection for this kind of theatrical depiction of a major social issue is ridiculous.
The question is, are the little girls in the film being abused?
I would say yes.
You see, this is so insane.
We're criticizing it.
You're literally engaging in it.
You, Netflix, by distributing this.
You, the filmmakers.
You actually took little girls and trained them to do this.
You hyper-sexualized them.
You can't be like, I'm criticizing drugs by selling drugs.
It's insane.
All right, here we go.
Just days before the hearing, Babin on Thursday blindsided Netflix with four new indictments, because the hearing is going to be this month.
According to the streamer's complaint, Babin used the extra four months to covertly convene a grand jury and charge Netflix, this time with outright, you know, graphic adult film child laws, we'll put it that way.
But now you've got a grand jury!
Babin's real purpose of seeking the delay to Netflix's habeas petition, and despite Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Blah blah blah.
Was a purposeful effort to deprive Netflix of its day in court.
No.
If he convened a grand jury and the grand jury returned four indictments, well then I think you've got to answer for them.
Grand juries are not adversarial.
This means he went before a group of people and said, take a look at all this stuff.
Do you think it violates these laws?
And the people said, yes!
Cynthia Alkin, professor at criminal law at Texas A&M University School of Law, believes the delay is problematic and could be used against Babbitt in determining whether he brought his second indictment in bad faith, a factor that could force a federal court's hand in intervening.
My understanding is that right now the federal court said we can't intervene in, you know, over state's authority or whatever.
They go on to just say, blah, blah, blah.
In a hearing Friday, both sides agreed to pause the criminal case in state court and set a hearing for June 14th for the federal court to consider issuing a permanent injunction against Babin's office, which did not respond to requests for comment.
Levin explains that Babin's insistence on prosecuting Netflix may be the rare case where a federal court is forced to intervene.
There's no way to prosecute this case that's appropriate.
They can try as many times as they want to keep shifting legal theories, but at the core, it's a rotten case and shouldn't be brought.
Why not?
Why not?
Serious question, why not?
If you're accused of a crime and a grand jury returns an indictment, you go to court.
If Netflix is so sure they're innocent of any wrongdoing, then you go to court, you present the evidence before a jury, and you're acquitted.
Netflix is a multi-billion dollar corporation.
They can afford to defend themselves.
Why not even have the case?
I think it's strange.
I think it's very strange that you can have Regular people, forced to go to court over a cop just accusing them of jaywalking.
Yup, it's a ticket, but I gotta go to court for this now?
Yeah, or you can just pay it.
You go to court and the cop says, trust me guys, he did it.
And you say, I didn't.
And then often they just believe it.
People will be like, I believe the cop.
Here, you have a grand jury, you have prosecution, and you have Netflix claiming they did nothing wrong.
Okay.
Netflix, why are you scared of presenting a Texas jury with this film and then asking them the question, did I do anything wrong?
Why are you trying to stop the case from even happening?
I think it's because Netflix knows they're guilty.
I believe it's because there's going to be individuals at Netflix who are going to be paying a very hefty price for a very serious, disgusting criminal activity.
Here's the issue you gotta understand.
States have authority.
Netflix wants to distribute in all jurisdictions.
They have to answer to those jurisdictions when they break the law.
That's it.
I don't live in Texas.
But in the United States, for the most part, we have very similar laws across the board.
There may be many jurisdictions that don't want to bring criminal complaints against Netflix.
One did.
You gotta answer for it.
I mean, that's interesting.
Now, there's questions about whether or not Netflix chooses to distribute in Texas, whether they filed proper laws and everything to do so, and I would imagine they probably did.
But it is complicated, and I gotta be honest.
We're in an era where, you know, who will be held accountable for this?
Will it be an executive at Netflix?
Will it be the person who approved this?
It's tough.
Now you get, there's a question that needs to be asked.
I proposed this question, you know, when I was talking about this the other day with friends.
If someone who worked for TimCast.com published something abhorrent on TimCast.com, should I, Tim Poole, be personally held responsible?
No.
The company, yes, and the individual posted it if it was criminal, yes.
But not people who weren't aware of it.
Aha, but wait.
What if the executives then come out and defend the publication of it?
Now it seems everyone's involved.
It's tough, but I think this shows that we are in two entirely different worlds with the left.
Take a look at the Mary Sue.
Netflix is battling a Texas DA's ridiculous attempt to prosecute them over cuties.
I don't think the Texas DA is asking the question about the critique.
I believe he agrees with the critique.
I believe his question is over whether or not you should have had a bunch of little girls trained to do sexual actions, sexualized activities and dancing for the sake of this film and include it in your film.
I think then what's going to end up happening is a strong possibility.
Well, strong possibility multi-billion dollar corporations don't get held accountable.
But I believe there's a strong possibility That they go to court.
The Texas D.A.
says, you know, to the judge, Your Honor, we agree with their critique over the hypersexualization of little girls.
We have not brought criminal charges over their critique.
We've brought it over them taking four little girls, having them be trained to perform lewd adult behaviors, and then filming it and publishing it and charging money for it.
No, that's totally different.
Judge, would you agree this critique could have been made properly without having little girls engage in this behavior?
I think the judge would agree.
It's Texas, after all, but we'll see.
Now, as much as the Mary Sue is playing that argument I've stated several times, they're going to mention conservative circles have rallied behind criticism of the movie sexualizing and exploiting children.
Babin's father, Congressman Brian Babin, US Senator Ted Cruz and a group of more than 30 House Republicans have called on the DOJ to prosecute Netflix.
There's been other calls by conservatives to investigate the making of the movie prompted Netflix to apologize for inappropriately sexualizing actresses and marketing materials.
They did that.
I think this prosecutor has a case, and I think Netflix is going to lose.
On the merits.
They may win on the politics.
We'll see.
But the reason I think so is that Netflix actually apologized for the marketing materials which just showed a clip from their sexualized dancing.
That's in the movie.
If they know they did something wrong and it offended people, how are they now arguing it is justified that they did this in the first place?
This case is designed to draw attention to a small county prosecutor who otherwise likely wouldn't make the news, Hander says.
It has a real cinematic quality to it if you play it as a David vs. Goliath scenario.
You have Big Bad Netflix being taken on by this small-time prosecutor who says he's looking out for the best interests of the community.
It's outlandish.
What is the obsession of the left with defending grooming?
You've got in Florida The Parental Rights and Education Bill.
The bill prevents, in only one small provision, for the most part, the bill just guarantees parents have a right to know what's happening in their schools.
One small section says, for preschool to third grade, you can't talk about identity or orientation.
That includes straight.
The left has dubbed it, Don't Say Gay, and they oppose it.
The bill has nothing to do with being gay.
The bill would stop you from talking to a kid about traditional marriage.
The bill is about saying there's a certain age where we don't think it's appropriate to talk about these things with kids.
We've passed that law.
Why is the left opposed to that?
Why is the modern left so interested in grooming children?
Why are they so adamant to defend this film?
Why?
Why can't the left just be like, we don't care?
Wha- Listen.
Is it just because they hate the right?
And if the right says, this is gross, the left has to come out and defend it?
Maybe.
I mean, that's a big component of tribalism.
Or could it be that the left genuinely likes grooming children?
