Rex Jones and Tim Tompkins host Harrison Smith live, dissecting Texas’s SB 2420—a digital ID bill forcing Apple/Google age checks by 2026—while critiquing its dystopian parallels to the UK’s system. They link it to Trump’s executive power expansion, like bypassing Congress via Truth Social or War Powers Resolution circumventions, and debate the government shutdown’s impact on 40M SNAP recipients, accusing Democrats of weaponizing hunger for political gain. Harrison warns of Venezuela regime-change risks, tied to cartel-China collusion and Iran’s Hezbollah influence, while Rex speculates on false flag wars to justify escalation. The episode exposes how crises—from WWII to AI deepfakes—fuel unchecked executive authority, leaving voters disillusioned amid proxy conflicts like Ukraine and corporate-driven agendas. [Automatically generated summary]
You know him from InfoWars, and he's a great guy, a phenomenal character.
And looking forward to talking to him about his career at InfoWars, what he does on his own independent show with Lebanon, John, Moonbase, and a lot more stuff today.
Let's just tying up the ends on the topic for tonight.
Tonight's topic, we actually switched it up a little bit.
I know people wanted to talk about the Civil War and Western expansion, but we decided just to take a little bit of a detour.
We'll still cover that stuff, but this one will be about presidential expansion and how the powers of the president and the executive branch have expanded over the time period.
I did a little bit of a deep dive covering everything from all the way back from the beginning and how we got here now.
Now, with the digital ID, I just can't help but think about Black Mirror.
You know, like, oh, yeah.
China's already come out with their own like social credit score and digital.
Because the thing is, when your ID is digital, you can't fake that.
And there's a way that they can keep tabs on you and track you.
And I hate feeling like that guy who just feels like who's the boomer doomer in the basement being like they're gonna the little metal cap on our head and just be like, oh, they're they're gonna brainwash us and stuff.
But this is actually kind of nerve-wracking because they just slowly over time take your rights away.
I feel like we've been warning about age verification, age assurance, and all of these things, which actually all mean digital ID coming to the United States and to wear blue in the face.
And I feel like we've been screaming into the wind with not enough people paying attention to this issue.
And this is, of course, not a wide condemnation of our viewers.
We know that you all take this very, very seriously.
But unfortunately, the steam rolls ahead.
Well, as of January next year, Texans will have to submit to age verification to use Apple and Google services.
This article comes to us from Reclaim the Network on Google and Apple to enforce age verification in Texas starting in 2026.
It says that tech giants Apple and Google have confirmed they will comply with Texas newly passed age verification law, but both companies warned that doing so will come at the cost of user privacy.
The legislation known as SB 2420 is scheduled to take effect on 1st of January, 2026.
Under this law, app marketplaces and developers will be required to implement strict age assurance mechanisms that, according to Apple, will force the collection of personal data, even for basic app downloads.
Beginning January 1st, 2026, a new state law in Texas, SB 2420, introduces age assurance requirements for app marketplaces and developers, Apple stated in a developer update.
While we share the goal of strengthening kids' online safety, we are concerned that SB2.
I was, I was very makes a lot of sense how they're able to push that.
Yeah, exactly.
The for people who don't know, like here in Texas, I think Florida, Georgia, a lot of these other, you know, red states, they've enacted like a 18-plus verification in order to watch things like, you know, the hub and a lot of these other porn sites.
2420 impacts the comments think about this by requiring the collection of sensitive, personally identifiable information to download any app, even if a user simply wants to check the weather or sports scores.
You know, it's crazy because you could easily for the apps, you know, how like they, you know, you go into GameStop back in the day and you want to go buy your video game and the guy at the cash register looks at you and he's like, are you 18?
You know, it's interesting because most Americans really don't travel that much out like abroad anymore.
But because it's expensive to do so, like this is just a new passport.
It'll be a new way for people to get to adopt something that's like, hey, this is easier to use for my driver's license.
If I go to the emergency room because I break my leg, I don't have to like find my driver's license and so I can verify my identity and whatnot in my insurance card.
It's all wrapped into this one awesome thing the government gave me that I get to just use.
Developers will be expected to make structural changes to how their apps function and handle user data to comply with the mandate.
To help developers adjust, Apple plans to update its existing declared age range API and introduce additional tools to allow apps to handle required consent procedures more easily.
These changes are meant to align with the law while trying to reduce exposure of sensitive user data.
Apple said more technical information is expected to be released this fall.
Google is taking a similar approach and has already launched a beta version of its play age signals API.
Through this system, apps will be able to receive information about users' age ranges, supervision status, and other relevant signals, but only in the states affected.
In an earlier blog post, Google voiced concern over how the Utah law, which takes effect May 7, 2026, compels data sharing.
The bill requires app stores to share if a user is a kid or teenager with all app developers, effectively millions of individual companies without parental consent.
Yeah, but if you put everything under the guise of like, oh, it's protection for the kids, you can justify a lot of things and take, you know, certain rights away.
I appreciated, you know, these red states like Texas for the reason why I felt like they had, you know, a lot of common sense laws that were being passed.
You know, like squatters' rights aren't a thing here in Texas.
Yeah, it was in the last year or two because you had people that spent landlords had lost tens of thousands of dollars just trying to legally kick people out because those court systems are slow and they take forever to get people processed through.
And by that time, it could be like two years.
The guy's living out of your house.
He's probably messed it up.
And sometimes those cases never get solved.
That's why I appreciate Texas because they just came out with a new law saying, Hey, if it's your house, you can legally kick somebody out.
And we're also shortening that process that it takes to evict.
Another story that's very big in the news right now, as we all know, we all hear about, is the government shutdown and people that aren't going to get the snap benefits.
I believe it's like 30 to 40 million Americans that are on SNAP and maybe like 31 million, something like that.
I was listening to Dew Dissonance talk about it earlier, but Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the SNAP program.
You know, the thing about SNAP benefits, the reason why there's just all this lawfare, they don't even realize this has real implications.
Snap is not something that is just a light, like, okay, you've got some programs that they're like, oh, non-essential, but SNAP is one of those things.
Like, there are millions of people that rely on this.
I used to be on SNAP benefits growing up as a kid, you know, and it's not necessarily by choice.
I know sometimes, you know, people complain about, you know, what Lyndon B. Johnson did with incentivizing all these benefits, but some of them are legitimate and some of them are necessary.
And Snap was one of those things where I was like, thank God we had the ability to do that until we were able to climb out of that hole that my parents were in.
So for this to happen and then to make it a, you know, polarizing party line thing when it's just, okay, we're talking about Americans here.
Both of these people, both parties need to get their shit together.
And it's definitely going to hurt Trump more than it's going to hurt them.
I 100% believe this because then they can go, ah, evil orange mean man didn't want to help the people with health care and their side will forgive them for that.
But Trump has enough of like an independent coalition that supports him, like people like, I would say, like you and me in the last election, for an example.
Dude, it's just like he had layup after layup that he could have done.
He could still do some stuff theoretically, but I mean, you know, I was on this space earlier and I've been hearing similar things when I listened to like an InfoWars broadcast and whatnot.
I think we're going to go to war with Venezuela before the war with Iran.
Like really, dude, this is all I've been hearing about.
Like, I think that something is imminent down there.
I was actually looking at these whole, like, the government shutdown before he gets into that, trying to understand like what is the argument because, you know, you hear about it at the beginning, but then you forget why the people are fighting in the first place.
So arguments for each side.
Republicans argument for what they want.
Oh, and just to premise this, this is essentially when the government can't make an agreement.
So Republicans want continuing resolutions on the stopgap funds at current levels without including additional policy demands and new major spending commitments.
They argue that bundling large policies like expanding health care subsidies and major spending increases into funding bills will delay basic tasks that keep the government open.
And they say some Republicans claim that the Democrats are trying to expand to attach expensive policy priorities like healthcare subsidies that the GOP opposes.
And then the Democrats are arguing that they don't just want a short-term funding bill without addressing key policies in healthcare.
So it seems like the whole thing is about healthcare.
But like we also forgetting that we have like, I think it's like the second most out of everybody, you know, it's either that or Russia, but we're in the top three for sure.
Dude, well, I mean, like, he was like Tucker's like whipping boy, basically.
He was the man on the street guy for Tucker.
And like growing up listening to Fox News on Sirius XM radio with my granddad, he picked me up from school after a practice at night.
And we listened to Fox News on like the 35, like 40 minute drive home.
And he was always on there.
And I always found him annoying.
I didn't want to hear from him.
I was just like, oh, like he's going to, hey, how are you doing?
What do you think about this?
And it wasn't even like a fun or like an inquisitive man on the street.
He's just reading off a different like wacky script every time.
And I don't know.
Like that's petty.
I'm sure he's a fine guy.
I'm sure he's nice to his family and his kids and all that, but he carries water like no one we've ever seen.
And when Tucker left Fox News, not amicably, of course, when he struggled to get out of there, this seems to be his replacement on the time slot.
And I mean, look, it is what it is.
It's just like, this is, they had someone write this form.
And he's like, this is really cool, guys.
I'm going to get to protect the United States now.
And he's like, just a part of the club because it's probably really fun for him to be.
But this is government propaganda.
Like, they had the administration said, hey, like, we're trying to signal that we're going to be strong in this area and we need you guys to be on top of it.
But like he's sitting there like the mad scientist and he's like, we have to create a super fentanyl to kill them all this time.
And like, I just, they're getting drugs from Colombia.
They're getting drugs from China.
I mean, how much fentanyl ultimately do you have to get in?
If a tiny little particulate of it kills 10 people, like they got to like get in like the giant like Egyptian blocks, they built the pyramid of fentanyl into the country.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Like they want to control the traffic of marijuana and cocaine and all these other things that also come through there.
But yeah, sure, the Chinese send it over there and they send it over here.
How does a tiny little boat with three outboard motors and like a bunch of people on it, that boat going from going from Venezuela across to Trinidad warrant?
And this is the issue because, yeah, I mean, the drug crime is awful.
And I'm sure some drugs have come from Venezuela.
At the end of the day, it's just, it's another example of how Matt Baker was talking about, you know, the border being destroyed when Biden is president.
But then he goes down there and it's empty.
But as a consequence of that, Trump has taken a lot of power that Biden didn't take.
So it's just, it seems to get us further in the accelerationism.
And we're definitely going to be in full war with another country by the end of the year.
That's my approximation.
Tim thinks it'll be a little while longer.
And it was looking like it was Iran, but now I think it's going to be Venezuela.
This one will probably be like a smaller conflict.
Here's the thing.
He's right about the fact that most of the drugs aren't just coming from Venezuela.
Also, if you wanted to stop the influx of fentanyl, you would do it at the border where it's going, it's more going over land than it is going over water.
And there's other sources that these things are being funneled through.
So, I mean, I see Jefferson, what you're talking about, where it's like a 300K a year, but you got to look at the macro level argument in this circumstance.
Let's see what else.
I knew a kid from Venezuela who could cops and soldiers always shaking down people like the mob.
Yeah, I know someone else from Venezuela I met recently, and they also like they hated Maduro and they were really happy to be here because of how bad it was, apparently, down there.
And I believe that all, but here's the thing: when have we gone in and made a place better?
Like if we go in, like, hey, that's a good point.
Maybe it goes great and he like drone strikes every like bad person in like a like crimson.
What's that?
There's like Chris Hemsworth movie where he's like a bodyguard for like a kid.
And I think it's like shot in like Pakistan or something, like on a river.
And during that movie, it's just like, it doesn't matter who gets in my way.
I'm going to protect the I'm going to protect the kids.
Yeah, he's like, this is saying, hey, we have our gunships in their bay.
We're going to take over and rule this area.
Like, that's the proclamation here.
And like, yeah, sure, he's a horrific guy and his people are eating rats in the streets, whatever.
At the end of the day, like, we're going to go in there.
We're going to make it so those people literally will probably return them to like basically like Stone Age times, like we've done in places like Somalia, where they literally have no resources anymore and they have slave markets.
Now, the thing is, what's going to happen is these regions are known for their like paramilitary and like actual drug groups that like live out in the jungle and whatnot.
I've seen narcos, okay?
I know what I'm talking about here, but they're actually known for these like paramilitary organizations and other people in the jungle and people with just a bunch of money.
And those people are going to flood in and sack Venezuela while this giant war is.
Like, oh, oh, oh, yeah, but it's crazy because it's like, if any of these politicians, it was like their family or their kids, they would be freaking out.
Um, also, I have uh, I have this one video.
So, the my issue with all of this, right?
Uh-huh, I ran into like the cost of like how much we're spending just to send you know these B-52s and like the missiles.
And the it's like just to run a single flight for a B-52 is like 900K, something crazy ridiculous like that.
And there's a lot of money that's being spent, and we're sitting here.
It's like you're trying to sit there and like battle this over here.
And then obviously, we know we have our own issues, and then we end up doing something where we just say, Oh, well, the issue is based off of poverty, right?
And it's based off of immigration, right?
Those are the things that we point to.
And there's this video I really want to show.
I don't know if you guys have seen the big short.
Uh, the big short is like a video loves the movie.
It's on the 08 crisis, and at the end of the video, he says something very haunting that pretty much resembles exactly what we're dealing with today.
And it's the guys that the whole government protects themselves underneath.
So let's play this real quick because this one is just like, somebody sent this to me.
You know, my issue with something like this is like just the money being spent.
And it's so, it's so, it makes me so angry sometimes because like, you know, we joke about it and I see a lot of people talk about it, but like the gravity of the situation of how much money is being spent.
I pay so much as a single male, you know, who makes a decent living of a wage.
I pay something crazy, like I want to say 30 something percent, right?
And it makes me angry because I'm like, dude, I don't even have any ability to be like, yo, Trump, maybe we shouldn't fly that out there or maybe we shouldn't bomb this and maybe we shouldn't spend money here because I thought this money was going towards something that helps me do nothing about it.
And then we're also forgetting that like anything economic that we have here as like a crash or some type of instability because of inflation has global implications.
And you're talking about billions of people that get affected by these monetary decisions from both sides of the aisle where they just are reactive.
They just say, hey, let's just do this and throw mud at the wall and hope that it sticks.
And then you don't really think of the implications outside of the bubble of America.
Meanwhile, you know, you got people suffering in like Germany that have nothing to do as we blow up a pipeline.
You're going to have to pay three times the price, but we got to stop the evil Putin.
And, you know, we've acted this way.
We behave this way because no country, no other country truly has the like overseas infrastructure of like able ability to manipulate these other countries the way that we do.
We've got the military bases everywhere.
We've got embassies everywhere.
We've got very talented intelligence agencies that know how to mesh with all these different places and get in really deep.
So at the end of the day, everyone has had more of an opportunity to change the world for the better.
And what we did in on our values, and then we did the complete opposite of those values to everyone else.
And then we're like, but you still have to pretend that, you know, you're on two and that you agree with our morals and our ethics.
And if you look at Europe, what they've done is they've decided, okay, we're going to copy you and we're going to make it 10 times worse because you've cracked down on your citizenry.
You've done X, Y, and Z.
Now I'm going to come in and I'm going to say, okay, I'm Britain.
I'm France.
I'm Italy, something, you know, over there.
I'm going to do the same thing.
We're going to have hyperinflation.
We're going to have mass corruption.
We're going to punish our own native population.
We're going to bring a ton of people from the third world in.
But what's insane about it is like, how do you brainwash all of these countries to follow behind you when clear as day, we don't have these people's best interest in mind?
Like, do we really care what goes on in Britain truly as America?
Like, I don't, I think we're like the abusive husband that just go, you like this with 90 different wives, with 90 different wives that we're all, that we're all being horrible to.
Like, that's pretty accurate.
Like, France, you're my number one.
I would never desert you.
And then like, it's like, do something horrible to him.
And it's like, I'm sorry, you won't be in a relationship with me.
This is how it's going to work.
Right.
So it's pretty wild.
And, you know, like Britain has a digital ID.
I was on with Harrison, who we're going to have on in about eight minutes.
We send him a DM really quick and just see how he's doing.
But like, I talked about this with Harrison.
Larry Ellison comes in.
He gives, what's the guy's name?
The dude who's in charge of everything over there.
They want to be the governor of Palestine.
What's his name?
Tony Blair.
Yeah.
Ellison gives Tony Blair or his foundation like 300 mil.
And then Tony Blair is going to be in charge of running the digital ID.
And then we go over to Texas and we kind of got the same thing appearing.
And, you know, the Ellisons have bought all these different media companies.
You know, I got to admit, like, this is a bit soy-tarted of me to say, but I'm kind of excited that they bought Paramount because Paramount bought the UFC as like a tangential thing.
I've got one last thing I want to show before Harrison comes on.
And guys, I don't hate Trump by any means, but like I just, I would have been doing the same thing when Biden, it's that second tab.
I would have been doing the same thing when Biden was going, but I wasn't on air yet.
So I couldn't, I couldn't call him out.
But here's something that's going on where, you know, Trump wants the Department of Justice to pay him $230 million as, first of all, he's a billionaire already.
Look, the ethical issues here are so simple, you almost don't need an ethical expert to explain them.
The person running the government is seeking money from the government.
Let's break that down.
He talked about a couple of legal cases that really have no parallel in American history.
The first claim, generally known as the Russia investigation, is about whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russian intelligence operatives to interfere with the 2016 election.
The second is about the classified documents case that included a search of Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago.
Trump filed a pair of legal claims for compensation filed with the Justice Department and the FBI.
Trump's argument is that these cases that were pursued against him were essentially violations of his rights, that this was malicious, politically motivated prosecution.
So each of Trump's claims amount to about $150 million, a total of $230 million.
When the justice is coming like this, they have basically two options.
They can fight it, which likely means going to court, or they can settle it.
It's hard to imagine, given how Trump runs the Justice Department, that this Justice Department will fight him on these claims.
There's another really important element to Trump talking about this is that standing just feet away from the president is Todd Blanch, the Deputy Attorney General.
Before he got that job, Todd Blanch was President Trump's personal lawyer, and he represented him in the Mar-a-Lago case.
That is the subject of one of Trump's legal claims for compensation.
Justice Department regulations require that a settlement of that size has to be approved by the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General.
That job is held by Stanley Woodward.
Stan Woodward is a very important lawyer in Trump's inner circle.
He has represented a number of Trump's senior advisors, including Dan Scavino, Peter Navarro, and even Kash Patel.
Woodward also worked in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
So we asked the Justice Department, would Todd Blanche or Stan Woodward recuse themselves from making decisions involving these claims?
They told us that Todd Blanche and Stan Woodward would follow the advice of career ethics officials.
It is worth noting, however, the Attorney General fired the top career ethics advisor at the department.
What's in many ways the most remarkable thing is there's nothing in the Justice Department regulations that require them to publicly announce when they've reached a major settlement.
So it's not clear that we will even know if a deal is struck, when it's struck, or how much it's for.
You know, I really had high hopes about Trump, but, you know, I bet I can find very good examples of like Biden doing the same thing, maybe Obama.
But essentially, what it comes down to is this 230 million that he's trying to sue for has to be approved by the very same people that were defending him in the case.
So, technically, they could approve, you know, this $230 million settlement and it doesn't really get reported because you're not necessarily required to do so.
Definitely seems like it's going to, something's going to happen soon.
Either it's going to be conflict or some sort of, although I don't know, it looks like it's going to be conflict because Maduro is basically capitulated on almost everything, but not everything.
And the U.S. still hasn't accepted it and just sent an aircraft carrier group down.
So I think it's expanding.
I think it's accelerating.
I think we'll probably see some fireworks one of these days.
I was just, I was thinking about all the little jihadis that we love so much over in the Middle East, you know, like the wind-up toys, the people that we recruited, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS and all those fine folks that now run Syria.
It's just, you got to think about the amount of like paramilitary groups in Venezuela, right?
All the little like goodies for us to make deals with.
Like, well, it's probably what they're looking for, right?
I don't, you know, it's kind of hard to put your finger on.
They've wanted this for a very long time to an almost comical degree.
Like, I think it was during Trump's first administration that one of his like main guests at the State of the Union was the previous iteration of the woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Well, right before her, I think was a guy, I want to say his name was Juan Gallardo or something like that.
And Trump introduces him at the State of the Union in like 2018 or something and is like, the actual president of Venezuela is here.
Like, give us, give us a round of applause.
So like they've been wanting to, you know, put a puppet on the throne for a decade at this point.
Why they're doing it now.
I mean, I, you know, I hate to be that guy, but I can't help but think it has something to do with Israel, possibly a little bit to do with what's going on, because Iran has close ties to Venezuela and they're supposedly Hezbollah all over Venezuela, like training the Venezuelans.
And they're almost like following that model in a way.
So, and I've heard there's like some, there's some island called like La Margarita that is just like literally a Hezbollah like place like headquarters there.
So, I don't know.
And it's funny because I heard that from like Hezbollah news sources.
Like I, that's how I know that.
And then I said that at one point, people are like, oh, that's a Mossad talking point.
And I'm like, I don't hear anybody saying that.
Everything I hear is about the drugs or some people are talking about the rare earth minerals or the oil.
I've heard the oil is not high quality, but maybe wanting to deprive China of that.
And I think there's there are valid geopolitical, you know, risk style reasons to want to try to drive out China.
But I don't know if those arise to the level of what we're seeing with Venezuela.
We go in there, we have all these ships parked around, but most of them are like special operation ships, like quick strike ships.
We've got a bunch of like smaller helicopters and whatnot.
We've also got, you know, the jets and the missiles and the 5,000 people stationed in Puerto Rico, I believe, as well as like 5,000 Marines that are like actively in that area of the world, like right now on the water.
But at the end of the day, what happens?
We go in there, we strategically, quote unquote, take out the leadership, kind of like the Israelis tried to do like in Doha, like with like a big strike somewhere where we know they're all gathered.
Like we just decide to like hit the button one day.
We're like, we're doing this now.
Like we're going to go in there and like, we're going to take out that Congress that doesn't like us.
I could see them doing something like that because the Israelis have really set the profile for like prior to, you know, the Gaza conflict, you'd say something like that is unthinkable.
But I think it's totally thinkable now to say like, hey, they're all drug dealers.
Yeah, they invented some crazy like floating oil rig that they're trying the new technology out there.
But you're right, Harrison.
I don't think oil is the play because we have enough oil here domestically in Texas that, you know, we've been opening that up since the Biden administration.
And I'll let you just give us what you really believe on this.
I heard that both Argentina and Venezuela, one of those places we basically control already with Malay, I heard they have massive aquifer resources and a lot of fresh water.
So I had heard this and I was like, that's kind of interesting.
Yeah, so I think Venezuela, I think the ideal outcome for the Trump administration would be like the like so much pressure and there would have to be some amount of like hardcore action on the ground.
But basically to have Maduro replaced and ideally probably like tried by his own people and executed like Saddam was.
Something like that.
Cause I think, I don't know, I'd have to, I'd have to look into it a little bit more when it comes to Maduro himself because it seems like the strategy is just Maduro is the bad guy.
And then the other thing that I've heard, and this is from Patrick Byrne when he was on my show, is that there is a literal cartel that just sort of is the Venezuelan government and they're like kind of in extreme.
So I think, you know, when they're going after the cartel in Venezuela, they're going after the government of Venezuela.
It's like the cartel is called like the suns, the generals of the sun or something, like S-U-N.
And in Venezuela, the generals all have like a sun appaulete on their shoulder.
So it's like, okay, the military is literally this cartel.
Yeah, right.
So yeah, and in terms of oil, it would be, you would make money from it, but it would also be about depriving, yeah, depriving China's taking advantage of it.
And China's, you know, makes big moves against South America and has for a while.
Like Trump never has never liked Nayabu Kele because China helped pay for a lot of some of the big infrastructure that El Salvador has done.
I think they helped pay for like their library and stuff.
They're propping up a lot of these third world, second world countries with the loans because they know as soon as they own, they have the loans, they own these people.
They're doing the same thing in Africa.
They're just basically going around for the smaller ecosystems that they feel like they can extract resources from.
Bukele is like a real smooth operator, like to be able to work with the U.S. and China and get something out of both of them.
I mean, that dude, I mean, El Salvador, I always thought was, you know, like a horrific place to visit with all the crime and whatnot.
But I've known multiple people that have gone over there now and they say it's great.
Now, of course, it's great because they got the giant prison.
You have to walk around on your hands and knees all day.
That's the only activity they let you do there.
I mean, it's a real thing as to where like we had Gitmo and then now we have somewhere to send people.
It's not even in the U.S. or U.S. territory.
So all in all, the Venezuela stuff, I've just seen more and more people on like Judge Napolitano's channel and Dialogue Works talk about it and talk about it being imminent.
And I've heard reporting from other people too.
But what do you think about the war in Iran?
Does that start before the end of the year?
Does that happen later or does that happen at all?
I mean, I think it's going to happen at some point.
I think this would be a question I'd want to put to Lebanon John, my co-host on Moonbase Live, because when you start an operation, you know, is determined by what part of the year it's in.
So I'm trying to think of like, would they want to start something big over winter or would that even matter with the style of attack it would be?
You know, I genuinely don't know.
And I don't know if they know.
I think that Trump has seriously started to push back on Israel.
And as much as some of the stuff could be seen as like symbolic or cover or sort of letting the Israelis off the hook or giving them a pass or whatever it is, clearly the war is not ending in a way that Israel wants or is sort of at the head of and dictating the everyone underestimated the Iranians, right?
And this is the key mistake, it seems, in the U.S. military.
After World War II, no one ever thought about messing with a country that had like 22 or whatever the number is aircraft carriers.
Like that amount of firepower that you're able to quickly deploy with the missiles and whatnot and the payloads they're able to carry now.
No, everyone's like, yeah, we're just going to let America do what they want.
And that's why most of our bases are focused around that across the world.
But these other countries, they said, look, we don't have the money for aircraft carriers or fighter jets that are going to be comparable.
We can start building missiles, though, rocket equal cheap.
So they started building these systems and it doesn't take all that much money and they can shoot down or they can shoot something that we have to shoot down.
And then we pay like 20, 40, 50% or 50 times more to destroy the thing with like a million plus dollar system than they did with just some little rocket.
And, you know, it's hard to say what exactly it's hard to say what exactly the future of war even looks like.
Because yeah, I mean, Iran has hypersonic missiles that you can't stop.
The Iron Dome is extremely expensive to operate and could easily be overwhelmed.
I mean, that's why everything that Israel does is only able to be accomplished under the purview of America will kick your ass if you try to retaliate.
But the thing is, is like, okay, let's be real, guys.
Across all of these, you know, nuclear powers, no one's stupid enough to do them the mass, you know, the mutual destruction, right?
Like, everyone has enough common sense not to do that.
Here's the thing.
Even if Iran, even if Iran has them, right?
I mean, Pakistan has them too, they're not going to use that.
No one wants to be the first one to actually decide to blow themselves up because there's no amount of, you know, all of those places are close to each other.
You know, nuclear fallout doesn't just happen local.
It travels thousands of miles.
So no one's stupid enough to pull that.
So I hate when, you know, the nuclear button is always the thing that's just could happen though, right?
Yeah, in terms of, well, when it comes to the Middle East, the nuclear threat is that Israel has submarines off, you know, lurking off the coast of Europe and pretty much every major city and could launch from there.
So, and that would be, you know, it's the Samson option.
And think about the gall of this, the balls, the nerve really of all this.
But they go, look, we may have nukes.
We may not.
We're not going to tell you if we have nukes or not.
But we do have this thing called the Samson option where we'll launch the nukes that we may or may not have at any time to defend ourselves if we're existentially threatened.
And the people making that, like, literally we will blow up the whole world with nukes threat wants us to go to war with Iran because they might get nukes.
And the thing about the bunker busters that we were talking about, you know, we're trying to act like Iran wasn't prepared for something like this already.
We don't actually have probably that level of detail intel to know how deep their, you know, tunnels go.
And they probably pulled a lot of them into the mountains.
Yeah, they probably pulled a lot of that stuff out already before we even bombed, but it was good posturing for us.
I do not think Trump is ever going to deploy troops for the sake of the Greater Israel Project.
I think that's a red line for him.
I think he'll sell them weapons.
I think he'll give them weapons.
We are putting 200 troops as a management force in Gaza, which I'm actually in favor of because I don't want, because who else is going to do with the IDF, right?
It kind of has to be us because I don't think they'd let Turkey in either, but that would be the other option.
And I wouldn't want NATO, you know, it's like, okay, that should be us.
That should be American troops if, you know, if there needs to be anybody better than the UN or NATO or anybody else I can think of.
So, no, I don't think troops are, and that was always my red line.
And always what I said about Trump.
I know how pro-Israel he is.
I don't like it, but he will never commit troops on the ground in the Middle East for the Greater Israel project.
And that is a prerequisite, is a necessary ingredient of the Greater Israel project, a Greater Israel project.
Like they cannot take on Iran.
They cannot conquer all of Syria.
I mean, they can destroy it and destroy a lot of it, but like to take out Iran, you need boots on the ground, more boots on the ground than Israel can or certainly is willing to supply.
And the thing about it is like the boots on the ground situation.
You see what happened in Europe, especially, I think it was France when they flirted with the idea of committing troops and you just saw the protests and the riots and people were like, hell no.
And, you know, every they backed off.
They were like, oh, we're just kidding.
We're not actually serious about this.
So, I mean, the same thing could happen here.
It's like, I know there's going to be, you saw the no kings protest.
Imagine boots on the ground and they're just going to be like, what happened to Afghanistan?
And think about what that has the potential to do to the global economy as well.
If we get forced out of Taiwan or something happens, if they just like they're there one day, they're on the beach and they're just going to take over the place.
I think that there are controls and commands in place to blow up the sophisticated facilities.
Maybe that's why he's putting all the money into chip building over here, even Biden.
If they do this and there isn't a resource for that anywhere in the world, but we're the only ones that can make it again because those Thailand people that work in those plants are apparently on our side.
You know, like there's a lot of like really weird things that could trigger the next collapse.
What to you screams this is going to be the next thing?
I don't think Taiwan is necessarily going to be the flashpoint because I think that it's, I mean, until we actually get the chip making factories up and running.
And these things are insane.
I mean, I don't know.
I don't know if I, if it's like possible for me to understand some of the things that they do.
Like it is, it is genuinely unbelievable, like down to the atomic level.
It has to be precise.
So, you know, I don't think that we'd be willing to blow that up.
I don't think China would be willing to blow that up.
And I think China is just waiting us out.
I don't think China wants to start a fight.
And if I was China, I wouldn't want to start a fight.
We've driven Russia, China, and India together, three places that have historically hated each other, but now they're friends because they have a common enemy.
And that, and that is an inexplicably bad strategic decision by the masters of the new world order.
Like it has to be malice.
There's no way that it was like an accident that you drive China into the or Russia into the arms of China if you think that China is going to be this big existential threat, which they obviously are more so than any other group.
So that had to be deliberate because they're, you know, deliberately trying to destroy us.
And again, I think, you know, I think the struggle between Israel and the Trump administration is like the great untold story of this last year.
And it has been about a year, right?
When he got elected in November's, well, even before that, but it's been a, it's been sort of an underreported area of friction that I don't know if people realize like how big the implications of these things are because they're not earthquake things, right?
It's not like a Watergate level scandal where like it becomes the top story, but it's the type of thing that normally never gets reported on or just works.
And so you never really hear about it.
And it's stuff like SignalGate, which SignalGate was a pretty big story, but like the real story of it was that Mike Waltz was in communication with Netanyahu like pre-gaming before Netanyahu met Trump.
He was like a traitor for Netanyahu and he leaked the signal chat to like another Zionist guy that's the head of the editor.
He's the editor of the Atlantic magazine to leak the signal chat to try to oust Pete Hegseth because he was resisting war with Iran.
And like, so this has been like a theme.
And then like JD Vance is having, or it was either Vance or Hegseth, Dan Caldwell, this guy I was tweeting about today because I was sort of researching some of this stuff.
But people who were anti-war with Iran got fired, were subject to like, you know, scandals that ousted them.
And then I think it really accelerated recently.
And I don't know if the timing is like coincidental around the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
I also think it might.
Like, I think the propaganda front for Israel has been super dire for a while now.
And Charlie Kirk and then getting blamed for Charlie Kirk was like a double whammy for them, whether they did it or not.
So like, assuming they're completely innocent, you just had like your number one propaganda guy in America who was the spearhead of your massive new propaganda push on the eighth front.
He just died and now everybody's blaming you.
So I think maybe they took and they should have, if they were wise, they would have taken a look at things and gone, all right, we got to change tactic here.
Seems like they've just doubled down on the propaganda, which is retarded, but in line with the previous pattern of behavior.
And that was when, you know, Trump really started to push for Gaza, got this Gaza Peace deal that Israel obviously doesn't like, is sort of holding Israel's feet to the fire.
I mean, you never hear Trump make hardcore definitive statements about foreign policy, especially when it comes to Israel, especially if it's not in Israel's favor.
And yet multiple times he has reasserted they are not taking the West Bank.
And then they hold this vote saying they are going to take the West Bank.
And JD Vance gives an interview where he's like, that is a personal insult.
And I take it as such.
And that's not going to happen.
And then Trump issued another.
So like, okay, it's not, we're not like conducting regime change in Israel like some people, including perhaps myself, would want.
We're not embarked on a new crusade by any means.
But the fact that Trump is sparring with Netanyahu in public, Trump saying you are not taking the West Bank and Netanyahu saying, well, we're an independent country.
We can do what we want.
I mean, these represent like major fractures that require either a unbelievably giant false flag, which I hate to think is the next thing, but it probably would be.
I think the thing is, like when I, when I try to like play it out of my head, even 9-11 wouldn't be big enough this time.
It would have to be something because it wouldn't be like COVID.
COVID was unique because it was so subtle.
It was an invisible enemy.
It was people forcing it on each other.
And it was slow and it was a slow burn.
I think something that just I hate to say it.
It would have to be like a nuke going off in a city.
It'd have to be something so crazy that like, despite all of the shit we've been through, it'd be at the level where people just go, I got to listen to the government because like I'm going to die if I don't kind of thing.
It's not nuclear where you've got the radioactive fallout, but let's say like you've got like a cruise missile that like clears out like four blocks or something.
I mean, have you seen their poor crying faces on TikTok?
The babies, we're going to let babies starve.
No, I think it's a, I think it's maybe an unintentional, like brilliant piece of propaganda to have all these people making these videos being like, I got seven kids and it's taxpayers' responsibility to feed them.
Like, do people realize that this is 40 million people in our country?
Literally, they're like intergenerational.
So, you know, yeah, it's way, it's, dude, it sucks.
It's awful.
At the same time, it's like impossible to claw back entirely.
And I don't know if I'd want to entirely if we could.
Like, cause I was going off on this.
On War Room, I was like making fun of those videos so bad.
I was not being nice about it.
And then.
And then, of course, a woman calls in and is like, well, like, my husband like became an alcoholic and was like beating me.
And I have three kids that are all under six.
I was on EBT or M on EBT.
And I'm like, all right.
I'm not against you having it.
Like, you're not who I'm talking about.
That's not who I mean.
It's the people with the full shopping carts making TikToks.
Like I've mentioned already on live, like when I was younger, I was a, I was a kid who was on Snap and EBT.
Like my parents were going through like very hard financial time.
Now we didn't, luckily, you know, everything 180 and we went, you know, in the opposite direction as a family, but there was a legitimate time where the benefits were important.
So like I see the case scenario of like, you know, people who are just on it when they're in a hard time or transition.
And there's legitimately like a big portion of the population that are, you know, representative of that, you know, group.
But ultimately, I think the problem I have with this whole snap benefits is like, you know, it's become a martyr situation where there's like real people being affected by it and the Democrats are using it as like you said, you know, that talking point to just be like, look at these people.
This is what the Republicans are going to do.
And in reality, none of those people in the White House give a fuck because none of them are in SNAP benefits and they all have millions of dollars sitting in insider trading and all these other different things.
And they're just in a bubble that has nothing to do with what the reality of situation is.
Like, you know, as far as I can tell, it is the Democrats that are causing this extension.
And the Democrats are out there actually saying verbatim, you know, the pain that we cause American families will benefit us or like, that's our only leverage, I think they called it.
So it's pretty sick.
So yeah, they're clearly, they think it works for them somehow.
Maybe they think it creates riots that puts Trump in a more vulnerable position.
Maybe they're actually trying to create like the Black Lives Matter style, like people looting stores.
Yeah, my, my questions are more surrounding Infowars.
I didn't get a chance to personally thank you, but when I did go up to Infowars, you know, everybody was super warm and welcoming, including yourself.
So it was very nice to meet you in person.
Very tall guy.
I was like, how are you doing?
But overall, like I felt the warmth of it.
And then also just seeing, you know, the death of that place.
And I know it's something that's talked about a lot, but damn, dude, that's dark.
You know, but like, here's the thing: you, from my stories with you and, you know, just talking to everybody there and just seeing, you know, the real stories that they had, and you could just see the somber sadness behind their eyes.
You know, it's just like everyone's in that state.
So my question for you is just like, you know, based off of everything that's happening more recently, how are you feeling?
Like, what's going on?
You know, what's the day-to-day looking like?
And, you know, the inside scoop of, you know, what people could understand about the situation.
And it's just like, and it's not anybody's fault except for the people suing us.
Like, this is no, you know, I'm glad Alex has fought as long as he has.
I think I completely understand and 100% back his fight the entire time and would continue to back him long into the future if that was necessary.
But on the other hand, you know, at a certain point, it's like the lawsuits, the bankruptcy going through this is more damaging, is like clinging on to the symbol might not actually be worth what we could achieve by breaking off and just doing our own thing.
That being said, you know, who knows if they just don't launch more lawsuits and we never get out of this.
So me being like, ha, finally, we're done with the lawsuits is just an illusion anyway.
So when it comes to, it's like it's, uh, it's, it's hard to, it's hard to say because on one hand, it does suck.
It does make me want to mourn.
It does make me, but then it's like that's what they want us to do.
That's what they, that's what they expect.
That's how they're going to feel.
And so sort of in defiance of that, I just want to be like, you know, so anyway, now we're doing this and it's going to be way bigger, you know, like, right.
Okay, enjoy it.
Have fun with that.
We don't even need it anymore because it is the people.
It is the spirit of InfoWars.
The building is wonderful, but that's not, but it's wonderful because it houses the people and the people will stay together.
The people are loyal.
The people are friends with each other and love each other.
Like, so we're going to be together no matter what the next manifestation is.
And the spirit will be the same.
The audience will be the same.
So losing the building is incredibly unfortunate and annoying and frustrating.
But at the end of the day, I just see it all as enemy action.
I just see it all as like, you know, a fort that we've been holding and, you know, waylaying the enemy and retreat or withdrawing from that position is not in any way a defeat.
It's just a tactical strategic requirement.
So I don't, I don't, it doesn't feel like a death of InfoWars.
My, my thinking on all of it is I kind of mourned it and made my peace with it back during the quote unquote, you know, auction that never happened because that's when I thought it was truly over.
And I listened to that call and I was like, oh, it's, it's not over because the judge struck everything down and eventually said, you can't do this.
Yeah, that's that's when I thought it was going to happen.
And then it kind of gets pushed into limbo.
I mean, there have been large portions of time where this whole thing has been in limbo.
So at this point, it doesn't feel like a death.
It feels like a transformation.
I would not call it a death in any sort of way.
I would just say, you know, moving on into the future, we're going to, it's a remodel, you know, because we're losing this giant chunk of time and energy debt that we were in because we're in all these cases.
I have a question for both of you then on this case.
Then it's like, I understand, you know, the want to keep it going.
And I know Alex has his justification for why he's continuing to fight because maybe I'm incorrect about this, but he doesn't want to be seen, you know, just cowing and just belly up in this situation.
I'll explain because I definitely don't want what I said to be like, oh, you know, it doesn't matter that InfoWars as a brand is extremely valuable.
The name is valuable.
The trademark is valuable.
Even though we don't trademark our content, that's actually a threat that the bad guys could do is like they could issue takedown orders and say this is copyrighted material from InfoWars.
We are InfoWars if they buy the company.
And even though that wouldn't really be valid because it was copyright free, you can't later go back and copyright something.
Interestingly enough, the reason that's the case is because there was a, I think it's the same case or a very similar precedent of Oracle, Larry Ellison's company, tried to sort of retroactively copyright Java.
So I just think, I just think it, you know, the brand InfoWars, the like Alex did pour everything into this and built it himself.
And taking the name is in a way destroying an aspect of it that it won't be able to regain.
The good news is that like, you know, with Alex serving as that, as the central node, as the son of the solar system and sort of the rest of InfoWars revolving around him, no matter where he goes, that solar system can maintain and grow and more people can be brought into it.
And yeah, it can be, you know, weaponized even further against the energy.
So then from a legal standpoint, because I know they're trying to do the whole auction, what does the defense look like when you try to argue back, you know, and try to say, no, this is ours?
Like, I don't really understand the nuances of, you know, nobody understands.
It's because the thing is, it's like InfoWars got sued and Alex Jones got sued.
And so Alex Jones' personal property is tied up, but Alex Jones owns InfoWars.
So if he's paying, but if he owns InfoWars, but InfoWars is so unbelievably complicated.
And the problem is.
The problem they're running into, and the reason this is so unbelievably and unprecedentedly complicated is because they're using the law in a way it's not supposed to be used.
The law is designed specifically to deal with monetary damages, usually having to do with like what you would think of when I say defamation.
If somebody is telling everybody, hey, don't go shop at that grocery store.
I got food poisoning from there.
And this, you know, grocery store says, hey, when they started saying that, we lost 20% of our customers.
You know, they owe us that difference because they defamed us falsely.
That's sort of what the law was written for.
And it can get complicated, but that in its essence.
So they don't want monetary damages from us.
They want to destroy us.
And so they're trying to like destroy the thing that they're actually legally supposed to be building up because the idea is that if you go into bankruptcy and everything, so the idea is the law is designed to maximize payout or in our case to maximize payout because our payout is so unachievably high.
All they can do is try to get the most.
Whereas in another case, if the award was $5 million and InfoWars is worth nine, then it would be an easier thing to swing.
But because our punishment was so astronomically and unachievably high, they're trying to get the maximum amount of money, but it's going, but they're going, okay, the way to get the maximum amount of money is to let Alex Jones keep running it.
It makes a ton of money with him running it as a successful business.
If you want the maximum amount of money, he should keep running it the way it is.
And they have all these little plans and things that they want to do.
It's all very sick.
At the end of the day, what do you think?
Do you think the Onion is going to get it in any way, shape, or form?
Because the way I see it, if everything's just going to be taken by like the state court and sold, you know, that domain name is very valuable.
I'm sure it gets sold to someone.
I'm sure they might buy it.
But there isn't really a collected singular place to buy all of his assets as there was before at the time of the auction, I believe, because some things like his social media accounts, the court has ruled and said, no, you can't take these.
I mean, it would be a massive injustice if the Onion is allowed to purchase it.
But there's been a series of massive injustices that started and then continued through this whole process.
So that's not necessarily a reason why it wouldn't happen.
So because I mean, to me, if The Onions' backroom deals with the manager of the bankruptcy trial, the auction was so offensive that the judge had to step in and say the whole thing was null and void.
Like, shouldn't they not be allowed to participate anymore?
If you're caught doing it once, why are they still allowed to be making offers?
He's referring to the Onion article written by the CEO.
And we've, we've gone over it before.
I'll pull it up here.
I, I just it's like why yeah, I have I have an analogy for all this, and it's like, okay, and I don't believe this is as bad as what we did.
All right, but just giving me an analogy.
Let's say you had a couple of drinks, you got in your Hyundai, and you went on the road and you hit someone's car, and maybe they like busted a leg.
Let's say that person goes to like the personal injury defense attorney and then they sue you.
Let's say you own a mansion for exactly two and a half million dollars, and that person gets exactly two and a half million dollars or more money and they come to take your property and get it sold off, right?
That's what the court would do.
Would the person that's trying to get the property be allowed to like deface it and like crap on it and break it and just make it worthless and null and void?
And then that's the that's the service of the court because they're not actually trying to preserve the value of the assets.
They never have.
It's always been about taking the platform off the air.
So how are you allowed to punitively sue someone when you're supposed to get cash restitution?
That's how it works in civil court.
It's a pseudo-criminal court that they've almost put on the thing, right?
They've said, not only will this be sold and taken from you, we're going to degrade it until it's not really the same thing anymore.
But it does, it does appear to be what is happening moving forward.
So you just have to, you just have to remember that just like Venezuela, I mean, you know, we say these things a lot, but like they're very true.
When the magician is like waving a flag in the air, you should be looking at his other hand, right?
It just, the Alex Jones trial has nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
It has nothing to do with anything that happened around Sandy Hook.
It has nothing to do with getting money from Alex Jones.
It has nothing to do with what he owes or what he doesn't owe.
It's just, you know, all of that is the distraction.
All of that is the smoke and mirrors.
The reality is they are just trying every hook and crook they can imagine to destroy InfoWars and steal it from Alex in order to destroy it, which they shouldn't be allowed to do legally, but they are.
They tried to rig the, you know, bankruptcy auction.
Nothing happened to them.
You know, so who knows?
Who knows what the future holds?
The patterns, logic, previous behavior, none of it matters, I guess, when it comes to Alex Jones.
And anyone watching right now that's interested in our broadcast and anything that we have coming up, please follow Tim on X. Follow Truism Tim on X. He'd love to hear from you.
He'd love to interact with you.
And follow me.
I'd like to do the same.
Comment, let me know.
Be sure to follow Area Talks on X. Be sure to follow our X account where we post clips and full broadcasts.
And we'll also interact with you as well on there.
Harrison, you are an American G. You are unknown, but in the best possible way.
You've been around since I was a wee boy, you know, growing up in the office.
And, you know, Owen and you kind of came up roughly around the same time period, and it was just magical back there.
I mean, before the lawsuits and before really even the deplatforming, it was just fairy tale land, you know, always exciting things happening, people running around, positive energy, you know, kind of a little bit of positive aggression.
And the way that everyone was just on target, we're like, yes, we are alternative media.
We are a network.
We're here to give people what they want, which is the best possible show at the best possible news.
And we didn't have, you know, other cares or worries that we had to prioritize or focus on.
And all that money was there really to build the office.
And I remember when we had our giant warehousing operation.
And I mean, that's why I do business now is because, you know, one day I want to get back to that same point because it was really the growth of a honest American company, you know, and it was a media company.
And we were giving people news on the same scale during the Trump campaign as some of the major networks.
And, you know, that's common now.
These major networks, like pretty much a lot of people, all of them get more views than they do, right?
Because it's so horrible in the aggregate.
But we were one of the first people or one of the first networks doing that for people.
And I remember when we got banned off YouTube, we had like 2.8 million and billions of views and Crowder had 200K.
Yeah, I posted a thread a couple of days ago and I covered it on War Room, but I clipped out this woman who was an expert witness for the prosecutors or for the whatever, the other side during the Sandy Hook trials.
And she's basically an academic whose job is to like study InfoWars in order to try to combat it.
And she talks about going through like 1500 studies.
And I mean, she, her quote is like, it's impossible to overestimate or overstate Alex Jones's impact.
I think all the way back as early as 2011, Alex had more influence than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh combined.
And then, of course, like 2016, he was even bigger.
So like when you say we are as big as mainstream media, we were significantly larger than any influence they all had combined.
Like that's the crazy thing.
So I joined right at the end of that.
I joined early, like February 2017.
So like right after Trump was inaugurated the first time, because I was kind of like, okay, I got to get involved now.
Like, all right, Trump's in office.
Time to like really, you know, get to work.
I didn't think it was possible before it actually happened.
So I missed the whole 2016, like when it was really like rocket boosters firing, just going balls in the wall.
Hiring blimps, like fighting the young Turks.
Like I, I missed all of that, unfortunately, but I, but you're right.
There was still this like, we'd won, Trump was in office, everything was silly.
The memes were flowing freely.
They were starting to try to combat us, but they still had no idea how to do it.
So they were coming out with like, of course, he has some angry, like that type of stuff.
That was supposed to take us down.
Like, that's when they were trying that type of stuff.
And it only made us bigger and was funny to us.
And then we do like live three to five, you know, starting in 2018, which was just like us learning how to do a live show by just doing a live show and like taking calls.
And dude, it was a, yeah, it's been very fun.
It's been extremely fun.
And I'm very excited to see what the, what the next chapter holds.
I, I actually have a, um, I'm curious, like, when I know you joined InfoWars during that time period, but like help me understand what that looked like.
Cause I know you used to be a lot more left-leaning, probably, and a little bit more Democratic, if I'm not mistaken, but you weren't Trump.
You were, he was, he was not, not even say left-leaning.
I meant to say you weren't, you were an anti-Trump right now.
Well, I I responded to a Craigslist ad is how I got uh involved in Infowars.
Um, I was never a lefty.
I would never say that.
I did vote for Obama in 2008 because I was 18 and uh agreed with a lot of what he said on the campaign trail and then very quickly learned that that was all and that he was a fraud, that I had been duped and so but i'd always been very Anti Bushes Anti-neocon, Anti-overseas War, so I wasn't going to vote for Mccain anyway.
I also didn't like that he picked Sarah Palings.
I thought that was a right, irresponsible decision and probably the most important decision he makes as president.
So I had reasons to vote for Obama uh, and they were the same reasons I voted for Trump.
It's just Trump's.
The real deal.
Obama was lying.
But they said a lot of the same things uh, about ending the war.
I think it's just like they like the way a person looks right, like Newsom like Newsom is objectively horrible California is a flaming dung heap of a place to live, literally always on fire and like he looks presidential, he should be our president.
He looks presidential.
And then you get someone like Patrick Bet David and he's just like, yes, I think Gavin Newsroom is very impressive.
I don't agree with what he says, but I think that he's very impressive.
unidentified
I don't know how to sound like Pbd, but yeah no, it's, it's surface level.
It's, it's all just like first order thinking or like um yeah, first order thinking.
Basically, it's like you know well, they want to do good and that's sort of what matters.
And if you point out that them trying to do good actually doesn't do good, you're kind of just being mean uh, when they're trying to help and you're trying to stop them.
So you know, I think it's very yeah, kind of like childish uh, surface level, you know, appreciation of what's actually happening.
And so you know, I was never I would never say I was liberal, but I was more libertarian and uh, but I I tell this story all the time my co-hosted on Moonbase LIVE that we do almost every wednesday, some the occasional thursday, uh, he grew up well, he didn't grow up in Lebanon, but he was from Lebanon and his household still watched like Arabic news and stuff.
And so I was in sixth grade, 11 years old, when uh 9-11 happened.
And so then all through middle school he was my best friend and I would just, I was just getting the real truth about the Middle East as a middle schooler from, like you know, what the Arabs were telling each other, rather than the uh American media and learning, just like that.
You know, because in the morning in middle school they'd be showing us, you know, the latest broadcast from Osama Bin Laden's cave and my friend would be sitting there going, that's not Osama Bin Laden, he's not even speaking the right language.
Like He's got a gold watch on.
That's not allowed.
This guy's fatter than the guy they showed last week and sort of red-pilling me then.
So, so while my, I grew up and my parents were extremely sort of like traditional conservative, I was very much like, fuck the bushes, fuck the war, fuck Cheney early on, but was always right-wing.
So, and I always loved Alex and I grew up on Alex.
I probably, you know, I saw a loose change and I was probably 15.
Like, I knew about him forever.
When I came to Austin, I would like listen to him on the radio.
And I knew where the office was because I had a friend that worked next door and told me one time, I was like, Yeah, you like InfoWars, right?
You know, I work right next to them.
So then, so basically, I didn't go to college after high school.
I started just filming weddings and commercials and music videos and just doing freelance video stuff.
And I did that for about 10 years and then decided I needed to get a job.
And sort of the first job I applied to was a Craigslist ad for a nationally syndicated radio station that they didn't say the name of, but I knew where it was because my friend worked next there.
Everyone, if you don't watch The War Room, you really should.
It's a phenomenal broadcast, especially, you know, if you're kind of tired of seeing my dad talk because all he does is talk like six days a week, three, four hour shows every single day.
You can get a really refined, elegant news tone from Harrison that's still very hard-hitting and important.
And he's got a lot of big guests that come on his shows.
So like we're trying to do more of that in the future.
We're experimenting with taking calls, which we're going to do shortly.
And that's been going really well for us.
But, you know, Harrison's able to, because he's got a great phone book of people.
He's able to have these guests on and have these real legitimate conversations with them about global issues, about domestic issues, people in the military, people in the economy.
So if you really want a good news source for the afternoon, I highly suggest you check out Harrison.
And then, you know, a couple people in the chat that have been active, kind of raise your hand if you have a subject or if you're interested in talking.
This prepared segment is going to be detailed and thorough, but you know, in like 45 minutes to an hour, we're going to get to taking calls and I'll start setting that up.
So this one is going to be about the rise of the presidency and the executive branch.
Okay.
So here's the thing.
We all know we've had these crazy things happening like the No Kings protest and years.
People about the overreach of branch.
And about it is, you know, which side of the aisle it is.
The founding father didn't want another king.
And whatever Trump, I still, you know, I don't, I have my own opinions, but overall, I did vote for him.
So ultimately, the founders, they didn't want another king and they wanted a leader who could act fast, but never rule alone, which is why we had the first government that built the presidency strong enough, but just weak enough in order for us to, in order for them to be stopped.
So we're going to look at this first picture here.
This is going to be the second article in the Constitution that lays out the executive branch.
And I'll do like a quick summary.
We're not going to read all of this, but this gives you a breakdown of what the founding fathers had intended for this.
Clause one, there shall be an executive branch of the government.
This power for this branch is held by a president of the United States.
His term of office will be four years, and so will the term of the vice president.
This is how he will be elected.
Clause two.
Each state will have a number of electors to choose the president.
The number of electors for a state is equal to the total number of senators and representatives the state has in Congress.
Senators and representatives may not be electors.
Also, no one who holds an office of trust or profit with the United States government may be an elector.
This is interesting because everyone's like, oh, I know this.
The president's in there for four years.
Well, let's actually read what this says, even if it's a little bit on kind of the boring side.
It's still very important for us to go through and know.
Only a person who is born in the United States, sorry, Ted Cruz, may become president of the United States.
The president must be 35 years of age or older and must have lived inside the United States for at least 14 years.
Clause six, the vice president shall have the powers of the president and do the president's jobs in case the president is removed from office.
Hello, JD, or he dies or resigns or is unable to do the job.
Congress may make a law saying we shall do the president's job and have his powers in case both the president and vice president are removed from office, die or resign or aren't able to do the job.
The person shall act as president until the president is able to do the job or the vice president is able to serve as president or until a new president is elected.
Clause eight, the president shall take an oath of office before he takes over his job.
That's the oath.
President should be in charge of the army, supreme, like commander-in-chief.
President shall have the power to make treaties.
President shall appoint ambassadors.
Okay, it's good.
I didn't know like the letter of the law of all that stuff.
Yeah, so I mean, you've covered some of them, but the overall thing that people need to understand, what's laid out, president is commander-in-chief.
They declare, they direct military, but Congress is actually the one that declares war.
They have the pardons and reprieves, so they can forgive or delay punishment.
A reprieve is a little bit different than a pardon.
A reprieve, it's not used as much, but essentially, like if somebody's on death row, a president can come in and say, okay, well, you know, we can extend that out so that the death penalty doesn't happen within the timeframe, but it doesn't exonerate them of the crime.
It just delays it.
You've got treaties and appointments, negotiations.
You know, they are doing that, but the Senate's approval for those treaties.
State of the Union, they report to Congress and they recommend action.
Veto power, that's a very big one where they can block bills, but then Congress, if they get enough votes, can override that.
You've got, you know, take care clause, which they must faithfully enforce the laws.
And then they include the impeachment clause where they can be removed for abusing power.
That one's been used a little bit loosely within the last, you know, two decades, depending on which presidents, you know, you had the Clinton situation.
You had obviously Trump try to get impeached while he was in there the first time.
But ultimately, there's a bunch of tools that the president was given.
And you have hit the nail on the head with that one.
But on the left side, pay attention to this list because these are the things that the tools that the president is able to use these days.
So you have what's called the bully pulpit.
Not a lot of people talk about this, but it's essentially like the direct communication that became power.
So like from FDRs, fireside chats to social media, presidents can use Congress, can use the social media to essentially pressure Congress and shape opinion because they have the ability to speak out to the audience.
And so it's really about whatever the president wants to talk about, especially with the agenda setting.
The president can decide what the country talks about.
They have the ability to form the state of the union and give daily news cycles and the national congress.
I mean, and they're able to set the national conversation before Congress even acts on something.
Guys, there's hundreds of congressional people and most people don't know who they are and they don't know.
They don't really have social media presence.
So ultimately, people go to get their news on what's going to happen in the government from the executive branch.
And it's basically whatever he says or whatever he tweets out on Truth Social and not just Trump, but all presidents, people pay attention for these things.
And that's one of the things that they use for power.
So another thing is, is they are the de facto leader of their party, right?
So the president becomes the commander and center for both political parties.
So they're really in charge of that fundraising, endorsements, messaging.
And the biggest thing is that party loyalty.
So even though you have Congress, they still get in line because the president is ultimately the leader of that party.
And if you have both the House and the Senate, what can you do?
And this is why, you know, like European countries, they have a parliamentary government and they have a bunch of major and minor parties and the seats are all kind of sprinkled around.
But here in America, the legislative is supposed to be a check on the executive.
But the way it ends up working out, like you're describing, is you have the party leader.
And as long as the party has the majority, there is no check or balance.
And the thing that people don't realize is the president behind closed doors, he's going when a vote goes to the floor that he wants passed, he's making calls to other people.
He's making calls to this representative.
Oh, you're not going to vote for us?
Well, you can kiss Jimmy going to college.
You know, there's things like that that happen behind the scenes that people don't see.
And there's the aggression because everyone is scared of, you know, the president has some real power when it comes to making decisions from the cabinet perspective as well as different agencies.
So the last one is the executive agreements.
Now, look at that right side of the chart there.
You can see that top portion, that orange is what we were paying attention to.
And so essentially what an executive agreement is, they deal with another country and essentially skip Congress.
And essentially, it acts as almost like it covers defense, trade, environment.
You know, it can all be directly signed by the president.
And so think of it as like a mini treaty, essentially.
This is the whole problem with government is that past presidents and past administrations and past legislative bodies, they make these deals that have decades and decades and decades long ramifications.
It's like, well, we're trying to do this, but now we're trying to do this other thing.
So as you can see on this chart, guys, this is the executive orders within the first hundred days of office.
Now, Trump really set a record with this guy.
Okay.
When he came in in 2025, I think the number was something crazy.
I don't remember what the exact number, but I think it was over 100 executive orders.
Now, he didn't pass as many as FDR, but he enacted them very, very quickly.
And you look at the first time in 2017, he didn't really try to, you know, push the needle too much.
I think he was just focused on doing things and figuring things out.
But let's watch this clip that shows us how the executive orders, what they are, how they work, because it's nice to understand what they actually are because we don't really talk about these things and everyone kind of spews out the word executive order.
The framers of the American Constitution made the power of the executive order available to the executive branch.
But what exactly is this tool?
How does it work?
And what is the extent of its power?
Well, an executive order isn't a law, but it can carry the weight of one.
Passing laws involves a fairly lengthy process.
First, a member of Congress proposes a piece of legislation in the form of a bill.
After many committees and revisions, if the bill is approved by a majority of votes in Congress, that is, both the House and Senate, the bill is then sent to the president for signature.
If the president signs the bill, it then becomes a law.
An executive order, on the other hand, is something the president issues without consultation or permission from Congress.
They are, however, enforced like laws and are subject to judicial review by the court system to make sure they're within the limits of the Constitution.
That means the courts have the power to invalidate any executive decisions that they determine are an overreach of the president trying to assert power.
Sometimes a president feels the need to exert power without working with Congress.
And in times of crisis, quick decisions can be justified.
But most executive orders are not responses to emergencies.
They're often directed towards agencies in the federal government in order to expand or monitor their power.
Others determine the extent to which legislation should be enforced.
And sometimes a president may use an executive order to clarify and help implement a policy that needs to be easily defined.
Some of the most famous executive orders have changed the course of American history.
FDR issued an executive order to establish the Works Progress Administration, which helped build thousands of roads, bridges, and parks throughout the country.
The U.S. Constitution is somewhat ambiguous on the extent of the president's power.
That's resulted in executive orders expanding over time.
For instance, since Lyndon Johnson, presidents have begun issuing orders to create faith-based initiatives, establish federal agencies, and remove barriers for scientific research.
There are checks and balances in the U.S. Congress can pass laws really quickly.
So, you see those larger numbers, and that has a lot to do with it, in my opinion, because that's when we first started seeing that modern infrastructure be built versus get passed.
The thing is massive and the amount of like infrastructure that you need for that.
I don't even know how we did it.
But that 3,700 amount is a real number, guys.
FDR, you know, he became president during the Great Depression.
So this was when like Congress was frozen and they had all of these programs and, you know, they weren't able to pass things.
So he comes in and he's like, you know what?
I'm just going to start passing executive orders.
And also, he also did the same thing during later during World War II.
Now he did die very early on, but he served four terms, guys.
And this was before the two-term law was passed.
But he was our president for like over 12 years.
Right.
So, you know, that spike is just absolutely insane.
But it just really goes to show, you know, the thing about Congress is, you know, that process where you got to get a bill in front of the people, go through the committee.
But the whole point of that is it takes forever for laws to get passed.
Right.
So the reaction time from when you need, you know, relief money, like I understand the concept of what they were trying to do with the presidency of like, okay, somebody needs to be able to act quickly and we need to not take, you know, going through the T's and C's and taking, you know, six months to solve an issue that needs to be solved like tomorrow, right?
But then it just kind of, you know, they say, oh, there's a check on the executive orders, but do you know you still have to go through the same voting process and have a majority rule against that executive order, which also takes forever, not to mention Supreme Court, right?
And it can take even a longer time for them to hear something because it'll go to a lower court first and then it's got to go through the whole process.
And that's how the whole game is played.
So even if something is struck down or deemed illegal, it takes months and months to do it.
And at the point of, you know, the thing being a rapid response to some issue or problem that's been created, the deed's already been done.
And that's what we look at with this executive order per day thing.
You know, we've got massive numbers of them before, but before FDR, Great Depression, a whole lot of governmental agencies being set up, including the intelligence agencies.
That makes sense for that time period.
But he's just kind of flooding the zone, as they say.
He's making it so, hey, these courts, you're going to get me with them.
I don't think so.
I'm going to do so much stuff that there's no possible way for you to even do anything about this.
There's so many that are coming out with each president.
You guys got to understand, you don't hear about 99% of the executive orders that are released, right?
So you only hear about the really controversial ones, but you don't hear about the ones that are a little hush-hush under the table that just passed something.
Now, there are some really good ones.
You know, like Clinton did one in the 90s, which allowed people who had medical care from the government, they used to have to go to these like shitty, basically like parenthood, parenthood, you know, just for welfare and minorities.
They couldn't go to the ones that actually had good doctors.
And so he passed an executive order that allowed, like, I was part of that program.
Like, I was able to go to like the pediatrics that was around the corner from my house.
That was a really good one because of something executive order.
So I can't whack at the whole system, but it's just gotten out of control.
Yeah, this is going to be the next one that we're going to go.
Let's watch the second video, which is commander-in-chief was never supposed to be allowed to declare war without Congress, but we've been doing a lot of these little mini, mini escapades.
unidentified
Let's learn about the war powers.
The year was 1973.
Richard Nixon was president of the United States, and U.S. troops had been fighting in Vietnam for nearly 18 years, all without an official declaration of war.
This prompted Congress to pass its Court Powers Resolution of 1973, preventing any future president from involving the U.S. in an undeclared war.
Congress had traditionally declared war or authorized the president to use military force against enemies beyond its borders, a power granted exclusively to them by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, these were all declared by Congress.
But after World War II, things got a bit fuzzy.
Some presidents started taking military liberties with their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, a power also granted by the Constitution.
In 1950, President Harry Truman sent U.S. troops to help defend South Korea against North Korean invaders.
He called it a police action.
So technically, it wasn't a war.
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy sent supplies and military advisors to South Vietnam.
Less than a year later, U.S. troops were fighting in the Vietnam War, including in the Gulf of Tonkin, all without that official declaration.
And then in 1969, President Richard Nixon began bombing Cambodia in secret, hiding missions from both Congress and the American people.
It took more than a year for this information to leak to the public, and it wasn't a precedent for what we're doing.
Congress ordered an immediate end to the bombing raids.
But at this point, Congress realized more needed to be done to check the power of the president when it came to war.
So on November 7th, 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution.
The idea was to ensure that Congress and the president agreed on war actions before committing troops into hostile situations.
There are a few key parts to the War Powers Resolution.
First, the president must consult and report to Congress before sending troops overseas, though he or she can initiate sending troops in the case of an attack.
Second, if the president initiates a hostile action, it can only last for 60 days plus a 30-day withdrawal period.
Then he has to vote on whether it can continue, unless Congress can't meet because of an attack on the U.S. mainland.
And finally, if forces have been deployed that aren't acting on a declaration of war, the president must remove them at direction of Congress.
Although the War Powers Resolution had broad bipartisan support, it didn't pass without a fight.
After they voted to pass the bill, President Nixon vetoed it.
Nixon argued that it violated the constitutional powers of the president and that the only way to limit the president's role as commander-in-chief would be to amend the constitution itself.
But Congress voted again and overrode the veto.
The war powers resolution became law.
Despite the resolution, presidents in Congress have still been at odds when it comes to military action.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan deployed several U.S. military advisors to El Salvador without reporting to Congress.
Some members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit, but the court dismissed the case.
In the 90s, President Bill Clinton sent forces to Kosovo, and troops remained there for more than the CC limit.
All the things that happened that we forget about.
unidentified
But once more, the federal court refused to intervene.
So while the War Powers Resolution has limited the president's ability to send troops overseas, the branches of government still wrestle over their powers, which is exactly what the nation's founders intended.
I think what's happened now is we fucked around and we found out because it's up to the president pretty much unilaterally now to decide what happens.
And that war powers act, I guess, you know, maybe we can't do something directly, but we can pass the money to get the thing through and just have other people do it.
Right.
So that's where we're at now.
And, you know, I wonder like if he'll issue an executive order regarding the Venezuela situation for, you know, the targeted military objective.
Well, I take your point and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Ultimately, we're living in an age of access journalism, never before imagined, where you're able to take like these cable news hosts or, you know, kind of just like even the people on Twitter, people that got those Epstein files that weren't real.
You're able to take them and then essentially make them a part of the political party.
When in fact, ultimately, it's all about the checks and balances on government.
And the people that are supposed to cover such news are just, you know, high-fiving and clapping and applauding for the current situation that's going on.
You know, media and journalism in this country has always been controlled to a degree and the government's always been heavily involved in that.
But living in an age where people consider reality to be what's on the phone and considering the people that are posting all the time are paid to post, not necessarily in money, but in access to the team, the Cool Kids Club.
Yeah, it's one big circle jerk because here's the thing.
No matter which side you're on, you know, if you go where the power is, there's always some monetary compensation on the back end or some type of power that comes from just being associated.
Because imagine the rooms that Benny Johnson is in now, right?
And, you know, the cable news people have more honor and nobility than those people because at least the cable news is like, I'm an institution and I support XYZ.
But then you literally got a dude like Cat Turd on his phone.
And just because he can farm engagement money, just because he can get paid off of what he posts, the beauty of it is the president doesn't even have to give him any benefit because he's benefiting off of the engagement of the president.
And this is why the Trump time is so unique.
And I think we're going to look back at this time in like half a decade or a decade and be like, wow, that was real magic in the air because these things that are going on, they won't exist in the time of JD Rubio, AOC Bernie.
But at the end of the day, most people aren't like you in that regard.
Most people are very passionate one way or the other about the dude.
And me personally, I'm sick of the dude.
I wish the dude would do his job and shut up and go away.
But we're stuck with what we have now.
But my point being, someone like Cat Turd that's probably making this speculation, maybe like high hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars off of his association, which is being the pro-Trump guy, when the MAGA goes away, they'll try to revive it.
They'll try to keep it the same, but they're going to run just a MA-flavored campaign with an establishment Republican.
And people are going to eat it up and they're going to love it.
And they're going to be like, it's the same thing for a thousand years.
And that's what, that's the deal Trump made is he said, hey, as long as I get to be the leader of this political party and I take it over and I win, whatever that means, not the country winning, not Americans winning, not American prices going down.
If I can win and just be the guy that everyone likes now because I'm a part of the system and the system accepts me, he really is the perfect fit for it.
And the thing about the whole aspect of everything when it comes to the presidency and the power that they're given, a lot of it comes down to also the public too.
We're also partly responsible for giving up power because Americans expect presidents to fix everything.
People don't like it when I stay on, but I say, I want to stay at the mic.
I want to talk at the mic.
I want to talk to the people.
It's who I am.
It's who they are.
Dude, you know, I did Trump for like a school, like middle school event where I was like trying to like, we were doing like significant people in history.
Once we see the number, I'm going to type it into the group.
it's it's actually if you scroll up in the group you'll see the number there too okay it's the same number same number and then we'll also uh open it up for other people too guys so yeah we're gonna give the number out after we talk to a few people i think we got new Groyper in high counsel so new Groyper was really phenomenal he hard carried us on thursday because we were so gassed yeah we were really exhausted high counsel you did a good job too don't worry I mean,
the thing is, like, I had driven back from Dallas and I had to go somewhere else to drop off a check and then I had to go pick up my dog.
So you were doing a lot of driving.
Yeah.
And then I went, I heard Rob Dew is like, yo, like, you should come in the office.
Jay Dyer is here.
And I was like, oh, so I went from Dallas, from Denton, and I came down to the office.
I'm really looking forward to talking to him again about what he's been thinking about.
You know, it was an interesting live or not live, interesting spaces that I got in this morning.
And with Keith, there were a lot of people there talking about a lot of different issues, but I didn't know about the aquifer situation in Venezuela and Argentina.
And if you look at what's been done in Argentina, folks, I mean, it's crazy.
We've given them 20 billion, now 40 billion.
It's all these sovereign wealth funds, right?
So we're essentially, we're letting people invest in their country.
And it's literally like, if you like Trump and like means like willing to blow, if you're willing to do that for him, he will just like, he's like, all right, I'm going to move in.
And he doesn't care about the optics as long as the thing is possible.
The Argentina situation, we should do a show on that eventually.
You know, it doesn't have to be like this month, anything, or even next month, but I'm definitely going to add that to the list of topics because they've had crazy inflation.
You can have your show, videos, videos, whatever you want to do, whatever your favorite way to support the broadcast is, you have the ability to do that.
And I would really recommend following Truism Tim on X.
I mean, look, it's going to be an easy thing to do.
It's going to be a rewarding thing to do because we're growing the show together and we both need your support.
So, so talking about like the economic impact of the EBT, you know, the whole we're turning it off, which, by the way, I'm a proponent of for the most part.
But just started to do a little bit of deep dive.
And with the help of ChatGPT, came with some interesting stuff.
The first thing is, is that Walmart receives 80 cents on the dollar, as in out of every dollar spent, 80 cents of it is spent at Walmart and EBT.
Now, my thought is, is this, you know, doing some more research, EBT takes up around three, anywhere from 3% to 10% of their revenue.
So I'm curious as to what you guys think about what kind of economic impact we can see from the EBT system being cut off, you know, the cards being canceled for this month.
So the thing with Walmart, Walmart is become either its top three now as far as grocers are concerned because they did an overhaul where it became less about just, you know, you getting your daily items from and become like a hub for grocery shopping.
And they get things in such volume that they can, you know, have cheaper prices.
So everyone's in a budget crunch.
They shop at Walmart.
So I think on the economic standpoint, it depends on how much people have in their EBT balance, right?
So EBT works just like a checking account, essentially.
It's not just, it gets refilled every month, but if you don't spend it, it still stays in that account.
So it really depends on person to person.
And now keep in mind, it doesn't mean that the people don't have any money whatsoever.
Yes, there's a lower threshold at which you have to qualify for it.
But ultimately, the amount of money, you're still, these people are just going to have to come out of pocket, you know, and put it on credit cards and things because people have to eat.
I think the thing is, it goes more on the burden of the person because there's no choice but to eat.
So they're still probably going to spend the money, just money they can't afford.
Which kind of, which kind of leads me into the next point, the whole reason why I'm bringing this up is we have the potential for this to be a very dangerous circumstance come November 1st.
You know, we've had, like we talked about earlier, we've had those riots, we've had, you know, all of these things, but you know, what's the one thing that that kept, you know, throughout history has kept empires running?
And now that, you know, now we have a, we have, you know, lower income people who are not going to have access to it, which granted it has been abused and needs to be reformed and all of that.
But I think we're looking at a particularly dangerous situation.
And if you want to put your tinful hat on with me for a second, I think this is an intentional play.
Or it could be at least.
Because so when the people start rioting and stuff over the food and stuff, I need more power.
What does Trump give?
Yeah, right.
Right.
And, you know, it's like there are two things that are for certain within our government.
You will pay taxes and any right you give away, you will not get back.
And at the end of the day, no one wants to be the reason why people and children go starving.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter how much exactly.
You have like real case scenario where like you could possibly injure and permanently damage some people from like malnutrition and things like that that could come from not having their benefits.
But ultimately, I don't think it's a play.
I know you guys are more on the fence of like, this is a strategic move.
I think there's just a certain level of inefficiency and stupidity where the snap benefits wasn't something that was thought initially when they went to conflict.
Because you think about it, each time the government was about to shut down, they just moved the needle back, you know, three months, a month, you know, 90 days, however it was.
They were basically just moving it, the goalposts back.
And so I think they just really got to a point where it was so gridlocked and they were like, we're not coming to an agreement.
Now it's in a react, because I feel like everything that's happening in politics is more reactive rather than proactive when it comes to thought process.
Like, it's just they, they're aware of how badly the system is bent and broken out of shape.
They're aware of, you know, it doesn't have to be an exact forecast of they don't, they know how much rain and lightning is going to fall, but they know a storm will come if they do these things.
And any country can technically print money, but no one else is the reserve currency.
Just the money that we print is backed by something, essentially, because these other countries are printing money like crazy.
You go to Zimbabwe and it's like fucking 5 billion Zimbabwe dollars for a burrito.
I'm exaggerating, but at the end of the day, we have people buying our assets that justify us being able to print more money because we know people are going to keep using our money.
Well, you know, my main concern is with the government constantly pursuing more power, you know, like the segment you did earlier on the executive branch expanding.
And it seems like things are kind of spiraling out of control.
We're to the point now to where, you know, like the most one of the closest recent historical nations to go through what we're going through, Walmart, you know, the Walmart Republican.
I'm just so disillusioned with all form of politics these days.
You know, like they are, you know, virtue signaling about this and that and everything in between, but none of them are actually accomplishing anything.
You know, it kind of just outlines what I'd already believed.
And, you know, at this point, it's just kind of like as power amasses in Washington, D.C., or if they move the capital somewhere else or wherever they go, as power amasses, so there's corruption.
And so I think we have to take back the states' rights.
We thought Trump was going to be the non-politician.
So now I'm scared.
I'm like, okay, let's maybe we need another one of those.
But then I'm like, well, I don't know who we pick.
That's, you know, as long as we don't get another one of those that just end up just, you know, they're in there long enough and they get back into the same exact, you know, gravy train of politics.
You know, you don't mean to be the politician, but then you end up becoming the politician just by being in the system.
It's got something to do with the bioflavonoids and the carrots.
You know, interestingly enough, another plant that seems to have this property is chamomile, specifically the apogenin, which is found in chamomile and chamomile tea and other things like this.
It's a GABA modulator, meaning like it's an anxiolytic, like anti-stress thing, which is what everyone knows it for.
But that same molecule has an effect on blocking estrogen.
So it's very interesting.
And like, this is the thing I talk to people about is they'll hear something like that, like carrots might like block or lower excess estrogen.
And they go, man, that's crazy.
Like, why would that work?
Like, how is that true?
At the end of the day, drug science is just food science.
Like, it's the same thing, right?
These bioactive compounds, these specific things that are found in various plants and herbs, they all have metabolic effects that are, in fact, very significant.
And when you stack benefits like that, you really get like all-around total effect.
And it's a lot easier and safer to do than, you know, taking a bunch of medications.
Obviously, if you have a condition or something, it's different.
You should listen to your doctor.
But, you know, as a healthy person, you're able to experiment with a lot of these things.
And, you know, the studies have come out now, whereas like 20, 30 years ago, you'd say this and people were like, oh, that's ridiculous.
But like now we know things like this are true.
So it's very interesting and a very good point.
Do you have anything else you want to talk about tonight?
Yeah, that was probably, I was thinking that's probably the reason why Bugs Bunny was so based always, you know, because he was always eating the carrots.
It's rewarding for sure to see, you know, like, especially after the Biden administration and how horrible they were and how they mandated, you know, 80 million people to take a shot.
Now they put everyone in jail for Jan 6.
He's done some stuff that you can really point at and go, yeah, that's what I wanted.
That's why I wanted him there.
But you talk about ending the wars.
What wars has he ended?
Like the Ukrainian conflict has continued to rage on and on and on and on.
And I'm unsure about your political affiliation when it comes to that.
A lot of the Trump people really love Ukraine, but this is a puppet state that we're kind of destroying it so that we can go in there with American companies like BlackRock and rebuild it.
Right.
And they're using our munitions and our long-range weaponry to strike inside of Russia.
And we're kind of, you know, edging towards global war.
I, and you talk about ending the wars.
He's trying to create the new one in Venezuela.
So what's your opinion on all that?
Are you happy with that as a voter where you go, hey, look, you know, people are always looking at him and saying, you know, he should be a group or he should be like us, but he has always supported Israel.
I'll definitely give you that.
What's your opinion on the conflicts like Ukraine and Venezuela that show no sign of stopping?
Cambodia, the stuff with Serbia and Kosovo, Iran and Israel, the ceasefire is kind of holding between Gaza and Hamas and Israel.
So, you know, there has been, you know, significant peacemaking done.
And, you know, he's a deal maker as a businessman.
So it was kind of like, that's kind of his forte.
So the problem with deals, it's like a back and forth thing, you know, with negotiations.
You know, so that as from my point of view, you know, he's not like literally just going out there as like a war hawk and being like, all right, let's go eat up China and eat up Russia and start all these huge wars.
You know, he's, I think he's, from my point of view, he's a peacemaker, especially when you look at other presidents.
You know, now, granted, it's tumultuous, but I think a lot of people are worldwide are trying to sabotage his agenda.
So it's kind of like a tough situation.
You're trying to make peace and then Israel's, you know, dropping JDAMs and 500 kilogram bombs on Gaza.
You know, they're not sticking to part of their deal.
I see what you're saying as far as the peace deals.
Now, there are some legitimate peace deals that have happened.
One thing that if you talk to the Indian community as well as some other people and you just look at the deep dive on that, the India and Pakistan thing, he didn't actually create that peace deal, right?
That was something that he postured after they had already come to an agreement.
But it was kind of like one of those plays where he, you know, kind of rode on the bandwagon and said, I was the one who stopped this.
And it was like one of those things that like inadvertently, he just ended up pissing off, you know, an entire country because they were like, wait, you just came in afterwards.
But I do see the perspective on some of the other guys.
You know, he did stop some of the conflicts, but it's like, you know, at what point it's not balanced.
You're also creating situations over here.
So, if you're going to win a peace award, then it has to be everywhere, not just in certain localities, you know.
That's fair, you know, and like, you know, he does kind of pump himself up per se, you know, then like, um, but you know, like he's obviously in close connection with Modi.
And financially, you know, the U.S. is a big juggernaut.
So I can only imagine the stuff behind the scenes, you know, on making deals.
You know, obviously, everything that goes on between countries isn't put into the media.
So as far as it goes from creating big wars, it's like I don't see the same kind of MO or modus operande of a war-making president.
He's like actively going around trying to stop wars where like other presidents like George Bush, you know, and the war with Iraq or how bad Obama wanted his war with Syria.
You know, it just seems to me that he's trying to prevent that because it would destroy the MAGA agenda.
The thing is, so the way you look at it, and you say, like, obviously, like, NATO wants the Ukraine war, they've turned Russia into the boogeyman, and they won't be satisfied until there's like full war there where they're involved and where Article 5 is invoked.
I agree with you there.
But what Trump does is he says, look, I'll just sell you the weapons and then we don't get to be directly involved.
What's your take on us kind of being in the arms dealer slash like arms merchant role for a lot of these conflicts, even if we're not directly involved, right?
And like the strike on Iran, I guess I think you're someone that was pretty happy about the giant bombs being dropped on Fordo.
Well, I think it's something that pretty much the only thing the Islamic community at large understands and takes into respect is strength.
So you have to flex that away.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's right, but that's the only thing that those strong men in that area of the world has ever responded to, even if you look to ancient times, you know, is the violent acts back and forth.
Otherwise, it seems just be talk.
You know, as far as selling arms, you know, that's the big military product.
You know, and if you look at the country as a company, you know, we make tons of money through that.
And though it's not, I don't think it's right, you know, in a perfect world that that wouldn't be ideal.
You know, we could all be living in peace.
But unfortunately, in the world we live in now, it's very cruel.
And, you know, the big dog eats the little dog always.
And Russia does the same thing and has throughout history, arming other countries.
And it's kind of just, like I said before, like corporate strategies between countries.
So I think it's bad because, you know, if I gave a gun to somebody and said, oh, yeah, go shoot Rex, you know, and then like Rex gets shot by this guy, I would think that I would be irresponsible.
But in government politics, it seems just to be like a different type of warfare when you're supplying enemies.
You know, I think it's more on the money making.
And the same can be said then if you look at economy battles as warfare, you know, the same thing happens between China and Russia and the battling.
Like, for example, one of the good things that Putin said recently is the U.S. is still buying tons of uranium from Russia.
Like, here's United States-Russian relations are actually very important.
And through all this, it seems that we've kind of tried to appease a lot of our weaker allies, you know, and we've kind of driven Russia into the arms of China.
And I think that'll be looked back at during history as something that was a catastrophic mistake.
They have everything we need.
They're actually very close to us on the Alaskan border and whatnot.
And, you know, we're already doing some business and there have been some exchanges.
And, you know, Trump brings Putin in and he flies the bomber over his head, man.
He does this stuff.
And I get it.
It's cool.
It's based, quote unquote.
I just, at the end of the day, I can't support the death industry, which is what I see the military as being.
And I really voted for him because I wanted peace and I wanted these conflicts to stop.
And I'm of the mind, I know that we probably disagree on this.
And that's okay.
That's what the show is about is having conversations.
I think that if he really wanted to stop it, he could.
And he might get killed for doing it.
He might.
Something horrible might happen to him for doing it.
But I think he could stop it.
And just looking at the Gaza footage.
unidentified
Do you think he could stop the war with Russia and Ukraine?
But we wanted that Donbass region because it has the rare earth minerals.
Those people, they're ethnically Russian.
They voted to leave.
There was a peace deal in 2022.
Zelensky was about to sign it, but then Boris Johnson comes in.
And, you know, I didn't vote for Boris Johnson.
I don't like the guy at all, but he apparently represented NATO.
And, you know, we're a part of NATO.
And he told Ukraine, we'll back you to the hilt.
And I just, I don't, why, why can't Russia get a win?
Like, this is my honest opinion on the whole thing.
Why can't they have those regions?
How many people have to die before they're going to take him?
Because they're going to take him anyway.
It's a reverse Cuban missile crisis where, you know, if we had missiles or if we had military in Cuba from a communist country, we wouldn't put up with it.
And we didn't.
And the same thing is happening to them, where they're a nuclear power, they're a sovereign power, and they have 36 NATO exercises before the war starts, second most to any country in NATO.
They have 36 NATO exercises done at their doorstep.
They have the posturing.
They have the behavior towards the people in the Donbass.
They invade, yes.
Should they have done that?
Probably not.
But you can make the argument from their side as to why it's justified.
And you can make the argument from the Ukrainian side, hey, we gave up our nuclear missiles.
See, I do know the history.
We gave up our nuclear arms.
We promised neutrality.
We promised that, or we were promised that we would always be able to remain a state.
But you can also make the argument that they've kind of reneged on their neutrality.
And it's all this idea about a stronger Europe.
And there's a great book called The Grand Chessboard, where they're like, look, we need Russia broken up into seven parts.
We're going to get their resources.
It's fine.
And I think post-fall of the Soviet Union, they were just kind of seen as bumbling fools.
And it was the educated, enlightened Europeans that knew the situation and were going to be the future of Europe.
But we look at the modern age now where it's become so complicated.
We want that place almost destroyed as much as possible because then the U.S. companies that already have deals to come work in there, they're just going to come rebuild it and make tens or hundreds of billions of dollars.
What do you think about the possibility of like post-war Ukraine being developed by like BlackRock, State Street, these giant funds?
They want the Orthodox Christianity to kind of, and all Christianity at large, to kind of get pushed away because right now, Christianity is the most dominant religion.
We're like at 2.3 billion people.
And the next one up is Islam.
And that's debatable.
Their numbers, they're like 2 billion, where like half the people, females and people who are forced, would most likely leave.
You know, they're forced into the religion once again by the strong hand, strong men, you know, and the tyrannical rules they put in place.
You know, but as far as it goes with, as you're saying, with NATO, you're 100% right.
You know, they've been encroaching on Russia.
You saw with Hillary Clinton and the wars in the Balkans, that was kind of like the demo trial.
And they want a big war with Russia because that would be a big candidate for another giant world war where we could have many, many people dying in warfare.
And it's part of that greater death machine.
And it's horrible.
Like I said, I don't agree with it.
And it seems to me that just by on its face, you know, that Trump is trying to avoid that.
Otherwise, his posture would be way different.
Well, you know, I think that should be just a dance between them where they're like trying to make money more so over than start, you know, thermonuclear war.
Because like my whole thing with nuclear war is like we've had them for so long.
If we were going to have nuclear war, why hasn't happened yet?
One thing that's been on my mind, though, okay, so like my company has been shoving AI down our throats and waterboarding us to use AI.
They literally dick ride the fact that we talk about AI all the time.
Anybody who uses AI, I'm sure they're getting a nice bonus check for Christmas.
I've been watching the news and it seems like people are backtracking company-wise.
All these big tech companies are realizing that when they laid people off and replaced people with AI, they're kind of being humble that either their like employees like can't don't have like the technical skills to handle on how to utilize it, they're wasting money.
I want to get y'all's thoughts about like just things that have been happening in the news related to it.
And like, what are y'all's thoughts about like where we're going?
Is it like the demise of us in the future?
Is this just progression?
Just like how you know we created the internet, and obviously, here we are now, and that's yeah, I think it's a great development.
I think it's really impressive in the short term what it's been able to do.
It has really changed society, and that's a good question.
That's a good take from you.
Now, I do I think it's gonna like immediately in the next like year or two or three.
Do I think we're gonna live in like a truly different like Google Glass world?
I think it's really better.
It's like ultimate Google, right?
It's like ultimate Google, and it's it's it's good for limited application, it's a good copywriter basically.
I think the real power comes in when they're able to use it to control robots.
And this is my take, right?
Because you have the optimist robot.
Oh, it's so silly, Elon has it doing little karate moves.
But what happens when that thing has a Terminator brain?
And I think we're actually an iRobot perspective on this.
Yeah, I think we're pretty close to that.
Yeah, I think we're pretty close to iRobot.
You know, and the funny thing is, like, all the sci-fi movies are funny and whatnot, but it is kind of predictive programming for the future at the end of the day.
You know, we always talk about like the evil AI application and the death robot.
You got to understand the human brain is like a very miraculous thing where we are very negative.
But ultimately, AI does take a lot of input from humans and what we deem as like the input of what's corrected wrong.
It'll be a minute until we get AI that has human movement, in which that'll destabilize a lot of jobs and like industries.
Ultimately, I think AI we're going to hit a really rough patch where there's going to be a whole you know reorganization of jobs and you know, right, different uh industries that people were doing prior to, just like everyone used to be in agriculture, right?
But then we had farming equipment that takes up the job of like the 20 people you would have out there harvesting your crop.
Like, there's going to be a rearrangement, but this is one is going to be a very big one.
Ultimately, I think AI is a net positive.
And here's my reason why: the reason is because you'll notice as we have new advancements, things become cheaper and easier for the average person.
And we forget, like, remember back in 2005, you buy like a flat screen TV, right?
And how much did that cost like for like a little 40-inch TV?
It was like $2,500 for something crazy.
unidentified
Like, people wanted to debt over buying a TV exactly.
So, like, I mean, we are as humans, we have some pessimism that happens, but I also think it's some practicality that, like, you know, we live in the most loneliest age we probably ever have in human society, and we're losing, we're not touching grass, guys, anymore.
I mean, the thing is, they say, oh, like we have to build the data center.
It's so important for the future of humanity.
But oh, climate change, climate change.
Ultimately, it's a thing of like where if you kill all the cows, it doesn't equal like a week of what they do in China type of thing.
Right.
But, but we have to do it because we have to be the moral people.
So here's my thing.
I, we should do a whole climate change thing.
We should look into that.
Um, we really should because there's a lot of it's not real.
I, it's a hoax.
I believe the earth goes through global heating and cooling periods, and we're actually supposed to be in a cooling period right now.
But the fact of the matter is, we're supposed to be hawkish on quote unquote, like environmental or like CO2 production and pollution, but they're going to build these massive plants that are going to do way, way, way more damage than humans could do anyway.
But it's okay because we have to do it because we got to build the thing.
It's going to be so incredible.
It's a thing as of where like you see them talk about like, oh, like everyone's got to drive an electric car and then to charge an electric car fully.
It's like the power.
It's like the power to run an entire neighborhood.
And then not only that, I think someone's going to frame me for murder or something because they have my face and then they make me look like I'm creating a crime, but it's not me.
And because legistration, whatever the word is, hasn't caught up, I go to jail, lose my livelihood, or become homeless.
I don't know, take down my job.
And that's like not that scary because to be honest, like it's really getting that intense.
I saw a TikTok today, which is not the source of truth that I should ever be pulling things from.
But I did see a TikTok today about some person, some girl crying on the internet because her essay that she spent hours on was flagged by this quote unquote AI academic thing.
And then she's getting called into like the office and she's like, I wrote my motherfucking paper and she's like, basically can't even have a proper education because all these other cool kids are using ChatGPT to write their essays.
I forget what the name of it was, where it would just go for like a plagiarism check just to check the internet to make sure any like phrasing and you didn't get your stuff off of spark notes.
But like now they're running it through like a chat GPT-esque type of way to things that are not human-like.
No, no, I actually disagree with you guys because one of my favorite things is to use ChatGPT to make sure my messages are not giving like pick me, choose me.
They did, they did scientific studies where they show your brain activity, right?
When you're using AI, your brain activity like basically drops off of a cliff.
You're not, well, you're not, you're not thinking.
Yeah, you're not thinking critically.
You're no longer doing the heavy lifting that your brain requires in order to have like those, you know, muscles exercise in your brain that allow you to, you know, make better decision making.
And when you offload it to the AI, ultimately what you're doing is you are making yourself dumber in real time, but just expand that over a decade, right?
You continue to do that.
You let the AI do the thinking.
And then when it comes to you having to have a real original thought, people are like, ah, I don't know.
The porn industry is already getting, they always go ahead of the curve and they set precedents for like new technologies.
The one thing I'm afraid of is when they get like the full-blown bodysuit like in Player Ready One, where you can physically feel the tactile experience of what it's like to have somebody touching you.
And then you have your little AI girlfriend and she's just sitting on the she's just she's just sitting there.
And it's like, that is the moment I'm scared because there's a lot of lonely men out here who don't have any hope.
I'm going to start kind of like at certain points implementing like a financial literacy, but like in a good way, you know, the things that they don't teach you about like how to be good, easy to understand, informative.
Easy.
I love this stuff.
That's my bread and butter.
So beyond the history stuff, we will mix in those segments so that people know how.
Like, I'm not going to gatekeep.
We're business owners.
I don't want to gatekeep.
I want to give you guys the secret sauce that we use in order to actually run our businesses.
So those are the things.
So, Lauren, we appreciate you being on the call.
We're going to probably wrap this show up.
Maybe we'll read a couple of comments before we close out.
And we're going to go through your comments in the live chat and we're just going to see what you guys have to say.
We appreciate everyone with us here tonight.
We cracked 5,000.
That's very cool.
And I just want to say, really quick before we read comments: look, you like the show, you're a listener, you're a viewer, however, you choose to enjoy it.
We are also available on YouTube and Rumble at Gray Area Talks.
So please subscribe to us over there.
It would be very helpful.
And it just, it helps us do everything.
It helps us get guests.
It helps us have higher quality live streams.
It helps us, you know, keep pace with our goals of how we want to grow the show because we think, like last caller said, really giving a valuable service to people.
And we're all about our listeners, our viewers.
We want to hear from you.
And how are we going to hear from you about how we can improve the show if you're not subscribed and you're not commenting?
So please subscribe to Gray Area Talks.
You've been Rumble.
And listen, you got to follow Tim at Truism Tim on.
I know we have a lot of viewers in here, and there's a lot of people tuned in on X. You know, even if 10 of you guys follow me, that is the thing that I appreciate no matter how many people follow.
Because at the end of the day, like Rex is talking about, my whole thing is I want to give you guys value and I want to be able to interact with you guys.
And at the end of the day, when you guys follow, it actually shows that, like, okay, we're doing something right.
And that is like the biggest thing for me is like, we don't want to just give the mainstream version of whatever was told in history because the victors dictate history.
No, the for you pages is already a representation of that.
Hallucination is definitely a charged version of how you want to represent that.
But ultimately, we are getting into echo chambers.
It's sad because I see X is taking a similar approach too now, where they're starting to cater the content more in terms of algorithms changed like a hundred times.
It's because TikTok has set the precedence for that.
And they realize that's what keeps people on the app.
When you see a video that you liked and stayed on longer, let's show them it again.
Yeah, but I want, I don't mind the bio part because if they find ways to like do, you know, cure cancer and do like crazy stuff, this is where AI comes into play.
They say like Trump's like, every like one day we're going to have shots that are mRNA and that it cures cancer based on like your specific genetic profile or whatever.
And there's no control group because no one else has your genetic profile.
We talked about this with Matt Baker.
Look, we're good and bad and ugly.
We're going to get all of it.
It's all going to be here.
And we talk about it here on the gray area.
The future will be like the video game Detroit Become Human.
Yes.
Interesting take referring to the caller kind of backing Trump a little bit, the rabbit guy.
I read that book, The Grand Chessboard, on Alex's recommendation.
Almost half of the book was about Ukraine.
Russia will never give up an inch of territory.
And that's a fact.
So Zelensky is the regime change we need to deal with.
And once it's all divorced from the party politic and the team you got to support, but they always lose, come to us, give us your unfiltered opinion, and let's just keep track of where the country goes.