National Guard Sent To Chicago - Fascism Or Salvation Debate w/ Joel Webbon, PiscoLitty and Connor Tomlinson
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: Joel Webbon @rightresponsem (X) Pisco Litty @PiscosHour (YouTube) Connor Tomlinson @Con_Tomlinson (X) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
They're shutting it down because they're concerned about widespread ICE raids, which is just weird for a lot of reasons.
But that's not the principal issue we're here to discuss.
unidentified
We're here to discuss the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago and other cities and whether it is that it is fascistic takeover or the salvation of these people plagued by crime.
I'm an attorney and I talk a lot about what the Trump administration is doing.
unidentified
And I obviously take the position that these deployments, especially of military officials in the National Guard, are not just in the most case is illegal, but also against our history and tradition and the Constitution.
And then I do some streams, right response ministries on YouTube.
I was just assuming you were going to disagree with him because that's kind of the point of the show, but who knows?
Who knows?
And then we brought in this guy from the UK.
Actually, we talked about it the other day with Connor, that your perspective might be interesting considering you come from an outside country, though you do have a more conservative bent.
Yeah, well, my country is currently in the grips of anarcho-tyranny.
And I actually might end up agreeing with you because I want to free the National Guard up so they can come over and help us with our problem.
But yeah, Colin Thompson, host of Thompson Talks on YouTube, Reuter for Courage Media and General Troublemaker, and hopefully friend of the show, considering you keep having me.
So there's a, we'll just kick this one off, and I will not be separated from this as I am from the south side of Chicago city proper and grew up in ways that I don't think people should grow up.
So there are two strategies being employed that have been, I should say, there's a principal strategy that's been employed throughout Chicago for the past several decades, particularly in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods.
unidentified
That has been done by the Democrats and the liberals.
Donald Trump is offering up a new strategy, which is to deploy the National Guard.
In the area I grew up, we had a place called the Leclerc Courts.
It was basically all black houses and neighborhoods.
And because of the violence, specifically and literally from this black neighborhood coming into other areas, shootings, there's the gang initiations called getting V'd.
We had routinely in my neighborhood, which was largely white working class immigrant and Latino, the people from the Leclerc courts, largely, almost entirely black, would come over and just rob you blind and the cops couldn't do anything about it.
unidentified
And the cops said, the problem is we get sued instantly on racial grounds because we end up arresting a bunch of black people.
So the city liberals, the Democrats, said, we have a solution to the problem of crime.
They bulldozed all the black people's homes and kicked them out and forced them into poverty and worse circumstances.
Donald Trump says, we'll deploy the National Guard.
They will not enforce laws.
unidentified
They'll likely just be cleaning up trash.
But the strategy here is gangbangers are going to be scared to open fire on crowds when there's a bunch of National Guard standing around.
As a Chicago native and resident, I believe it is preferable to take the Donald Trump conservative approach of deploying National Guard, but not to enforce laws, but as a presence, as opposed to the Democrat strategy of tear down the homes of black people and kick them out and make them homeless.
What do you think?
Even if it's illegal?
Deploying the National Guard.
Would you support the deployment of the National Guard in a city if it was illegal?
So we're talking about a specific incident in Chicago right now, the real world, not a hypothetical is it on paper or not.
We're dealing with two scenarios.
First, I will stress, Trump can legally deploy the National Guard.
So you agree with me, don't you, that there are congressionally imposed limits on the president's use of the National Guard that are found in Article 1 of the Constitution that Congress.
There are certain circumstances where it would be argued that Trump's deployment of the National Guard is illegal.
The Democrats bulldozed black people's homes and wiped out their community.
unidentified
Is that what you want to happen?
No.
No.
that's what happened but why is okay so they do something bad so we should deploy you know it's called deployment it's it's called well Well, what's preferable?
The Democrat strategy to bulldoze their homes and make them homeless, or Trump having 84 National Guards standing periodically on streets.
It's a false dichotomy, but if you were going to force me to choose between bulldozing homes and illegal deployments, at a bare minimum, right, bulldozing homes would be some act that I assume was passed off democratically.
It sounds like you're putting a lot of emphasis on the legality.
unidentified
So to use the dichotomy that Tim presented, you know, the idea of black people's homes being bulldozed, you mentioned, you know, well, at least that would come about, we would presume, democratically.
Does that make it just to you?
Just because something is brought about democratically doesn't mean that it's just, but there are longer-term interests in the survival of the country that are at stake when you just, you know, don't think about the constitutional framework and history of our country, which was particularly worried with standing armies.
As libertarians, you know, you guys must be concerned.
I assume that you believe in rights, right?
Yes, I believe that there are natural rights.
What are some examples?
I'm just curious.
I wonder if I'm not familiar with you, but what's an example of nationalizing, federalizing the National Guard in order to go into some situation?
So just real quick, this is 48th West 44th Street.
This is a couple blocks from where I grew up.
And it's all just beautiful, lush fields surrounded by fences that that's what it is.
They fucking destroyed because instead of saying, we want to deal with the crime, they went in, evicted all the black people and ripped their homes down.
unidentified
It's not a problem.
I'm not sure about the particulars of this, Tim, but we're not here to discuss was this apart or not.
I mean, if this happened in your neighborhood, I'm really sorry about that.
unidentified
But we're not here to discuss this, right?
Are we here to discuss the closing of homes?
Are we here to discuss?
It's 2011, 2011.
We're here to discuss what is the solution to the problem of crime.
And is it you can make the argument that there's a pie in the actually, let me put it this way.
I from this neighborhood, growing up in Chicago, who have lost friends to the gang violence and the crime and the drug trade, who have friends who've witnessed corpses being dragged down alleys, who was personally shot at.
The hot dog stand, the little shop that was two blocks from where I grew up, had bullet holes in its bulletproof windows.
unidentified
And I don't want to pretend like that's the apocalypse because I know that life was bad when we all lived in the woods and were fighting each other and war in Europe or Asia or whatever it may have been.
Donald Trump's play is the estimates are about 80 National Guard per city.
unidentified
And what they'll likely be doing is picking up trash.
They do not have the authority to enforce the law, local law.
But the idea is in these areas where gangs come into, like Vidim Park, where I grew up, where you'd see 15 black teenagers come into our neighborhood and just steal everything from you.
They won't do it when there are two National Guardsmen standing there with rifles.
Will you condemn the National Guard if they help execute a search warrant for ICE?
unidentified
Why?
Because you said that you wouldn't be in favor of them enforcing civilian law.
I didn't say that.
Would you be in favor of the National Guard enforcing immigration law?
Should there be a declared emergency under color of law and it's legal and allowed?
Well, one of the ways in which you're trying to sell this is you're saying they're just going to be standing there as a presence, a show of force.
I think that that is by itself also problematic under our history and framework of our Constitution, where we're specifically scared of standing armies and the founders, especially, right?
They have every two years, right, the army lapses.
I find it very difficult, having experienced the things that I did, to have people not from this place tell me that I don't want National Guard in my life.
So, in Chicago, there's not going to be a single Democratic politician who's going to come out and tell you because crime got so bad, we flattened the black community.
unidentified
They're not going to say that, but they're going to say in this game of whataboutism, when we're like, okay, the Democrats had a bad policy on crime.
By the way, they've had multiple bad policies on crime over the course of decades and decades and decades.
It's for decades, for generations, the Democrat policies, the liberal plans, the plans you're presenting, and the counter that you're making to Donald Trump has failed and has resulted in people that I know being dead.
And the response from the city was, of course, they're going to give platitudes.
I just want to finish this and I'll let you finish.
So it's even extra funny because the whole purpose that our constitutional structure in history is so fearful of standing armies has to do with British deployments of the military in the United States, like the Boston Massacre, et cetera.
And so, yes, we don't need your lessons on military deployments or the First Amendment.
Okay, there's no need to be petty.
I was actually going to ask you a question in very good faith, so I would rein that in, please.
The constitutional statutes that you're appealing to, forgive my ignorance.
That's after, and the history is really helpful here because it was after President Grant's deployment of troops in the southern states.
unidentified
The reaction to that, and after the Hayes-Tilden election, they passed posse comitatus specifically because troops were in the South enforcing federal law, enforcing civilian law, and they didn't like that.
The point I'm going to lead with this is that's all well and good, but the appeal to the justification of the law appeals to a context which no longer applies.
unidentified
Because the reason those laws were written was an internal conversation about limits, checks, and balances on the undue application of power within a homogenous population, right?
The current problem that America has is they're in a state of emergency.
They've imported, what, 10 to 15 million illegals in the last four to five years alone.
The crime is out of control because of foreign investment in DAs and progressive cities, and they treat the criminals like the victims of society.
So if the local authorities are not going to enforce the law and they're going to put people's lives at risk, then yes, the federal government has a duty to step in and safeguard its citizens because if on the ground the DAs are ideologically bankrupt and endangering people, it is morally justified to have the military step in and reinforce order.
Let me ask you a question.
You keep bringing up legality as if it's some basis for morality.
What the Nazis did was legal is the most famous argument.
But I really, really value our constitutional system and structure and our history.
It has produced the most prosperous, most powerful country in the history of the world.
unidentified
We're right now at the height of our power.
And so I want to protect that system because it seems to produce really, really, really good results and protect domestic liberty.
So, you know, you'd have to have a you said yourself, it's not like we can't live.
You said it yourself at the start of the conversation.
We've had worse times.
And so it sounds to me like we haven't met that threshold, at least in your mind, that we're going to throw away our constitutional scheme of government.
So for example, the title he invoked in California, it's rebellion, it's invasion, none of which are present, and an inability to enforce define invasion.
Whether or not they're waving a flag and whether a foreign country is saying that these are all shock troops to leverage political changes in your mind whether something is a rebellion or not.
Some of the people who shut up certainly did have the intent to disrupt the electoral vote count.
unidentified
I think I have no problem with these people being criminally charged, locked up, and, you know, I think you get you go to prison for this, especially fighting cops.
See, with the ICE riots, where you have the federal law, you have federal government going in specifically to enforce a law, an organized group of people putting out flyers and saying for the purpose of this, we will come out and engage in violence is different, right?
I mean, come on, you know that they were organized in Jan 6th.
I mean, just because everyone is part of the plan, they were people who were organized with a specific situation.
unidentified
So if my argument is that there were some people on Jan 6 that intended to overthrow, to stop the vote count, most didn't.
And there were some people in L.A. that were intending to stop federal government from engaging in law enforcement, which is under the law the same thing, insurrection or rebellion.
So in terms of frustration, they do the exact same thing.
I'm calling them the same thing.
I'm saying law enforcement should have done the same thing.
However, some people on January 6th did have that intent.
unidentified
And if the government were to say, we are going to invoke the same act for the deployment of law enforcement to stop these violent actions, that is acceptable.
I said he cited a statute which includes one of the purposes in it: invasion, rebellion, or inability to investigate.
So invasion is included.
So let's make sure that the question is.
No, no, he did not make a finding of the state.
On January 6th, a large portion of the people who were arrested and charged did not engage in insurrection, did not engage in rebellion, did not riot, did not fight with police, did not tear down barricades, did not smash windows.
There were people who showed up an hour after police had cleared everybody out.
One couple, they were in their late 50s, showed up an hour after everything had stopped, walked up the stairs to open doors, walked in, looking around, shrugged, and left, and got convicted and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
And until he does, don't you think that you need to analyze?
You're basically saying that you don't care to analyze whether Trump's actions are legal or not under the current authorities that you're that is a huge leap that is not part of the law.
Do you care to analyze whether his actions are legal or if they're illegal?
All that is to say is it's a live issue under the courts, and it's a separate issue whether or not the courts are able to review it and whether or not he's following the law.
He was basically saying this is a wholly different context.
And so me trying to apply posse comitat as a law that's on the books to the conduct now, it's removing and divorcing the context of 1878 and applying it and misapplying it in the current day.
That's not true.
We're fighting the same battles that we're doing now, like that they were.
unidentified
You know, they were having an immigration problem, according to them, in the 1870s, too.
The first restrictive immigration law they passed was the Page Act in 1875.
And there was a great deal of Chinese immigration that was happening that people were pissed about in that era.
The previous context in the greater form, the long form of what I said was, here's the insurrection act.
unidentified
The insurrection act says that if local law is not being enforced or that individuals are using violence to stop the enforcement of federal law, that qualifies for the president to invoke the insurrection act and send the National Guard.
This qualifies as an insurrection in that context.
unidentified
Then when it came to January 6th, the context liberals brought up was that this large body of people that were riding were trying to overthrow the United States government.
No, no, but what I'm saying is the underlying assumption that to do an insurrection, that either colloquially or under the historical legal frameworks, that that is what is needed to qualify as an insurrection, that you would need to overthrow the government.
During this court, the court case over whether Donald Trump was disqualified under the 14th Amendment for insurrection, the corporate press was running the line.
So I don't think engagement in insurrection also has a historical legal definition, and it doesn't include, you know, pushing for people to have beliefs.
unidentified
The argument is Donald Trump engaged in insurrection because he was a lighter standard under the law than I say Kamala Harris applies in the same way.
Yeah, so whatever the cause is, we're just talking about whether we would support the deployment.
So I'm just asking you.
I got a red states to make a political point, though.
That's the point.
No, no, no.
I'm saying red states in terms of the reason why he's not deploying red states is because he has relationships with these governors, and that's why he's doing it.
Yeah.
It's political.
I don't think he was saying red states have higher crime.
I think he was saying there are some red states that have cities with high crime Trump's not deploying to.
Right.
And I do want to, and we all know why.
I do have to bring this up.
It's kind of a non-sequitur, but I think it's relevant to the zeitgeist and the shift culturally.
I've been talking about how on Instagram, have you seen these Instagram viral threads?
There's the George Floyd ones.
George Droid.
Those ones?
There's those.
But there's like, I call it Floydgate, where now I think we're seeing largely like Indian people are making any AI George Floyd videos.
It's like it's one thing when Derek Chauvin's stealing fried chicken from George Floyd.
It's another when it's just George Floyd with his baby and his baby saying dada, which is like, it's getting crazy.
But there's a string of videos that are appearing on Instagram that are just racist jokes and targeting everybody.
There's videos making fun of fat, white, trash people, but a lot of these anti-Indian, I shouldn't call it anti-Indian, but mocking Indians, where it's like there's one where a judge goes, for scamming, you are being sentenced to a 15-minute shower.
And the Indian guy goes, no, please, not a shower.
And then it shows an Indian guy screaming in a shower.
They have millions of views.
The reason I bring this up is there was a video that my friend told me about, who is not political.
This is a dude who does not engage in politics at all and knows nothing about it.
And he said, Instagram suggested a Nick Fuentes reel where Fuentes was saying everybody knows that the crime is coming from the black neighborhoods.
He says it's irresponsible to bring your wife and child to black neighborhoods.
And everybody knows when you talk about shootings and crime, you're talking about black people in black neighborhoods.
That has millions of views and people I know that, like, again, I'm stressing this, who don't engage in politics on Instagram, who are watching videos of Legos and Star Wars, got recommended that.
That is crazy that Instagram is promoting that in their algorithm and that people are sharing it.
When you brought up, you made the comment to Connor about saying something about black communities.
Whether it is true or not is not material to what I'm pointing out.
I'm pointing out that there is one, big tech is allowing the narrative and pushing it.
And there are many people who are now coming out publicly saying, yes, that's what I believe.
Yeah, so I think this is exactly, you know, if there is a problem in terms of the perception here with respect to race, that's even more of an issue that we wouldn't want the government to be overstepping its legal bounds in terms of authoritarianism, in terms of this deployment.
Because if we are concerned that people will make these kinds of stereotypes and it will infringe on other foundational protections like legal protection, that would be even more concerning.
What if they're true?
That black people, well, it is true that black people disproportionately commit more crime than white people.
And then what's the problem?
No, the problem is the potential rights deprivation.
Would you be okay with, for example, there being a lower standard to stop black people than white people go?
You're basically saying you have a personal opinion.
It should be.
Hold on.
What you're saying is, here's a list of mental disorders.
You have an opinion that some should or should not be disqualifying.
Yeah.
I think none of them should be disqualifying.
Okay, so schizophrenics should be allowed to own guns?
Yes.
No.
The Second Amendment says the right to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed.
You've got a problem with it?
Amend it.
Okay.
I mean, then amend it.
I think that Scalia and Heller said that there are certain categories just because something with free speech, he's wrong.
Indeed.
And so is Kavanaugh.
And so this is where we get to an interesting argument where you, I believe, are putting subjective morals under the Constitution, which you accused us of doing.
My argument is this.
The founding fathers were pretty dang clear when they were drafting the Constitution the reasons for why they were doing it and what the Second Amendment says.
We as a society cannot exist with a written constitution where we arbitrarily decide without amending it that we've changed it.
Yeah, okay, I agree with that.
And I don't think that I'm amending it by incorporating some standards that were then existing.
That's what the Bruin case recently, which was much more protective of Second Amendment rights than before.
I mean, we have a big protection Second Amendment in recent cases.
Okay, so the soldiers of the British Army were called regulars.
unidentified
Regulation back then, in this context, referred to functioning, not government-sanctioned.
So the Second Amendment anticipates the use of the militia, which are people, like not regulars in that sense, but are part of the community, are members of the community.
That's what the militia was.
Regulated in this context means their guns should be functioning and equipped.
Again, I'm not having a Second Amendment debate with you on the merits.
I'm just telling you that the Second Amendment does, as understood by the Supreme Court, anticipate some individual rights.
unidentified
So I'm not contesting that.
The point I'm bringing up with this.
You value that right over the other restrictions in the Constitution, giving to Congress the ability to regulate the militia and to set forth for calling forth the militia that Trump is violating.
So when it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, can we infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms without vote?
No.
Okay.
I don't understand.
If you need to amend the Constitution, in the meantime, though, what you can do is you can say that for the same reason that people who are schizophrenic can't own guns, you could actually say this is a condition that bans somebody from.
I'm approaching this just from a logical platform, and this is why I think conservatives, liberals, libertarians, everybody, maybe not the anarcho-capitalists, are lying to themselves.
Nobody actually wants the Constitution.
They just use it when it's convenient for their activities.
We had blasphemy laws in this country for hundreds of years.
Bring them back.
Bring them back.
Blue laws, Sabbath laws.
Let's go.
Talk about the First Amendment.
I'm ready for that one.
That's the point.
The Second Amendment was never understood to mean that you can't put any restrictions on the ability of people to keep and bear arms.
For example, ex-felons.
It was always understood that the right to keep and bear arms does not extend to ex-felons.
Yes.
And also, did you know that in the 1800s, it was commonplace for local sheriffs and big cities to confiscate the weapons of individuals entering those towns?
The Constitution, as people believe it to exist, never existed.
Never did.
Right.
Maybe the Third Amendment.
So even when you think about blasphemy laws, for instance, if somebody blasphemed Jesus Christ, you're in trouble.
If somebody blasphemed, you know, Muhammad 100 years ago, you're not in trouble.
Why?
Well, it's not equal weights and measures.
No, it doesn't need to be equal weights and measures.
I mean, why do you just say it's all, you know, you put your hands in the air?
I'm not a child.
What's that?
Because I'm not a child.
Michael Madden.
Apostasy would not, just real quick, apostasy would not be criminalized.
So think of it like this, the Ten Commandments.
I think this is helpful.
I'll say it quick and I'll let it go.
Think of the first and the tenth commandment.
All right, I'm Protestant.
Okay, so the Catholics are going to take the 10th commandment of thou shalt not covet and bifurcate it into two.
Don't covet stuff and then don't covet the wife, you know, and that's so that they can get rid of the second commandment, which is do not make graven images because the Catholics like their images.
So it's like, so then when is this 10th commandment?
It's one of the Ten Commandments.
When is it punished?
It's punished when an individual doesn't check coveting at the level of the heart and it spills over into theft or to murder or to it's when it breaches.
Now it's a crime.
It's an outward action that is against the people and against the Lord.
And so too, with the first table of the law, look at the first commandment: have no other gods before me.
So are we going to be that's a sin, not a crime?
Am I going to be punishing people for their idolatry in their heart?
No.
But if it spills over into action, so if a guy's public, for example, public prayers to Muhammad.
So if a well, yes, if a guy apostasizes privately in his heart and stops attending church, that's one thing.
But if that guy forms the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgences doing parades, mocking and blaspheming Jesus Christ with adulterous nuns in front of children, okay, now it's a crime.
unidentified
Or publicly stating that, you know, Jesus is not divine.
For example, if a Jewish person publicly states and rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ, that would be a public action that you could be sanctioned for.
There's a difference in somebody in free speech and something, somebody saying something publicly versus having prayer sirens five times a day in an American city, calls to prayer.
When you ask me about his worldview and whether I'd be opposed or angry.
unidentified
So we do the event and they start attacking the people who have attended, but before we happen, before we do the event, they're attacking the people who want to come.
They're attacking athletes we've worked with.
I've gotten messages from professional athletes saying things like, I wish I could come out there, but I would lose my job.
As you already pointed out, there are things you can say that you believe that will destroy your life.
unidentified
Absolutely.
Because there is a threat of force against you to destroy your access to resources.
So when you're like, his worldview is bad, I'm like, Barack Obama's worldview is bad.
He blew up fucking kids, okay?
We will call out the bad things when we don't agree with them, but there's a reality to the functions of politics in this country.
The Second Amendment never applied until 2010.
And so all the gun rights advocates who are like, I have a right to do this, you didn't.
Heller, it was DC versus Heller that finally determined an individual right to keep their arms.
And it wasn't until McDonald v. Chicago where it actually applied to the whole country.
So the argument that we in this country, since 1789, had a right to keeping our arms, not correct.
Blasphemy laws existed.
You were illegally searched and seized all the time.
We have these amendments, but the we're looking for the more perfect union.
Yeah, there are times in our history where we have not been true to our people.
To have the more perfect union.
We made the more perfect union.
We don't have the people, right?
The 9th and 10th Amendment may not have don't even exist.
All I'm trying to say is just because there have been times, and I agree with you, especially on the First Amendment stuff, where we have not lived up to our constitutional ideals.
We currently have laws on the books that Congress has made respecting establishments of speech and religion.
I think that that's arguable.
Yeah.
I think that some of them, yeah.
I think that we probably disagree on some of the things.
If we're going to read the letter of the law pertaining to free speech, the idea that the government can make it illegal to incite violates the First Amendment.
No, no, no, because when they were doing the freedom of speech as understood by the framers, it didn't include defamation.
They didn't believe in your right to express your opinions.
unidentified
That's right.
So one of the first things that the Adams administration did, or I don't know if the first thing, but one of the things that it did was pass the sedition laws, which basically made it a crime to insult the president or criticize the president.
The point is when you're arguing more perfect, you're saying where I feel we should go morally.
unidentified
No, no, where I think that we should more approximate that ideal.
Real quick about federalizing the National Guard.
So I thought about this on the way over here.
I think it was 1957, and I believe it was Eisenhower, that he actually federalized the National Guard and sent them into Little Rock, Arkansas during desegregation.
And so there was an all-white school there, and the governor of Arkansas, Arkansas, you know, this is a classic Arkansas move right here, but was saying, no, we're not going to desegregate.
Going to keep our all-white school.
And the National Guard was federalized by Eisenhower to bring in and help march in the, you know, with guns and all those things, the black students into the school to de you know, segregate that school.
Do you, I'm just curious, do you feel like that was a just use of the National Guard?
So I'm not sure what the then existing statutes were for authorization of the National Guard for the federal if they were the same as they are now.
unidentified
But to answer your question, you know, and I think one of those situations, it was the U.S. Marshals, and I'm not sure that is civilian law enforcement.
But in the main, there was a potential for a nullification crisis there where you have the state.
It's not like the state governor in that situation was actively obstructing Brown versus Board and the federal laws in the books with respect to equal protection.
So in those situations, I can imagine being okay with it.
I would need to examine the legal context and the facts to understand if it means that the North protection applies to you have to go to the same school?
I don't know that that was, so it means you can't racially discriminate on the basis of elementary school.
It was court ruling, Supreme Court ruling.
And because of that, now they're saying, well, we have a different set of rules.
And when the governor and local authorities did not adhere to that, then you had the National Guard coming in and enforcing it.
And I don't know if you're like a presuppositionalist or one of these type of people who like say, logic doesn't make sense if there's no God or some shit like that.
I don't even know what that statement means, to be honest with you.
So to my intuition about whether something is good or not depends on the facts, right?
And so if the law, if we are living in a society in which I say, you know, in general, I think it's good to not break the law and to follow the law and make sure the law is enforced, because in general, I think overall, this constitutional system and our historical tradition brings about good outcomes.
I think that that, you know, you can't be divorced from that context and say, you know, in isolation.
What brings integration outcomes for good?
In this example, what's bringing about good outcomes?
So following the Equal Protection Clause, which was passed specifically to prevent individuals from being subordinated, including from private discrimination, but especially from public discrimination, that in that context, following that law that was enacted by the people, ratified by the people, that that is good.
unidentified
If we believe, although it seems like you don't believe in a republic form of government, do you?
No, I think a republic form of government, this is my opinion.
I think a constitutional republic would be, in my assessment, I've said this publicly many times, the ideal form of government.
However, governments, forms of governments, have to be suited for the people of that time.
He had a video where he basically talked about how the point at which you need to write down your Constitution to enforce it is when you're cooked.
unidentified
What are you talking about?
No, no, no, no, this is Joseph D'Amaestris' principles.
All constitutions are preceded by the morality and the ideas written in the hearts and minds of the men that wrote them.
And so over generations, because you outsource the enforcement of morality to the document itself, and so the people to which the Constitution applies no longer believe in the ethic of the Constitution, and so they just start squabbling about how they can circumnavigate the statutes.
Let me follow it.
I mean, I don't know.
Let me just kind of explain what this means.
The question asked is, what does Constitution refer to?
The Constitution before the United States, typically it was unwritten.
So the UK believed you have an unwritten constitution.
The point is, philosophically, the argument is, when you get to a point where you need to deploy a federalized police force because the views of how the country is supposed to be running is different.
The same kind of deployments in L.A. Listen, listen, listen.
unidentified
Let's not have kindergarten questions.
It's not kindergarten at all.
It certainly is.
There's no limiting principle here.
If there were mass riots across the country in every major city and Trump said the local police have failed to enforce this, I'm deploying the military.
You weren't saying that Chicago had seized the it is obvious to anyone who can read a history book that life is better today than it was a thousand years ago.
I love how when I'm answering your question, you don't like the subject.
unidentified
You're monologuing about the, like, yes, there are differences between states and sovereign jurisdictions.
So I said I would not be okay with the total federalization of policing.
You then ask me why.
And let me finish now because Jim Bob and Ricky Joe, who live two hours from each other in the mountains of West Virginia, are living in completely different circumstances to Washington, D.C.
So the federalization of police force under the Democrat laws of gun control infringes upon the rights of two guys who live in the boonies who have to move.
It's the sovereign interest of West Virginia, doesn't it?
You're saying sending 80 National Guard into Chicago, just Chicago, just Chicago, because of the high rate of death is very different from the total federalization of all law enforcement.
unidentified
What I'm saying here is Trump has the legal authority to do it and that we have the Insurrection Act of 1807 and 1870.
That there are legal authorities by which Trump can do this.
And even in that circumstance, I don't think it's universally good.
Just because I say that there's some circumstances in which it would be okay to federalize the National Guard doesn't mean that I said that it was legal in this country.
Why are you like, let me ask you a question about your Christian nationalism.
So if a group of priests went around with machetes mercilessly murdering people all across the country all the time, you'd be in favor of that?
So for the purpose of illustrating, no one here has argued for the total nationalization.
Crazy man.
I used to be a bartender and I would talk to these military, and we were in a military type town.
And every time I would talk to these vets and these former, and sometimes active service people, they would say, the one thing that we're taught all the time, you don't deploy at home.
We don't have standing armies at home.
And everyone I talk to would say, you know, we're very proud of that tradition.
I think that sometimes cultural differences, changed attitudes, changed ethical outlooks, justify changes in the law.
unidentified
Okay, so the world regulation of a militia, the allowance of each state to govern itself, thinking its police force would act in the interests of its own citizens with different geographical particularities.
That was fine for a settlement for a few hundred years.
You had the confiscation of firearms, as Tim said.
But broadly, you could return to source.
Do you not see in certain places like Chicago, like LA, where civilization has just broken down into violence, that a more forceful application of the law would be temporarily necessary in order to restore order?
A bit like in the Roman Republic when you had a Caesar figure like Cincinnatus step in for a little while and then renounce that power.
So basically you're asking me, would I be in favor of legal changes to the law to make this a temporary centralization of power to then recreate the conditions where self-governance is possible?
I don't think that the military is suited for regular civilian deployments because I think that they're essentially, you know, they have a lot of different interests.
I think they're very honorable, but they're murder machines.
They're trained to be killers.
That's not correct.
They're combat infantry.
People like the regulars in the military, they're trained to kill.
The argument that was presented, like this was a New York talking point.
unidentified
It was a big concern that needed to be rectified was that the cost of the lawsuits for improper discharge and injury was less than the cost of training the NYPD.
So it was actually, it's your basic cost risk analysis, right?
Remember that scene from Fight Club?
Capitalism for the win, huh?
Remember the scene from Fight Club where Edward Norton's character is on the plane and he says, if a car is defective and it crashes and kills the people inside, and the company knows the cost of the lawsuit will be less than the cost of a recall?
We don't recall.
That's what happened in New York.
They said, how come these cops couldn't shoot?
And they said, well, to be honest, comprehensive firearm training is more expensive than the lawsuits we have to pay out when they shoot innocent people.
But I want to be careful here because there's, I don't want to ascribe something to somebody who's going to sue me later for obvious reasons.
unidentified
The general conversation among politicians was the NYPD, or I should say the debate politically in the cultural space was the NYPD isn't doing these trainings because it's more expensive than paying lawsuits.
They're not going to publicly admit it at the highest levels, but that was the internal, like, everybody kind of knows it's $50 million a year in lawsuits versus $100 million for training.
So what we end up seeing is, I will say this, I would rather have a military-trained individual who later becomes a cop than a short, fat guy with no training.
A former military, I'm not talking about military because I'm trying to make the point.
Former military police who have military and police training are safer and better at their jobs than somebody who just grew up in the area and got limited police training.
Therefore, the point is there's more discipline and better training among military personnel than local police.
He has kept among us in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.
unidentified
One of the main complaints, central theses of the founding generation was that having standing armies mixed in with civilian enforcement is dangerous.
Without consent.
You cited, you said it didn't change.
I consented.
Rome.
Okay.
You cited Rome.
One of the big dangers and why standing armies might be bad and deleterious to domestic liberty is that someone might use that domestic military to usurp our Republican form of government.
And so these are genuine policy reasons why we don't want to have standing army.
We don't want the standing army to usurp our Republican form of government.
The problem that we have right now is that the people, our citizens themselves, and a bunch of people who aren't citizens have usurped that Republican form of government.
So like this is like going into a house that's on fire with, or a house that's flooded with a fire extinguisher, right?
It's the wrong solution.
You have to look at the context.
When we had, you know, the founders, they're looking at England and there is religious persecution, right?
The king at the time was forcing ministers to read from the sports almanac on the Lord's Day in their church service, which violated their consciences because you got a bunch of Protestant Puritans, those kinds of things.
You had tyranny.
You had civil tyranny.
You had ecclesiastical tyranny.
And so they're coming from that.
And they're coming from that with people who are homogenous, people who have the same convictions.
They have the same ethnic background.
And so in that context, our fear, listen, they're saying our fear is government overreach.
And even with the First Amendment, our fear is religious overreach.
The First Amendment was not to think that the First Amendment was written, they're like, you know what, we're really hoping one day that this will protect Muslims.
Well, that's insane.
I just want to say one.
I consent.
As a Chicago native, and I know I don't speak for literally everyone in Chicago.
I can tell you that my friends and my homies, they work here, they're from my neighborhood.
People of D.C. My Democrat neighborhood in Chicago is now a Trump-supporting red neighborhood.
Who asked?
Okay.
So I am saying this.
For my neighborhood, where we do agree and did vote for Trump, we consent to Trump deploying to that neighborhood specifically.
And I do not believe it's fair that Pritzker, the governor, infringe upon our rights as a community to request federal assistance only in our neighborhood.
Why should this particular isolated community that has a shared worldview, when they say we actually would like the National Guard to come here to stop the violence, why should the city of Chicago, who don't live there and don't agree, be able to enforce their will and allow the crime to continue?
unidentified
Because the overall levels of sovereignty are like the municipal, the state, the federal.
Tyranny is okay in some degrees.
I don't know what you mean by tyranny.
You have representation.
That local district, that local government.
Okay, let's forget all of the country and isolate only the borders of Chicago.
There is one neighborhood.
They have an alderman.
That's what the local politicians are called.
It has specific boundaries.
And in this jurisdiction, they say crime has gotten out of hand.
I'm pretending to be stupid intentionally when I'm literally taking your argument and applying it to Chicago, and you refuse to accept it because you know you're wrong.
No, no, no, I'm not wrong.
Let me say it again.
I'm not wrong.
When you cite the king of England as violating the rights of the colonies because the colonies is a jurisdiction under the crown, you say, we have the right to oppose the king.
When I say a single neighborhood in Chicago says no to the mayor, you say the mayor can tell them what they can or can't do because they don't have the rights.
The outside authority says for no, we won't allow you to do that.
unidentified
So are you going to say that everywhere that they say we don't want them, that Trump can't go?
Say that one more time.
Are you going to say, therefore, if what you're saying is what you think should happen, that is, that one alderman should be able to speak for his district or whatever the polity is, whatever the group is there, that everywhere where they don't provide that permission, Trump should be barred from going.
It's not a proper inversion.
Okay.
So the existence of law enforcement is not the same as the non-existence of law enforcement.
So the issue would be like this: you can't vote to commit crimes against your neighbors.
Hence the point I made.
The community says, we will not impose this on you.
We're not going to vote for you so that we can say in our community, we're going to send people to your neighborhood to do something to you.
That means if your community has crime going on, which is negatively impacting outside communities, we can go and stop that because you are.
So I'll put it in.
But if there's the mayor of Chicago who represents all Chicagoans, correct?
Even if he what?
Even if he says no.
The mayor of Chicago represents all Chicagoans.
He doesn't.
Why not?
Because some people didn't vote for him.
Hang on.
Just because they didn't vote for him doesn't mean it doesn't represent them.
They try to put up signs saying neighborhood watch.
And then what ends up happening is you're guilty of a criminal conspiracy and people got criminally charged for doing so.
So when the mayor is violating the rights of the people who are not trying to infringe on anybody else to stop crimes, I believe it is appropriate for that community to be able to say, yeah, Trump, we consent to send you a National Guard.
And Trump has the authority to say there's an emergency here and there's crimes happening.
So let's not talk about it.
The community sovereignty matter until they don't freeze.
So here's the inverse.
If there is a three-square mile radius where people from that community are going outside of it and shooting and killing people and stealing from them, I believe then it's appropriate for Trump to say, I don't care what you want.
You're committing crimes against people.
So we're sending a National Guard whether you want us to or not.
I'm trying to, but so when you ask something that didn't happen for the purpose of setting up a precept that doesn't apply, the military did help enforce immigration law.
The crime is still happening, but because people have faster ability to call 911 and ambulances arrive on scene much more quickly, the rate at which you die from the violent crime has gone down.
unidentified
What ended up happening is with ubiquity of cell phones in the late 2000s, we see a big drop off in the murder rate.
What we ended up seeing from many politicians was murder is down, we're winning.
In certain circumstances where Trump would do one thing that would be a net positive with a net negative, he will then turn it around and present with an absolute saying, ah, you support this.
The current situation isn't better in terms of crime overall because the crime rate's going down.
unidentified
That's fucking simplistic.
And so when Trump is going to claim credit for decreased crime rates because of his deployments, you're going to say, that doesn't tell you to get it.
I'm going to look at the camera because I don't think there's any reason to say it to him.
Do you realize what you've done?
When I said crime relative to population size is different from overall crime over the course of a year, I don't think Pisco can comprehend what that means.
No, I think you realize the danger that you've done just.
What you've just done is, if you're discounting the overall overall benefit of crime going down over the course of 30 years, and you're saying, oh, I can't read into these crime rates that go down all the time.
Who knows whether they're going down, up and down?
unidentified
You can't read into it.
It's still a problem.
You just hear like a dialogue.
When Trump cites that very same statistics in the context of his deployments, you're going to be saying the same thing, aren't you?
So you're arguing that in the course of six months, Trump will say, in six months' time with the same population, the same demographics, we deployed law enforcement and crime went down.
He could just say that the law is bad and you would support him, right?
unidentified
it's a weird world where it's like you know what you do is you can't appeal to the law and just say it doesn't matter in other contexts can you In what context does it not matter?
In the context of the military deployment, you say it doesn't matter if he breaks the law, but in TikTok, you're like, he's breaking the law by not enforcing TikTok.
When we started this show, I said, sometimes it's good to break the law, sometimes laws are unjust and law does not mean Trump might say it's it's good to break the law for TikTok.
No, but you're talking about sometimes you don't follow the law.
It's immoral, him tim.
Just because there's enforcement discretion we can't have perfect enforcement of the laws all the time doesn't mean that we should violate the law, right?
Not locking up everybody for smoking pot isn't breaking the law.
Do you agree with that?
Not locking up everybody is not breaking the law.
Correct.
It would be impossible.
You would need a panopticon AI fine sky ship to be able to.
So arguing physical impossibilities.
But here's the point, as I will express it.
Pisco plays a game where he is allowed to bend the rules when it applies to his political ideology.
I agree that he does, and he can.
When?
When did I begin?
Literally just right now.
When did I bend the rules?
You told me I was wrong for appealing to legality on the issue of TikTok.
Yeah, because you don't care about the law.
And you don't either.
I do care about the law.
You don't.
I do.
You're a moral absolutist who thinks you are superior to other people.
You appeal the law when you don't care about the law.
I appeal the law and I do care about the law.
That's the difference.
You don't.
Yeah.
You just claim that other people who disagree with me must not care about the law because they won't follow my ideology.
No, no, that's not true at all.
Just your age.
Just because, and I'm an anarchist.
You think you're an anarchist.
You're supporting these massive military deployments all over the country.
That's an anarchy.
And you call yourself an anarchist.
What is anarchy?
You're supporting Trump deporting people because they're critical of Israel.
What is anarchy?
What do you mean?
Anarchy is the belief that government is unjust and the organization.
Sir, can we pause a second?
Correct.
I don't think that's Tim's view.
It is Tim's view.
When did that?
We had a conversation about Mahmoud Khalil.
Let me just stress something real quick.
What Pisco does is he tries to trap you into an absolute position that you will deny 800,000 times like I've done throughout the entirety of show.
I can tell for the last two hours.
Hang on a second.
You deny that you supported Mahmoud Khalil's deportation.
You supported that deportation.
Clip this guy's before Israel will walk.
Clip this guy's.
This is a really, really great one.
He said, I support, in general, people being deported over Israel.
Then, when challenged, he did the Monten Bailey back to a single individual with certain contexts.
Well, that's why he's being deported, isn't he?
And the same thing with Rameza Oz Turk.
Didn't he call to destroy Western civilization?
The point is made.
Hang on a second.
He's being deported because he was critical of Israel, isn't he?
You ask a question about a specific criminal context, but then try to claim— Criminal context?
What is he being charged with?
You see, this is the game he's playing.
What's the game?
You'll say something like, here's a guy who stabbed the baby.
She go to jail.
And he was black.
And you're like, yes.
He was like, well, Tim said black people should go to jail.
It's like, what the fuck are you doing?
Wait, no, no.
You supported someone who's one guy, one time.
One guy, one time.
Because he was critical of Israel.
That's why, and you did support that.
I mean, I have to do this.
Because of that or because he did other things that were objectively lying.
No, I'm not lying.
What's the lie?
What are you in favor of his deportation then for?
I'm not.
You said you were when we had this conversation.
He hates Americans shouldn't do it.
No, I said that the State Department has unilateral authority under the law to deport whoever they want.
You think it's wrong for them to try to deport Mahmoud Khalil?
Does your brain work, brother?
Well, can you answer that?
Do you understand the distinction between someone speaking and getting deported and the State Department having the authority to do so under color of law?
Also, do you agree with them doing that?
I believe that Marco Rubio has the authority under the law as passed by the American people.
He's an authority in that context.
Mill, sometimes maybe.
So perfectly.
Mahmoud Khalil's case, do you support his deportation?
I think that's a great case.
It's perfectly consistent.
I would say that I don't care.
It's perfectly consistent.
Whether you care or not, do you think that he should happen?
I believe that the State Department has the authority to do so.
I don't care whether they do or don't.
You know these answers.
No, you're saying that you don't care as anybody.
You're indifferent whether they do it or not.
Indeed.
So let me say this.
When I said in the last debate, Marco Rubio under the law has the authority to do so, and I don't really care, he then came here and said, Tim thinks people should be deported for speech about Israel.
You see the distinction?
No, you're fine with it.
You're fine with them doing that, aren't you?
Fine with and don't care are different things.
Are you okay with it?
You're not against it, right?
You're not against it.
Neither.
You're neither in favor or against it.
He shouldn't be in the country.
Tim wishes they had a better reason.
Sure.
So we can resolve that conversation.
Well, it's more so on matters for which I have no strong opinions.
I don't know what you're talking about.
You're indifferent about whether or not the country is deporting people based on their support for Israel.
You're talking about a single individual in a certain context.
But are you indifferent on that pattern?
And do you think that's been established?
What pattern?
Ask a specific question.
So are you indifferent as to whether the country is, if the country is deporting people based on their people?
Depending on the circumstances of deportation, I may or may not care.
Okay.
We should not be deporting people based off of their view of Israel.
It would be better. if it was like their view of America.
This guy hates America.
Therefore, let's get him out of America.
Do him a favor.
There's also the organization of protests rallying the American population against American interests, which is not a democratic process.
It's foreign influence.
So there's a lot of issues there.
And my response is not that he should be deported.
It's, you know, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
You don't have a strong view on whether if it's true that the government is deporting people on the basis of their support?
If?
Yeah.
If it's true.
Don't know.
I don't make judgments without enough information.
Sorry, your name's Josh, right?
Joel.
Joel, my bad.
You look like Joel.
You look like Joel from Last of Us.
All right.
Joel said he would care if the government's doing that.
He said, I would deport people based on their statements against America, but he would have a problem if the administration was doing.
My position is similar to yours in the sense that let's try to get the right laws that actually align with morality.
We all agree that you can have unjust laws, right?
We all agree with that.
And so we'd like to have good laws.
So ideal scenario, change the law and make it good, right?
That's the ideal scenario.
In the meantime, the idea of working with courts and establishing precedent, getting people on technicalities, right?
We've seen, you know, historically, we've seen mob bosses and cleaning up New York who like were, you know, were ultimately brought in and because of jaywalking.
When it's like, we're not really concerned about jaywalking, but that was through the legal system as the law currently rests.
That was the only way that we could bring this guy who was actually doing really terrible stuff to justice.
So ideally, you'd like to change the law to where you could actually get people for doing terrible things.
In the meantime, though, as you're seeking to have better laws that align with justice, using whatever technicality, using whatever's at your disposal to use to get people who hate Israel, nope, don't care.
People who hate America out of America, I'm for.
Joel, can I ask where you live?
I live in Texas.
In Texas.
Would you have a problem with the Trump administration deploying a bunch of Marines in the town that you live?
To do what?
To do law enforcement stuff, to pick up garbage and to get a bunch of illegals out of my town?
Fantastic.
I'd be out there with my daughters giving lemonade.
You don't share the same concern as the framers in terms of the standing.
No, because the country is not the same as it was for the framers.
This is the whole point.
It's not even close to the same.
The country that we once had, it died about a thousand times over.
It's been buried six feet underground.
That country does not exist.
Are you concerned about the potential for rights violations?
Did the Framers have 30 million illegals?
Did they have the Crips and Bload shooting each other and shooting?
They didn't even have restrictive immigration laws in the framing.
They didn't have immigration laws.
Because we had a massive.
You also had to be a white property owner to vote.
Correct.
Just for the record, we can go over voting.
We can go over voting.
I think the black people vote.
Of course, but repeal a lot more than that.
What is your angle here?
You've got to be married.
What is your angle?
Military kids.
Net positive tax payments.
One second.
One second, please.
Right.
Unless you're a political.
We had millions of gents.
Only people can't vote.
Everyone should not vote for him.
Please, please.
This is the nice thing.
He's very respectful.
Could you ask me the question?
You just tried to slip by again.
No, no.
I'm asking you, do you think the black people?
No, no, no, no.
Do you think that black people should vote?
That's what I'm saying.
Who should vote?
What?
Black people.
Yeah.
I think.
What a way of discussing.
Can I go there?
Why is it a weird disingenuous question?
Can I answer this question?
Can you explain to?
Okay, sorry.
Wait, no, can you explain that?
Why do you think that's it?
They're men because they have jobs.
If they have kids, why do you think it's pointed out?
When we're done, why should I want discrimination on the ground?
Because you literally, in this conversation before, though, you might have tried to back away from it.
No, I didn't.
Who do you think should vote?
I think people should have the right to vote.
All U.S. citizens.
I had somebody the other day that said, Joel, if you had your way, there'd only be like 14 people would be allowed to vote.
I prefer, you know, personally, I think that's still 13 too many.
You don't want women to vote, right?
That's right.
How'd you know that?
It's the Christian National.
It's the same kind of Andrew Wilson diplomatic.
So, yeah, no, so I think you should be Christian.
I do.
Okay.
Right?
Not a test for office.
That's insane.
Just a test for office and voting, right?
Religious tests for both.
But I think you should be Christian.
I think we should repeal that part of the Constitution about religious tests for office.
Yeah, you should amend it, right?
You should change the law to what I think is just.
Yes, absolutely.
There's no Jews in government, right?
Oh, religious Jew?
Like Judaism?
No, Jewish, religious, Jewish.
Yes, if it's a religious Jew, so Ben Shapiro should not be allowed to hold off.
Yes, because he blasphemes the Lord Jesus Christ.
That's what his world is.
But let's just be fair.
You could ask him about any other religion, too.
Yeah, no Muslims.
No Muslims.
Yeah, I'm not just picking on the Jews.
Although I do think that Judaism has been uniquely pernicious in its influence over America.
That doesn't mean every single Jewish person, ethnically speaking, there's a whole thing we could talk about with that.
But Judaism as a worldview, I do believe it's uniquely pernicious.
Islam, just for the record, right, I'm pro the Crusades.
I like the Crusades.
I think there were some abuses, but I think most of them were good.
We've had a long stand, 13 centuries with Islam.
So I'm not a friend of Islam.
I have an important question for you.
Yeah.
In your system, should Pisco be allowed to vote?
Are you married?
I have a partner.
No.
That's based.
No.
Only married people should vote.
One vote per household.
This is what it is.
You should be a heritage American.
I'll define that.
Heritage American, I don't take as just being white.
Okay.
I do think that Europeans are pretty dang heritage.
What race do you think?
Gay, I think.
Yeah.
I mean, well, I have a female partner.
I'm not gay.
Oh, you have a female partner.
Why do you say partner?
What's wrong with partner?
It sounds gay.
Why don't you say girlfriend?
So this is actually really true.
It's a total aside.
The left and the right speak different English.
Yeah, they really do.
So, okay.
Are you triggered by the word partner?
No, I'm not.
Well, it reminds me of the difference.
So real quick.
A heritage American partner.
So wait, wait, wait.
Listen, what is a heritage American?
A heritage American, this is my assessment.
A heritage American, and this should be required for voting.
You should have a stake in the nation's past and you should have a stake in the future.
That's why I say marriage.
Not everybody can have kids, but I think marriage, in a general, universal sense, what it says is I'm looking forward to posterity.
That's one of the challenges.
But not bloodline-based, right?
So not race-based.
So what?
Or is there some racial element?
I'll get to it.
It's not so out-of-pocket question for me to inquire about your guys' views on racial.
So it's like Americans are all heritage.
So you think it's a good question, not disingenuous to ask?
It's fine to ask.
For myself, I'll give my answer.
But it's fine to ask.
I have no problem with that.
So Heritage American, I think, is three generations on both sides or minimum of fifth generation on one side.
You have to have been here for a while, right?
This idea is not a 15 Haitians are not going to assimilate.
They're not going to be Americans, right?
The Ronald Reagan thing, like, well, you know, I can move to Scotland, but I'll never be a Scotsman.
I can move to Jewish.
Can I ask you a 25%?
Can I ask you a question?
Required, no, no, no, no, no.
I got to ask him, I got it.
You said three generations on both sides.
Does that mean like great-grandma, grandma, mom, and then you can vote?
Or do you mean grandma, mom, then you can vote?
I think, I think, grandma.
Start with grandma.
So you're, you know, you're the third generation.
Grandma moved here, right?
And then it's mom, and you know, and then it's you.
And then you.
On both, yes, on both sides.
The grandchildren.
Correct.
The grandchildren.
And I get that even from like a general equity theonomic principle from the Old Testament that when it came to immigrating into Israel, you couldn't be exploited.
You couldn't be mistreated.
You could be a sojourner.
And the nice thing about sojourners, here's a nifty trick.
Sojourners eventually go back.
They don't stay forever.
But for somebody who is really staying there forever, they intended to become a part of Israel.
There were a lot of rights that they would have, but there were certain things that were reserved until the third generation, such as temple access and worship and these kinds of things.
So third generation on both sides or fifth generation on one side.
So that's heritage.
You actually have a heritage.
You have a stake in the past.
Marriage presupposing children.
I know that there are exceptions, but so that's why I'm not going to say you've got to have five kids or eight or one.
Marry, married.
What if your grandparents have one grandparent who's Jewish?
Would you be considered?
Would you, is that enough?
Jewish ethnically?
Yeah, Jewish ethnically or religiously as well.
So if you have 25% of your blood.
No, that's no, no, no, no, no, no.
It would be your religion.
Okay.
Your religion.
It's not your parents, not your grandparents.
It wouldn't trigger on the racial identity of your forefathers.
It wouldn't, it wouldn't.
Third generation.
Third generation.
Thomas Clarence is a heritage American.
I get flat for it all the time because I've got a lot of guys who follow me that are to my right.
And they're like, that's the gayest thing you've ever said.
Thomas Clarence, I believe, is a heritage American.
He's smarter than I am.
I think he's a good man.
Help me out.
It sounds like the Nuremberg law.
It sounds like the Nuremberg laws.
He's one of my favorite Anglo-Protestants.
Thomas Clarence.
Can you help me?
Because the comparison of the Nuremberg laws, everyone's going to make it.
That's the same kind of analysis, the race analysis in terms of define what it is to be an Aryan, define what it is to be a Jew.
Right.
That kind of stuff.
It sounds like I'm incorporating some of those ideas.
It doesn't sound like that at all.
So that's why I'm saying third generation on both sides or fifth generation on one side.
That's a heritage American.
That means you have a stake in the country's past.
You should not be speaking to the country's future if you've had no stake here in the past.
Then also married, which presupposes posterity, that I actually have a vested interest in the country's future.
I do think that you should be a man.
I think the 19th Amendment has absolutely ruined the country, among other things, but that's one of them.
And with the male piece, one is I actually do think that politics is war without the bullets.
And so I do think that it should be those who are predisposed towards war to be involved in that practice.
But beyond that, it's also representative government.
So what I'm looking at is male as head of household.
So women don't have a voice.
They have a voice.
And sometimes a voice can be stronger than a vote.
Just for the record.
That man, it's fathers, it's uncles, it's brothers, it's husbands, representing their wives, their daughters, their sisters, these things.
Last night, we were talking on the show about the U.S. conquering the United Kingdom, for which I said after the U.S. invades, we will temporarily install Milo Yiannopoulos as viceroy until we can reestablish the crown under which it would be the house of Benjamin.
Carlos.
Is he gay still?
What do you mean, dude?
He's the gayest guy in the world.
No, but is he like, there's gay.
I'm in our heart.
Okay, guys.
You said partner.
He's never not going to be gay, bro.
But he says he abstains.
But like, he actually is.
Is he a Christian?
Isn't he professing to say that?
He says he's attracted to men, but he will abstain from engaging.
So with that, just real quick, I would say that that is still a sin of the heart.
If in my heart I'm desiring something that God says is an abomination, that's a sin.
Have you ever had gay thoughts?
Okay.
So we're about to time.
Never.
And the point I was going to make is that I've changed my mind.
I thought that it would be good to install the House of Benjamin as the new crown of the UK.
Okay.
And long may he reign.
And then upon hearing all of this, I've decided the actual solution should be after we conquer the UK, temporarily have Milo get things in order before the House of Benjamin can take over.
We then restore the United States under the crown with Carl Benjamin as our king, and no one can vote.
Sargon of Akkad?
You like that guy?
He's great.
I just think.
No one can vote.
Carl's the king.
Tell me, my liege, what you need.
Universal suffrage was a really, really bad idea.
You'd like King Carl Benjamin.
You know?
Yeah, I'd have to look into him.
I've heard the name.
What do you think of Barack?
Can you say something nice about Barack Obama?
Barack Obama?
Yeah.
He deports a ton of people.
God bless him.
Oh, I can say some real good stuff about him.
No one kills kids like Barack Obama.
I mean, when you need...
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
When you need brown Pakistani kids bombed, you go to Barack.
Or Netahu.
Or Netahu.
I just want to say, are we about to finish the episode?
Yeah, yeah.
So can I plug something?
Yeah, well, everyone's going to get a chance to do the thing, you know?
Write Response Ministries on YouTube.
Write Response Ministries on YouTube.
And then on Twitter, the handle is at WrightResponseIm, as in ministries.
We're trying to grow our channels.
We'd appreciate the follow.
Thank you, Tim, for having me.
Peace goes hour on YouTube.
Peace Co Liddy on Twitter.
Really enjoyed it.
You know, listen, I think in your heart of hearts, you got to criticize this guy for deploying in your city.
All right.
I'm asking him to.
If he does so, and if he's breaking the law doing so, I think you got to stand up for your Chicago, your fellow Chicagoan.
I am personally requesting Donald Trump, hear me.
My people need your help.
The National Guard is welcome in my neighborhood.
They do.
All right.
Well, thank you for having me.
And yeah, I appreciate the conversation.
I've changed my mind.
I don't want a single American in my country off the line.
My name's Connor Tomlinson.
You can hear me talk on YouTube at Thomason Talks.
I write for Courage Media, and I post on X about the fall of my country at Con underscore Tomlinson.
Well, last thing real quick, CovenantBible.org is our church.
So if you're in Central Texas, if you ever want to join us on a Sunday at 10 a.m., it's Covenant Bible Church, covenantbible.org.
Right on.
Everybody, this is fun.
Thanks so much for hanging out.
The future plan is we're thinking every other week is going to be a live show.
We're actually in talks about doing a deal for 24 episodes, 24 live shows per year.
It's expensive to do.
It's hard to do.
And then we've got a bunch of other ideas.
Working with Alex Stein, we're talking about doing some game show episodes where we do trivia, and then you guys can just answer Jeopardy questions or something.
That'd be fun.
And I think it'd be real fun.
And then as well as we want to do these like one versus 20 debates.
So a lot of fun stuff coming.
Jubilee.
Jubilee stuff.
Yeah, but we can do it better.
I got asked, and then it just disappeared.
They ghosted you?
Yeah.
I got asked to be on there.
And then I think it's because the middle guy, I wasn't the one guy who was going to be one of the 20 Christian nationalists.
But I think it's because the one guy backed out.
And I'd like to leave.
I go to sleep at night thinking it's because he saw my name on the list.
