Democrat Adam Schiff SUED In Federal Court, Accused Of Abuse Of Power In Impeachment Process
Democrat Adam Schiff SUED In Federal Court, Accused Of Abuse Of Power In Impeachment Process. Watchdog group Judicial watch is suing Adam Schiff in federal court after they failed to deliver documents pertaining to the procurement and release of private phone details belonging to Devin Nunes and US Journalist John Solomon.Schiff claims he did not subpoena Nunes or Solomon and if thats the case these documents can shed some light on what really happened and whether or not Schiff is being honest.Adam Schiff however has lied in the past about Russian collusion and Donald Trump so he certainly does not get the benefit of the doubt.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Adam Schiff is being sued by watchdog group Judicial Watch over his failure to deliver documents on subpoenas he filed where he got private phone records of a journalist as well as his political rivals.
So I'll give a quick shout out to Judicial Watch.
for filing this suit to actually challenge what I believe to be a corrupt act.
Adam Schiff claims he didn't actually subpoena the journalists or Nunes, it was about subpoenaing numbers, but for those that aren't familiar with what happened, Adam Schiff released a report, or I should say the House Democrats, the Intelligence Committee, released a report, their assessment of impeachment, before it went to the Judiciary Committee.
In this report, they had private phone records of an American journalist, a private citizen, accused of no wrongdoing, as well as Devin Nunes, who is Adam Schiff's chief political opponent in the impeachment process.
As far as I can tell, this is an extreme abuse of power, and I get it.
That's just my opinion.
But I'll tell you what.
John Solomon, a journalist, whether you like him or not, did no wrong.
There's no wrongdoing there.
There's no criminal act.
And even if Schiff accidentally came about The private information of this man.
He should not have published it.
Judicial Watch wants to know what happened.
And so when they requested these documents, saying that they have a right to it, it's in the public interest, they did not receive them.
So they are now suing Adam Schiff.
There's a little bit more to this story.
We also have, moving from here, FISA courts are furious over the other abuses of power.
So I figure, if we're going to talk about what I feel is one of the most egregious abuses of power, let's talk about the FISA courts and a new poll from Esmussen showing most Americans think this is an abuse of power of the impeachment process.
And then I want to look at some polls pertaining to the aftermath.
Admittedly, Things are slowing down for the holidays, but I will be here working.
So let's get started with this story from the Epoch Times.
Judicial Watch sues Schiff for documents related to release of Giuliani-Nunes call records.
I do want to point one thing out, though.
The media has smeared Epoch Times, NBC News particularly.
They're reporting on this story.
The media has also claimed that Judicial Watch is irresponsible in how they go about publishing information, though they are a non-profit.
Yet, filing requests for government documents and releasing them is what journalists are supposed to do.
And when you see BuzzFeed do this, they all get praised.
But Judicial Watch?
No, they get accused of being biased or of wrongdoing.
The reality is, for some reason, well, no, not for some reason, these watchdog groups and these left-wing fact-checking organizations and news view themselves as the default and as always being correct.
But if someone on the right does the exact same thing, all of a sudden, oh, heavens!
But let's take a look at what's going on with this story.
They say, Judicial Watch said on Friday that it had filed a lawsuit against Rep.
Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee for subpoenas and other documents requested by the government watchdog.
The documents relate to the release of phone records of President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, Rep.
Devin Nunes, and other Americans earlier this month.
The government watchdog said it filed the suit in federal court after it received no response to a record request sent on December 6, seeking all subpoenas issued by the Intelligence Committee on any telecommunications provider including, but not limited to, AT&T Inc.
for records of telephone calls of any individuals and any responses received in the course of issuing the subpoenas.
Now I want to stop right here and I'll make a point.
I don't understand where the Democrats are in complaining about the FISA court abuses around 17 accidents or mistakes, the fact that Carter Page was actually working with the U.S.
government but was accused of working against the U.S.
government.
The left used to champion challenging the security apparatus in the United States, challenging these powers.
But as soon as they can wield them, all of a sudden, mum's the word, no one says anything.
Adam Schiff releases the private phone records of an American journalist who's done nothing wrong.
That should be shocking to every single journalist.
Yet, what do we hear?
Crickets.
Where are all of these news outlets who are shocked that Donald Trump is engaging in an attack on the free press because he insults them?
I'll tell you what.
The president is going to insult the press.
Barack Obama insulted Fox News.
It's not the end of the world.
The president doesn't like that people scrutinize him, and that's the way it will always be.
But you'd think there would be journalists coming out saying Adam Schiff crossed the line.
Nope.
Apparently not.
Apparently they don't care because they hate Trump more than they care about the violation of civil rights.
But again, let's get back to the story.
Obviously I'm biased.
I would be outraged if someone started releasing my private data when I did nothing wrong.
But I guess they don't care because it's their side doing it, right?
They say it.
The watchdog made the request after the Democrats disclosed details of private phone calls, including the time of day and duration of each conversation of Nunes, Republican Committee staff members, two of President Donald Trump's personal attorneys, including Giuliani, and an investigative journalist, John Solomon, in their impeachment report.
The report shows dozens of call records in the April 10-24 timeframe, including calls between one of the President's personal attorneys, Rudy Giuliani and Nunes.
The records reflect several conversations between investigative journalist John Solomon and Lev Parnas, an associate of Giuliani.
Parnas also spoke with Nunes and Giuliani, the records show.
The logs also feature calls between Giuliani and White House, among others.
You see what Adam Schiff did when he published these records was essentially a guilt-buy association.
Because Lev Parnas has been indicted, all he has to do is show that they talked to him and then make it seem like, aha, they're in cahoots together.
And that's actually what Adam Schiff said.
Now here's the important point.
Adam Schiff denies they actually subpoenaed Nunes.
He says this, it's very important to point out we did not subpoena Devin Nunes' call
records.
We did not subpoena any journalist's call records.
And that is simply false information being pushed by the president's allies.
No, you did subpoena their call records because you targeted phone numbers that got their
You see, I get it.
We'll play semantics.
They didn't look up the name John Solomon and then say, give me his phone records.
No, they had phone numbers.
And they said, let me get the records of these phone numbers.
And perhaps the phone numbers were of Lev Parnas.
But the reality is, as far as I know, they didn't know whose phone records these actually were.
But more importantly, I'm not going to take Adam Schiff's word for it.
Judicial Watch requested these documents.
Adam Schiff should supply them.
Thus, he is being sued.
I don't care who you are.
I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
If you're going to abuse the system in this way, then don't be surprised when someone files a request for documents and then sues you.
They say, Judicial Watch argued in their court filing that it was critically important to seek the records because the committee subpoenas were issued without any lawful basis and violated the rights of numerous private citizens.
It added that obtaining the requested records would provide the public information about how the subpoenas were issued.
Adam Schiff abused his power to secretly subpoena and then publish the private phone records in potential violation of the law of innocent Americans.
What else is Mr. Schiff hiding?
Perhaps nothing.
Perhaps Schiff is on the level.
However, as a public official, I believe it's fair to say, excuse me, we have right, we have a right to know how it came to be that a government actor would, for no legislative reason, this is an investigative reason, not a legislative reason, subpoenaed the phone records of private citizens and published them.
Now, and I'll tell you this too, if your argument is that Schiff has a right to do it, why did he publish them?
If he's going to argue, oh, I didn't actually subpoena the records of a journalist, why did you publish them?
It doesn't make sense.
He says, this is Tom Fitton, Schiff and his committee ran roughshod over the rule of law in pursuit of the abusive impeachment of President Trump.
This lawsuit serves as a reminder that Congressman Schiff and Congress are not above the law.
They say the Democrats moved to disclose the details of phone calls received widespread criticism because the phone conversations were considered sensitive, in particular, Nunes' phone records.
Nunes is the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.
In a statement, Nunes called the Democrats move a gross abuse of power, but added that it was characteristic of the way Schiff has run the impeachment inquiry.
He's going to need a long rehabilitation period when this is over, Nunes said.
Schiff's communication director did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Well, look, Schiff and others have been accused of abuse of power.
I say this not because I actually, you know, I, well, hold on.
I think he did abuse his power.
I think Trump didn't, although I think Trump is arrogant and he, I think what Trump did was borderline inappropriate.
As more details come out, I'm beginning to think it's a whole lot of a nothing bug when it comes to Ukraine.
But they want to sling mud and say Trump abused his power, while Schiff literally did.
You can't, as a government actor, just go and dig up private information on people and publish it for no reason, no criminal wrongdoing, nothing, just for political expediency.
That needs to be called out.
Well, they've been calling it out.
Republicans say Adam Schiff smeared Devin Nunes and reporter John Sullivan, and this is a story from earlier in the month.
But here's what I find so funny.
Take a look at this story from Fox News.
Adam Schiff says it's hard to be sympathetic to Carter Page amid FISA abuse revelations.
Well, I think it's hard for him to be sympathetic to Carter Page because he literally abuses people's privacy rights much in a similar way Carter Page's rights were abused when it comes to FISA.
Now, Adam Schiff says, oh, it's because Carter Page lied.
In reality, for those that don't know, Carter Page was actually providing information to the CIA.
That's the big controversy here.
The FBI got a subpoena against him, accusing him of being a foreign agent when in fact he was helping America.
And now I'm going to turn to Rasmussen.
Although I do think it's a bit unfair to use a single poll, especially from Rasmussen, who have been accused of being biased towards the president, I will say this.
I'll use the poll.
I think it's interesting.
Take it with a grain of salt because of the accusations of bias, but I will counter by saying Rasmussen was actually very accurate in their polling assessment for 2016.
So some people don't like them because their polls tend to favor the president.
It doesn't mean they're wrong.
And here's what they find.
51% agree.
Impeachment is abuse of power by Democrats.
So I know we started with Schiff.
He's being sued.
I think that's the most important bit of information here.
But as we move on, we can see that there is concern among a widespread portion of the population that the Democrats are abusing their power.
I mean, you look at what happened with the FBI and FISA and Russiagate in the investigation, things the Democrats wanted and the media were cheerleading, Turned out to be fake.
And now we're dealing with Ukrainegate and we're dealing with, you know, publishing of private phone records.
I think we are seeing substantial abuse of power.
But it's not just me.
Arrests, musings, and fines, many people agree.
Check it out.
They say this.
The latest Rasmussen Report's national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of likely U.S.
voters agree with Trump's statement.
In a letter to the U.S.
House of Representatives before the vote, quote, This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat lawmakers unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.
Similarly, 48% agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she said, They say nearly as many, 46%, disagree with Pelosi compared to 40% who disagree with Trump.
in abuse of power, undermining our national security, and jeopardizing the integrity of
our elections. They say nearly as many, 46%, disagree with Pelosi compared to 40% who disagree
with Trump. It is important to note that Rasmussen reports did not identify the source of the
statement in either question." Now, this is good news for the president, that the slight majority
believes the Democrats are abusing their power.
And I think that's why they've highlighted they didn't tell people it was Trump who said this.
But in the end, we can see there's still a very divided population.
Around half of all people, you know, polled think Nancy Pelosi is right, that Trump abused his power, and slightly more believe that it's the Democrats abusing their power.
The reason this is significant is that polls have been flipping in favor of Trump since the impeachment process started.
The reason why I think this is likely to be accurate is because we can see from the RealClearPolitics average Most Americans now oppose the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump.
So even though this is just Rasmussen, I know, not an aggregate, it stands to reason that with polls swinging this direction, there's probably going to be a lot of Americans who think the Democrats are abusing their power.
And you know what?
Even the FISA courts are now furious over what happened.
I'm not going to sit here and play a game and say that the FBI and Democrats walk in lockstep.
I think it's fair to point out there's probably a lot of FBI agents who like Trump.
It's a culture war.
But it's also fair to point out Democrats championed the abuse of power by the FBI.
They abused power themselves in Adam Schiff's case.
And now, you know, they had the media on their side the whole time.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that approved FBI surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page is now investigating other applications it's received from one of the agency's attorneys accused of making an inappropriate change to the Page application.
The review, which was announced in an order released Friday, hints at a comprehensive effort by the secretive court to re-evaluate surveillance after the Justice Department's Inspector General report found errors in the page application process.
I'm not going to tell you it's happening.
You know the Ron Paul meme where it's happening and there's flashy colors?
I'm not going to tell you that.
I'm not going to pretend like this is the final moment and we're now seeing the floodgates
open and Obama is going to get busted.
I don't think that's what's going to happen.
Nor do I think Obama is nearly as involved as many people think he is.
I think what we're seeing is that there are some things coming out.
You know, with the IG report, it wasn't as big as many people on the right were expecting it to be, but it was still big enough.
Even James Comey had to come out and admit it.
The media now coming out and admitting there was FISA abuse, and they mocked Evan Nunes when the FISA abuse, you know, was first reported on.
Well, now they're forced to admit it.
Is it the biggest bombshell in the world?
No, but it is fairly decent.
Now we turn to the Durham investigation.
John Durham is doing an investigation of the origins of the Russiagate collusion narrative—the hoax, as Trump calls it—and it's expanded into a criminal probe.
Many people are putting their hopes in this, but I'll give you a warning if you're a Trump supporter.
You know, I'll tell you this.
With the Mueller investigation, every Democrat and every person in the media thought this was going to be it.
Oh, this is exactly what we need.
Once the Mueller report comes out, we're going to know for sure.
And then you had Rachel Maddow almost crying.
Now, she denies it, but it looked like she was on the verge of tears when it turned out, sorry, Trump didn't collude with Russia.
That's fake news.
So I'll tell you this.
You may hear the news about Durham, and it's true, the left has been wrong on many of these issues, so it's possible, you know, considering the right has been more likely to be correct, that there is something big coming from the Durham investigation.
I think we'll see something, but I don't think we're going to see what everyone expects to see.
I don't think we're going to see a grand exposure of this deep state conspiracy.
I think there will be some people who will be held accountable.
But I think it'll mostly just be a blip.
Something for the history books for sure, but I'm not willing to bet that we're gonna see the floodgates open up and then, you know, a perp walk.
I don't think so.
You know, there have been some pretty interesting stories.
There's one story right now, maybe I'll get to it later today, about a former FBI agent who actually illegally accessed the email account of Jack Berkman over trying to, you know, something to do with Robert Mueller, and so we have seen some weird things pop up.
But look, are we going to see, you know, Hillary Clinton in handcuffs?
I don't think so, no.
Are we going to see, you know, Obama being scrutinized in the press?
Of course we won't.
I just don't, I don't think it's going to happen.
So, this video may end up being a little bit shorter, we'll see what we get to, but I'll wrap it up here by saying, with one last little bit here.
What I have for you today is just the current President Trump job approval ratings, and it just keeps going up.
Now look, it went down when the impeachment process started, for whatever reason, and it slowly recovered.
The reason I wanted to highlight this is amid all of the allegations of abuse, with this poll from Rasmussen, we have a lot of people saying that Donald Trump's approval rating today is higher than where Obama's was.
And the reason this is important is that even in the face of these allegations, impeachment, this conflict we're seeing, I think there's more reasons to suggest that Trump is on track for a 2020 victory.
If Barack Obama was polling less than Trump, if Trump's approval rating is recovering, and I think it stands to reason that if Barack Obama was re-elected, you know, Trump is in a similar position.
Noting that outside of all of the abuse, and here's why I bring this up, I want to make sure I can connect this appropriately for you, Because the abuse is giving credence to claims made by Trump.
It's vindicating some of what Trump has been saying for a long time.
And it's lending itself to the fact that, yes, maybe Democrats are abusing their power.
Yes, maybe impeachment is an abuse of power.
The Mueller investigation was a nothing burger.
And now, perhaps, Trump is correct.
And that's why his approval rating is going up.
People just don't care anymore.
But I want to show you something.
It's true.
According to Gallup, at the same time in Obama's presidency, he was actually below where Donald Trump is today.
Gallup has Donald Trump at 45%, and Barack Obama was at between 40, about 43 to 42%.
So Trump was higher.
But now if you look at this graph, you can see something important.
It's only up until this point.
So I want to make sure it's clear.
You know, we can go back in time to a few months ago, and we can see that Obama has consistently been above Trump at the same point in his presidency.
But Obama wasn't facing the scrutiny, the scandals.
The reason this is important.
When you see that Trump was right, or that the Republicans were right about FISA abuse, when you see that Adam Schiff is being sued, you can see that they are pulling at all the stops to go after Trump and shut him down.
And even amid these allegations, the media still points the finger at Trump.
Yet, for some reason, Trump is now doing slightly better than Obama in the polls, according to Gallup.
That says to me, Trump's approval rating is probably actually much, much higher than the polls show.
Because all of the negative press, and all of the abuse, and all of the weight being thrown at Donald Trump probably holds him back.
So if you were to get rid of this stuff, if you were to look at what's going on with FISA courts, and you're looking at what Adam Schiff is doing, and the sort of vindication that Trump is experiencing, I think it stands to reason if all that was gone, Trump's approval rating would be much higher than Obama's.
However, I am not one to prefer singular polls.
So when I saw this claim that Trump has now surpassed Barack Obama, I said, okay, but let's do an aggregate comparison.
And according to RealClearPolitics, no, it doesn't really come close.
In the aggregate, there has been a bit of a back and forth between Trump and Obama.
So if we're going to be fair, I don't think it's fair to say that today, Donald Trump is beating Barack Obama from where he was.
But I do think it's fair to say that Obama saw a massive downturn around the same time And Trump has surpassed him at various moments.
But it's a bit of a back and forth.
It's not fair to say, in my opinion, that Trump is beating Obama.
But that, no, I mean, Trump has remained stable.
What we're really seeing is that at a certain point in Obama's presidency, his approval rating started to drop by a lot.
Donald Trump's approval rating has actually been fairly stagnant, and it's not necessarily a good or bad thing.
We've seen it drop and then recover, drop and then recover, and then it just kind of spikes up and down.
That's true for many other presidents.
I think what's really significant here is that Donald Trump has been fighting a negative portrayal from the press for so long that we're seeing his approval rating slowly climb, where the inverse was true for Obama, who had actually a lot of positive press coverage, Or I should say substantially less negative coverage.
And if we go back, okay, now it's not going to load.
If we go back, you can actually see that Obama was going down over time.
So think about that.
It's an inversion.
Over time, Obama's approval rating dropped from around 65%, floating down to where it's at now, being around even with Trump.
If you wanted to make a gamble, you could say, maybe it's a mirror image.
And now we're going to see Trump's approval rating start going up a lot more, especially when the Durham report comes out with the FISA abuse allegations.
Maybe Trump, people start, you know, thinking, well, actually, let me stop.
You gotta admit, whether you like the guy or not, Trump's got an attitude problem.
He does.
Some people like the fact that he's boastful and arrogant and, you know, a nasty dude, calls women horse face.
But that's gonna play against him.
But what I think it is fair to say is that Obama, for whatever reason, well, no, let me stop and say this.
You know, Obama's presidency was very different from Trump's.
But the main takeaway from this is that Obama saw a massive downturn, and Trump actually saw pretty stable numbers.
So I don't think it's necessarily that significant.
But I do think it lends itself to say, For another reason, you know, Trump's gonna be re-elected.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got more segments coming up at youtube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
I just told you TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
One of the most powerful tools in the 2016 election were memes, used by Trump supporters to convey ideas in concise and enjoyable ways, and that allowed certain ideas to propagate.
Well, now we are seeing that Instagram's fact-checking program is killing memes.
Now, you can think of all the conspiracy theories you like about how they're coming for our memes to shut it down because people are using it to spread messages, but I think we're seeing something much more dangerous.
There's a misunderstanding as to what facts and truth really are.
But also, what we're seeing from this fact-checking of memes, they really believe everyone is stupid.
And this might actually prove that there are too many stupid people.
And that, I don't know how to solve.
So here's what I want to do.
For this morning's segment, I want to show you what's going on with memes, because I'll tell you this.
You can clearly see that many of these memes are political.
They're being said to be fake.
It's fake news.
Yeah, they're jokes.
We understand they're fake.
But here's what I want to show you.
You see, The Daily Wire recently got downgraded by NewsGuard.
For those that aren't familiar, NewsGuard is a third-party extension, and it's a group of journalists, it's a company, and they basically fact-check news organizations to determine whether or not they are credible.
Well, the Daily Wire got downgraded, but BuzzFeed News is perfect across the board.
I don't completely disagree, but I want to prove to you how the establishment doesn't actually have facts on their side.
They claim to because they don't actually do the work to figure out what's real or not.
The end result is that third-party fact-checking organizations are hired by companies like Facebook, or not hired, but given the keys to the castle, who then come in and say your memes are fake, or your news is fake, even when they themselves publish contradictory information.
First, here's what they say over at Reclaim the Net, which, mind you, is not rated by NewsGuard.
Instagram was once the best place for sharing and enjoying memes.
However, earlier this year, Instagram mass purged over 30 popular meme pages and reduced the circulation of memes on the platform.
Now, with the recent mass rollout of its fact-checking program, Instagram has started to slowly kill off the remaining memes by hiding many of them behind a false information notice.
As we reported previously, this notice was used to censor a meme of climate activist Greta Thunberg which shows her eating on a train while hungry African children look on from outside the train window.
I'm sorry, if somebody can't tell this photo is fake, we've got different problems.
Just because people don't realize it's obviously fake and she's not riding a train through an African village, okay?
You can't censor, block it, or tell, like, they're seriously fact-checking jokes at this point.
Well, what are we supposed to do if we can't make a joke because some people are too stupid to realize it's a joke?
I don't know what to tell you, man.
But I will point out, while we're here, Have you noticed, Ms.
Thunberg, the climate change activist, using single-use plastic bins and single-use plastic bags?
That looks like paper.
Anyway, I'm being a bit of a jerk on this one.
They say.
However, this Thunberg meme is just one of many that has been fact-checked, blurred out, and hidden behind a notice on Instagram since the program was introduced on December 18th.
Now, I find this interesting, but I do have something scarier for you.
Let me show you some of these images.
What you can see here is that this person, Lush Sucks on Instagram, posted a meme.
It is blocked, it is blurred out, and it says, false information reviewed by independent fact checkers.
And the reason is they say there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton killed Jeffrey Epstein.
Why?
Because it was a joke.
It was a joke.
Bush says, I killed Saddam Hussein.
Then Obama says, I killed Osama Bin Laden.
Then Trump says, I killed Baghdadi.
And then Hillary Clinton says, she killed Epstein.
It's a joke.
It's supposed to be fun.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
They actually blurred that out.
They are fact-checking jokes because... You know what?
I don't know, man.
I'm sure some people will say it's because they know that these memes make people laugh and it creates an in-group of people more likely to support Donald Trump.
But let me show you how this becomes more nefarious.
Take a look at this post.
This is a post that, so what you're seeing is a test post I made on November 18th where I basically copied what Prager University had posted to Facebook.
PragerU is a conservative YouTube channel and they do Instagram and social media.
PragerU posted on Twitter, did you know?
In 2006, Hillary Clinton voted for a fence on the Mexican border.
So did Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and 23 other Democrats.
Now a border wall is considered racist.
Why has the left shifted so far on the issue of immigration?
So I basically took what they said and, as a test, reposted it.
Because here's what happened.
When PragerU posted this image, it was blurred out.
Let me show you what it looks like.
You can see partly false information, so you can't actually read what they said.
The average person will see that and say, whoa, fake news, right?
The reality is it was completely true information.
When they fact-checked PragerU, underneath their post they linked to a story from PolitiFact that says half-true.
Did top Democrats vote for a border wall in 2006?
Hold on a second.
Why would Facebook link a story asking whether they voted for a border wall if PragerU said they voted for a border fence?
Those are different things.
Now, you might be saying, Tim, you're playing semantics.
We know PragerU is wrong.
Actually, not true.
The PolitiFact article that was linked actually says they voted for a border fence.
Unfortunately, I guess, for the fact-checkers over at Facebook, PragerU is being a bit concise.
They were saying they voted for a fence.
So why is a wall racist?
Like, if the argument is, a fence isn't racist, what makes a wall racist?
Legitimate question.
So I posted this.
This post is part of a test and will quote PragerU.
So tell us why a border wall is now racist.
And I posted the source.
Everything in the PragerU statement from Twitter was sourced by PolitiFact.
Guess what happened?
Facebook actually took down this post, or I should say they soft-blocked it, they soft-censored it, putting up an image saying this is false information on my post, even though I included the source, their own source, which confirms all of that information.
This is where it becomes dangerous when we have fact-checkers trying to determine what is true and what isn't, because the fact-checkers are just as bad as any other person.
More importantly, I mean, if someone's gonna make a joke and you're gonna fact-check it, we got serious problems.
So...
You know, some people might say it's politically biased and politically motivated, and I think it's not so much that the system was built to be biased, but that these journalists are in fact biased, and I can prove it.
And I'm gonna take some swipes at you, News Guard, because y'all make too many mistakes.
Now, first, let me tell everybody.
I only use NewsGuard-approved sources, with rare exception.
There may be an outlet with a story that is verifiable, and because they're the original source, I'll use it.
And typically when I do, I'll say, keeping in mind NewsGuard rates this negatively.
The reason I do this is because if the biased left-wing journalists are saying this source is credible, well then you can't get mad at me for using them, because they have in the past.
NewsGuard says Fox News is credible.
The Daily Caller is credible.
The Daily Mail is credible.
I make sure that if and when NewsGuard takes someone off their credibility list, I stop using them.
Even though I recognize NewsGuard is wrong.
It's kind of, okay, here's the way I put it.
Your journalists are biased, so if I use your biased journalists and find information that makes, that proves, you know, certain things, you can't accuse me of pushing lies or conspiracy theories because I'm using the same journalists everybody else is, right?
Check this out.
We can see NewsGuard recently downranked the Daily Wire.
They did an update.
Let me actually show you.
You can see here it says, does not repeatedly publish false content, but when it comes to gathering and presenting information responsibly, correcting and clarifying errors, handling news and opinion responsibly, avoiding deceptive headlines, disclosing ownership, and revealing who's in charge, they get X's across the board, which gives the site a red exclamation point, meaning proceed with caution.
This website severely violates basic standards of credibility and transparency.
The Daily Wire, I would say, this is an absolutely incorrect assessment of The Daily Wire, but you know what?
For the sake of erring on the side of, you can't call me wrong if I'm using your sources, I have now phased out using Daily Wire for my videos.
So The Daily Wire, you may be upset about this and you might want to reach out, but let me show you this.
I actually think The Daily Wire tends to be credible.
There are some heavy criticisms I'm absolutely in agreement with from NewsGuard.
So they've said this.
At the bottom, following a new review of content on Daily Wire, actually, hold on, I'm sorry.
If you're not familiar, the Daily Wire is Ben Shapiro's news outlet. It's primarily a commentator
and conservative aggregation of news. They say this, following a new review of content on Daily
Wire, NewsGuard updated its nutrition label on December 17th, 2019 to reflect its determination
that contrary to an earlier version of this label, DailyWire.com fails to meet NewsGuard's
standard for gathering and presenting information responsibly, for avoiding deceptive headlines,
and for clearly revealing who's in charge.
Now, I want to show you why I could compile a list of why NewsGuard itself is not credible, as much as I do use it, right, for sort of a political argument.
They say that, right here, does not repeatedly publish false content.
Thumbs up.
It's got a green checkmark.
Okay.
Thank you, NewsGuard, for letting me know that there are severe issues with Daily Wire, but at least they're not publishing false content, right?
Actually, they say this.
Credibility.
However, the Daily Wire frequently publishes false and misleading information.
Okay, hold on.
You told me they don't do that, and then in your own content about it, you say they do do that.
I got a contradiction here.
NewsGuard has made a factual error.
I'm sorry.
This is evidence that NewsGuard has published false content.
And I can also show you that NewsGuard also publishes more false content, which would stand to reason that NewsGuard itself would receive a red exclamation point for not being credible because they repeatedly publish false information.
The point here is, and I am being a bit, you know, I don't know, hyperbolic or sarcastic in a sense, but if they say they both simultaneously do and don't publish false content, then clearly something is incorrect here and they publish something false.
Let me show you this.
BuzzFeed News.
BuzzFeed News, according to NewsGuard, is cleared across the board as credible.
Does not publish false content.
Gathers information responsibly.
I love this one.
Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly.
Thumbs up.
Good job, NewsGuard.
Fantastic.
Thank you for letting me know that 90% of the opinion pieces that appear on BuzzFeed News are, in fact, not opinion, even though they don't label them.
You see, the problem here is that NewsGuard says BuzzFeed handles the difference between opinion and news responsibly.
In fact, they do not.
They literally don't.
That is false.
And I can prove it simply.
Look at the headline story as of today.
San Francisco spent a decade being rich, important, and hating itself.
That headline is literally an opinion.
Hating itself?
That's not a fact.
That's someone's opinion.
Whether or not a city hates itself.
But guess what?
We can open the story.
It doesn't say opinion.
It says BuzzFeed Reporter.
They're passing this off like it's a straight-up news article listed as tech.
It's not an opinion.
It's not listed as an opinion.
It's listed as a fact.
And if we go back to the front page, we can see there are several opinion pieces that are not labeled as opinion because BuzzFeed, as far as I can tell, does not have that distinction.
So why are we trusting our content to third-party fact-checkers?
Seven photo stories that will challenge your view of the world.
That's an opinion.
I get it.
It's BuzzFeed clickbait.
The point is, BuzzFeed gets a green checkmark across the board when they publish fake news.
And I'm really going to hammer it in.
This one's for you, NewsGuard.
BuzzFeedNews.com.
They go on to talk about how BuzzFeed's reporting on the Mueller report was unparalleled.
Listen, let me tell you something.
Do you know what the problem is with these fact-checking organizations?
If you use BuzzFeed as the standard for what is true, then yes, you will find conservative outlets are fake news.
Because you're going to say, hey, BuzzFeed says, you know, 1 plus 1 equals 3, but the Federalist says 1 plus 1 equals 2?
Well, BuzzFeed news is more credible, therefore Federalist is wrong.
How do you determine what is a fact if we're trying to weigh every news organization against source material?
You see the point?
If BuzzFeed comes out with fake news, and they do, all of the time, why would they be considered to not repeatedly publish false content?
What is their criteria for what qualifies as repeatedly?
Let me tell you something.
BuzzFeed published a story earlier this year about Robert Mueller.
It was one of the rare moments that the Mueller team came out and said this story is not true.
BuzzFeed stood by their reporting.
CNN's also done the same thing.
Why would we then consider BuzzFeed to be credible when the source of the story says fake news?
Don't ask me.
NewsGuard just determined that they're green across the board even though they don't differentiate between news and opinion.
What makes BuzzFeed news credible?
I have no idea.
And my understanding is in the past, they actually gave BuzzFeed an X for differentiating between news and opinion.
But now I want to really drive this home because I can give you fake news from BuzzFeed more recently.
And I'll tell you what, man.
I'm actually on the verge.
Excuse me. I've talked about, we're working on expanding Subverse
and there's a plan for an external fact-checking entity that's going to rate, basically, we'll randomly sample 100
articles, we'll fact-check them, rate them, and then do a rating
based on that.
It's complicated.
And we've been, you know, it's on a back burner, but it's on the list of things we plan to do.
Legitimate fact-checking.
Anyway, excuse me, I'm getting a frog in my throat.
Let me show you this story.
BuzzFeed News reported last month, a man was stabbed to death in a fight over a Popeye's chicken sandwich.
That headline is literally fake.
The story is made up.
BuzzFeed made this up.
As a real journalist, you would actually go and talk to witnesses and family members to determine what really happened in this fight.
And as it turns out, the fairest assessment of what this story was, was that several people were at a Popeyes, and it may have had to—may— Had to do with the fact that Popeye's had released a chicken sandwich.
However, a fight broke out over someone cutting in front of other people.
Some guy said, let's take it outside.
The other guy pulled out a knife and stabbed the other guy.
They were not fighting over a chicken sandwich.
There was no shortage of a chicken sandwich.
Anybody could have gotten a chicken sandwich.
And a family member said, he did not die fighting for a chicken sandwich.
BuzzFeed wanted to publish a sensationalized, hyperbolic fake news headline to get clicks.
Because apparently BuzzFeed thinks it's funny, or interesting, or clickbaity to make a story about two black guys fighting to the death over fried chicken.
This story particularly was offensive to me because it is some of the most egregious fake news we've ever seen, but it also combines the left's penchant for pretending not to be racist, but pushing the most racist concepts you could ever imagine.
BuzzFeed literally wrote a story that is fake, arguing that two black men fought to the death over fried chicken.
That is fake news.
It is fake as it comes, and it is racist, and I am disgusted by it.
Yet BuzzFeed, for some reason, we're told they're completely credible.
So I'll do this.
The Daily Wire is not perfect.
They're mostly commentary.
It is a criticism conservatives have received for a long time.
Relative to the left, conservatives don't do journalism.
They don't do on-the-ground reporting.
They aggregate and they do commentary.
Daily Wire, you can criticize for this, but you know what?
Honestly?
The Daily Wire is allowed to create a conservative commentary website.
And that should be considered when you're checking whether or not they're credible.
Some of the articles that are rated as false are just hyperbole.
It's not fake.
It's just a conservative, you know, I don't know, being hyperbolic, like everybody does.
What about MSNBC?
Is MSNBC going to get rated as false for all the lies they pushed for Rachel Maddow talking about Fargo in the winter and Russia shutting off the power?
They don't.
So here's what ends up happening.
The default for these fact-checking agencies is the left.
So BuzzFeed News can publish repeated false information, but because the default is the left is correct, they say, you know, BuzzFeed must be credible.
They don't repeatedly publish false content.
But I'll tell you what.
I'd be willing to bet you give me a few days and I can pull up a list of, you know, dozens of stories that are fake from BuzzFeed.
Especially when it comes to the Culture Wars.
There are repeated articles from BuzzFeed pertaining to Count Dankula and Sargon that are so insanely misleading or false.
Yet, for some reason, newsguards like, yeah, but BuzzFeed's okay.
Even though basically the entire front page of the website is unlabeled opinions.
Okay, maybe that's exaggerating, right?
But seriously, there's tons of falsely framed stories, misleading headlines, and opinions that aren't labeled as such.
And that's credible.
But when Daily Wire does essentially the same thing, they give them red X's across the board and even contradict themselves.
So I'll tell you what.
I know a lot of people are going to say, why would you bother using NewsGuard, Tim?
They're biased and they have no credibility.
You're right.
I agree.
But I'll tell you this.
When I pull up a story from CNN that says something like, you know, how about this?
There have been, I believe, two CNN polls recently showing that impeachment is now failing.
Opposition to impeachment is growing.
You can't tell me I'm wrong if I'm using CNN, rated as credible by biased left-wing outlets, and it's saying Trump is winning.
Therein lies the big challenge for those who hate watching my videos on the left.
They don't want to do it.
I've seen the comments that are like, I refuse to watch propaganda.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm citing CNN.
Oh, you think CNN's propaganda?
They're the ones who hate Trump, and they're the ones saying Trump is winning.
So therein lies the big problem.
We'll take it back to the memes.
Memes are jokes.
Fact-checkers are now stepping in and removing obvious jokes.
Well, not removing, but censoring them, making it harder to see, harder to share, and negatively impacting people who make jokes.
This is the world that's being developed.
Biased, ignorant fact-checkers who can't tell what a joke is and are trying to protect people who can from jokes.
But when it comes to the actual facts, when it comes to what we really need to know about, The default is the left.
I ask you this.
Why should BuzzFeed get green across the board?
BuzzFeed should have several X's.
Avoid deceptive headlines?
Are you kidding me?
A man was stabbed to death in a fight over a Popeyes chicken sandwich is fake news.
You know what?
I'm going to send this video to NewsGuard because y'all are biased to such an absurd degree and you probably don't realize it, but I'll tell you this right now.
If Robert Mueller comes out and says BuzzFeed is fake news, well then you're going to have to decide who's telling the truth or not.
And if BuzzFeed does fake trash like this, when family members even say it's not true, you've got a serious problem.
Now look, I'll wrap this up and say this.
Some of the criticisms NewsGuard has for Daily Wire, they're actually on point.
The problem I have is not that they're saying Daily Wire publishes fake content.
Daily Wire has published hyperbolic, falsely framed, or exaggerated content.
Totally think they have.
Absolutely.
But BuzzFeed literally does the same thing.
The difference?
BuzzFeed pretends it's better reporting.
BuzzFeed doesn't use a commentary style.
They make things look like they're reporting when in fact they're falsely framing stories.
Case in point, a man was fighting over fried chicken.
Fake news.
You know why this really bothers me?
I'm from Chicago.
I've seen senseless violence.
I grew up with senseless violence all around me.
And they never care to come to our neighborhoods and tell people what's actually going on and why this stuff happens.
They don't do it.
But I'll tell you what, if BuzzFeed can find a hilariously racist narrative about black men fighting to the death over fried chicken, you better damn well believe they're gonna publish that.
Fake news, fake headline.
And when I messaged Ben Smith, the editor, he stood by it.
He stood by fake BS.
You're getting me all riled up.
So you know what?
It is what it is.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
And I will see you all then.
I've gotta give credit to progressives, far leftists, and socialists who have recently come out questioning impeachment and doing it, in my opinion, in the right way.
You see, let me say one thing before we get started.
I have no problem with you if you're a communist, so long as you're principled, arguing in good faith, and we will debate policy, practical application of economics, and ultimately I will disagree with you, but I think if you're being, you know, polite, respecting, you know, I guess, democratic institutions, Anti-authoritarianism, and I have no problem having that conversation.
I was in Berkeley, met a communist handing out literature, and I asked him what he thought about Antifa, and he said they're bad, because they're violent, and they're hurting people, and I was like, wow.
I was like, hey man, by all means, be a communist, wave your flag, and if you're talking about, you know, actually arguing and debating ideas, then my only beef with you is that I think your opinion is bad, and I think conservatives have bad opinions too.
It's the authoritarianism.
It's the lies.
It's duplicitousness, deceit, the media.
All of these things are bad.
So, I'll tell you this right now.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, he's running for Congress.
I really disagree with the guy on a lot of issues.
But the media is lying about him.
They're smearing him.
And I think that's wrong.
So, I actually defended the guy.
More importantly than his tweet about Nancy Pelosi, which I like, is this article from Jacobin, which is basically social... I'm pretty sure it's socialists, right?
I don't want to be wrong, so I'll just say, as far as I know, this is a very socialist publication.
What's the point of impeachment?
And I gotta hand it to him.
I will give a clap and respect to Jacobin because they made the correct point.
Donald Trump is not being impeached because he did something wrong.
Seriously, they actually argue.
Donald Trump is not being impeached for doing something wrong.
It's not for his policies.
It's not for immigration.
It's not for strippers or any kind of bad behavior.
Jacobin says, rightly so, Donald Trump is being impeached because he offended the delicate sensibilities of the establishment Democrats by going after one of their own.
They don't care if Trump does things wrong.
They don't care if his policies are bad.
They're mad that he questioned Joe Biden.
That's the issue.
And I love it.
I love it.
Not necessarily.
I want to say that I completely agree with everything they're saying.
But it's a really important point because I'll tell you this.
If Donald Trump truly abused his power, was it not the commando raids in Yemen which resulted in the loss of life of a little girl, an American girl?
And if that's the case, didn't Obama also abuse his power in doing very similar things?
I think the better question about abuse of power is firing Tomahawk missiles into Syria.
Whether or not you have congressional approval to do so, hey, I'll throw a call back to Obama and George W. Bush on those same issues.
But they're not impeaching Trump for that.
They're impeaching Trump because he dared to question the shady dealings of Joe Biden.
How dare you?
How dare you come at our secretive club of ivory tower elites?
Now that is an impeachable offense.
But let me start with Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks who has a tweet I completely agree with.
Cenk said, It's incredible how much the national media gaslights us into thinking Pelosi is competent, let alone a master legislator.
She is making a major mistake by holding up the impeachment articles.
Optics are terrible and she has no leverage and doesn't seem to understand that.
Send it.
I completely agree.
Let's get on with things.
Nancy Pelosi is doing nothing.
And yes, for some reason the establishment wants to pretend like she's somehow a mastermind.
I'm in complete agreement with Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
Where we disagree on policy and whether or not Trump should ultimately be impeached are different things.
But I can respect this.
But when I saw this article from Jacobin, I couldn't help but say, you know what?
You're right.
If you think Trump abused his power, wouldn't you talk about things he's actually done instead of a phone call?
Apparently not, because the Democrats' best case is that he didn't answer subpoenas.
He told his staff not to answer subpoenas.
Okay, take it up with the courts like you're supposed to.
They didn't even do that.
They say he abused his power.
Are you kidding me?
For having a phone call and saying something potentially inappropriate?
That's it?
And Jacobin, being far left, they really don't like Trump.
They got TDS across the board, but I think their point is apt.
They say, you know, Trump was caging kids and all of these things.
And listen, you know what?
I'm not super far left.
So I think there's an argument to be had with far leftists about practical application of executive authority.
I'm fine by that.
Ultimately, though, I think Trump skirts by because the executive branch has too much power.
And I said this before, I actually think there's a light, you know, an open window in what's happening to Trump in that it is good to see executive authority scrutinized to such an extreme degree.
Because it will come back at Democrats.
And I'm kinda like, good.
The executive branch has been gaining way too much power for way too long.
So, you know what?
My bigger problem is with the deceit, the lies, and how the Democrats don't actually care about what is right or wrong.
What they really care about is that, well, Joe Biden's one of them.
And Trump targeted one of their own.
So they're gonna pull out all the stops to go after him, ignoring all of the policy things that they could actually argue on.
Let's read the story.
What's the point of impeachment, writes Jacobin?
Getting rid of Trump would be great, but Congress isn't going to do it.
We actually have to vote him out.
I agree with that.
If you want to get rid of Trump, you gotta vote.
And impeachment, a therapeutic ritual for MSNBC hosts, and an act of score-settling by the national security state, isn't helping.
What's the most incredible thing about impeachment, I think, right now is that we're seeing the far left and conservatives and even moderates holding hands and singing songs under a rainbow in agreement that the establishment media and the crony Democrats and MSNBC hosts are complete trash.
Now, come on, I get it.
Jacobin probably disagrees with, like, 80% of my opinions and my political views.
But if we can come together under, you know, the things we do agree on, like, I'm gonna tell you what, man.
Jacobin, spot on, when they say that impeachment is a therapeutic ritual for MSNBC hosts and active score settling by the national security state, it's not helping.
Yep, it's literally not doing anything.
That's what I've been saying the whole time.
So some people believe, this is what I mentioned in my video the other day on my main channel, the real point of impeachment is not about Trump.
It's to stop Bernie Sanders.
Because Bernie Sanders, now that they're withholding the impeachment articles, if they don't push them through until like January, and the trial happens in February and Bernie gets recalled, he can't campaign before Super Tuesday.
But guess who can?
Joe Biden.
So here's what they basically say.
You know, they say essentially what I said.
Keeping in mind, this is Jacobin, right?
You know, socialists?
They say this.
Leaving aside the Constitution, because it's part of the problem, Trump wouldn't be President were it not for that near unalterable relic of slavery days, the Electoral College.
Well, I disagree with them on the Constitution.
I think the Constitution is great because it does get amended, but they say this.
Yes, Trump is awful, and it would be a blessing to be rid of him.
He's a bigot, a grifter, and a would-be authoritarian.
But impeaching him less than a year before the election is not the answer to much of anything.
It's a distraction from ejecting him from the most definitive way possible, beating him decisively in an election.
The Democrats could have been campaigning on issues.
They could have been talking about what Jacobin is talking about.
Not that I think it would necessarily win.
But I think it's the right move.
I think it's principled.
It's the move with integrity.
Not some faux impeachment attempt.
Here's the best part.
It's telling that Joe Biden is named in the Articles of Impeachment.
For the Democratic leadership, Trump's worst offenses—the caging of children, the apologetics for Nazis, the fealty to asset strippers and plutocrats, the endless vulgarities—were unpleasant but not fatal.
Despite all of those offenses, they didn't begrudge him an extension of the Patriot Act, which is a funny set of powers to grant to someone so awful.
What really set Nancy Pelosi at all off was the alleged conspiring against one of their own, as reported by CIA officer Eric, someone who worked closely with the Obama administration.
Dems want to keep his name out of it, but isn't knowing one's accuser a cornerstone of American law?
Whoa!
The socialists agree that Trump has a right to confront his accuser.
I have great respect for a lot of the arguments they're making.
Now, I disagree with the framing of the apologetics for Nazis and fealty to asset strippers and things like that, but I think the point actually has merit.
That if you really, as a Democrat, were offended by Trump and thought Trump was all of these things, wouldn't you target him this way with your campaigning instead of some fake impeachment?
But let's think about the remedy for removing a president.
As much as they all believe the orange man is the worst possible thing on the planet—orange man bad, even Jacobin thinks Trump is the worst of the worst—the Democrats, only a couple tried to remove him for bad tweets.
The actual movement with mass support from the Democrats to get rid of Trump was because he challenged Joe Biden.
Think about it.
Do the Democrats really care about what Trump says?
No.
Of course not.
Trump can say all the worst words in the world.
They don't care.
Now, the voters care, right?
The leftists, the socialists, and the voters, they don't like what Trump is doing.
The Democrats are playing a game.
They're the establishment they want to win, and they want the same powers.
They don't want to challenge the power.
But when Trump comes out and says, oh, and by the way, Joe Biden, all of a sudden, e-gad, gasp, heavens!
We must stop at nothing to remove Donald Trump because he dared challenge Joe Biden.
But look what they do to Bernie Sanders.
This is really funny.
When the DNC cheats in the primary process, robs it from Sanders, where is the outrage from the Democrats?
Well, there was Tulsi Gabbard, who stepped down and refused to endorse Hillary Clinton, and you see what the media does to her after the fact.
So we can see, the issue isn't whether Trump is a good or bad person, not at all.
The establishment Democrats don't care one bit.
And I really do want to, we'll keep going, we'll read a little bit more, but I really, really do just love, they call Adam Schiff a tool, and I'm like...
Yes, absolutely.
You know, the thing is, man, I think what we're really seeing is establishment versus populist.
Are you a person of the people?
Do you oppose the abuse of power and things like this?
And Trump is not an innocent actor, but Trump is an anti-establishment, you know, leading the populist right.
For all of his faults, he still stands apart from the security state and the democratic establishment.
And even the Republican establishment, they hate him.
Trump's changed everything.
Check this out.
Aside from the offense against Biden, Trump has serially disrespected not only the CIA, but also NATO, much to the distress of national security tools like Adam Schiff.
Yes.
These are the least of Trump's offenses, but they're what really move the party leadership.
Max thinks we can hijack the process for our own purposes, whatever those may be, but to Nancy Pelosi, that would doubtless be just another green dream or whatever.
I've never understood the point of impeachment from the first, even when it's a cause being pushed by the squad, whom I otherwise admire a lot.
I don't admire the squad a lot, and I also don't understand the point of impeachment, because there's a lot of reasons why it may or may not be happening.
Whatever its origins, Pelosi, a highly skilled politician in the short-term tactical sense, turned it into a defense of the old order.
There's no chance the Senate will convict Trump, as Mitch McConnell has made clear, so the House passing this narrow legalistic indictment looks more like performance and a weak one at that than politics.
It's about taking a stand, making a gesture, and not changing the world.
What is the endgame for impeachment?
Max swears they're not looking for a restoration of the Obama-Clinton order, much less the elevation of President Michael Pence.
But should Trump be convicted and removed from office, as fanciful as that seems, the result would be the elevation of Pence.
As for the restoration angle, there's a species of mainstream Democrat who seems to think that everything was pretty much okay in the United States before January 20, 2017, and if we just get back to the status quo, we'll be well on our road to recovery.
That's Biden's main selling point, and a core belief of the Democratic establishment.
I agree.
Look, man, I liked Bernie.
And you know what I think?
I think there's a reason why there's a certain type of person who would like the videos I make, even though they might like Trump, and why I criticize Bernie.
I think it's populist.
That's really what it's about.
It's not about being a right-wing populist nationalist or whatever.
It's about, do you oppose authoritative, you know, deep state type structures?
I'm not saying a literal deep state.
I'm saying these ivory tower elites, you know, they kicked Bernie out.
They cheated him.
And now we can see, for all the concerns we might have about foreign policy in the United States, about the expansion of the military-industrial complex, etc., the Democrats don't care.
They never cared.
The only reason they want to impeach Trump is because he's pointing the finger at them.
And this is what I say back to the socialists.
Here's what I'll leave you with.
To the socialists who are questioning impeachment, I ask you, when you can see that for all of Trump's faults and all the things you really don't like about him, he's going after Joe Biden, Isn't that a good thing?
This is what makes me wonder.
I'm not, you know, I'm fairly ambivalent.
Sure, you might not like me because of that.
But the way I see it is, I've described it this way before, Trump is a bull rampaging through their ivory tower.
The security apparatus hates him.
The FBI, the CIA, these people clearly hate him.
Not all of them, right?
There's a culture war going on.
But a lot of these old establishment types that were heavily criticized by the left for the past decade or longer, I mean forever, are getting torn apart by Donald Trump.
So at what point do the socialists not kick back and say, well, you know what?
We don't want the guy, but I'll tell you this, come 2020 or 2024, we're gonna get a chance to actually get Bernie Sanders in because the establishment will have been destroyed by Donald Trump.
The establishment cheated Bernie.
Bernie may have won in 2016, but it was Clinton.
It was the DNC, they kept him out.
If you really are a socialist, wouldn't you now sit back and say the media is lying?
It's performative art.
Impeachment makes no sense.
They're only mad at Trump because he's targeting their cronies.
And then can't you just sit back and be like, you know what?
I'm gonna let him talk at the cronies.
It doesn't mean you stop fighting for your causes.
It doesn't mean you don't challenge the president when he does something you don't like.
Stick up for your principles.
Defend what you believe in.
But at the same time, why would you support this impeachment?
You got 2020 coming up.
If Trump is going to damage these crony intelligence agency establishment, DNC, whatever, it's only gonna benefit Bernie Sanders.
But I'll tell you this.
Impeachment will hurt Bernie Sanders.
Because impeachment will take Bernie off the campaign trail.
It's gonna make him go to the Senate and act as a juror.
And we got Super Tuesday coming up.
That means Biden's gonna go out campaigning, and so impeachment really does hurt Bernie Sanders.
It hurts Trump a little bit, kind of, I mean, but for the most part, his polls are flipping, he's making all these gains.
I'll tell you what, man.
I'd be willing to bet the establishment would prefer Trump over Bernie.
I really do mean it, because I don't look at Trump necessarily as a revolutionary.
I look at Trump as a bull rampaging through, saying, the people are sick and tired of what you've done.
We're going to change things and bring things back to the way they were before, make America great again.
Bernie Sanders calls it a revolution.
He wants serious, dramatic change.
I'd be willing to bet the DNC hates Trump.
Oh, they hate him.
but they hate Bernie way more.
And this impeachment isn't going to hurt Trump, it's going to help him, but it will hurt Bernie.
So at a certain point, I'm wondering, why don't the socialists just say,
let Trump tear apart, you know, do these investigations and figure out what Biden was doing?
Because it's only going to benefit Bernie Sanders, right?
So I'll leave you with this.
I'm impressed.
I am.
I agree with a lot of the principled sentiment coming from Jacobin about why they really want to impeach Trump.
Yeah, I agree.
I don't think they want to impeach Trump because they think he's a bad guy, like his policies are bad.
I think it's because he pointed the finger at their crony establishment.
I think it's always been kind of about that, you know.
At first, he defeated Hillary, and they were mad.
It shouldn't have happened.
But now he's literally saying, investigate Durham, Barr.
You know, I'm saying he's investigate with Durham, with Barr, and then saying investigate Biden.
And now, now he's crossed the line.
Nothing Trump did before was off the line.
They complained about it, right?
But Biden?
That was crossing the line.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
I mean, obviously, I think, you know, Most of the people who watch me are probably rather centrists.
I am literally a capitalist.
I lean left on policies, meaning I like the idea of social programs, but they need to be fixed and corrected.
I recognize the corruption within the system.
They're not perfect.
I'm anything but a socialist.
I'm far from that.
But I think.
At least I can have a conversation right now with the people who oppose the crony Democrat establishment, because they have no principles—Pelosi.
And I've actually praised Pelosi in the past as well, mind you, and to a lesser extent Schumer.
No, but I've—because they've resisted people like AOC's insanity.
But now, you know, what I want to make sure is clear is that I view Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, you know, and even Mitch McConnell and some of these other Republicans as people who just want the keys to the castle.
I think we're seeing a new breed of politician emerging, you know, finally.
Not perfectly, but we've got some.
We've got some good people.
I like Tulsi.
I think, in my opinion, controversial or not, I think Tulsi is the best politician we got.
And I disagree with her, but I see the principled stance that she's willing to make.
I've seen the statements she's made about, you know, Second Amendment, like Walmart.
I don't want to get into all that, but basically, Tulsi voting present shows she's going to buck both, you know, whatever tribal nonsense is going on.
I respect that.
And then I like Dan Crenshaw.
I think he's wrong on a lot of things.
I like Rand Paul.
Wrong on a lot of things.
But you know what?
I would prefer to see principled but incorrect politicians over crony, multi-millionaire, Goldman Sachs-speakin'-whatever-nonsense politicians.
So I will absolutely say, high five, Jacobin.
Yes, you're right.
Trump is challenging the machine.
And that's why they want to get rid of him.
We can have an argument about socialism and costs and feasibility.
I think you'll lose the argument.
But I would rather have that argument.
I would rather have the voters decide than some stupid crony nonsense.
Okay.
I'm done.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel.
And I will see you all there.
I did it.
I got you with the clickbait, didn't I?
But no, no, no.
In all fairness, I'm going to make a bold and likely incorrect assumption based on what we're seeing.
And actually, I'll say it, then I'll walk it back.
I think we're seeing, I guess, a kind of demise of the Democrats.
And I will say, in 2016, they said the same thing about the Republicans.
They said the Republicans are falling apart and they're over.
So, I get it.
But I can't shake the feeling.
6th Democratic Debate draws 6 million viewers, lowest figure in current cycle, and they stress Democrats have gotten nowhere near as close as I believe it's 24 million people who tuned in to see Donald Trump.
I think these trends we're seeing, the outrage over impeachment, the failures to campaign on anything, the economy.
Let me show you something.
I got this tweet.
This is a tough chart for Democrats.
From James Pithokoukis.
I'm probably pronouncing your name wrong.
I pronounce names wrong all the time, apparently.
But we can see that low-wage industries are seeing wage growth over the past few years with a major spike in the Trump years.
I'm not saying it's all about Trump.
I'm just saying, think about it.
The economy's doing really, really well.
Impeachment had become very unpopular.
People think it's an abuse of power.
And now we're seeing that the Democratic debate, 6 million viewers.
You know how many Trump got in the RNC?
24 million viewers.
So when I think about this, I'm like, you know what, man?
Nobody cares what the Democrats are saying anymore.
Because they're not really saying anything.
It's impeachment.
It's healthcare for non-citizens.
It's things that aren't really impacting their lives.
Meanwhile, Trump as president is doing better and better and better.
Not, like, character-wise.
That's his biggest fault.
But the economy, you know, as the saying goes, it's the economy, stupid, right?
So I got a couple stories I want to show you.
Check out this op-ed from New York Post, why identity politics and minority candidates aren't winning over voters, Democratic voters.
And so I saw this, I saw this, right?
So I saw the, you know, the other story and then I saw the low viewer count and I'm like, here's what's happening.
Donald Trump, in reality, for those that are actually tracking politics, is a moderate.
He really is.
They want to claim he's far-right.
No, Trump's a New York Democrat.
I think the only reason he ran as a Republican is because Democrats would never elect a billionaire.
But Trump adopts certain Republican policies.
He says, OK, I'll give you this one.
And then he comes from an economic populist position.
It's like Bill Clinton, essentially, some people have compared it to.
Trump is not far-right, staunch conservative.
He actually has conceded some ground in, like, the LGBTQ fights, but he's not a Democrat.
You know what I mean?
Like, I mean, let me try to explain.
He's an old-school Democrat, like in the 90s.
I think it was CNN who said that.
The point is, because Trump was able to attract new voters to the Republican Party, many of which are more moderate than past conservatives, as we saw from the New York Times, Republicans have moved a little bit towards the center under Trump.
The Democrats have nothing to campaign on.
What do they challenge him on?
In fact, they voted for border fencing and securing the southern border back in, you know, ten or so years ago.
And now Trump is basically adopting a lot of the policies.
You know, I'll put it this way.
Trump played it right.
He said, what do people like about what Democrats are proposing?
And what do people like about what Republicans are proposing?
And he adopted many of these positions, creating a populist center-right position.
What can the Democrats do?
The only way to contrast themselves is to adopt identity politics.
I mean, for the most part, what are you going to say?
Oh, the economy is really bad.
Tried that.
Nobody's buying it.
The economy's not bad.
People are seeing their pocketbooks.
They know how much money they have.
Let's read this story here from Variety.
They say sixth Democratic debate draws six million viewers, lowest figure in current cycle.
There it is, man.
Nobody cares what they have to say.
Last night's Democratic debate, which inevitably dealt with the recent impeachment of President Trump, drew just over 6 million total viewers for PBS and Politico, according to Nielsen figures.
Topics such as the economy, climate change, racism, Afghanistan, and taxing the wealthy were also on the agenda.
Apparently nobody cared what they had to say.
Which counts the PBS broadcast and the simulcast on CNN, and CNN Español makes it the least watched debate so far in the current cycle, only just behind the previous MSNBC debate, which drew 6.5 million.
Last night's squaring off reached more than 2 million viewers across PBS stations nationwide, and was CNN-CNN by just over 4 million people.
Per PBS, the debate live-streams across PBS NewsHour, Politico, PBS, etc., and all of the digital poll did about 8.4 million viewers.
None of the Democratic debates thus far in this cycle have come near the 24 million viewership figure posted by Donald Trump's first debate on Fox News in August of 2015, the most-watched debate from this cycle to date.
was the very first on NBC, which drew 15.3 million total viewers, while the Democratic debate record to beat is the 15.7, who tuned in for the CNN debate from the 2016 election cycle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Only seven candidates took the stage last night.
Eh, they go on and name it.
I don't care.
I didn't watch the debate.
I didn't.
It's the, you know, the previous debate that only got 6.5.
I had it on in the background, and then I muted it.
You know why?
I really don't care what they have to say.
Check this out.
New York Post.
Identity politics and minority candidates aren't winning over Democratic voters.
Well, we'll read a little bit about this, but I'll tell you what, man.
You know what I'm worried about?
I grew up, okay, and I actually experienced racism growing up, okay?
You know, it had happened.
And I grew up in a mixed-race area on the south side of Chicago, so I saw these things.
What's my biggest concern today?
Is it identity politics?
Not in the way they're framing it.
The way… Actually, I'm sorry.
It is the way they're framing it and what they're pushing, which is the problem I'm concerned about.
So, for someone like me, I look at them, I'm like, not only do I not like what you're saying, or do I not care for the most part, when I do listen, I'm like, I think you're wrong.
I think what you're pushing is dangerous.
So, I'll put it this way.
You know, it's really hard to have political discussions because everyone's always trying to own the other, but I had a conversation with David Pakman, and he asked me about identity politics, and I basically tried to explain it like, listen, there are some people who simplify the phrase identity politics to mean the authoritarian application of.
It's a colloquial expression.
So when I talk about civil rights and edited politics as a whole, I always try to make sure I say there are good aspects to it.
And what I'm really referring to is the authoritarian application of, you know, we're going to ban you because of the color of your skin, things like that.
If we're going to talk about saying you can't discriminate, I'm cool with that.
If we're going to talk about schools suing and being supported by the ACLU saying you can discriminate based on race, I'm not cool with that.
So when we say identity politics, we're talking about that.
Of course, everyone said Tim, you know, David owned Tim because Tim said identity politics or whatever, but it's stupid.
But the point is, the Democrats aren't offering me a solution.
They're offering me problems.
Do you understand this?
You know, you might not understand how I feel, and that's okay.
This is the issue.
Let's say, you know, maybe some of you are on the left and you're watching.
And you say, you're absolutely wrong about this.
These things are good.
Fine.
Maybe they're good.
Maybe they are.
But you need to listen to what I'm telling you.
I don't feel that way.
I don't see what they're doing as a good thing.
They're scary to me because I've dealt with these things.
So then it becomes kind of obvious.
You take minority individuals, mixed race people, you put them in front of this, and they don't like it.
Turns out, according to, you know, the Hidden Tribes report, it's mostly white people saying, we know what's better for you.
And sure enough, what was the debate stage?
There's a hashtag, debate so white.
Yes, it turns out it's the wealthy white progressives who know better than the minorities.
So when I see them go on stage and say, we're going to do all these things, I'm like, dude, dude, dude, I'm talking about making things worse for me.
You're freaking me out.
I don't want that.
I'm not going to support that.
But I think what it really comes down to is we've heard it, right?
We've heard it all.
When Donald Trump does a rally, people turn the TV on.
And you know, I got to be honest, even Fox, you know, yeah, even Fox, Doesn't air Trump rallies as much as they used to.
They used to do all of them.
Now they do some of them.
So I think what we're seeing, to be fair, to be completely fair to the Democrats, is that in the age of social media, do we really need all of these debates?
But I have to stop myself there and say, while I think that's a fair point, it doesn't address the issue of Donald Trump getting 24 million viewers in 2015.
In 2015, social media was in full swing.
And Trump certainly used it.
Obama used Facebook.
So we can't say social media is an excuse as to why no one cares about the Democrats.
When you factor that in, I think the only conclusion we have is that the Democrats are campaigning on things no one cares about.
They're saying nothing.
No one cares what they have to say because the reality is Americans don't care that Donald Trump is a bad guy.
And when I say that, I mean like his bad moral character, you know, mimicking body slamming people and calling people horse face.
They don't care.
They really don't.
Because, like I explained several times in the past few days, if you've got two people, one person's offering you a pat on the back and a handshake, and the other guy's, you know, insulting you but offering you $100 bills, I think we know which direction you're going to walk.
And you can say that's, you know, questioning the integrity of the American people and insulting.
No, no, no, no.
Hold on.
Let me tell you something.
How bad is it that Donald Trump is a mean person?
How bad is it if the economy fails?
And that's what it really comes down to.
It comes down to American voters saying, the Democrats have offered me nothing other than the risk that things get worse.
But I can accept someone saying horrible things and being bad if the larger outcome is an economy that's doing really, really well.
My kids are going to school.
I've got a job.
So in the end, I think the Democrats are looking for something to campaign on.
Donald Trump has the economy.
Donald Trump's foreign policy is, you know, in the middle.
Not perfect.
But, you know, it's less interventionist than we've seen from other people in some areas.
Trump is not perfect.
But then you think about what Democrats can campaign on.
Are they going to come out and say, we also agree with border security?
They can't do that.
Then people just vote for Trump.
What are they going to do?
Come out and say, the economy is going really great.
Vote for me anyway.
No, people will just vote for Trump.
So what do they do?
They come out and talk about identity politics and other nonsense.
Nobody cares.
It has no bearing on their lives.
I don't care.
I mean, actually, I'll put it the way I said a second ago.
It's actually freaky.
But anyway, you know, the point is, look.
This is it.
The Democrats were supposed to be there for the working class.
They were supposed to be there for, you know, helping you secure your labor rights.
They're not doing that anymore.
They're doing the opposite.
Joe Biden's saying we're going to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Hillary Clinton's saying she's going to shut down coal jobs.
If the Democrats want to come out and be the party for the ivory tower elites of New York City, congratulations, you've done it.
They're all there staring at you, but regular Americans don't care what you have to say anymore.
I don't know how the Democrats will recover from this.
It's entirely possible I, you know, this segment I've produced falls into the annals of history just like the RNC is over articles from 2015.
So sure, I recognize that.
But I can't shake the feeling that so long as the Democrats are not campaigning on what people in this country actually want, there won't be a Democratic Party that is of consequence.
Let me put it this way.
The viewerships, it's kind of a vote, right?
Trump gets 24 million viewers.
They want to hear what he has to say, love him or hate him.
Democrats, downward spiral.
Nobody cares anymore.
I think this is it.
What's going to happen in 2020?
They know they're going to get swept.
They know they're going to lose.
So they threw impeachment at the wall and said, you know.
Unless they can wrap their minds around a real manifesto, some real ideas, there's nothing but a fractured party that no one cares about.
No one cared what they had to say.
I want to repeat this one more time as I sign off.
Six million viewers.
Obviously there are some people who care, but in the end, for the most part, the American people are not interested In what the Democrats are selling.
Does not bode well for their future.
Stick around, I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I'll see you
all shortly.
One of their biggest talking points is that you're a failure, and you'll never succeed, and there's no chance in this world unless you vote for me.
Never trust the snake oil salesman who tells you, you can't do it, you need me, period.
In some instances, sure, you can't fly a plane, you need a pilot.
I get it.
But you see, all the time, the leftists saying, because of your race, because of your gender, because of some characteristic about you, you can't succeed.
Fake news.
The world is your oyster.
You just have to figure it out.
This is like Hacker 101.
The way I view the world is like a network of branches.
Sometimes when you're walking down one path you'll notice a door is locked.
Do you stand there and complain and stomp on your feet and say the door is locked, it's not fair?
Or do you say I need to find another way in and start looking around?
Well, if you follow the Democrats, they're going to tell you it's not your fault the door is locked, and you should sit there and plant your feet until someone opens that door for you.
Whereas, typically, the Republicans say, figure it out for yourself.
Now, I tend to fall a little bit to the left.
I believe you've got to fight for yourself, you've got to be successful.
But I do believe in, yeah, sometimes you might need help opening that door, and you might get stuck somewhere and need some help.
So I don't think it's about staunch meritocracy, but I do think it needs to be strongly meritocratic.
That brings me to Mr. Robert Reich, or however you pronounce his name.
He's a very, very anti-Trump guy.
He is a Berkeley professor, former Secretary of Labs at Inequality of Labor, I guess?
Inequality Media?
Whatever.
He says, Movies, Saving Capitalism, and Inequality for All on Netflix.
Books, The Common Good and Saving Capitalism.
Well, this guy is pretty lefty, and my understanding is he's pretty anti-Trump.
Here's what he tweeted.
Just a casual reminder that 60% of all wealth in America is inherited.
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps is a sham.
In fact, it is not a sham.
In fact, he is lying to you.
Or he's just stupid.
Maybe I shouldn't say stupid.
Ignorant or naive or he doesn't understand.
For me, I find it particularly offensive because, I don't know, I did pull myself up by my bootstraps.
I've been homeless several times.
I'm a high school dropout from the south side of Chicago.
And I worked hard, and I learned, and I studied, and I used libraries to go on the internet.
That's another reason why I lean lefty on a lot of these issues.
Libraries saved me.
They really helped.
Government programs, I've used them.
And that's why I think they're good things.
And that's the help that allowed me to fish.
I put it this way.
You can teach a man to fish, but if he doesn't have a fishing rod, he can't fish anyway, right?
So I'll tell you what.
Here's the compromise.
Don't give someone a fish.
Give them a fishing rod and teach them how to fish, right?
You're still giving them something.
You're still giving up something.
Outside of just knowledge.
And there's a quote here.
It's from Martin Luther King.
It says, Now, I'll be honest.
You can fish without a fishing rod.
up by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought
to lift himself up by his own bootstraps.
Now I'll be honest, you can fish without a fishing rod.
You can stand there so the animals, the fish, get accustomed to your presence and then dart
your arm in there and grab that fish and you've done it.
Yeah, kind of impractical.
Kind of difficult.
I think, you know what?
Let's teach people to fish, but then we also can figure out how to get them that fishing rod and put them on their way.
Because we do want to help, right?
Do not believe the person who tells you this.
Because let me show you a secret.
It's not a secret, but I guess it kind of is.
When he says, a casual reminder that 60% of all wealth in America is inherited, Well, here's the reality.
70% of rich families lose their wealth by the second generation.
I kid you not.
It's because the ability to build wealth is not something that you just have or you don't.
Just because someone gives you money doesn't mean you know how to maintain that wealth.
And there's this idea on the left that all rich people are unfairly rich.
Not the case.
Jeff Bezos was not a rich guy when he was... I don't know what his position is.
I mean, to an extent, they're like middle class and upper class people.
But I mean, he's a billionaire now.
When he got started, he was of more modest means.
He built up that wealth.
You know what ends up happening?
You get a rich person.
Then, you know, so I'll put it this way.
If I were to have kids, those kids would grow up much better than I grew up.
And so I'm very conscious of this.
So, well, I mean, honestly, I kind of don't, I don't really live all that well.
I mean, I have a house, but it's not like I'm Jeff Bezos or anything, an infinity pool, but it is true.
You know, I've been homeless and my, you know, my family had, we had a bankruptcy and we lost our home and things like that.
That's probably not something my kids would deal with, but we should probably use someone who has substantially more money, right?
So you look at a celebrity who grew up poor.
That's one of the biggest reasons why I think, within the second generation, 70% of rich families lose their wealth.
So you want to talk about wealth being transferred?
and so they really don't understand what it means to have nothing.
That's one of the biggest reasons why I think, within the second generation,
70% of rich families lose their wealth.
So you want to talk about wealth being transferred?
This is what they don't tell you.
Most of the time, the money is lost.
Because the understanding, you know, growing up in Squalor, learning that real hustle, so that you can save money, not needing an infinity pool in a penthouse in New York.
You save money.
You make money, you save it, eventually become wealthy, and then you can live in, you know, then you can have the infinity pool.
The kids who grew up without understanding true hardship become spoiled.
And they don't know how to make money because they just have it.
And then by the third generation, it's gone.
Let me read you this story.
This is important stuff.
They say...
When Stephen Lovell used to visit his grandparents as a kid, it was like entering the world of Cole Porter or The Great Gatsby.
People dressed in tuxedos and sipped cocktails.
They owned boats, airplanes, a hobby farm.
Not to mention a lavish mansion in Ontario, Canada, and a summer home in Southampton, New York.
This is an article from 2015, by the way.
He estimates that his grandfather, who founded the John Forsythe Shirt Co., had a fortune of at least $70 million in today's dollars.
But through a combination of bad decisions, bad luck, and alcohol dependency, the next generation squandered that money.
I think about it all the time, says Lovell, a financial planner in Walnut Creek, California.
Indeed, 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group Wealth Consultancy.
So this is one of the big, I'll be fair, I'll call it a misunderstanding of the left.
When he says 60% of all wealth is inherited, he wants you to imagine, you know, the wealthy lord from Britain, you know, coming over here on a fancy boat and giving his kids all his money, and those kids, and he wants you to believe that the old money goes back generations, hundreds and hundreds of years.
In reality, well, it's true.
Much of the wealth is inherited, especially because, you know, if you're somebody who bought a house, when you die, you pass that house on, right?
But the reality is, it's not one family.
It's not like ten families owning all the wealth.
There are certainly royal families.
You know what I mean?
There are certainly dynasties.
But most of the wealth being transferred is someone who comes from humble means, who did pick themselves up by their bootstraps to a certain degree, making a bunch of money, passing it to their children, who then squander it, and then those kids don't pass on very much of anything.
A different family then makes money and passes it on to their kids.
You see how it works?
This is why the American Dream is a real thing.
I come from very modest means and now I'm doing very, very well.
When I pass on and I give my inheritance away, they're going to look at me in that number as though high school dropout mixed-race South Sider from Chicago is old money.
You know what's really funny about this?
Let me explain something to you.
First of all, I want to make sure it's clear the point I'm trying to make is there is a solution to your problems and there's a path forward.
And maybe you can't see it and that's a challenge, but it exists.
You can do better.
During Occupy Wall Street, I had people say to me, we would have conversations, they'd say things like, man, you're the perfect example of how the system has failed.
You're like a bright guy, you're traveled, you know, you're honest, and where are you?
You know, no good job, you know, high school dropouts, South Side of Chicago, that proves it.
Mixed race, that proves it.
Patriarchy, white supremacy.
Up until some people started writing magazines about me.
See, it's really funny.
They like to praise me, saying, see, you're a good example of the problems in the system.
Shouldn't someone as smart and honest as you be successful?
System is broken.
What happened in a month or two, when they were correct, and I became more successful?
All of a sudden now, these people started saying that I was white-privileged, silver-spoon-in-my-mouth, trust fund kid, and that's why I'm successful.
Others just accused me of working for the federal government.
It was funny how the same people wanted to use me as evidence of their ideology, and then when it proved their ideology wrong, they claimed I came from extremely wealthy beginnings, which is absolutely not true.
My family, we lost our home in a bankruptcy.
I had to move around.
I've been homeless several times.
No, the reality is they don't want to admit it.
They don't want to admit that it's their fault.
Or they don't want to admit that, look, I gotta be honest, not everyone is going to have the skills or ability or the energy to run a Fortune 500 company or to be the best of the best and to be the wealthiest.
Some people might only ever be really good at making cheeseburgers.
You know what?
I don't think less of anybody because they have to be a janitor.
I think it is wrong to look down upon someone simply because they're a janitor.
To me, it's not about how much money you make.
It's not about the status you have.
It's about your willingness to work hard.
And that's really what it comes down to.
I have so much more respect for a cleaner.
A local who goes on Craigslist and says, I will clean your house.
You know why?
These are people who say, Look, I don't have all of the skills in the world.
I can't perform neurosurgery.
But you know what I can do?
I can clean someone's house.
And so I will offer up that service, and I will work hard, and I will do my best.
And maybe they will never own a massive cleaning empire, but they're willing to work hard to succeed, and they deserve so much more than the whiny people complaining about how they deserve the means of production.
Or the people who would lie to you and say, you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
It's a sham.
So let me break it down for you.
Mr. Reich, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, it's not a sham.
It is true, not everybody has boots.
So the way I view the world is, I actually lean left on this.
I will absolutely buy you a pair of boots, and I will do my best to give you, to teach you perseverance, to explain to you how to succeed, to teach you to fish.
If I see someone sitting by the creek and they're saying, I'm hungry, I'll say, you know what?
Take my fishing pole, let me show you how to use it, and from now on, you can make sure, here's what you gotta do.
First, you've got to catch some fish.
Don't eat all the fish.
Sell some of the fish.
Trade some of the fish.
And make sure you have enough for a backup fishing rod so if yours breaks, you can go out and fish again.
In the worst case scenario, if a storm comes and a flood comes and destroys that fishing rod, come back and I will do my best to help you because I can.
So I'm a bit of a lefty.
I like these programs.
But the reality is, the truth is closer to the middle.
You can pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have boots.
And you know what?
Most people do.
Most people have the means to succeed.
Not everybody though.
So I like to help those who don't.
But if you're going to go around telling people they can never succeed, you are creating the problem.
You are worse.
than those who would tell someone without boots.
I would rather, I would rather see people saying, I don't care if you have boots or not,
you need to figure it out, you need to pull yourself up, than a bunch of people saying you can never do it.
Because at the very least, even if you didn't have the bootstraps,
which is, it's a metaphor for the means of the resources, you can be homeless, you can have no clothes,
You can be in the middle of the woods.
But you can pick up a rock and, congratulations, now you've got something.
You can start doing something.
Go watch Ancient Technology on YouTube.
I love these channels.
He built a mud hut in an oven.
He got a house!
He builds a house.
It's amazing.
Out of dirt.
Dirt and mud and fire.
Brilliant.
Absolutely brilliant.
And people don't want to accept it.
They get mad when I argue against the socialists who think they should take the means of production.
And I'm like, no, man.
Somebody built that.
You might not like the way it was built or how the system functions, but you are responsible for yourself.
And it is possible.
But the problem is people like this who tell you it's not.
Don't listen to them.
It's entirely possible to improve your life.
There may be an upper limit.
You might not be smart enough.
You might need a million dollars from your dad.
Maybe it'll never be possible.
But don't be jealous.
Look to other people.
Figure out how they got where they are.
If you're looking at someone who got somewhere unfairly because they didn't inherit their wealth, don't look at that person.
Look at the person who built an empire or who built a small business.
Figure out what they did, ask them for advice, and you too can succeed.
Ignore the haters who want to hold you down.
The only reason they want to tell you you can't do it is so that you swear your allegiance to them thinking you must be dependent upon their system.
Not true.
You can teach yourself how to fish.
You can figure it out.
But I do agree with helping people.
Just don't listen to these liars.
Stick around.
I got another segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The Space Force is official.
And I gotta admit, it's actually really, really cool.
For some reason, there are a lot of people ragging on Trump for wanting a Space Force.
And I gotta admit, this is the coolest thing Trump has ever done.
And I've been very critical of the guy in terms of foreign policy and military and stuff like that, right?
And again, I know, I know, nuance.
Everybody's gonna freak out.
No, I give him credit where it's credit's due, but I think he's following a long line of stupid foreign policy.
He's a little bit better in some ways than Obama was, but come on, man.
Tomahawk missiles, Yemen raids, you know, commando raids, drones strike.
Look, I could go on a million years.
I don't want to, though.
Because at this point, I want to say something cool.
The Space Force, I imagine in the future, is going to be so dramatically different, but it's awesome that we're now entering what was once considered just to be like a sci-fi, just a sci-fi future, you know, not real, not a real thing.
You know, we have all these shows, you know, you have Starfleet and Star Trek and you have sci-fi movies where there's like a fleet in outer space.
This is the beginning of that, okay?
So you might not like the Orange Man, that's fine, but think about what this means after the Orange Man is gone and how we can improve this and actually start Colonizing the stars.
This is where it begins.
Massive investment into space infrastructure.
Could you imagine a child today, okay, somebody who's like six or seven years old and they're asked what they want to be when they grow up and they say, I want to serve in the Space Force and I want to be a rocket plane pilot.
You know, we have people say, I want to be a fighter pilot when I grow up.
I want to get my wings.
What about your propulsion jets?
Where can this go?
This is cool stuff.
Let's read the story.
And here's what that means from the Air Force Times.
Air Force officials on Friday told reporters that people are clamoring for information on how to join the military's latest branch.
The short answer is, they're going to have to wait a while.
President Trump officially signed the Space Force into law on Friday.
But now, all that means is everyone at Air Force Space Command will now be assigned Space Force.
Over the next 18 months, officials said, finer details of manning and training the new branch will be hammered out and set in motion.
Quote, It's going to be really important that we get this right.
A uniform, a patch, a song.
It gets to the culture of a service.
said Air Force General Jay Raymond, the head of Air Force Space Command and U.S.
Space Command, who will lead Space Force until a Chief of Space Operations is confirmed by the Senate.
There's a lot of work going on toward that end.
It's going to take a long time to get to that point, but that's not something we're going to roll out on day one.
I'm very critical of a lot of things America does in terms of foreign policy.
I have no opinion in terms of what America is doing in terms of space policy, because we don't really have that intergalactic, interstellar solar policy.
What would you describe it, right?
Are we going to get to a point?
Okay, okay, we got to do this, right?
Think about, you know, 15, 20 years from now, we're going to be like, President Johnson, okay?
I think his space policy is nuts.
You know the thing he's proposing with the moon base and Mars launching?
It's a waste of money.
Or think about this in 20 years.
President Johnson, he wants to build a border barrier on the moon to separate the U.S.
colonies from the China colonies, and I think it's a mistake.
I know you might have issues with the idea of a wall.
I just think it'd be a cool conversation to have.
I'm looking towards the future, and I think right now there's gonna be a lot of young people, a lot of kids, who are seeing that sci-fi dream, that Star Trek future.
I know it's very different, but this is the real-life version of it.
Some people have criticized it, saying, you know, the Air Force already did this.
There's a big difference between the Air Force and the Space Force, and I get it.
They could argue, you know, the Air Force could eventually become the Space Force because it's just about, you know, up.
But I'm thinking about 50 to 100 years from now, right?
What technology will bring us?
Will we eventually discover some kind of propulsion technology that doesn't require hard fuel, like, you know, like massive fuels?
Like, look at this ship, you know?
To get into space requires a lot of energy.
Will we eventually get some kind of like low energy alternative, maybe some kind of anti-grav technology or something?
And if that's the case, we might actually have territories in outer space.
Yeah, the Air Force not gonna deal with that.
You could argue the Space Force gets, you know, technologically advanced enough to the point where if we have ships that can float around like the UFOs do, then they could essentially be our Air Force anyway.
So fine, maybe in the future, it'll become obsolete or they'll just adopt similar technologies.
And I'll tell you this, you know, the Army has boats, right?
People might be like, but I thought the Navy, oh no, the Army has, I think the Army has more boats than the Navy.
But the Navy has the big, crazy boats.
That's my understanding.
So I wanna, okay, so this is fun, right?
But we're gonna have a little bit more fun, because I'm not gonna sit here and just tell you about the Space Force.
I wanna dive into the mysteries in this world, and the reason why some conspiracists may think the Space Force was really being formed, and what's really going on behind the scenes.
Now, let me stop here.
This is serious.
The Space Force is cool.
I'm excited to see what this becomes.
So far, so good.
Okay?
You don't gotta like the President to recognize Space Force is cool.
I don't know why people are getting all angry.
They hate Trump so much.
We got the Space Force, dude.
That's awesome.
But now let's have some fun.
And I want to preface this by saying I am not here to push stupid conspiracies or anything.
I'm just here to have a little fun with these UFO stories.
You see, over the past year or two, there have been an expansion of stories about UFOs.
Incredible ones.
And I've talked about them because I love talking about things that are kind of unknown.
I might launch a… we're preparing a different podcast to take all of these stories that we can't solve.
You know, basically the point of news is to be like, here's what we know.
These stories are to be like, here's what we don't know, right?
Quote, it did not obey the laws of physics.
Pilot who spotted famous tic-tac UFO breaks silence after 15 years.
It was going from like 50,000 feet to 100 feet in like seconds, which is not possible.
You see, this story is new.
This story just came out.
Some people believe that over the past few years, the reason we've seen credible stories about UFOs is that aliens are real.
Yes, and that the governments of the world need to get us warmed up to the idea.
All of a sudden, at the same time, a space force emerges.
So we can play silly games and act like, you know, the aliens are really here.
No, no, no.
I'll walk on that back.
But I will say, there is something interesting that should be mentioned.
That we have an uptick in all of these credible stories about UFOs.
Navy pilots going back years saying, this is real.
And then all of a sudden, a space force being signed into law.
Is it possible that in reality it's not about aliens?
It's about the fact that the U.S.
government is recognizing, finally, and they are, that there is something happening in space and in the atmosphere we can't understand.
And we're going to need to invest and investigate what's going on.
We're going to need to invest in a space force that can actually deal with this in a much better way.
If it's, you know, I think the fairest assessment, if we're going to combine the stories, is that for the past several decades, we've learned that there have been credible sightings from servicemen saying, we see weird things, these tic-tacs that don't obey the laws of physics.
Now you've got Trump saying, perhaps we should have a Space Force, because for whatever this is, we don't know, we should be exploring this area.
You see, the Air Force was always about The air.
Not above it.
Maybe there's something that needs to be looked at.
So this is a story about a U.S.
fighter pilot whose plane filmed the famous and still unexplained tic-tac UFO footage, and he has spoken for the first time about his close encounter.
Chad Underwood broke 15 years of silence on the subject, describing the object he recorded over the Pacific Ocean as not behaving within the normal laws of physics.
He said it was going from, like, 50,000 feet to 100 feet in seconds, which is not possible.
No, no, no, no.
I'm sorry.
It is possible.
We just don't know how to do it yet.
You know, there are some people that argue that anything is possible.
It's just a matter of figuring it out.
So perhaps we're looking at technology we don't understand.
Perhaps it's as simple as saying that Russia developed a technology we don't know about.
Or it's American technology from an undisclosed branch of government we don't know about.
Perhaps.
This is actually part of a black operations space force, and this technology will now be rolled out to the public over time.
So there's a few conspiracies we can entertain, right?
Is it possible that the U.S.
government is scared, whatever these things are, and wants to launch a space force?
Is it possible that these are actually made by the United States in secret, and now, because we want to start using them to show our military might, We need to explain how they actually, you know, how they could come to exist.
Perhaps now at the Space Force, in the next few years, they're going to be like, look at this thing we built, even though we've already had the technology for a long time.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I just like the idea.
I think it's fun.
I'm not telling you it's true.
unidentified
I know all the stupid lefties are going to be like, Tim pushes UFO conspiracies all the time.
The Tic Tac, so called because of its rounded shape and white color, was caught on video as the U.S.
Navy attempted to identify a series of objects spotted on radar flying off America's west coast in November 2004.
The authenticity of the film, which was first made public in 2017, was finally confirmed by the Pentagon earlier this year.
Officials said they still have no idea what the recorded object was.
Weather phenomenon, man-made craft, and birds have all been ruled out.
So I'll put it this way.
Imagine you're Donald Trump.
You watch Fox News all the time.
You're not the most sophisticated person on the planet.
And you hear news about UFOs.
And then he probably turns to Pence and the other people and says, what are these things?
Do we know what this is?
And they said, we don't.
One of the funniest jokes, I think it was on Joe Rogan, they said, if aliens were real, Donald Trump, you think he could keep his mouth shut about this stuff?
No.
I think this is what we're seeing.
I think this is it.
Let me tell you.
If aliens existed and the U.S.
knew about it, yeah, Trump would be like, we got aliens!
And he'd just blurt it out.
And he'd talk all about it.
He's not, though.
Which says to me, probably not the case.
And I think, you know, he said something in the fact of like, you know, they did release a bunch of UFO documents.
And he said it wasn't, but I'll tell you this.
Here's what I imagine.
These stories get prominent, just because they're interesting, not because it's new or whatever, but, you know, the Pentagon recognizes it.
And there's Trump sitting down, and he sees on the news, they say something about UFOs, and he looks over and says, do we know what these things are?
And they say, Mr. President, we don't.
We don't know what this was.
And then he probably says something like, shouldn't we?
And they're like, we probably should.
And he goes, well, what are we doing?
How do we deal with this stuff?
And they're like, the Air Force typically deals with it.
And then Trump probably said, what about space?
What if they're UFOs?
Let's do a Space Force.
And they went, oh, yeah.
So I do think it's connected, right?
But I don't know what these objects are.
I'm not going to speculate and play games.
I just think it's fun.
I think it's cool that we finally have a Space Force.
I think it's cool that, you know, finally there's something that I think young people can aspire to as kind of a common vision.
You know, when the United States went to the moon, this was like an American thing.
Everybody was like, we're going to do it.
What are Americans unified by today?
Nothing, really.
I mean, people even hate the Space Force, which is dumb.
It is an expensive, you know, package, so I can criticize the expense, for sure.
But you know what?
If we're gonna spend money on anything related to the military... Wait, wait, let me stop.
My biggest problem with taxes is not taxes.
It's the taxes that go to war.
I'll tell you what.
If you take my tax money, and you build spaceships, space colonies, you know, moon colonies and stuff...
Can I give you more money to do it?
Like, I would gladly pay more for people to go and do these things.
I'd love to see, you know, a human colony on Mars and the moon.
