Patreon NUKES Conservatives As Midterms Loom, Democrat PANIC Over Polls Hint Censorship Will Get BAD
Patreon NUKES Conservatives As Midterms Loom, Democrat PANIC Over Polls Hint Censorship Will Get BAD. Sydney Watson had her Patreon deleted despite not even posting to their platform.
The only thing this move will do is take away some income from her for activities outside of Patreon. As Democrats get more and more bad news it seems that history will be repeating itself and prominent voices promoting conservatives and republicans will get banned or censored outright.
Even Tucker Carlson was censored on twitter in the past day among others like the Babylon Bee and Charlie Kirk
The 2022 midterms are coming and a massive red wave is expected for the GOP. Democrats will likely try to win by any means necessary
#Democrats
#Censorship
#Midterms
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Several conservatives have been censored by Big Tech in the past few days, with the most recent being Sydney Watson, who had her Patreon account deleted for no reason.
She didn't even post on the platform, but the one thing the banning does take away from her is money.
Stands to reason as Democrats panic over losing the midterms, we will see their allies in big tech and media start to push for or outright censor more conservatives.
Even Tucker Carlson has been censored on Twitter.
In our next story, Marsha Blackburn asked Biden's Supreme Court nominee Katonji Brown-Jackson if she could define the word woman and The nominee said no.
In our last story, Disney announces a new task force to create LGBTQ content for children.
If you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Midterm season is here, my friends.
Primaries have already happened, and come November, there is going to be a change in power.
Or I should say, an election that will result in a change in power, likely in January.
And that's assuming that all the data points today remain consistent.
And that is to say Democrats are expected to lose and lose very, very badly.
Mike Bloomberg warned about a month ago that Democrats are facing a wipeout.
The latest polls show that Joe Biden's approval rating is at a new low.
So what are we seeing as Democrats and their allies in media and big tech begin to panic?
Censorship.
Kind of weird censorship.
We have a few stories that I think are relevant because this may be the beginning of substantial censorship as we move into this year.
And this story is, several prominent conservatives have been censored for very silly reasons in the past several days.
Notably, Charlie Kirk, the Babylon Bee, But also now we have Sydney Watson having her Patreon account deleted.
And we also have podcaster Josh Lakoch having his Patreon account deleted as well, both on the same day, both around the same time as each other.
And it may just be these few accounts.
It may just be that these are the last conservatives that exist on Patreon.
But we also have the story of Tucker Carlson himself.
Being censored on Twitter, and not even for a strong opinion or a tweet that violated the rules.
He simply quote tweeted the censorship of the Babylon Bee and Charlie Kirk and said that they were right, and that was enough for Tucker himself to be censored on Twitter.
There's a lot of reasons for the censorship.
Of course, advertising plays a role.
I'm sure there's a concern that advertisers might back away like we saw with the Harry's razor issue over the Daily Wire.
Well, the Daily Wire fired back with their own razor company.
But I believe what we are seeing has to do with the midterms at least a little bit.
And that's important.
Because as Democrats and their media allies and big tech allies have pointed out, realize that they need to control the narrative and they need powerful PR to win.
They're going to take action by any means necessary.
I mean, many of these leftist activists often say that they should seize power or win by any means necessary.
We saw this back in 2018.
We're seeing it now.
So what do I expect?
When you take a look at a lot of the polling, something interesting is happening.
Joe Biden's approval rating is dropping to record lows.
For some reason, in aggregate, Donald Trump's favorability has jumped up around five points.
The dude's not running for president formally right now.
He is not president.
He's just some guy right now.
Yet, for some reason, people are like, I view Trump very favorably.
I think what we're going to see over the next several years is going to be brutal as it pertains to social media censorship, our ability to communicate, but also the emergence of the parallel economy.
Because these platforms that are doing the censorship in panic and desperation are just forcing conservatives and independent voters, to be completely honest, to create alternative systems by which they can watch TV shows, communicate with each other, make movies, etc.
Like I mentioned with The Daily Wire and Jeremy's Razors, we also have the emergence of a company called Parallel Economy, which seeks to do finance, financial transactions, for people who are worried about censorship.
You have Rumble emerging for a similar reason.
And for the first time, it seems like we actually have successful alternative tech platforms.
And I gotta say, it's because of big tech's heavy-handedness when it comes to censorship.
You need a soft touch.
And I gotta say, the big tech companies have played it very, very well up until the past year or so.
They have gone so heavy-handed in terms of censorship, they are driving people to alternative platforms.
You know, look, Parler was rising up really, really quickly.
They smashed that, which results in several more outlets emerging.
But the more they censor people, the more they ban them, the only thing they're going to do is encourage a parallel economy and give assurances that they will crumble.
Let's do this.
Let's start by reading what's happening with Sidney Watson and Josh Lekac's Patreons being banned.
We'll talk about Tucker Carlson censorship before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com and become a member if you want to support our work.
As a member, you are keeping our journalists employed, allowing us to keep doing the work we do, allowing me to make these videos.
And we've got several more shows we're planning on launching very, very soon.
It's going to be really awesome, so we're eternally grateful for all of you as members.
You'll also get access to exclusive TimCast IRL podcast shows, about a half an hour long, Monday through Thursday at 8 p.m., so you can see those tonight.
And don't forget, you can also support us by smashing that Like button, subscribing to this channel, and sharing this video anywhere you can.
That is marketing power and it's immeasurable.
If everybody who watched this video just hit share and posted it somewhere, we would be bigger than CNN overnight.
I guess the joke is CNN's in the gutter and I'm probably already bigger than them, so we'll be ten times bigger than them overnight.
There's the joke.
But let's see the first story here.
I noticed these tweets from Sidney Watson and Josh Lakoch, and I was confused.
I mean, first of all, why would they be actively using Patreon right now anyway?
Most people are aware that Patreon is one of the wokest companies in Silicon Valley.
It was years ago they banned Carl Benjamin and Lauren Southern, resulting in a mass exodus.
First it was Lauren Southern, then it was Carl Benjamin.
Resulting in a mass exodus of prominent personalities, notably I think Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, many others were like, we're off Patreon.
If you're still on Patreon at this point, I gotta say, Uh, maybe it's your own fault?
Now, truth be told, Sidney Watson, I reached out for comment, and basically she was saying she did use it in the past, it did help her fill in that income gap, but that it was more... kind of in the background, she wasn't actively posting to it.
Although this does nuke about a thousand bucks a month for Sidney, which, you know, can be good supplemental income, you know, can help cover, I don't know, medical insurance bills or something like that.
Sidney tweeted, Patreon just deleted my account for hate speech.
And we see this email from someone named Blair saying, my name is Blair and I'm on the trust and safety team here at Patreon.
I'm writing to inform you that your page has been removed for violating our community guidelines regarding hate speech.
While we welcome impassioned debate and diverse viewpoints, we don't allow creators to propagate negative stereotypes or segregational content towards a protected community.
Because you are funding this type of content on your Patreon campaign, your creator page has been removed.
Sidney says I never actually post anything on Patreon itself, which means they're banning me purely based on what I've said on other platforms, and even then, reading through their guidelines, I haven't done a single thing listed.
She went on to say, I asked Patreon why they decided to ban me.
They didn't answer.
They note here, they take into consideration everything you do outside their platform.
This platform can hold your money hostage if they don't agree with what you do everywhere else.
Insanity.
Sydney said that, uh, she released a comment to Rebel News saying,
I make deep dives. I hyper-research topics. It is insane to me that expressing researched
ideas is considered hate speech. And let's remember that I never posted any content on
Patreon itself. It hurts to have the platform deleted because the kind of donations fill
gaps in income that us content creators can't get from YouTube or other means.
Besides that, I'm angry we are even here. How do these platforms get to unilaterally decide
what is and isn't hate speech?
I know content creators who still exist on the platform who call for actual violence.
I make a hyper-researched video investigating the erasure of women, and I'm the bad guy?
It's ridiculous.
I'm thankful to all the people who donated to me.
I'm sad.
This had to go this way.
And we also have this tweet from Josh Lakoch, who said, Patreon just banned me hours after appearing on InfoWars.
I've never received any warnings from them.
725 patrons and 4k a month gone.
Now, Josh received basically the same email, saying they're paying out your balance, this is Blair, you know, segregational content, stereotypes, protected communities, etc.
Seems to me like there's no real rhyme or reason behind, or at least visibly, behind why Patreon is doing this.
Saying segregational content, it's vague and meaningless, and certainly does not apply to Sidney Watson.
Now, I'm not familiar with Josh, but it sounds like he's not making those comments either, although I'm not entirely sure.
The fact is, It seems like Patreon may be starting up something similar to what we've seen before.
That is, we are going to start seeing substantially more censorship of conservatives because the Democrats are losing.
There is a meme, my friends, that any online forum, any sufficiently, okay let's try again, any sufficiently unmoderated forum will become right-wing.
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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
I suppose that's like someone's law, although I don't know who it's attributed to.
But I think it's true.
You take a look at how the internet functions, and meritocracy basically is the rule.
Because it's an open, Wild West platform, whoever makes the content that has the most influence or gets the most clicks, they're the ones who gain power.
Of course, now we're seeing powerful establishment elites and big tech saying, we don't want that to be the case.
So even Tucker Carlson ends up getting censored for his opinion about other people's opinions.
And before I mention this, let me show you what actually is going on so you can understand what Tucker Carlson was referring to.
The Hill reports, Twitter suspends Babylon Bee for misgendering Rachel Levine.
You may know the story, you probably do, I've talked about it quite a bit.
The Babylon Bee has to delete a tweet in which they named transgender Rachel Levine a man of the year, saying, the Babylon Bee's man of the year is Rachel Levine.
Seth Dillon indicated the account will not delete the tweet to regain account access.
Now strangely, when it comes to Tucker Carlson, He tweeted to them.
He tweeted with these images.
What did he say?
He says, but wait, both of these tweets are true.
I'm not entirely sure.
So the Babylon Bee made a joke saying Rachel Levine is the man of the year.
Of course, conservatives have an inverted view of misgendering to the progressives, so the Babylon Bee was making a satirical comment on Rachel Levine being named Woman of the Year.
Charlie Kirk tweeted that Rachel Levine spent 54 years of his life as a man.
He had a wife and a family.
He transitioned to being a woman in 2011.
Joe Biden appointed Levine to a four-star admiral, and now USA Today has named Rachel Levine as a Woman of the Year.
Where are the feminists?
That was also taken down.
I find it interesting because the Babylon Bee and Charlie Kirk didn't overtly disparage anything about being trans or this individual.
Babylon Bee, of course, made a point, a political point, based on their worldview, and Charlie Kirk is making a point about, you know, where are feminists to be upset about this, this idea.
Tucker Carlson tweeted, but wait, both of these are true, and for that, Tucker himself has been censored on Twitter.
Now, interestingly, the tweet from Tucker was auto-removed, that's my understanding.
The Daily Caller reports, Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson was censored by Twitter after pointing out the factual accuracy of tweets regarding Transgender Assistant Secretary for Health, Woman of the Year, Rachel Levine.
Carlson posted screenshots Tuesday of tweets written by Satirical News outlet the Babylon Bee, so this you know.
Neither the Babylon Bee nor Kirk said anything incorrect in their tweets, which is what Carlson pointed out.
Now, this obviously is an opinion piece if that's the case, although perhaps, and I would say that because the Babylon Bee, I mean, technically you can say what they said is true because they're asserting Rachel Levine is the Man of the Year for them, but the point is it wasn't a news statement.
It was a statement from an organization.
So this, you know, does really, I want to make sure to be clear, The Daily Caller pointed this out.
It is.
Opinion.
They say Carlson was subsequently censored, with Twitter stating that this tweet violated the Twitter rules, and a large blue banner on his personal account.
Thankfully, Carlson is still able to tweet to his almost 5 million followers.
Some Twitter users were quick to denounce the move, one writing that after Tucker Carlson pointed out the Babylon Bee and Charlie Kirk tweets containing basic facts were accurate, Twitter decided to censor Tucker too, sharing a screenshot of the banner now in place over the hateful tweet.
And we have this tweet from Arthur Schwartz who says, after Tucker Carlson pointed out... Okay, so that we know.
Many people have pointed out something interesting, though.
The Babylon Bee was told they had to delete the tweet themselves, which they won't do, so it remains up.
Twitter says it breaks their rules, but they allow it to remain.
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson's tweet, it says this tweet violated the Twitter rules.
Perhaps Tucker Carlson just went in and removed it right away?
Maybe there's someone who worked for Tucker Carlson who just went in and removed it right away?
Not entirely sure.
But I'll tell you what I see here.
I believe what we're actually seeing with the censorship, as I've stated earlier, is that we're moving into election season.
I'd like to just point something out real quick, though, to be fair.
Early on, we can see the great exodus from Patreon.
This is Graftreon for my account, Timcast.
I terminated the Patreon account in April 26, because the account actually went defunct in 2018, yet it was still up for about two and a half years, because You know, I just, instead of deleting it, I sent a message out saying, this will still be around, but I'm getting rid of it.
I didn't want to outright delete it because I had people emailing me saying they'd like to just keep donating to me and they don't care about Patreon.
And so, I figured anybody who's giving and is, you know, gonna let it ride.
I'll just stop posting to it, be done with it, and let people use it.
It was sort of a half-measure, to be honest, because I could have just been like, I refuse.
Admittedly, back then, times were harder.
I had 1,825 patrons November 19th, 2018.
When Patreon initiated this big purge, everybody jumped ship.
And of course, my account then plummeted.
This was 2018.
This is right around, well, just after we started seeing what was going on with midterms.
So, it's hard to know.
I should have pulled up the dates on when the elections were, but suffice it to say, major censorship was occurring just before the midterm elections, and I think we're going to see it now.
Because here we go.
Mike Bloomberg warns Democrats of midterm wipeout.
Michael Bloomberg, former New York mayor and Democratic presidential candidate, had an apocalyptic warning for his party Monday.
Absent an immediate course correction, the party is headed for a wipeout in November, up and down the ballot.
Why it matters.
Bloomberg, in an editorial for Bloomberg Opinion, cites Democratic research that voters perceive the party as being too focused on the culture wars, from renaming schools to defunding the police.
What they're saying.
But the advice that party leaders are giving members of Congress to correct the record where Republicans criticize them in schools and culture isn't going to cut it, Bloomberg wrote.
Voters need to hear from Democrats that schools remained closed for too long, and that improving schools means closing achievement gaps, not eliminating standards.
Pointing to last week's school board recall in San Francisco, Bloomberg concluded, the earthquake that shook San Francisco needs to shake up our party before voters do it themselves in November.
I'd like to point something out, however.
If voters perceive the Democratic Party as being too focused on the culture wars, could that be due To people like me?
To people like Sidney?
Or to people like Josh or Tucker Carlson?
Could it be that we are the ones coming out and saying, look at the things they're defending?
I think so.
So think about this.
One month ago, Michael Bloomberg says we need immediate course correction because voters perceive the party as being too focused on the culture wars.
Conservative voices, moderates, libertarian, post-liberal come out and they say the things Democrats are pushing are bunk BS cult behavior.
Independent voters see this, and I think it's reflected very easily in polling data from Civics.
Which party is more concerned with people like you?
We can see since the beginning, since last year, Republican has been growing.
Well admittedly, more people favor the Democrats.
They think the Democrats care more about them.
Neither party has gone up a little bit.
Republicans have gone up a little bit, but Democrats have gone down.
That is to say, Actually, let's do this.
We'll switch to Independent Voters where it really matters.
And will it load?
Okay.
Among Independent Voters, Independent Voters believe Republicans care more about them than Democrats do.
And this switch happened in October of last year.
Now we can see that also, Neither Party Cares is also skyrocketing, actually having the plurality.
I'll tell you what I think.
A month ago, Bloomberg gave that warning.
Democrats all saw it.
And I would not be surprised now if we're going to see more purge, more purging of personalities on social media like we're seeing today, for seemingly no reason.
That's the point.
Because they need to cause damage to anyone spreading that message.
On MSNBC, on CNN, they'll come out and say, Democrats aren't worried about cultural issues.
They want to get you kitchen table issues.
People would believe it if it's the only media they had access to.
But people like Sidney Watson come out and point out the policies, the positions, and the statements made by maybe teachers or Democrats.
Positions made by, say, Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Who is Biden's nominee for the Supreme Court.
And when we talk about this and we reach tens or hundreds of millions of people, they start to have a change in their perspective.
So naturally, censorship is the best path forward.
When we saw Donald Trump giving daily COVID briefings in 2020, his approval rating skyrocketed.
So the networks like CNN said, we're not going to cover his daily briefings anymore because he lies.
Well the reality was they were like, oh no, people like what Trump has to say.
Can't have that.
Take a look at this, Biden's approval rating hits new low.
In a Reuters-Ipsos poll to a new low of 40%, the poll conducted on March 21st and 22nd found that 54% of Americans disapprove of Joe Biden's job performance.
I'm sorry, his approval rating fell to 40%.
According to the results, Americans aged 18 to 39 expressed a 52% disapproval of the president's job performance.
Americans aged 40 years and older expressed more significant disapproval at 56%.
The polarization of America is shown in the poll where 77% of self-identified Democrats said they approved of his job performance.
Only 10% of self-identified Republicans and 27% of independents gave him a positive rating.
The poll showed the most significant concern for most Americans continues to be the economy, healthcare, rising crime rates, and immigration.
And I agree.
But there's an issue, then, when commentators and personalities come out and say, the Democrats don't care about these things.
The only thing they're pushing is bunk BS critical race theory nonsense.
People see that.
That message comes across.
And because of that culture war, many people on mainstream media talk about that stuff, too.
Oh, the right wing is only talking about this, that, or otherwise.
Yeah, well, Democrat voters.
Probably don't care if Republicans are talking about it.
Unless you're like an overt tribal Democrat type.
We're going to mention that Biden has promised to create a more level tax structure in America.
He has expressed his intention to create more jobs, reduce the cost of primary health care for most Americans.
But is that the message that's coming across?
Unfortunately, it isn't.
In September, Axios reported Democrats' dwindling 2022 map.
Long story short, this is, you know, several months ago.
But they say, Democrats are trying to unseat only about half as many as Republican House members next year, as they did in 2020, trimming their target list from 39 to 21.
Interesting.
The narrowing map, which reflects where Democrats see their best chance of flipping seats, is the latest data point showing the challenging political landscape the party faces in the crucial 2022 midterms.
The once-a-decade redistricting process, Donald Trump's exit from the White House, and razor-thin House majority that requires more focus on protecting incumbents are among the factors at work.
So, Tom Davis from Virginia, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee through the first midterms under President George W. Bush, said Dems should focus on protecting the seats they have.
Democrats are on the defense, there's no question about that.
In 2002, we had a five-seat majority in the House, and I was a campaign chairman.
I didn't get aggressive.
I just wanted to take seats off the table.
We ended up picking up eight seats.
That ought to be their strategy.
The point is, Democrats are retiring in large amounts, large numbers.
The redistricting process is in many ways favoring Republicans, but it could favor Democrats because Republicans aren't aggressive enough.
But this, combined with a lot of other data, suggests Democrats are in very serious trouble.
We have this from FiveThirtyEight.
Do voters want Democrats or Republicans in Congress?
And around mid-November, The aggregate for 538 flipped.
And we can see today, 44.9 in favor of Republicans and 42.6 in favor of Democrats.
A 2.3 swing in favor of Republicans, which spells, according to CNN, midterm doomsday.
I like this one.
How popular is Joe Biden?
Joe Biden's 538 aggregate approval is 41.8 and disapproval 52.4%.
That's across the board and that's crazy because 538 tends to be, well, A bit favorable to the Democrats.
Over at RealClearPolitics, we can see something particularly fascinating, and that's 45.3% of Republicans, of people support Republicans, to 41.9% of Democrats.
This means Republicans have a 3.4 percentage point advantage.
Yet you can see both parties took a major dive at the same time.
That means people are actually looking at a third party in greater numbers.
And I don't blame them.
I don't think the Republicans are going to do anything for you.
I got no idea what they're going to do.
I think the Republicans are garbage.
There's a handful of Republicans who are good, but they tend to be more libertarian.
The Democratic Party is just total garbage, so I don't know what you can expect from electing Republicans.
Perhaps if you get out in the primaries and vote for some nationalist, populist types, you might be a bit happier.
Make sure you're voting at the local level as well.
But if it's just neocons and neolibs, I don't see anybody ultimately caring about what's happening.
Young Republicans, however, seem to be optimistic.
I'll tell you this, guys.
Young Republicans, young conservatives, post-liberals, whatever you want to call the faction.
Be optimistic, for sure.
The night is always darkest before the dawn, and right now there stands a great opportunity to gain some seats and make some changes.
Only if you guys vote in the primaries, though.
Because if it's just neocons, they're gonna sit back and say, well, we're not gonna do anything.
We are going to be polite and calm.
Democrats are going to be screaming.
It's kind of remarkable to me that you have Democrats trying to push this narrative that Republicans are truly the radical evil ones, when it was Democrats who accused Brett Kavanaugh of absolutely psychotic things, and the worst that Republicans can throw at Ketanji Brown Jackson is, you have lenient rulings for very serious child offenders.
Now, don't get me wrong, that is a very serious accusation, but it's one thing to say, you were light on someone who abused children, as opposed to what the Democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh and say, you actually participated in abusing minors in extreme ways with a bunch of other men at a party while drinking, and like, you get the point?
Republicans don't have the spine to actually go that far.
CNN reports The 24-year-old Pennsylvanian, Carly Matthews, a climate activist who serves as communications director of the American Conservation Coalition, often gets pushback from both Democrats and Republicans.
Caring about climate change and being conservative and believing in small government are compatible.
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.
Youth activism on these issues, both in the streets and online, gives the impression this generation is exceptionally liberal, and young Americans ages 18 to 29 do lean to the left.
Only 36% voted for former President Donald Trump in 2020, according to CNN's exit poll.
Yet there are a number of young voters who are for limited government and fiscal conservatism, but didn't align with Trump and his policies.
And that's true for a lot of people.
What we're seeing now is that there are many young people who are starting to get active.
The reason I highlight this, where do you think young people get their news and share their news?
Could it be TikTok?
Instagram?
I don't know if Snapchat's that prominent anymore.
YouTube's also fairly prominent for people between 18-39.
I believe that when it comes to politics, YouTube's more prominent for those who are 18-39, and then when you're looking at 12-24, 12-18, 18-24, you're gonna get more TikTok and Instagram and all that stuff.
We over at TimCast.rl, we're banned from TikTok, by the way, probably for hosting Alex Jones, I guess, but therein lies another point.
You know, they're going to censor information that's bad for, well, you know, TikTok is China, basically.
But take a look at this.
If we're seeing young Republicans express optimism, if we're seeing more young people embrace libertarian or conservative positions, they're not getting their information from CNN.
That's a fact.
They're getting their information from social media, and thus, they need to be censored.
You know, people like me, we'd be censored.
They need to make sure the only place they can get their information from are from the left.
So of course we see it.
Prominent left-wing personalities call for violence on the regular, and it's fine.
We had the whole punch-a-nazi saga on Twitter, where tons of prominent personalities were all saying, directly calling for violence against people, and admittedly really bad people that I don't, you know, I personally don't like.
But I mean, come on, man.
We don't want people fighting in the streets and shooting each other, and well, that's exactly what happened.
More to the point, Twitter basically said, nah, we're cool with calling for violence against some people.
The issue is not that anybody wants to defend Nazis.
You don't want to fall into that trap.
The issue is that they'll just call you a Nazi to justify using force against you because that's the force that the establishment has justified.
And they'll accuse anybody of being a Nazi, even people who are libertarian, and, you know, oppose police.
It's the weirdest thing when, like, a libertarian who is for abolishing police is called a fascist or a Nazi.
Far be it for me to understand what's going on.
But when you see an article from CNN, so let's let's combine all this together.
You got Mike Bloomberg saying it is going to be bad for Democrats.
You've got the polls showing it's already bad for Democrats.
You've got CNN running this article that's only been published by four left-wing outlets saying Gen Z Republicans express optimism.
You need to take that optimism away.
How is it that there are conservative Gen Z, that Gen Z Republicans exist?
It's because they're finding a way to get this information from somewhere.
Now, many of them are probably getting these values from their parents, but still, you need a place to go to absorb and express your ideas.
And of course, that shows like, it's people like Sidney Watson, shows like this.
And again, this is not about me saying I or Sidney or anyone else necessarily is conservative, because I don't want to assert labels, although I think Sidney is conservative.
I guess I just roll with it.
It's the best I can do.
It's actually about more libertarian values and republicanism, not political party republicanism.
What I mean by that is, do you believe the United States is a constitutional republic and the Constitution has value and we want to abide by the values and traditions?
Not all of them.
Maybe you want some change and progress, but you at least recognize the values and traditions we have in this country?
You're probably Republican.
Not politically, but philosophically.
That is to say, you believe in this government we have with a bunch of different states, with counties and districts and representatives, and you believe in the American Republic.
Or, you could be a Democrat.
It's funny how the words just kind of fall into place.
The Democrats believe in multicultural democracy.
They want direct votes and popular votes.
Well, I think that's nightmarish and will lead to instability and collapse, especially with a system this big.
But they certainly want that.
All in all, I think we're heading towards any and all efforts or means by the Democrats and their allies to shut down these conversations.
The Washington Times reports poll more voters blame Biden, not Russia or oil companies for sowing gas prices.
And that is to say that shows like this and people like Crowder, we're getting the message across the truth about what's happening.
Well, that's bad for people who want to lie.
It's not Russia or oil companies causing soaring gas prices.
I would give Biden the plurality of fault.
Not all of it.
Not the majority.
The plurality.
Russia plays a role, for sure.
There's big news that Russia is saying that their unfriendly countries that trade with them for oil will have to use rubles now.
Gonna cause a lot of instability.
And oil companies definitely want to turn a profit, but there's inflation and other things to consider, so it's not just oil companies.
Joe Biden's policies His weakness and his rhetoric have caused a major spike.
Look, Joe Biden, if he came out and said, we got we got to get on electric cars, man, just by saying that it will cause a price increase.
What happens is speculators will be worried that he may enact policies to harm energy, so they'll buy up now.
A crunching, curtailing supply while demand remains the same.
Thus, prices go up.
More people want to hoard or buy or prepare for it, at the very least.
But I think Biden is to blame.
And you've heard me say it on numerous occasions.
If this is the kind of messaging that's getting out, don't be surprised when the Democrats get flattened in November.
I think they should just prepare to be flattened.
I don't know exactly what's going to happen.
And between now and then, many things may change.
But for the time being, it looks like we're winning.
You know, it looks like the people who are fighting for truth and honesty are growing, gaining more power, expanding.
I mean, we certainly are.
And it's bad.
So I'll wrap up with this.
Here's my thought.
Sidney Watson didn't post anything to Patreon.
So why ban her?
Because it takes money away from her.
That's it.
That's the only reason.
Patreon says you are funding your job through us.
That's it.
They want to take your money away.
Don't let them.
Don't fund these people who would steal money from your pocket.
Stand up and say no more.
Well, we'll see how things play out coming up in November.
It should be a very, very interesting year, to say the least.
And I certainly think there will be much more purging of conservative personalities.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
During the Senate confirmation hearing for Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Senator Marsha Blackburn asked, can you define the word woman?
Ketanji Brown Jackson said, I can't.
I can't.
This may be one of the most shocking stories I've seen in a long time, that this psychotic cult-like insanity has reached the Supreme Court.
Now, I understand it's reached the White House, sort of.
Joe Biden isn't an adherent of critical race theory cult ideology, but he does help it in many ways.
We're now at the point where we have a Supreme Court justice nominee saying they cannot define the word woman.
Here's what you do right now, my friends.
I want you to share this with any of the naysayers, anyone you know, a friend who's skeptical.
Now, you're probably not going to be able to convince the most diehard leftists or cult members, and that's just a sad reality.
But a lot of people tell me, Tim, I have parents, and they won't watch your show, and they won't watch Fox News, and they won't read conservative outlets.
They won't read anything.
They only watch CNN.
You know, the first thing I want to say is, you should watch CNN and MSNBC, and you should watch Fox News and read conservative outlets.
You should definitely watch this show.
No, but my thing is, you should be trying to watch as much as possible, getting your information from as many sources as possible.
If you know someone Who has been reasonable with you but doesn't believe you because they say it's all fake news.
This is politico.com.
This is not a right-wing source showing you that a Supreme Court justice nominee says, I can't define the word woman.
Blackburn said you can't?
Not in this context.
I'm not a biologist.
Interesting.
Last night we talked about this in the member segment on Timcast IRL, and Emily Jaschinski said, how bigoted to assume the word woman has anything to do with biology.
Tongue in cheek.
But is this not a wake-up call to anybody who's not been paying attention?
Anybody who doesn't see the news?
Woman.
Easily defined.
You ready for this?
Adult human female.
I'm not making that up.
That's what Google says.
That's what Wikipedia says.
It's what Merriam-Webster says.
Now, many of these dictionaries... Merriam-Webster, I think.
Google doesn't do this.
They try to put in, a woman could also mean a trans woman.
But that statement alone means nothing.
In fact, when you pull up Wikipedia and look up woman, female, and trans woman, Wikipedia can't give you a coherent definition Or train of thought in this matter.
It doesn't, it doesn't sync.
The definitions do not logically connect to each other and thus the whole thing becomes incoherent.
Now, this is not having anything to do with trans people at all.
I'm specifically referring to the fact that we can't even define what a woman is.
I mean that as a culture.
Now, of course you and I, we can define the word woman rather easily.
Yet, You repeatedly ask people on the left what woman means and they cannot give you a definition.
This is the craziest thing to me because you would think if their goal was to assist trans women and help push for rights, they would have at least sat down for 10 seconds to come up with messaging and a cohesive structure to explain this to people.
But if you can't even explain to people what you're fighting for, how does any of this make sense?
Now look, you guys know, I'm all about civil libertarianism.
Somebody is trans or whatever, more power to them.
I think people have a right to live the way they choose to live, so long as they're not harming others.
And which brings us to a bigger picture, a bigger question here.
Blackburn was asking about little girls who want to grow up to compete, and they're watching these women get beat in the NCAA Championships to a biological male, and there's a lot of issues there.
Katonji Brown Jackson, by not being able to define the word woman, it's profound.
Because she is a judge who will need to, in plain language, as per the 1964 Civil Rights Act or any other Supreme Court opinion that uses the word woman to grant women civil liberties.
But I want to point something else out as well.
Up top here on the screen, you can see I have the Ground News extension in my browser.
I think it's fantastic.
I've been using it for a long time, and I don't normally do sponsored spots on this channel, but we have a couple coming up.
But I want to give a shout out to ground.news.
Go to ground.news slash timpool and, you know, sign up, get the browser extension.
It's an excellent service.
What you see on top of politico.com, it shows you the bias split across 10 sources.
20% of the outlets that are reporting this lean left and 80% lean right.
This is exactly what I'm trying to explain.
This story right here from Ground News.
They show it.
Blackburn to Jackson, can you define the word woman?
Actually, you know what I want to do?
I want to play.
I want to play this for you.
Actually, I'll play this in a second.
Because Ground News actually has the video from C-SPAN.
But take a look at this.
The Daily Wire, of course, right-wing.
Politico, left.
Isn't it funny, left-leaning?
The Postmillennial, lean right.
Daily Caller, right.
Fox News, right.
Washington Times, right.
And there's more.
Examiner, right-wing.
Real Clear Politics, leaning right.
Mediaite, leaning left.
The Paradise, far right.
This is why I think Ground News is fantastic.
Again, ground.news slash timpool.
Not only do they break down the ideological bias of the outlets, and I think that's fantastic.
I think they do a pretty good job.
I'm not a big fan of mixed factuality.
That gets harder to define, but I do appreciate what they do.
But they also show Wealthy Private Owner, The Daily Wire, Wealthy Private Owner, Ben Shapiro, Politico, Wealthy Private Owner, Capital News.
Then you have The Daily Caller, Other, Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel.
It breaks down who owns these outlets.
This is exactly what you should show the people who don't believe you when you say these things are happening.
Because they're breaking down the bias and they're gonna say, the reason you don't hear about this stuff is because the only outlets to report this are Mediaite and Politico.
The only left-wing outlets to report this are Politico and Mediaite.
So I'm not surprised you don't hear this and conservatives do.
So shout out, Ground.News sponsoring this segment today.
And regardless of the sponsorship, I think it's easy for me because I'm a fan of their service.
You'll also notice that I typically use the Ground.News extension.
So when you're watching my segments, you can actually see the bias breakdown.
I should reference it more often to explain why I have it here.
When you are watching these stories, you can see this is something the right is talking about and the left is not.
That right there is absolutely fantastic in aiding your arguments and your discussions and your debates.
So again, check out ground.news slash timpool.
Once again, shout out and thank you to Grounded News for sponsoring this segment.
I'm a fan.
I really, really am.
I like the idea of showing the bias and showing the owners.
Look at this.
Independent.
You've got Mediaite.
It's owned by Floyd Abrams.
That's just great.
Just absolutely great.
Check them out.
But let's get back to the article in question.
Actually, let's use Grounded News to play the segment in question.
unidentified
Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Can I provide a definition though?
Yeah.
I can't.
You can't?
Not in this context.
I'm not a biologist.
So you believe the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?
Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes.
If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide.
So I'm not... I would just pause there and say, There is actually a dispute over the definition of the word woman.
Sure, but one side has a clear-cut, cohesive definition that aligns with the encyclopedia, with like every encyclopedia, and basically every culture on the planet.
No joke.
The word woman.
Let's say you went to, you know, any other country.
They have a word for woman.
And they will tell you, adult human female.
In the United States, sure there's a dispute, but it's because we have this weird wokeness infecting our highest levels of governance.
It was just TV and video games at some point, right?
Then movies.
And I warned everybody, it will reach the highest levels, and here we are.
Katonji, Katonji Brown-Jackson says, you know, she dispute, she handles disputes, and if there's a dispute over the definition of the word woman, there's not in the encyclopedia.
Now, who is coming to you personally with that argument?
Therein lies the issue.
There exists laws on the books already, and we use in plain language the word woman.
I've said it before.
By changing the definition, they change the laws retroactively.
If most people believe woman means adult human female, then the law is not in question.
Changing the law is difficult.
If law exists or precedent exists, it's difficult.
But what happens then when they come back and say the word woman means something different?
In 10 years or so, they'll say, well, everybody knows woman doesn't mean adult human female.
Therefore, we should challenge this Supreme Court precedent about You know, these particular issues.
Moving forward, as the left seeks to change language, this is going to be, this will have a profound impact.
And I think a really good example is well regulated.
Regulated today basically means government regulation, government standardizing or passing restrictions and laws.
But back during the era of the Bill of Rights, the 1780s, 1770s, into the 1780s, regulated didn't mean that.
A well-regulated militia simply meant a well-functioning.
Regulated meant like you had the equipment that was up to date and working.
A functional militia is necessary for a free state.
That's what they were saying.
Back then they didn't have police departments.
The militia were their law enforcement.
And this was to protect the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Now that the definition of the word regulated has mostly changed, you have to explain to people what the word actually meant.
We can't change our laws based on emerging definitions.
And therein lies the big challenge, and therein lies the tactic that we're seeing right now.
So let me show you what's going on.
Katonji Brown-Jackson, I would like to give you the definition of the word woman.
From Google.
Plainly put, it says an adult female human being.
That's it.
That's what it says.
It goes on to have additional definitions.
A female member of a workforce.
Thousands of women were laid off.
That's weird and that makes no sense.
A female member of a workforce.
I guess, you know, if they say, you know, men were working or women were working, I suppose you could say that it's irrelevant.
A female person associated with a particular place, activity, or occupation.
A Princeton woman.
But notice how they're saying female, female.
Female adults in general.
A disrespectful form to address a woman.
Don't be daft, woman.
That's weird.
But still, notice they're all say- all these definitions.
Female, female, female.
Dated.
A female person who is paid to clean someone's house.
A daily woman.
A person's wife, girlfriend, or female lover.
He wondered whether Billy had his woman with him.
A person with the qualities traditionally associated with females.
I feel more of a woman by empowering myself to do what's right for me.
Now, that's the closest one that could get to trans, but I actually agree with that definition.
Saying, like, womanhood, or womanly, or let out your inner woman, you could use it in a certain context, referring to social roles around females.
However, woman is still not defined as anything but a female human.
A female individual, one.
It's fascinating.
Okay, let's go to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says, a woman is an adult female human.
Prior to adulthood, a female human is referred to a girl, the plural women is sometimes used, yadda yadda yadda, we get it.
We then have, okay, so if you're on Wikipedia and you're trying to understand this, you see, a woman is adult female human.
Okay, what does female mean?
It says, female is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova egg cells, the type of gamete, sex cell, that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction.
A female has larger gametes than a male, etc, etc.
Then, we'll take a look at women.
Again, it says, trans women develop a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have characteristics that do not fit the notions of female biology.
So, let's take a look at the trans women section.
A trans woman is a woman who is assigned male at birth.
And herein lies the clash of definitions, and the reason why a Supreme Court justice can't define for you what's happening.
A trans woman is a woman.
Okay, let's click woman.
A woman is an adult female human.
Okay, let's click female.
A female is the sex of an organism producing large non-mobile ova, and it says, in the species that have males and females, sex determination is based on either chromosomes or environmental conditions.
Most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes.
Here's the point.
Based on what Wikipedia says, a trans woman is actually a trans man.
Okay, so again, no disrespect towards any individual or group, I'm pointing out the Encyclopedia's problem.
And if they want, you know, someone should fix it.
To put it simply, if a woman is female, and a female produces non-mobile ova, and a trans woman is a woman, what the Trans Woman Wikipedia article is saying To break it down, a trans woman is an adult female human who typically has two X chromosomes, but was assigned male at birth.
That is to say, the baby that was born was female, but the doctor said it was male.
Okay.
That's a trans man.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
The problem here is we're trying to define these terms specifically so we can ensure rights and ensure the laws are being followed properly.
But if you were to take someone with no exposure to any of this media or internet and have them read these articles, they would assume a trans woman Is a female human being with ovaries who was incorrectly called a male when born.
I actually don't even think that's a trans man either.
It just doesn't play into modern culture, actually.
A doctor calling, you know, so you have a little girl growing up developing female characteristics but being called a boy.
Far be it for me to understand how any of this stuff is actually making sense as it plays out in the courts or whatever.
This is why we need definitions, to put it simply.
How can you ensure people have rights if you can't define what a person is and why the rights are being guaranteed to them?
It's a challenge, I suppose.
But you'd probably want a Supreme Court justice who could tell you what these things mean.
I mean, I'll put it simply, a woman is an adult female human.
That's what Wikipedia says.
Well, here's what we're getting now.
Americamagazine.org says, the racism behind the attacks on Khitanji Brown Jackson.
This week on the Gloria Purvis podcast, Gloria speaks with Angela Onwuacha Willig, Dean and Professor of Law at Boston University.
Leading scholar, blah, blah, blah.
And, you know, you get the point.
With glory, she discusses the nomination of Ketanji Brown-Jackson to the Supreme Court, and the racism underpinning the negative reaction to Biden's announcement that the nominee would be a black woman.
It's remarkable.
I, uh, I don't care about Kitanji's race, or name, or skin color, or upbringing.
I care about whether or not she will be a good, reasonable Supreme Court justice.
Now, there are several issues.
One of the issues brought up was her leniency towards people who have committed crimes against children in unspeakable ways.
And the left and the media are defending this.
It's actually quite scary.
Very scary.
Her race has nothing to do with it.
The fact that she can't define the word woman plays more to competence on the bench and has zero to do with race.
It's the weirdest thing, isn't it?
Can you tell me what a woman is?
I can't.
Okay, you're incompetent.
I'm sorry, you are literally incompetent.
How can you interpret Roe v. Wade?
How could you possibly hope to interpret Roe v. Wade?
Look at this.
SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson says Roe v. Wade is out of law.
How would you know that?
You don't know what a woman is!
This is what she said.
You know what I should have done?
I should have pulled up the language of Roe v. Wade.
It says, Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy.
Jackson said, whoa!
She can't even define what woman means!
And she thinks she can assert anything about Roe v. Wade?
A woman's pregnancy?
Well, hold on there a minute.
You mean a bleeder's pregnancy?
Because trans women don't get pregnant.
So what does that mean, Jackson?
You see, this is the problem of not being able to define words.
She's using a word she can't define.
I would have appreciated it if Marsha Blackburn or anyone could have responded and said, I couldn't help but use the word woman in that sentence.
What did you mean by that?
Man, you gotta see the Matt Walsh thing on Dr. Phil.
Define woman.
This is what I do.
I get these emails, I get these phone calls from these Democrats who want me to donate.
And because I donated large amounts to Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, who else did I donate to?
I donated to a progressive out of San Francisco running against Nancy Pelosi.
Because of that, the Democrats look at me as like a whale.
So they hit me up incessantly saying, we want a max contribution from you.
And it's laughable because the donations I made to these individuals were for specific reasons several years ago.
And boy, have y'all lost me since 2018.
But, they hit me up and I just respond with, get this, they text me, I text back, how many genders are there?
Like, genuine question, like, please tell me what you want to do!
Look, I want all the trans people in the world to have rights, 100%.
Uh, I want them to be able to live their lives free of harm or fear and all of that stuff.
And in order to have that, you have to define the words.
So we know exactly how to handle certain circumstances.
Well, guess what?
I get these texts, I say, how many genders are there?
Can you define woman?
They stop responding.
They stop texting.
One of the easiest ways to get people to stop hitting me up for donations, I guess, is just to ask them to define their positions and they can't do it.
They can't.
Actually, I've had one person hit me up being like, we gotta ban guns, and I was like, excuse me?
Send me a text like, we're gonna work on gun control legislation, and I responded with, but I want a machine gun.
And then they also don't respond.
I guess, you know, look, when you've got volunteers sending out these messages, they don't wanna waste time on people they know won't donate to them.
But maybe they'll ask themselves why it is that I donated to several Democrats back in 2018 and 19, and why I ain't going anywhere near these people today.
You wanna know what it is?
in the primaries. With the one person priming Pelosi, I think Pelosi's got to go. I think she
is crooked. She is as crooked as they come. At the very least, a young progressive I can argue with,
and we can disagree on things. Sure, I don't know if it will be... I mean, I suppose you can argue
it could be worse, but in my opinion, we had this candidate who was anti-war, pro-pot legalization,
and I'm like, I will take those things over Nancy Pelosi, because war is a huge issue.
I'm not a fan of any of that stuff.
That's one of the reasons I voted for Trump in 2020.
Get our troops out of there.
That's better.
But as for the candidates, I'm like, Tulsi Gabbard, man, everybody knows she's better than anything the Democrats had to offer at the time.
And Andrew Yang actually had a huge list of policy positions.
Now, I think Yang has sort of faltered in many ways, but 2018 was a huge wake-up call for making any kind of donation to any member of Congress, to be completely honest.
All of these people who promised to fight for kitchen table issues, and the moment they got elected, they said, sure, Pelosi, tell me what to do, and they voted for impeachment.
Evil.
Scumbags.
Spineless.
Losers.
Jeff Van Drew?
Not so much.
He actually said, I ain't playing that game, I'm a Republican now, and I was like, wow.
Granted, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are also bad, and Lindsey Graham is terrible, and I overwhelmingly just despise the Republican Party.
There's a handful of Republicans that do a good job, though.
Freedom Caucus tends to be a bunch of good people who are actually doing good work.
So I just wanna, I just wanna, I'll end with this.
Let's tie a little ribbon around all of this.
Katonji Brown-Jackson, can you please define the word woman?
No, I can't.
Can you tell me about Roe v. Wade?
Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy.
You just used a word you can't even define.
Welcome to the modern era.
So here's what you can do.
You can show this one to your friends, the ones who don't believe you, and just, look, say, if you hate Tim Pool, good, tell me every reason you hate him.
Now, just, here's a question I have.
Can you answer it?
Probably not.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Disney has announced a task force to create more LGBTQ content for children.
I'm really quite confused by this.
I don't understand what the intention is, but I know exactly why it's happening.
Because activists made up a fake problem, demanded Disney do something about it, and then Disney decided to adhere to the activists.
Truth be told, I don't care all that much about LGBTQ content, and when networks or companies like Disney or Netflix or otherwise make shows targeting a specific group of people, I'm like, hey, cool, man, you know, I'm glad that you guys have content that you really like.
The issue I have is...
Targeting children?
Okay, that's where things get a little weird, because we're talking about, to a great degree, content that is overly sexual.
Now, of course, Disney may be referring to simple tolerance and respect, like, if two people love each other and want to get married, they can.
I'm fine with that.
The issue is, this is in response to a bill called the Parental Rights and Education Bill, which prohibits sex Ed for preschoolers to third graders.
Specifically, issues relating to gender identity and orientation, which includes traditional marriage.
It includes heterosexual coupling and all of that stuff.
This, as a response to that, makes me believe this is more about, let's just say, sex ed for kids.
And I find it strange that, you know, we got activists at Disney walking out of the parks.
They're making demands.
We have a list from the Disney walkout protest of everything they want, and I just find it weird that they are this adamant about presenting information to kids between the ages of four and nine years old, presenting them with sexual information.
I don't understand why they would do that, but sure.
Joe Rogan recently said in his podcast, well, he basically said they're grooming your kids.
Let's read to see what their task force is all about, and then we'll talk about what's going on with this big protest.
We have this story from the other day.
Disney workers walk out to protest company's stance toward anti-gay bill.
Oh, there is just so much wrong with the news these days, my friends.
So much wrong.
So much wrong.
Okay, Disney Walkers walked out to protest a company's stance towards what?
There is no anti-gay bill.
No such bill exists.
No such bill exists.
So here's the story from TimCast.com.
They say, Disney has announced they have created a task force to create more LGBTQ content for children.
Disney has been facing both internal and external backlash for CEO Bob Chapik not doing enough to fight Florida's parental rights and education bill, which blocks educators from discussing gender identity or sexual orientation with students in third grade or below.
Most of you probably know this, because I've talked about it quite a bit.
On Monday, Chappick told employees at the company's plan for the task force.
We know the moment requires urgency and words are not enough,
said Chappick, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by Reuters.
So we are taking some actions right now.
According to Reuters, the company said the task force will enlist the help of experts
to develop a concrete plan to ensure Disney is a force for good
for LGBTQ plus communities, especially children and family.
And that's where I think we need to break things down as it pertains to the mainstream narrative around wokeness, not just gender ideology, but basically everything like advocating for people to be morbidly obese or out of shape.
You have race theory, of gender theory, of health theory, and all of it, in my opinion, is very, very bad, health-wise, for kids.
Now, I'm not talking about whether or not you want a kid to seek treatment for any kind of, you know, issue they may have around gender or whatever.
I'm saying directly telling them things that are bad for them, like, you can be healthy at every size.
Well, let's read more, but my friends, before we do, I don't often do shoutouts on this channel, but we have a couple sponsors, and we have surfinginternetsafe.com.
You may be familiar with Virtual Shield.
I shout them out on TimCast IRL.
This is a virtual private network service.
If you go to surfinginternetsafe.com, you can get 50% off for life your VPN service.
Virtual Shield says, U.S.
officials put Americans on alert for Russian cyber attacks.
That's true.
And I firmly believe there's a strong possibility of cyber attacks.
If you're concerned about what Russia may attempt to do, and rest assured, as crazy as things are overseas, as weird as things are, you may actually end up targeted in this way.
But also I want to make sure I point out how the January 6th Committee has been going to private companies and getting people's records.
I'd like to shout out James O'Keefe.
Because Microsoft apparently was subpoenaed to give up private information on Veritas journalists.
Go to surfinginternetsafe.com, get a VPN, this will help keep you safe.
Is it perfect?
Of course not.
But it is a layer of defense to make sure that you are not giving away just all of your information to any government, hacker, or corporation that wants to steal your data.
Virtual Shield has been sponsoring my shows since I started doing YouTube, so I'm eternally grateful.
And when they came to me and said, hey man, we'd love for you to do a couple more shoutouts, I said, anytime.
Anytime.
I'm a big fan and I'm eternally grateful that Virtual Shield sponsors my shows, Timcast
IRL and these shows, because it shows that they care about you and they're willing to
get behind content like mine when we try and just bring out the truth.
Protect yourself at surfinginternetsafe.com.
But let's get back to what's happening with Disney and thank you all so much for watching
and supporting Virtual Shield all these years and for Virtual Shield supporting us and for
you guys sitting through the ads and recognizing the work we do.
Back at Timcast.com they say, The report states, the task force will be led by Paul Roeder,
Senior Vice President of Communications for the studios, and Lisa Beckett, Senior
Vice President of Global Marketing for Disney Parks Experience and Products.
In this post on Instagram, Disney says, To all who come to this happy place, welcome.
Disney Parks Experiences and Products is committed to creating experiences that support family values for every family and will not stand for discrimination in any form.
We oppose any legislation that infringes on basic human rights and stand in solidarity and support our LGBTQIA plus cast, crew, and Imagineers and fans who make their voices heard today and every day.
Now, let's just break something down real quick.
Disney is not being honest when they say they will not stand for discrimination in any form.
Rest assured, it is only a matter of time before they enact Not only that, they say in any form.
I'd be curious.
Does Disney Parks adhere to any kind of affirmative action plan?
Whatever your opinion on it, the left expressly says it's a discrimination platform.
In California, they were trying to repeal the civil rights provision from their constitution, specifically the language that said you cannot discriminate on the basis of, you know, certain characteristics.
They wanted to repeal that, and they said they would like to discriminate.
Ibram X. Kendi, he said, The only solution to past discrimination is present discrimination, and the only solution to present discrimination is future discrimination.
In which case, Disney Parks adhering to any kind of racial equity program would be discriminating, and I'm willing to bet they're lying, but they don't care.
You know why?
Because the average parent doesn't care about their kids.
You know, I love saying that so much because so many people get triggered by it, but it is a fact The average parent does not care about their kids.
I'm not saying you.
You clearly do.
I mean, you're watching this, right?
You're concerned about what these schools are doing to your kids.
You're concerned about what Disney is trying to give to your kids.
But unfortunately, many parents, and I want to say the average, I'm not saying the majority, I'm saying that there is a large group of people that do not care what their kids are learning in school, what they're eating at school, what their teachers say and do to them.
And I'm sorry, you might have a deep emotional bond with your child, but if you don't pay attention to their lives, then I don't think you care about them.
I really, really don't.
And so, this is the important thing, right?
I suppose some might say, of course parents love their children, that's absurd, Tim, you don't understand, you don't have kids, yadda yadda.
Okay, okay, listen, what I'm saying is, in my view, as someone who doesn't have kids, full disclosure, I would like to know what my child is eating.
You know, these parents send their kids to public school and they never even check what the school is serving them to eat.
And you get, man I gotta tell you, some of the stuff that got served in school when I was growing up was just not food.
We had hot dogs, they were blue.
I'm not kidding, I remember we had gray and blue hot dogs.
You'd think the parents would be like, I'm worried about what my child eats in your school, so I'm going to come and see what you're serving.
I'd like to know.
But how many parents actually show up to these meetings?
How many parents actually file complaints?
Many do.
In Loudoun County, we saw parents coming out.
I'm not saying all parents.
I'm saying, to put it mildly, there are too many parents who don't watch the news, don't care, or who believe the lies, and aren't paying attention to what's happening to their kids.
And there are even conservatives.
I have no idea how, who are like, yeah, you know, I got a daughter and she's going to college, and I'm like, are you nuts?
Yo, we've had a ton of guests on TimCast IRL, hundreds, and we have people who come in and say, yeah, my kid's getting ready to go to college, and I'm like, do you hear yourself?
You follow our show, you know what we talk about, and you're gonna put your kid in these schools on purpose?
Yo, in Florida, the issue is not that you can't say gay or it's an anti-gay bill or something.
The issue is, teachers are keeping information secret from parents about what's going on with these parents' children.
Some of these kids are being groomed.
And so the bill, the Parental Rights and Education Bill, says that teachers can't teach certain things up until third grade, and that They can't withhold information or encourage students to withhold information from parents.
This is what I said on Tim Castellar on one of our member podcasts.
We had Terry Schilling on advocating for families.
And I was like, you know, how many people come to me and say they can't speak up because they'll lose their job and they have kids?
And I'm just like, that's interesting.
Answer me this question in all honesty.
Would you rather have your job, knowing that your children will be well fed, will have a roof over their heads, they will be able to go to the doctor, and they also will have pedophiles grooming them in schools, Or, would you rather be in the middle of the woods, unsure of what you're going to eat with your kids?
That's an interesting question.
I mean that in all seriousness.
Now, here's what I have to say.
Losing your job does not mean you and your children will be homeless.
It means maybe you have to find another job and maybe it will be very hard.
What I mean to say is, if you speak up and push back on all of this wokeness and the things they're doing to kids, you can help stop it.
If you are worried about losing your job because your kids won't have food, I ask you, what is more important?
Would you prefer to be in a situation where your kid has a full belly and a pedophile teacher grooming them, or would you prefer your child to not have food?
To be uncertain, to not know where food's coming from, but you are keeping an eye on them and protecting them.
I am not saying all teachers are groomers and pedophiles.
That is not the case.
I'm saying there are some.
And as a parent, you need to be paying attention to what your schools are doing.
Now, Disney workers are coordinating long walkouts, there was a report like Raven-Symoné walked out, whatever.
Here's what they're walking out for.
The LGBTQIA workers and allies at the Walt Disney Company are standing in solidarity together over the coming weeks.
Here's our open statement and website.
Now, I do want to make one more point, too, because I'm sure there will be many leftists who are itching to just take clips of this segment out of context and not tell you what I'm actually talking about.
I do not believe that LGBTQIA people are groomers and pedophiles.
I also do not believe that these schools are actually seeking to teach kids just about gender identity.
The issue is the kids, from preschool to third grade, can't be taught about traditional marriage either.
And I think that's appropriate if the parents deem it so, and apparently they do.
Most people agree with the bill.
At fourth grade, the teachers can have all these conversations about LGBTQIA issues, and I think it's fantastic.
I absolutely do.
I think kids, if parents want their school to be teaching these things, I have no problem if they do.
If parents don't, then you can take your kids out and teach them yourselves.
Go into a pod.
The issue specifically is the incessant demand that children under the age of nine be exposed to sexual content.
That's my criticism, and that's what I think parents should protect their kids from.
Here's a statement from the protesters.
They say, The recent statements by the Walt Disney Company leadership regarding the Florida legislator recent Don't Say Gay bill have utterly failed to match the magnitude of the threat to LGBTQIA plus safety represented by this legislation.
Primarily, those statements have indicated that leadership still does not truly understand the impact this legislation is having not only on cast members in the state of Florida, but on all members of the LGBTQIA plus community in the company and beyond.
While we certainly appreciate Bob Chapik's apology note, there is still more work to be done.
There is no Don't Say Gay Bill.
The bill in question... These are people specifically telling you right now they want children exposed to sexual content.
That's what I don't understand.
That's what they're protesting for.
Like, that's literally it.
The bill says you can't talk to kids about mommies and daddies.
You can't talk to them about gay, straight, or otherwise.
We're gonna leave the talk of sexual coupling out of these age brackets.
No one is saying the school can't teach kids about being gay or say the word gay.
They're allowed to.
We just think nine years and below is not appropriate.
So.
If you're ten years old, now they can teach you all about this stuff.
Why do you want nine-year-olds exposed to it?
That's why people are saying grooming.
They're going to say, due to lack of compassion and advocacy, TWC's LGBTQIA plus community and their allies are determined to take a stand via multiple direct actions, including both virtual and in-person protests, the first of which will take place on Tuesday, March 15th.
TWDC's previous suggestions for addressing the concern around this law have included Creating more inclusive content.
Encouraging a welcoming culture.
Supporting diverse community organizations.
As Mr. Chaffetz states in his apology note, it is clear that this is not just an issue about a bill in Florida, but instead yet another challenge to basic human rights.
We affirm that both sides rhetoric is harmful and hurtful because being LGBTQIA plus is not a political opinion or side.
It is people, communities, and families.
We are glad to see that we agree with Mr. Chapek on this.
It is about human rights and not political affiliation.
We'd like to take this opportunity to make it clear.
Cast members' identities are not political issues.
Our safety and well-being is crucial to the success of this company.
No cast member or their families should be forced to live in fear, and it is unacceptable to use the profits of our labor to take away our human rights.
And therein lies the big point.
The big issue.
It's not happening.
They're lying.
Right now, In the Senate.
Ketanji Brown-Jackson is undergoing Senate confirmation hearings.
Republicans are wagging their finger and saying, can you define the word woman?
And Ketanji Brown's like, I can't.
And they're like, oh heavens.
And I'm like, yeah, that's shocking.
I did a segment about it for sure.
It is shocking.
But look at what they did to Brett Kavanaugh.
And it's remarkable then when I see these posts where they're like, both sides-ism is wrong.
Yeah, you're right, both sides-ism is BS.
The Republicans are like, now, Josh Hawley, he's like, now I respect you, Judge, and I think you have good, thoughtful answers, but why is it you were so lenient on people in possession of, let's just say, graphic and horrifying images of children?
And he says, I think you'll have a good response.
Oh, thank you for your polite behavior, Senator Hawley.
You know, the Republicans accused Brett Kavanaugh of gang raping women and being party to a system in which women were gang raped at parties.
But, uh, sure.
Sure.
You can question the rulings.
If the Republicans had the ego, the narcissism, and the ruthlessness of Democrats, they would be calling Judge Ketanji Brown a pedophile.
I'm not saying they should.
In fact, I think the Republicans are handling this properly.
The problem is Democrats are ruthless and exploitative.
Look at what they're saying.
They always take any perceived slight in any way to the upteenth degree.
You could be like, I don't think four-year-olds should be exposed to sexual content.
They'd be like, you're trying to kill me!
Look what they said.
Should be forced to live in fear?
What about telling four-year-olds to nine-year-olds?
What about not telling these kids about any kind of adult coupling is forcing you to live in fear?
You know what?
I'm just sick of the BS.
I'm sick of the lies and the manipulation.
If they came out and said that they thought children should, and here's the reason why, I'd be like, well there's their argument.
But they are lying!
TWDC claims to integrate DEI in its core values, but the employees have yet to see fruitful integration of this program that is properly uplifting marginalized voices.
Moreover, in an intersectional way, by supporting the politicians who brought this legislation and not taking a public stance against it, CHAPEC and the TWC leadership have made it clear they are more than willing to sacrifice their employees' health and wellness in service of the bottom line.
We will not stand for this anymore.
Okay, you know what, man?
Daily Wire, guys, you need to make more content and make it fast.
I'm so over These people bending over backwards for a cult.
Let us make it clear.
It's time for a parallel economy.
I was worried about it in the past because I said this is the kind of thing that leads to civil war, but at this point I am done with it.
Disney has to realize there are more than one perspective on this.
If Disney wants to come out and say, you know what, We've gone over the numbers.
We're going to side with the left.
Then it's time for people to say enough.
Enough.
Now truth be told, I have a subscription to Disney Plus.
I do.
Because I signed up for it, and then there was an issue over the Uyghur Muslims, and other issues, and now this, and I paid a year in advance.
I haven't really watched Disney Plus in quite some time, and I honestly, you know what?
I'm not gonna.
I don't have a Netflix, but truth be told, people here have Netflix, and I think what we need to do is make sure we're building culture in the other direction.
It's time to sign up for the Daily Wire's subscription service for their movies and entertainment.
Now, truth be told, Daily Wire has a limited offering at this point.
Timcast IRL, we are producing some content.
It's time we build cultural, fictional, and scripted content outside of the mainstream
press, outside of the mainstream corporate media apparatus.
People need to start pitching to us, to Daily Wire, to anyone willing to make this content.
Now, over at the Cast Castle Vlog, our goal here is to ramp things up and make this more
of a semi-fictional show, because we've already done a bunch of bits, because the show is
is mostly silly.
But I'd like to get Cast Castle Vlog to the point where it is a comedic, reality-style vlog.
A lot of real stuff will be in it, and half of it will be silly nonsense and bits and comedy.
We want to make this a semi-scripted show.
That's where we're going.
We're not there yet.
Budget restrictions, and we don't take investment or loans or anything like that, so we're growing just off of you as members, but truth be told, we are looking really, really good right now.
And so we're going to be able to grow.
We have tales from the inverted world.
There's potential show pitches that we have for the Daily Wire.
We may do joint collaborations.
The sooner we get Scripted content being produced outside of the confines of Disney, the easier it is for us to say, you know what?
I don't watch the Marvel stuff.
I watch Daily Wire's superhero series.
It's better.
It's not ridiculous, not insane, and I'm not supporting companies I hate.
The Daily Wire launched Jeremy's Razors.
Hilarious.
Absolutely fantastic.
You don't want to support Harry's because they smack talk you?
Buy from Jeremy's.
You want a parallel economy, baby?
You got it.
We are heading in that direction, and we're proud to do it.
Disney, I look forward to not renewing my membership with you because I don't care for this.
Here's my point.
It's not about politics.
I like politics.
I read politics all day every day.
I like political content.
I actually like watching shows that are fairly woke.
What I don't like is when companies take a stance in one side of the culture war.
If Disney said, look, people in this country all have different views, this show is made with the perspective of many on the progressive left, but we also have other shows that come from the perspective of people on the right.
There was a show on Netflix that was cancelled.
It was called The Order.
The second season villain was a Marxist.
He was the bad guy.
He was a communist.
And they speak out against him about how communism is bad, and I'm like, I dig it.
Netflix ultimately cancelled the show, but whatever.
I liked the politics in it.
That show I enjoyed.
If Netflix produces shows for every kind of view, and you just choose which one you don't like, you don't watch it, um, then there you go.
But Netflix, Disney, they are overtly saying to you, to me, we don't like you, we don't support you, you're bad people, and it's all based on lies.
So screw it.
Let's be the change you want to see in the world.
Become a member at TimCast.com if you want to support our work.
Sign up for the Daily Wire.
I'm sure the Daily Wire crew is absolutely loving me telling you to go subscribe to them, but I mean, they're producing movies.
That should be the content you're supporting, because they're just movies.
They're not making, like, Bible Man.
Yeah, I think Bible Man's, like, a real character made.
