Liberal Calls For UPRISING To STOP Trump Inauguration, The Left Is SUPPORTING Extremism And Violence
01:38:13 Share

With the indictment of Luigi Mangione, who is accused of being the hitman who killed the UnitedHealthcare CEO, the left is up in arms protesting, supporting this guy, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or like I think it's just north of 100,000. I could be wrong. But with the indictment in New York, they want to extradite this guy. And there's actually people outside protesting, holding up signs in support of a guy who murdered someone in cold blood.

You know, the left is showing us something that we largely knew, but I'm glad they're exposing themselves in this regard because I'm hoping in the next four years we can really weed out the corruption and the lunacy that exists in what we call the modern day political left. Now, on top of this, we are seeing the mayor of New York saying outright that these people have been radicalized. And it's what we've been warning you about for some time.

So I humbly ask this holiday season, my friends, you share this video with your relatives who are less politically inclined or not really paying attention. And for those of you that may be tuning into this video completely unaware, I want to show you a few things. The first is that let's just stress this. A man is accused of hunting down another man, shooting him in the back in broad daylight.

Now, for those that are concerned about guns, shouldn't this be a problem for you? For those that are concerned about crime and murder, shouldn't this be a problem for you? And I'm curious to all of you who are maybe finding this video because a friend sent it to you or a family member did. Are you at all shocked to hear that the modern day political liberal is in support of the murder of a CEO? Now, I ask you this, Charlemagne, the God, you may not be feeling, but he made a great point. He said, what changed? Why support this accused assassin?

The company hasn't changed anything. No policy has been changed. No law has been changed. Nothing's going to be changed. All that happened was a father of two was murdered in broad daylight. Now, I'll add on top of this, the ramifications of that are everything gets worse. You've got more calls for vigilantism. You've got support for murder in public. This is not making things better. On top of this, with the radicalization, we can see the core of where we're currently at with the modern day political left.

For many of you who are not so politically engaged, you may be saying, you know, January 6th was kind of shocking. Some of you probably don't care. You know, it's a great interview during the election where a voter was asked about it and he was like, I would get January 6th. And they were like, yeah, what are your thoughts on January 6th? And he's like, what is that? And they were like, when the insurrection. Oh, yeah, I don't care.

Maybe that's you. Or maybe you have some deep concerns and you're like, man, I don't know. I mean, what happened? OK, well, how about a video from a Democrat, from a liberal who's calling on 11 million people to storm D.C. to force Donald Trump out of office on the 20th? I mean, that's more than we saw from anybody on January 6th. Don't get me wrong. January 6th was not good. It was bad, but there was no organized plan.

There are no communications showing anybody planned to do anything related to electoral vote count. Sure, people tore the barricades down and fought with cops and they should go to jail for that. Many of them did. But there was no organized plan. There was no there was no video where someone was saying it's time to go and rally 10 million people to stop Trump from being president. Now, now, I will fully admit.

There were some brightening personalities saying more vague things, kick the door and things like this. I'm not going to pretend like the right doesn't have their extreme element. My point is when they when they keep complaining, the right has been organizing these things. There's nothing organized about January 6th. I will stress again, there were people who are calling for general protest and, you know, mobilization. But the difference here is

January 6th is considered to be unique unto the right, despite the fact that not only do you have Democrats, you know, at least one guy. I'm not going to act like it's the whole world advocating for these things. There's other people, too. But there's bubbling up on social media saying go to D.C. and disrupt the inauguration and force Trump to step down. But you also have the May 29th insurrection, 2020. Many of you may be asking yourself, I'm not familiar with this. That's right.

The far left tore down the barricades of the White House, injured 100 plus law enforcement through firebombs on the White House grounds, setting fire to actual to an actual guard post. And they also set fire to St. John's Church across the street. They forced the president into an emergency bunker. This is not to obfuscate. This is not to placate. This is not to defend anything the right has done, but to point out.

The left has done this, will continue to do this. And right now they are advocating for more. They are speaking in defense of a of an accused murderer. Now, don't get me wrong. Look, if you want to speak up for Luigi Mangione saying you don't think he's the guy, fine. But these people are actually getting tattoos of the murder. They like the murder. And that is terrifying. Protesters actually showed up after first degree murder terrorism charge against Luigi Mangione.

I can't say that I'm surprised a little bit, actually, but I wonder what you're thinking. How many of you think you're on the right side of history? Are you mad at health care companies? We all are. Yeah. How many of you actually want to advocate for random people to go and hunt down perceived enemies and take that into their own hands? So I warn you, I warn you all when you tolerate this and think that you are the hero and you're allowed because you know who the villains are. In what story are you the villain?

In what story have you done wrong? You may be saying to yourself, I've done nothing wrong. Sure. But don't you have someone who doesn't like you because they think you did? Everybody does. And it could be something as mundane as your neighbor thinks that you stole his newspaper.

And you know you didn't. But he came over, banged on the door, being like, stop taking my paper. You're like, I didn't take your paper. And you know in your mind you are justified and you did nothing wrong. Until one day, this guy, no, don't get me wrong, I don't think, I think it's extremely unlikely someone gets shot over a newspaper. But actually there was a story a few months ago where that happened. It's pretty nuts. The neighbors kept getting into a fight over, I think, a dog taking a crap on the lawn. And then some guy came over and shot the neighbor.

If you want to live in a world where you say people are justified in killing people that they perceive to be their enemies, don't be surprised when someone decides that you are the greatest threat to their life. But hey, you agree? No. That's why we say no to this stuff. Because everybody thinks they're right. Everybody thinks they're the hero of their own story. And we're trying to live together without violence and destruction. Where do you work? Do you work at a mechanic?

You're sitting there saying, I don't know none of this politics of how long until someone comes by and says, you ripped me off and lied about the damage to my car to steal money. You didn't. But they had a friend who told him you did. And they said, you shouldn't be paying for that repair. So they show up angry, demanding, demanding money. And you say, I did everything right. I'm not a bad guy until they get fed up, angry, depressed.

And they come and shoot you. We do not want to live in a world where people can just be judged, juried and executioner. But this is where we're at. I'm going to agree with Mayor Adams here. He warns that American youth like the United Health Care CEO killer Luigi Mangione are being radicalized. Sure, the youth. But take a take a look at this video. I think this one is substantially more important.

Although it is just some random guy in the Internet, videos like this tend to go viral. This one's got 751,000 views. Granted, it's calling out that this man made this video. Now, the man didn't in this video call for people to violently overthrow the government or anything like this, but he may as well have. Here's a video of a guy saying outright that due to an executive order that Trump issued, 11 million people must go to D.C. to overthrow the government. Now, you might be saying, well,

The Democrats would never do it January 6. Maybe, maybe they wouldn't. They'd certainly advocate for it. Everybody, we got to converge on Washington, black, white, trans, LGBTQ2, drag queens, peacefully, cohesively. We're going to meet and have this guy step down on January 20th. That's our fail safe. And I just want to put a smile on your face because I don't know if you remember, but. OK, now hold on.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend like this random guy you've never heard of is the most pressing thing in the world. No, I get that. My point is only to highlight that on social media, and it's not just this one video, there are many people saying that Trump needs to be stopped by any means necessary. We certainly don't have prominent celebrities. No, in fact, from Newsweek, celebrities who tried to stop Donald Trump fall silent.

Yeah, because people with the higher levels know it's over. Trump won the popular vote. We're going to move on from here. You want to buy a larger margin than Hillary Clinton won in 2016. But what you're seeing here is we're going to peacefully go to go to D.C. and force him to step down in his mind. He I do not believe he thinks that people are going to stand in D.C., wave little flags. And then Trump goes, look at all these people. I have no choice. I guess I guess I reside. It's not going to happen.

So then what is he really saying? Well, listen to it. I'm 61, and in the 70s, watching cartoons on Saturday morning, they had this thing called Schoolhouse Rock. They would try to teach you about our government through songs. And I'll sing the one that I remember. I remember how it goes. It goes...

We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and three million. And what's the third mass? The people. The Apple Watch Series 10 is here. It has the biggest display ever.

It's also the thinnest Apple Watch ever, making it even more comfortable on your wrist, whether you're running, swimming, or sleeping. And it's the fastest-charging Apple Watch, getting you eight hours of charge in just 15 minutes. The Apple Watch Series X, available for the first time in glossy jet black aluminum. Compared to previous generations, iPhone Xs are later required. Charge time and actual results will vary.

are going to have to show up in Washington and have this guy step down. The 3% rule states that if you have 3% of a group of people's population, 3% of a particular population, if they gather in mass, they can change everything. So we have 330 million Americans. 10% of that is 33 million. And what's a third of that?

11 million. 11 million of us have to show up on Washington, D.C. on January 20th and have this guy step down. He'll see 11 million people talk about a crowd. He'll have a coronary. It'll have to step down. No, he wouldn't. No, he wouldn't. We can't depend on the people out West. God bless. But for those of us here in New Jersey. This idea that Donald Trump winning the popular vote and Republicans sweeping every branch, basically, and they already have the Supreme Court. And then he's going to see

11 million of the people who don't like him and he's going to have a coronary? New York, Massachusetts, Long Island, Connecticut, right? Everybody. We've got to converge on Washington. Black, white, trans, LGBTQ2, drag queens. Peacefully, cohesively, we're going to meet and have this guy step down on January 20th. That's our fail safe. And I just want to put a smile on your face because I don't know if you remember, but I'm 61 and in the 70s,

watching cartoons on Saturday morning. Yeah, we get it. Institution for the United States of America. I'd like to remind you all of what happened January 20th, 2017, when Trump won. In fact, Disrupt J20 actually has its own Wikipedia entry because it was so destructive and violent.

And it resulted in people getting arrested, windows getting smashed. It's kind of wild. Did you guys know this? That there was an insurrection? I was there. I actually got arrested. I wasn't processed or charged. I was arrested. And people don't understand what arrest means. You can be arrest, charged, and processed, or arrest, processed, and charged. And you don't have to be all three. So I, along with many others, ended up getting arrested.

and surrounded by police, informed three times we were arrested. And then when a news organization contacted the police, they started pulling out journalists. I showed my press card. They removed me and I was de-arrested. Some of the people who stayed ended up going to jail overnight.

These were specific actions. And this is what the man is calling for now. In the end, six people charged with rioting went on trial. Prosecutors alleged that they were taking part of partisan vandalism. They found them not guilty on all counts. The problem was, despite the fact we know they were setting fires and smashing windows, flashbangs were going off in D.C., pretty wild. Despite the fact that all that did happen, well, they were wearing masks. And so nobody knew who exactly did what.

Windows got smashed. It was pretty wild being down there when this guy says 11 million people need to be there to stop Donald Trump. Does anyone in their right mind think that Trump would step down if a bunch of people are waving little American flags and saying we we protest? Well, there was the women's march that did nothing. Nothing changed. Literally nothing happened. It's a feel good exercise for liberals.

This guy advocating for that, I'd say fine. If he's saying 11 million people are going to walk around D.C. like the pussy hat march, I'd be like, OK, no, I respect that. That's that's great. Trump's not going to step down. But I think the reality here is that he's calling on the three percent rule that three percent of the population can step up and force Trump out. He'll have no choice, he says. OK.

Well, I don't think this one guy is the apocalypse. He doesn't make reference to something called Executive Order 13848 that he claims. Let me actually jump to the beginning here so you can hear. I want to just leave this short. It's four minutes. We'll do this before five. It's been out. Donald Trump helped create it. And it's going to come back to bite him in the ass because what it does is it says how we have to proceed when we realize that there has been outside interference in our elections.

There definitely has been. Okay. Well, there definitely hasn't been. I would say there's always some degree of foreign interference, even in 2016, 2020, whatever it may be. And the question is how substantial. I believe it's very likely that China, Iran, Russia, and other countries are seeking to disrupt our political process by funneling money through various means into the United States. Now, the left is going to make arguments like,

You know, they're directly flipping voting machines. Let me explain, OK, what I'm saying. They're going to say that it's Russian interference in media. No, what they do is they have individuals launder money into political action committees to make donations. That's how they try to influence the political space in this country. So you'll have some businessman. He's not going to donate to a politician. No, no.

He's going to give a million dollars to a corporation that hires a politician for a speaking event before they announce their run. They're going to donate money to a corporate or do a deal with a corporate. Let me tell you another way it gets done. I love this. My favorite is poker. For those who don't know how to play poker, let me enlighten you only a little bit. And this is how they launder money in D.C. I'm not saying I know for sure if I've experienced anything like this, but let's say you have a poker table. And for those who don't understand, the games are usually marked by the number of the forced bets.

You have eight or nine players, sometimes nine, depending on what kind of table you're playing at. And every, there's a rotation, orbits they call it, where every hand being dealt, you move what's called the button. And then the two players in front of the button have to make a forced bet called a small and a big blind. That's how we determine the size of the game, like how much money. So typically people are playing one, two, or one, three. That means a forced bet of a dollar or a forced bet of $3 or $2 or whatever.

And those are considered pretty small games. You buy in for 400 bucks, maybe less, and then you can wager that. But who really cares about if you win $600 on a $400 table, right? But what if they're playing 25-50? Now, what does that mean? It means that if you are in the small blind, you are required to put in $25. And if you are the next player, called the big blind, you got to put in $50. Now, explain what this means. In these games...

You, uh, if you just call the lowest possible bet in this instance, 50 bucks, it's called limping. And usually what happens is that someone is going to make a three times to five times raise because they think their hand is good. That means they're going to be throwing in 150 to $250 as their first bet. So what happens? Tables like this could have upwards of $50,000 in a stack. A person's playing, they're buying in with. So how do you launder the money? Well,

In these cash games at casinos or wherever it's legal, politician or super PAC rep could be or corporation, whoever could be sitting across from foreign diplomat guy or foreign corporation. And they know that they can't make this transaction without scrutiny. So what do they do? Ultra wealthy businessman from, you know, the Middle East says, I think my hand is pretty good. I'm going to raise ten thousand dollars. Then the other guy goes, huh? You think your hand is good? I call your ten thousand dollars.

Then when you got $20,000 in the middle, whoever's trying to launder the money can see the first three cards get dealt and then say, oh no, that was really bad. I check. Then the recipient says, I'm all in. And the donor then goes, ah, you got me. I fold. And no one can see what their cards are. So this means that at any time, anyone at that table can just pretend that

It's part of the game. I got a good hand. Oh, no, that was a terrible flop for me. Guess you win the ten thousand dollars. Clean money transfer. And if anyone ever comes to you, say it was just I just lost a poker game. So the influence certainly does happen. I don't want to get into all that stuff too much. But the idea that that happens to the degree that we can prove that there's going to be an executive action here, it's not going to happen. Yeah, it's literally not going to happen.

I think the bigger concern I have is that the left has been hyper-radicalized. We have this from the free press. Blue Sky is a death threat problem. It certainly does. And there's nothing that they're going to do about it because the left advocates for this. Blue Sky, for those that don't know, is an alternative that was created by Jack Dorsey, I believe it was Jack Dorsey, after leaving Twitter. On X, what used to be Twitter, it is now considered to be the most balanced political space, equally Democrat and conservative or liberal and conservative.

Many of the far left left the platform and went to blue sky where they now advocate for death and violence and they don't get censored at all. They're allowed to do it because the left has been radicalized. So to throw it back to this gentleman who is saying we need to show up 11 million people again, I don't think that they will do a J6, but understand that January 6th was a peaceful protest. No, no, no. Hold on. I know you're saying with Tim, they smashed. No, no, no, no.

Donald Trump organized a rally of 250,000 people at the Ellipse in D.C. He never told anybody to go smash windows or be violent. People of their own accord who were there went and did it. Why?

You get a large enough crowd with angry enough people who are willing to commit violence and it happens. Now, I know there's concerns about the informants who were there. A new video showing a guy fist bumping one of the cops and being uncuffed. Very strange. And whether or not it was informants or assets who initiated the conflict, by all means, make those arguments. I'm simply saying this. If you do bring down 11 million people to D.C., as we've already seen with the Disrupt J-20 protests from seven years ago, if you do will be eight years ago.

If you do bring out 11 million people, even to say we're going to have a peaceful protest, it only takes, what did you say? 3%. So let's talk about what happens. You invite 11 million people thinking the 3% rule can change the country and Trump will have a coronary and be forced to step down. Not likely. But let's say you get 10%, 1.1 million. What happens if 3%, as you've described it, decide to be violent? And it's just a couple hundred thousand people storming the Capitol.

That's way more than we saw on January 6th. And that's the point. January 6th was not someone calling for violence in the ransacking of the building. There was no organization. There was no plan. This guy saying the same thing when the left has been radicalized as advocating for death leaves me worried. I'll wrap it up there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Become a member over at Timcast.com. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you on the next segment.

The corporate press is humiliated. Donald Trump filed a lawsuit. Don't accuse him of things he didn't do. And they lost $16 million defamation. So actually, I think it's $17 million when you look at the details. The New York Post reports that George Stephanopoulos, apoplectic, humiliated over their settlement. He's a very guarded man, and he resents that they basically admitted fault.

And agreed to pay a large sum of money. And the best thing about the story is that not only did Trump win, but the money he's getting, Trump's not taking it so that he can, I don't know, buy himself a yacht or anything like that. He's making them build a museum to him. Wow.

Well, as the story goes, about two million dollars is going to be paid to Trump's legal team for two Trump for legal fees. And that is coming from ABC News and George Stephanopoulos. So while the ruling is that they're going to send 15 million dollars on this museum, Stephanopoulos and ABC will also pay another million each. So I think that makes it 17. But here we are.

The aftermath of such a such a story, the humiliation. And that's what I'm here to bring you, my friends, because the news, the news, you know, now over on CNN, there's a big hubbub because one of their personalities, Scott Jennings, says, good, they should sue. And this incident is a gas. Oh, but we are such noble purveyors of information. How could it be that we have to pay money when we lie? How about that?

Yeah, my friends, the simple reality here is ABC News knew the cost of this defamation lawsuit was going to exceed how much they paid out. And that's really it. It's cost benefit analysis. But let's read the story from The New York Post. ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos is apoplectic and humiliated by their settlement. Stephanopoulos, who claimed Trump had raped E. Jean Carroll during an interview with Nancy Mace, was particularly upset about being forced to apologize. Oh, well, you know.

Dems the brakes. Another source told the Post that George is defiant. A third source said Stephanopoulos is a very guarded person. His circle of trust is so small, a lot of them don't work at ABC anymore. The first insider added the host of This Week had recently signed a contract extension with Disney-owned ABC News, though the source did not disclose the terms of the deal.

The former president, Bill Clinton, aid had kept a low profile since the settlement of 15 million dollar donation to a presidential foundation and museum for Trump and another million for Trump's attorney's fees was announced Saturday. He has deactivated his X account. Wow. My friends, I you know, I the victories, the victories, my friends. Disney announced that they're pulling some gender ideology storyline from some show they're making.

Nobody wants this stuff. ABC News is shelling out the big bucks. I hope when they make the museum for Trump, it says this museum paid for by exposing the lies of the corporate press. You know.

I've been saying for some time, I don't really know why we talk about these people anymore. They're not particularly prominent. But to be fair, Stephanopoulos still does get a lot of views, especially in the key demo. While we can make fun of CNN and MSNBC, I do find it interesting that when it comes to the ratings, those are the big players everyone cares about.

When you look at like TV news or where I usually pull up the ratings, you got Fox, MSNBC, CNN. But what about ABC Nightly News? They do pretty dang well. Plus, their podcast is pretty dang well. So exposing these vestiges of the corporate press, I think, is particularly important. Hence, here we go again. Some ABC News staffers fumed at management for keeping a tight lid on coverage of the settlement. It was front page news everywhere. ABC doesn't report on itself, the source lamented. Of course, it's a conflict of interest.

You could make a statement on your own behalf. That's fine. But reporting on yourself, conflict of interest. Three sources told the Post that morale is down after a series of layoffs in all departments. The settlement is another gut punch. It's sheer level embarrassment. People are furious. Well, I'm having a good time. A settlement was announced today after a judge ruled that Stephanopoulos and Trump had to sit for depositions in the case. The depositions were scheduled for this week. Quote,

This wasn't a news division decision. It was a company decision. One of the sources speculated, adding they likely didn't want to go through discovery when you search all the documents and all the emails and find everything that's said and turn it over to the other side. Indeed. But I got to tell you, it's it's more than just that. I mean, discovery usually is scary for these companies because, man, are you going to find some dirt? It's cost benefit analysis. So there's something called errors and omissions insurance.

that you need or media insurance, depending on however people describe it. But the idea is if you make a mistake and you get sued, well, you need insurance to cover it. And when you have this insurance, then if you get sued, the insurance company is the one who has to pay. Often in these insurance contracts, these term agreements, they actually say that they can make the decision to settle on your behalf.

So I think what actually happened is that ABC News insurance company was looking at the cost of the lawsuit. And they said, if you lose this, we, the insurance company, have to pay a lot of money. So they basically cut their losses. Now, the interesting thing is ABC News is going to fight this. The insurance company is going to cover the cost. The insurance company, in my opinion, this is what happened. The insurance company said the risk is high. Discovery doesn't matter for the insurance company.

The risk of losing was high defamation per se. It was false. Trump was going to get a hefty settlement or hefty payout in judgment, I should say. So they opted for this settlement. The network and Stephanopoulos released a joint statement. ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mason ABC's this week on March 10th, 2024. Last year, a Manhattan jury, blah, blah, blah. We get it. We get it. We get it. Now I'm for it.

I don't know why anybody would argue otherwise. And we have this this hubbub over at Mediaite. CNN's Scott Jennings says, I don't frankly have a problem with Trump suing news organizations. Notice the 3301 comments in response to this. These companies, they're losing their minds over accountability. Sue them, Trump, into oblivion. And now, as many of you may have heard, Trump is suing Ann Seltzer.

So this one's particularly funny. I don't I don't actually know how where where he goes with this one and how this one plays out. I do want to play that clip from CNN in a second. But Trump is suing Iowa pollster and Seltzer and the Des Moines Register newspaper. Seltzer published a poll days before the election that said Kamala Harris was ahead by three points. Trump won by 13. So I'm curious what his argument is going to be.

Trump sues Ann Seltzer, her polling firm, the Des Moines Register and the newspaper's parent company, Gannett, accusing them of consumer fraud, according to a copy of the filing reviewed by NBC News. And the suit filed Monday night in Polk County, Iowa, says it seeks accountability for brazen election interference. This is interesting. I wonder if the Trump camp thinks that they can grab in discovery some evidence that the the news in Des Moines, the news organization knew what they were saying was false.

That will be interesting if they actually get Ann Seltzer privately saying she doesn't believe the results and the Des Moines Register the same thing. There could be an argument. Trump won the state by double digits, a difference that is Trump that his lawyers argue in the suit constitutes election interfering fiction. Trump is making the claim under Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits deceptive advertising.

Quote, I'm doing this because I feel I have an obligation to. I'm going to be bringing one against the people in Iowa, their newspaper, which had a very, very good pollster who got me right all the time. And then just before the election said I was going to lose by three or four points. Seltzer announced after the election that she would stop polling political contests and move on to other ventures.

When the registered published when the register published a seltzer poll, Trump had been widely expected to win the state. The survey of 808 likely Iowa voters found Harris with 47 to Trump's 44, which is insane because when you track the trends of Iowa over the past 10 years, you could see a major shift towards the Republican Party. It was so laughable that people posted this meme where a gothic chick was sitting in a tractor and it was like Iowa, according to Ann Seltzer, probably a very funny meme.

Defendants and their cohorts in the Democrat Party hoped that the Harris poll would create a false narrative of inevitability for Harris in the final week of the 2024 election. Shortly before the polls release, a possible leak predicted its findings, prompting an internal probe. Now, here's the best part. Apparently, Kamala Harris's internal pollings had shown the entire time that she was behind Trump and wasn't going to win. Well,

Here's the clip from Mediaite. Let's bring on the whinging. Not only does Donald Trump have money, he has money with the RNC. He has money with his super PACs and his money has money. Look at all of the tech billionaires that are around him now.

There is an indefinite amount of money. And I believe wholeheartedly that the Des Moines Register, very much like ABC Disney, is going to capitulate. And I believe that Donald Trump has actually figured out a way how to change the way that media

Deals with issues whether it's good at all about this Scott just where it could go not just the Donald Trump of it all But I mean if he's creating precedent, it's for everybody Well, yeah when you introduce I'm or Michael use the word narratives, you know And I think one of the reasons Republicans are cheering on this muscular attitude from Trump and pushing back against some of this is because

Republicans feel like constantly media organizations, especially in the throes of campaigns, work overtime to create false narratives that may shape the contours of the election. Look what happened when this poll came out in Iowa. The entire English speaking world was talking about the gold standard pollster. And Harris has this momentum. And ultimately what we were told.

was complete garbage. And if you talk to pollsters at the time, they would have told you this is not real. This methodology is not good anymore. But that's not what people chose to run with because it fit what most people in the press wanted the narrative to be. So he's pushing back on that. I don't I don't frankly have a problem with it. And if they capitulate, it's because they don't want to go through the discovery and what that might show. You're a. Yeah. Yeah. We had Ryan Gerduski on Timcast IRL last week.

And he was on CNN as one of their commentators, I believe he was. And he mentioned how it's basically rigged. They bring you in there like a prop. I'm paraphrasing, so I don't want to speak for him. But the general idea I get from all of this is that you're brought in like a prop. You get 10 seconds to say something, and then they all just roast you. And it's a shell of a show. It's fake. And CNN, your ratings are at an all-time low. Did you guys know this? You know, CNN...

CNN's ratings all time low again. This is the crazy thing. I'm going to I'm going to pull this one up for you from the Daily Mail. Look at this. CNN reaches depressing new milestone. You know, we were going to talk about this last night on Timcast IRL. And Phil was I was like, oh, look at this. CNN reaches a new all time low. And Phil was like, didn't we already cover that like two weeks ago? And I'm like, Phil, it's again like that. They're continuing to go down. Check this out.

New data has revealed CNN has hit its lowest total day demo rating ever, ever. They had more viewers when they first launched and nobody knew if 24 hour news made sense. Among the coveted 24 to 50, 24 to 54 viewer demographic for two demo viewers, CNN's daily audience dropped by 1%. CNN's day total demo number was 94,000. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on.

I need a clarification on this. I got to consult ChatGPT because I don't think I'm reading this right. Okay. Their total day viewership. What does total day viewership mean for cable TV ratings? Is that from like six? No, what are they going to be like midnight to 6 p.m.? Because if that's the case, that can't be correct.

Total day viewership refers to the average number of viewers a network has through a 24-hour period. 6 a.m. to 6 a.m. This metric includes all programming aired during that time, providing a comprehensive view of the channel's overall performance. Whoa. Hold on. The average amount of viewers the network has through a 24-hour period? Does that mean at one time? Because otherwise what they're saying is throughout the day they only got that many viewers.

Holy crap. If a network reports a total day viewership of one million, it means that on average, one million people were watching the network at any given moment throughout the day. Not that one million people were watching at the same time. Ladies and gentlemen, dead is an understatement. Think about what that means. I'm going to I'm going to jump over my analytics right here and I'm going to give you my Tim. So yesterday I only did half segments.

It was a slow news day and I just do not, I got to be honest, I do not feel like making segments for the sake of segments. If I have something to talk about and it's something that's got a light bulb on my head, I'm going to pull it up. Otherwise, I'm not going to do a segment if I don't care. So yesterday I pulled it halfway. Right now, our total day viewership is about 1 million in the key demo. 1 million. I'm going to say it again. Probably not that great, I guess, but CNN's

Ninety four thousand. This year, it is reportedly ninety two that. Whoa. OK, no, I'm sorry. It's ninety two. Wow. That means throughout the day, they only attract ninety two thousand people to watch in a twenty four hour period. My friends, my morning video already has more views than that. The video I put up at 10 a.m. already has more views than CNN gets an entire day.

For daytime, the primetime stuff, I think, is like basically the same. I think they end up getting a couple hundred thousand. So fine. It's that's why I don't think daytime is 24 hours. I think that's probably incorrect. I think the separate primetime and daytime after the election, the primetime demo audience has shrunk into an average of 77000. I think actually that might mean. Wow. I actually think that might mean throughout the entirety of primetime.

For average day viewership, they averaged 480,000 viewers. And so that is people over 54, meaning 55 and up. This is the end, my friend. This is this is where it all comes crashing down for the corporate press. And, you know, what can I say? We do have this viral story, which is pretty funny. MSNBC Stephanie Rule says Trump is more accessible than Biden, but jokes. He told her to go F myself when asked for an interview. Take a look at this.

MSNBC host details Biden's team. Biden team's effort to shut down interview after asking Hunter Biden question. Stephanie Rule is talking about this. She says in the way of traditional media in the White House, the White House runs the show. When I interviewed Biden, they gave me 10 minutes. A politician can knock out one answer in 15 minutes. Rule told Lucas Thim during an interview in December at minute nine point five. I asked the president, your son Hunter might be indicted by your Department of Justice. How will this impact your presidency?

A completely reasonable question. As soon as I said those words, President Biden's team waved in front of the camera, started screaming and yelling and stopped the interview. Now, that immediately went on. That's public record. That was in the transcript. That became its own story. And then they punished us. This is why Joe Rogan said, I'm not flying out to you. You come here on my terms. And he was right to do it.

It's going to be a wild next couple of years, my friends. It's going to be absolutely wild. What happens next in media is going to shape this country. We may have won politically. Fingers are crossed. Vivek Ramaswamy is reading through that 1500 page continuing resolution garbage and saying vote no. Doge is gearing up to gut the bloat. Kash Patel lurking in the shadows, ready for that confirmation. RFK Jr.,

It's going to come in and make America healthy again. But we need cultural reforms. And that means, well, I will say this. It is the it is the podcast presidency. These victories are due to the mass wave of independent individual shows like this one. Y'all watched spread the word and we created culture. What happens now is everything.

Donald Trump says we have to bring the media to heel. Not like that. He's going to get straightened out. But I say they need to be brought to heel. How does that happen? I'll tell you what I think we see next. MSNBC is not going to roll over. You've heard me say it a million times. They're they're going to bring on these big personalities. The shape of things to come. The great culture war is now.

While Disney is pulling out these woke storylines from their movies and we seem to be winning, it can be reversed. Personalities can be created. Here's what I'm hoping for. I'm hoping that we have such a stranglehold over the space that it will be increasingly difficult for them to get in.

Hassan Piker, who's been praised by Democrats, I talked about yesterday, saying they need more of him. His viewership has declined a little bit. He was getting around 40 something and then he went super anti-Israel. And it's true. That's what happened, guys.

Hassan Piker started basically defending Hamas and sort of burning viewers like crazy. There's a website. We did this thing on the members only show. I recommend you watch it. Go to Timcast dot com. Click. Join us. Become a member and watch last night's uncensored because we played a game called Twitch or terrorist where they give you a quote and then you have to pick. Did it come from a Twitch personality or a terrorist? We won. And as the saying goes, when in doubt, it's Hassan Piker. But Democrats are saying they need more of that. They need more of him.

That dude said that America deserved 9-11. That is an insane thing to say. That is not true. People don't deserve war, conflict and crisis like this. I get that people feel wronged and there's war and there is conflict. But everybody, you know, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. But he said it. And it's shocking. I think it defies any kind of historical understanding. If that's the route the Democrats want to go, then so be it. Let them take it.

I say to these Harris aides, you're right. It was Flaherty. I think his name is. You're correct. Yes, you invest in these people.

My bigger concern is that they'll go for the sophists. There are a lot of prominent liberal personalities that lie about everything. And you can see in the corporate press, but they exist on YouTube, too, because they know the name of the game. They're going to get that money and the war is going to be on. But I tell you this, I know you've heard me make the argument several times. Forgive me, but it does bear repeating. I will add Donald Trump's lawsuit here. We need to be ready to go to legal war.

I have filed. Let me just say, you know, I had a lawsuit filed. And as you know, a lawsuit was filed against the Kamala Harris campaign. And I can just say that it was resolved to my satisfaction. The tweet in question has been removed. Can't say any more. I have nothing more to say on that. And so, you know, that's it. I think it's going to be incumbent on all of us to reject the lies from this machine and make sure that when they do lie, we go after them.

And we tell them we're not going to tolerate you lying about us. We're not going to sit back and just let you say these things. So shout out to Scott Jennings. Shout out to the New Media Landscape.

But congratulations to Donald Trump for humiliating the woke press. I'll leave it there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone, you know, become a member over at Timcast dot com. Again, watch that uncensored show from last night. It's about a half and it's like 45 minutes long. It's like 50 minutes. But we we play for about a half an hour Twitch or terrorist. And I think you guys are going to laugh at this one. So, again, hit that like button on the way out. Stick around. We'll see you all in the next segment.

TikTok may be banned. You may have heard the story. There was a law passed a while ago that basically said TikTok has to divest from foreign adversaries of the United States. And if they don't, then they're going to get blocked out in the U.S. I actually have no problem with it. Now, Donald Trump ended up winning largely with the youth vote, turned around on TikTok and is now saying maybe it should not be banned. I still think it should.

Not necessarily that it should be banned, but the idea that there will be investment in a company deeply controlling of our economy and of our media, that there's going to be controlling interest from one of our adversaries is a bad thing. So I think divestment is a must. Look, guys, we can't just sit in this world of anyone can do anything for any reason at any point.

I believe in freedom. I believe in liberty within the confines of this country, a secure border and our constitution. I don't see why we would allow people who hate us to dictate our media narrative and culture. It's bad enough. The corporate press lies, cheats and steals all day, every day. We don't need foreign influence. We don't need it. So I don't see what the problem is for TikTok to just be like, OK, we're going to divest the small percentage we have from these Chinese investors or Chinese influence.

Should be simple, right? Now, in the inverse, there's a concern among more libertarian types that, in fact, the intelligence agencies are trying to isolate control of social media. And the bill actually wouldn't ban TikTok. It's going to force them to divest. So it's not really a ban. Well, now the Supreme Court will be taking up the case. Daily Local News says Supreme Court will hear arguments over the law that could ban TikTok in the U.S. if it's not sold. You know, look, I got to be honest. I hate TikTok.

They're they're they're one of the worst in terms of censorship. I don't even we have we have problems posting clips from the show and people call me a milquetoast fence sitter. Yet we still randomly get banned from TikTok. The narrative control is massive and obvious on that platform. And I say no dice.

No dice. So I don't care. I'm not going to sit back and defend people who want to destroy our worldview and way of life. So while I am for free speech, of course, I'm for free speech for those who are for free speech. And if TikTok wants to play these dirty editorial games where they suspend and ban people based on their opinions with no clear way to navigate, especially, then I say, bye, I'm not defending you. Here's a story from the Daily Local News.

It's an AP report, and let's see if we can get the actual AP report. You know what? Let's just jump to USA Today.

Here's what we know after a denied court petition. This is from yesterday. I know we'll get that in the Supreme Court. A federal appeals court denied TikTok's petition for the Supreme Court to pause and review legislation that could ban the social media app in the United States. However, a comment from President-elect Trump paints a murky feature for the platform. On Friday, U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia denied a motion filed by TikTok and Chinese parent company ByteDance to temporarily pause the legislation. The

The latest news, of course, we have this. Let's see if Bloomberg will let us. Here we go. Supreme Court will hear the challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear TikTok's challenge to a law that would ban the social media app if it isn't sold by the Chinese parent company. Scheduling arguments for January 10th. This is massive because I believe they have 19th to get it done.

TikTok's parent company ByteDance says the law violates the Constitution's free speech protections. The Federal Appeals Court in Washington upheld the law earlier this month on a three to zero vote, saying Congress was legitimately acting to protect national security and user privacy. I agree. I don't believe the Constitution applies to people who are not in this country. Now, if you are a visitor to this country, the Constitution does protect your rights.

If you're a tourist, you have free speech rights, but there's still restrictions on carrying guns. So it's hard to know how to navigate this. The founding fathers were drafting up these provisions. There are a lot of things that we didn't encounter and we didn't know how to how to answer to. So the question has got to be answered. Supreme Court needs to determine whether or not the Constitution applies to people outside the country. I don't think it does. TikTok is not being banned. They're saying the foreign influence can't be involved. I agree with that.

The court will also hear an appeal from a group of content creators. The ban will take effect January 19th, the day before President-elect Trump is to be inaugurated, unless the Supreme Court blocks it. Updates to say court will also appeal from here. Content creators. OK, so that's the update. That's the basic news. That's where we're at so far. Trump is signaling his openness to stopping the TikTok ban, softening his stance.

Trump came out in a press conference and said just the other day, you know, he did really well to vote, so maybe he doesn't want it banned. Look, if you are going to be swayed by the sweet nothings whispered into your ear by Chinese influence media.

Then we're doomed. I do not believe just because Trump won and because he started getting benefits from TikTok, we should sit back and let foreign companies have influence over our corporate press, over the narrative machine in this country. It's bad enough the woke elements at X and Facebook were playing this dirty game. But now that you got these big tech CEOs dropping on one knee to Donald Trump,

I say we're moving in the right direction. Not that people should be giving fealty to Trump. The point is, these companies realize the manipulation of speech and the narrative in this country is wrong and there will be recompense. But if TikTok is allowed to operate with Chinese influence, it's not changing. We are not going to have sound economic policy or border policy when a country that hates us and wants us destroyed is basically controlling a large portion of our economy and our social media landscape.

So here's the answer. Divest. That's it. It's not hard. Divest whatever whatever interest this Chinese China has in it, which is small. You just sell it off. China's refusing. And you got to understand, too, about China is that these companies all operate within the Communist Party of China. You got to have a Chinese Communist Party member department just like they want to do DEI stuff here. I say no dice. Not interested.

But Trump met with the TikTok CEO as the deadline looms, the BBC reports. U.S. President-elect Trump met the CEO of TikTok on Monday as a social media giant fights plans by U.S. authorities to ban it.

Trump met Xiao Zichu, his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Monday. The BBC's U.S. partner, CBS News reporting, citing sources familiar with the meeting. A law passed earlier this year means TikTok will be banned unless it is sold by a Chinese parent company. The bill introducing the law said it was intended to protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications. All right. So it'll be just before Trump comes in. But I'm going to tell you this. It's an addiction. That's why it wouldn't be banned.

And me, I have little risk. So let's lay this all out. First, Trump said, take a look at TikTok. I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok because I won youth by 34 points. There are those that say TikTok has something to do with that. TikTok had an impact. A majority of 18 to 29 year olds backed Trump's Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris. But the vote did see a significant swing towards Trump among young voters.

I think he won 34 percent, not by 34 percent. But let's break it down. Make it easy. First, there's the obvious. We've been banned so many times and shut down on TikTok. I don't care. It's easy for me to say, screw TikTok. Bye. We don't break the rules. We are milquetoast fence sitters, as we've been accused, moderates. And people get mad that we don't take strong positions, things we don't know about. I say we as in Tim Kessler and its talent, but you could say I as well for the morning show.

And even with that, when we have conversations on seemingly mundane issues, TikTok banned us. So screw you, dudes. I don't care. Bye. Cry about it.

TikTok is one of the most censorious platforms. And just because Trump got a benefit and certain people found followers on the platform does not mean we should entertain it. This is the same platform that pushed Dylan Mulvaney to the top. We don't want it. They will flip on a dime the moment they get the opportunity. Now, in the inverse, you got a lot of young people who have big followings.

And that's their career. And they are deeply concerned. They're going to lose their million followers on TikTok, which I don't I don't believe, you know, I'll keep it light. But in my personal opinion, looking at TikTok, I am suspect over the audience size, you know, whatever that means. These people are not going to walk away from a million followers. If someone came and said they wanted to ban YouTube, you'd expect people like me and everyone else to be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, no. And we give our reasons. There's personal bias here, 100%.

I got to be fair. I got to be fair, though, and honest. If I had a big following on TikTok, I still don't know that I would care all that much about TikTok. Seriously, they are overly censorious and manipulative and they prop up weird crackpot far left things. And we're not talking about banning them. We're just telling them to divest from the interests that oppose American interests.

Don't we should not let these foreign countries operate in this way. Now, if China wants to run Xinhua News, I don't care. That's fine. If RT wants to run Russia, yeah, I don't care. That's fine. If Iran wants press, what is it called? Press one. I can't remember the name. Whatever. Then what is the Iranian news agency called? I should I should we'll get this one up. It's what's it called? I R N A. I thought there was one that was called like press one or something. I don't know. Whatever.

Iran International, whatever, you get the point. If they want to operate here, yeah, I don't care. We understand what they are and they're outright saying, hey, we are of this country and this is our editorial position. Okay, fine. TikTok doesn't act that way. TikTok is deep influenced by China but pretends to be neutral because it's just regular people speaking their minds and running their businesses.

except they decide in the algorithm who gets seen and who does not. And that means they shut down our conversations when we say things like make products in America. I don't believe for a second that the real anger that they have, the reason why they ban us is over gender issues or culture war issues. I think it largely has to do with the fact that we say stop making products in China.

And then all of a sudden, our channel gets banned for the third or fourth time or whatever. Yeah. So, you know, at TikTok, you made your bed. Now you sleep in it. There's a simple answer here. You divest from U.S. adversaries and we move on. But we'll see. I think the Supreme Court may actually defend them on this one. This will be interesting. The question of whether or not the Supreme Court cares about the integrity of the country or simply says we have to abide by our interpretation of the Constitution.

Should be interesting. I'll leave it there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Become a member over at Timcast.com to support our work. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. And we'll see you on the next segment. A continuing resolution, a short term funding bill for the government, which basically means Congress is incompetent and dysfunctional and can't actually put together a budget. So they're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of your money and money they print out of thin air upon the issuance of debt, which basically means the country's burning down and nobody's fixing it.

Anyway, I'm ranting. OK, anyway, so they're offering up a continuing resolution. A lot of people are really mad. Hidden within this, there is a provision that would at least temporarily inhibit or otherwise obstruct the investigation into members of the House. That's where things get interesting. Now, I don't even need that provision to be in it for it to be a bad idea. But, you know, whatever.

Right now, you've got Vivek Ramaswamy having read through one thousand five hundred pages of this CR and he's basically like, this is insane. No one should vote for this. But there is a core story here that is not surprising to me. We have this from this morning from at a muse on X. Continuing resolution prevents Trump's DOJ from investigating Congress. Really now?

Well, the reaction is, sure, there's a provision, which I'll read for you in a second, that makes it very difficult to investigate. It doesn't outright say you can't do it. It just basically inhibits you from doing it.

And the counter is, but it's only temporary. This continuing resolution only goes, I believe, until March. And then I'll have to figure something else out. Yeah. Then they'll do another continuing resolution. Then they'll say, we're just going to adopt the continuing resolution as our as our spending bill. This happens all the time. So don't give them an inch. We did not go.

Grind our fingers to the bone for years to win this political movement just so that weak willed people in Congress who are scared of losing the midterms would sacrifice everything. Sorry, I'm not interested, but let's read this.

Amuse says on the heels of the report, the DOJ obtained the emails of Schiff and Swalwell, proving they leaked classified documents to the media. Congress has inserted language into the continuing resolution, allowing it to quash any subpoena. Kash Patel or Pam Bondi might issue for House data. This would make any investigation into the J6 committee all but impossible. It would cripple any investigation into Schiff and Swalwell, of course.

That's the game that they're playing. Let me show you over here. This is the provision. So on the original tweet, Kermel says, I've asked people to verify a muse is telling the truth. So take a look at this. We have the actual language here. We have seven. We have Section D, page 239.

It says motions to quash or modify upon a motion made promptly by a house office or provider for a house office. A court of competent jurisdiction shall quash or modify any legal process directed to the provider for a house office. If compliance with the legal process would require the disclosure of house data of the house office. And then I hold on there a minute. You know, let me just let me just read this once again, try and understand what I'm reading.

Upon a motion made promptly by a House office or provider for a House office, a court of competent jurisdiction shall quash or modify any legal process directed to the provider for a House office if compliance would require the disclosure of House data. Why is that in there?

Honest question. I don't know. Let's throw the J6 stuff. Let's throw the committee aside and just say, for what reason would they include a provision that says in the event of legal action against us, we can just squash it, meaning a court will just be like denied. What are they trying to hide? And why would we not be allowed to have a standard legal process for investigation into wrongdoing? Interesting.

It goes on to say information regarding implications of using providers. The office of the chief administrative office in consultation with the House Office of General Counsel shall provide information regarding the potential constitutional implications and the potential impact on privileges that may be asserted to each House office that commissions and uses or use a provider of electronic communication and remote computing services. They're basically saying that if I'm assuming this is a cell phone provider, there is an action against them.

They're going to have to say, no, you're not allowed to get access to any of that information, probably because they're going to want to subpoena the phone records of these individuals who leaked confidential materials.

It doesn't say nothing in the section shall be construed to limit or supersede any applicable privilege, immunity or other objection that may apply to disclosure of House data. Well, here's the here's the news is saying NBC Congress releases short term funding bill as deadline nears to avert a holiday shutdown. The measure would keep the government funded until March 14th, throwing a messy deadline into Trump's first 100 days while giving the GOP more leverage to shape a full funding deal. I'm going to throw it to Vivek Ramaswamy.

Let's see what he has to say, because he's the Doge guy, right? He writes, I wanted to read the full 1500 page bill and speak with key leaders before forming an opinion. Having done that, here's my fault. Here's my view. It's full of excessive spending, special special interest giveaways and pork barrel politics. If Congress wants to get serious about government efficiency, they should vote no.

Keeping the government open until March 14th will cost $380 billion by itself. But the true cost of this omnibus continuing resolution is far greater due to new spending. Renewing the farm bill for an extra year is $130 billion. Disaster relief, $100 billion. Stimulus for farmers, $10 billion. The Francis Scott Key Bridge replacement, $8 billion. The proposal adds at least $0.65 of new spending for every dollar of continued discretionary spending. The legislation will end up hurting many of the people it purports to help.

Debt fueled spending sprees may feel good today, but it's like showering cocaine in an addict. It's not compassion. It's cruelty. Farmers will see more land sold to foreign buyers when taxes inevitably rise to meet our obligations. Our children will be saddled with crippling debt interest payments, crippling debt interest payments will be the largest item in our national budget. Isn't that crazy? Congress has known about this deadline since they created it in late September.

There's no reason why this couldn't have gone through the standard process instead of being rushed to a vote right before Congress and want to go home for the holidays. Yeah, that's on purpose. And we all know it. The urgency is 100 percent manufactured and designed to avoid serious public debate.

The bill could have easily been under 20 pages. Instead, there are dozens of unrelated policy items crammed into the 1,547 pages of this bill. There's no legitimate reason for them to be voted on as a package, a package deal by a lame duck Congress. 72 pages worth of pandemic preparedness and response policy, renewal of the much criticized Global Engagement Center, which is being, I believe the Federalist and Daily Wire have sued the government over, a key player in the federal censorship state,

17 different pieces of commerce legislation paving the way for a new football stadium in D.C. What?

a pay raise for congressmen and senators, and making them eligible for federal employee health benefits. It's indefensible to ram these measures through at the last second without debate. We're grateful for Doge's warm reception on Capitol Hill. Nearly everyone agrees we need a smaller and more streamlined federal government, but actions speak louder than words. This is an early test. The bill should fail. Well, all I can really say is good luck reading it.

You know, it's hard for me to give you a strong opinion on this because there's no way I could read 1,573 pages. Is that the total amount? 1,547. Sorry, I got it wrong. I can't. Man, I'm running a company and trying to produce a show.

And that's the challenge. So I give you this. My opinion on the matter stems only into the trust I have in others. And there's not much more I can say. I believe in Vivek. I think he's a very smart guy. And I take his word for it. We've seen way too much of this and what he's laid out. I trust. Do you trust him?

If that's the case, I trust these other personalities. I trust reading outright that they want to what appears to be have some kind of immunity to some kind of to any kind of legal action against what may be illicit activities. And I say outright, you know, that's enough for me.

Let's say no to this. And I'm going to throw it to Matt Gaetz when he was saying we should have single item spending bills. The bill should be one page saying we're going to allocate X for Y. That's it. Have a nice day. OK, maybe more than one page, depending on need be. But why are we doing this massive 1500 page garbage? And for that matter, you don't really irks me. How come that a single Republican puts anything good in there? It's all pork and bloat and weird benefits for these people that no one's. You know what?

That's why I got to say the system is broken. OK, we know it's broken. Congress is broken. I am sick of Congress completely. We need some kind of action. Well, I'll tell you what happens. Congress is decentralized.

So it's become a stodgy, immovable object. We know it's broken, but who are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote against Mike Johnson? Well, Matt Gaetz brought the fight and got rid of Kevin McCarthy, but doesn't change much of the machine. It sends a message. It's a good first step, in my opinion. The problem is we need Congress to be purged completely. We need an absolute overhaul. Every single member of Congress needs to be voted out. That's it. You know, look, I know. I like some of these guys. Massey is fantastic. Okay.

Matt Gaetz is out, but you know, he's good. I like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, but I'm sorry. I'm not here to spare anybody. The problem is the machine is broken. So when you replace one person with the next, you may get a good person, but the machine is still broken. The snowball is rolling down the hill. So I don't have any good answers. I think we got to vote out the incumbents. But you know what?

The challenge ultimately comes to Democrats don't care. They literally don't care. The Republicans have been sweeping with this populist movement and bringing in people to challenge the machine. And the Democrats laugh. AOC just lost to a 74 year old infirm man, infirm old man for House oversight. That's the broken machine. Now, I'm not a fan of AOC. I think she's a liar. But come on, a 35 year old young politician. And you're like, now we'll take the 74 year old guy with cancer.

Look, no disrespect to old people with cancer, right? But we need a change. Maybe that change ain't AOC. Fine, I get it. But the Democrats don't care. They want to maintain that system. Republicans largely don't care either, but a small handful are all right. So good luck, man. I think they're going to pass it.

We'll see. I'll leave it there. Next segment's coming up in, what do we got, a couple hours. So stick around, smash the like button, share the show, become a member at TimCast.com. Follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. And we'll see you all in the next segment.

In a previous segment, we discussed in this continuing resolution that they're running through. It provides cover for members of the January 6th committee if there is an attempt at investigating them. And this matters because of this story over at Fox News. FBI should probe potential Liz Cheney witness tampering in January 6th matter. House Republicans say numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney.

A new House subcommittee report concludes. January 6th, of course, was confirmed to be an inside job. I'm going to say it again. I hope everyone in the back can hear it. January 6th was an inside job. Definitively, it is proven January 6th was an inside job. I hope that was loud enough and repeated enough for all of you in the back. And now I'll explain why. For all of those liberal types who may watch this video, who are saying, oh, he got a rumpf. It was not. You conspiracy theorist.

I have a question for AOC. Did the police open the doors and help people on the inside of the building? They did. Is there a video of police giving an escort fist bumping one of the guys they had recently cuffed? They did. Is there a video of police escorting the shaman into the Senate chambers and opening the door for him? They did. Oh, well, that's what we call an inside job. Now, if you're making the argument that the government planned the whole thing, I never said that. Right. And I'll say it again. If there is a bank robbery, OK, and a single bank employee is

walks over to a back door, props it open to allow them to come rob the bank. That's called an inside job. It doesn't mean the bank management was in on it. That's what the media does. They lie so that they can obfuscate the argument actually being made. January 6th, as we know, had 26 plus informants. Three of them were paid to be there. There's a video of a guy being cuffed, led away, and then they fist bump him and uncuff him. Yeah. What's with the fist bump?

Very strange. Don't know that guy is. But after this, they start traveling around the country, rounding people up and arresting them despite nothing. Nothing really happened. I mean, look, misdemeanor trespass charges. Fine. None of it makes sense. Now we're hearing that Liz Cheney could have been actually fabricating the whole thing behind the scenes, making the J6 committee investigations a hoax. Indeed. Fox News reports former rep Liz Cheney is facing calls from GOP legislators, legislators

that the FBI investigate her for potential criminal witness tampering related to her role on the J6 Select Committee. Quote, based on the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former vice chair of the J6 Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the FBI.

Evidence uncovered by the subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson's attorney's knowledge. The January 6th committee was founded in July 21 to investigate the breach of the Capitol.

The committee concluded its 18 month investigation last year when Republicans regained control of the House and sent referrals to the Justice Department recommending Trump be criminally prosecuted for his involvement in the lead up to supporters breaching the Capitol. The committee was composed of seven Democrats and two Republicans, Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who are both no longer in office. Louder Milk subcommittee was tapped to investigate the J6 committee and its findings. Now, according to this, you've got this continuing resolution saying,

Basically, it says if the subpoena or actions are going to go after House data, it can be quashed. I wonder. Well, Donald Trump has issued a statement saying Liz Cheney could be in a lot of trouble based on the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, which states that numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney. And these violations should be investigated by the FBI. Thank you to Congressman Barry Loudermilk. A job well done. Newsmax by Greg Kelly. Interesting to say the least.

The New York Post has chimed in. Liz Cheney's secret discussions with Jan 6th witness absolutely merit investigation by the Post editorial board. Look, we've got a controlled media in this country. We have abject corruption in Congress. We have, I guess you could just call it dysfunction to an extreme degree, but this is criminal. These allegations against Liz Cheney, this is criminal. They're saying she broke several laws. What do we do about this?

Well, of course, Democrats are going to run to the defense of a Cheney, which is absolutely hilarious. We have this. We'll read it from the New York Post. They say, for the record, the call from the committee on the House administration subcommittee on the oversight for the January Justice Department investigation. OK, hold on. The call from the committee on the House administration subcommittee on oversight for the Justice Department to investigate evident witness tampering by Liz Cheney is not revenge. It's basic good government.

The committee's report cites evidence that Cheney, a vice chairman of then Speaker Nancy Pelosi's select committee on the Capitol riot, secretly reached out to a star witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, and proceeded to coach her testimony without her lawyer's knowledge. Now, maybe there are some there's some other reason Cheney was messaging Hutchinson via the encrypted signal app before the former Trump White House aide testified.

And maybe there are reasons. Hutchinson's testimony conflicted with other witnesses, particularly her gossip about Trump supposedly lunging for the wheel of the car after Secret Service agents refused to drive in the Capitol on that fateful day. You know, it's really important about this. Trump was in a vehicle that shields him from the driver, meaning he could not lunge for the wheel because he would have to phase through solid matter and then grip the steering wheel. Of course,

If the argument they're making is that Trump can move with such rapid speed, perhaps tapping into the speed force, allowing his molecules to vibrate so rapidly he can shift through the glass bulletproof plating that separates him from the driver's wheel, then I am open to hearing that testimony. Short of that, it's impossible. And perhaps then the simple solution is she's a liar.

They're going to say secret communications with the witness are far outside the rules of any investigator, including members of Congress. So the committee was plainly right to flag the matter to the DOJ for investigation, though the Biden department sure won't touch it. And even Trump, the Trump one may be a bigger fish to fry. Congressional hearings should be purely parsing attacks on political enemies. But that's what Pelosi's perverse Jan 6 probe amounted to, complete with Hollywood advice on staging the show.

An apparent witness tampering is evidence of that show only adds an outright criminal element to the to the perversion of House proceedings. It seems Cheney, like everyone else ranting about protecting democracy in the last election, doesn't have a clue what that word means. My friends, I long for accountability. The problem I think we're seeing right now is that you've got this general fear among all politicians that if they declare war, war be declared. And, uh,

You know, to quote Mel Gibson in The Patriot, these wars will not be fought in some far-off land. They will be in front of your children, in front of your homes. And how does that pertain to this? Well,

Most politicians feel like if I go after Democrats for corruption, then they are going to open the floodgates against me and it's going to be all out lawfare and conflict. So they avoid this. That's why when Donald Trump got elected in 2016, despite saying lock her up over and over again, he says, no, no, we're not going to do that. He backed off. Boy, was that a mistake? Because Democrats absolutely being unscrupulous had no problem whatsoever launching lawfare against him.

strapping cinder blocks to his feet figuratively and tossing him into the proverbial ocean, accusing him of treason. No joke. Destroying evidence, lying in the press, ultimately impeaching him twice, accusing him of being a traitor to this country not once but twice. It's remarkable. We we nearly lost this country in 2020. Who knows where it could have gone? 2016, I think.

It showed the emperor had no clothes. The uniparty establishment machine was frantic, panicked and was burning everything down. But, you know, people can see it now. The media landscape has shifted and this country can and will survive. Now you've got Kash Patel and Pam Bondi coming into the DOJ and I'm looking forward to seeing them get something done. But do you think the battle ends here? I'm sorry, it does not. OK, Democrats, the corporate press will not just roll over.

The fear now is what will they do to go up against Donald Trump? And honestly, I don't know. Many people believe there's going to be a false flag, a nuclear strike. They'll stop Trump from getting elected. We have some liberal guy screaming we need 11 million people in D.C. So Trump has a coronary and that just doesn't become president nonsense. But it ain't over. Liz Cheney is not just going to sit back and go, guess I'm going to prison. We had Roseanne and Michael Malice on the show.

Roseanne owes Michael some money because there were not military tribunals and we had an election and Trump won. So Roseanne will have to pay up. I don't know if they did already or what their plans are, but thanks for coming on the show. The interesting thing about this is when Roseanne says there's going to be tribunals, I say, no, there won't be. I'm not saying that because I'm not saying it because I think nobody did anything wrong. I'm saying it because nobody's going to dare make these moves.

No one is going to hold these people accountable because they are terrified of an all out battle. However, I don't know what happens now because Kash Patel, I can't imagine just sitting back and telling the public we will not pursue them. That makes no sense. But how hard does he go after them? I don't know. And in response to this, I don't see Liz Cheney is just simply saying, guess I'm going to prison. She's going to muster up every political favor she can to push back on this. Let's get it.

I want to see some action. And I think she should be in prison. You want to put Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon in jail? Well, welcome to the fray, ladies and gentlemen. You started a fight. I hope you're prepared for what comes next. Smash the like button. Share the show. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Become a member at Timcast.com. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all in the next segment. You think you've won. You think it's over.

You think reason would return to the human mind. But instead, what you end up with is stories like this. The body positivity movement expanding in none other than San Francisco. The city has hired an overweight fat activist to give guidance on weight stigma. And I believe this woman is evil. I think she's evil. I think what we have here is a woman who is unable to control her weight and to be healthy. And

And so she tries to bring people into her misery with the guys, a mask of love and care. Now, by all means, if you're overweight, it's your choice. It's fine. But it is unhealthy. It can kill you. It likely will. It causes a lot of health issues. And I'll throw it to my good friend Cal Rittenhouse when he says being fat is an excuse. And here's a picture of him with a big old belly. And then here's a picture of him looking particularly fit and wielding a gun. Chefs of Cal Rittenhouse, being fat is an excuse. You can do it.

And it's funny because you have people like on The View being like, whoopie goldbergs. Like, no, some people need Ozempic. And what's the other one? Wigovi? I don't know. You know, the people are injecting themselves. I don't know what Ozempic does. But what I heard is that all it actually does is make you feel ill. Is that true? I don't know. But people are losing weight. I have an idea. It's called manage your diet properly and exercise properly.

I could be hard. It's hard for me sometimes, but I do not believe it is in any way a good thing for San Francisco to hire a fat consultant who claims you have the quote unquote right to remain fat. Well, you do, but we strongly encourage you to be healthy because we want you to live, live. Well, let me let me show you this. Here's the video.

a video of her and you can meet her. Hi, my name is Virgie Tovar and I'm the author of You Have the Right to Remain Fat as well as a few other books on fat positivity and body acceptance. When I think about...

what people might be surprised by or what you wouldn't think of when you think of eating disorders. I immediately think of being a kid. I was a kid in a larger body, a teen in a larger body, and also I'm an adult in a larger body. And the message I always got from my doctor was shrink your body by any means necessary. Your doctor. And it really,

felt like there was a sense of a don't ask, don't tell. So because I truly, truly, truly believed, right? And this is where I think the surprise comes in. I really believed that this was about my health. I really believed that my doctor was right. Because why would I believe anything?

Yeah.

Post Millennial says an overweight fat activist disclosed that she's been hired by the city of San Francisco to provide guidance on the prevention of weight stigma. On Monday, Virgie Tovar reported the news to her more than 82,000 followers on Instagram. This comes after California Governor Gavin Newsom announced the state's own version of Doge. President-elect Trump's Department of Government Efficiency.

Tovar wrote in the post, I'm working with the team at the San Francisco Department of Public Health as a consultant on weight stigma and weight neutrality. I'm unbelievably proud to serve the city I've called home for almost 20 years in this way. The consultancy is an absolute dream come true. And it's my biggest hope and belief that weight neutrality will be the future of public health. OK, well, I'll tell you this. Share this with your friends and family. Stop being fat. Look,

You have a right to do things, but I also think you can be wrong. See, I'm a fairly libertarian-leaning individual. Many of you may appreciate that.

But I look to the more staunch traditionalists, moralists and conservatives who have no problem outright saying stop, stop making excuses for it. Stand up, do the work, be responsible for yourself and stop being some fat communist who thinks other people that deal with your problems. We want you to live. We want you to be healthy, but you need resistance. That means someone has to tell you.

We could be a free loving country. You can gorge yourself on chicken nuggets, fine, whatever. But we're allowed to shame you when you do. That's the that's the that's the drawback. Now, I'm sick of this. Look, may not be easy. We have problems in the food industry. We have problems with fast food. RFK Jr. wants to address these things. But what I actually see is none of that. Life has challenges. What I actually see is you have very many people

who don't want to accept responsibility for the fact that life is actually kind of tough. Sometimes it's not always going to be easy. Did you know, my friends, that a lottery winner and a quadriplegic register the same levels of happiness one year on from their formative moment? That is to say,

A person who is seriously injured and a person who wins the lottery one year from that point, they register the same degree of happiness because humans adapt even in the most adverse scenarios. People whose lives are totally upended. Now, don't get me wrong. The first few weeks after winning the lottery, you're on cloud nine. And the first few weeks after a serious injury, you are miserable. But as the story goes, this too shall pass.

And so what I say to all of you, my friends, is that we cannot just be a nation that entertains irresponsible people who won't take. Look, look, let's let's let's slow down. I see this lady and she talks about being a larger kid and a larger teen and a larger adult. Yeah, it's because you eat too much and you're eating wrong and you're not exercising. Sorry, that's just true. Now, there are different body types. Some people do put on weight faster than others. All of this is true. Some people do have thyroid problems.

We want to talk about body acceptance and body positivity. We're talking about someone who's injured, somebody who has a scar, you know, things you can't change. But what we've got now with the modern liberal movement is it's no longer about immutable things. So let's take a look at the Civil Rights Act and the nature by which liberals start to entertain nondiscrimination. It was like, you know, if you're from, I don't know,

If you are black, no one should discriminate against you. You're a law abiding citizen. If you are black, no one should discriminate against you. You are an American. You have a right the same as everybody else. We should not discriminate on the basis of these immutable characteristics, which in fact, immutability is actually a basis for whether it's protected under the civil rights law.

What we get now is your gender identity, which can be fluid, which is not immutable, or your weight, which is not immutable. These people are trying to argue. You can't discriminate on things they have control over. So here's what we need. We need to stop babying people. I reject body positivity for people who are obese by their own choice.

I have no problem saying if you lost a limb, if you are injured in war, if you're a veteran, especially, you know, we honor. We honor you, veterans, for the injuries and everything you've gone through in sacrifice of us. That is humbling for someone like me, and it should be for people in this country. That's what body positivity is supposed to be about. Trigger warnings, same thing. It's supposed to be for people who actually have post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD,

Shell shock, as they used to call it. And we want to be respectful to people who sacrificed for us. But these people who are lazy and irresponsible, who want to gorge themselves, now demand that we tell them it's a good thing. No, no, I'm not going to do it because I want you to be better. I want you to survive and I want you to live and be healthy. This lady says her doctor told her and she was like, I really thought about being healthy.

Well, it was, but you see, there is easy, lazy, and there is hard. There's a funny quote about shortcuts. And it's, I don't know where it's from, but a friend told me a long time ago, he says, of course, it's hard. It's a shortcut. If it was easy, it would just be the way.

Yeah, so these drugs people are taking, these are shortcuts. But I got to be honest, at least a shortcut gets you there. Although there was another funny meme where it's like, I don't need, someone said, I don't need to lose weight, but I got Ozempic anyway, because the class action lawsuit is going to pay gangbusters. Yeah, maybe. I don't know, man. Look, here's what I will say. I do take issue largely with a lot of the conservative and belief of calories in, calories out. Not correct.

It's not correct. There's a lot of people who say things like all that matters in losing weight is calories and calories. And I think like Matt Walsh was saying something like that wrong. Anybody who actually is trying to be fit.

and perform and all these things knows it takes a lot more than just counting calories. If I would wake up in the morning and eat 1000 calories of pancakes, I'm not getting protein. I'm not getting creatine. I'm not getting vitamins. All you're going to do is get sick and tired. If all you're doing is eating meat, they'll actually meeting. It's probably better in my view.

I don't eat pancakes. I largely just do fats, meats, and a little bit of starches that come from naturally occurring vegetables and things like this. My sugar's way low.

My point ultimately is this. It's not just calories in, calories out. Your body needs certain chemicals and vitamins to be able to process the calories, and some calories are different. They really are. I know a lot of people say, no, Tim, calories, calories. I get it. My point is eating protein is very different from eating sugar, raw sugar. It's very different. So the issue I see with a lot of these fat people is their diets are bad and they don't exercise. Some people say, Tim, I exercise all the time and I can't lose weight. Well, reassess your diet. Are you getting proper nutrition? The other day, this is wild.

I drink a protein shake for breakfast, a protein shake before bed, and I drink a lot of water in between. And I was still dehydrated. It's brutal, man. I'm like, it's not easy to maintain proper diet. It's really not. And so I can say to these people, I get it. It's tough. But let's be real. For the most part, it is an inability or a choice to continue the lifestyle you do, eating greasy foods, fatty foods.

If you are to cut out the carbs and balance your diet with some good proteins and vegetables, you're going to lose weight.

But also people need to understand losing weight is not just about not eating. Your body will hold the weight on for dear life. Cardio breathing in and out with a high heart rate is what is burning that fat off. If you don't exercise, I am telling you it's a choice. Sorry, life's not fair. Some people have to exercise more than others. Some people are naturally skinny. Some people can't put on muscle mass. Some people can put on fat and muscle like no like nobody's business. So everybody is different.

But that doesn't mean you can sit around and tell everybody it's okay to be unhealthy or that it's not about health. Be responsible. Thanks, San Francisco. But I'm telling you, I'm going to shame. I'm going to shame you. Now, final thought. If you're in the gym and you're trying, I will not shame you. Okay. If you are actively doing the work and you are trying, but you're still overweight, then I have nothing but congratulations for you. So when Lizzo lost weight, she blocked me. But I say, I mad respect Lizzo 100%. When the Krasensteins

liberals who I'm not fond of when they post their workout routines and they are fit. I say thank you for putting on a good example for liberals. You can do the work. You can be healthy. It's a matter of choice. Not everybody. Some people can't. But this lady certainly could. I'll wrap it up there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone. You know, Tim cast IRL coming up next at 8 p.m. And we'll see you all then.

Hardy Fiber Cement Siding handles conditions that can cause damage to vinyl. From fire to hail, Hardy Siding stands tall through it all, helping trade professionals look their best when they recommend Hardy Siding and Trim. See the proof at jameshardy.com.