Kavanaugh Smears Have COMPLETELY Collapsed Amid New Evidence, Media And Democrats Still Push Lies
Kavanaugh Smears Have COMPLETELY Collapsed Amid New Evidence, Media And Democrats Still Push Lies.Last night the New York Times issued a correction on their story as an editor's note at the bottom. They state the alleged victim in the latest 30 year old story doesn't recall it and doesn't want to comment on it. This seems like a seriously important bit of information to leave out.But this is predictable. Media pushes a fake story that benefits democrats and the far left then a day later issues a correction.The latest news is that Ocasio COrtez joins other Democrats demanding impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh even AFTER the correction emerges.It seems so coincidental that media would constantly do this. But if there is any evidence to suggest its intentional its Mollie Hemingway's book about Kavanaugh. Her book cast doubts upon much of the false allegations and for some reason doesn't make the cut in the mainstream press to highlight.It is almost as if these companies act to personally benefit from the fake news and then quietly retract or correct later after already having made tons of money.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The latest Democrat to call for the impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh is none other than everyone's favorite Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, saying that he has been credibly accused.
Everybody's favorite phrase.
What does that mean?
Honestly, I can't tell you.
There's no credible accusation against Brett Kavanaugh.
Now, nearly a year later, we are learning that much of these accusations, they're continuing to fall apart.
You know, when I was thinking about the title and structure of this video, I'm like, how is it that I'm making a video talking about something that literally happened a year ago?
And I don't mean the Kavanaugh accusations, I mean the stories falling apart.
The accusations against Kavanaugh have no merit, no corroboration.
Christine Blasey Ford's own friend didn't corroborate her story, saying she doesn't remember anything like that.
Now, apparently, according to a new book, even Blasey Ford's own father disagrees with her.
And not to mention the story I covered this morning on my second channel.
The New York Times has corrected the record on the new allegation against Kavanaugh, which, mind you, came from a third party.
The correction states the alleged victim of Kavanaugh's latest escapade doesn't even remember it happening and doesn't want to go on the record.
Apparently that's good enough for the New York Times.
So I've got a couple stories today.
For the most part, we're going to be going through the Brett Kavanaugh lies and smears and allegations.
And again, I don't know why I have to constantly be calling out the media for this.
They're supposed to be the ones telling the truth and speaking truth to power.
They're not.
They tend to be the ones lying.
So here's the other thing I want to get into.
Why is it that the media tends to speak out in such a way that benefits the Democrats?
The mistakes they make only flow in one direction.
I've got a really great bit of evidence to prove that the media forgoes evidence, they overlook evidence, if it means they're benefiting one side.
You may ask yourself why they do this.
Maybe it's ignorance.
Maybe it's malice.
Maybe it's political bias.
That's up to you.
The fact of the matter is, there are two books.
In one book, they make an accusation against Kavanaugh without corroboration.
In another book, they break down the lies.
Which book did the New York Times highlight?
Your guess.
Well, it's obvious.
It's very obvious.
The one that favors the Democrats.
Why is that?
You know, I don't really care about politics for the most part.
I care about manipulation and lies.
What do I want to see in this world?
Truth and integrity.
Okay?
So I can criticize Trump for lying, and I'll criticize Obama and Bush and Clinton and so on and so forth.
Are you gonna- are you- do you expect me to make a video every time a politician lies?
Give me a break, man.
We know they lie.
I don't care.
But the media is supposed to be challenging the system and telling the truth.
Instead, they're helping one side lie.
So yeah, I'm angry.
My perspective comes from the media.
And it comes from internet culture and sourcing factual information.
I dream of a future where we can have a real debate about ideas and move this country forward.
But we can't so long as the media favors one side on purpose, for whatever reason.
Accidentally, I don't know.
Let's read this story about Ocasio-Cortez, and then I want to talk about the accidents benefiting the Democrats the media keeps engaging in.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate.
If you would like to support my work, there's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do is share this video.
YouTube de-ranks independent political commentary like mine, And props up corporate channels.
But there's one thing they can't derank.
Your willingness to share my video yourselves, bypassing their algorithm, if you think I do a good job.
So if you do like my videos, please consider sharing them to help me continue doing my work.
Ocasio-Cortez on Monday called for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's impeachment following a new allegation of assault against him published in the Times.
This was almost a year ago.
It is unsurprising that Kavanaugh, credibly accused — I love that phrase, it means nothing — would lie under oath to secure a Supreme Court seat, she tweeted, because assault isn't a crime of passion, it's about the abuse of power, he must be impeached.
So here's the thing.
Ocasio-Cortez loves playing to the racial identitarianism, critical race theory, and intersectionality, claiming that Brett Kavanaugh lied and did what he did to bolster the patriarchy or something to that effect.
I have no idea what she's actually trying to say.
Here's the interesting thing, though.
This tweet she put out, she actually deleted it.
I don't know why.
She deleted it and then reposted it later.
Maybe it was a spelling mistake or something.
But what I want to highlight here is the use of credibly accused.
Let's talk about what credible means.
If it is credible for Max Steer, a third party, claiming that around 30 to 35 years ago, he witnessed someone pushing Brett Kavanaugh into a woman while he was exposed, that's credible?
What do you want us to do about it?
First of all, it's not credible, let's be honest.
But there's no evidence, there's no forensics, they don't even know where this took place, and the alleged victim doesn't remember it happening.
He said, There's a reason I highlight this tweet from Will.
Will brought up a point earlier.
If you're not familiar, he's a lawyer, he's a Trump supporter, but he brought up the point that whenever Ilhan Omar is brought up in the media and they talk about her adultery, her finance violations, they don't say credibly accused.
Was she credibly accused of marrying her brother?
It's a big controversy you may not be familiar with.
It's been brought up in numerous stories.
In fact, even the Star Tribune, I believe it's called, a local left-wing paper ran a story talking about strange irregularities in how she married these two people and how, yes, they say this man may possibly be her brother.
Does that make it credible?
I'd say, by their standard, 100% credible.
In fact, by their standard, it must be true!
No, but let's get real.
The evidence that Ilhan Omar may have married her brother is circumstantial, and it's not definitive.
It may be enough for some people to believe.
I believe it raises many questions.
Calling it credible, in my opinion, is silly.
We'll call it an accusation.
Do the legwork.
But this is what they do.
They say Kavanaugh was credibly accused.
But what does that mean?
Well, here's a story from the Daily Wire.
Christine Blasey Ford's friend doesn't believe her on Kavanaugh accusations, says new book.
But wait a minute.
Why isn't the New York Times citing this book?
Why is the New York Times citing a different book in which they claim something did happen and they'd corroborate it?
Why?
Why?
That's the big question.
Why do the mistakes flow in one direction?
I honestly can't tell you.
The simple solution tends to be they're politically biased.
They believe they're right.
They're on the right side of history.
They believe they're morally justified.
That's the action they take.
From the Daily Wire, they say.
Brett Kavanaugh was accused of trying to assault Christine Blasey Ford at a party when she was 15 and he 17, sometime in the 80s.
Over 30 years ago.
She doesn't remember what year.
Ford said that the boozy party at home near Columbia Country Club outside Washington, D.C.
was attended by five people.
Herself, Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick Smith, and Leland Kaiser.
When the attempted accusation emerged during the Senate confirmation hearing
on his nomination to join the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, quote,
categorically and unequivocally denied the allegation.
Judge, a longtime friend of Kavanaugh's, also denied the charge. Smith, meanwhile, said he never
attended the party. Okay, here's what we have so far. Of course, Kavanaugh will deny
it, and so will judge because they were parties to the accusation, although we
still can weigh their statements with some, you know, he said, she said, what do we do?
Where's the evidence? But then you get this This next person, Patrick Smith, said he never attended the
party.
Huge strike to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford.
Okay, though, maybe he doesn't remember.
That left Kaiser as the sole possible corroboration for Ford's story.
But through her attorneys, Kaiser said at the time she did not know Kavanaugh and had no memory of the party nor any attempted assault, shattering Ford's claim.
The Washington Post, though, wrote in September 2018 that she believes Ford's assertions.
But a new book now says that Kaiser doesn't believe Ford's story.
I gotta say, I'm shocked to be talking about something I already covered extensively a year ago, but here we are again.
They are trying to get Kavanaugh impeached over this.
Well, here's what this book says.
Buried at the end of their new book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, An Investigation, reporters Robin Pogbrin and Kate Kelly quietly admit that Christine Blasey Ford's lifelong friend Laison Kyler did not believe her friend's tale of assault at a party they both supposedly attended.
Kaiser was named by Ford as a witness.
One of four who denied any knowledge of the event in question reports the Federalist, which got an advanced copy of the book.
So let me stress this.
I may have confused two different books.
Molly Hemingway, it's my understanding, has a book as well.
So my initial assumption, on this part at least, was that this was from the other book from Molly Hemingway, but perhaps I was incorrect.
But I do have it pulled up, so we will get into this.
The Federalist reports, The book offers no evidence in support of the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford, but they write their gut reaction was that her allegations rang true.
Their gut instinct was based on the fact that Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh grew up in the same rough area and she had dated one of his friends.
Further, Leland Kaiser had gone out on a date, maybe even two dates.
They're not sure with a friend of Kavanaugh's.
None of that means that Ford was, in fact, assaulted by Kavanaugh.
They're right.
But it does mean that she had a baseline level of credibility as an accuser.
It is unclear what they mean.
I have to wonder as well.
I don't know what that means either.
The whole tale falls apart at the end of the book, Molly Hemingway writes.
There, the authors say, we spoke multiple times to Kaiser, who also said that she didn't recall that get-together or any others like it.
In fact, she challenged Ford's accuracy.
I don't have any confidence in the story.
So, okay, I actually was correct, but I try to be careful.
Molly does address this in her book, they state, in her own book.
Justice on trial, the Kavanaugh confirmation, and the future of the Supreme Court.
Hemingway details the pressure applied on Kaiser to get her to back up Ford's tail.
The new book does so too, saying Ford's friends had grown frustrated with Kaiser.
Her comments about the alleged Kavanaugh incident had been too limited.
Some of them felt, and did not help their friend's case.
Surely, given what a close friend Kaiser had been, she could say more to substantiate Ford's testimony and general veracity, even if she could not corroborate Ford's more specific memories.
The pressure grew intense.
I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn't comply, Kaiser told the authors.
Incredible.
Two books!
Even the book trying to smear Kavanaugh now apparently showing the opposite.
The accusers don't recall anything.
Leland Kaiser, a friend of Bozzi Ford, doesn't recall and was actually, now in Molly's book, apparently was being threatened it would seem.
The new book delves into one bizarre aspect of Ford's claim.
How she got home after she abruptly left the party, which was miles away from her house.
Now, we'll get into all this, but I want to read this last bit.
It says, Ford, whose story was never corroborated, collected more than $1,000,000 from a GoFundMe page.
In a sad illustration of today's world, Kaiser has collected just $7,865, even though, as her page notes, she stood up and did what was right when she had everything to lose and nothing to gain.
So, apparently we have two books.
The one book being used by the New York Times, this one, Actually shows that the claims are just baseless, as it were.
That the one victim in the new allegation doesn't remember it, and Leland Kaiser, their friend of Blasey Ford, actually disagrees with her.
Let's do this.
Let's jump over here.
I want to highlight one important thing about this.
First, you can see the editor's note.
It's the correction.
But I also want to scroll up and just make this point.
In the New York Times, they say, they are reporters with the Times and authors of a forthcoming book.
And there it is.
Simple.
I guess my question is this.
I'll come back.
Trust me.
I got a point.
Molly tweeted, We would love for corporate media to lift the blackout on our best-selling book based on interviews with more than 100 key players.
It breaks news beginning on the first page and doesn't stop till the end.
Molly Hemingway is an editor at The Federalist.
She's a Fox News contributor.
She's a senior journalism fellow at Hillsdale.
She wrote a book, along with someone else, about Brett Kavanaugh.
Why don't they include her story, the things she's uncovered?
Why won't the New York Times report what Mollie Hemingway has already discovered?
Well, how about this?
Ms.
Pogrebin and Ms.
Kelly are reporters with The Times.
So, it would seem that there's a conflict of interest in how they report things at the very least, and at best, it's a personal bias.
These two authors stand to gain beautifully.
They will make a lot of money off of these allegations.
The New York Times publishing this is going to do great things for these two individuals.
So let's make one thing clear.
The lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can strap on his boots.
They can publish the fake news, the absurd allegations, without telling people.
Without telling people initially.
Why?
Because then you get a nationwide number one trend.
A day later, simply put an editor's note at the bottom of the article, and all is good.
But let's get into the big, big bombshell.
How about this?
From The Federalist, Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino, September 12th.
Christine Blasey Ford's father supported Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation.
After Blasey Ford publicly alleged that Kavanaugh tried to assault her, her father repeatedly communicated to Kavanaugh's father that he supported Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Now, a lot of people are claiming this means Blasey Ford's father didn't believe her.
That is an assumption.
I understand why you would make that assumption.
I get it.
However, the story isn't reporting that, but they do say, if it is true, that... Here, let me just read it.
Blasey never explicitly addressed the credibility of his daughter's allegations.
But he presumably wouldn't have supported the nomination of a man he believed tried to assault her.
It wasn't just Ford's father.
The national drama played out on a decidedly local scale as the DC-based family and friends of Ford's quietly apologized to friends and family of Kavanaugh, even as the toxic political environment made it punitive for them to speak up publicly.
One friend who was subjected to both public scrutiny and private pressure because she cast doubt on Ford's story was Leland Kaiser, one of Ford's closest friends at the time.
Kaiser wanted to support her, but nevertheless had no recollection of the event.
And so she chose to be honest.
But here we have all of these stories.
Now, let's drop an even bigger hammer.
How about that?
Washington Post passed on thinly sourced Kavanaugh story before the New York Times published it.
Well, we got ourselves a doozy here, friends!
Why is it that the Washington Post would say no dice?
We're not gonna run this story.
Listen.
If someone came to me and said, I saw a dude at a party get pushed into a chick.
It's a credible accusation.
And then all the, like, are you joking?
First of all, that's a third party claim.
The other person comes out and says they don't remember anything about it.
Why would anyone run with that?
The Washington Post would not.
Well, let's, let's, let's read a little bit, but then I want to bring it back to the New York Times.
And I'm going to make some, uh, some credible accusations myself.
They say, Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly left out exculpatory evidence in an article that claimed Kavanaugh had his pants down at a party.
We know the accusation.
They say that they failed to inform readers in the article that friends of the alleged victim said she had no recollection.
Moving on.
They say, the Times published a correction to the misleading article Sunday night.
The Post previously declined to publish the thinly sourced accusation the DC paper revealed in an article Sunday night.
The Post, quote, last year confirmed that two intermediaries had passed along Stier's claim to lawmakers and the FBI, but did not publish a story in part because the intermediaries declined to identify the alleged witness, Stier.
And because the woman who was said to be involved declined to comment.
How is that news?
You could just make anything up.
Oh, I know someone it happened to.
I heard it from a friend.
They don't want to talk about it, but trust me, run the story.
Do an FBI investigation.
Sorry, I'm not a big fan of the Washington Post, but they did the right thing passing on this story.
So the question then becomes, why?
What incentive would the New York Times have to publish this after it was already passed over a year ago?
Here's my credible accusation.
Money!
Money and political pressure.
It's that simple, isn't it?
The New York Times' own staff members are going to be selling a book.
So the New York Times and these writers stand to gain monetarily by pushing out fake news.
Let me reiterate a point I've made in the past.
When you write a fake story, the clicks come in, you make money.
The day later, when you correct, you still make money.
You don't have to give that money back.
The ads are sold.
The subscriptions are sold.
The news goes around the world.
You sell books.
Later, when you correct and nobody sees it, you lose nothing.
Actually, I'll put it this way.
Let's say you write an overtly fake story.
Donald Trump does backflip in the Rose Garden.
It gets one million views.
Whatever your CPM is.
That could be a lot of money.
It could be ten grand.
It could be twenty grand.
I don't know.
Whatever the websites operate on.
Let's say you sell multiple ads.
A million views on a website with multiple ads?
That can generate you a hundred grand.
A day later, everyone doubts your story.
There's no way the president did a backflip in the Rose Garden.
That's absurd!
And then you issue a correction.
Oh!
He did a backflip in the Rose Garden in a 3D model developed by somebody.
There's the reality of the situation.
Guess what?
That story then goes around as well.
Not as far as the fake news does.
But that correction will get attention from people like me and others, and guess what?
You make a little bit more money.
You see how the game is played?
They can publish this story for their own staff members to sell a book using their paper to promote a product from their own staff.
Wonderful.
Did you know BuzzFeed sells cookware and they do basically the same thing?
I don't know what's worse.
Actually, no, I do know what's worse.
Putting out fake news to make money.
Look, man, I'd much prefer if these two women were doing something like, I don't know, selling a new smartphone app.
And the New York Times published a story about it and they profited from it.
I disagree with the practice, but at least BuzzFeed isn't lying to the public when they sell a spatula.
No, the spatulas work.
I gotta admit, the Tasty brand products, not bad.
It's pretty basic.
What can you expect?
I like the color-coordinated measuring cups.
Because then instead of being like, you gotta look, you just grab the blue one.
You know it's blue, there you go, you got a half cup.
BuzzFeed's providing a service when they do articles talking about cookware because, hey, guess what?
People need cookware.
I disagree with the practice.
I get it.
I actually, no, I don't disagree with BuzzFeed selling cookware because that's harmless.
I've got some.
It's great.
Congratulations, BuzzFeed.
You figured out how to monetize your own website.
But the New York Times is doing something much, much more dangerous.
They're completely ignoring reports from Molly Hemingway who have contradictory information.
No, no, I'm sorry.
It's not even contradictory.
They admit it in the article.
So my question is, wrapping up, for one, we get it.
We've known everything levied against Kavanaugh is just absurd fake news.
It's terrifying.
I wonder why they do it.
I wonder why.
Here's a story of an ex-NFL player accused of staging a hate crime painting MAGA on the walls of a bakery.
I wonder why they do it.
For personal gain?
They're willing to lie, cheat, and steal.
They're willing to omit facts and evidence.
And then, even after the correction, last night, the New York Times issued a correction.
The next day, it doesn't matter.
The truth is exactly what it is.
What's really funny about all of this is that in a bizarre series of tweets and retractions on Saturday, the New York Times cringely opined on its latest Brett Kavanaugh story, this from the New York Post.
They say that the New York Post tweeted, having a, you know, male part thrust in your face at a drunken party may seem like harmless fun.
I highlight this story for one reason.
The New York Times framed it in such a way as if to assume it actually happened.
That is the most egregious thing out of all of this.
Well, I mean, maybe I should say it's the best bit of evidence to the malice.
Instead of saying it did or didn't happen, which they can't, they framed it in a way that assumes it did happen.
And then people read that and say, oh no, how dare you say that as if it happened.
This is politics in 2019.
You know what, man?
I know you guys hear me say it all the time, but I think it must be stated.
Because I'm gonna get invariably a bunch of people saying, like, Tim, but why won't you talk about Mitch McConnell?
Why won't you talk about— Let me make something clear.
This is media malfeasance.
I don't care for the president.
I don't care for his policies, for the most part.
If he does something good, I'll praise it.
If he does something bad, I'll talk about it.
I really just don't care.
I'm not that focused.
What I am concerned about is the media lies and manipulation and the extreme policies being pushed by the Democrats.
But the question I leave for all of you, if you've made it this far and you want to leave a comment, why do you think it is that all of these mistakes in the press flow in one direction, benefiting the Democrats and the left?
Let me know what you think.
I'll see you all in the next segment, youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you there.
It's a different channel.
If I were to ask you to think of some positions Democrats support, what would you tell me?
Beto O'Rourke recently got a ton of press by going as extreme as possible in the 2A debate, saying, you know what, we're just gonna take him away from you, right?
Take away your AR-15.
So one of the most extreme positions we've seen so far from the Democrats.
We talk about healthcare.
Okay.
We can disagree with Trump going after Obamacare, with getting rid of the involuntary mandate, whatever.
If you agree or disagree, that's the point.
The point is Trump has done something.
Republicans are doing something.
People want affordable healthcare.
Okay, Democrats, what do you have to offer?
And what do we hear on the debate stage?
Healthcare for non-citizens and abolish private health insurance.
Super extreme positions on healthcare.
Now, Joe Biden has been the moderate talking about improving upon Obamacare.
I think that's agreeable.
We've got to just, you know, get rid of the bad, keep the good, expand upon the good.
Makes sense.
Joe Biden, unfortunately, is just too old.
Now when I think about policy from the Democrats that actually make sense, or that I'm actually interested in, you have Elizabeth Warren talking about big tech.
That I appreciate.
And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has also called that out.
That I also appreciate.
However, what's the news we often see?
What's the rhetoric being pushed?
What are the comments being pushed?
Orange man bad.
So yes, I can think of things the Democrats are doing, but I want to point out they're extreme.
Abolishing private health insurance is like 10 steps beyond any conversation we've been prepared to have.
Well, Ted Cruz says broken Democrats are defined now just by hating Trump.
And I agree.
I agree mostly.
It's not black and white.
There's a bit of nuance here.
I think, first and foremost, what they do is just hate Trump.
I'll give you a few examples of the past several years.
Trump says, build a wall, deal with immigration.
What do we get?
Immoral, racist, bigoted, white nationalist.
Those aren't policy positions.
Those aren't solutions.
And then we can see where we go next.
Beto O'Rourke.
What's his stance?
Tear down that wall.
I kid you not.
Beto said he would actually tear down some of the border barriers, though he would defer in some instances to local communities to determine what was best.
That is an extreme position.
You cannot be in favor of a, you know, a sea to shining sea, big, sea to shining sea, big, beautiful concrete wall.
You can be opposed to Trump taking funds, reappropriating them from other military projects, but then to come out and say, Tear everything to tear down the wall!
Okay, we want to have a conversation about policy, but the Democrats are constantly trying to one-up each other with more extreme versions of their past policy.
And much of this is defined simply by hating Donald Trump.
Well, let's read a little bit about what Ted Cruz had to say.
I'll push back a little bit because I do think You know, 2020 Democrats have been doing a decent job, maybe decent is the right word, but they've been trying to make sure they avoid talking about impeachment and talking too much about Trump.
But then you see people like Beto, you do see in the debate stage where they say Trump over and over again.
They talk about how they just got to beat him.
And I hear you, man.
But you've got to offer me something that makes sense.
Tearing down border walls is absurd.
10 years ago, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton were calling for border security.
Now you're saying tear down some of the walls?
You have gone nuts.
Let's read.
From the Daily Caller, Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz has not always allotted the political work of President Donald Trump, but on Sunday said that Trump has broken the Democratic Party.
And yeah, I don't actually, you know, I may have said in the past that something that effect, but let me clarify this right now.
Whatever created Trump is also fracturing the Democratic Party.
It may actually be that the breaking of the Democratic Party is what created Trump.
Think about it.
Bernie or bust voters.
If Bernie or bust voters voted for Hillary, Hillary would have won.
Absolutely.
Those blue wall states that, you know, Ohio, Michigan, whatever, they didn't have, she didn't have any support while she didn't campaign there.
But around 12 to 18 percent of Bernie voters went to Trump.
So, the Democratic Party broke, and it created an opening for someone like Trump.
But I admit, there's something else behind this that probably is the culture war and, you know, left-wing identitarianism.
Quote, I think Donald Trump has broken the Democratic Party, Cruz said on ABC News this week with George Stephanopoulos.
They're defined now just by hating him.
They ought to be the party of jobs.
They used to be a party focused on jobs.
They're not anymore.
I completely agree.
The jobs conversation has not even come up, as far as I can tell, in any of the debates.
Are they talking about the economy and jobs?
No.
They're talking about health care for non-citizens.
They're talking about refugees.
They're talking about things that don't have a big impact on regular Americans.
As much as I believe it was good Elizabeth Warren called out big tech, the average person in this country is going to say health care, economy, first and foremost.
Commenting on last week's third Democratic debate from Houston, Cruz described the night as a collective political suicide.
I think Thursday night the Democrats galloped even further to the left.
Not a single Democrat talked about jobs.
Not a single Democrat talked about the economy.
About the fact that we've got the lowest African American unemployment ever recorded.
Why is that?
Why is that?
Why is it that all they do is talk about Trump instead of talking about what they want to do better?
It's like they're capitalizing on the fact that Trump has a bad attitude.
They're hoping people will vote simply because they don't like Trump.
I gotta say, I know a lot of people who at least have said they don't like the president, but he's actually talking about policies and explaining to an extent.
Here's the most important takeaway from all of this.
I've said recently, it doesn't matter if Trump's approval rating is really low.
It matters the Democrats' approval rating is even lower.
It's funny, and then people are like, Tim, why won't you talk about Mitch McConnell?
Well, I did.
The other day, I criticized him over holding up the Supreme Court seat from Obama because Obama compromised and gave him moderate.
And then they held out, and it was dirty politicking, and I don't like Mitch McConnell!
But what's he doing?
Okay.
Trump and the Trump people are doing what Trump wants, and they're doing policy-related things.
They're actually instituting new rules.
They're appointing federal judges.
These are real tangible things I can see happening.
Many of them, I'm kind of just like, yeah, I get it.
Appointing federal judges is a very powerful move for Republicans.
Democrats, what say you?
Orange man bad.
Okay.
The wall is immoral.
Okay.
They criticize what he's doing in foreign policy, things that are hard to really grasp.
Let's read a little bit more.
The senator noted that instead, what they told the American people, they want to raise your taxes.
Yup.
They want to triple the price you pay for a gallon of gas.
Yes.
They want to open borders.
They want to take away your health insurance.
They want to take away your guns.
And Bill Maher said the same thing.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Is it so hard to understand that they're not focused on things Americans care about anymore?
The majority of Americans do not want a ban on ARs.
Cruz also responded to questions about recent mass tragedies, such as what happened in El Paso and whether increased 2A control would be effective in reducing these threats.
I have to use selective language, I apologize.
We should be doing what will stop these incidents like this, which is taking guns away from felons, which is prosecuting felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns.
Well, I disagree with that assessment, Ted, because it's already illegal.
So, yes, we want to stop criminals from getting weapons.
That's a hard thing to do, and I don't know what the solution is, admittedly.
Then you have the proposal of red flag laws, which also don't solve the problem.
You know, look, analyzing these problems and figuring them out, it's very, very difficult.
And sometimes you have to understand that You exchange freedom for security, and there's no guarantee of security.
If you tell law-abiding citizens they can't do something, you're not stopping the people who don't care about the law or are suicidal.
So I don't know how any of these are necessarily going to solve the problem.
They say that Cruz recently met with actress and liberal activist Alyssa Milano to discuss gun control.
The conversation was broadcast on Facebook, and both participants said the event lacked any acrimony.
The senator was asked about the latest accusations of impropriety against Brett Kavanaugh.
I'm going to save that stuff because, man, the next story I'm doing, once again, is going to be Brett Kavanaugh.
And you know, when you look at the mainstream political landscape, I often think about what Trump is doing and I say, yup, sounds like the Republicans.
And that's kind of the way I put it.
And then I look at what the left is doing and I'm like, this is nightmarish and insane.
You want to talk about policy?
Okay, Bernie, I disagree with your policy.
I agree with you that healthcare is a problem and that I've been, you know, I've also seen ridiculous healthcare bills for, you know, ridiculous things.
I understand.
I would also like a solution.
I don't like Joe Biden because he's just a tepid.
I appreciate that he's a bit more moderate, but he's not speaking reality.
You then have Tulsi Gabbard, who actually has been much more moderate on a lot of these issues, though I disagree with her on minimum wage and nuclear energy.
She still is the best option.
I don't know what the answer is.
I don't know what will end up happening with the Democrats moving beyond 2020, because I think Trump will win.
But I think it's fair to say, at least in terms of like, on a scale of 1 to 10, what do Democrats prioritize?
We're past 50%.
You know, we're at a 6 rating in terms of orange man bad.
In terms of a lot of what they're saying is that Trump is wrong, Trump is bad.
But I'm also not hearing why.
They say the wall is immoral.
You didn't tell me what's wrong with the wall and why it makes no sense.
It's immoral.
Do we legislate based on morality?
Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't, but morality differs from different groups, so you're not solving any problems.
You saying it's immoral, I say, yeah, well, you're the people who complain about, like, you know, you're part of the people that are going to tell an Asian person they can't go to Harvard because they look too much like another Asian person.
I'm not too concerned about what you define as moral.
I'm concerned about the effectiveness and the cost.
And that's what we get.
So I agree to an extent with Ted Cruz on this one.
And it's unfortunate that Ted Cruz is somebody I disagree with a lot on general policy things.
I bet if we had a conversation.
Actually, I'll say this.
Check out my conversation with Glenn Beck and you will see a much better breakdown.
Of how we both talk about various policies and the moral impasse and the ethical impasse.
And then we shake hands and have a smile and say, hey, that was a really great conversation.
It was meaningful.
We can move on.
So that's about to the extent I agree with Ted Cruz.
For one, I think we agree America is great.
Freedom of speech, constitutional protections.
And then it comes down to policy positions.
You know, background checks, progressive tax, private prisons.
I bet I disagree with him a lot of things.
Same as I do with many conservatives.
But we agree to have a conversation.
So, seriously, much respect to Alyssa Milano.
Absolutely.
10 out of 10.
Meeting with Ted Cruz.
And same for Ted with Alyssa Milano.
10 out of 10 on these conversations.
That's what we need.
But I ask Alyssa Milano and others to look at the Democrats and ask them to actually talk about more substantive policy.
Get away from the extremism.
I guess we don't have it.
I guess we don't have it.
Because, again, Whether or not they're focused solely on hating Trump, we walk it back to what are they proposing, and it's like some of the most extreme policy positions we have.
Abolishing private health insurance is absurd.
Tearing down the wall?
Taking away all ARs?
Okay, dude.
You're not offering any solutions.
You're just yelling as loud as you can so you yell louder than they do.
I'm not interested.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, and I will see you all there.
Bernie Sanders made possibly the biggest mistake when he brought on Linda Sarsour as a campaign surrogate because she's, at least in my opinion, I gotta be very careful, an overt anti-Semite.
And according to several stories, very well, maybe propagating an absurd anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
Isn't it just funny how I constantly rag on these people for their bigotry and racism, and they try to levy the accusation against me?
I've made nothing but defense—in my videos, I've said nothing but defense—of social justice when it's applied liberally.
That is, in terms of freedom.
I'm not talking about the left.
I'm saying when you believe in individual freedom, respect, and equality of opportunity, we shouldn't be peddling an absurd conspiracy nonsense.
Well, Bernie Sanders decided Linda Sarsour would be a great person to add to his team, and that was a huge mistake.
From the Washington Post, Women's March cutting ties with three original board members accused of anti-Semitism.
You know what?
According to the story, this was like two months ago, or longer, about two months ago.
Maybe they didn't announce it right away because she needed to be able to get on, you know, get a new job.
Okay, Bernie, you gotta stop, man.
You know, I have to say, there is a difference between supporting someone's overt antisemitism and supporting their speech.
This is not the instance of Linda Sarsour coming out and saying horrifying things, but even if it was, should she be on Bernie Sanders' campaign?
No.
First, strategically, it's bad.
You will lose support.
Don't do it.
Now, a lot of people said, yeah, but Bernie's Jewish.
I don't care.
Okay?
You can respect someone's free speech and choose not to associate with them.
You can respect someone's free speech and argue against it.
Bernie should not have brought her on.
Let's read the story from the Washington Post.
They say, the Women's March is cutting ties with three inaugural board members who have been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, infighting, and financial mismanagement.
Controversies some say have slowed the organization's progress and diminished its impact.
Co-chairs Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, and Linda Sarsour stepped down from the board July 15th, though their organization has been slow to announce their departures.
The Women's March website continued to host their photos and titles as co-chairs through this week, when the group announced the board turnover.
And now, Bernie, you reap what you sow.
I'm shocked there's no PR person or marketing person who could have said, do not bring her on.
I wouldn't expect any politician to bring on any controversial culture war personality when moving forward.
I'm actually surprised some of these people are willing to do interviews on some of the channels they've done.
I get it.
You've got to be careful.
Bernie Sanders really hurt himself with this.
A diverse cast of 16 new board members that includes three Jewish women, a transgender woman, a former legislator, two religious leaders, and a member of the Oglala tribe of the Lakota Nation will inherit an organization recovering from a failed attempt to trademark the women's march name and fractured relationships with local activist groups in the Jewish community.
Notice they put three Jewish women on the board, replacing the three people stepping down.
Now I wonder why that is.
It is not a coincidence this organization has been accused of anti-Semitism over and over again.
Interesting how they have fellow travelers in the squad.
The shakeup comes at a critical time for the organization.
With the 2020 election kicking into high gear, experts said organizers can no longer afford the distractions and controversies that have muddled the group's message and loomed over its every move.
Yet Bernie Sanders can?
I'm gonna throw some credit to John Levine.
I saw his tweet on this one.
And he said, in response to the story, quote, We stand together.
Yes, there's Bernie Sanders saying, Thank you, Linda Sarsour, for helping to organize the march and build a progressive movement.
We stand together.
Okay, Bernie.
You stand together, Linda Sarsour.
Noted.
Noted.
Count me out.
Okay?
Bernie has gone off the deep end, embracing all the establishment trash.
I don't even know what his deal was.
He was a very different candidate in 2016.
Quote, There's an opportunity here for a group to rise out of the ashes of divisiveness and continue on with the mission that was the Women's March, and honestly, that would be wonderful, said Dana R. Fisher, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland, who studies and tracks protest movements.
There were so many things that were odd decisions, and decisions that made it unclear whether they actually cared about building toward a blue wave and building on the energy and enthusiasm that was built in 2017.
I would say they didn't.
I would say that these people are fr... You know what?
I want to make this point, okay?
This is what's really frustrating about the so-called alt-left and why they, you know, the media and the left, they refuse to acknowledge this within their ranks.
So, good.
First step, the media reporting on it, them calling it out.
But I hope you all realize, you know, people watching this, that people like Linda Sarsour are not very different from white supremacists.
The only difference is the color of their skin.
But they hold the same stupid ideas about, you know, they're anti-semites.
They believe the same thing.
According to the stories that came out, they peddle in the same absurd conspiracy theories.
Yet for some reason, it's okay when they do it.
Alex Jones can go on his show and say stupid hyperbolic things and talk about frogs turning gay, and then everyone says he must be banned because he uses metaphors, and he uses them rather poorly, I might add.
So they get him back.
He's talking about battle rifles.
Linda Sarsour pedals in the same conspiracy nonsense.
I understand she's not going around saying pick up battle rifles, but the point is, I don't see a big difference.
Actually, no, I take that back.
I do see a big difference.
I think what she pedals in is much more dangerous, especially when you consider the mainstream appeal and the fact that she's working on Bernie's campaign.
Alex Jones is just some dude in Austin ranting about frogs turning gay and cell towers and stuff, but he's the dangerous one?
The conspiracy theories they peddle in have a real and serious impact on actual politics and people in this country.
And I understand you might say, well, so does Alex Jones.
You have to understand, man.
A lot of people believe the guy and a lot of people watch him because it's funny.
They watch him because he says he's very exuberant.
This, to me, is real danger.
And they say, Tim, why don't you, why don't you try and, you know, argue about Alex Jones and why he should be banned?
I don't, I, you know, this is turning into a Jones thing, but I'll say this.
Free speech.
You've got it.
If Jones wants to talk about the frogs turning gay, don't care.
Let him do it.
If Linda Sarsour wants to be an anti-Semite, by all means, go around and preach everything you want.
But when you associate with, you know, Linda Sarsour's ideas, I'll tell you this.
You associate with Alex Jones and a lot of the things he's pushed, and people are going to look at you side-eyed.
You associate with what she's doing, and they're going to say, get the hell out of my restaurant.
Okay?
And while I certainly believe there should be a level of civility and debate among many of these ideas, I will say, there is an argument in saying a private business doesn't have to associate with a certain individual who holds certain views.
It's complicated, it really is.
And I want to make sure I stress this point, to create some clarity here.
Linda Sarsour is free to speak whatever she wants, and I think she should be allowed to on Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and whatever platform, because they're monopolies.
Essentially monopolies.
I don't like the idea of major politicians embracing this ideology.
When Steve King came out and said these things about white nationalism, the Republicans had no problem saying, out.
When Linda Sarsour does it, Bernie Sanders hires her.
That's the problem.
That's exemplifying the problem I have with all of this.
Why is it?
You know, this is the problem you'll face, Republicans.
Your willingness to actually address bad behavior, to an extent, and the Democrats' unwillingness to address it.
In fact, while this is good, okay, hold on, let me walk that back a little bit, because they are getting rid of her.
She is stepping down.
Bernie hired her.
Steve King isn't raising any money.
He's failing the fundraise, and many people believe he won't make it and they're going to have to replace him.
Sounds like a good thing.
If you want to come out and say things like this, okay, then you leave.
People don't want to work with you.
End of story.
Linda Sarsour gets hired.
You see the problem.
You see the inherent problem.
Ilhan Omar was even condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for anti-Semitism.
They said, why won't the Democrats do anything?
She apologized.
We get it.
The ADL, I am no fan of.
But even they can call out Ilhan Omar.
Instead, we get Bernie Sanders hiring.
Linda Sarsour.
Blandon Mallory, who serve as co-president on the organization, will be formally replaced
when the new board convenes for its first meeting this month.
Once assembled, officials said the incoming board will elect new leadership.
Co-chairman Carmen Perez, who runs the Gathering for Justice, a criminal justice reform group
that seeks to end child incarceration, will stay.
Calls for the co-chairs to resign rose to a crescendo ahead of the 2019 Women's March on Washington, which drew thousands of women to the district in January, supporting the movement's tell-tale pink hats.
And they're going to talk about Nation of Islam and Farrakhan, and we get it.
We get it.
Reached via text, Sarsour said the new Women's March board is amazing, adding that she will continue working to get voters to the polls in 2020.
I am grateful to the women who stepped up to shepherd the Women's March.
This is what women supporting women looks like.
Great, great, great.
I want to say something real quick.
Bill Maher had Barry Wysong, who made a really important point about Israel-Palestine and Muslims and all this.
One of the things that's most frustrating to me of the whole Israel-Palestine argument is that they seem to be hiding behind Palestine when they're actually overt anti-Semites.
They seem to target Israel specifically while not highlighting what's going on in China with the Uyghurs, the million-plus who are being detained in camps.
I wonder.
I really do.
There's a conflict happening between, you know, Israel and Palestine.
I get it.
Totally understand.
But they ignore every other military expenditure in every other country.
They don't talk about Yemen.
They don't talk about Saudi Arabia.
They don't talk about China.
Some people do.
I'm not saying everyone on the left.
Crystal Ball pointed this out.
She says they do have this.
I understand you do.
I do.
I get it.
I appreciate it.
I really do.
I respect it.
I'm talking about people like this, that have a twisted obsession with just Israel, like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who make it in politics, who are supported by Democrats and hired by Bernie Sanders.
It's disgusting.
It's a double standard.
It's hypocrisy at its finest.
Well, she's out.
Good.
Whatever.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
Well, I just did a segment talking about Bernie Sanders' good friend, Linda Sarsour.
They stand together.
And now we can see another completely absurd and insane policy proposal from the Democrats.
Bernie Sanders has lost it as far as I'm concerned.
He used to talk about border security.
He used to talk about ending free trade agreements.
Now what is he doing?
Calling for a complete ban on deportations.
That's right!
Because apparently it's only a right-wing talking point when people say the Democrats are pushing open borders.
Well, let me make this clear.
When you have Castro saying, we should decriminalize border crossings.
You have Beto O'Rourke saying, tear down the walls.
I kid you not, Beto O'Rourke was actually talking about getting rid of border walls.
And then Bernie Sanders saying, don't deport anybody.
What do you think you're proposing?
Well, the left comes back and says, there's still going to be civil penalties.
You don't have an ID.
You can't vote.
It's not open borders.
Ah, and there it is.
They want a surf class.
People to do the jobs they don't want to do.
They want people who can't vote, who won't have IDs, who are constantly living in fear.
They want to live above them.
Well, they may not say it, but that's what they're advocating for.
Because again, they're saying, come in, we won't deport you, it's not a crime.
But you can't get a job.
You can't vote.
So what do you think that creates?
A two-tiered system.
Second-class citizens.
That's what they're proposing.
They are one-upping each other.
Bernie Sanders used to talk about secure borders, no free trade agreements, and now he's saying no deportations?
He's saying that to one-up Castro.
Kid you not.
Castro goes, well, it should be a criminal offense.
So Bernie goes, we shouldn't deport anybody at all!
And they're gonna race to the bottom, one-upping each other until their policies are so absolutely twisted and insane, the average American just doesn't understand what they're looking at anymore.
Who's gonna vote for this?
They're gonna give free healthcare, government healthcare, I shouldn't call it free, government healthcare, funded by you, to people who aren't from this country, who come here without criminal penalty, and then they refuse to deport them?
That's insane.
They're crossing the line, man.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but the best thing you can do is share this video because you know what?
I'm just so contrarian, aren't I?
I speak out against the mainstream narrative for the most part.
You got YouTube propping up, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and independent channels like mine are being knocked down.
So you know what they can't derank?
Your willingness to share the content if it's good.
No matter how much they might say we're not going to show your videos to anybody, Tim, if you guys choose to share it because you like it, it kind of breaks that barrier.
At least for the time being, it's a solution.
So if you do like it, please consider sharing.
Let's read on.
The Daily Caller reports, while speaking before a left-wing Latino audience, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders pledged to end immigration raids and impose a moratorium on all deportations. We are going to end the ICE raids that
are terrorizing communities all over this country. Communities, I might add, that are not
comprised of American citizens to a certain degree. Now, with that being said, when ICE searches people's
homes without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and they have detained
American citizens, that is wrong.
It needs to be pointed out. It needs to be called out. That doesn't mean we abolish ICE.
That doesn't mean we stop law enforcement. It means we address the problems and say,
We need scrutiny on these groups.
Good.
And that's it.
Continue to do what you're supposed to do.
They want to abolish ICE.
They're not saying get rid of the law enforcement agency.
They're saying no deportations, open borders.
You see how this works?
If they simultaneously want a path to citizenship, no criminal action against someone illegally entering, and no deportation, what do you think happens?
They enter into this country, no one stops them, no one deports them, and then they're offered up a ticket to citizenship.
That is open borders!
With extra steps.
He says, we are going to impose a moratorium on deportations and we are going to, as I mentioned, and there are some things that a president can do with executive orders and some things you can't.
Sanders was speaking at an event organized by Mijente, a progressive Latino group that focuses on immigration issues in the U.S.
Mijente describes itself not just as a movement for Latinos, but also a pro-black, pro-women, pro-queer, pro-poor group that actively promotes anti-ICE activities.
In other parts of his discussion, the Vermont senator said he would also provide illegal aliens with government-funded health care and a free college education.
Well, there it is!
Who's going to pay for it?
You know what, man?
I think it's hilarious when you have liberals not paying attention to this.
You live in your home in the suburbs.
I got a neighbor who's fairly moderate, leaning towards progressive, and I don't think he knows at all about this.
I don't think he pays attention.
He doesn't listen to these speeches.
But I would like to ask someone like that.
What do you do when your taxes go up to provide health care to people who aren't citizens?
Now think about this, you pay your healthcare bills.
Bernie Sanders recently tweeted, what's the most absurd healthcare bill you've ever received?
I had $16,000 in fees because I got a kidney stone once.
I went to the hospital with severe pain.
They ran tests, sent me home.
Pain got worse.
I went back.
Then they ran a bunch of tests.
Couldn't figure it out until finally they said, kidney stone.
Here's a prescription for some drugs.
You can go home now.
There's nothing we can do.
Took a bunch of pills.
Wonderful pills, I might add.
But you know, I will stress this too.
Talk about the opioid crisis.
I can't remember what exactly they gave me, but I can truly understand why people become addicted to it.
Now, for me, I just stopped taking it.
I said, if the pain is as bad as it's gonna be, and these things are addictive, I'm gonna use them, I'm gonna break them in half, I'm gonna use them, you know, sparingly, essentially.
Take them in slower spaced out doses to try and avoid any negative ramifications.
But in the end, I just didn't really take them.
And eventually, I got a bill in the mail, $16,000.
When I hear that, you know, I think, Bernie has a point about this.
I went in for a day, they didn't know what was going on, and they didn't do anything for me.
I understand I used their time, and their resources, and their machines, and I understand that it could have been appendicitis.
So it makes sense.
But we do have a problem in that, how is the average person supposed to pay for that?
For me, I was between jobs and I didn't have insurance.
So Bernie brings up interesting points.
The question then is, if someone like me has to pay $16,000, so let me get to the point and bring this back together.
I'd like to go to my neighbor and ask them, you've got a hospital bill, right?
It's been really expensive.
What if I told you that you're going to have that bill, you're going to pay that bill, and the government is going to come and take more money away from you to give to non-citizens who they won't deport, they will get a path to citizenship to?
They're going to be like, wait, wait, wait.
That math doesn't add up.
Eventually, more and more people will come for the health care benefits.
And guess who's paying for it?
People don't seem to understand.
When I talk to the left, they seem to think money is something.
Like, they think money is a thing.
You know what I mean?
Like, let me try and explain this.
Money doesn't get you anything.
Value does.
The value of a dollar changes.
You have a universal trade medium called money.
The real issue is, what can you trade in exchange for the labor provided by the hospitals?
So if you bring in 100,000 people per month, which is about what we're doing, and they're all getting healthcare but providing nothing to the system, it collapses.
Resources and time are finite.
You know, I'm preaching to the choir, though.
I say, Sanders reiterated his position on deportations the following day on Twitter.
We must treat undocumented people with dignity. When we are in the White House, we will end the
ice rage that are terrorizing communities all across the country and impose a moratorium on
deportations. Though Sanders has long espoused far-left immigration views, the senior policy
advisor for his campaign confirmed to CNN that the comment on deportations is in fact a new
position adopted by the Democratic Socialist. Such a position likely pivots him further to the left
of fellow presidential candidate Julian Castro.
You see, that's the point.
He's one-upping Castro because he wants the vote.
They are desperate, slimy individuals.
Look, I will spare no expense for the Republicans when it's their time in the primaries.
When they start playing the same game, okay?
This isn't about Tribe, and it comes and goes in waves.
I remember during Occupy Wall Street, I was saying things like, hey, cops shouldn't be whacking those protesters, and I had conservatives on the right being like, oh, they're a bunch of hippie-dippie losers, get out of the street.
I defended their free speech.
We're now at a point where Trump's in office, and the media is relentless, and the Democrats are chasing each other off a cliff, and I'm calling them out.
And they're saying, why won't you talk about Republicans, Tim?
Because Republicans aren't running.
The incumbent is Trump.
He's going to run.
I have no problem when the Republicans are lined up talking about their nonsense.
I have no problem talking about it.
For the time being, if Bernie is going to one-up Castro with insane policy, and that's where we're headed, I'm going to call it out.
There's no middle.
There's no center.
There's no rationality.
You've got Trump.
Admittedly, according to the New York Times, Trump is slightly to the left of Romney.
Not my opinion!
New York Times!
Showing the chart!
I don't know what you want from me if the New York Times is going to say that.
That's actually my next story.
They love claiming that there's this alternative, independent, or conservative media driving a narrative, and they ignore the fact that oftentimes, CNN is wrong because the New York Times calls them out and proves it.
Or they were wrong because their story was wrong.
So that's the game we play.
You know what?
A number of Democrats have come forward to warn that the current crop of presidential candidates are becoming too extreme on immigration issues.
On everything, man.
I'm a Democrat.
I'm a loyal Democrat.
I want us to see us win 2020.
But to do that, we've got to appeal to a wide, the consensus out there, to a wide, I don't know what they're trying to say, on immigration and other issues.
This is from Obama's former DHS secretary.
He says, Johnson said border decriminalization was way too far to the left than what most Americans want.
You know what, man?
If you're somebody who's watching this happen, and you still want to vote for these people, you deserve, you know, you vote for it, you get it, you deserve it.
If you're someone not paying attention, then you also, to an extent, deserve it.
There are a lot of people I know who would probably, their jaws would drop if they heard Bernie was proposing this.
Because it's getting extreme.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, stick around, I will see you shortly.
In my main channel segment, I talked about how it's just so interesting how the media mistakes tend to benefit Democrats all the time.
They don't give Trump and the Republicans the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think they necessarily should, but they do give the benefit of the doubt to Democrats and to stories that hurt Republicans.
That they probably shouldn't do if they're not going to do the same for Republicans.
They should treat everyone the same and give us the facts and inform us.
That's all I care about.
What's the truth?
What's the data that's going to help us progress this country and move forward and solve our problems?
Now here's the funny part.
You may have noticed that when these fake news stories come out, it's always negative about Trump and the day later they correct it.
It really does help the Democrats who are now calling for impeachment of Kavanaugh.
Check out this story from the Daily Caller.
Brian Stelter blames conservatives for trying to tear down CNN's spy story, ignoring that the New York Times actually did that.
And there it is.
So the New York Times fact-checks CNN and says, you're wrong.
Look, they basically made the story up as far as I can tell.
But the New York Times said it's not true.
For those that aren't familiar, basically, CNN claimed that Trump was about to out some spy or something like that, so the CIA had to extract him.
They said Trump was, you know, gonna leak information or something.
Or he did.
New York Times reported, the extraction was planned before Trump even took office.
Now Jim Sciutto of CNN is standing by his story and they're blaming conservatives.
Are you kidding me?
The New York Times fact-checked you, CNN.
It's no one's fault but your own.
They ignore the New York Times and once again it all flows in the same direction.
That the fault, the lies, the smears, certainly it must be conservatives.
They ignore the New York Times.
They ignore the facts.
Take a look at this.
This story was fact-checked by the New York Times and I believe the Washington Post.
Now take a look at what happened with Kavanaugh.
Two books.
Mollie Hemingway's saying Kavanaugh was basically falsely accused.
There's very little evidence.
And the New York Times staff members.
And what does the media do?
They ignore the evidence when it comes from the conservatives.
Then, when evidence comes to the New York Times, they still blame conservatives.
You know, the conservatives aren't the ones who presented the evidence.
They ignore the evidence in the Kavanaugh story.
They blame conservatives for wrongdoing in this story.
Let's read from the Daily Caller.
Before we get started, however, go to TimCast.com slash donate to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address you can send things to.
The best thing you can do is share this, and I'll tell you why.
You may have heard me say this before, but I'll stress it now for this story.
YouTube props up CNN.
CNN does not produce content for a YouTube audience.
They produce their trashy news garbage, and then cut it up and upload it to YouTube, and YouTube says, great, and they recommend it.
Then real creators who have been dedicated to this platform get pushed down.
It's called deranking.
And that's what I face, especially when I criticize CNN.
So here's what you can do.
They can suggest whoever they want.
And we've seen the data.
Even David Pakman, a progressive, shows that Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN get propped up.
He and I get knocked down.
We're both independent commentators on YouTube.
Why?
It's not fair.
It's not fair.
But I'll tell you what.
They can recommend whoever they want.
Fine.
I get it.
That's business.
It's the market.
You know what you can do?
Share this video.
You know why?
They can never stop that.
Unless they outright ban my channel.
But if you can take that link and post it anywhere, then the power of all of the people who view this video sharing it is a hundred times more powerful than YouTube's de-ranking could ever be.
Seriously.
Videos like this tend to get a hundred, a hundred and fifty thousand views.
Could you imagine if every single person shared it?
Take that, YouTube.
You can't stop the content people want.
Let's read.
Sorry for that longer rant, but I appreciate the support.
I really do.
CNN's Brian Stelter and Jim Sciutto accused Trump supporters and the conservative media of trying to tear down a CNN report that the CIA extracted a Kremlin spy because of concerns about President Donald Trump's handling of classified information.
The CNN correspondents ignored it was reporting from the New York Times and Washington Post that undercut CNN's claim.
Quote, many pro-Trump allies and commentators tried to tear down that reporting and say it might not be true.
Do you stand by that reporting now a week later?
Stalter S. Chuteau on Reliable Sources.
100% should have replied.
We would not have gone there if we didn't trust the sources' involvement, information, and level of involvement in those discussions.
I don't know what that misquote is.
Well, let me just stress, I am certainly no pro-Trump individual.
But many people may ask, Tim, don't you make a lot of videos that defend Trump?
Right?
The joke is, stop making me defend the guy.
It's a really weird position to be in.
I wouldn't vote for him.
I'm not a fan of his domestic policy.
I'm not a fan of reappropriating funds from other places to fulfill his border promise.
The Democrats certainly haven't offered me up any alternatives.
They just call it immoral and Beto says tear the wall down.
Not a fan of most of his foreign policy.
I like that he met with Kim Jong-un at the DMZ.
I like that he canceled the strike on Iran, noting that he himself, you know, I say that, and I know it's kind of a beating a dead horse for most of you who follow my commentary and hear me say this all the time, but I have to stress this because most people who watch my videos are not return viewers.
They watch, like, five or six videos per week or less.
Some people watch ten per month.
That means they don't always hear me mention this.
The point is, They don't like the fact that I, as an independent commentator, will call them out.
They try and frame it as if it was pro-Trump allies and commentators.
I made a video highlighting that the CIA slammed CNN over their fake news.
I followed the facts.
I looked at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and a statement from the CIA.
I didn't personally come out and accuse them of being liars without evidence.
I saw the evidence.
I called it out.
They want to slam and smear even people like me.
When I went to the White House summit, President Trump invited a bunch of people Vice called me right-wing.
Here's the best part.
About a week and a half later, when I was ranting and raving about how much I think Tulsi Gabbard is amazing and why I support her and have donated to her, they called me a lefty.
Why?
Because they can't simultaneously claim right-wingers are supporting Tulsi Gabbard, though they do try.
They do.
They don't want to say that Trump was willing to invite a critic of him.
It's true.
I'm in an interesting position because the media smears Trump so much simply by being like, Orange man is not that bad.
They're calling you a supporter.
Can you believe how insane that is?
When have I ever made a video saying explicitly that I would support what Trump is doing as a whole?
Now I can credit things I like that he's done, like I just did.
I can condemn the bad things he's done, but I would never vote for the guy.
And Trump, the White House, invited me.
And there was another person, Bill Ottman of Mines, who is in no way a Trump supporter, who was also invited.
Not so much a critic, because he's more of a tech guy, but I'm definitely critical of Trump, just not to the degree the orange man bad presses.
For the most part, why would I join in on the chorus and it's all they produce all day and night?
But they don't want to admit it.
That's why it's so important when I highlight these things.
They don't want to admit that conservatives actually do entertain their critics.
They allow them to have a conversation and they debate them.
This is the weird position that I'm in right now.
That I can see CNN published fake news according to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the CIA.
Well, I don't know what other sources you need besides that.
So what do they do?
The people who are trying to tear us down are Trump supporters and pro-Trump commentators.
Okay.
Maybe they don't mean me.
Maybe they just ignore me and leave me out of the equation.
The point is...
They ignore the fact that the mainstream press is knocking them down.
Why?
It's a hard target.
It's an easy target to be like, it's just Trump supporters.
The New York Times did the same thing.
Trump allies are trying to smear our journalists.
They can't admit that when it comes to political debate, the left is much less willing to have conservatives on, and conservatives love to debate.
Love, love, love it.
And I can't tell you why, but I will say this.
Brian Seltzer has had on many people to talk about YouTube commentary politics algorithms.
Strangely.
And he's DM'd me personally.
He doesn't have me on.
He doesn't have me on.
And I praised him a week or two ago when he criticized Brian Karam.
I said good on him for calling out the unprofessional behavior.
He got mad at me when I called him out over his Trump sweaty soaking wet thing.
I don't want to get into that whole issue.
But ignore me.
He doesn't have to have me on his show.
I don't care.
Why doesn't Brian Stelter have anyone on to push back against these narratives?
Why is it that Brian Stelter only ever goes in one direction?
I wonder why?
I have had progressives on this channel more than once.
I hosted David Pakman.
I hosted several progressive journalists.
I don't usually host people.
Interesting, I don't know if you guys know who Will Chamberlain is.
He's the guy who runs Human Events.
For some reason, I just had him on several times because I think he's a savvy guy who is kind of a, you know, similar but counter.
He's not super far right or anything.
He's like, you know, regular old center-right conservative-ish.
For some reason, he's been on my main channel a lot.
But I have absolutely tried to get more progressives to come on and do interviews and conversations than anyone else.
I wonder why Brian Selter only has conversations and critiques that flow in one direction.
And here's your evidence, okay?
If the New York Times can claim CNN is wrong, and then instead of pointing out it was the New York Times, and they point the finger at Trump commentators, You can see they're biased.
They have no intention of telling you the truth.
Now, listen.
I think I point in one direction for the most part, too.
Right?
That's fair.
But I'm absolutely willing to wait for verified green checkmarks from websites using a third-party fact-checking source, and I'm willing to wait until the dust settles before I rush forward with my story.
So, I wonder.
If they want to have someone on, why don't they bring on people who counter their opinion, and why do they ignore the New York Times?
I just helped sponsor an event that had many people I disagree with speak.
We offered up headlining positions to progressives.
like, not high profile, we offered up like headlining positions to progressives intentionally.
There's something interesting about intellectual dark web, the centrists, and modern conservatives
in that for the most part they are trying to and want to platform their political opponents
for conversation.
They don't.
They just pass the buck and point the finger.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
