Rachel Maddows BRAIN EXPLODES Over SCOTUS Siding With Trump, Claims He Will Be PRESIDENT FOR LIFE
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/
Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/
Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL
Rachel Maddows BRAIN EXPLODES Over SCOTUS Siding With Trump, Claims He Will Be PRESIDENT FOR LIFE
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
Now, let's jump into the first story.
This is one of the biggest stories in the history of this nation.
The Supreme Court taking up whether or not a president is immune from prosecution for things they did in their official duties as president.
Of course, I am of the opinion a president is in fact criminally immune Unless or until they are impeached and convicted in Congress, only then can they be criminally charged.
And I'm the person who thinks Barack Obama should be criminally charged over the death of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in Yemen.
Donald Trump may have done many bad things.
Maybe he didn't do any bad things.
I don't know.
What I can tell you is this.
The criminal charges pertaining to January 6th, for which Donald Trump was impeached, ended there.
He was not convicted in the Senate.
That is to say, the system by which we have checks and balances says, no, we do not agree with this.
Call it political, call it whatever you want, I don't know.
The fact remains, if we allow a president to be criminally charged without being impeached for his official duties, this means that anytime a president wins an election, the opposing party, with power in various states, will file criminal charges.
More importantly, what we're looking at right now, very simply, could be the end of our democracy.
Well, we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic with democratic electoral institutions, but no need to get too into the weeds.
We're not a democracy, but certainly Rachel Maddow and the other MSNBC guy, I don't even know his name, they're losing their minds.
They don't understand what is going on with SCOTUS.
Or they're just outright lying.
I want to keep it simple for you guys.
Supreme Court basically said, okay, here's what's going to happen.
We are going to postpone the criminal trial from the Biden DOJ against Donald Trump so that we can determine whether or not Donald Trump is immune from prosecution.
There's two things to consider.
A broad and narrow ruling from the Supreme Court.
Now, this will take place at the end of April, which means the criminal trial will not take place.
We don't know exactly how long it will take for the Supreme Court to hear the arguments and then ultimately make their decision.
But one of two things, or well, several things can happen, but consider this.
Donald Trump may be found, they may find, no, presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution after they leave office.
The argument being, perhaps you can't criminally charge them while they're in office, but once they're out, Whether through impeachment or otherwise, fair game, criminal charges.
I disagree with that.
I believe that would fundamentally destroy the system of checks and balances and the presidency itself.
Now they may actually come out with another ruling, which I think more people need to consider.
The Supreme Court could rule a president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution during or after their presidential term for the things they did in their official duties.
That being said, Donald Trump's actions on January 6th were not within the scope of his official duties as president.
Therefore, as it pertains to these charges, Trump is not immune.
You could go that way.
And of course, they could always just say, of course Trump's immune!
January 6th, Donald Trump did not incite an insurrection.
You're lying.
You're insane.
Trump told people to be peaceful and go home, and he never told people to storm the Capitol.
He never did.
Certainly, there's arguments he could have been more forceful more quickly, but I think that makes a lot of assumptions about what happened that day.
All I can really say is, I don't know.
While Donald Trump was speaking on January 6th, people were storming the barricades at the Capitol building.
So there's no way Trump could have even known it was going on to tell people to do it or not to do it.
They say, but Donald Trump said, fight like hell!
Yeah, Democrats say that all the time.
These are not real arguments.
So, of course, this Supreme Court hearing will be massive.
If the Supreme Court decides that a president is not immune from criminal prosecution... And the argument here, I want to make sure I stress this because this is where the far left is lying about everything.
The argument is...
You absolutely can criminally charge a sitting and former president.
Well, I shouldn't say sitting.
You can't criminally charge a sitting president.
They have to be impeached and convicted.
That is to say, if a president commits an act that is considered by Congress to be a high crime or misdemeanor, They can file articles of impeachment.
They can then vote on those articles.
Should it get a majority in the House, it would be passed off to the Senate, where a two-thirds majority is required to convict.
If you cannot do that, you cannot criminally charge!
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
The Senate and the House, these are the representations of the people and the states.
And if they do not want the president convicted and removed, we don't do it!
You do not get to weaponize the federal government at the executive branch to go after a president after the people and the states said no.
And you say, oh, but it's political!
The Republicans would never convict Trump!
Then too bad!
If we are to exist in a world where an incoming president can criminally charge his predecessor, it's civil war, baby!
The only thing stopping the brink of insanity is that a president will not be criminally charged by his political enemies!
If he's convicted in the House, if he's impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate, you basically have the majority of this country's representation saying he did bad.
You then criminally charge him and lock him up.
Typically, even then, you'd remove him and that'd be the end of it.
But if he really did something wrong, then so be it.
Joe Biden sending the DOJ to criminally charge Donald Trump over this.
And it's at the state level.
I mean, there's a whole bunch of different charges going on.
Documents, case, etc.
It's not just about J6.
This is Congress saying no, the system of checks and balances, and then the targeting of a principal political rival.
It's just, it's plainly obvious.
But you know what?
You're here to laugh, aren't you?
Let's listen to the arguments from Rachel Maddow and then I will debunk these claims.
In this clip posted by Colin Ruggie says, far-left MSNBC host Rachel Maddow works herself into a panic and claims Donald Trump will remain in office for life.
It's hysteria.
I have to imagine Rachel Maddow's a liar.
She's lying to you.
The argument that if Donald Trump is told that he's immune, he will never leave office and he can commit any crime he wants, it's a lie.
The argument is Trump must be impeached and convicted.
If Donald Trump commits a crime in office and laughs about it and tries to stay in, he will get impeached and convicted!
But let me play the clip of Rachel Maddow for you.
If you think about the court as the Supreme Court of the United States and a rational actor and a decent one, that was a reasonable supposition.
And it just turns out they're not bad.
Incremental bit of progress here.
The important question here is not whether the Supreme Court is going to decide that Donald Trump and all presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes they committed while they were president.
What Rachel Maddow is omitting from her argument is that Trump's lawyers are saying you must impeach and convict first in Congress before criminal charges can be presented to prevent political weaponization.
And they are correct.
Imagine a president gets elected.
And then you have various states and you have rogue operators or partisan operators in the DOJ going after him while he's still in office.
Imagine he is running for reelection.
I mean, the scenario we're seeing right now, Joe Biden gets elected, tells his AG stop being, I've already called him a studious something or other.
And then Merrick Garland says, OK, we'll bring criminal charges.
And this effectively serves as a political weapon to stop Donald Trump from getting reelected.
Conclusion that we can arrive at now based on what they have done without having to wait
for the ruling is that they are ensuring that Trump will not face trial.
And when they inevitably rule that presidents aren't immune from prosecution after they
leave office, what that will tell Donald Trump if by then he is president is that he can
never leave the office of the presidency.
And if he is voted out in 2028, he cannot leave office and he is willing to commit, he is welcome to commit any crimes he wants to as long as he is still president in order to ignore the results of that election and stay in power for life because otherwise he is going to go to prison when he gets out.
And same thing with Chris Hayes, because anybody who actually listened to the arguments and saw the arguments, you know, in the lower courts, I will say it again for the millionth time.
Trump's legal team is arguing, in order for a president to be criminally charged, they must first be impeached and convicted.
I don't know how many times I got to say it.
That is a sound argument.
Barack Obama killed an American citizen.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Abdur Rahman Alalaki was a 16 year old who was born in Boulder, Colorado, lived in San
Diego and was visiting family in Yemen.
Barack Obama ordered a drone strike on a country we are not at war with, on a civilian restaurant, killing probably not just Abdurahman Al-Awlaki, but many civilians in the process.
This was the murder, the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen.
And don't forget Anwar al-Awlaki.
Now, they argue that Anwar was a jihadist fighting against the United States.
And, okay, you want to make an argument about the military tactics and treason and sedition.
Wartime, perhaps.
But Anwar, as I understand it, was a preacher of jihad.
He was going to these other countries and advocating for this stuff.
Well, Barack Obama killed him.
You want to have an argument about war and crime?
Fine, let's do it.
Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old, did nothing.
He did nothing.
When questioned, the Obama administration said it was an accident.
Okay, well, if you accidentally shoot someone, you go to jail for that.
Or you'll still get criminally charged, depending on the circumstances.
And if the argument is Barack Obama, in all his good graces, made a serious mistake and the intelligence was bad, where is any accountability?
I would love to see him criminally charged for the endless amount of civilians that were killed Under the Obama administration.
But I recognize the argument that he was acting in his official duties as president.
And unless we get a conviction in Congress to impeach, and you can impeach after a president has already left, this is a fact, you cannot criminally charge him.
I don't like it in this context, but I accept it.
And I have been screaming for justice and accountability over the killing of Abdur Rahman al-Awlaki since it happened.
But here we are.
I understand that if Donald Trump were to go in and criminally charge Barack Obama for this, it would create very serious problems, as Barack Obama was signing off on what he believed to be legitimate intelligence.
This is what they claim.
They believed they were targeting a terror leader, and they failed.
Well, here's the problem with that, and the reason why criminal charges should follow, but there needs to be an impeachment inquiry, an investigation into what he did, and impeachment into conviction.
You can claim you're targeting a terror leader, whatever.
But you bombed a civilian restaurant in a country we are not at war with.
Okay?
That's just- I mean, if a police officer was chasing a guy, a car, that they thought was, you know, a bank robber or whatever, and so the cop decides to ram full speed into a restaurant, killing random people, we're gonna lock him up!
So, but I agree.
I think there has to be an impeachment in Congress first.
Now, we're not going to revisit 10 years ago.
So, Obama just killed this kid and no one bats an eye.
But now they're falsely arguing Trump incited insurrection and other nonsense, when he never did.
In fact, Trump told people to go home.
At worst, the crime Trump, and I say figurative crime, that Trump could be guilty of, he didn't say enough.
Our Justice Department, representative of us, the people, on four federal felony counts by a grand jury for his role in that insurrection.
Well today, in a single-page order released at 5 o'clock, the court agreed to consider Trump's manifestly weak claim that he is immune from prosecution for the January 6th insurrection because he was acting in some senses in his official capacity as president.
But the order itself is not the story here.
It's the timing.
It all comes back to the timing.
Let's remember, the court case, the trial of Donald Trump over his effort to subvert the Constitutional Republic, was originally set to begin days from now in March.
Let me break something down for all of you, and most of you probably know this because you've been paying attention.
Some of you may not.
It is Trump's sworn constitutional duty to investigate and seek to remedy claims of voter fraud.
That's a fact.
He is the chief executive of this nation.
He handles federal-level law enforcement.
If there are claims that there's widespread fraud, irregularity, unconstitutional actions, Donald Trump must investigate this.
Now you can come to me and say it's a conflict of interest for a man in law enforcement or otherwise to investigate his own election or oversee it.
We should not have that.
Fair point.
I've got questions about Georgia.
And perhaps Arizona, where in Arizona a Democrat oversaw her own election, and in Georgia a Republican did his.
So, here's the fact.
Following the election, Donald Trump, of course, believes he won.
He can't believe it.
And so he's certainly biased.
But when the people come out and they file lawsuits and there are charges and there are civil claims on electoral lawsuits being filed, Donald Trump has to investigate that.
Imagine the issue was the election of a governor or something.
And there's lawsuits to the courts, federal government, and lawsuits to the federal government, evidence of federal crimes like interstate ballot trafficking in order to affect a state's election.
And the president's like, no, no, no, we're not getting involved.
I can certainly understand at a state level you might say no.
But the issue there is, should the feds be involved, they must be involved, right?
If it falls under federal jurisdiction.
So, herein lies a conflict of interest for Donald Trump.
But that being said, this hasn't been adjudicated.
Many of these court claims were thrown out on standing issues, many of them were dismissed because they were stupid, and many of them were won.
But ultimately, we didn't get a strong resolution.
Why?
The Supreme Court refused to take up the case Texas v. Pennsylvania pertaining to constitutional issues in the 2020 election.
Donald Trump certainly has a lot to gain by working law enforcement to pursue many of these claims that I get, and that's a conflict of interest.
All that is on hold Because the Supreme Court wants to hear oral arguments for Trump's immunity claims.
Ready for this?
Seven weeks from now.
April 22nd, 2024, making it a real possibility, a likelihood in fact, that Donald Trump will not face a trial for the crime of attempting to overthrow the American Republic, will not face a jury of his peers, until after the next election in which he is the likely Republican candidate.
My friends, if you're someone who believes that Donald Trump did wrong and should be criminally convicted, then I want you to contemplate this.
You on the left, you Democrat voter, you hate Donald Trump, you think he's a bad guy, and you're allowed to.
I can respect that.
I disagree.
I think Trump is bad for a lot of reasons, but I think he's certainly better than Joe Biden.
Understand the implications from a third party perspective.
Step out of your role as a Republican or a Democrat and recognize if Donald Trump, the front runner, who is admittedly, according to Chris Hayes and many others, expected to win this election, if he is removed through criminal prosecution, the American people know what he's accused of.
Right?
They know this.
This is not a secret.
They know this is all going on and they are expected to vote for him.
Understand what that means.
The Biden DOJ will remove the frontrunner with all he's been accused of by force.
How can this country survive if you do that?
Look, if the American people decide they want Donald Trump knowing full well what he's accused of, that's their choice.
That's why I say I don't think Biden should be impeached today.
Maybe three years ago for the Burisma stuff, fine.
I want to be crystal clear here about the importance and significance of today's news because I think a lot of the reporting has missed this.
What happened today?
This one-page order looks anodyne, right?
It is an unmistakable sign from the MAGA majority of the Trump-created court that they are with him, that they are going to use their power to make sure he does not face trial in an election year for attempting to end American democracy.
Until today, It could have gone either way.
unidentified
It was genuinely unclear whether just listen to how he speaks.
I could go 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.
I think it's silly to try and lock up Donald Trump when he's the front runner and everyone
knows it because that's just going to rip this country apart.
But by all means, open the door to criminally charging a president.
And I will be knocking on the door of every every Republican governor and A.G.
and D.A. to bring up criminal charges on Barack Obama.
And I'll do it with a smile on my face.
I will use every ounce of my being to get Republicans, I doubt they will to be completely honest because they're so pathetic and weak, to bring up criminal charges against every sitting Democrat politician.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this from Wikipedia, the second impeachment of Donald Trump.
They mentioned that Trump was impeached.
He was not convicted for incitement of insurrection.
And without a conviction, Trump was acquitted.
He was acquitted for the charges that they are now trying to bring up against him that Joe Biden is.
Let me stress this.
Donald Trump was impeached on January 13th, 2021, one week before his term expired.
The fourth impeachment of a president, 10 Republicans joined in.
They say Trump was indicted on August 1st, 2023 for the conduct for which he was impeached.
Well, hold on there a minute.
Trump was not convicted.
The votes in the Senate were 57 for guilty and 43 not guilty.
The result was an acquittal.
Do you know what acquitted means?
When someone is accused of a crime, and the threshold is not met, and they acquit you, it means not guilty.
It does mean something different, but it basically means like, it's not enough.
It isn't.
The serious ramifications to this country, if they were to convict Donald Trump, Or to try and remove him despite the fact he was acquitted.
I mean, this is insanity.
He's been acquitted already.
The claim should be, I believe the Supreme Court needs to hear two arguments.
The first being that, the broad, a president is immune from prosecution within their official duties as president.
If they leave the office of the president, get in a car and ram someone, they're not immune to that.
That's not an official duty as president.
But Donald Trump, everything he did, In terms of the election, you'd argue, as a federal officer, he absolutely should.
It's a conflict of interest.
Fair point.
However, he's already been acquitted in Congress.
If they are to try, and they are bringing charges again, despite his acquittal already, you've got an argument for some kind of double jeopardy.
In the political process of checks and balances, the Senate said no!
If Joe Biden decides unilaterally then to sick his DOJ on Donald Trump, he is telling all of these other states, F you, your voice is meaningless.
And what do you think happens to this country when our systems of checks and balances is crept upon?
So here we go.
Trump was already acquitted for this.
Now you can argue, yeah, but it wasn't in a court of law.
Well, no, but as a political officer, they said acquittal, not guilty.
He didn't do it.
They did not have enough.
And that was political.
I want to show you a couple videos.
These videos are very important because people often don't believe it.
There's a man, actually I got to make sure I pull this one up too.
A man who was acquitted First, we'll start here.
As for... I have to do this.
You know, because I hear too many stories from people who say, I tried telling a family member about the video where the cops are holding open the door or saying, I respect what you're doing.
And they're like, no, that's a lie.
That doesn't exist.
I tried to tell them that cops fanned people in the building.
No, they didn't.
That never happened.
Okay.
CNN.
Man who said January 6th was magical acquitted.
Here's a headline for you, CNN.
Man who said he was waved into the building acquitted.
You see how they do this headline?
A federal judge on Wednesday found Matthew Martin not guilty of four federal misdemeanors
related to trespassing.
Martin, who worked for a government contractor before his arrest following the riot, successfully
argued that a U.S. Capitol Police officer waved him into the building.
At least one video played during the trial appeared to show an officer moving his arm
in a waving motion.
Call the judge a crackpot, I don't care!
A waving motion.
There is a video that a judge agreed with that showed a cop waving people into the building.
For this, a man was acquitted.
He's not the only one who got acquitted either.
It's just the principle story I like to use.
A major milestone in the massive January 6th investigation.
Watch this video.
Here you can see people on the steps to the Capitol.
This is not where the riot was taking place.
Now hold on there.
You see in this clip, as the camera pans, the door is being opened.
But this door over here was already open.
So what happened here?
How were these doors just open?
As we move forward, you can see, as the people begin to walk in, the first group of people to enter the building.
There's no one else.
There's four or five people at the door.
As the camera, the person filming, begins to enter, what do we see?
Police.
On both sides.
Left and right.
Allowing people to enter.
Making no attempt to stop them.
In fact, one officer actually tells them he respects it.
You can disagree with it, but respect it.
I disagree with it, but I respect it.
Now, hold on.
Here are the officers, on left and right, standing by, allowing people into the building.
The argument we hear from the left is that the building had already been overwhelmed, so the police stood down.
Is that so?
In this video, another one, you can see the police officers open the door, back up, And hold the door open for what is quite literally...
A J6 protester walking in, raising a fist.
Right here.
Here's the cop holding open the door.
He could have told the woman no.
He could have stopped her.
But in fact, what are you supposed to believe?
As you are walking in, with your hands raised high, into a building, facing no resistance from police, and the cop actually opens the door.
He's holding it open!
Can we just zoom in here?
Here's the cop.
I really want to hammer this one in.
This officer right here, You can see him.
He goes to the door, pushes it open, and then he holds the door open as a protester walks in.
So first, it is the police who open the door.
Okay, let's make some arguments.
Why didn't the cops pull the door closed?
Why didn't two cops stand in front of him and say, no, no, you can't come in?
Why did a cop say, I disagree with it, but I respect it?
What's the argument here?
And now, this person with a MAGA hat walks in as the cop holds it open, and once again, this officer right here is looking at the crowd and holding the door open.
And then they all walk in.
One guy has his hands up.
These people are being peaceful.
They're just walking into a building.
There are many more videos like this.
The left likes to make the argument, the police were overwhelmed, they had no choice, so they held the door open for him.
W-w-what?
This officer right here is staring at the woman in the red hat, makes no effort to stop her.
He walks backwards as she's waving, he allows her in, and then he waits a moment before following behind her as another officer holds the door open for the remaining protesters.
Let's play Steel Man Devil's Advocate.
The cop holding the door open is only holding it open because the other cop is waiting.
Why did that cop wait?
Why didn't he push the woman out of the way and say, hold on, no, back up?
Why didn't any of the cops try to stop them from entering the building?
You can argue all day and night about the riot in front of the building, and it was bad.
Yes, agreed.
But hold on there a minute.
If people are storming the Capitol on one side of the building, and they're smashing cops and screaming, and the cops are screaming, I can't breathe, should you not make every effort to keep the other doors closed, wherever you can?
For what reason would you say, let's hold the doors open, allow them in, make no effort to stop them, That way they can flank the office on the other side?
That makes no sense.
What we have here is not an insurrection.
It was a riot.
And it was a bad one.
And we've seen riots in the Capitol building, and we've seen them in the Senate and Congressional buildings.
And, you know, they can get bad.
On May 29th, 2020, far-left extremists firebombed the White House.
Let me, uh, let me do this.
May 29th, 2020.
I make sure we get all this stuff, right?
Let's pull this one up.
The George Floyd protest.
Let me just do images.
YouTube will get pretty mad at me for this one.
Let's, uh, let's do May 29th, Washington, D.C.
See if I can find those, uh, videos of the firebombing at the White House.
I mean, these videos are nuts.
I'm just gonna pull these photos up.
Military, police, George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C.
Amazing.
Setting fires to vehicles.
Let's see if we can find the overhead.
Let me do this.
Aerial view of D.C.
George Floyd riot.
Because I know there are people who don't believe it.
No matter what you do, you tell them, you show them the photos and the videos, they do not believe it.
All right.
Here's an image for you.
This is an aerial view of the fires and the smoke above Washington, D.C.
Let's do St.
John's Church.
Actually, I think that's probably in the Wikipedia page.
Let's just jump back to the Wikipedia page.
And, uh, let's do, uh, church.
Before the curfew went into place, multiple arsons occurred, including attacks on St.
John's Church.
Donald Trump, the sitting president, was forced into an emergency bunker.
They firebombed a guard post on the White House grounds.
All of it is bad.
We do not have a May 29th Commission.
These people are psychotic.
They're liars.
This country is on the verge of being ripped apart.
But my friends!
I could probably talk about this for two hours, so I'm gonna wrap it up.
You get my point.
J6 was bad.
People who are violent should be criminally charged and prosecuted.
As for what a riot determines.
Seven years, 20 years.
These are insane charges.
The Democrats are wielding power to crush people while claiming they're the good guys.
They are trying to criminally prosecute.
I'm sorry, they are prosecuting.
They're trying to imprison the main contender for the presidency.
I will say it again.
The American people know what Trump's accused of.
They've seen the videos.
They want him to be president.
The Democrats know the only way to stop him is to crush him under the weight of the law with trumped-up charges.
Pun intended!
This country's on a dark track.
But I'll leave it there.
Comment, let me know what you think.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
So I guess the latest news is that Vladimir Putin is threatening to nuke the West, saying we can hit their territory.
Basically, he gave the speech where he was like, what is NATO thinking?
We have nuclear weapons and we will use them on you.
All right, baby.
World War III.
I think there's a strong potential that by November, we may be looking at mass mobilization.
Strong possibility.
Calm down.
I'm not saying 70%.
I'm just saying it is in the realm of physical reality that this occurs.
You've got people like Chuck Schumer saying, we must win in Ukraine.
You've got Macron saying, if we must, we will deploy NATO troops into Ukraine.
You've got the NATO chief saying, Ukraine will be in NATO.
And Russia saying, if you do this, we have nukes.
Did you forget?
Outright saying, hey, war, baby.
The first thing I think will happen, and this news may be shocking to a lot of people, but as many grains of sand slowly, incrementally, is the use of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons.
I've had people say like, Tim, why would Russia do that?
To win.
However, there's a strong possibility that the West will use nuclear artillery, lower yield but still massive, maybe we're talking the 100 kiloton range, because Ukraine is losing.
And they're losing very, very badly.
Now, all the propaganda in the world, you know, Western propaganda saying like, oh, Russia's being defeated.
They're not.
You look at the battlefield maps and you see Russia is advancing, they're securing the territories they want to secure, and Ukrainian forces are being decimated.
Ukraine is conscripting 50-year-old men and young women.
Don't tell me they're winning!
So when you hear that, and then Macron says, we'll send in the troops if we have to, it's coming.
Putin is threatening the destruction of civilization and chilling warning to nuke the West, says GB News.
I want to show you this headline real quick from the mirror.
Ukraine must win the war by November, or Putin could start World War III, warn ex-military chiefs.
I wonder what would happen.
If the United States was dragged into World War 3 over Ukraine, I think this country would be facing itself some kind of civil war.
I think we're already in a cold civil war.
It's not my opinion.
I didn't come up with that.
And everyone, you know, says, oh, Tim Pool's talking about civil war again.
Here we go.
Here we go.
But just give me the scenario.
What do you think happens that just before the election, Joe Biden enters the United States into a ground war in Ukraine, mobilizing troops?
World War 3?
What will the American people do?
Let's start here from GB News.
Vladimir Putin has issued yet another chilling threat about nuclear war during his speech to Russia's Federal Assembly this morning.
Putin warned the West that there is a genuine risk of an enormous conflict if they opt to send their own troops to join Ukrainian soldiers in the ex-Soviet state.
Mind you, there already are U.S.
personnel on the ground.
The Russian president also claimed Moscow has weapons capable of striking targets across the West.
They're called MIRVs.
And that's an ancient technology by today's standards.
Yes, the Multiple Independently Targeting Reentry Vehicle.
A single intercontinental ballistic missile that can go up into space and then deploy twelve warheads.
Now each one of these warheads could then independently target different cities along the eastern seaboard.
Twelve!
But...
The strategy for MIRVs is usually to pepper one city and just flatten it.
The warheads will detonate in the sky above you.
So it's funny, whenever you see these artistic depictions of nuclear explosions, you see the mushroom cloud on the ground go up.
That is not how nuclear bombs work.
They are programmed, they are primed to detonate in midair to maximize the spread of the blast radius.
The blast on the ground will be blocked by ground terrain and buildings and structures.
Detonating it in the air allows it to sweep downward over everything, flattening everything.
Imagine 12 of those hitting your city in rapid succession.
I don't know that that's where it goes to start.
I don't know that we see something like that this year.
But even this image showing nuclear bombs shows a ground explosion with a mushroom cloud going up.
Putin continued to accuse the West of being hell-bent on weakening Russia ahead of next month's presidential election.
I actually believe the intention of NATO is to invade Russia outright and to destroy the country.
I think Russia gets the Ukraine treatment.
I don't know that it will happen.
I'm not saying anyone has come out and said it's going to happen.
I think NATO interests are in destroying Russia.
That's why we're lining up on the border.
He said, Western nations must realize that we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory.
All of this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilization.
Don't they get that?
Putin also claimed that NATO forces are preparing to strike our territory.
The Russian president who argued Russophobia, I love that, that's, come on, blinds people and deprives them of their rational faculties.
Without Russia, there is no solid peace in this world.
He's seeking re-election, of course.
Putin's claim about Russia operating as a global peacemaker comes shortly after the second anniversary of the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine.
Russia also annexed parts of the ex-Soviet state in 2014, as we know, Crimea.
However, the latest incursion into Ukraine has triggered Moscow's worst diplomatic crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Western nations have responded by clubbing together, particularly NATO.
Oh, that's interesting.
Here's a bunch of heads of state from NATO and Volodymyr Zelensky.
It's all lies.
They are lying to us every single day.
They will bring Ukraine into NATO.
Russia will have no choice.
He will escalate.
My fear is this.
Russia's playing it pretty close to the chest.
Their mission, their plan, it's Ukraine.
NATO's is more expansive than that.
My fear is that NATO initiates a false flag attack, triggering a casus belli, Look at the Nord Stream bombing.
Why would Russia blow up their own pipeline?
They call Russia a gas station with nukes.
It's selling energy to Europe.
Why would they blow up their own pipeline?
It makes no sense.
But that's what the media in the West said.
Oh, Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.
It's theirs.
Why?
Probably not.
Bloomberg.
Bloomberg writes, Are you preparing?
Serious question, have you done any prep work?
this. Novelists and filmmakers have long developed alternative histories of major conflicts that
should serve as warnings for complacent Americans. Are you preparing? Serious question, have you done
any prep work? I'm not saying build a bunker and stuff beans in it. Have you even downloaded to
your phone survival and first aid guides? I'm not saying build a bunker and stuff beans in it.
I've got four or five different ones.
And I've got them stored on multiple devices.
Have you done anything to prepare for an emergency?
Do you have any extra fuel?
Do you have generators?
Do you have solar panels?
If not, why not?
Seriously.
I always say this.
We've got first aid kits, right?
Where is yours?
I talked to most people, they don't even know where their first aid kit is.
They're like, I don't know, under the bathroom sink or something.
You never use it!
Do you really think you're gonna slice your arm open and need a first aid kit and bandage or anything like that?
No.
But you buy it anyway because maybe it happens.
Do you have a bug out bag?
It's really wild.
People don't even have bug-out bags, okay?
We've got a lot of them.
And we actually bought a bunch.
Because there's like pre-made ones that have certain things.
But you want shoes, you want a change of clothes, you want maybe like some protein bars that last for a long time, a bottle of water, a flashlight.
Look up good bug-out bags.
Why?
Is it because maybe the world ends?
No!
It's because sometimes people's houses start on fire!
Well, if you have a bug-out bag, because sometimes there are fires, you grab your bag, it's got a portable battery charger in it, it's got some food in it, it's got a list of emergency contacts if your phone dies, and then you're outside with everything you need.
And if it really does get bad and you can't go back in your house, you've got a change of clothes, a pair of shoes, socks, underwear, flashlight, utility tools, a Leatherman perhaps, and you are going to be infinitely better off than the average person.
Here we go.
Are we unable to imagine defeat?
You might have thought that having so recently lost a small war, Americans would have no difficulty picturing the consequences of losing a large one.
But the humiliating abandonment of Afghanistan in 2021 has been consigned with remarkable swiftness to the collective memory hole.
Well, the question really is, if we are to lose World War III, what happens to our country domestically?
unidentified
I'm not as worried there, because we got a lot of guns.
But it could mean, and likely will mean, your standard of living will collapse.
People in cities, we won't be able to sustain the population levels we have.
Will the news networks replay Biden's Kiv speech the night the Russians march into the Ukrainian capital?
Or will one of them air Tucker Carlson's next interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin?
And how will we react if, say, later this year, we are informed that Iran has successfully built a nuclear weapon and has unleashed its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, to rain missiles down on Israel?
Yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda, we're having fun here.
Putin's closest ally is prepping for World War III.
Belarus.
It's happening.
From the New York Times.
Why would Russia do that?
That's not a good thing for Russia to do.
It does not serve their interests.
It makes no sense.
is now has begun the propaganda over the past few months and the debates that Russia is
going to invade Europe.
Why would Russia do that?
That's not a good thing for Russia to do.
It does not serve their interests.
It makes no sense.
What does make sense is Western forces enter Ukraine.
Quietly, perhaps.
Russia then says this is an act of war against Russia and declares war.
NATO then lies and says we don't have troops.
This is Putin's lie.
Who do you trust?
Putin just says NATO troops have deployed to Ukraine declaring war.
We will retaliate.
NATO forces says we've never deployed troops into Ukraine.
Putin is lying.
This is what we warned you all about.
Pick your poison.
Amid crumbling U.S.
support for Ukraine and Donald Trump's rising candidacy, European nations and NATO are making plans to take on Russia by themselves.
So I decided to look into what the preppers think.
And I came across this thread on Reddit.
This one's really interesting.
Very interesting.
So this is a post on Reddit.
Preppers.
World War III possible within the next few years?
Asks one user.
One month ago.
Given the recent saber-rattling by NATO, etc., what are the chances of war with Russia happening within the next three to five years?
In the UK, they recently had an army general float the idea of conscription, which seems to have unanimously been rejected by the public, and talks of a pre-war generation being utilized to scaremonger.
If they were to start a war with Russia, it's likely, given the recent backlash against their ideas for boosting numbers, that they would likely force the public's hand.
I personally think that we are only a short few years from this becoming a reality.
What do others feel about the current political tensions and the possibility of World War III?
Let me just read a few of the interesting comments.
One person says, plenty of gray, deniable activities taking place even now.
Have you seen the books? There's a war going on, but nobody can see it.
Cyber warfare is a thing, and I understand that's happening even now.
That's right.
Russia is certainly taking action, and so is the U.S.
And these are deniable actions to hinder the opponent before a full-scale mobilization starts.
The next just says we are in the Cold War.
It never stopped.
Everyone just took a lunch break.
In the Cold War, World War III could break out at any time.
So it's likely going to be that going on, duck and cover videos coming back.
One user.
And then, this interesting comment.
is getting kind of weird. The last week or so here, week or so, there has been a lot of talk
about conscription. Today, the Times did an article about paying gap year students to join the armed
forces. And then this interesting comment. It's not verified, it's just a comment on Reddit,
so it could be meaningless, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
One user says, no jokes aside, I work for the military for a training squadron.
We are prepping the military for war with systems that we have never flown or utilized before, because they want all aircraft ready in combat status.
If this doesn't mean the US is prepping for a major war, then I don't know what.
But my gut's telling me something big is coming, and that we need to be ready, because you never know where and how far it could spread if it does take place.
Interesting.
Fair point, a user says zero, nobody wants that no matter how much they bluster, nobody wins.
I don't think so.
I don't think that simply because people don't want war, war won't happen.
Putin is coming out saying, no we don't want this!
NATO is saying, no please help, no!
But both sides refuse to stop the actions that are driving this problem.
Do you want to decide who you think is at fault?
It's meaningless.
Vladimir Putin needs Crimea.
Crimea has their naval base in Sevastopol.
They need access to the Black Sea, and that's how they do it.
Unfortunately, there's only one weak bridge connecting Crimea, there was, to Russia, so they needed the Donbass region, creating a land bridge into Crimea, allowing them to secure this region more fiercely.
The US-NATO Western forces Wanted Ukraine to join the European Union and NATO, putting almost every nation on Russia's border, making them a NATO nation.
Vladimir Putin said no.
This results ultimately in conflict within the state of Ukraine, the country, the ousting of their president Yanukovych, and eventually Russia begins preparing for war.
Why?
With Ukraine falling to Western powers, the risk that Russia would lose access to the Black Sea was becoming a reality.
Russia would not tolerate that, so they supported separatists and decided to move in and secure the land bridge and Crimea.
Now you can argue they shouldn't have done it.
Russia was losing the soft power battle.
But then whose fault is it?
Just, it doesn't matter.
I just don't see it mattering.
Russia's not going to back down and let Western forces take Crimea.
They're gonna take it!
So a quote-unquote referendum was held.
Russia never invaded.
They simply walked out of their own naval base and said, hello, we're here.
They were there the whole time.
But if Ukraine was planning on joining up with NATO and the EU, that was going to basically end the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
So, Russia takes the Donbass.
The West does not want Russia to secure this.
They want to shut them out and shut down Russia's ability to sell fuel, and they want to weaken their ability to do so.
Hence, Burisma.
And so, war.
Now, many of the default liberals in this country and deep statists will say things like, it's Russia's fault for invading, it's an unjust, unprovoked war, blah, blah, blah.
That's meaningless.
Vladimir Putin is not some cartoon villain, one-dimensional, I'm going to take over Ukraine and then Poland is next!
That makes no sense.
What makes sense is, as we described, what's going on.
Will NATO allow Russia to take this?
No, I think NATO wants to actually invade Russian territory and crush Vladimir Putin and shut him down.
Oh boy.
That brings us to America.
Forbes says no, Joe Biden isn't bringing back the draft despite viral rumors.
The draft never left.
They just haven't used it.
The draft still exists.
Selective service still exists.
And they could call upon the draft whenever.
So when they say he isn't bringing the draft back, they're basically saying he has not pressed the red button.
The function of the draft still exists.
Biden need only say, you are being drafted.
Why would he do that now before a war has actually started?
Here's what I think.
As recruitment numbers dwindle, we've gotten this story from a couple weeks ago.
Migrants who serve in U.S.
military can expedite path to citizenship, new bill proposes.
That's right.
They say, these two guys, we have a problem.
Unfettered illegal immigration and failing recruitment numbers.
I know.
How about we build American culture and support those who want to support this country?
Instead, it's looking like they're going to take these non-citizens, train them to be soldiers, and dispatch them into World War III, baby.
Maybe they'll be sent in as like a NATO coalition force, and they won't be under the command of the United States, but under the command of NATO, and they'll invade Ukraine.
I made that joke.
I was like, take all these illegal immigrants and just send them to Ukraine.
They can fight the war.
How about that?
They must have taken it seriously and said, that's exactly what we're going to do.
Either way, it opens the door for Vladimir Putin to say, you forced our hand.
Understand this.
Vladimir Putin was the first person to invade Right?
NATO may have been putting pressures on Russia, but Russia made that invasion happen.
It is entirely plausible, nay possible, that this war gets to the point where Vladimir Putin says, enough.
Fire the nukes.
And people need to understand, I am not talking about ICBMs, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, I'm talking about tactical nuclear artillery.
Western forces move in, begin crushing Russian forces in the Donbass.
Russia announces a strategic retreat.
And then a 100 kiloton bomb drops, wiping out thousands of Western forces.
The West then says, Vladimir Putin has declared nuclear war, blah, blah, blah.
There's something to consider.
The UK sent depleted uranium tank busters to Ukraine.
Russia said, you have just started the nuclear war.
Because this is a radioactive munitions.
So as far as Russia's concerned, they already fired the first tactical radioactive weapons.
Creating the door for nuclear combat.
Or opening the door for it.
Putin's gonna come out and say, they already, they launched first.
We're just responding in kind.
And the West will say, absurd.
Russia launched first.
We're responding in kind.
So by all means, say, nobody wants this war so it'll never happen.
I have seen all too many times.
Things happening that nobody wanted, but it's snowball rolling down a hill.
It's dominoes falling.
What can you do?
Just stop.
Stop participating, I suppose.
I believe that if we elect Donald Trump, Trump might actually just say to Putin, I don't care about Ukraine, bye.
And then Putin says, okay, I guess the war's over.
And that's it.
No nuclear annihilation.
No war in Europe.
Just the end.
Russia takes the Donbass and Crimea.
Ukraine stops fighting.
And that's it.
We have Israel to contend with.
The Houthi rebels.
Hamas.
That's a problem as well.
But I hope that come November we don't have war and Donald Trump can get elected and there's an opportunity for him to shut this stuff down before we all die.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
Anheuser-Busch lost $1 billion in sales thanks to the Bud Light boycott.
And it's not just Bud Lights we're here to complain about and mock, but also Disney.
Also losing $1 billion.
That's amazing.
I'm wondering where that money goes, because people still gotta buy beer, right?
Well, it looks like Modelo is making a ton of money, and it may just be that people aren't going to see these garbage Disney movies anymore.
So we got a list of the four big flops that really stuck it to Disney.
Little Mermaid was one of them.
Congratulations, Disney, get woke, go broke.
Congratulations, Anheuser-Busch.
There's so much here to break down.
Why they're losing money.
And there's a philosophical element to this.
And I believe when you look at Bud Light and you think about the issue of Dylan Mulvaney and what sparked this, what we're witnessing is People who live outside the Matrix, finally having enough, running into that room where everyone is sitting in front of the screen with Big Brother, spinning around with that sledgehammer and just throwing it into the screen and shattering it.
That's what we're seeing.
Let's start with Bud Light.
Bud Light isn't making movies.
They made this garbage commercial.
It was terrible for the Super Bowl.
Didn't work.
As much as Joe Rogan and Shane Gillis try to rehabilitate Bud Light, it will not work!
But, uh, I got no beef with those guys.
If you want to buy Bud Light at this point, it's like, dude, they lost already.
You know what I mean?
I'd recommend Modelo, because Bud Light's trash anyway.
Look, you know, I'm just gonna say this.
You know, Joe Rogan has on his show Shane Gillis.
They're both some of the funniest guys on the planet, and they're great.
But why are they drinking Bud Light?
It's like...
If you wanna make a political point about who cares about the boycott, like, okay, sure, I get it, but, guy, I mean, if I was gonna do a show where we just loaded up on beer, I'd get Yingling!
It's like an East Coast thing, but it's really good!
And I'm not a beer drinker.
Um, or Modelo?
I'd do Dos Equis, maybe?
But Bud Light?
Anyway, whatever, like, Joe, you know, I got no beef, do your thing, whatever.
Bud Light, if you like Bud Light, you're allowed to like Bud Light, but I'm sitting here laughing, because they lost a billion dollars.
Now, how did they lose a billion dollars?
Well, it all comes down to Dylan Mulvaney.
Oh, there's a name people haven't heard in a little- in- in- in some time, because Dilma Veni's 15 minutes are over.
Dilma Veni put out a video, an unhinged rant about how their 15 minutes are not yet over.
The social media algorithms that were driving people to the brink of insanity have finally broken.
Google Gemini is making people realize how psychotic woke people are.
Making images of black Nazis certainly would wake people up.
I'm glad they did.
Congratulations, Gemini.
Google invested, what, billions in this AI project?
And they plopped out a turd.
Congratulations.
So, Google's losing tons of money.
They're now pulling, you know, they're in panic mode over their AI.
You got Bud Light losing, Anheuser-Busch losing a billion, Disney losing a billion.
Here's what happens.
TikTok is generating these algorithms.
For whatever reason, they make these algorithms.
And they're showing content to people for whatever reason.
Now, I think it's a bit nefarious.
I think the likelihood is that they're showing this psychotic and deranged garbage to people to break their minds.
Because there's literally no reason to algorithmically promote something like Dylan Mulvaney.
But whatever, they did.
The reality is the average person probably looks at Dylan Mulvaney with confusion, disdain, and disgust.
I'm not trying to be mean, but that's the reality.
And so Dylan Mulvaney chases the algorithm.
This is fascinating.
There was a woman who had a van life channel.
I don't even know what happened to her.
But she made like two videos.
One was how to shower in a van and one was my pet snake or something like that.
And she got like two million subscribers overnight.
You see, YouTube was promoting something for some reason.
They're promoting living in the van.
Now the conspiracy theory is that YouTube intentionally was trying to get people to live in vans.
I don't know, can climate change or whatever?
But so this woman just hit the nail on the head with the algorithm, generating millions of subscribers overnight.
It doesn't make sense.
Everybody asks, how is Mr. Beast so successful?
Well, Mr. Beast makes great videos.
That's first and foremost.
Content is king.
And there are people out there who say, no, he doesn't.
You're allowed to not like his videos.
That's fine.
But they are.
Production-wise, they're clever, and they're fun to watch.
He does a good job.
But that doesn't warrant hundreds of millions of subscribers.
No, what happens is, YouTube put him on the front page.
If YouTube put this video on the front page, default for non-users and people who aren't signed in, it would get 100 million views.
Okay?
Maybe not 100 million, but what YouTube's trying to do is probably political for sure, but a lot of it is just, what is going to get the most clicks?
And so, you know, the average person's not going to click this, but, that being said, You put this video on the front page of YouTube, you're getting traffic.
I would get millions upon millions, I would make an insane amount of money.
And that's the truth.
This is what TikTok was doing with people like Dylan Mulvaney.
And what happens is, people see the front page and they say, look at this 10 million views that Dylan Mulvaney got.
Dylan Mulvaney must be popular!
So Bud Light, in their infinite ignorance, say, if this is what people want, we'll buy it.
But it's not what people want.
It's what TikTok was showing people.
So Bud Light set themselves aflame because the machine told them to do it.
It's a self-correcting problem.
Makes me a bit optimistic that the more and more people will chase after these algorithms and their brains rot and fall out of their skulls, there will be a course correction that we will succeed in.
And that's what happened to Bud Light.
So they lost a billion dollars.
Buh-bye.
That's too bad for you.
But then we get this.
Disney loses one billion dollars.
This one's not so absolute.
This one's really interesting.
There is a fracturing of culture.
People don't know what to do anymore.
There's nothing original or unique.
My friends, have you seen our latest video, Eyes of Advice?
Let me, uh, let me pull that up here.
Just a little bit of self-promotion, I suppose.
But it's to make a point.
And so, uh, let me pull this up.
I actually haven't showed or played the video in any of my videos, but in terms of culture, and talking about Disney's and their failures, I will start by showing you a bit of Eyes of Advice, the latest song that we put out.
I'll skip through it, I won't play the full song for you, but you can definitely check it out if you search YouTube for Timcast Music.
You can see it clearly picks up in terms of interest, but it's really something you have to watch because I'm not trying to, for people who don't want to listen to music or anything, I'm not trying to force promote this.
My point is simply, we took risks.
We tried something new.
We're not chasing after anything.
A lot of people are like, oh, this sounds like that song or this song.
Well, we're standing on the shoulders of giants.
We are the products of the culture for which we came.
And so, we wanted to make a video.
And the video here is something, a song I wrote a long time ago.
Twenty years ago.
Slightly refined over the years, for sure.
And the music video idea existed for almost as long.
Kent Welling, our video producer, did all the work bringing this to life.
Let me show you this scene.
And for those that are just listening, you get to listen to the song!
And your heart is racing, starting to know The advice you've been taking has opened your mind At the cost of your life One more slip down the wrist should suffice for me So I really wanted to show that demon part, although the water is my favorite part of the video.
And my point, ultimately, is... When we were producing something... When we were making this song...
I did not.
When we're making the video, when we're doing the production, we didn't sit down with a market research group or a focus group and say, what is it that people want?
We didn't look to social media trends.
We didn't say, what's the popular music?
That was the joke song we did together again.
No, it's a song where we were like, do we like it?
Yes.
Let's roll, baby.
Currently the song has 3.5 million views in four days.
We did not make that chasing after any of this trendy BS garbage.
And this is the point.
We may not have made the best video.
We may not have made the best song.
In fact, you might actually hate every song we've put out.
I think that's a good thing.
I don't think it's a good thing that people don't like the music.
I would love it if we put out a song and it just became the biggest song in the world.
For sure.
You want to be successful.
My point is, We're just trying to make things.
And when you do, eventually you find something new, you find something good, you find something enjoyable.
Too much of what is happening now in our culture is cookie-cutter garbage.
Man, I go back in time.
I look at Groundhog Day.
Talk about a good movie.
Where's our Groundhog Day?
Movies have become blockbuster, generic, cookie-cutter garbage.
Where's the weird idea?
The reality is, Groundhog Day didn't make that much money when it came out.
I just watched the movie Casino, with De Niro, Pesci.
Man, that movie's great!
It also did not- I mean, I think it made $100 million in theaters or something like that.
Movies today make $500 million.
Isn't that crazy?
I mean, inflation, fair point.
Inflation changes everything.
Take a look at this from Forbes.
What cost Disney a billion dollars?
You've got Ant-Man, The Little Mermaid, Indiana Jones, and Secret Invasion.
Now it's a Disney Plus production.
That's incredible.
You know, I'm a huge fan of Marvel.
I love the Marvel MCU.
Up until Endgame.
Because that was the end.
Since then, it's been a bunch of trash.
I didn't mind the Spider-Man one with Jake Gyllenhaal, I think?
With Mysterio or whatever?
I thought that was decent.
And that one is after Endgame or whatever.
Take a look at this.
Quantumania.
Why did Ant-Man Quantumania fail?
It's kind of a bummer, it is.
It made 476 million dollars, that's great.
But when they break it all down, after the cost of marketing and production, it's gonna be a loss.
Gonna be a loss of a lot of money.
Then you get The Little Mermaid.
Talk about a total failure.
This movie should have done well.
But there's huge controversy over erasing the redhead Ariel in favor of a young black woman with dyed red hair.
And it's funny because I pointed this out.
If you're going to make The Little Mermaid black, like you're going to cast a black actress to it, why can't she have black hair?
I have no problem with that.
And it was funny because these leftists were like, black people are allowed to have red hair, Tim.
And they were pointing out that in the book, it says Ariel has red hair.
And I'm like, yeah, she's also white.
She's a mermaid!
I loved Matt Walsh when he was like, she should have translucent skin and be a floating skull because underwater creatures don't have color in their skin.
It was great.
They lost their mind over it.
So I wonder why it is nobody wanted to see your awful movie.
Then we get Harrison Ford, The Dial of Destiny.
And this is what, why I bring up the song we just put out.
Dude, how about this?
How about the next song we put out, we literally just take a popular song and then make some version of it.
You know, here's what we'll do.
We'll half cover a song.
And we'll call it something new!
Come on.
You know, we put out a song that has, like, weird industrial sounds, and it's rock-like, and people are like, there's no chorus, and I'm like, we just made a science poem!
It's art.
We wanted to try something new.
And you know what?
People should be trying to do new and different things and failing.
Instead, what happens is, Disney is saying, redo the same thing over and over and over again, and they're failing.
At a certain point, you will discover nothing.
You will make nothing good.
And so it's unfortunate, but that's where they are.
Fine.
It's not all about wokeness.
The reason they're flopping is because of cultural stagnation and a refusal to try weird and new things.
I can't tell you, man.
You know what really grinds my gears?
I love horror films, but holy crap, every horror film is the exact same plot!
I can't tell you how many times I go on Amazon, and I'm like, new releases for horror.
And it's like, a young couple moves into a new house, but they're haunted by a spirit.
And I'm like, okay.
Dude, I remember when Cabin in the Woods came out.
And I saw commercials, I'm like, I don't want to see Cabin in the Woods.
Generic.
Teenagers go to the Cabin in the Woods, and oh, it's like Jason all over again.
And my friend was like, no, no, no, no, you gotta see it.
Trust me.
I was like, really?
And they're like, uh-huh.
I'm like, okay, I guess.
And then I watched it and I was like, that was awesome.
It was not what you expect.
They really subvert expectations in an amazing way.
It is time for a resurgence in culture.
And the parallel economy is poised to do it.
Let's make new things.
Let's take great risks.
Shout out to the Rippaverse, making new comics.
Let's go, baby!
So what do we do here?
I skateboard.
I play music.
I play poker.
So what are we going to do?
Those things.
You know, I grew up playing card games like Magic, but I don't see Magic as accessible as poker.
Poker is just so much fun.
So we got poker with the boys.
Trying to figure that one out because poker legality is... We got the Boonies, Boonies HQ.
The skate park is currently being built.
In the end, it will be one of the most extensive and largest private skate facilities on the East Coast.
We're putting a lot of money in it.
We're talking millions of dollars.
So far, a skate portion's only a couple hundred thousand, but the building and the land, everything so far, we're in the millions.
And we're gonna make this thing big.
We got, the next plan is gonna be, we're moving the concrete portion back, and we're going to be doing the mega ramp portion, because it opens the door for a lot more content.
So we've got sports, then we've got music.
We've even got a video game that we've just been sitting on that's like half done.
It's like, oof, man, we got so many things on our plate.
We got a card game coming out!
To build culture, to try new things, and guess what?
We're gonna lose money.
We're gonna lose money.
Now, we can make fun of Disney for losing money, but let me tell you the difference.
Disney loses money because they make garbage.
Because they're regurgitating garbage.
There's no upside.
It's, nice try, you lost.
What are we doing?
We're trying new things.
R&D.
And we'll lose money on that.
But when we eventually strike oil, strike gold, Then we're going to make that money back.
But you can't if you keep regurgitating failure.
People need something new.
So, ladies and gentlemen, sit back, put a smile on your face, because the establishment institutions are failing over and over and over again.
Their ratings are in the gutter.
They can't figure it out.
They can't.
They need to realize that it's time to spend money on new and dangerous things.
But they're too risk-averse, and they're too terrified, so let the machine crumble.
And we'll take their place.
I'll leave it there, my friends!
Check out the song if you'd like.
Next segment is coming up at 6 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
Reaping meat-sowing.
Oh, boy.
You know, look, I don't like what's happening in this country, but sometimes a little schadenfreude goes a long way.
Boston's wealthy elite are outraged over new shelter for illegal immigrants in their neighborhood, reports the Post Millennial.
Aw.
These uppity urban liberals who voted for this policy in 2019 when the Democrats were on stage and they were asked, would you open the borders?
And they all raised their hands.
You voted for it.
You want me to cry?
For you?
Okay.
Fine.
Welcome to the fight.
Can we please start doing something about this now?
On the debate stage, they were asked, would you change border crossings from criminal actions to civil violations?
They all raised their hand.
What's a civil violation?
It means when you illegally enter the country, you get a little ticket and then you're good to go.
And that's where we're basically at right now.
Well then, the Postmillennial reports, Boston residents living in one of the city's most expensive neighborhoods are outraged over the city turning an office building into an emergency shelter for illegal immigrants.
The Boston elite expressed severe grievances about the decision at a community meeting on Tuesday evening, yet state officials had no answer for them.
Residents of Fort Point in Seaport couldn't stomach the idea of illegal immigrants living among them in a sanctuary city.
Reaping meets sowing!
What's this?
Libs of TikTok tweets.
The upscale town of Seaport in Boston is turning an office building into a shelter to house illegals.
Residents are fuming.
Biden won Massachusetts by 33 points.
Biden won Boston by 67 points.
Democrats turned Boston into a sanctuary city.
Elections have consequences.
You know, I look at these Democrats and I see them setting themselves on fire.
And then they go, ah, fire hot!
Fire hot!
And then their other friend runs up to them and goes, oh no, and tries to grab them.
Oh, fire indeed hot!
Okay, fine.
I'll get the fire extinguisher.
I don't want the fire on you spreading to any of these houses.
But what do you do if people keep lighting themselves on fire?
Here we are.
Among the greatest concerns were safety and security, which have been raised in sanctuary cities across the U.S.
Brian Curley, a resident in the community, told WBZ that state officials did not give a voice to the community before making this decision.
Yes, they did!
Biden said he was going to do this.
Biden looked at the camera and said, I'm going to make sure every single illegal immigrant comes into this country free of charge and they will come to your homes.
And you went, well, wonder what that means.
I'm being hyperbolic.
Biden said, along with all the rest of them, free healthcare to non-citizens.
No more criminal actions.
They just tried to codify open borders!
They called it a border security bill.
80% went to foreign war, and the bill would codify.
Illegal immigrants crossing the border would be allowed in.
Fortunately, it was struck down by what we have in the Republican Party.
Not that they're great.
But y'all are gonna keep voting for it.
Maybe the dam will finally break.
And these people will say, enough!
And vote for Donald Trump.
Then Trump can come in and begin the largest mass deportation of criminals in this country.
Can I just make something clear for everybody?
The crime rate of illegal immigrants Is 100%.
I love this.
You know, you've got this poor young woman who was murdered, and they're like, don't conflate what an illegal immigrant did with this crime, because crime happens.
They say things like, actually, illegal aliens have a lower rate of committing crimes in this country.
That's not possible!
It is a violation of U.S.
law to enter outside of a port of entry.
So they've already broken the law, which means they're criminal aliens.
That's the legal term for it.
All of them!
Every single one!
You know?
I actually do have some respect for many of these people who want to come to this country so much, and they love this country.
I love this country, and they see the wealth and opportunity that these leftists don't see.
I respect that.
But you gotta come in legally, man.
Each and every one of you come knocking on the door, we'll talk about it, but you're breaking through my window, I'm calling the cops.
Anybody entering the country illegally is a criminal alien, 100%.
I think there's a lot of angry residents who feel the same way I do that this was being forced on us.
But you voted for it.
I don't quite understand.
Is there something wrong with your brain?
I'm just so sick of this, man.
They vote for it and they cry about it.
The office space owned by the Unitarian Universalist Association will house 80 illegal immigrants once it's officially morphed into an overflow shelter.
The site of the shelter is located at 24 Farnsworth Street.
You know, let me just tell you guys.
It is not.
You can't just send the migrants to Martha's Vineyard.
There was that story out of Illinois.
Now, Illinois, I know.
Naperville.
A well-to-do suburb.
You had one elected official there say, I think we should open up our homes to these undocumented.
How many of you today are going to commit to that?
And they're, oh, well, I never!
They were so offended!
Yeah.
You vote for it all day and night.
With smiles on your faces.
And then when the roosters come home, it's OH!
They're forcing this on us!
These people make me sick.
United Way of Massachusetts Bay, a non-profit that the state has selected to open temporary shelters for migrant and homeless families, plans to get the new shelter up and running as soon as possible, said Governor Maura Healey, according to the Boston Herald.
We are working through all of that, Healey told reporters, declining to give an exact date as to when these illegal families would move in.
I just don't know how long it's going to take to get everything operationalized and work things out with the community, work things out with the city.
Although United Way ultimately selected the site, the governor stated that her administration supports the space's use because we need to continue to find safe housing for people.
That's right.
Right in your neighborhood.
We continue to be in dialogue with the community and with the city, Healey said.
However, community residents said that officials gave them no answers.
At the meeting on Tuesday evening, officials informed the residents that there would be another meeting on Friday and they hoped to have more answers then.
How is it a done deal when you can't answer these questions?
There was a lot of questions tonight.
There were not a lot of answers.
General Scott Rice, a state official, who is overseeing security at its migrant shelters, vowed to keep the community safe.
He's talking about the migrant community, not you!
Our track record has proven very good.
We had very, very, very few incidents.
Very few means some, doesn't it?
One woman asked at the meeting, how are you going to ensure we're safe?
I would like to see a little bit more compassion.
That's my point of view.
Another man interjected.
Yes, a little bit more compassion.
Bring them into your bosom, into your homes, Boston residents.
I demand that you open up your homes to these people in your sanctuary towns.
This is what we need to do.
We need these cities We need the federal government, you take these illegal immigrants, you go to their houses, and you put them in.
I know it violates the Third Amendment.
I'm joking.
I'm saying, make sure these people know exactly what they voted for.
I love that propaganda video.
Where it's like, the woman's like, I feel like I have my own personal chef!
Because she brought an illegal immigrant into her house.
A refugee, as it were.
Apparently I hear from, you know, Dane over here at Timcast that the Spanish of these individuals was atrocious and it didn't quite make sense and it seemed fake.
Well, I don't speak Spanish, so I don't know.
But I can tell you, boys at Propaganda, we brought these undocumented people into our houses and now they live here forever, but they cook dinner for us and it's like having your own personal chef.
Yeah, we had a word for that.
We had a word for that back in the day.
It was slavery.
You know, I provide food and shelter for an individual in exchange for her services and labor.
They can technically leave, but the dangers are less appealing than living here and cooking me dinner.
Yeah, okay, it's kinda like slavery.
I'll have to be real.
During slavery, they literally couldn't leave.
They had slave catchers and things like that.
What they're doing now with these migrants... I shouldn't say migrants, that's not fair.
They're criminal aliens.
In this story, though, they were refugees.
I think that's what the... I'll try to be legally correct.
These individuals can leave whenever they want.
And sleep outside in the winter.
So they're not going to do that, right?
The people who are brought into these homes, who are cooking meals... Oh, you're in for a wild ride.
Because they're not going to serve you or be your slaves.
And maybe they'll be nice.
But it's going to be a wild story when these people in these well-to-do neighborhoods let these criminal aliens into their home, and then one day they come home and the locks are changed, and they can't get in.
And they call the police, and the police say, what's going on?
They say, we can't get in our house.
Why not?
Keys don't work.
Someone changed the lock.
Who did?
The guy who lives there.
Who's the guy?
We let him live here.
Ma'am, so the man lives there?
I thought you said it was your house.
Well, we do live here.
He's an undocumented immigrant.
We wanted to help him, so we let him move in.
So you're having a tenant dispute?
Well, it's not a tenant dispute.
We can't get her out.
Lady, look, you've got to go to court for this, okay?
We can't help you.
I'm really, really looking forward to those stories.
Boston, I'll say for the third time to wrap this up.