Democrats And Left PANICKING Over Alex Jones Banning Saying Lawsuit Proves HE ONLY GOT STRONGER
Democrats And Left PANICKING Over Alex Jones Banning Saying Lawsuit Proves HE ONLY GOT STRONGER. Claims that Alex Jones is making more money since he got banned has been refuted by Jones but left and establishment activists warn he cannot be stopped.
Now the media is admitting that banning alex jones was about ending his career and even in the lawsuit they asked that the jury destroy his platform.
The reality is that Democrats will be crushed in the midterms and the machine will do anything it can to stop this. Alex Jones and the censorship of Alex Berenson prove winning is not only possible but extremely likely.
#democrats
#trump
#republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats and the elites are panicking after realizing banning Alex Jones is not stopping him.
They actually argue he's gotten stronger.
But they admit the goal of banning him was to destroy his career.
In this court case, they said they wanted to end his platform.
This seems political.
They know they will lose, and they're doing everything they can to prevent a midterm defeat.
In our next story, the DOJ gave Trump his passports back, or at least they're offering his passports back, proving CBS News was wrong and they did not correct.
I'd argue that suggests they lied.
In our last story, in Minneapolis, a new teachers union deal says white teachers will be fired first if layoffs happen, which is illegal.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
story.
They would not need to try to indict Donald Trump or raid his home.
The reality is, as the midterm election nears, there is a very real possibility that the establishment political class is removed from power, at least more and more with every passing year.
The Republicans might win in November.
That's what polling suggests.
But still, you've got a lot of uniparty establishment Republicans.
But one by one, they're losing their primaries.
And today, Liz Cheney may lose her primary election.
I don't know what exactly will happen, but the polls are suggesting Liz Cheney will find her way out.
Right now we have a story from Bloomberg.
Says being thrown off social media was supposed to end Alex Jones' career.
It made him even richer.
Revelations from his defamation trials show the limits of deplatforming and the greed of Facebook and its peers.
Now, Alex Jones has insisted he's bankrupt.
He has no money.
Alex has commented to me on a similar story that we reported on only a few weeks ago at TimCast.rl that these are not true stories.
He does not have this money, he is not making as much money as they're claiming, and he is bankrupt.
That may be the case.
And I have no problem saying that's what Alex Jones is claiming.
I don't know for sure.
I have no reason to believe no evidence that is secretly worth $270 million.
I would say, however, I'd be really surprised if Alex did not seek to protect his assets knowing this lawsuit was coming for some time.
We have a story from the New York Post that He signed over some property to his wife.
That doesn't mean he's trying to obfuscate his finances, although that's what the left is claiming, but it does show that he did transfer some money to outside parties.
The purpose of this segment?
Well, I don't know for sure how much money Alex Jones has.
I can tell you this.
One, they don't feel like they're winning.
This is them basically panicking.
They hear reports that Alex Jones is still making money, and they're saying, how is this possible?
It was supposed to end his career!
Hey, wait a minute.
That's a stunning admission.
It wasn't supposed to end his career.
It was supposed to stop him from engaging in violent rhetoric.
I thought the real issue was that he was engaging in violent rhetoric.
No.
You see, the reality is Alex Jones, for all of his faults, and for the things that he's gotten wrong in the past, he's gotten some big stories right, notably Epstein.
And that matters.
He was also a major vehicle for supporting Donald Trump.
And I think what we're seeing here with this story is that they know they can't win.
In the long run, at least.
So I'm not a fan of the narrative about fraud and cheating.
The reality is Trump won in 2016.
And 2018, they came after Alex Jones, they came after people like Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, some of the most prominent Trump supporters and loudest voices were completely removed from the internet.
And they said, this will do it!
And then it didn't.
And according to Bloomberg, Alex Jones has got more success than ever.
And they're angry about it.
Now, maybe it's not true.
Maybe Alex is right.
He's not got the money.
But what we can see here from this story is, at the very least, the perception among the elites is that they haven't been able to stop the man.
And Alex Jones is a powerful vehicle for, say, Donald Trump or other MAGA Republican types.
Perhaps Ron DeSantis, maybe not.
They're trying everything they can to make sure that they don't lose.
But it looks like, still, they're going to lose.
They would love to eliminate all independent media, but they can't do it.
Canceling people does not work.
Now, I'll stress it again.
I don't know how much money Alex Jones has.
He says he doesn't.
He doesn't have a lot.
But this story, if it is true, if Alex is not being truthful, which I kind of don't think this is true to be completely honest.
I think Alex has probably got some money tucked away.
But if this is true, it just goes to show Their defeat is imminent.
The establishment elites, the uniparty political class, their time is coming and there is nothing they can do to stop it.
In another story, we have Tucker Carlson bringing on Alex Berenson.
He is going to be suing because the White House sought his suspension from Twitter.
That is direct government intervention and a violation of the First Amendment.
You can see.
If they really had it in the bag, and they were guaranteed the win, and they had the power that some of these conspiracy theorists think they have, it would not be necessary to so desperately try to silence people.
But they're still failing.
Alex Berenson is back on Twitter, and now he's going to be suing.
So this, my friends, should be a tremendous white pill for all of you.
If you believe, and that is important, and you tell each and every one of your friends to go vote, not only will you remove the establishment trash through primaries, you will win in the general elections.
Let's read this story and see what they're saying about Alex Jones.
They're saying it's only made him stronger!
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to support our work, and you'll get access to the TimCast IRL uncensored after-hours show.
Last night's uncensored show was very spicy and very not family-friendly.
Had to do with dogs?
And Monkeypox.
And I'm gonna leave it at that to try and keep this show family-friendly.
But check it out at TimCast.com.
Directly supporting our work is helping make sure that independent media can continue to fight back and keep growing.
And we are.
And it's all thanks to you.
So again, TimCast.com.
Click the Members Only button or the Join Us button.
Sign up.
Check out our shows.
Smash that Like button.
Subscribe to this channel.
Share this video if you can.
Let's read the first story from Bloomberg.
They say, Has there ever been anyone more worthy of cancellation than Alex Jones?
Are you asking?
Because I can say, well, probably no.
I don't like the idea of cancellation due to bad opinions.
But if you're talking about the spreading of misinformation, I can start with CNN.
MSNBC.
ABC.
NBC.
CBS.
Oh, the list goes on.
How about the New York Times?
How about Iraq, and the invasion, and Afghanistan, and oh boy, the list goes on.
How about the covering up of the Holodomor?
Mmm, Pulitzer Prize winning awards.
How about all the Russiagate lies?
You don't want to try me, Bloomberg, but let's read.
Over almost 30 years, the far-right radio host and professional conspiracy theorist built a career, an audience of millions, and an astonishing fortune by spreading lies about acts of mass violence and their victims.
No, I mean, that is...
Man, you're getting me into this.
Alex Jones has talked about everything.
This is just—wow, they're really trying to go after Jones.
I'll put it this way, too, as we read this.
The goal of claiming Alex is wealthy as he is, it's probably because they're desperate to stop him.
They need to keep piling on.
They say.
On public access TV in Austin, it was the Oklahoma City bombing.
On radio and mail-order DVDs, he claimed the Bush administration orchestrated the 9-11 attacks.
And most notoriously, as an internet broadcaster with enormous followings on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, Jones upped the ante, focusing his lies on victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.
I am not a fan of these narratives.
However, I have something to say to everyone.
They say, Tim, aren't you mad about the fake news of Alex Jones?
And I'm like, what's the difference between what he says and what any other news outlet is doing?
The difference?
These mainstream corporate news organizations have zero accountability and Alex Jones gets run through the coals non-stop, all day, every day.
He's never been, he's always been under fire for the things he said.
In fact, I have heavily criticized Alex Jones over the past several years.
But hey, the man is still willing to come down and have a conversation, and he was right on some of the most important stories.
I'll say it again, Epstein.
Now, they say, to state the obvious, this cruel, cynical, engrossed, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, come on, come on, let's get to the point.
They mention that he was recently sued, and a jury was awarded $49 million.
The total, I believe, was $49.3 million.
Now, that is capped, so Jones is not going to be paying that much.
They say Apple, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter, and YouTube all banned Jones' company, InfoWars, and took down many of its recorded broadcasts in the summer of 2018 after Jones threatened then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Each platform gave a slightly different reason, generally citing unspecified content policy violations.
And it all happened around the exact same time.
Twitter, of course, I think, waited a couple weeks.
Facebook insisted its ban had nothing to do with Jones's conspiracy theories.
The company banned Jones personally the following year.
The deplatforming was supposed to relegate Jones to obscurity.
The move was denounced by conservatives and treated as a welcome, if overdue, shift by victims, rights advocates, and liberals.
Media outlets published professional obituaries and suggested that the treatment of Jones provided an example of the tech companies to follow.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Like, if you're in a prison, you're still on earth.
He said in court, you don't have a voice anymore.
But as the trial revealed, none of this is true.
Jones' audience didn't disappear after the platforming, and his business was more lucrative than ever.
According to testimony from Bernard Pettingill, Jr., a forensic economist who testified on behalf
of Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, Jesse's parents, Jones's company's recorded revenue
of $64.9 million last year, up from about $53 million in annual revenue as of 2018.
Pettingill based his analysis on InfoWard's records and Jones's testimony and estimated
his net worth as high as $270 million.
Lawyers for Jones disputed the analysis.
Alex has personally told me this is not true.
He has commented saying, it is not true, he is broke, he is bankrupt.
I don't trust the corporate press.
And Alex has stated, you know, that he doesn't have the money.
So, I'm going to leave it to you to decide who you think is telling the truth.
I'm not saying I think Alex is being completely honest, but I think he may be, on the surface, honest.
Like, yeah, maybe he's broke and he's bankrupt, but I have to imagine Alex put money somewhere.
Maybe he put it in a trust for his kids.
So, he is broke.
He can't touch the money if it's an irrevocable trust.
His kids will get it when they turn a certain age, but he doesn't have the cash.
There was a story from the New York Post about him transferring property to his wife in February, which we'll go through.
They want to mention his net worth could be as high as $270 million.
But I want to make one point.
Alex may have made that money, maybe not.
It may have been that Alex had, in his records released in Discovery, he may have generated this in sales, it's revenue, but it's not gross revenue.
It's net revenue.
Or is it the other way around?
I'm sorry, it's not net revenue, it's gross revenue.
Whichever.
You get the point.
The point is, if it costs me $60,000,000 to manufacture birdhouses, and I sell them, and I make a $5,000,000 profit, the reality is that Jones may have made $5,000,000 and generated $65,000,000.
So they can argue to people who don't understand finance that Alex Jones is very, very wealthy.
He had revenue of $65,000,000!
And it's like, yeah, but what was his profit margin?
Was it really that high?
Now, we don't know.
It's possible that it wasn't.
And if you look at what Jones is claiming, probably not.
However, I want to make sure this is pointed out as well.
His profit margin may actually be decent on the sales of his, you know, of his Supplements, but then what about staff?
What about building costs?
What about equipment electricity internet all of that stuff?
We don't know what we do know is they've taken a look at his records, and they're freaking out that he's not been destroyed at the very least I What this looks like to me one?
Alex should not have made claims about private individuals who were victimized.
I don't agree with his 9-11 narratives or anything like that, and I've read all about them.
Since I was a kid, I've been on the internet.
I've read all this stuff.
I've watched all the documentaries.
I don't agree with unsubstantiated claims from anybody.
I don't care who they come from.
Now, you can point out inconsistencies, oddities, or stories that don't make sense when it pertains to, you know, Oklahoma City or 9-11 or whatever.
But it doesn't prove, you know, inside job theories or anything like that.
And it's fair to say, if you believe the official story outright from the U.S.
government, well then I think You're naive.
The government is not going to come out and just say, here's how our security was bypassed.
They're going to be like, here's as much as we can say, and they're going to call it the official story.
And it may be, there's a lot of details, it's highly likely, that they did not release to the public because they're top secret, classified, etc.
Why would the US government come out and be like, hey everybody, here's the roadmap to how they actually bypassed security and took out two of our buildings and killed thousands?
So the story may not add up for that reason.
I don't know what else to say beyond that.
I don't like conspiracy theories.
That being said, Alex Jones has been run through the coals by the establishment.
What I think we're seeing here with the trial against him and this story is that they cannot defeat him.
No matter what they do.
No matter what they do.
And they're going to say that, you know, blah blah blah, he's a demagogue and his fans won't quit.
That's right.
There is nothing you can do to stop this man.
You can sue him into oblivion.
You can take all the stuff and the man can get his cell phone and just start talking.
And he won't go away.
So they try as they might.
The main point I want to drive home with this story is, regardless of what you think about Alex, about his finances, the reality is, they think they're going to lose.
They go on to say, See, this is the amazing thing they do to lie to you.
on your taste in demagogues is somewhere between clownish and totally reprehensible, and whose
obsessions include the prospect that the Pentagon has been putting chemicals in drinking water
to turn the frickin' frogs gay—no—can be evident.
See this is the amazing thing they do to lie to you.
Alex Jones was talking about a report.
I believe it was a pesticide.
I could be wrong.
In official filings, we saw that it was interfering with endocrine systems of frogs.
The speculation beyond that, the conspiracy theory or the hypothesis, is that it would do the same to humans.
Now, just because it's doing to frogs doesn't mean it'll happen to humans, and I believe this study was eventually retracted, saying, like, you know, we're probably wrong about that.
But regardless, they try and make it seem like an off-the-cuff statement in jest was some kind of fact-based statement.
They say, you have some people who come to him for entertainment, like he's South Park, and you have people who laugh at him.
And that's true.
And then there are the people who buy everything he says.
Well, if you're referencing the turning the frogs thing, gay, and we're smart enough to discern what Jones is actually talking about, hmm.
If you're talking about the chimeras and 5G towers and all that stuff, I'm like, yeah, that stuff's just nuts.
But I think, regardless of your opinion, When I look at the mainstream press with a smiling face and a suit lying to us and getting things wrong and refusing to correct, then I just say, what's the difference, man?
They call it the lie economy.
I covered this in an earlier segment and I'll talk about it further listening on the podcast.
But I just... I say, is the story real or fake?
Can you back it up with sources?
And I'll take the story into consideration.
I do look at some sources as more credible than others.
That's a reality.
In the end, Alex Jones is a powerful voice.
That is, helping Donald Trump and Trump supporters.
And this whole story and everything they're saying says to me again, they expect he'll win.
They say, on August 11th, just days before the jury's verdict, Free Speech Systems reported to a bankruptcy judge that it experienced a sudden surge of product sales.
It now says revenue could reach close to half of a million dollars a day.
Now, I don't know if any of that's true because I don't trust these corporate organizations.
But I do think there's something to be said about Alex Jones' wealth.
So, let me issue a blur here before jumping to this next story.
Alex Jones transferred real estate to his wife amid $45 million lawsuit.
This is from the New York Post.
I think Alex Jones probably has cash.
And what I mean by that is, I think he probably transferred money out.
It's not his anymore and so he is probably broke.
But they're trying to argue that many on the left are saying that these transfers were no good.
In a document they mention that he transferred what is said to be around 20% of a property that's valued at a couple million dollars to his wife.
They then go on to mention all his properties and I blurred them because they're actually showing Alex's home and I think that's just not okay.
You'd have to be naive to think Alex didn't transfer wealth out.
Now, in the comment section on this article, they're saying, it will be nullified, it's a fraudulent transaction.
Let me see what the comments are exactly saying, because I think it's funny.
They don't understand this.
You cannot stop this, man.
One person said, this is what's known as a fraudulent transfer, which can and will be nullified and reversed.
I really doubt it.
Maybe because it was to his wife.
But I will stress, you cannot stop Alex Jones.
There is nothing you can do to stop him.
He is Alex Jones.
Canceling doesn't work.
Banning people doesn't work.
I have said it over and over again.
You've got Truth Social, Gab, Parler, Getter, Minds.com.
Alex Jones made his own video platform with numerous shows.
And his clips still get hundreds of thousands of views.
That's what he was getting on YouTube.
Now, he was getting millions on YouTube across the board because he was producing a lot of content.
I don't know what he's getting now on his Band.Video.
But people listen to him because they like his content.
A lot of people buy his products.
They will keep trying because they have to stop him.
Which brings me to where we go from here.
From Fox News, Alex Berenson, I plan to sue the White House over Twitter ban.
The White House allegedly asked why Berenson wasn't banned from the platform.
From Tucker Carlson's show, Alex Berenson said, I plan to sue the White House and probably other individuals too.
I told you about at this time that I was going to sue Twitter and have people mock that.
This federal judge was appointed by Bill Clinton, a reasonably good case, and that led to my being reinstated on Twitter a few weeks ago.
Or Twitter reinstating me.
They were forced into a settlement.
I went to the Lighthouse.
I think I have proof that they violated my First Amendment rights.
Forced Twitter to act as a paid actor, essentially an arm of the federal government.
And that right there may have opened the door across the board.
I have obtained these documents.
I will have this in soon.
But I think when a party shall... I think when a party shall is that this... Okay, that's a typo.
What is it?
This case will survive a motion to be dismissed, and there will be a discovery deposition.
People inside and outside the White House will probably ask questions not just about me, but about other people on the platform in the last year or two.
Alex Jones, perhaps?
I think that's a question that absolutely needs to be asked.
I would bet a gentleman's bet—we won't make it about money—a gentleman's bet, a wager, of nothing but our honor, that the White House, or elements of the government, had been pressuring Twitter to ban Alex Jones, and Milo, and Laura Loomer, and other individuals who are prominent Trump supporters.
This is what I think one of the biggest revelations, the story.
Because now we can see Twitter plan to fight midterm misinformation falls short, voting right experts say.
How much do you want to bet that the White House, that Democrats are putting pressure on Twitter to manipulate and censor information about the midterms, and that Twitter is saying, yes!
Alex, we need your lawsuit now, not tomorrow.
Well, we need it yesterday.
We need this to move quickly because we need these depositions before November.
I really doubt it'll happen, but to be fair, Alex's lawsuit, I think it took like six to eight months, so we may get a response fairly quickly if he files a lawsuit and the White House does respond.
It may happen actually fairly quickly.
He'll need to file this ASAP, and I think that's something that needs to happen now because the pressure is on.
Special interest groups are demanding Twitter censor more information, and we know that they censored the Hunter Biden laptop story.
And the Hunter Biden laptop story was true.
Verified by several different outlets.
Reuters reports.
Twitter on Thursday set out a plan to combat the spread of election misinformation that revives previous strategies.
But civil and voting rights experts said it would fall short of what is needed to prepare for the upcoming U.S.
midterm elections.
The social media company said it will apply its civic integrity policy, introduced in 2018, to the November 8 midterms, when numerous U.S.
Senate and House of Representative seats will be up for election.
The policy relies on labeling or removing posts with misleading content, focused on messages intended to stop voting or claims intended to undermine public confidence in an election, which is all just subjective.
In a statement, Twitter said it has taken numerous steps in recent months to elevate reliable sources about primaries and voting processes.
Applying a label to a tweet also means the content is not recommended or distributed to more users.
The San Francisco-based company is currently in a legal battle with billionaire Elon Musk over his attempt to walk away from his $44 billion deal to acquire Twitter.
Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist and has said Twitter posts should only be removed if there is illegal content, a view supported by many in the tech industry.
But civil rights and online misinformation experts have long accused social media and tech platforms of not doing enough to prevent the spread of false content, including the idea that President Biden did not win the 2020 election.
I'll put it this way for everybody.
Joe Biden won, but it was because people voted against Donald Trump.
I think too many Trump supporters unwilling to see that or at least steel man their rivals.
It's indicative of a defeat for a while.
We saw that Republicans in the generic ballot were leading substantially, up to like five points.
Now it's neck and neck.
And too many Trump supporters and conservatives are like, no, it can't be real.
The polls are wrong.
And I'm like, dude, it doesn't matter if you think they're wrong.
You have to act as though they are right.
Period.
You need to overwhelm the system with a red wave, a red great flood.
Each and every one of you who believes in America and American values needs to get 3, 5, 10 of your friends to go out and vote regardless of what you think may or will happen and then you will win.
As evidenced by Carrie Lake's victory in the primary.
As evidenced by Donald Trump's 2016 victory.
They want you demoralized.
The machine wants you to think you can't win when you can.
I think South Park did a great commentary on the whole 9-11 stuff.
The analogy they gave was that the conspiracy theory was actually that the Bush administration was pushing the conspiracy theory to convince everyone their power was absolute.
Because it's not!
This is what I was talking about yesterday.
We had Nick Cersian advocating the idea that there was cheating in the election in 2020.
I'm like, well, look, Bill Burr said that there was fraud.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
He said there was fraud, but was there enough to change the election?
I think it's the wrong question.
I think the main issue is, if you truly believe that you can't win, the demoralization will stop you from winning.
That's reality.
Donald Trump comes out and claims all this fraud stuff, and then what happens in Georgia?
His voters didn't turn out!
And then the Democrats won.
So you know what?
Fine.
Believe whatever you want.
I don't think so.
I think people hated Trump.
I think COVID destroyed all of our entertainment activities.
Sports were gone.
Movies were shut down.
There was nothing to do.
Businesses were closing.
People all over the country and big cities were locked in their apartments with nothing to do.
And then a mail-in ballot landed in their laps.
So they filled it out!
It's really simple.
Now you can talk about 2,000 meals and all that stuff, and I'm like, fine, fine, by all means.
But operate, period.
Operate under the presumption you can win if you rally everyone.
You get all your friends.
I'm telling you guys, the reason why they're going after Alex Jones is because he's effective.
The reason why they're going after Alex Jones is because they're scared, even after banning him, his influence persists.
The reason why Twitter is implementing a censorship policy is because they're scared they will lose.
Let's talk about cheating.
Cheating is when big tech platforms suppress the Hunter Biden information.
That I get.
But in the system of our elections, your vote matters.
Every vote matters.
So, let me stress this point.
If they really had it in the bag, they wouldn't be desperately trying to change the rules in their favor.
If they really had this great degree of control, they wouldn't need to censor you online.
They wouldn't need to ban Alex Jones.
They would not need to ban Alex Berenson.
They would not need to do it.
If it was hopeless, the propaganda would not be necessary.
The propaganda proves they're paranoid and they're terrified.
He didn't think Trump could win in the first place.
And it's funny to me that people think, you know, Nick Sergey said the other day, and I think he's a great dude, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but he said they cheated in 2016.
I was like, wait, Trump won in 2016?
He went, well, they didn't cheat enough.
I'm like, come on, man.
The evidence indicates that whatever it is is happening behind the scenes.
It is not all-powerful and it is not a guarantee.
And that if you go out and you engage in the system, the election system, by bringing all your friends, you'll win.
This is what I was saying, you know, a month ago.
One of my favorite movies of all time, The Patriot with Mel Gibson.
You know, the British They're like, am I mistaken, or is that militia forming at their center?
All snide and snooty, you Brits!
And they mock them, and then the British attack, and then the militia's like, ah, retreat!
And they think they won, and then when they run across the hill on the other side is the Continental Army, and they're like, it's a trap!
I love it.
And then, like, when the line's breaking, Mel Gibson grabs the flag, and he's like, no!
And he runs the other direction, keep going!
And then they take the field, and they win!
That's what needs to happen.
I watched Carrie Lake win in Arizona.
And that was a nail-biter.
After Timcast IRL, I come back, I'm going to bed, and I check the numbers, and she's down, and I'm like, what?
I was like, no way.
I don't believe it.
She's going to win.
She is going to win.
And then I woke up, and what did I see?
She was leading.
I wake up, and I'm like, ooh, there it is.
And they still wouldn't call it.
And several days later, finally, they were like, yep, she won.
Maricopa County, the more liberal area, was leaning in the other direction until all the votes came in.
Carrie Lake won in Maricopa.
She dominated the state.
That proves you can win.
So fine.
If you're attached to those narratives.
By all means.
Believe it.
Whatever you want to do.
I disagree.
I don't think it's relevant.
I think all that matters is If you're in a sporting event and you suspect someone of cheating, call them out 100%.
Get an investigation.
But that also means you have to do everything in your power to win.
You are in a contest.
You have to do everything to win.
You know, I've played Magic the Gathering, like basically my whole life.
It's a fun game.
And I've seen people cheat in such hilarious ways.
Let me explain one way they do it.
It's a card game for those that aren't familiar.
You have a deck of cards.
You draw cards.
You can use the cards to do things to try and defeat your opponent.
They used to do this thing where when your opponent searches through their deck, let's say something happens in the game that allows you to look in your deck.
Normally you're not allowed to.
And then they get a card out of it.
The opponent gets to cut their deck, shuffle it, to prevent cheating.
What would happen is the opponent would purposefully sleight of hand to put a bad card on top.
It really is that easy.
And people wouldn't catch it.
When they started streaming the games, all of a sudden people noticed when the guy shuffled he slid a card on top.
The guy draws a card his next turn, gets a dud card he can't use, and then is at a disadvantage.
People cheat.
We know they do.
We, of course, want to call it out and catch it.
But these people still can lose.
You still can win.
And you need to make sure you, with all your integrity and all your honor, overcome this.
So back to the main point.
Alex Jones Um, I think he's deserving of criticism.
I don't watch his content.
I don't know everything he's ever said.
I know the media misrepresented his frogs turn, you know, the gay frogs thing.
I think they do that.
I think they misrepresent him at every turn.
And I also think, when I've listened to him on Joe Rogan, he's said a bunch of crazy stuff.
I also know he's talked about Epstein.
He was right about it.
And I also know that he is largely influential and he has a First Amendment right to report what he wants to report.
He's made mistakes.
We'll see what ends up happening with all of this.
But the most important takeaway from what we're seeing here is... I want to make sure I stress this at the end.
They say being thrown off social media was supposed to end his career.
Really?
I thought they were just concerned about calls for violence, and they're trying to prevent violence.
No, now they admit it.
Now you get it.
They're trying to end his career.
During the trial, the lawyer said he wanted $150 million, or whatever the number was, and he told the jury not just to punish Jones, but to destroy his platform so he can never rebuild it.
That's always been the goal.
Look, I think the media lies.
I don't think we destroy the company and fire all their staff and ruin everything.
I think the companies need to reform, and they need incentive to do so.
But considering how crooked they are, I wouldn't cry about it if we ended up having to fire everybody because they were all lying.
But my point here is, if you can deter a company from lying, and they stay on track, and they do the right thing, and they stop engaging in unfair business practices, then okay, so fine, so be it.
But this, to me, it's political.
That's the game.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
It was all just one big misunderstanding.
The FBI taking Donald Trump's passports, it was an accident.
And the DOJ, you know, they're gonna give Trump his passports back because these things happen.
That's it.
That's the story.
And I almost don't believe it that the FBI accidentally went in with all of their might and ability to search for all the documents, and they accidentally took three of Trump's passports.
Now, the DOJ is claiming that two of them are expired.
One was Trump's active diplomatic passport.
Perhaps he can't use it.
I'm not sure how that works.
But it could be that Donald Trump had these passports, two of them were expired, and they were in boxes or something.
I entertained the possibility the other day.
I just think it is... Wow.
If this is true, I think it does show absolute incompetence on the part of the FBI to go in with, you know, however many agents they have and just not read what they were taking.
Right?
Is that what happened?
How do you accidentally take a passport?
Like, you have to open the box and look for something, right?
This story implies that the FBI went in and seized items from Trump's house without checking or knew they were taking his passports.
Why would they take his passports?
So then, by all means, you could say, no, no, no, no, it was a mistake.
The DOJ is offering Trump his passports back.
Okay, so they knew they were taking them, or they didn't check what they were taking.
Gimme one, either one is bad.
The big story here is about how the media has been pumping out fake news, and you guys know what really grinds my gears, fake news.
And of course we have this tweet from Nora O'Donnell, which has gone viral because this lady over at CBS claimed the FBI didn't have the passports, and has not yet corrected.
Donald Trump came out and said, they took my passports.
CBS comes out and says, no, they didn't.
And then all of the left and Democrat people go, oh, Donald Trump lied.
He's lying.
They don't have it.
Then it turns out, well, they actually did.
But this is the lie economy of the mainstream media.
Their goal is to lie, make money.
And then here's the best part.
The retraction also makes money.
Now, I don't think every single reporter for every single company is out there to lie to make money.
But I'll tell you, having worked in these newsrooms, what's going to happen.
If you work for a newsroom and you make fake news, you're gonna have the hot story!
It's a hot story that gets all the clicks.
You know, you make a story, Donald Trump kicks dog.
And then, you know, sources say, an anonymous source told us, you get a million clicks because all the people who hate Trump were deranged and just psychotic and they're just like, I hate Trump.
They eat it up.
They go nuts for it.
They eat it up.
You get a million views on a story like that, boom.
You make a lot of money, a million views.
What is that going to get you, like five grand or more, depending on how you're selling ads?
Some of these companies might get upwards of $40,000, depending on what their CPM is, off a million views.
Then, once all of the crazy left and Democrats are foaming at the mouth, screaming about how Donald Trump kicks dogs, You put out a retraction.
Here's the best part.
The retraction's got ads on it as well.
Now, the retraction's not gonna get a million hits, but then you can say, NewsGuard, we're being responsible.
Because, well, we caught the error and corrected it.
And NewsGuard will be like, you're right, that is responsible.
You did publish 23 fake stories you said today, but you know what?
You eventually got rid of them even after making tons of money off the fake stories.
That's the economy.
That's how it works.
Let's go through the big news, and then I want to talk to you about how the media is manipulating this game.
I mean, Norah O'Donnell still has not corrected, and you can even see how she's trying to obfuscate it.
We're also learning that if they did have these items, they would return them.
Oh, okay.
How about considering we know that they had them...
How about you just come out and say, OK, we were wrong.
Our source was bad.
But an anonymous source said so, and it was fake news.
Is CBS going to get dinged by the fact checkers, by PolitiFact, by the Poynter Institute?
The Gazette.
Officials at the Department of Justice offered to return former President Donald Trump's three seized passports, according to a Monday email shared by a Trump spokesperson.
In the exchange, Jay Brett, chief of the DOJ's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, corroborated Trump's public claim that authorities had seized three passports from his Mar-a-Lago resort during a raid last week and offered to return them.
We have learned that the filter agents—filter agents?—seized three passports belonging to President Trump, two expired and one being his active diplomatic passport.
Now, Trump was wrong.
He said one was expired.
We are returning them, and they will be ready for pickup at WFO at 2 p.m.
today.
I am traveling, but you can coordinate further, the email shared by Taylor Budowich, Director of Communications for Safe America said.
Budowich— Nate the Revelation in response to a tweet from CBS Evening News anchor Nora O'Donnell, who said a DOJ source informed her the department was not in possession of the passports.
What's your source?
A guy in the mailroom?
It's like a 19-year-old male intern being like, we don't have that.
I heard from Jim in the kitchen.
Congratulations.
This is something y'all really need to understand.
I often make the point about how sourcing works for these news organizations.
They'll say, a source close to Nancy Pelosi's office has informed us that Donald Trump has kicked a dog.
And that source close to the office is the homeless man in the alley.
We didn't say he worked for the office.
He's close to it.
They actually say things like that.
So here's what's going to happen.
A DOJ source has informed us.
Yeah, there's janitors at the DOJ.
You can say, a source at the DOJ.
Well, he's literally there.
He is at the DOJ.
Amazing how that stuff works.
And they'll say it if they can because they can always come out and be like, look, we had a source.
We won't reveal our sources.
That's the other thing.
I can respect protecting sources to a great degree.
But you also gotta understand that someone can come out and lie and be like, a source tells me Donald Trump, you know, kicked a dog or something like that.
And then when they're like, who's your source?
You're like, I will never reveal it.
I have integrity.
And then you can just make fake news?
What are you gonna do about it?
And then CBS, they're gonna be like, oh, you know, they have a source.
Congratulations.
And I'll tell you, these companies, they still haven't issued a fact check, a correction, a retraction, an apology.
Earlier Monday, Trump went on Truth Social and said they took his passports.
In the email Budowich released to the public, Brad noted that two of the three passports were expired, while his other, his diplomatic passport, remained active.
Eric Swalwell argued in response to the email that the diplomatic passport did not belong to Trump in the first place.
Oh, a diplomatic passport does not belong to Donald Trump.
It belongs to the government.
Donald Trump is not in the government, he said before farting on live camera again.
Taylor Budowich says, this is how fake news works, folks.
The Biden admin actively feeds half-truths and lies.
The media willingly amplifies, advancing a partisan narrative to attack Trump.
Norah O'Donnell, did your source read you this email?
Did you bother asking if they indeed seized the passports?
I love that he included the timestamp.
August 15th, 2022 at 1049 a.m.
Mountain Time.
So, Mountain Daylight.
That's, I think, what is that?
Is that two hours behind?
Mountain time.
So like what does Norah O'Donnell got at 7 14 p.m.
On August 15th.
She's she posted this and the other one was 6 55 p.m.
She said they do not have the passports The email was received by Butovic at 10.50 Mountain Time, so probably around, what is that going to be, noon or 1?
1 PM?
Whatever.
It's Mountain Time.
You get the point.
Well before.
Now the response to this is the media was like, oh well, Donald Trump only claimed they seized his passports after they had already told him they did!
And I'm like, how else would Donald Trump know they seized his passports until he found out they did when they said they did?
It's so insane.
Donald Trump is only saying it now that they're admitting to doing it.
For those that haven't heard me rag on them already, I went on Dan Bongino's show and ragged on him.
NewsGuard is being integrated into big tech platforms, and there's a big push to try and get them integrated further.
And this is a rating agency that says USA Today fabricated 23 sources, basically fabricating the stories, and that they deem them to be responsible.
They've also stated to me in a legal letter, because, you know, there's a back and forth going on, that their criteria is objective and not opinion.
Oh, wonderful, wonderful.
Well, bravo, good sir media, that you have an agency that's going to come out and claim you're telling the truth no matter what, even when you admit to fabricating news.
You're credible.
Incredible.
You see, that's the power of the lie economy.
It's a tit-for-tat.
It's a pay-for-play.
It's how the game works.
New York Times can lie when they need to.
Here's what you do.
You create a newsroom.
You fact check just enough so that you can say, see, look, we fact check all this stuff.
The sky is indeed blue.
Trees typically are green in the spring, and then the leaves turn brown.
It is all fact.
And then when you want to pump out a lie, you can and say, sources say.
Who are your sources?
An anonymous guy who worked in a bathroom?
In a mail room?
Is that what you're doing?
I don't believe you.
They're still running the fake news and then they're coming out and going after Alex Jones.
Alex Jones is an opinion guy.
He's an opinion guy.
He's been right about some pretty important stuff the media wouldn't go near.
I think Jones has been fairly wrong about a lot of really important stuff, obviously.
He went on Joe Rogan and talked about cell towers and chimeras and a bunch of other weird stuff.
And I'll also admit, he comes on my show and he's like, we're eating cloned beef, man.
And I'm like, Alex, we are not eating cloned beef.
That's crazy.
He's like, look it up.
Google it.
And I'm like, Google.
And it's like, yes, you are eating cloned beef.
And I was like, oh.
Okay, well you were right about that one.
And then he comes out and he's like, THE TURN OF THE FREAKIN' FROGS GAME!
And he bangs the table.
And everyone laughs and makes fun of him.
And then you read and it's like, oh yeah, atrazine was, I believe it was a pesticide that was interfering with the endocrine systems of frogs.
And it was believed that they were making the frogs hermaphroditic or something like that.
And it's like, oh, that's what he meant.
So look.
I think Alex Jones has his business and he sells supplements.
I don't think he needs to lie in order to sell you supplements.
The Epstein stuff panned out.
He's got what he needs when he talks about that.
And I'll put it this way too.
All of the, so as much as I rag on NewsGuard, all of the articles I use for this purpose are NewsGuard certified.
On purpose.
Because they came to me.
Check this out.
NewsGuard came to me and said, why are you making YouTube videos claiming that Hunter Biden was doing X, Y, or Z?
And then I said, because he was, and they were like, actually, that's not true.
The laptop emails are unverified and may be false.
And then I said, NewsGuard, the source I cited for the Hunter Biden laptop story was certified by you!
So there's a reason why I only use their own approved sources to debunk their garbage media narratives.
So of course when they come out and try claiming that we at TimCast are irresponsible, well I'm going to push back.
And there's movement happening.
It takes a while.
But I will say this rather shockingly.
NewsGuard stated to me in response to my request that they adhere to their own policies and issue a correction.
They refused to issue a correction!
NewsGuard refused to issue corrections as per their own policy.
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
And then went on to say that the criteria they release is, in fact, objective.
And then I think that's absolutely fantastic, because I'm sure there's a bunch of news organizations that would love to hear, it's not, in fact, your opinion, but an objective standard.
In which case, a statement of fact, as it were.
Hmm.
Interesting thing to claim.
Here's what Politico writes.
If the mere thought of Alex Jones makes your stomach burn, it doesn't.
I like Alex Jones.
Nobody's perfect.
You gotta criticize everybody.
But, uh, whatever.
You probably got some Pepsid AC quality relief last week when a Texas jury ordered the Infowars demagogue pay 49.3 million punitive damages.
Except it's Captain Texas, and he's not going to pay anywhere near that much.
Please do your research, Politico.
The case, one of several filed against Jones, accused him of repeatedly asserting on his webcast the parents where Crisis was an actor or some scheme.
Look, Alex says he never even mentioned most of these people's names, and in Texas, in order to defame someone, you gotta say who they are.
But they're not public individuals, so this is why the standard was low.
I think the whole thing, the whole case against him is absolutely insane, that he never even got a trial to defend himself.
And then I hear people say things like, yeah, but that's his fault.
And I'm like, is it?
He's claiming he gave, he adhered to discovery and gave all the documents.
He told me that personally, I was in Texas, and he was like, we gave him everything.
He calls his lawyer and his lawyer's like, we gave them everything.
They didn't care.
They found him in default.
So he never even got a trial about defamation.
Anyway, they say these damages and those likely look like backbreakers for Jones, but no, not any more than his banishment from YouTube, Twitter, blah, blah, blah.
Jones has profited, blah, blah, blah.
To describe Jones as a lie economy worker is not to declare false everything he says and broadcasts.
Not even his imagination veers to that polar extreme.
But a review of his greatest hits attests to the low truth value of many of his comments.
He has broadcasted warnings about a government weapon being used against Americans.
In addition to calling the Sandy Hook Massacre a staged event, he called Robert Mueller a demon and pedo, and said John McCain was the real leader of the Democratic Party.
You know what's funny is like, first of all, when he says demon, we get the point.
I think to a certain degree maybe he's saying literally, but he's just calling them like evil.
He's saying they're evil.
And then spread the bogus Pizzagate narrative.
I can't stand these conspiracies, man.
Pizzagate was so annoying because if you took 10 seconds to do any research, you can see that a lot of the claims were fabricated.
And I'm gonna tell you guys this right now.
They were like, pizza means boy and pasta means girl.
And I was like, I wonder where that claim came from.
And it was like, literally fabricated on 4chan.
The fact that people believe that stuff.
Look.
There's weird things.
Agreed.
I don't trust the Clintons.
I hear stories about their operations in Haiti, and I see stuff like that, and I'm like, I think there warrants an investigation.
And you got Epstein, that stuff panned out.
But that's how they distract you.
And that's what I tell people.
You know why the Pizzagate stuff is so annoying to me?
Because Epstein was real.
The story there was real.
Ghislaine Maxwell, real.
You need to start from point A and work your way with finding the evidence to figure out what's going on.
But when people came out, you know what's remarkable is that that whole thing could have derailed all of the Epstein stuff.
And this is what I was trying to tell people.
That is probably a distraction to make you sound crazy.
And then a guy shows up and starts shooting through the floor.
And also Mike Cernovich, Miami Herald, precipitating that with the release of these documents from the Virginia Jufri affidavits.
They say as it turns out the joke is on Jones.
Discerning audiences who stumble over Jones Show turn him off, but his message excites the credulous who, if they don't fully subscribe to the man's views, want to hear more of the same.
Lies are almost always more exciting and exploitable than dull truths.
Fact.
Which is probably why CBS was so willing to run a story with a single source who turned out to be wrong.
It's just so crazy.
You used to need three sources to confirm a story.
And even then it was like, that's the best we can do and that's our standard.
Now it's like, some guy said this didn't happen!
Report!
It's true!
And then, when it's proven to be fake news, and the media now, many news outlets, particularly conservative ones, are like, the DOJ is offering back the passports, CBS still does not clarify, correct, or apologize, just like NewsGuard is refusing to correct the errors on their labeling about TimCast.
I will say it again.
They claim to have an objective standard.
They have published fake news about us and are refusing to adhere to their own corrections policy.
It's not just about NewsGuard.
It's about PolitiFact.
They all play the same dirty game where they lie.
Lie.
NewsGuard lied.
Lied.
I will say it.
And I will scream it to the high heavens.
And you know what?
We'll see what happens.
But maybe I'll just publish their communication so you can see exactly what they did.
And you can understand that these news rating agencies, these fact-checkers, they will lie to protect their pocketbook because there's an agenda behind what they're doing.
They will then come out and scream about Alex Jones.
Hey man, I think Alex Jones says crazy stuff and I think he gets things wrong.
Fine.
Criticize him.
Please do.
But why is it that Politico, Who has simultaneously reported that Ukraine did interfere in the 2016 election and also that that narrative itself is Russian disinformation.
How can both be true?
Politico, how did you report both things?
I can't remember who reported the first story.
I don't know if it was Ken Delaney and it might have been.
But the first story was that Ukrainian officials were scrambling after Donald Trump wins.
This was reported in January.
I believe it was January of 2017.
Politico reported that they had tried interfering by releasing documents that I think went after Paul Manafort.
May have been.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But they released documents trying to jam up Trump to help Hillary.
Then, like two years later, Politico runs another story, I believe this one might have been by Natasha Bertrand, or maybe I could be wrong, I could be wrong, I don't have it pulled up, saying that it was a Russian narrative, fake news, propaganda, that Ukraine had interfered in the election.
How can you report both and then have news guards say you are credible?
It's really quite incredible, isn't it?
Yeah, I don't believe it.
Right now we're learning that the media lied about Donald Trump.
Donald Trump was right.
They took his passports.
He got the amount of passports that were expired wrong.
This is what they do.
Donald Trump can be wrong, and he's wrong a lot.
He really is.
I'm not saying majority of the time, I don't know, but he gets a lot of things wrong.
And then when he does, they say he lied.
Lying is a statement of intent.
And I can't report his intent because I don't know it.
I can only say definitively he was wrong about the passports thing.
They'll say, he's a bad person, he's a liar, he's a big Trump, you liar!
And it's just like, you don't know.
His diplomatic passport was active, what did he need to lie about?
And that's how the media plays the game.
They come out here and say that Jones is engaged in the lie economy, but you can't beat it in court.
You can fight the lie economy with truth, but evidently you can't beat it in court.
That's right, that's right.
So when I go to NewsGuard and I say, hey, you have a corrections policy that states you will correct if you get things wrong.
I would humbly request you adhere to your own policies.
They said no.
They're refusing to do it.
They are refusing to abide by their own policies.
I don't want to say too much because things are moving forward.
They responded by saying that it's their protected First Amendment right to say these things, even if they are wrong, and they have a rigorous standard.
Then I'm like, okay, They inserted words into a quote of mine.
Altering the context, I made an argument.
They said we have to issue a fact check on Donald Trump, otherwise we're irresponsible.
I said that would require us to do a fact check on all quotes moving forward, which
is an impossible standard.
But sure, if you think we have to do it, we'll do it.
They took out the first part, added words to my quote to make it seem like I was admitting
that I knew we had published fake news.
Then they put at the top of the news guard thing that we occasionally publish false and misleading information because out of 4,000 articles, we got one story wrong, issued a correction on it, these things happen, and we did not issue a fact check on Donald Trump, and not even a fact check, a rebuttal from his opponents.
And they said that was an objectively assessed standard.
Here's the best part.
Tales from the Inverted World on Timcast is true stories.
It's gonzo journalism.
It is true stories of a journalist going around and investigating and reporting what people tell him.
We don't expect every single thing every single person says to be true, but the stories themselves are true about the experiences.
It's called gonzo journalism.
They said that it was science fiction and fantasy.
Strange.
Because in every single video from Tales from the Inverted World, it starts by Shane saying, the following story you're about to hear is true.
NewsGuard did not review a single piece of content before labeling us irresponsible.
Not a single piece.
Not a single one.
Unless they did, and they knowingly lied.
That is the standard of modern fact-checking.
I want to make sure everybody understands what the lie economy really is.
Because NewsGuard, they charge money!
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Now a lot of people have said, Tim, you often shout out NewsGuard.
Oh yeah, I appreciate their existence.
Because, like I said, they came at me and tried claiming the Hunter Biden laptop story was fake.
But by using their sources, hmm, you can't label it fake news now, can you?
And so my video assessment breaking down the report showing that Hunter Biden was doing illicit things was certified by you!
Brilliant how that works, isn't it?
We'll see how this plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
From TimCast.com, white instructors to be fired first under Minneapolis Teachers Union Agreement.
Bravo, progressives!
You are enacting racism.
This is clearly unconstitutional, and it's a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
But this is the paradox of social justice, is it not?
This idea that in order for there to be justice, they must actively implement systems of injustice, I find to be quite laughable.
Here's the best part.
Most people don't know this is happening.
I kid you not.
I shouldn't say most people, but the older generation for sure.
I know there are a lot of boomers and even older people who watch my videos.
Overwhelmingly, the viewership for Timcast, for all of my stuff, is key demo, millennial, and we have a decent amount of people who get into their 40s and 50s, Gen Xers, etc.
I'll tell you this, this is the kind of story that you need to share with the older crowd, because I have had boomers come on IRL, I have spoken with them, and they all say the same thing, this isn't happening.
In fact, I think even Naomi Wolf, like she was a big liberal, now she's like, they're trying to criminalize being a Republican, but I tell her about this and she doesn't know!
She doesn't even know, and she's actually been thrown into the thick of it.
Well, they've been censoring her over other issues.
This is the kind of story that needs to be shown so you can help these people understand if they don't believe you.
And I'll give you this advice.
Don't just send it to him and be like, look, you're wrong.
You can come out and talk about anti-racism, whatever you want to call it.
You cannot legally discriminate on the basis of race, whether it's against a white person or a black person.
On top of that, we got this story from The Guardian.
Do you want free speech to thrive?
Then it has to be regulated now more than ever, writes Simon Jenkins.
How does that make sense?
It is the paradox of the social justice left.
Free speech inherently is not regulated.
Now, I actually think, I am not a free speech absolutist, I'll put it that way.
I think threats of violence are not protected speech.
The idea of free speech is the ability to express your thoughts and desires, your opinions, so long as you're not directly inciting or threatening people.
Now, they're arguing about how causing offense should be regulated.
But everyone's offended by everything!
You know, you right there, yeah, you watching this, disagreeing with me in the comments, you offend me!
Your comment should be banned.
No, of course not!
Comment below.
Tell me whatever you think about me.
You're allowed to do it.
This is a story from TimCast.com.
Adrian Norman reports.
A Minneapolis teachers union contract specifies that white teachers must be fired before educators of color if the Minneapolis Public School, MPS, need to cut staff.
Few districts in the country have such contract language.
Teachers are usually laid off based on seniority, but the new agreement, which ended a three-week strike this spring, is meant to remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination in the district.
How are you going to remedy discrimination by actively creating discriminatory policies?
You're not!
You're not!
Okay, let me explain it to you.
Women are more likely to go to college.
Millennial women are more likely to be in college than millennial men.
Are we now going to start reversing course?
No, they're not doing it.
Here's what they said.
We need women's programs in colleges and special protections for women because women aren't in college.
Okay, well, they're the minority, so we'll create minority protections.
We did.
And now women are the majority.
And they're still claiming they're in the minority, even though they're the clear majority.
How about the gender pay gap?
Heard about that one, right?
It is a fact.
Millennial women make more, on average, than millennial men.
Are we going to now reverse course and start making sure that we hire more men and pay— No, that's not happening.
Discriminatory policies do not solve anything.
How about we say you can't discriminate anymore?
How about that?
Roughly 60% of the students in MPS are non-white.
Currently about 16% of their district's tenured teachers and 27% of probationary teachers are people of color, according to Star Tribune.
The agreement between Minneapolis Federation of Teachers and MPS says that past discrimination by the district disproportionately impacted the hiring of underrepresented teachers relative to the demography of the labor market and community, which resulted in a lack of diversity among teaching staff.
They say, quote, No, it's not a move forward.
It's regressive.
Schools in other states are looking to emulate what we did, said Edward Barlow, a band teacher
at Anwarten Middle School and a member of the MFT executive board.
Even though it doesn't do everything that we wanted to do, it's still a huge move forward
for the retention of teachers of color.
No, it's not a move forward.
It's regressive.
It's the regressive left.
That's what this is.
Moving backwards, because these are what we would call reactionary, okay?
You may have heard many people on the left say the word reactionary, and they would maybe call you or other, or conservatives, reactionaries.
Reactionary is a reference to the French Revolution, the people who did not want the revolution, they defended the monarchy.
They reacted to the revolution.
These people are reacting to the Civil Rights Revolution that took place about 50 to 70 years ago.
The reactionary.
They are trying to return the law back to the way it used to be.
They admit this.
They write articles about it.
Derrick Bell arguing in favor, to this day, of school segregation.
Yeah, we ended all of that.
We went through Plessy v. Ferguson.
Not okay.
We went through Brown v. Board of Education, and we said people should not be segregated in schools.
Yet here's the memes I see.
They show the meme of Ruby Bridges, the little girl at the school that had to be brought in by guard because she was black and going to a white school and people were angry about it.
We ended segregation.
They are now trying to bring it back.
Because there was a race revolution that happened when we, for the first time, or one of the first times in the world, the United States said we should not discriminate on the basis of race because of people like Dr. King.
For the history of the world, the world was racial identitarianism.
I mean, you had British people complaining about Frenchmen.
You have British and Irish people still angry with each other.
And as far as these people are concerned, they're all white.
You see, people divided themselves based on ethnic and racial lines throughout the overwhelming majority of history until about the last 70 years, when we in the United States were like, yo, hey, racism is a bad thing.
We're not going to tolerate that.
Now you have anti-racism, which is a trick.
Anti-racism does not mean opposition to.
It means, well, it means quite literally the creation and development of.
Anti-racist ideology, along with critical race theory, ultimately results in, or has proponents, who are calling for segregation.
Kendi said, the only way to solve past discrimination is with present discrimination.
And the only way to solve future discrimination is through discrimination or whatever.
How are you stopping discrimination when you admit you're making it?
It doesn't solve anything.
It's a psychotic ideology.
Imagine it's like, well, you got an oil leak on your car.
There's one way to solve it.
Drain the oil out.
You're like, okay, well, hold on.
The car needs oil.
Draining out the oil is the problem.
How about you patch the hole?
Instead, they're making the whole worse, and they'll destroy everything.
They say while teachers unions and public school officials defend the new contract as a means to rectify racial injustice, the United States Supreme Court has issued rulings on similar cases determining that race-based hiring practices are illegal.
In 1986's Wigand v. Jackson Board of Education, the court ruled against the board who created discriminatory firing practices to remedy past injustice. 1986!
Man.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist concluded that the layoff provision violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Quote, societal discrimination alone is insufficient to justify a racial classification.
Rather, there must be convincing evidence of prior discrimination by the governmental unit
involved before allowing limited use of racial classifications to remedy such discrimination.
In addition to laying off white teachers first, the contract between MTF and MPS prioritizes
reinstatement of teachers who are members of a population underrepresented among licensed
teachers in the district.
The deal also seeks to protect alumni of historically black colleges and universities, tribal colleges and universities, and Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.
Hispanic.
Do you know what Hispanic means?
Speak Spanish.
That's, it means speak Spanish.
Basically, that's what it means.
So there are people, I know some Mexican people, they're Hispanic.
They are white with blonde hair and blue eyes.
Because Spaniards were European.
And when they came to North America and South America, they colonized and dominated to a large degree.
And what you have in Mexico is Native American populations that have mixed with Spanish population creating what I believe is called mestizo.
So it's a mixed race.
But they call it mestizo.
But there are a lot of people in Mexico who are just white Europeans.
Because Mexico was colonized by white Europeans.
You see, none of this makes sense.
You could have, with these qualifications, someone like...
I don't know, let's say there's a guy who looks whiter than white, super pale, and maybe he, like, trims his facial hair down so that he looks like he's black, and then he just says he is.
And then what?
He gets money and special provisions?
Oh, come on.
Rachel Dolezal had people convinced she was black for a while, and then people are like, hey, wait a minute, she's just some pasty white woman.
It's remarkable to me that people didn't realize she was white by looking at her.
Well, that is a fair point, though.
Because of the way racial diaspora works, Rachel Dolezal with a tan and her hair braided could have been somewhat biracial, I suppose.
Well, maybe biracial isn't the right word because that usually implies like two races, but I guess that's the word you'd use.
Yeah.
How do you deal with that?
I'll put it this way.
Do I get special provisions when it comes to this?
Oh, you know, when I have woke people on my show, they say, you're just a white guy.
But I'm actually part Japanese and Korean.
So, do I get special privilege?
You can't fire me, huh?
It's insane.
It's nonsensical.
They look at me and they're like, you're just a white guy.
I'm like, okay, dude, whatever, I guess.
I think I have a particularly Asian face, mind you.
But, you know, whatever.
This is the paradox, as I mentioned, of social justice.
They claim to fight against racism while creating overtly racist policies that will negatively impact people.
Now, this one's specific towards white people.
What about Slavic people?
Slavic people aren't white.
According to the Coalition for Communities of Color, Slavic people are people of color, even though they're blonde with blue eyes and white skin.
How does that make sense?
Well, their argument is white is a political term.
It's not a racial term.
Yet still, the term requires you to make an observation on the color of one's skin.
And then they would say, well, you know, Slavic people are oppressed, so they're people of color, because white, you know, Irish people weren't white before.
I don't care about how you want to categorize things from the 1900s.
Right now, This is what you're saying.
It's illegal and it makes no sense.
And this is what we get with the paradox.
Do you want free speech to thrive?
Then it has to be regulated now more than ever.
It is a dirty manipulative game where they use semantic manipulation because they know that regular people aren't paying attention.
They aren't reading the minutiae every single day and they don't understand.
So they see things like this, they read the headline, they don't actually read the article, and then they just regurgitate it.
Well, I read the newspaper, we should regulate free speech.
Well, how is it free speech if you're regulating it?
Right?
I mean, serious point.
I don't think the United States has overt free speech.
We have regulations and restrictions on speech, as it pertains to a lot, actually.
Instruction on committing a crime can get you in trouble.
Incitement, I guess it's just considered incitement.
Calls to violence.
So, some free speech absolutists believe all of it is free speech.
I agree, but I don't agree with allowing all of it.
So we do have restrictions.
What they're saying is we should expand the regulations on speech, but keep calling it free.
How about that?
I bring you now to this Twitter thread that is targeting Matt Walsh and Billboard Chris and a few other people.
Alejandra Caraballo.
Says, in response to libs of TikTok.
What do you think Chaya's followers see when she posts something like this?
It's the equivalent of quote, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest.
When someone acts on it, they'll inevitably distance themselves.
It was just a lone wolf.
Libs of TikTok highlighted a tweet from Billboard Chris.
Billboard Chris, quote, a good portion of children do know as early as from the womb that they are transgender.
At Boston Children's Hospital, quote, we see a variety of young children all the way down.
Libs of TikTok said, Boston Children's needs to be shut down.
That is a protected opinion, not an incitement to violence, call to action, or anything like that.
Alejandro Caraballo is basically saying it's a violation of hate speech, that it's incitement to violence, or that it is stochastic terrorism.
Stochastic terrorism is this idea that you can keep saying something until someone finally takes action, like, oh won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest.
The famous story where I believe it was like a king or whatever, and he was frustrated and someone went out and did it, and he was like, I didn't mean to actually do it!
And they were like, but you said you wanted it done.
Right.
What I wrote was, by this logic, Media Matters is responsible for the people who keep trying to kill me.
Because Media Matters has called for me to be shut down, they've lied about me and smeared me, and there's only one thing people see when they say it.
And then when it happens, people like Alejandro invariably come out and be like, no, no, what happened to you is something totally different!
We've been swatted nine times.
We didn't announce the last time, and typically when you're watching TimCast IRL, we have armed guards, we have a variety of security measures that I will keep private for the sake of security, and when we get swatted, and they do try to kill us, and they do, We have someone to intercept.
We evacuated the studio about a month or so ago for three hours due to a credible threat.
We had no choice.
Security made the call.
Police came in and swept the building.
And that's what it means when somebody posts video saying that, you know, Tim Pool needs to be shut down and all that stuff.
But you know what?
I don't blame Media Matters for doing it.
I blame the people who did it, and I want the feds to bring them to justice.
The police are involved as an act of investigation.
We'll see if they have the means and the wherewithal to actually stop the criminals that are engaging in this.
And it's more than one, but we think we know... I think, based on what we've collected, that they're pretty sure they know who's doing it.
Because they made a mistake and they revealed a bunch of private information.
I think people need to understand that when they do this stuff, You don't know how these systems work.
It's remarkable.
So basically, the people who do the swattings think they can do phone number spoofing and things like that, but just because you've discovered an app or a program that allows you to change your caller ID number doesn't mean you know how the actual internal systems work, and you don't, and y'all screwed up.
I'll put it that way.
But I'm not going to blame Media Matters for criticizing me.
I'll blame them for lying about me.
When someone posts a video from Boston's Children's Hospital calling them out, I mean, Okay, well, what are you going to say about it?
To claim that's stochastic terrorism, fine.
If you want to play that game, Alejandra, you've also come at me before, so I'm accusing you of doing the exact same thing.
Well, that's it.
You play the game the same as anybody else.
This is the meme of that woman shoveling feces over a wall that says, the internet, and then she's flinging opinions, and then when people fling it back, she goes, help, misogyny!
The reality is, in a world where people can speak, People will speak, and you'll be challenged.
This is the problem I have with the left.
They want the censorship.
They want the double standard.
They want the racist policies, while lying to you and claiming they don't.
That's the important point.
That's why I say, share videos like this, I guess.
Because we need regular people who believe in free speech and oppose racism.
We need them to see reality, to see the truth.
I'll show you another one.
Look, here's TimCast.com.
NewsGuard certified.
82 out of 100.
This website mostly adheres to basic standards of credibility and transparency.
We absolutely do, NewsGuard.
You're incorrect there, but I can still at least say, look, Fine.
Take the 82 out of 100.
We are a credible agency, more credible than CNN and MSNBC.
Okay?
So, if that's not good enough for you, the Daily Mail, which is rated less than us, but it's another agency reporting the same thing.
The Minneapolis Teachers Union negotiates clause requiring white educators to be laid off first.
That is illegal.
How do we get through to the people who don't believe this is happening?
Now, the people who think it's a good thing, I believe, are too far gone.
But I think most Americans oppose racism.
You know who is in favor of this?
White supremacists.
I'm not exaggerating.
I am not being cute.
I have actually gone to events where white supremacists discuss why they're in favor of these policies and why they like wokeness.
Now the media will lie and claim white supremacists actually don't like it.
That's not true!
It's basically their ideology.
And it's giving them what they want.
Racial segregation.
When you come out and say, the white people will be fired first, they need stuff like that to recruit, to go to white people and say, see, look, they're firing you and targeting you.
When they do POC and non-POC library sessions like they did up in, what, Seattle, was it?
The white supremacists are like, thank you, excellent.
It's wrong.
We need to get this to regular people who oppose racism.
The people who aren't paying attention.
But I'll tell you what I think is happening.
I think we're realizing that most people, particularly Democrats, I shouldn't say most, but a large portion of people in this country, never cared in the first place and only claimed they opposed racism because that's what you have to say to be socially accepted.
It's kind of creepy.
A large group of people with no morals and no principles who will say whatever it takes.
And that's the reality of what's happening right now.
And these people are saying, Tim Pool changed.
I'm like, what did I change on?
Go look at my videos during Occupy Wall Street where I criticized the exact same thing.
During Occupy Wall Street, I called them out for racial segregation.
I called it racist.
I tell that story all the time.
I've told it on stage since Occupy Wall Street.
That a man was sitting on top of the planter, because it's downhill, so there's a ledge that eventually gets taller, a black man, and he said, y'all are crazy segregating people by race.
What do you think's gonna happen if the press finds out about that?
That was during Occupy Wall Street.
That was like October of 2011.
I tell that story.
I've not changed.
It just goes to, it's just, There are people who never had principles and never had morals.
And they are simply saying whatever it is the modern corporate press says.
What's the establishment narrative?
They got it.
What's the corporate narrative?
They got it.
They are marching in lockstep with Amazon.
Amazon is a dirty, evil, creepy company.
I will tell you that.
They are the machine.
Exemplifying so much.
So much about the, uh... Well, those dystopian novels are exemplified greatly in what Amazon does.
So yes, let's please call this out.
But at the very least, I can say, you know what?
Fine.
White educators, the Democratic Party is whiter and wealthier, and you know what?
You're the ones who are gonna...
Well, I'll put it this way.
This is probably why they're losing support.
Because there are working-class people who are just like, dude, I don't want to do this.
