Jimmy Kimmel VS The FCC—Everyone’s a Hypocrite

0:00 If we love this country, if you believe in America, you have to reject the idea of speech is violence and hate speech. Hate speech is [ __ ] Hey there friends, fans, and foes of Dad Saves America. John Pola here and I wanted to take this Friday to dig into frankly a bunch of stuff that is happening in real time in the fallout of the tragic and heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk and how can we not start with Jimmy Kimmel?

0:37 >> ABC announced it's suspending Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy Kimmel Live indefinitely. It comes after comments the host made related to the killing of Charlie Kerr. >> ABC says Jimmy Kimmel Live will be preempted indefinitely. It follows comments the host made on the show on Monday in response to the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. Hey, Jimmy, maybe you should have checked the New York Times before you or had your writers check the New York Times before you got on stage because it was already well understood that the shooter uh of Charlie Kirk was being animated by something uh not exactly MAGA. And I want to come back to that. Um but frankly, as I said last Friday, I don't really care about the motivations of the shooter. The reactions to it, including this one, speak a lot more to the corruption in our culture and some of the things that have led to Charlie's death to begin with. But let's get back to it.

1:47 >> ABC's announcement came after TV station owners like NextStar and Sinclair said they would preempt Kimble's show indefinitely. >> This is the announcement from NextStar. You see the broadcasters like ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. They're part of this sort of, you know, as we sit here in 2025, you know, kind of archaic technological platform known as the airwaves and they have a very weird and unique relationship with the government as a result. And so, um, there isn't like a single source like Netflix where like Netflix is pushing out their content or YouTube pushing out their content through uh Google servers.

2:25 In the case of the broadcasters, there is a network of affiliates that have to buy essentially their share of the airwaves of the radio frequency spectrum. And so the ABC is the big monster corporation, but their distribution network of broadcasting is through local network affiliates. I only bring this up because it's increasingly this relic of the past. I don't know who watches any of this aside from people over the age of 65. Um, and they only even continue to survive because of lazy advertisers like Auto and Big Pharma.

3:03 But nonetheless, NextStar quickly said, "We will not rebroadcast Jimmy Kimmel, ABC. We'll preempt it with something else." Um, you know, maybe this old house from the 80s. That would have been a better choice. But the story gets more complicated than this. It isn't just a reaction to Jimmy. There's something else going on. >> On Truth Social, Trump responded to the news, writing in part, "Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers on fake news NBC."

3:35 >> The standard sophomoric stuff from President Trump. Um, but it it's a little darker than that in my opinion. And that is also mirrored by the folks over at fire who noted that, you know, the government actually pressured ABC and ABC caved. The timing of ABC's decision on the heels of the FCC chairman's pledge to the network to do this the easy way or the hard way tells the whole story. And so basically the issue here is one of government coercion or at least uh threats making content changes to a broadcast network. And and so what is what is this? What are we talking about here? Uh was this a call that um that the FCC made to ABC or to the affiliates saying we're gonna we're gonna rattle your cage unless you do something? Not exactly. It was actually an appearance on Benny Johnson's YouTube show. You know, when you look at the conduct that has taken place by Jimmy Kimmel, um it appears to be some of the sickest conduct possible. Uh as you've indicated, there are, you know, avenues here for the FCC. So, there are are some ways in which I need to be a little bit uh careful because we could be called ultimately to be a judge on some of these claims. But frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action frankly uh on Kimmel or you know there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.

5:09 >> One other way you could interpret that is nice broadcast license you got here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it. So maybe you ought to do a little something with this Jimmy Kimmel. That is what I think can reasonably be seen as a threat, a not so veiled threat of action. Now, in fact, the story is more complicated. Since we recorded the video in my office, several other articles have come out rounding out the story. The Hollywood Reporter notes 66 other affiliate stations said they were going to preempt Kimmel. And Kimmel was being completely intrigent in the face of requests by Bob Iger and leadership at Disney to essentially apologize for lying to the public, which he had no interest in doing. And then Variety magazine also notes that NextStar, the the station that led the charge, um their leadership said that their decision had nothing to do with the FCC, that they had not gotten any contact from the FCC, and that instead they were hearing from advertisers, which makes a lot of sense because Jimmy Kimmel's ratings aren't very good. And in fact, they're below that of the Late Show with Steven Cobear, which has already been cancelled. So, I think it's not a slam dunk that the FCC caused Kimmel to be fired. My gut understands it. It's one of those things kind of like the Chris Rock joke. You know, I'm not saying they should be doing this, but I understand.

6:38 And I'm going to get to that. I'm a little bit of catharsis, but this is a problem. This is the government which is governed by our first amendment which says that the congress and the executive branch and and the federal bureaucracy shall do nothing. Congress shall pass no law and the executive branch shall not execute said law to violate the freedom of speech and expression of the public. And ABC and the producers of the show and Jimmy Kimmel are private citizens.

7:09 They are engaged in private activity. They are in a different category from my view than sort of public universities let's say who get public taxpayer dollars but um what he was doing was clearly first amendment protected speech. It just was. And just as I didn't want the Biden administration doing this kind of stuff and they did a lot more of it, uh I don't want the Trump administration doing that either. I am in favor of the First Amendment.

7:39 Full stop. and he got called out for it pretty quickly. >> Some people have pulled some of your old posts, Sher Carr, including this one from uh 2019. Should the government censor speech it doesn't like? Of course not. The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the quote public interest. Um, how do you square what you're saying with those old posts? And is there pressure now, for example, for Comcast to drop Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meers the way the president suggested?

8:09 Well, two things. I've been very very consistent when it comes to the internet. We want, you know, wide open, robust, you know, debate and there's no public interest standard there. There's no licensing obligation there. But again, broadcast TV is simply different. Particularly during co we saw this massive surge in censorship on the internet by Facebook, by previous owners of Twitter, and I push back very strongly there. But again, broadcast is different. They've got a license and they're free to go on the internet and do whatever they want. But if they want to keep access to those valuable airwaves, I've been clear, we're reinvigorating the FCC's enforcement of public interest. And it's a good thing.

8:45 I mean, look, trust in the media is at an all-time low. It used to be more trusted than Congress, at least they could say, but now they've fallen beneath Congress. >> Trust is at an all-time low from the media. And uh for obvious reasons for those of us that care about trying to understand the world, um one reason is that the broadcast news operations have basically been on a lying spree for a decade, the likes of which no adult can possibly understand. Um including everything against President Trump that has made him like a rabid cornered dog when it comes to the media. Uh having in the prior decade been a darling. uh the the Russia hoax, the the all the things calling him a Nazi 247, calling everyone a Nazi 247. We have a right as normal, sane people to find everyone involved in the corporate press kind of repugnant. I think that's justified. But the government is a mighty vast and powerful tool, a singular monopoly of force. And the FCC's um actions here are dubious to say the least. I pulled up the actual consumer guide for the FCC because for those of us that are old enough to remember, let's say, when Howard Stern was relevant and on the radio and funny and not some kind of weird soy woke kiss ass that was excited to get Hillary Clinton on the show back when he used to make fun of the right people and be funny about it, Howard Stern was routinely having people call in to try to revoke his FCC license In fact, in his movie Private Parts, he talks about this and confrontations with the FCC.

10:33 So, what does the FCC tell people is the the limits of its rules and regulations? Well, let's just read this real quick. Broadcasting false information that causes substantial public harm. The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial public harm if aired. I could see at least a defensible argument that what Jimmy Kimmel was doing there was essentially fanning the flames of um of a very volatile public situation and pushing forward a falsehood that had already been reported on by the New York Times as not being the case. Namely, that Charlie Kirk shooter was somehow some MAGA right-winger or some groper fan of Nick Fuentes or whatever. Nobody thought this was true. That was sane. Uh the guy had bullet casings with catch this fascist on it and um and that was known that was known last Friday. Not so when Jimmy Kimmel went to air there was he was already wrong. The FCC rules specifically say that the public harm must begin immediately and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health and safety of the general public or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties. Even if you think Kimmel violated the first paragraph, it was almost certainly the case that you can't prove that he violated the second.

12:06 What did I think violate the second is all of the media's coverage of COVID and the Black Lives Matter protests, including celebrating them, saying they were mostly peaceful, saying that we couldn't visit our loved ones in the hospital while they were dying, but you could take to the streets in the name of social justice or whatever, and fanning the literal flames of the burning cities throughout our country in the summer of love. We don't forget these things. we shouldn't forget them. We shouldn't even really forgive the institutions. Um there needs to be fundamental change here. And this is part of why I think a lot of the public sees President Trump and his sort of sophomoric punching and crazy talk of who's got talent and who doesn't as being less important than attacking these organizations and institutions that tried to burn our country to the ground. But we are a nation of laws and and the chief among which is the constitution. And so even here we're in dangerous ground from my perspective as a matter of the constitution. But coming to broadcasting false content during news programming which Kimmel Kimmel is not news not even ABC News is news actually. But the FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on first amendment rights of the press.

13:30 It is however illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news which makes all of them completely guilty of just about all of their reporting just about. So that's kind of interesting. And the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. Like, I don't know, say the CDC director claiming that the COVID vaccines stop transmission while privately admitting that they didn't even test for that and that they don't, for example. That's just a little primer straight from the horse's mouth on what the FCC tries to do and how you as a member of the public who might think that something's being violated if for some reason you're somehow watching broadcast overtheair television. And if you are, I apologize in advance for insulting you, but it is 2025. Cut the cord. Now is time for some shot and freigher and some look back on hypocrisy because Jimmy Kimmel is kind of despicable and it's worth remembering that. Um but here's just some of the highlights from recent years. Dr. Fouchy said that if hospitals get any more overcrowded, they're going to have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU bed. I that choice doesn't seem so tough to me. Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right on in. We'll take care of you.

14:50 unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo. Rest in peace, Weezy. You're That's I mean, we the clapping seals, the claptor, the the hooting and hollering for the death of fellow Americans. That was on the air. That was fine. That was pro- regime uh propaganda. So, that went un uh unressed. Vandalizing Tesla vehicles. New Tesla vehicles. Please don't vandalize. Don't ever vandalize Tesla vehicles. And so, uh, >> yeah, remember that one? Remember subtly calling for vandalism? Yeah. And then, of course, >> ABC decided to cancel their highest rated show, Roseanne, following following a tweet in which Roseanne compared an African-American woman, a former adviser to President Obama, to an ape, which did not sit well with ABC management or anyone with a brain really. So they announced that the sho this first season of the show is also its last.

15:50 >> So you know there he is again the shoe is on the other foot and I am going to chuckle at that even though I defend his right to be an imbecile and to spout this stuff even on um public airways so to speak. Uh I think there's a deeper conversation about the way the FCC works. I frankly think they should probably put all this spectrum up for auction and see these legacy institutions die because they they're they're not good. They don't they wouldn't probably survive that auction.

16:22 They probably wouldn't be able to afford to bid for the spectrum if it was put up for a proper auction. And that's another thing to remember is that the bandwidth, the airwaves, the frequencies being used by the affiliates that broadcast broadcast television, um, they're using up a resource that could be used for other stuff like, I don't know, faster internet or any number of things that feels more like 2025. It's worth remembering as we continue to embark on a criticism of some of the Trump administration's handling of this free speech crisis that we're in that we don't have a lot of good options here because the Democrats have been terrible. So, of course, here's Chuck Schumer taking the the high ground. America is meant to be a bastion of free speech.

17:12 You know, kind of sort of. Everybody across the political spectrum should be speaking out to stop what's happening to Jimmy Kimmel. This is about protecting democracy. This must go to court. Now, functionally, I actually sort of agree sort of. But he doesn't agree. He's just a he's just a two-faced liar. Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight now that he's seen how he has perverted and splined the truth and from letting him go on again and again and again. One of the ways I think about the issue of not just free speech but of government overreach during the Trump administration or frankly during any time that the person who's a little closer to me is in office is what would it look like if the worst of my opposition was in charge? What would it look like if President AOC stepped into power and had the control and had the president um at play and uh well we know because she said it.

18:28 >> Tucker Carlson is out at Fox News. Couldn't have happened to a better guy. Um, I also kind of feel like I'm like waiting for the cut scene at the end of a Marvel movie after all the credits have rolled and then you see like the villain's like hand reemerge out to grip grip over like the end of a building or something. >> She's so clever, isn't she? So creative. She's so hip with her uh her vertical video in her Tesl in her Tesla probably.

19:02 But deplatforming works and it is important and um there you go. >> There you go. Deppplatforming works and it's important. Future President AOC, >> you know, I do think that uh several members of Congress in some of my discussions have brought up uh media literacy because that is a part of what happened here. Um, and we're going to have to figure out how we reign in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation. you know, disinformation and misinformation like like natural immunity from viruses is a thing. Like that was remember that was misinformation that the immune system does this thing that it does where you get exposed to things and your immune system learns how to fight them and that's also how vaccines work and if it couldn't do that then vaccines wouldn't work at all. But that was misinformation that would have you fired. Just remember that's what she's talking about. It's one thing to have differing opinions, but um it's another thing entirely to just say things that are false.

20:18 >> Okay. >> Um and so that's something that we're looking into. >> Well, we know that that they looked into it quite a bit and in fact um took all kinds of steps in the Biden years to pressure companies into censoring things including the Hunter Biden laptop and legions of Americans. And that happened. We've already been there. So even in terms of the arguments for slippery slopes, we're somewhere pretty far down the slope. And this is what is so upsetting to those of us that love America and love America as defined by its founding creeds and basic values that were deeply rooted at the time that made it into the Bill of Rights for important reasons that you should want to conserve whether you see yourself as a conservative or not. But there is an asymmetry here. And I'm going to come back to some of the other stuff that's happening with the Trump administration, including Pam Bondi. But first, I want to dig a little deeper into something I talked about last Friday, which was that the fundamental philosophy that animates this sort of censorship mindset that created the environment for the execution of Charlie Kirk, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, is the idea that speech can be violence, that words can hurt, can cause harm. And there is an ideological movement overwhelmingly from the left but going back further than let's say the 1960s postmodern commie radicals that has made this argument and caused it to permeate our society and become in an infection in the minds of our kids. And one of the one of the books that pulls this work together is this one, Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. And this is by, you could say, some of the horsemen of the woke apocalypse. Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, and Kimberly Williams Krenshaw.

22:25 This is a collection of essays and work by these self-avoued Marxist critical theorists that made the argument persuasively for for academics that the First Amendment's got to go. That when you're dealing with marginalized groups, people of color, you name it, everyone but me. Basically, the first amendment can't really apply because it creates systemic harms because it has the force of violence, the force of physical assault. And this is part of a movement, a movement to collapse the most important founding principle of the West and especially of the United States of America. I'm going to admit that there are people who are way deeper read into all this than than I am, including Christopher Rufo and James Lindsay and others. But just as a quick fly over, and we'll put links to some of this stuff over at dadsavesamerica.com, the basic sequence of events that has led to speeches, violence, and words can wound looks something like this. And it's got some irony in it. So in the VHimar Republic, sort of the pre-Nazi postworld war I sort of hyperinflationary nightmare society, there was a rising Nazi party and the VHimar Republic passed laws to try to restrict Nazi propaganda because they saw it was um well scary.

24:01 It didn't work. So that's lesson number one is that the VHimar Republic tried to use containing speech to stop the actual Nazis, not uh not moderate right of center Christian conservatives like Charlie Kirk who put gay Americans on stage and defend their rights or treat people he disagrees with with respect and dignity. No, actual Nazis didn't get stopped by trying to contain hate speech. Now, in the aftermath of World War II, with the full revelation of the identitarian hate, the collectivist identitarian hate of Adolf Hitler and his mass genocide of the Jews and and others, but mostly of the Jews in Germany, the UN and multiple bodies in in a couple of specific instances began to enshrine what is essentially is prohibitions against hate speech, you know, race or identity.

25:00 focused language that was meant to cause harm or again trying to define this stuff is pretty much impossible and that's part of the problem. Hate is in the eye of the beholder and hate is also a definition of an intention which you'd have to be able to read and learn. You know no you don't know if someone is motivated by hate by what they say. So that right away causes a lot of problems for this hate speech philosophy. It is fundamentally subjective. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established a global norm around dignity and equality that included references to this kind of language. And then in 1965, the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination called for states to prohibit um hate propaganda. And this laid the foundation that was picked up pretty quickly by the European governments um to crack down on speech. We in the United States and our first amendment made this a nogo. We rejected it. It failed in the courts.

26:09 And so the years that followed was constantly a battle between our strong first amendment rights upheld by the Constitution, upheld by the Supreme Court, and an an increasingly radical vanguard on the academic left, calling for essentially the elim elimination of the First Amendment as we know it. and the 1970 Civil Rights Acts became the um the tool set for how to think about this the as as a matter of anti-discrimination. And then in the 1980s and into the '90s, critical theorists like those listed in this book um made their arguments. Their arguments were quickly picked up by academia and and made manifest in the form of speech codes on college campuses and these largely failed in the courts.

27:03 And so they continually played this shell game of trying to justify creating a toxic environment for trying to have an any kind of thought that wasn't radical left um by recasting it as harassment or intimidation or something other than just speaking your mind. And that's how we got here. That wave, endless waves of assaults on the American First Amendment landed us in a place where after a couple of generations, especially in communications departments, which is where journalists get their degrees and then end up sitting behind desks at broadcasters like ABC, we got this fundamentally revolutionarily anti-American creed of hate speech and speech is violence. The idea that laid the foundation for the death of Charlie Kirk. If you love this country, you shouldn't tolerate the idea of hate speech. Before we get to where this is starting to go off the rails and and where we should all, if you see yourself as being on the right of center, be worried and vigilant, let's take a trip back to some of the recent examples of hateful or at least not very nice speech because it it it is hard. It is hard to grapple with some of this stuff. So, let's just revisit good old Jimmy Kimmel here. Fully aware of who this shooter actually was. Almost certainly >> this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk is anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.

28:44 >> So, who was this kid? This kid that was one of them, a MAGA right-winger. Well, as has been revealed recently, he was very much someone motivated by the notion of hateful speech, of hate speech. In fact, in the exchanges over text that the shooter had with his transvestite lover, again, obviously a MAGA rightwinger, he was asked why he did it. This, by the way, this exchange has been referred to in some media outlets this week as being kind of warm and loving and like shows the softer side of the psychotic assassin. This is the kind of stuff that we're getting from the media and why it makes it so hard to be sane right now. It's really hard to be sane.

29:35 I'm trying my best. The roommate, the transsexual roommate asks, "Why?" Robinson, "Why did I do it?" Yeah, I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated with. Speech is violence. Hate speech. hate speech is violence. I don't think Charlie Kirk held much hate in his heart for anybody. And I think there's a mountain of footage which now, God bless him in heaven, uh, is going viral like never before because everyone that's curious about this guy that got assassinated in a way that is absolutely a a hinge point in our country's history, akin to the execution of Martin Luther King, who is also a activist and not a politician and um was taken down by someone filled with actual hate.

30:30 Well, this guy didn't have hate in his heart. Uh, but you know who does have some hate in their heart? Or at least seems like they do, cuz I can't really know. I can't know. I can't know what motivates these people. It's just might be brokenness and psychopathy, or are all the hundreds of thousands of people who've either posted joy or clicked, like, and retweeted the joy about Charlie's death. And I've not wanted to show much of this, but I'll show just a little bit so that I can also share um who aggregated some of it.

31:01 This great YouTuber uh Shuon head that I've been watching for years who's broadly on the left, the left, the old left, like the rational left that was just about economics because she testifies to the culture that's going on that has been born out of this radical critical race theory insanity. And insanity it truly is. >> Charlie Kirk was a Nazi. He was a Nazi. And you know what kind of Nazi is the best Nazi? A dead one.

31:29 >> I am a better person than you for celebrating the death of a Nazi. Uh and actually it's pretty weird that you're not. And simultaneously asking people to have empathy for the Nazi. >> Nazis have children and families, right? But Nazis also get shot. These last few days after what happened, I kept going to every single like lefty, liberal, left-wing person I know and like checking out what they have been saying about this. And besides maybe like four or five, every single one was being an unhinged psychopath about this or saying some backhanded like this is why we need gun control. Which first of all, we were just watching a whole bunch of people celebrate killing someone over political differences. You are never taking our guns now. That that is not happening.

32:22 I'll put a link to the um full video from Shu because it's great and because um she's actually like a human being. She hasn't been turned into some husk of a person like these Tik Tockers have. But she notes that um some of these videos have gotten millions of views and and millions of likes. Every one of those likes is a human being that agreed. And that that's part of the problem. That's part of the thing that's making all this so difficult. Uh the environment we're in has um has been crazymaking. I want to dig into some data from Yuggov that should worry us all when it comes to the actual hate going on in our country and why it's so important that we don't pull hate down to the level of speech and make moral equivalencies between the two. because doing that is setting us up for complete disaster and collapse. So, let's take a look at this together. This was a big poll, recent poll about what Americans really think about political violence. The good news is is that the majority of Americans think political violence is bad and think it's a problem. Older people think it's worse than younger people. Less young people think it's bad or that it's a problem.

33:45 That's not so good. But as you dig into the data, it starts to get upsetting and we have to look this in the eye. Now, first thing is that this is kind of partisan. So, Democrats and Republicans are more likely to say political violence is a big problem after attacks on members of their own party. So, after the attack on Paul Pelosi, far more Democrats said political violence is a problem than Republicans. Now, the Paul Pelosi one is a little strange. So it's a little bit of an outlier in a certain sense. It it whether it was politically motivated or not is not clear. It was an attack on a Democrat and not even a sitting member of a of Congress or a politician. So it it's gross and horrible and should be condemned. Um but it is not quite the same thing as for example the assassinate the assassination attempts on President Trump um in 2024. Um, of course you can see the flip with the attempted assassination of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. More Democrats were worried than Republicans, although both were worried and the gap is not that wide. Um, again, after the assassination of Melissa Hortman, more the gap is wider there. And you know, thankfully asked on with regard to September 10th and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, um a majority of Democrats, 58% said that this is a big problem. And 67% of Republicans did. So, you know, it's mixed and people get more upset when they feel like it's coming after them.

35:25 Understandable. Works on both sides. Uh, older Americans are more concerned than younger Americans. This is not necessarily surprising when you look a little deeper at what comes next. This stuff. Okay. Most Americans say that it's unacceptable to be happy about public figures deaths, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to call it acceptable.

35:58 And so by political ideology, the graph is red here says always or usually acceptable to be happy about the death of a public figure. 24% of those who say very liberal. That is compared to 3% who say very conservative. And even the difference between liberal and very liberal is more than double. Almost two and a half times more. People who self-proclaim themselves as very liberal say it's perfectly fine. It's acceptable always or usually to be happy about it. Okay, that's being happy.

36:43 What about doing it? What about whether it's appropriate to happen? not just be reacting to it, but to actually engage in political violence. How many Americans say political violence can be justified? And this this is not good. This is one more sign that there is a ideologically biased kind of mental illness going on in our society.

37:18 Again, yes is read violence can sometimes be justified. 25% of those who said they were very liberal think it's it can be justified. Those are the people calling uh Charlie Kirk a Nazi. It's worth noting, and Shu notes this in her video, that the prepundonderance of people taking to social media acting like this were women, which in the sane times, in the before times, that would have seemed really, really weird because men in general are more aggressive, more inclined towards being physically aggressive and women tend to be more empathetic and caring and nurturing. This does align this data and the observation of who has been posting psychopathic crazy responses to Charlie. Um, it aligns with other work that shows that liberal young women are among the most literally mentally ill people in our society. This is big survey data and this is not just this is people who say they have been diagnosed with actual psychological problems or have um acted upon themselves in ways that point towards that whether it's cutting or considering um having feelings of anxiety in need of medication or treatment. Christian conservatives who are looking forward to having kids, they're not interested in that. They're not interested in justifying the murder of political opponents. This is something that we have to really look in the face because this points back to what I was talking about last Friday that we have a fifth column in academia that is turning our kids and especially our daughters who are frankly more susceptible to this for a whole host of reasons um into uh psychopaths into people who have serious disorders and who believe monstrous things that could tear the society apart. That's what's going on. And that has us all scared out of our minds because we don't, at least I don't, that you know, I don't want the country to collapse. I don't want us to go at each other's throats in a war of all against all. I love this country.

39:44 And it used to be the case that liberals and conservatives both loved the country broadly and only like weird radicals in academia thought this way. Not the general public. But you run our kids through the woke washing machine of academia and the universities and a couple generations in we are in hell. Again, you can see the bias by age. 18 to 29 are where it really is off the charts. 22% of 18 to 29 year olds say that violence can be justified. I I mean this is real bad stuff. This is stuff that we as parents need to engage on in a very serious way because uh the parents of the shooter of Charlie Kirk are victims to this. They are victims.

40:36 They have been victimized by our culture and by our media and by our academic institutions. They have lost their son to a psychopathic ideology, to one that justifies violence, to one that seeks to capture children and turn them into a means to a revolutionary end. And this is not a both sides phenomenon. As the data points out, this is biased. And it is biased because the ideology calls it and says it. It is baked into the cake. It is not an accident. It is not aberant. It's baked into the radical revolutionary ultimately fundamentally Marxist in inspiration philosophy at work here.

41:23 That is why it's so important that we all if we love this country, if you believe in America, you have to reject the idea of speech is violence and hate speech. Hate speech is [ __ ] It should not be used. It should not be talked about as a legitimate idea. It is wacko far-left crank stuff. And that is why this is very upsetting to see.

41:54 >> Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing some criticism over her recent comments about hate speech. Here's what she said on the Katie Miller podcast yesterday. There's free speech and then there's hate speech. >> No. No, there isn't. >> And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle.

42:28 >> While hate speech can be offensive, it is generally protected by the First Amendment. And a number of conservatives were quick to call Bondi out on that. >> Yes. And this is a good thing about the conservative movement in general that she has been called to the mat on this. and I am going to add my voice to the fray. Um, here's just a couple. So, FIRE, who is not really conservative, it's much more of a sort of classical liberal pro- free speech organization, u said there is no hate speech exception to the first amendment. Nevertheless, the attorney general says there's free speech and then there's hate speech and the government will target you and go after you, etc. Uh the attorney general would be wise to read the words of the Supreme Court which has repeatedly held that the proudest boast of America's free speech tradition is freedom is for the thought that we hate. That is true.

43:19 That is true. They are holding up u America's ideals and saying stick with them. What are you doing? They're not alone. Eric Ericson. In the last 24 hours, the attorney general of the United States declared hate speech is prosecutable and the DOJ will target small businesses that do not work want to work with individuals whose views they dislike. She must think she is the attorney general of the United Kingdom. It's funny that he says that because I went to a vigil um event being put on here in Austin for Charlie and uh there was a young man who's a student here at school UT from the United Kingdom and he talked about the UK as if it was Iran on free speech. He said, "I come from a country where you can't say what you believe and if you do, you could end up in prison." It sounded like he was talking about the third world, but he was honestly and correctly describing the United Kingdom. We're better than the UK. We're the UK 2.0 and we need to stay that way. And of course, friend of the show Michael Shelonburgger pointed out as well, the First Amendment protects our right to say hateful and wrong things and prohibits the government from infringing upon our ability to do so. The exceptions to this are extremely rare. This really shouldn't be so hard to understand. and he highlights a uh a Supreme Court case noting that government officials cannot attempt to coersse private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors here. Here here that is the facts. That is what it means to love America. What is America if not our founding principles? Are we just the people? We are the people. America is Americans. But it is also what kind of country we are, what our rules are, what our founding creed is. And if we can't all get behind that, we are not really still even a country. We're just I don't know what we are. And those who've rejected it have rejected the country.

45:15 They have rejected being American fundamentally. And this is what's so scary about the moment we're in. It's not clear that we're still even one people even in the most basic understanding of our law sense. But back to this moment with Bondi. >> Yeah. Today the attorney general seemed to clarify her remarks, writing, quote, "Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not by the first amendment." This morning, President Trump was asked about Bondie's remarks.

45:42 Listen to this. >> What do you think Pam Bondi is saying? She's going to go after hate speech. Uh, is that I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech. >> You'd probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe I've come after ABC. Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech. So, maybe they'll have to go after you.

46:13 >> You know, this is the problem with President Trump because you see these people do this stuff to him for years and then he punches them and you want to and if you thought the way he's been treated by the media and by reporters is unfair. You think good for him, he's punching back, but not good for him and not good for us because he is the president of the United States and this is really stepping all over the basic principles of the country and I and he's swapping words and being imprecise and colloquial and oh, you're full of hate and this is this is not what we need.

46:50 This is not good. If we don't have our principles, we really ultimately have nothing. It's just a war of all against all. Our principles is what help us be people. Is what helps us act like humans and not animals. And wokeism is just a return to the animal ways. I don't want that. We shouldn't want that. That is not a country that we want our kids to grow up in. And Charlie didn't want that. Charlie Kirk rejected all of this stuff just last year. He he posted, "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free. Mr.

47:31 President, please listen to this. Charlie, we heard earlier that the FCC uh commissioner had carved out the broadcasters who are using public spectrum, the airwaves, a a shared resource, a commons, and said, "Look, you want to go on the internet, you can do whatever you want." And um and that's great. I'm only concerned with the people for whom FCC regulation is enforced because we have to essentially maintain this monopoly of your use of spectrum. And so it's a kind of property right that comes with it some rules and requirements. Okay, this is where things start to get pretty uncomfortable I think for all of us and we're in kind of uncharted waters.

48:15 President Trump has been doing something that is technically, I think, illegal, which is failing to shut down Tik Tok after legislation was passed, saying that it needed to be sold or shut down within a certain time. And he kept kicking the can on not doing the thing of the law, which is sort of the main job of the president to execute faithfully the laws passed by the Congress. So, I don't like that. That's not good. That's sort of extra legal nonsense. But now, it looks like there is actually a deal taking shape. And um ask perplexity sums it up that Oracle, Silverlake, and Andre Horowitz will take control of Tik Tok's US operations in an 8020 framework with bite dance. Now, this is just this is being reported.

48:58 This might be subject to change. This might be not how it ultimately takes shape, but um the impossible just happened. 80% US-owned, Oracle, Silverlake, a A16Z, and legacy investors. 20% Chinese-owned. This would be bite dance that keeps a slice. American board with with US government oversight. Okay. And the US-only app will have a separate algorithm. And so basically what is being described is that if this all plays out the way it's being said, Tik Tok will be relaunched. We'll enter back into the app store. you'll need to redownload a new app and it will look like the old Tik Tok but it will be an entirely new set of data um with essentially the algorithm that made Tik Tok what it is essentially licensed and copied to Oracle servers. Uh and this is meant to extract US users on Tik Tok from Chinese government manipulation.

50:00 That has been the idea. The concern around Tik Tok is that it has been a tool for disrupting our society by a foreign adversary. And I think that that concern has been legitimate. That is a legitimate concern. when you have your kids and I remember this um there was a stretch of time where there was suddenly praise for Osama bin Laden and the uh 911 attacks and sort of a sudden rediscovery of the uh the manifesto of Bin Laden going going around on Tik Tok.

50:32 Tik Tok's weird and its effect on our society is worrisome for me as a parent. I don't know if this is out of the frying pan and into another frying pan, but to have the US government, who at some point will be controlled by future President AOC at the table of a major media platform, that's not good. Everything we've been talking about this whole time is on the table to play a role in the future of this platform.

51:00 That's not good. That's why this matters so much. That's why those of us that care about America, care about freedom of speech, need to be paying very close attention to this. >> So, what we're doing, and we're speaking to President Xi on Friday to see if we can finalize something on Tik Tok because there is tremendous value, and I hate to give away value. Tik Tok uh has tremendous value. The United States has that value in its hand because we're the ones that have to approve it. I specifically get the right to approve it. The people that are investing it are among the greatest investors in the world. the biggest, the richest, and they'll do a great job. And we're doing it in conjunction with China. But we are getting uh the United States is getting a tremendous fee plus. I call it a fee plus for just making the deal.

51:46 >> Yeah. None of this is good. This fee plus, it's not good. It's not good. It's better than the Democrats were going to do, I guess, but it's not good. It's not good that the US government now has a share of Intel or has a share of um Nvidia's chip sales or has taken a stake in Rare Earth companies uh and now um is on the board or something or has some fee plus deal with Tik Tok. None of this is good.

52:18 >> But uh no, I'd rather uh reap the benefits. I mean the kind of money we're talking about is very substantial and it'll be owned by all American investors and you know the best investors and the you know very rich people and companies are going to be owning it very very straight very legitimate countries companies and uh really companies that love America so they're going to be owning it. It's a it's a big thing. Do you love America if you don't like the first amendment? I'm not sure. Um this has me very worried about the country. that there is a multi-prong thing going on. And I think um to give the devil its due, I think those who look at things like this from a vantage point of a left perspective, from people who are concerned about power dynamics and inequality, I think they have a point.

53:10 I think there is a critique that is legitimate about the role of power colluding together large corporate power and big government power. And I talked about this in a prior video that the word for this is the jisma. Um, another word for it has been historically economic fascism. I almost don't want to use that term because it's been devalued to nothing by uh irresponsible people in the media. If they wanted to talk about things that should be concerning for real, they shouldn't have devalued Nazi and fascism and all every other extremely inflammatory word the way they did and radicalize our society the way they have. And it leaves us vulnerable for what comes next. As one more little send up to Charlie, I think it's important to remember something that he advocated for and that he understood, I think, correctly and that he was mischaracterized by by a lot of the media um in the aftermath of his shooting and that is Charlie's understanding of how to protect our first amendment and that is with the second amendment. So, we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen.

54:26 >> You can significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home. >> Yes. >> By having more armed guards in front of schools. >> We we we should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's dril. But I am I I think it's I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other god-given rights.

55:05 >> He's right. He is speaking the words of the founders as they understood this and as history portrays it. And just one more clip from his exercise of his first amendment on this ground because it is really really important to understand what's going on here and he understood it in this case. >> What do you what would you say is the ultimate and final purpose of the second amendment? >> Uh I think it's self-defense against a tyrannical government which >> we agree. Sure. Great. The only reason you'd want to register the guns is if you want to confiscate them. The problem of the government knowing where every gun is would then lead itself towards mass confiscation. And I would agree with you, a well-armed citizenry is the greatest protectorate of liberty and freedom in this country.

55:50 >> Even though the army has things like drones and tanks and things like that that outarm, you know, citizens that have >> Yes and no. I mean, we've seen it in several instances where at least a citizen that's a good argument, but I would say a little flawed where the citizens are able to protect themselves in some ways. It's a much harder population to control. I ascribe to the government bad motives and bad intentions when it wants to infringe more on these types of freedoms and liberties. My worldview comes out of one in the 20th century where almost every totalitarian government went after the guns first and the confiscation of guns then leads into the erosion of freedom and liberty.

56:24 >> I I couldn't have said it better myself and I think it speaks to this entire conversation we've had. Charlie understood what George Washington understood. He said, "Government is not eloquence. It is force." And he does not ascribe good motives to any government. And and and neither do I. And neither should you because it is force. And because that is what it means to be American is to understand that it is it is our creed. And when you do, you bring skepticism to the kind of power that we see grabbed by every administration left, right, and center, including the Trump administration. Um, they don't get a pass. And so I think those of us who are patriots need to take that seriously, need to take Charlie seriously and need to understand that his argument here, this one that was trying to weaponize it. Oh, he's getting it good because he thought gun deaths are fine and so he got what he deserved. All that kind of stuff, all that psychopathic nonsense, um just comes from people who are broken, tragically, and ignorant. And frankly, they deserve our prayers and sympathies for what's going wrong in their lives.

57:35 But it cannot be forgotten. And so my hope for us all is that we stay vigilant in defense of our principles. And if you are here and you're watching this, I hope that this has helped you understand some of the forces at work and some of the stakes in what comes next in the post Charlie Kirk world. We don't want to lose our country as we understand it and as Charlie understood it to overreaction um of this sort. There is a lot to be done. There is lots of real action, aggressive action that needs to happen, but this stuff in particular isn't it.

58:22 As always, we'll put all the links and references here over at dadsavesamea.com. And I look forward to hearing from you in the comments. I hope um I hope we can keep the civil discourse going there. It has always been a great source of that and I thank all of you who sent some really warm messages about the recent videos with regard to this tragedy for our country with Charlie Kirk. Um you know, I'm trying to do the best I can here to navigate this stuff as a voice of I hope sanity, but you let me know.

58:56 This is up to you. Sanity is in the eye of the beholder in 2025. Um, that's about as postmodern as I'm going to get. Have a great weekend.