FBI Paid Twitter MILLIONS To Censor Conservatives ANd Interfere In US 2020 Election To Help Biden
FBI Paid Twitter MILLIONS To Censor Conservatives ANd Interfere In US 2020 Election To Help Biden. $3.5 Million dollars went directly to suppressing information in direct violation of the US constitution.
The FBI was engaged in sedition by paying a private company to censor and suppress speech in the US. The goal was to overtly assist Biden and his family by covering up the Hunter Biden laptop story despite knowing it was true.
This was direct interference in the 2020 election by US intelligence agencies and an effort to hurt Trump. Elon Musk is leaking more info and for this the machine is coming for him.
#democrats
#republicans
#twitter
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is December 20th, 2022, and our first story.
The FBI has been exposed for paying Twitter directly to censor conservatives.
They knew the Hunter Biden laptop story was real, and they manipulated the platform to censor a true story interfering in the 2020 election.
In our next story, Carrie Lake, her election lawsuit is going to trial.
She will be allowed to argue that there was intentional manipulation in this election, and that chain of custody was broken.
And in our last segment, a giant red anus!
Has been added to the pride flag.
I mean, not officially, I guess, but how do you officially change the pride flag anyway?
They say that they're adding a red umbrella to symbolize sex workers, but many people are pointing out it's just a big puckered anus.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
The FBI paid Twitter $3.5 million to do its bidding.
Taxpayers' money was used to suppress Hunter Biden laptop story and process agencies' requests to silence GOP voices as fury mounts over secret state censorship of the American people.
You may have heard the breaking news yesterday.
Well, there's more developments here.
Elon Musk says it's not just Twitter.
Of course it's not.
It's everything.
And it explains why when I was quoting Senator Rand Paul on the Senate floor about a particular CIA individual, my video was removed from the Internet without warning.
It would seem that the lengths the intelligence agencies went to manipulate and control the American people in this country go far beyond what any of us knew, but probably, well, probably so far what's been exposed is not as bad as we might expect it to be.
But then again, when you think about things like Epstein Island and Maxwell, and how the FBI did nothing, or as Luke would say, helped suppress the story, We can now see the lengths, the depravity, and the corruption.
I look around at the United States.
I'm in Phoenix, Arizona for Turning Point USA, and it's beautiful.
The houses are beautiful, the luxuries, the amenities.
The garlic hummus with sea salt black tortilla chips.
Man, we have it really good.
We have it better than basically anyone in a really, really long time.
But there are dark things at work that would seek to strip away all of that good.
Because of a few reasons.
They think you don't deserve it.
They think you can be happy without it if only you didn't know.
And that's the world they want to live in.
Now my view of why the intelligence agencies do this starts from the more minor into the more worrisome.
And that is to say that when we're learning the story of Twitter and why the FBI was doing this, why Twitter was being paid, well, at its heart, they were protecting the Biden family.
These individual agents were probably just like, hey, we want to help Joe Biden.
But then it goes up to the higher level.
They want to win.
They want control.
They want to maintain the status quo and their power.
And they know Trump is a threat to that.
And then it goes up a little bit higher than that, and you have powerful global interests who are on stage at, say, a TED Talk, like Bill Gates, talking about reducing population growth.
You have individuals talking about how you will owe nothing, and you will be happy.
You see, here's the way I see it.
I think these people know that we have a great degree of wealth and success.
And it's easy to control and manipulate the planet and the people into doing what they want if they create a large gap between the haves and the have-nots.
So, the easiest way to control a system may not be to accumulate all the power.
It may be to strip the power away from those you seek to control.
We often think that many of these individuals are seeking power, right?
Why would the FBI do this?
To help Joe Biden win?
To gain power?
But certainly there's the inverse.
Take the power away from the people.
Give more power to the upper echelon.
And that gap will make you substantially more powerful.
It's not just about your ability to run government or to direct intelligence agencies or declare
war.
It's about can you get someone to do what you want?
And there's only so much power to be to be consumed and wielded in politics.
In fact, it is easier to control a population when they have nothing, because then you can
make them happy by dangling the little bit of food right in front of their faces.
It ain't just about the FBI, it's about so much more.
And what this fight really is, what Elon Musk is doing that is good, and what he's doing that's bad, and where we ultimately end up.
Part of me wants to believe that we're headed in the right path.
I see a lot of signs to indicate that we are.
But why should we just assume that?
Because we want to?
Because we want the white pill?
Because choking on black pills ain't gonna do anything for us, perhaps?
Maybe Elon is not the saver you think he is?
Maybe he is.
Maybe.
When I see people like Carrie Lake, it gives me hope.
I talked to Carrie Lake.
I talked to her literally the other day.
And I feel like we are winning.
And I hope we are.
Because I want to live in a society where the power resides in the people, not the elites, who suppress Let's read the news, talk about what's going on, and get a little philosophical with it.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member in order to support our work directly.
It's not just about the content you get, but for most of you, I understand that it is.
It's about the mission.
As a member, you are supporting this operation.
We just did the TimCast IRL show live on stage at Turning Point USA, combining our efforts.
It was fantastic.
And we've got a lot of plans for building culture to inspire people to stand up and push back.
And one of those efforts is going to be the opening of several coffee shops where people can hang out and commune.
Something alternative to a church for people who don't necessarily believe in that.
And with your support as a member at TimCast.com, we're going to keep doing more and more and more of that.
We're gonna hire people.
We're gonna put faces on billboards in Times Square.
They're up there right now.
I just want to see the shift in culture towards power to the people.
So go to TimCast.com.
Click that Join Us button.
Become a member because you'll get a product.
You'll get a show.
You'll be entertained.
But more importantly, you are helping to create that culture.
And when you become a member, You are utilizing Parallel Economy.
That is the financial transaction service we use, co-founded by Dan Bongino.
Because I mean it when I say we must build that parallel economy.
So we use Parallel Economy.
And with your support and your trust, we're gonna do everything we can to influence the culture in a positive direction.
Smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
From the Daily Mail, they report The FBI handed nearly $3.5 million of taxpayer money to Twitter in order for the social media giant to continue to do its bidding.
In an email from February 2021, an unnamed Twitter employee estimated that the company's
safety content and law enforcement had collected $3,415,323 in less than two years from the FBI
for law enforcement related projects. The staffer was emailing then General Counsel Sean Edgett
and then deputy general counsel Jim Baker in the damning message.
The subject of the email read, Run the business, we made the money.
We made money.
It was Baker, a former FBI lawyer who met with the feds to discuss suppressing and discrediting the Hunter Biden laptop story a month before the bombshell New York Post article was published.
Despite the agency knowing legitimacy of the reporting, When Baker wanted the story squashed after it was published, Twitter's safety moderator Yoel Roth said that he wasn't sure if the story violated any of the company's policies, but added, this feels a lot like a somewhat subtle leak operation.
An investigation into Twitter's behavior around the 2020 presidential election by the incoming Republican majority in the House has been promised by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, telling Fox News this week, This is going to be a much bigger situation than people realize.
The nearly $3.5 million was paid to Twitter in exchange for workers continuing to process FBI requests to silence American citizens.
In the staffer's email, it says that the millions will be used on law enforcement-related projects, according to the latest dump of Twitter files from reporter Michael Schellenberger.
Current Twitter CEO Elon Musk said of the emails, government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor info from the public.
The leak also showed the day after holding a secret one-on-one briefing with the Bureau to discuss the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, Baker acknowledged to staff that more information was necessary but willing to err on the side of censorship.
Baker said in an email, there are some facts that indicated that the materials may have been hacked.
Baker also said in an email to staff, I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked.
At this stage, however, it is reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted.
Ultimately what we get.
Matt Taibbi tweeted, Twitter's contact with the FBI was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary.
Yesterday, Charlie Kirk said on the show, it wasn't just the money that they were paying, it's all the government advertising.
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.
Direct payment of $3.5 million for censorship activities.
We are not just talking about a violation of the First Amendment.
We are talking about the government paying a private corporation for the express purpose of violating the First Amendment.
Elon Musk responds.
Other social media companies too.
Not just Twitter.
Probably what you're watching right now.
The whole game is being propped up, it's being manipulated.
To what degree, I don't know.
The one thing that I pointed out yesterday on the show was that, while it may be that these platforms are weaponized by intelligence agencies to control the flow of information and manipulate the public, they can't control everything, and we are still able to communicate.
Though they really don't like it, and they've certainly tried shutting down people like Steven Crowder, there's only so much they can do.
Here's what they're hoping for.
I spoke to an individual who worked in the government who said the goal is to create a pressure So that around 51% of information favors the machine and around 49% is unfavorable to the machine.
The way it works, we feel like we're having our voices heard.
We feel like we're making progress.
But because of the weight on the scales, the left keeps winning.
The concern is that if they suppress your eye and descent too much, it'll create a pressure cooker which will explode.
They don't want that.
There needs to be some kind of pressure release valve.
The way I've described it before, I think that's why they like my show and my channel, within reason.
It's a pressure release valve.
They want to ban conservatives from the platform, ban individuals on the right, silence their voices, and shut down stories like this.
But they know that if they ban too many people, it will create a backlash.
So, they tolerate channels like mine.
You know, I'm a milquetoast fence-sitter, I'm a moderate, slightly liberal in a certain sense, slightly conservative in a certain sense, but probably center-left libertarian on a lot of issues.
And that's the acceptable right for them as they shift the Overton window.
Think of it this way.
There is a wheel before you.
You have the right, you have the far right, the right, the center, the left, and the far left.
Here I am in the center, but the wheel turns.
Center becomes right, right becomes far right, far right falls off.
Far left becomes left, left becomes center.
And that's where we're at right now.
I've been a centrist as long as I've been doing this for the most part, because I'm just interested in learning.
And now they say I'm right-wing.
I've tried claiming far-right, but usually it doesn't stick, but they say right-wing.
Because I'm fairly moderate.
But that's the game.
That's the goal.
And I believe the intelligence agencies are probably playing that game.
Now, to what extent does it tie into Epstein and Bill Gates and all of those bigger conspiracies?
I don't know.
But I think it does.
I think for most of the FBI agents, the average FBI person who's playing this game and violating the Constitution, and in my opinion, acting in a seditious conspiracy, when they're paying money to subvert the First Amendment, and that's what they're doing, they have no authority to do it, they probably think they're doing the right thing.
Oh, we're law enforcement, we're trying to protect our elections.
I think Twitter employees don't care.
Michael Schellenberger.
In the end, the FBI's influence campaign aimed at executives at news media, Twitter, and other social media companies worked.
They censored and discredited the Hunter Biden laptop story.
By December 2020, Baker and his colleagues even sent a note of thanks to the FBI for its work.
Now this is part of the bombshell.
This is a PSYOP run by the FBI on the American people.
Twitter Files author Michael Schellenberger says, FBI knew Hunter Biden laptop story was real, but still told Twitter and the US public it was fake.
He told Tucker Carlson the FBI attempted to suppress the story.
Yeah, here's what happened.
The FBI contacts Twitter.
Twitter ultimately says something along the lines of, well, I should say this, Jim Baker was basically FBI, right?
He's in Twitter.
And the argument was that someone hacked Hunter Biden's information, copied it to a laptop, and then snuck in and deposited that laptop with the computer repair shop.
That was the story.
Sounds reasonable, right?
It sounds reasonable.
It's not true.
That was the lie.
And it's an easy lie.
Russia's hacking our elections.
So here's what we gotta do.
We gotta tell the people that the laptop's not real.
Uh-oh.
Laptop is real.
It is now widely reported the laptop was real.
Yeah.
Come on.
Let's talk about two stories.
One from the FBI.
Russian hacker somehow hacked into Hunter Biden's computer, cloned the whole thing, Then snuck into a computer repair store, what, disguised as Hunter Biden?
Dropped it off and signed his signature and then left it there.
Or a drug-addled crackhead forgot his computer at a repair shop.
Hunter Biden's well off.
It's possible.
Computer broke.
Something was wrong with it.
He's drugged out of his mind.
We know that he got a gun and then it got thrown in a dumpster behind a school or something like that or across from a school.
I'm sorry, dude.
I'm gonna have to go with drug abusing crackhead whose teeth are all filed down and posts videos of himself with, you know, ladies of the night probably just forgot his laptop.
You see, that's the funny thing.
Yoel Roth and these Twitter people want to believe it couldn't possibly be real.
The left now comes out and says, the Democrats, they say, they say, Oh, well, Hunter Biden's still not Joe.
Oh, the laptop has evidence of malfeasance from Joe Biden.
The machine wants Joe Biden to win because Joe Biden's the machine.
Donald Trump is not.
Donald Trump may have been the first time since, what, maybe JFK, that we actually had a president.
But I don't know how far back it goes.
Maybe Jekyll Island.
The other night we were talking about the assassination of JFK.
Tucker Carlson did a segment where he said that he talked to a source with Insider Info who said the CIA was involved in killing JFK.
I don't know what's true or not.
There's a lot of stories.
But it is interesting we're at the point now where it's become kind of a more of a mainstream idea.
Let's entertain that idea.
At what point did the United States go from being a republic to being a machine, to being an empire?
We had a Civil War.
After the Civil War, it was in the 1870s, was it 1876?
I get the years mixed up.
The election was so tumultuous That a committee hearing was had between higher-up officials from many of the states, and they said, you know what, look, let's just figure out who the president's going to be so we don't have another civil war.
It was a bit chaotic in this country.
We were powerful in a certain sense.
We're kind of unstable in a certain sense.
Around the early 1900s, the monster from Jekyll Island emerged, the Federal Reserve, centralized banking.
Oh, they've tried setting up central banking before that.
Was that the moment when control of this country was subverted, perhaps?
What is it, the 17th Amendment?
Senators are appointed by popular vote?
I think that was a mistake.
Maybe JFK wasn't the first president, or the last president, outside of the machine.
Some people suggest he is.
Yesterday, during TimCast IRL, we talked about how after that, we got this mechanized military-industrial complex, and no, maybe JFK was completely a part of that.
But he began to defy it, and so they regained control.
Donald Trump began to defy it, and then they regained control.
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 Make the luxuries more expensive.
The poor people will own nothing and they'll be happy.
They say ignorance is bliss, but it's not.
on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
The poor people will own nothing and they'll be happy.
They say ignorance is bliss, but it's not.
Because in the ignorance, the American people who don't know what's going on, they're watching
their savings dwindle.
Inflation destroy their ability to buy products.
They're seeing their homes foreclosed on.
Property values collapse.
Their cars repossessed.
Jobs disappearing.
In their ignorance, they suffer.
But if they knew, there's a lot they could do.
Get away from cities, get some chickens, have a family, work hard, and find ways to survive.
And that's why I think ignorance is not bliss.
That's a trick.
And that's why they want to suppress information.
Eventually, those who do know nothing will own nothing, but they won't be happy.
That's not true.
Life was very, very difficult before.
And right now, we have many entitled millennials, and we have a lot of entitled people in general.
They'll never be happy either.
But you and I, why should we suffer because of ignorant and angry masses?
We should be able to work hard and succeed if we want.
I want to show you what the world will be like if we lose.
Well, I want to show you what's currently happening and talk about how we... why we need to push back.
We have this from CNN.
Oliver Darcy.
Elon Musk tweeted, As outgoing chair of House Intelligence, did you approve hidden state censorship and direct violation of the Constitution of the United States?
Rep Adam Schiff.
Yeah, Adam Schiff is a liar.
Adam Schiff, he published private phone records of American citizens, journalists no less.
And Oliver Darcy of CNN says, You see, Oliver Darcy knows he's lying.
And that's the point.
I said it's funny because you've made yourself a D-tier public figure only among people stupid enough to believe you.
You see, Oliver Darcy knows he's lying.
And that's the point.
I said, it's funny because you've made yourself a D-tier public figure only among people stupid
enough to believe you.
Was it worth it, Oliver?
He said, is that why you tweet incessantly about me and have pitched me stories about
yourself in the past?
Strange, you would waste your time obsessing over and pitching D-tier folks, but you do you.
And my response?
Nice try, Oliver.
Your reaction says everything we need to know.
You're insecure and your network is sinking.
You decided to throw your weight behind a failing operation.
Best of luck with suckling the tea to the machine and pandering to morons.
Yeah, I've had it.
I'm done.
I know Oliver knows he's lying.
Elon Musk isn't just randomly suppressing journalists.
He's going after people who are effectively working for the government, who are lying, cheating, and stealing.
And here's an example.
Taylor Lorenz.
You know, I gave her the benefit of the doubt a while ago.
But boy, did she just go so awful.
John Levine says, quote, they just make this stuff up, shot and chaser.
Let me show you some posts from Taylor Lorenz.
Here's one.
She said, I went to public school my entire life, aside from a short study abroad semester program for U.S.
students that in zero ways cost $90,000, lol.
I have zero family in Connecticut.
You people just make up fan fiction about my life.
She said, they just make this stuff up.
Really?
Here's a story from the Greenwich Time.
This is local Connecticut, March 2021.
Connecticut native Taylor Lorenz got attacked on Twitter.
She's not the only woman to face- Oh, that's weird.
Why is a local Connecticut paper saying she's from Connecticut?
Okay, maybe she's from Connecticut, but she has no family there?
Sure, whatever.
Here's my favorite.
Taylor Lorenz tweeting March 9th, 2020.
Oh, my birthday.
Before you Google, I went to a small private Swiss boarding school.
Tuition is 90k.
Being surrounded by privilege only highlighted the immense disparity between what I grew up with and what others didn't.
It's why it's so important to understand personal experiences are not universal.
Taylor Lorenz is a liar.
Because either she lied then or she's lying now.
Pick one.
Either she didn't go to a 90k boarding school or she did.
Either she's got no family.
Maybe she has no family in Connecticut but she grew up there according to a newspaper.
Maybe the newspaper is wrong.
Fine.
Fair point.
But in this, she lied.
She gets suspended, temporarily, for doxxing.
And Elon Musk said so.
And Oliver Darcy is saying open bans on journalists.
It's a manipulation.
To suckle the teat of the machine that would strip from you your rights because they want you to live in the pod and eat the bugs.
Now I don't know what Oliver Darcy's intention is.
He may just be a very evil person.
You know, I think Oliver Darcy's intention is to be a chattering little, little creature running around the ankles of the machine, just doing what they want for little head pets.
In all seriousness, he's hoping that where he is will grant him comfort and wealth.
Me, I don't care about that.
I actually would prefer to live in a van down by the river, and the machine would prefer it too.
There are a lot of people who don't want to live that way.
That's fine by me.
You live the way you want.
But man, I'd rather just have a homestead.
I'm going to be honest.
I'd much prefer than all of this to get a little house in the middle of nowhere and just have a farm.
Just, that's it.
Chickens, eat the eggs.
That's it.
Work in the fields periodically.
I like the comfort, I like the leisure, I like the ability to think and build.
I don't need all this.
But it's tough.
Because I feel like if I don't speak up and call out the lies and the manipulations, then eventually I won't have that opportunity either.
The way things are going.
The way things are moving.
We may end up in a world where you can't just retreat into the middle of nowhere.
They say the end goal is to have everyone forced to live in these machine cities so that nature can be preserved.
I don't.
I want to live in the middle of nowhere and mind my own business.
I'm sure many of you do too.
And if we decide to just walk away and shut our mouths, eventually there will be no minding your own business.
They will come.
They will come knocking.
We've seen it in many other countries.
Oliver Darcy thinks that by suckling the teat, he'll be okay.
No.
He won't be when the machine truly comes.
The New York Post.
Elon Musk says only paying Twitter subscribers can vote in future polls.
We'll see how that one plays out, but I trust Elon Musk is working to fix the system and maybe fix our culture to a certain degree.
David Sachs tweets.
We need a new church commission to investigate why the FBI and intelligence community are engaged in social media censorship, including the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Yeah.
What is this little symbol?
Very good clip from Senator Frank Church.
They had the commission.
They wanted answers to what the intelligence agencies were doing.
I do think we need one now.
Luke's been calling for one.
He's right.
European Union approves carbon tax for individuals.
Some officials warn the new CO2 taxes could be politically suicidal and spark widespread protests.
But they don't care.
Have you guys seen the movie Watchmen?
I'm sorry, Kingsman.
Watchmen's a good movie, too.
Kingsman.
If you haven't, I strongly recommend you see it, but spoiler alert, it's an old movie, so...
There's a secret intelligence agency, a private intelligence agency, called Kingsman.
And their agents are all named at the Knights of the Round Table.
I think it's Galahad who dies, but anyway.
There's a villain.
He's a tech billionaire.
He's concerned about overpopulation.
So he announces he's gonna give everyone free cell phones.
Free cell phones.
How about that?
Sounds like a good idea, right?
Turns out, though, he can activate a machine that makes these devices emit a sound wave, an energy frequency, that stimulates the aggression part of the brain and makes everyone nuts.
And they all start trying to kill each other.
But for the global elites, they had special devices in their brains that protected them.
The only problem?
The devices also had a failsafe.
If someone defied him, he could blow up their heads.
So in the end, Eggsy, the character's name, activates the machine.
Well, him and his team.
Blowing up all the heads of the elites.
Here's the thing.
Even the head of the private intelligence agency, who went by Arthur, was in on the game.
They are all in on the game.
We need, as Steve Bannon said, a populist uprising.
Regular people to say for, of, and by the people.
The American Revolution was an aberration in the history of the world.
The people were not supposed to supplant the elites.
The elites were supposed to be in control.
And it was short-lived to a certain degree.
Eventually, the elites took control once again because eventually we become the elites.
People in this country gained wealth, said, why should we listen to the rabble?
Short-lived.
The Crown could not maintain control over a country that was so far away.
And the Founding Fathers said, decentralization.
For, of, and by the people.
That's what we need.
That's what I believe in.
But right now, around the world, you can see it.
It is for, of, and by those who believe they are better men.
And the better men won't let you defy them.
Here's the problem I have with that.
Right now there may be a kid born in squalor and poverty who has the potential to build a spaceship.
Who has the potential to save humanity.
The elites tend not to care about that.
They say it's an anomaly.
Yeah.
You know what?
Let's control the system.
Because our kids are more likely to be that better man when they grow up.
The only thing is, it's not true.
The people who think they're in control, the people in control, it only lasts a few generations.
People will wrestle and build power.
They'll have children who learn lessons from their father and mother, but don't experience it.
And then there are kids who will learn a lesson in facsimile.
And then squander the wealth.
A wealth that lasts only three generations.
So no, I don't believe in a system like that.
The only way this changes is if we stand up, we speak out, and we make some kind of movement.
I am no president.
I am no king.
I am no congressman.
I am no senator.
And I do not seek to be anyone's leader.
I'm my own thing.
I'm not part of any other organization.
We have our own.
I don't want to rule any company or country.
I don't want to be the CEO of Twitter.
I don't want to be involved at all except in what I am doing.
And so that's what I'll say.
The challenge, I suppose, is that Elon and the great philosophers are right.
Those who want power are the worst people to get it.
But then how do you convince someone who doesn't want power to lead and take the power?
Because they don't want it!
Many would run from it.
That's tough.
I don't care for power, but I do want to make changes.
So the way I view the world and what I want to do is build something.
So we have TimCast.com.
I don't want to work for somebody else.
I don't want to tell anyone they have to follow behind me.
I'm going to do my thing.
We're going to find cool people to work with, we're going to bring them on board, and we're going to fund them.
With your support at TimCast.com, click that Join Us button, become a member.
With your membership, you get access to all this content.
You are not doing anything other than saying, you know what man, give it a shot to him.
I will not be your boss.
I will never be your leader.
I'll just be someone who's trying to build something good that will influence this country and this world in a positive direction.
That's all I can do.
And there's not even a good guarantee that I can do it.
I met a lot of young people who say good things that they've been influenced.
And I suppose that's all that matters in the end.
If even one person's mind has been changed.
Granted, I mean it's good, but there's gotta be more value there.
We're gonna be opening up a bunch of coffee shops.
The idea here is we need physical access.
We need people to be able to sit down and talk with one another.
That's the plan.
So, we bought a building.
That building will be a space where we can do shows, where we can have games, and you can hang out.
We're gonna set up a little area called Ian's Crystal Cove to watch movies and read books.
And, um...
We want to build a bunch of these.
So that way, in various areas, people can gather and they can meet.
And you know what I'm gonna do?
I ain't gonna put no Antifa signs in the window.
I'm not gonna put any sign in the window saying, please don't hurt us.
I'm gonna put a sign in the window that says, Molon Labe.
I'm gonna put a sign in the window that's got a Gadsden flag.
I'm gonna put a sign in the window that says, America First.
And let them come.
Because they will.
Antifa and the rest.
They won't take kindly to our shops.
But you know what?
We won't stop.
If you like the idea, become a member at TimCast.com.
And then, I'll do what I can.
Maybe it won't play out the way I hope.
Maybe it'll play out way better.
But 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 I'll see you all then.
Last night, TimCast IRL was live on stage at Turning Point USA.
You can check it out over at youtube.com slash TimCast IRL.
And during the Q&A session of the show, which went up for members only at TimCast.com, we got word that Carrie Lake's election lawsuit had survived a motion to dismiss and would be moving to trial.
This is a nuclear bombshell.
Now, I still don't know what's going to happen, but I predicted some of this yesterday.
If you watched my main segment video, I said I didn't know if some of the claims like the First Amendment, free speech, and stuff could be properly adjudicated because although we can see interference with Democrats reaching out to Twitter, how you then relate that to an election is extremely difficult.
So, what ends up happening is the judge dismisses, I believe, eight of ten charges, ten counts, And allows two very very important ones to proceed.
Notably was the broken chain of custody.
Now that one's interesting because if chain of custody of these ballots was broken that is a criminal act.
I believe.
But I want to make sure I get all this right.
So I want to read for you some of the news reporting, which should make you laugh.
But you got to understand, most of these election challenges never make it this far.
This was the great barrier.
A motion to dismiss.
Carrie Lake yesterday argued in court, her team did, that there were a variety of reasons that show there was intent to disenfranchise and effectively manipulate the outcome of the election.
We've not even gotten to an evidentiary hearing.
It's gotta go to a trial, right?
If we're truly gonna understand what's true.
But, before you can get there...
The judge says, okay, what's your argument?
Gary Lake says, for instance, I'll give you one example, the First Amendment was violated, and he says, I don't know how we do that, right?
Whether or not the opinions of an individual would have gone one way or the other if the First Amendment wasn't violated, how do you rule on that in terms of a hard vote resulting in someone getting elected?
Like, the judge can say, I rule X amount of votes had broken chain of custody, you're gone.
But what's he gonna say?
You know, I estimate that with a million followers on Twitter, there probably should be... Nah, it's not gonna happen.
So of course, a good portion of this was going to get dismissed.
That's the point.
It's a shotgun blast.
You fire as much as you can out there, you're spraying and praying.
But I think what we're seeing with this lawsuit is Carrie Lake's most important claims are advancing.
Surprise, surprise.
The media has nothing good to say.
First, the story from Newsweek.
I like this headline, so that's the one I've chosen to lead with.
Carrie Lake tells America to buckle up as sliver of lawsuit advances.
Ah, yes, the sliver of the lawsuit.
I'll put it this way.
If you ordered a mega ultra cheeseburger with bacon, lettuce, tomatoes, onion, and then someone came by and said, we're taking off the onion, the tomato, the lettuce, but you can keep the cheese and the meat.
Arizona judge dismisses most of Kerry Lake's lawsuit challenging election results.
This is journalistic malpractice to imply, to insinuate, to make people believe that this isn't going anywhere, when in fact it is.
That's the craziest thing.
Here's CNN.
Maricopa judge allows narrow part of Carrie Lake's Arizona election lawsuit to head to trial.
Hey, at least CNN gave her that much.
You know who did it very, very well, I think?
The AAP.
Carrie Lake will get to make case for election misconduct.
There you go!
How about we call it something very simple.
Carrie Lake's election challenge is going to trial.
So we're sitting up on stage at TPUSA.
We got people lining up to ask questions and Charlie Kirk just says, we just got breaking news.
Carrie Lake's case is going to trial.
That's the news.
Everything else is propaganda manipulation minutia.
Can Carrie Lake prove her substantial claims?
That is, broken chain of custody.
I mean, that's huge.
Think about it this way.
A bunch of ballots are put into a machine.
They're counted.
A bunch of mail-in votes come in.
And they say, okay, now we're going to count those.
Then they disappear.
Where'd they go?
Then they show up to the warehouse.
Hey, who had those?
Where'd they come from?
We don't know?
I gotta say, that is misconduct, okay?
Now the question is, can Carrie Lake prove intent?
Now I gotta say, right off the bat, this is insane.
There is a big problem in a lot of our lawsuits when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who may be the ones doing wrong.
And what I'll say by this is, I certainly believe innocent until proven guilty, but the courts often don't even let you get to the point where you can try to prove it.
That's the problem.
Like when it comes to defamation lawsuits.
You know, part of me likes the Times v. Sullivan stuff, that it's hard to file a lawsuit, because it allows this business to operate without that much fear.
But I don't defame people, and I don't lie.
So I have very little to fear as it is, other than frivolous lawsuits, I guess.
But when someone defames you, and you're like, hey, this guy defamed me, the court says, dismissed.
Well, let me prove it, man!
I can prove they knew they were lying, and the court says, nah, nope, not interested.
Here's the news.
Let's read the news.
Let's do the Newsweek one.
They say, only two out of the ten counts in Kerry Lake's election lawsuit were permitted to advance to trial this week, giving supporters of the former Arizona gubernatorial candidate a fraction of a chance to overturn the election results.
I just, I love how they frame this.
Only two out of ten.
What are the ten?
I'll go through them for you.
In Lake's suit filed this month against governor-elect Katie Hobbs and state election officials and county election officials, please include that, the Republican argues the election results could be set aside due to voting irregularities demanding a recount or that she is called the winner.
We'll see.
Hobbs, who serves as Arizona Secretary of State, won the election by just over 17,000 votes and requested that Lake's lawsuit be dismissed.
Now, I'm not going to criticize Katie Hobbs for requesting a dismissal.
That's fair, in my opinion, because anybody who's serious in a court case is not going to be like, we have no motion to dismiss.
We'd like to go to trial.
No, they're going to do what they have to do.
They got a bunch of it dismissed.
That's just procedural.
I do think this is the best possible outcome because it means, okay, a judge issued his ruling on a bunch of these claims.
I actually agree to a certain extent, but we'll go through it.
Like I said, the First Amendment thing.
But if you've got evidence of a crime being committed, a broken chain of custody on hundreds of thousands of votes, is that the allegation?
Oh, come on!
Now, here's the problem.
The intent She's gotta prove intent?
So you mean to tell me that someone can accidentally lose hundreds of thousands of ballots, and you're gonna be like, it's fine.
That's crazy to me.
Oh, plausible deniability.
Yes, the ballots, we don't know where they came from, but I didn't intentionally do it, so I get to win?
That's crazy, that's crazy.
They say this.
On Monday, Maricopa County Judge Peter Thompson threw out a majority of Lake's argument, stating that her accusations lacked proper evidence.
However, two counts from the suit have been allowed to move forward to trial, which was previously scheduled for Tuesday.
So I think that's happening today and tomorrow.
It might be Wednesday and Thursday, I'm not sure.
Katie Hobbs' attempt to have our case thrown out failed.
Katie Hobbs said, our election case is going to trial.
Katie Hobbs' attempt to have her case thrown out failed.
She will have to take the stand and testify.
Oh boy.
Buckle up America, this is far from over.
And that's all I can ask for.
If in the end Carrie Lake loses, I will be disappointed.
I'm a big fan.
I think she's a fighter.
There's very few politicians I like.
She's one of the ones that I actually do like.
In one count that advanced a trial, Lake alleges that ballot printers malfunctioning on Election Day, November 8th, were not certified and, quote, have vulnerabilities that render them susceptible to hacking.
Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, did experience issues with roughly 20% of its tabulator machines, but county officials have previously denied Lake's allegations that same-day voters were disenfranchised.
Now, does that matter?
The question is, was there an intent?
Did they ignore certification?
Apparently, there's a there's a cyber expert who says, normally we do it this way.
They intentionally violated procedure.
How are they going to answer to that?
They're going to have to get their own experts.
We will see.
I'm going to be honest with you.
I don't see this winning.
I'm not trying to be blackmailed or negative.
It was a long shot to begin with.
There are problems with our election systems.
But The issue is, in my opinion, ballot harvesting.
And I've got something to show you, I think, that backs that up.
And some other crazy data for you.
Thompson wrote in his decision Monday that Lake is entitled to attempt to prove at trial that a Maricopa County employee purposefully did interfere with the printers in question and that the malfunctions would have affected the outcome of election.
Oh boy.
I just gotta say, I don't know if Carrie Lake can prove that.
That's a bold claim to make.
The judge says, okay, prove it in court.
This could be the end.
Okay?
All right?
YouTube, calm down with your censorship.
This is how the process is supposed to go.
And if Carrie Lake loses and the judge says, look, you've not proven it, we should get to see that.
Here we go.
The second count permitted to move forward includes Lake's allegation regarding the ballots' chain of custody.
Lake asserts that ballots were added in Maricopa County by employees who worked for the election service utilized by the state.
Thompson wrote in his decision that while Hobbs' team had claimed in its dismissal that Lake misunderstood the chain of custody laws, the issue at hand is a dispute of fact.
If the county in question complied with its own manual and applicable statuses.
On Tuesday, each party will meet for witness examination and closing statements.
Oh, they're gonna have to lie, right?
Lake, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump, has been a staunch supporter of Trump's baseless assertion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
She also failed to say before the midterm elections against Hobbs if she would accept the results if she lost.
I don't think anybody with a claim who feels that something happened should, I don't care if it's a Democrat or otherwise, Hillary Clinton, file your lawsuits.
Instead, Hillary Clinton goes into the press and claims Trump is working with Russia and other garbage nonsense.
Current Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, has previously met with Hobbs to ensure a peaceful transition of power in the new year and congratulated the governor-elect on her hard-fought race.
Here's what I think.
I think that the Republican establishment does not want to let Carrie Lake win.
Because she's Trump.
Because she's MAGA.
They can't allow that.
But I don't know if Carrie Lake actually has.
Look, I'll tell you what I think.
I think mail-in ballots did it.
I think universal mail-in voting.
I think ballot harvesting.
I think Republicans are still convinced of this.
Last night, you know, Ian on stage says, we need to get a good message to the people.
And I'm like, dude, no.
Okay.
Like not, I'm not saying don't get a good message.
Of course you do.
But that's not how Democrats win.
Democrats do not win by adequately informing people of policy.
They win by walking up to their doors, knocking, and saying, vote.
That's it!
Ballot chasing.
That's what Charlie Kirk is calling it.
He said not harvesting, chasing.
Making sure that every single person votes.
Right?
That's what the Democrats have been saying.
So when they go door-to-door and they get the votes, congratulations.
Universal mail-in voting.
So let's take a look at some of this lawsuit.
And I don't want to spend too much time going through every single claim.
I just want to show you the counts, the ones that he dismissed.
But I want to show you this tweet from Matthew Iglesias about a major shift in Air Force Base polling, a shift towards the Democratic Party.
And I want to tell you this because of what we're seeing with Kerry Lake.
I'm not convinced anybody's going to be satisfied with the results.
If the Democrats end up losing because of this election, they're going to lose their minds.
If the Republicans, if Kerry Lake doesn't win, they're not going to accept it either.
So when I talk about Civil War, you need to look at these polls and show military bases shifting Democrat.
And I'll explain why, and this, I think, is a major component.
You see what they try to do to you when they get this stupid garbage?
Plaintiff's first count alleges that defendants Hobbs and Richards' actions constitute per se violations of the First Amendment and its Arizona Constitution cognate that merit invalidation of the election results.
Not only does the verified statement fail to set forth an unconstitutional infringement on plaintiffs or anyone's speech, even if it did, it would not set forth misconduct.
Okay, my position here is, I said it, when it comes to the First Amendment, how do you actually prove that violating the First Amendment changed a hard number of votes?
Hey, I think there's malfeasance, I think they're playing dirty games, but It's just not there.
I'm sorry, man.
We know it interferes.
We know it manipulates people.
But how does a judge say X amount of votes?
He can't do it.
He can certainly maybe issue a ruling or there could be a different suit.
Maybe something pertaining to the violation of free speech.
Count two, illegal tabulator configurations.
He says plaintiffs alleges the ballot on demand printers that malfunctioned on election day were not certified.
And have vulnerabilities that render them susceptible to hacking, according to a declaration attached to the statement.
It says the court takes plaintiff to mean two things by this count.
The use of BOD printers lacking certification was misconduct by some responsible officials.
And two, that someone did something to the printers to cause them to misprint ballots.
He says this one denied as to count two as narrowed above.
Count three invalid signatures on mail-in ballots.
Let's just jump down.
Count three must be dismissed.
He says ballot chain of custody.
Now, this one's interesting.
I think this is definitely interesting.
He says motions are denied to count four.
Count 5, equal protection, and Count 6, due process.
Those are definitely denied.
5 and 6, dismissed.
7, dismissed.
8, dismissed.
So 7 is incorrect certification.
I'm sorry, that was 8.
7 was secrecy clause.
Arguing that mail-in-balance procedure unconstitutional.
Okay, I just want to get to, where is he?
Count 9, dismissed.
So, okay.
So he basically dismisses everything.
Except for the two that I mentioned, and it said narrow dismissal.
He says, it is ordered dismissing all counts of the plaintiff's verified statement on election contest except for two and four.
It is further ordered affirming the court's prior order concerning ballot inspection take place.
Okay, okay, here we go.
All right.
It is further ordered affirming this court's prior order concerning ballot inspection To take place at 8am on Tuesday, December 20th, 2022.
So, by the time you watch this, it will have begun.
I'm excited, man.
I'm going to tell you, I don't think it survives.
I don't.
But I'm interested to see how this plays out.
Alright?
So, he does say here, consequently plaintiff has stated a claim under ARS.
Defendant's motions are denied as to count four.
This is interesting, because he basically says they're denied, but in the end says they're not denied.
So, I'm not a lawyer.
I can't tell you what this means.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm an idiot.
Defendants motions, not plaintiffs.
Okay, there we go.
Count three must be dismissed, but outright as for four, he says defendants motions are denied as to count four.
Defendants dispute the lack of compliance with chain of custody laws and claim plaintiff is misunderstood as presented whether the county complied with its own manual And applicable statutes is a dispute of fact rather than one of law.
This is true as to whether such a lack of compliance was both intentional and did in fact result in a changed outcome.
Defendants, that's Katie Hobbs, and then as per count two, right, that was defendants motions are denied as to count two.
So, Kerry Lake is the plaintiff, defendant had those denied, the judge is moving those forward.
Randolph Air Force Base, 2012 R 47, 2016 R 30, 2020 R 5, 2022 Governor R point 6.
Lackland 2012 R 26, 2016 R 20, 2020 R 25, 2020 time.
I'm sorry, 2022.
Let me slow down for you.
This is showing that in these Air Force bases, there is a dramatic shift from Republican to Democrat.
And they'll tell you.
Because people don't get it, man.
They're gonna come out and they're gonna tell you, oh, you know, the Democrats are winning.
People are abandoning the Republican Party.
No, they aren't.
Two things are happening here.
Younger people are coming in.
They skew Democrat.
Normal.
Ballot harvesting is coming in.
That skews Democrat.
Normal.
I shouldn't say normal, but reality.
More importantly, Armed Forces members who are anti-woke, who believe in freedom, who want to fly the Gadsden flag, are leaving.
This is what I have been warning you about.
Now, I don't know that a civil war happens, but when I point to things like this, okay, I'm saying, hey, consider this.
And people give me rebuttal.
That's fair.
Fair point.
Good rebuttals, right?
You take a look at what's happening in Arizona.
Alright?
Something serious is happening with our elections.
People are not accepting them.
And maybe for good reason, maybe not.
Doesn't matter.
The left and the right aren't going to come to an agreement on this one.
Then you take a look at our military, and people say, dude, there won't be a civil war.
The military is conservative.
And I have warned y'all.
Back in 2018, I remember.
I remember.
I said, I fear we're heading towards a civil war.
I'm reading these articles talking about, this is how it starts, and I had these DC conservative types tell me, I'm nuts.
The security state, the federal government would never let a civil war happen.
You can't look at Antifa and Proud Boys and just think a civil war is coming.
And I said, it is escalation.
That the culture war will reach the highest levels of government.
I'm not talking about some street groups fighting each other.
I'm talking about how the street fights will reach the highest levels of government.
And then you get to the point where two cars speed to the DC police chief.
Two men jump out and say, arrest that man!
That's what Matt Taibbi wrote about.
Saying he fears that we're getting to that point.
And that was, I think, a couple years ago he wrote that.
And then we start seeing it.
With the federal government, with January 6th, etc., these street-level protests reached the highest levels of government.
With Joe Biden directly supporting the far-left riots, with Kamala Harris funding them or fundraising for them.
With January 6th, it is getting to that point.
With Nancy Pelosi wanting crew-served machine guns in D.C.
Did that not raise alarm bells?
Now we have this.
I was told then, Tim, it can never happen.
Come on, because you know what's going to happen is the military, they're all conservative.
Even if the far left morons went out, the right has guns, blah, blah, blah.
And now what we're seeing as the crisis worsens, conservatives are fleeing the military.
They are.
Thomas Massey called it.
People on the right are saying, I'm not going to stay.
I'm not going to enlist.
And look at what's happening.
There's just a few Air Force bases.
It's not everything.
But the shift will happen.
See, I warned of this when I saw a video out of Seattle where a cop, so it's a guy walking backwards with his hands up.
Then there's a bunch of Antifa pointing weapons at him.
The cops arrest the dude who's backing away.
The cops then walk up and apologize to Antifa.
Get it?
Good cops have quit.
Bad cops are staying.
The machine is being entrenched and reinforced by cult members.
So, when I say Civil War, this is what I fear.
I don't know what will the outcome be with Kerry Lake, but it's going to be today, so I'm going to be watching closely, and I'm very excited for this.
Maricopa County is currently trending.
We've got a reporter on the ground.
We're hopefully embedding with Kerry Lake's team.
I don't know if that's actually going to happen, but it'll be great if we can get in there and start tracking real-time what's going on.
I think it would be really fantastic to see that story, so hopefully.
Shout-out to Kerry Lake.
I hope you guys can pull this one off because I'm a fan, but shout-out to the judge, okay?
Me?
If you can't get past the judges, so be it.
We need to win on procedural grounds.
We need to win judges.
We need to win, you know, state-level elections.
So be it.
But this is a good start.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
A few weeks ago, I was walking around downtown Frederick, Maryland, and I saw people flying the Pride flag with the pink and blue stripes, with the black and the brown, the yellow and the purple circle in it, which you can see there.
And I thought to myself, how is it that someone just decided this would be the new flag and that everyone would fly it?
There was a viral photo on Twitter where someone painted their house a rainbow and then said it was in honor of, you know, gay pride, LGBTQ pride.
And activists started saying, hey, that's not inclusive.
You need to include the trans and intersex portion of the new flag.
And it was kind of funny because it's like someone was trying to do a good thing.
They were trying to appease the cult, but it was never enough.
And so I thought to myself as I walked through, Frederic, you know, why are people flying this flag?
Was there a memo sent out?
Is there an organization?
Is there some kind of activist entity that decides what the new flag will be?
I don't know.
Still don't know.
Somehow people just decide to start adopting a flag and then everyone else does.
And we now have a new iteration.
Now this new iteration contains a large red puckered Umbrella.
It's an umbrella.
That's all it is.
It's an umbrella.
Okay, I get it.
You get the point.
I get that you get the point.
Everyone who's looking at this is outright saying it's an anus added to the pride flag, and they're asking why.
Well, I'm going to tell you why, and I'm going to break down what this is really about.
We have a tweet from TGEU.org.
I'm not familiar with this organization, but this is the tweet that's going around.
It is a membership-based organization working to strengthen the rights and well-being of trans people in Europe and Central Asia.
I'll say right off the bat, you know, I think people should be able to live the lives they want to live.
Live and let live, libertarian kind of thing.
So, this is more about the evolution of symbols and political ideology than anything else.
Anybody who wants to... I don't know.
I'll put it this way.
I have no idea what this flag represents anymore.
No, seriously.
Okay, let's break it down, and then I'll show what people are saying.
It used to be that the colors of the rainbow represented something, and there were some colors that were removed.
Did you know that back in the early days, I believe there was a pink stripe that represented magic?
And people were like, I don't know if magic has to do with anything.
Let's get rid of that one.
They did.
Eventually, they added this black and brown stripe, I guess.
I think it was the trans stripe first.
It was the pink, blue, and white.
And it was to represent transgender people, which...
I thought it was kind of strange because the flag already does.
It's the LGBTQ pride flag.
The flag wasn't explicitly just for men who liked men.
But they added that and said, okay.
Eventually, they added the black and brown stripes.
Now, this one was genuinely the most confusing because I don't understand what being black or brown has to do with being LGBTQ.
It doesn't.
But I guess they're saying that LGBTQ black and brown people are experiencing something different, so they need their own thing.
Someone then added the yellow triangle and the purple circle for intersex and asexual individuals.
Now, a lot of people have made jokes about how absurd things have gotten.
We'll come back to that one up top, but we have five times August saying, found it, the updated all-inclusive pride flag.
This is from over a year ago, a year and a half ago.
And it's just some zonky looking thing with eyes bouncing around in colors.
And a lot of people, breaking down what the flag really means.
Now, people are noticing that there is a giant puckered anus on the flag.
And you know what the thing is?
It is.
It is.
It symbolizes sex work for a reason.
They're saying it's the red umbrella.
Okay, the red umbrella in no way symbolizes sex work.
From the top, it looks like an anus.
And that is what people are taking it to mean.
Now, by all means, you can come out and claim it means something else.
But that's not what people are saying.
That's not what people see.
And I suppose you can argue that it's being misappropriated or whatever, but it's like, dude, if you make this, and then shoe-on-head posts the hands of Goatsy, I think everyone gets what you're doing.
It is a sex worker symbol.
What does being a sex worker have to do with LGBTQ rights?
Now, I can certainly understand why a sex worker, a symbol makes more sense than, say, a black and brown stripe, because I don't, I mean, I guess you're including, you know, black and brown people because they're marginalized?
I don't know if that's something they appreciate being in, you know, lumped into or whatever, but this is where we are currently at.
Now, one thing I noticed is that Jason Domino, you can see that his at right here was removed They say, this year Lucas Barreto adapted the Amazing Progress pride flag versions developed by the Jason Domino and Valentino Inter.
The design includes both the intersex flag and the red umbrella.
So, it actually goes back to March of 2020.
This new pride flag aims to be the most inclusive ever.
This one did not take off.
It has.
The trans portion.
It has the black and brown, and then it has the red umbrella.
The, as many people have said, you know, the puckered anus.
And it doesn't include the yellow triangle with the purple circle.
That one actually took off, this one didn't.
But now we can see they're still trying to make this thing happen.
Now, going back to the beginning of what I was talking about, I don't know how or why these things get adopted, and I don't see this one getting wide adoption.
It's being ridiculed even by some people on the left.
But I have to wonder, how do people just arbitrarily decide?
How does it happen?
Is there a committee?
Do they come out and they say, okay, here's what we're doing, everybody.
Here's the new flag, everyone go fly it, and then they do.
Well.
This is the current state of where we are at, and you may be saying, Tim, I don't understand what sex work has to do with LGBTQ.
And that is a good question.
But you know what?
I think that, for the most part, a lot of what they're doing has very little to do with anything related to rights.
We have this from Media Matters.
Ah, a shout-out to James Lindsay, who appeared on—wow, they got this one up quick, huh?
This is a—we did a panel podcast last night at Turning Point USA.
They say, James Lindsay said, you guys remember George Floyd?
The goal is to have Drag Floyd.
queens are provoking extremists into murdering them to create summer 2020 again. James Lindsay
said you guys remember George Floyd. The goal is to have drag Floyd. James Lindsay wasn't talking
about drag queens. He was talking about intelligence agencies trying to foment extremists into attacking
See, it's not the drag queens that are trying to get people to attack them.
It is intelligence agencies, establishment entities.
It is nefarious individuals working behind the scenes.
And it's not so much that they're actively trying, so much as they desperately want, right?
There's a difference.
It doesn't need to be a conspiracy if they're crossing their fingers and hoping it eventually happens.
As they keep saying, stochastic terrorism, stochastic terrorism.
But I want to come back to this one.
And I want to talk to you about this.
The gays who strayed from TimCast.com, Gays Against Groomers, fight to reclaim the LGBT community.
Founder Jamie Mitchell told TimCast, Our only goal is to stop this from happening to kids.
We're not okay with this and we're going to stop you from inside the community.
These are people who are LGBTQ.
These people are gay.
They are trans.
They are bi.
They are lesbian.
And they are just saying, and some are drag queens.
Please, not around kids.
Kids need to grow up, and then once they get older and they can make decisions for themselves, find themselves.
Instead, what we're getting, it's people targeting children.
I have some moral and ethical questions for you guys based on the show we did yesterday, but I want to highlight this from Media Matters, a point made by James Lindsay, which I'm grateful that Media Matters is highlighting because I think it's important to talk about.
I like how they have up here, Tucker Carlson, it says, don't let right-wing lies set the agenda in 2023.
Donate here.
Yeah, Media Matters, what are they, NewsGuard certified, 80 out of 100.
TimCast is certified higher.
But it's just, it's just fake news.
Media Matters gets green across, oh please, they just make stuff up.
Now in this instance, fair point, they're just quoting James Lindsay, and I respect that.
That's fine.
James Lindsay said, and it says, turning point USA panelists.
Hey, hey, TimCast IRL guests, okay?
He said, I think this is that unconventional warfare.
This is what they do in unconventional warfare.
They make these provocations.
Drag queens are a provocation.
It's been an escalating provocation.
First, they're just dressing up in some kind of somewhat, you know, careful dresses.
Dressed with their clown makeup.
Groomer clowns or whatever reading stories.
Next thing you know, Tim and I were talking about this yesterday, next thing you know, they're dancing, they're grinding, they're sexual dancing, they're twerking.
The next thing you know, they're doing simulated sex acts in front of children.
All facts.
So what we were talking about, the day before this, I saw James, we were getting ready for the show, and I was telling him, like, look man, we all said Drag Queen Story Hour was grooming.
And they said, no it isn't, they're just reading books.
Just reading books, wearing a costume, reading books.
James Lindsay says, if you're dressing up with horns and makeup and eccentric clothing to entertain children, you're a clown, not a drag queen.
That's an interesting point.
Why, then, would they say, no, it's a drag queen?
Okay, well, so here's what happens.
First, it's just reading books.
And we said, hey, that's grooming, and I'll tell you why.
Oh, and they got really mad at me about this one.
Because grooming is when you introduce someone to something innocuous, and then slowly push them.
So, hey, would you like to be a model?
Oh, modeling's normal.
Take the pictures, take the pictures.
Eventually it's, why don't you drop your shoulder strap?
Why don't you pull your top down?
Et cetera, et cetera.
They inch you, they groom you into eventually accepting sex work.
So what happens is, they're just drag queens reading books.
Yes, but drag is a sex performance.
It is the same thing as stripping.
Anybody who knows anything about strip clubs knows that not all strip clubs people get naked.
But you guys, you've heard me say this before.
So like a go-go, let's say go-go dancers.
We'll call that go-go dancer story hour.
And is that acceptable?
Big, you know, busty women in skimpy tops shaking their boobs as they read books?
No, of course not, but it's the same thing.
Drag dancers shake their hips, push fake boobs together, or, you know, implants or whatever they might have, and then it's just, they do simulated sex on stage.
This was just reading a book then.
It was all ages drag shows.
And they said, it's like a fashion show.
They're just dancing.
All they're doing is dancing.
And so the drag queens come out and they twirl and they strut and everyone claps and hands them money.
And the left says, they're not even doing it.
They're just dancing.
Calm down.
We said it was grooming.
Then they have an event where there's a big sign saying it's not going to lick itself.
They're introducing sexual innuendo, but just dancing.
Oh, it was an ice cream reference.
Then we get San Antonio.
Where they're actually hard thrusting on stage.
Where one person unzips at their crotch and pulls out some kind of meat or something like that.
Where they actively are talking about sex acts in front of children.
Now they are simulating sodomy in front of children.
That has always been grooming from the beginning with Drag Queen Story Hour.
And now you can see it.
And they lie every step of the way because they have to.
Because they know regular people will lose it unless they can inch them to a certain point.
You had someone go to this drag queen store, this drag, uh, simulated sodomy event, and ask the parents, is it appropriate for kids?
And they're like, yeah, it's fine.
You know, kids watch movies.
You know, Frozen has innuendo.
They don't even understand it anyway.
And it's like, dude, there's no point in Frozen where two men start thrusting each other.
Sorry, that just didn't happen.
So what James Lindsay is saying, he's talking about stochastic terrorism, he's saying what they want to happen is that they will keep doing these things.
He says, quote, they put a drag queen.
Oh, it's just a story.
It's just dancing.
And what you're going to do is you're going to give in, at which point they're going to enter into their Degenerative themes.
This is straight out of their literature and they say it's the real goal of Drag Queen Story Hour.
We're going to leave a trail of glitter that will never come out of the carpets is the last sentence in the paper talking about your kid's brain.
And then either you give into it and they do get to do that or you go too hard and you mess up and they make a video of you looking bad.
Then they start trying to smear you as an anti-groomer or as raising anti-LGBT hate.
But that's why I highlight gays against groomers.
Because groomer is not a reference to LGBTQ people, no matter how many times the groomers and the pedophiles try to claim it is.
What we are witnessing, when they put sex workers on the flag, they are not defending the rights of the LGBTQ community, they are subverting those rights for some kind of alternative gain.
In this instance, sex workers want access.
They want something.
And that's fine.
I'm more libertarian in this.
I'm not a big fan of sex workers, but I'm more libertarian, so I think consenting adults should be able to do what they want.
It's tough, right?
I milked those fences, but I'm more libertarian in that, so I'm usually like, whatever.
They want to win their political battle.
They've found a path to do it.
Let's put the big puckered anus on the pride flag.
Then people will start to ask questions about what that is, and if you oppose us, you're a bigot.
Well, that's where we end up.
Groomer is not a reference to LGBTQ people.
It's a reference to pedophiles who are exploiting the LGBTQ community in order to win political points, and what they're doing is working.
Here's what James Lindsay says. The goal is to get you to give in. So they get their way or overreact.
And that's where I say drag Floyd. It's so important to understand that they want a drag
queen to get attacked and they want to make a huge amount of hay of it. And they want to create
summer 2020 again off of a drag queen or trans person or something like this. What they omit
from this is that the core of this conversation was do not be violent.
Violence does not work.
They want you to be violent.
Do not do it.
Some people snap and they get violent and that is wrong.
And it's a losing position.
unidentified
That's James Lindsay's point that don't take the bait.
As Bannon pointed out, it's amazing, he said 50 years, and James says it as well, the march through the institutions, they slowly came in, their ideas were bad, they had to slowly come in and try and take over.
The march through the institutions.
And in a year and a half, we have exposed, to a great degree, their efforts.
Now I want to talk to you about morality.
Because I talked about this on stage last night, and I had a lot of people tell me, no.
I asked a question.
I said, if a child's sick, doctor prescribes antibiotics, and the parents say, we don't want any of that mumbo-jumbo in our kid, should the government mandate it?
Should the government force the kid to take the antibiotics?
And audience erupts, no!
Luke Rutkowski then says, because if you allow them to do that, then they're going to force your kids to do all sorts of other things like Lupron or whatever, and I said, okay, alright.
The point I'm making is that many people would find antibiotics reasonable, and they would find sex changes for children unreasonable.
They would find vaccination unreasonable, but antibiotics reasonable.
Meaning, the law is morals.
And the law.
It's not digital.
It's not 1, 0, 1, 0.
It's not either yes or no.
It's analog.
It is a consistent stream of variables that is ever-changing.
Some people would believe the government should intervene sometimes, and others think it wouldn't.
And I have an example for you, and I think most of you would agree.
At the very least, I'm not telling you to trust the government or not trust the government.
I'm just saying, entertain this.
I asked on Twitter, if a child is depressed and a doctor prescribes a sex change and the parents agree, should the government intervene to stop it from happening?
73% said yes, 27% said no out of 70,000 votes.
That means these people think the government should stop a doctor from giving the prescribed treatment to save the kid.
I want you to think about the law that would enable that, okay?
The law says, for the well-being of the child, the government must intervene.
Now think about the inversion.
A child is depressed and a doctor prescribes a sex change and the parents disagree.
Should the government intervene to stop, to force it to happen?
I'm sure most conservatives would say they should not force it to happen, but it's a moral question, not a question, it's not a question of the law.
The point is, if the doctor prescribes, let's say the doctor, a child is depressed, the parents and the child want the doctor to prescribe a sex change, and the doctor says no.
Let me read you another question.
Hopefully I can break this down so you understand.
I said if a child is sick and the doctor prescribes an antibiotic, but the parents refuse to give to the kid, should the government intervene to give the kids antibiotics?
21% said no 21,000 votes, comparable numbers and inversion.
I then asked if a child is prescribed the M RNA covid vax and the parents agree, should
the government intervene to stop it?
34.4% said no.
34.4% said yes.
65.6% said no.
Now the question, the reason I ask these questions is to make a few points.
None of them are to say anyone's right or wrong necessarily.
These are the opinions of you.
But take a look at this.
Should the government intervene?
No.
On the question of antibiotics, the government should not intervene.
On the question of mRNAs, the government should not intervene.
On the question of a sex change, yes, the government should intervene.
Each of these circumstances is a doctor prescribing something to occur.
In one, you disagree with that prescription and think the government should stop it.
In the other two, you have probably, I'm not saying everybody, but I'm saying the individuals will probably just say, I don't know about this, the government shouldn't be involved.
But my point is, why do you think the government should intervene to mandate or bar a medication?
I think one takeaway from this is that a lot of people just don't want the government to intervene or a lot of people fall on the side of don't give the kid medication.
But my question is this.
If the law is a single law.
For the well-being of a child, the government may take control of the medical prescription, medical treatments of a child.
That means the government could force or block a sex change.
The same law could force or block a sex change.
The same law could force or block antibiotics.
The same law could force or block mRNA COVID vax.
So unless you outright say, there is never a circumstance, period, at any point where the government has a right to intervene for the well-being of a child, then there's going to be moral questions, not legal questions.
A lot of people make interesting points in response to this.
Someone said, if a child gets a sex change at the recommendation of a health professional, then later realizes they were misdiagnosed, can they sue the doctor?
Is it medical malpractice?
Interesting question.
Jack Jaxx responded saying, yes, because a doctor's oath is to first do no harm.
And when a child is depressed, the first answer isn't change their sex.
Now hold on there a minute.
I agree.
But what if the doctor genuinely believes it's the right thing to do?
If the doctor says antibiotics are right, I think most people would agree they are.
But then we say, but we still don't want the government forcing it.
Then the doctor says a sex change.
You and I would say that's wrong, but the left is going to say that's right.
Same question as the antibiotic.
It's a moral, not legal issue.
I bring this up to make a point about how we navigate all of these issues.
How we are manipulated and understanding our position.
And it is this.
You and I have certain principles.
Some of those principles are digital, some of those principles are analog.
Meaning, our principles on why children should not get sex changes are very, very nuanced.
For me, doctors can be wrong, children can be wrong, and it's irreversible, it's permanent, and it could sterilize them.
An antibiotic, depending on the level of the degree of an infection, could save their life.
There's a challenge here.
My personal opinion is, the kid should get the antibiotic.
Most of you disagree.
Totally fine.
My view is, if a kid's got bacterial meningitis, and the doctor's like, this will save that kid's life, and the parents are like, no, we don't trust your confounded science.
My attitude is just like, dude, save the kid, save the kid!
I'll put it another way.
If a kid is brought to a child sex change doctor, my attitude is save the kid, stop it from happening.
That's just my opinion.
Now, ultimately, I still kind of defer to the courts.
And I, you know, my attitude is this shouldn't be happening.
But my attitude is save the kid.
And here's the issue.
I have a moral and philosophical and knowledge-based worldview on why I think the government should or shouldn't intervene.
But it ultimately comes down to this.
I do believe, as per the point of these polls, there are circumstances where the government should intervene for the well-being of a child.
And that means we need a culture, a society, that agrees on what is good and what is bad.
And right now, the left doesn't seem to care if kids get sterilized, neutered, or spayed.
The right certainly does.
And the right would say, stop it from happening.
But the right also would not force a family to give their kid antibiotics despite the fact the antibiotics will save the kid the same.
I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm saying you and I may have differing moral values, but this is what you need to understand.
It is the same law as written.
That's the interesting thing.
We're talking about Drag Queen Story Hour or Simulated Sodomy for Kids.
The law is already on the books.
So why aren't police arresting the people who are engaging in simulated sex acts for children?
Because of our culture.
Because in Texas, the police are unwilling to do it.
We need to build culture, because the law is secondary.
