All Episodes
Previous Next
June 17, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
47:03
🔴 Border Czar Tom Homan Joins Crowder: Will Trump Actually Fulfill Deportation Promises 2025-06-17 18:08
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Guy from Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Garland?
Jeff Garland had a baby with Brian Regan.
And a blobfish.
And a blobfish.
So this is what they're doing, and I think that a lot of people are being teed up for this.
They're trying to sow division.
Now, I would tell you this.
I would definitely have a problem with Donald Trump if Donald Trump lied to the American public and this administration had direct involvement in attacking Iran.
Might have a problem with it.
I would have a problem with it if I saw President Trump saying, we're going to enter into this war and put boots on the ground.
I've not seen either of those things.
I have seen them going back to 2011 and say that Iran cannot be a nuclear power consistently.
So let me go through this for you.
And you guys can send me your chats and let me know.
Donald Trump posted this on Truth yesterday.
He said, Iran should have signed the deal I told them to sign.
What a shame.
What a shame.
Waste of human life.
Simply stated, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
I said it over and over again.
Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran.
Somebody please explain to Kuki Tucker Carlson that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
But that has not stopped Kooky Tucker Carlson from selling the new Kooky Carlson Doomsday Clock.
*laughter*
Don't take it too seriously, hero worshippers.
Everybody gets made fun of a little, okay?
It's good medicine for all of us.
We just had Tom Holman as the Coppertone baby.
We did.
Shut the fuck up.
Okay?
Oh my gosh.
And he's going to have a beer with me and it'll be fine.
Yes.
Really quickly, before we move on.
No, by all means.
Vice President Vance actually just put out a statement.
I think that's one of the things that they're talking about right now as well.
So if we can bring the Vance...
It's a long post, so I'll have to scroll it.
Okay, and I think I'll just read kind of the first part.
I don't know if you can see it there or not, but look, I'm seeing this from the inside, and I am admittedly biased towards our president and my friend, but there's a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly.
He's been amazingly consistent over 10 years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
And we'll provide the receipts, references, always available in every description for each show.
Right.
And you guys can go and read all of that, too.
So, second, I've seen a lot of confusion over the issue of civil nuclear power and uranium enrichment.
These are distinct issues.
Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment.
But they rejected that.
Okay, scroll up so I can get to see point number three there.
I said second.
That was the second point.
The second point is the enrichment part of it.
It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy.
It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity.
And it's still another thing to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.
That is a big part of this deal.
I've seen some snippets of this as well, so I think there's one part that I'm going to try to get to.
I have yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich above the threshold for civilian use.
So we've talked about that too.
Meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.
He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment.
That decision ultimately belongs to the president, and of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.
That is a nod to everybody who's saying we don't want to do this again.
Keep it back up.
It's a nod to everybody, right?
Just making sure people understand what's going on.
And here's his final thought.
But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.
And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals.
Whatever he does, that is his focus.
Okay.
I think that last part is very, very key.
He's earned some trust on this issue.
He's been very consistent on this issue.
He is the most anti-war president, including...
In other words, if he's not anti-war enough, then there is nobody anti-war enough.
What did you vote for?
Look, I'll tell you what I voted for.
I did vote for reducing foreign entanglements, but I really did vote for dealing with the immigration issue.
I really did vote for freedom for Americans, freedom of speech, and I voted to reverse the course of our economy, which was moving towards, by and large, centralization and basically the elimination of American Americans.
Foreign entanglements are a part of that.
And I will say that him being the most anti-war president of my lifetime is pretty good.
Is it perfect?
No.
I don't know who else I could have voted for who would have been more anti-foreign entanglement.
Also, President Trump, we don't need to show the clip.
He left G7 early to say he was going to focus on this.
Of course, Vance is addressing, I would imagine in large part, the firestorm going off right now on X. So it's time for some claim truth.
So the claim that you see from the left, and I'm going to disabuse you of these notions, because X is not real life in a lot of ways.
Sometimes really just the people who scream the loudest have a platform.
The claim is that President Trump is losing his coalition.
Truly unbelievable.
Cernovich said Trump had a generational coalition.
He was the first Republican to win the popular vote in two decades, and now he's squandering it for Lindsey Graham.
Marty R. Maid said, Trump allying with the people who signed the Never Trump letter and spent years calling him Hitler against his organic working and middle class base, people who were ridiculed, harassed, and physically attacked for supporting him is a betrayal of Shakespearean proportions.
Now do Elon Musk and H-1B visas.
Here's the truth.
Trump has always warned of the threat of a nuclear Iran.
He's been remarkably consistent even when he had no ambitions to run for office.
Here's a post.
You know it as X. Back then on Twitter in 2011.
Iran's, it was less raspy, so Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is a major threat to our nation's national security interests.
We can't allow Iran to go nuclear.
That's in 2011.
Do you remember that famous escalator ride that everyone talks about, which changed the fabric of America going forward for good?
That was President Trump, 2015.
He rode down that escalator and onto the podium to deliver, in part, the speech you're about to see.
2015.
2015.
Take a look at the deal he's making with Iran.
He makes that deal.
Israel maybe won't exist very long.
It's a disaster, and we have to protect Israel.
I will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
So before he was running for president, 2011 was very clear.
By the way, at the same time was against the war in Iraq, and while running for the presidency, said that he was always against the war in Iraq.
At that same moment in time, saying Iran can't achieve the nuclear enrichment to be able to have nuclear weapons, and then running for president, said the same thing.
Here's another truth.
President Trump's coalition, if by coalition you mean the people who support him, it's not fractured.
It's fine.
So, according to Rasmussen, people who agree, With this statement, Iran must never be allowed to have a nuke.
84% agree.
Disagree.
9%.
Now, how we stop Iran from having a nuke?
Okay, there can be some disagreement.
I can't think of a better option than someone else doing it.
It's just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
Here's another question.
Would Iran use a nuke against America?
63. 30% say yes.
30% disagree.
Here's another one.
U.S. should support Israel's efforts to take out Iran's nuke program.
The total on agree is 60%.
78% of Republicans, his coalition largely, 47% of Democrats.
And 54% of independents.
54% of independence.
Now, how that looks, and I'll tell you how it looks to me, I don't want to see...
But I think saying an American life lost for Israel is very different from saying a strategic military operation to quell a nuclear capability for a terrorist nation.
Those are very different things.
But if people simply equate it.
You have people right now saying, hey, I voted for America first.
That doesn't mean going to die for Israel.
Who's talking about going to die for Israel?
I haven't heard anyone talk about that.
There's a lot of very smart people out there making very dumb connections.
And I say that respectfully.
I understand that your position is that we shouldn't get entangled in a foreign war, especially not in the Middle East.
That's Donald Trump's position as well.
And it's been his position consistently.
He got us out of, or at least had the plan to get us out of Afghanistan.
He is the guy that does not want to get involved.
Not one soldier.
I don't want one plane going over that country right now either.
I don't want to get involved in any way, shape or form.
I don't want a plane getting shot down, false flag or not, for all the people out there who may say that, to get us into a war.
But sending assets over to the region is not the same as attacking.
Look at everything that Donald Trump has done.
And look, if he ends up going and completely fooling us all and he's sending ground troops into Iran and he's going to try to do a regime change in Tehran, fine.
I'll come back on and I'll say, I am so sorry.
I completely missed the signs.
But they're just not there for me right now.
This is not how he operates.
Sending that over there, what do you think that does to the Ayatollah going, will they get involved?
Won't they get involved?
Having that asset in the region makes it a hell of a lot more likely that they could get involved.
If he doesn't sign a deal, this could just all be, like Donald Trump has done in the past, part of negotiations for him.
And everybody that is running to the exits because they're afraid that Donald Trump is going to get us into a foreign war needs to just chill out a second and think about who they're talking about.
Well, anyone saying that right now Americans are dying for Israel is being a fool.
That's not happening right now.
Could it happen a week from now?
Sure.
But is that happening right now?
Has Donald Trump signaled that?
No, he is not.
I've seen, is it the USS Nimitz that was played over there?
So I've seen, this is a perfect example of where people take something that logically makes sense, and if they're starting off with the premise, ooh, it's Israel, it's Jew influence, they come to a conclusion that frankly defies reason.
So I've seen people say...
It was in the South China Sea, I believe, or somewhere around.
Yeah.
It's normal for aircraft carriers and for battleships to be in the area.
Right.
Kuwait.
Qatar, we have so many bases over there.
What they're saying is, those right now who have no bases for this thing, oh, the Nimitz is our oldest in that fleet and is set to be decommissioned next year.
So that, he's sending that so it can be destroyed as a false flag.
Or, or, the most logical explanation could be, since we are not involved, go like, yeah, alright, it's kind of no skin off our nose, this thing's about to be decommissioned next year, yeah, we can send that to some friends to keep an eye on it.
Which one seems more likely?
That he's sending something about to be decommissioned a year from now so that the Israelis can take it out like the USS Liberty, according to these people, as a false flag to get us into World War III?
Or, ah, it's the least valuable one in our fleet, and since it's not really our conflict, ah, let's send him a gimme.
Is it also the closest one?
I don't know.
There might not even be any of that at all.
It might be.
What are the other aircraft carriers doing?
How many do we have?
Seven?
We have 11. We have 11. So what are the other ones doing?
I believe we have 11, and the next closest nation is China with two?
Oh, cool.
Or three?
Yeah, that's apparently the list of where all of our carriers are at current.
So there's no one else in the area.
Wouldn't it make sense to send the one that's in the area?
No, they're sending it so the Jews can destroy it for a false flag so that Americans will die for Jews.
It's silly.
You're showing your total lack of tactical knowledge while talking about tactical subject.
I know.
I know.
It's goofy.
Yeah.
I don't even know.
I wish I had something intelligent to say about it, but it's just straight goofy.
Well, and it would be completely like if the Hodge twins, and I love those guys, but sometimes they have some ideas that I don't really love.
If those guys, Ian Carroll's of the world, Dave Smith's and Candace Jones, if Cernovich, if they had gotten in, it's Martyr Made.
It's not Marty R. Made.
Oh, sorry.
I'm sorry.
I just got to mess with you a little bit.
All right.
Martyr Made.
Hold on.
Admonish me.
Admonish me.
The guy deserves to have his name said properly when I read.
A silly, dumb tweet.
Yeah, how dare you?
If what they were doing right now is saying, we don't support a war in Iran, and we do not want to have any Americans at war in Iran and the Middle East.
If that's what they were saying right now and kind of raising that alarm, we would all be in agreement.
They'd be saying what we're saying.
Yeah, exactly.
But that doesn't get clicks.
Right now, World War III does.
Right now, False Flag does.
Right now, they're just going to sink it because it's a year later.
And right now, C-17, you know, refueling or whatever it is.
There are all these people going over there.
That's what gets clicks right now.
Let me ask you this.
They constantly try and have this authenticity test.
Who's being fake?
This is a real question.
They're saying, oh, he's losing his coalition because he's a traitor.
Who's being fake?
The people who say, yeah, I hope we don't get into a war, but obviously I've always thought it's a...
And by the way, voted for Donald Trump.
I believe most people here did.
I don't know exactly, but I think pretty strongly, because I don't ask people how they vote.
And Donald Trump in 2011 and in 2015, as part of his announcement, his party, his homecoming party, hey, he's running for president, went out of his way to speak about how he would stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
That was one of his, I would say, top five issues he was most vocal on and criticizing the Obama administration.
He would campaign on that.
He would talk about what a bad deal it was and how Barack Obama had no idea how to make a deal.
So from 2011, 2015, all the way through his first administration, by the way, when you look at the undoing of Obama's policies, which Biden then undid, unfreezing cash to Iran, he's been remarkably consistent.
And so I don't think.
Now, you may not like his 2011 position, 2015 position, or his position today.
Of course, that's a fair position to hold But is it Or is it disingenuous of someone to say, you know, I was on the MAGA train, but he's turned on us because now he says Iran's a threat.
Well, hold on a second.
That sounds to me like it's your fault that you didn't know where he stood.
And it's your fault for misinforming your audience if you ever even so much as implied that Donald Trump held any position other than Iran can't get a nuke.
I think that's your fault.
Yeah.
And I also think it's just anti-Israel bias.
And you can have a very reasonable point that Israel potentially would want to drag us into a war for regime change because it would solve a lot of their problems.
Sure.
I think that's a reasonable point to make.
And I think if we ever had evidence of them trying to draw us into this war in a very tangible way, then we should take dramatic action against that.
Like, if there was a false flag event, I mean, look, you go back to the USS Liberty thing, we can talk about that ad nauseum, but that was, what, 1960-something?
We're not talking about present day stuff right now.
Was it 67?
So what I want to make sure that we don't do is miss opportunities to have good common ground.
Israel has been saying for the last 30 years, we had articles going back to 1995, that they were close to getting a bomb.
It was five years away in that article.
I'm sorry, that Iran was close to getting a bomb.
That can also be very true.
We've also had Stuxnet.
We've also had raids.
We've also had bombings of their facilities.
We've also had killing of their top scientists.
We've also had...
You can make the argument that maybe this is an opportunistic strike.
Maybe.
But you have to read the IAEA report where they're hiding some of this stuff.
And they're calling them out on the fact that they're hiding it.
You're like, well, they signed on to this treaty and not proliferation.
They're doing things that go directly against that.
And they're hiding some of this material.
And they're enriching past obvious civilian use.
You tell me what they're doing.
I would also say, hey, I think it's a valid argument to say, well, hold on a second.
Israel hasn't signed on to that, and we're not able to inspect their nuclear capabilities.
100%.
I completely agree.
They have to.
I think Israel absolutely should.
Yep.
And if anything, I would use this as leverage to say, by the way, Israel, you've got to let us know.
You've got to do this.
You've got to let us know.
I think that's fair.
I think we find common ground there.
I think Donald Trump, if you're going to sort of look at his position, you could just say, IAEA, right?
Yep.
Yeah.
You could just, I'm horrible with acronyms.
I know, it's hard.
You could say, what's his position?
It's exactly the same as the IAEA on Iraq and Iran.
They said Iraq is not nuclear capable.
Donald Trump was against the war in Iraq.
They have now said that Iran is weeks away from being to the point of the capabilities of developing a nuke.
If this was not a point of contention for a very long time, then you wouldn't have Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal, which Donald Trump campaigned on criticizing.
The world has been concerned about Iran having a nuke for decades.
Now, you may say that you're not.
That's fine.
And it's not the mainstream view, but you can hold it.
But you cannot claim that Donald Trump has done a 180.
This is exactly his position.
Yeah.
It's a lie.
It's a lie.
It's a lie to say that.
Yeah.
Yeah, if you don't have a problem with it.
There was a clip.
I saw this yesterday.
It was circulating a Douglas Murray clip from like 13 years ago.
Where he was talking about how everyone criticizes Israel and is afraid of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites.
And he said they'll criticize them and then walk home happy they did it.
Yeah, exactly.
I can't remember.
I'm not getting the words right.
He's a well-spoken man, but it's just something like that.
And I was like, oh, that's a great point.
Everyone's going to be like, ah, screw Israel, screw Israel.
But thank God.
Thank God they did that.
Now they can't threaten us with closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Now they can't do this.
They can't fire this.
I don't think that Israel is the ally that the Evangelical Church and that the Republican Party has made them out to be in a lot of ways.
I completely agree with that.
For example, I think we need to be able to see what they're doing, what they're up to as far as nukes.
I do think that there's some uncomfortable ties as far as intelligence and Mossad.
I would say the same about the CIA and FBI.
Remember when I asked candidates saying, will you disband?
Our three-letter agencies, because that's kind of a prerequisite, or at least destroy them and build them up as something new.
I would apply the same criticism toward Mossad.
But I also don't think that they are the worst enemy of the United States in contrast to Iran, which some people are making right now.
I think that's a view that most Americans have, and I would point you to the poll that says 84% of Americans agree that Iran must never be allowed to have a nuke.
And let me just clear up a couple of things, too.
So, one, we're not depending on the IAEA alone.
No, of course not.
Because Iran has said that they've enriched up to that point, 60%.
Two, it's weapons-grade, basically, material at that point, if they go the full three weeks from now claim, right?
So, in three weeks, they could have weapons-grade uranium.
Not a bomb.
That's a totally different thing.
No, I'm saying nuclear capabilities.
The capabilities to create a nuke.
Correct.
Yeah.
But what they're trying to do right now in the media is go, oh, no, no, no.
the administration actually said that they're actually years away.
We're making a case that they're going to have weapons-grade uranium.
They're going to have what they need to make a bomb.
Exactly.
Once you have that, it's a very long process, but you now have the, think of it as the raw materials.
They don't even have the raw materials right now.
Uranium needs to be enriched to a certain degree to be weapons-grade.
Vance obviously spoke on that quite a bit.
I'm not a nuclear scientist.
Once they get to that threshold, then they protect it with everything they have so that they can get to work building a bomb.
And I think Lane told us there was like a 12-year gap between the enrichment of uranium getting to the right point in North Korea until they had a delivery mechanism essentially for it.
I can't remember if that was the right number of years, but it's a process.
What was Oppenheimer's gap?
I don't know.
Because that was pretty quick.
I mean, can they not be building a bomb now without the uranium to insert into the warhead?
We're trying to use the most conservative.
In other words, provide the most amount of, like, hey, maybe not.
But, and by the way, a big difference too between North Korea and Iran, it's almost a difference between, An isolationist and a caliphate.
We're not going to be able to tell North Korea anything right now, just to be clear.
But it seems, and Elaine and I were talking about this, it seems like they have an interest in preserving their own nation, and of course there's also China between us and them who kind of have an interest in North Korea not acting up too much.
They're sort of frenemies.
As far as Iran, they have said what they would do with the nukes.
They have said, we want to wipe out not only Israel, but Western civilization.
They've been very clear about it.
They seek to expand.
North Korea doesn't seem like they want to, so the contrast matters because of their stated intent.
Yeah, and what if I told you as Christians, maybe this will help make the point, obviously as Christians we're waiting for the second coming of Christ, unless you're a preterist and there's like five of those people, so whatever.
I've been arguing with you on Twitter.
You think, okay, we're waiting on the second coming of Christ.
Fantastic.
And when that happens, justice, peace, tranquility, the world is going to be fantastic, every tear is wiped from your eye, all of those wonderful things.
What if I told you that all you had to do was start global conflict to make the second coming of Christ return or happen?
Like, that was the trigger moment for it.
You'd be like, well, maybe it's good to start global conflict so that we can have the second coming and have heaven on earth.
Heaven on earth is a lot better than hell on earth that we have right now.
That's an apocalyptic kind of ideology.
That is the Iranian ideology.
It's the 12th Imam.
There has to be global conflict for the 12th Imam to come back.
So do you really want to give them the means to facilitate global conflict?
Yeah.
That is in their ideology.
That is something that people don't understand.
It's not just preserve us and we don't like Israel.
It's we don't like Israel.
We don't like the West.
We're probably going to give this material to other people.
We fund seven different affiliate terrorist organizations to attack Israel in the first place.
And it's really good if we do this because it brings about our end of times and ushers in the 12th Imam and the global caliphate.
That's a different scenario that most of these guys have no clue about.
And it doesn't make you a hawk.
No.
It doesn't make you a neocon.
Yeah, I think it's probably best if Iran doesn't have nuclear capabilities.
I think 80-something percent of it, 84% of Americans agree with that.
Right now, no one is dying for Israel.
And by the way, if there is a strategic military strike, let's say there's an opportunity to guarantee that they don't reach these nuclear capabilities, that still doesn't mean that Americans are dying for Israel.
Different people can have similar interests.
It doesn't mean that it's being done for Israel.
If we're pressured into it, like Gerald said, if we're boxed in, that's a problem, and us and the Jews in that country need to have a little bit of a talk.
We're not there.
My main issue is, it's your fault if you didn't know that Donald Trump has always said and maintained that Iran should not be able to get a nuke, and he will do everything in his power to stop it.
It's not new.
Just like I had to hold my nose on some of the gun issues because I know that Donald Trump is not the best Second Amendment president as far as his track record.
But I know that.
I wouldn't be able to tell you, oh, I'm surprised.
Just like he's not as conservative as me on abortion.
But I wouldn't be able to say, I can't believe he's a traitor to us because he's allowed exceptions for rape and incidents.
But he said it.
He said it, to be clear.
It's your fault if you didn't know it, and that doesn't mean that people are dying for Jews.
I want to hear what you were going to say.
Oh, you were saying that it's not unreasonable to say that you don't want Iran to have nukes.
I don't want Canada to have them.
Right.
I don't want anyone but us.
Germany, France, yeah.
I know.
That's how I feel about guns, too.
I feel like I should be the only one allowed to own guns.
I don't want anybody else.
I get it.
No, I'm kidding, but seriously, you know, why would you want somebody who said these things time and time again to have a nuke?
Yeah.
And you're right.
He's not traitorous to do exactly what he said in the past.
Let's say you live on a block, okay?
And you have a house that's, I don't know, on your street.
Ten houses down.
All right.
Ten houses down is a real dick.
Let's call him Bad Steve.
And let's say...
Oh, Bad Steve.
There is a good Steve.
I don't want my words to be misconstrued.
I actually have one neighbor named Steve who, by the way, we went and had these to get a fence because our dogs were able to get through the holes.
Love good Steve.
There is no bad Steve.
This is fictional.
Ten houses down, there's bad Steve.
And let's say he's on parole.
So they check in with him and he's a felon.
He's not allowed to own a gun.
And he keeps saying, you know what?
As soon as I can, I got...
I got a line on a few fully automatic weapons that can't be tracked, and as soon as I get them, I'm lighting up this block, just letting you know all of you can kiss your ass goodbye.
And right next to him is Bob.
That's Israel.
And Bob sees him bringing in the parts to create said fully automatic weapons.
He's like, hey, hey, guys, he's able to do this.
But I have a straight...
He keeps saying he's going to shoot everyone on this block.
I'm going to take him out, right?
But then let's say that you had a rocket where you knew you could take out bad Steve, even though you're ten houses down.
Does that mean you're doing the bidding of Bob?
Or do both of you not want Steve, who has said he will kill you when he procures these weapons?
Do you just happen to have an aligned interest?
We need to be able to differentiate between the two.
Because, yes, sometimes we have done bidding that are not in the American people's interest.
Is it in the interest of the United States of America to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon?
I think there's a strong case to be made, but there can be no debate that Donald Trump absolutely believes that's in the best interest of America.
So you can say you don't agree with it.
You can't say that he lied to you, that he's a traitor, or that he's not America first.
His decision, or his viewpoint, I should say, That Iran should not have a nuke, ever.
Has always been predicated on his view of putting America first.
Yeah.
He also just released a new truth.
He's negotiating in only the way that Trump could.
Okay.
If you'd like to read for our audience here.
All right.
We know exactly where the so-called supreme leader is hiding.
More like a supreme burrito.
Taco Supreme, sour cream.
He is an easy target, but he's safe there.
We're not going to take him out.
Kill!
At least not for now.
Who knows?
Who knows?
But we don't want missiles shot at civilians or American soldiers.
Our patience is wearing thin.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
He's negotiating.
I love it.
Yeah.
I mean, listen, I know that there are a lot of people that get, you know, rightfully worried about Israel and their influence on American politics and whether we're being led into wars by Israel.
And I get that.
But you're letting your hatred for everything Israel right now change you.
Trump has not changed one bit.
You have.
And that's fine.
You can have concerns.
And there are a lot of people that are very concerned about what Israel is doing.
I think there's a lot of good cause to be concerned in a lot of cases.
So let's fix that.
But let's also not let this idea that Israel is always going to be nefarious and bad and demonic, I've seen some people say, and go after it.
Let's not let that cloud what we have known since...
And by the way, AIPAC should have to register under FISA, and so should any organizations receiving their money from Qatar, from Saudi Arabia, or get it all out.
I completely agree.
I hate APAC for the same reason I hate Act Blue, because they get the Hakeem Jeffries and whatever other asshole of the month club.
Let's grab some chats, because I know we did a whole extra session.
We didn't piss anybody off.
Honestly, look, I think it's one of those things where...
Wherever you line up, it's not fair for you to say that Donald Trump is a traitor if he lines up exactly where he always has.
That's a fact.
We can disagree on whether he's right, or we can find some common ground on whether he's right.
You can't misstate his position.
That's just dishonest.
And Lane actually brought something up.
For the audience, what would your position be if we supplied them with munitions to be able to go after?
Some of the Iranians, right?
So bunker busting, munitions, stuff like that.
Israel?
Sell it to them like we have before?
If we sold them weapons.
Like we always have?
Yeah, pretty much.
By the way, not just to Israel, but to a lot of?
I don't know if we sell them bunker busting.
I mean, they're already using our F-14s.
Yeah.
I can understand a case we made that we shouldn't be doing that because we're funding both sides of this war.
I can understand that case to be made.
I'd have to think about it.
I would rather see Israel deal with this right now.
If it's a status quo as far as selling munitions or any type of arms, yeah, I don't know why we would stop, but if it's...
We've been doing it for a very long time.
It's not like they just have them of their own accord.
We're doing that.
I would sell, though.
Not give.
Sell.
You know, not like the Ukraine thing.
For me, the principle is basically the same.
If you guys are going to start something, you need to be able to handle yourselves.
Go do it.
And Ukraine didn't start necessarily, obviously, with Russia, but they need to be able to do things themselves, in my opinion, because they haven't negotiated.
So yeah, I'm fine.
They want Bunker Bunker.
Fantastic!
We got 50 right over here.
Make you a deal on 60. Sell them the crap we don't want.
Yeah.
You want the Nimitz?
I don't know, but I also understand why it's charged.
I also understand why people could view that as if you're selling, you're incentivizing their behavior if they're going to continue starting wars.
I understand.
I think it's a legitimate argument to be made that selling weapons to Israel gives them no reason to try and seek more peaceful negotiations.
It gives them the ability to negotiate from a position of strength that they wouldn't otherwise.
I understand that case to be made.
I do.
I get it.
I think that's very reasonable.
But we want them in a position of strength.
With dealing with nuclear facilities.
Dealing with Iran.
If we want Iran's nuclear program to stop, we want them in a position of strength.
Why would we not sell them the bombs to go do this?
Why do you think that other Gulf states and why do you think that even Hezbollah are like, yeah, you guys should probably...
No one wants Iran to be a nuclear capability, including the people in the world, these countries in the world that are largely Islamic countries.
They don't want it because Iran is a...
Okay?
They're a little shit weasel.
Alright, let's be clear about that.
Iran is a little shit weasel.
You can say that Netanyahu may be somewhat of a shit weasel as well.
Okay, fine.
I think there's a case to be made.
Iran is without a doubt a little shit weasel.
And how do you deal with shit weasels?
You get yourself a shit bet, Randy.
Let's grab some chats.
Alright, first chat from CharleneLG5.
Do you think Iran has a plan to hit America?
That's why Trump is thinking about going in.
Do you mean aside from when in the past they've talked about how they hate America?
No, I don't think they have a current plan.
I don't think to have a plan they have to have capabilities.
Yeah, to have a plan they have to have capabilities.
Israel's close.
They do hate us though.
They do hate us and they do hate Israel.
And it's about if they do get nuclear capabilities, creating a whole bunch of instability, which could actually, unlike the people earlier this week who were.
If Iran had a nuke, you could potentially be looking at World War III because this is not just a nuclear power, but it would be the first time in recent memory who sought out the ability to become a nuclear power with the express interest of waging nuclear war.
So that would create a scenario that could absolutely lead to World War III.
I did say they don't have the capabilities.
I meant here.
They don't have the capabilities to strike us here.
When Trump said in his truth post, he mentioned American soldiers.
Yes, our bases.
That's what he meant.
Our bases.
It means our soldiers, sailors, airmen overseas.
Very close in the area, and it wouldn't be the first time that Iran has sent missiles to our bases.
Right.
And if you're okay, I mean, people have been okay with that in the past.
People have been okay with other administrations, but okay with missiles from Iran hitting American bases in foreign land.
Yeah.
If Trump's not okay with that, I'm okay with that too.
I'm okay with him not being okay with that.
Yeah, I'm not okay with it either.
When people say it's not our fight, it is if they fire upon Americans.
Yeah.
And if we're not doing anything...
Don't fire upon Americans!
If they do, and Trump retaliates, don't say he's doing that for Israel.
If they kill American soldiers who are not in the fight right now, if they launch any type of missiles at American bases...
I think that's a fair statement.
Let's grab another chat.
Alright, next chat from Rationality Reigns.
Why is Europe and the rest of the world doing nothing to help with the Iran situation?
Israel being targeted, etc.
They're silent.
Love, whole crew, and thank you, Josh.
You're a hero.
I agree.
I agree.
Here's the thing.
Europe, they have a very complicated history with anti-Semitism.
So they always have to be very careful.
Germany, England, Ireland.
They want to create speech laws.
Absolutely.
Because they're Marxists.
They can't help it.
They want to create speech laws.
Where you can't say anything that could even have a whiff of anti-Semitism.
But when it comes to the actual conflict, because they're also Marxists and they're also liberals, like, yeah, but we also really don't like Israel because their whole view of the world is oppressed versus oppressor.
And, you know, Israel actually has modern technology.
They really don't want to get tangled in this because of their history and they feel like there's no good play.
That's been pretty consistent for Europe.
They're a bunch of pussies and they've never gotten it right.
Really quickly, just a quick update.
We have Tulsi Gabbard.
They were trying to show that kind of back and forth.
It says that she's on the same page with the administration and, quote, President Trump was saying the same thing that I said in my annual threat assessment back in March.
Unfortunately, too many people in the media don't care to actually read what I said.
So people have been trying to paint her as, Yeah, between her.
Basically, she said that they are not currently seeking, I believe.
I can't remember what it was.
I saw it on online earlier before the show that Israel was not seeking a And people in the media were trying to use it.
See?
Tulsi Gabbard even said that they're not.
They're trying to make this case that...
that there is no real threat and that Israel just made this up and they're trying to use this to drag us in.
What is she saying is her counterbalance?
In other words, she's...
Her counter is saying, like, if you just actually read my entire statement...
Because she did say that, yeah, we need to make sure they don't become a nuclear threat.
And by the way, you need to know what they're saying when seeing those in the media.
The most anti-war, the most effective administration, Republican administration, in dealing with the border, in dealing with leftist policies here in this country, they're calling out the media, and they're not calling out the leftist media.
They're calling out those on the right online who are misrepresenting this.
That's a first for me.
For a Republican like Donald Trump and Vance, for them to say, hold on, hold on a second, people in the media, meaning you, the people who we just listed, you're misrepresenting what we've said.
Donald Trump has always been.
This is the first time that I can remember a conservative or right-leaning Republican administration having to call out media falsehoods from the right that are, by the way, factually false.
I don't like that.
I don't like that.
And I don't like that I know this won't necessarily crack through the clickbait ceiling.
That's a bad thing.
That makes the right the actual purveyor of fake news.
No matter your opinion, let's also be accurate.
That's why I'm trying to laser in on you cannot be mad at Donald Trump saying he's a traitor or demand his impeachment for doing exactly what he has always said he would do.
This is the first time I can think of an administration like this having to call out almost exclusively people on the right for misinformation.
So we have the full statement from Tulsi Gabbard.
It's 42 seconds long.
We have the video.
Okay.
So we'll play that.
Let's watch it.
Cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data.
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.
The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
In the past year, we've seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.
Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.
That last part right there.
So that's why I said enriching uranium to weapons grade versus making a bomb.
Those are two very different things.
That's what she was parsing.
She's saying they don't have a bomb.
They aren't building a bomb.
It doesn't seem right now.
But look at what they're doing, and this is unprecedented for a state that doesn't have a bomb.
Read the tea leaves, guys.
This is not some administration that's just doing this for funsies.
So that's not at odds at all with what the president is saying.
And basically what Caitlin Collins said was, Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intel community said that Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon.
Sure, no one was saying they were building a nuclear weapon at that moment in time.
It's, are they moving toward achieving the materials they need, enriched uranium, so that they can start?
But still, that's not exactly what she said.
She said there's no indication, there is no evidence.
Of current bomb building.
That doesn't mean that they're not.
She didn't definitively say they're not building anything.
They're not intending to build a nuclear weapon.
That is not what she said.
And by the way, that's also a job interview for a national security position, where she can't say, by the way, yeah, I'm going to mess up Iran.
I mean, she has to.
Choose the words very carefully, for sure.
Look, there is a reason, too, that this is the most anti-war president we've had in our lifetime.
There is a reason that every single candidate is more hawkish once they become president, including Democrats.
Look at Barack Obama.
And that's across the board.
And I think a big reason for that is, and my grandfather was in the Air Force, he used to say, you need things to be classified.
He said certain things, absolutely, when it comes to war, need to be classified.
I think a lot of presidents go in, they say they're anti-war, and then they have the first national security briefing and go, get my brown pants.
I think that happens quite a bit.
And I think that if you're going to talk about someone who's held really the most steadfast, it'd be a tough argument for anyone else other than Donald Trump.
Doesn't mean he's perfect.
But you always have to have some ambiguity when you're dealing with something like that.
Yes.
It's always like a...
Exactly.
It's never a, we're going to get Soleimani.
Right.
It was, yeah.
Oh, what?
You guys did what in the night?
Yeah.
It wasn't like, Soleimani's going to suck my missile.
Lick the ICBM.
Tickle Iraq.
I wrote, love Trump on the side of the missile.
Right.
Well, and that's the thing that I think is happening too right now.
They're conflating any action against Iran.
Any action at all with regime change that we've seen in Iraq.
Yeah.
Right?
They're conflating these two things.
And they're assuming that's 100% Israel's bidding.
Right.
In both cases.
And people, you know, Dave Rubin made a really stupid comment.
And when that happens, it's fine to call people out.
He's like, there could be global peace for years if we...
And I was just like, are you kidding me?
That's also not correct.
Nigerians are going to stop cutting the heads off of Christians, which they just murdered 200, I think, in the last week, a couple of days ago, we saw that story.
Like, you think that's going to happen?
You think the people in other places around the globe are just going to all of a sudden go, oh, man, you know what?
We didn't hate the Jews.
We love somebody.
Also, if we just do that right now, even the Gulf states that are not supportive of Iran, if we just did it, they might all of a sudden become.
Very different.
If we've warned them and said, do not attack any Americans, and we've done everything to get our people to safety, and Iran does it anyway, guess what?
In that world, a lot of these Gulf states that don't want to deal with Iran, don't want them to have a nuke, they still don't.
But if the United States goes in and starts bombing right now, as it seems from what you're saying Dave Rubin is suggesting, you might create some unlikely allies.
So I do think that the approach of, hey, keep us out of it here, don't go after our people.
And we're not going to get involved is an important posture to take.
Yeah, 100%.
Next chat.
All right.
Next chat from AmandaDNice1.
Question for the crew.
How are cities or states legally allowed to declare themselves sanctuary cities?
I don't know.
I still don't get it.
I don't either.
I still honestly don't get it.
It's a very valid question.
I could walk you through the process.
It makes no sense.
It's a perfectly valid question.
It's retarded.
Hard R. Hard R. I agree with you.
It shouldn't be a thing.
And it seems to me like, according to Tom Holman, it's not actually a thing.
And thank God for him.
Final chat.
Then we're going to send you to Tim Pool.
All right.
Final chat from Keep Calm and Carry On.
Question crew.
Anyone else think the cartels are paying kickbacks to the politicians slash their allies to allow selling people into slavery and that the extra money helping to pay for the riots?
Okay.
First off, I don't think that.
But there's no way that you could prove that.
I would again go to, okay, let's Occam's razor here.
What's the more likely scenario?
What you just laid out, where cartels are paying kickbacks to politicians to go to NGOs to make money off of sex slaves and give it to riots, or something really simple that Tom Holman really did hone in on, buy and change the census rule because they want to buy votes in seats.
If Donald Trump didn't change that census rule, if that census rule continued, it's a guarantee that that happens.
It's a backdoor to actually change the electoral process without even necessarily having illegal aliens vote.
Right?
Before we even get there, we now change the map.
We now change the seats, the representation, because illegal aliens have a vested interest.
And seeing Democrat politicians elected so that they can get some kind of amnesty would be counted in a census that was designed for American citizens.
It's very clear that the left was attempting to steal votes, to buy them with your tax dollars, and there is no doubt about that.
What you're painting, after Epstein, anything is possible, right?
What do I think is most plausible?
As they looked at a map and said, oh, we can change this map if we bring in as many illegal aliens as possible and count them in the census.
Boom.
Game, set, match.
We win.
We can prove that.
We just did.
So I don't think we need to go.
This is one of those times where we don't need to go off into a conspiracy because if you argue that, people will dismiss you as someone who is presenting no evidence.
So focus if you have a winning argument that is supported by evidence that is irrefutable.
Just do that.
Hey, he wanted to change the census rule so all illegal aliens could be counted.
And it was unprecedented for this administration to open up the border and grant these paths to citizenship.
Record number.
In eight weeks, that was fixed and reversed.
It's very clear it was a concerted effort.
The reason why?
Ah, look at the census rule.
Wanted to buy votes.
It's that simple.
I think it's that effective.
I would go with that.
You're going to go see Tim Poole here live on the lineup, and we will see you tomorrow.
*Music*
Holman, he does these interviews, he very clearly doesn't want to be.
Like, he looks, every interview that I see of Tom Holman, he looks like he just got off a job site sitting on a cooler, like, I gotta go deal with this bullshit, do this interview, I'll be right back.
I'll be back, boys.
You see that video, I'm curious, what do you think?
I'm not going back to Haiti.
Well, he's wrong, he's going back to Haiti.
I got to tell him that.
The fear, the horror, the hell is this guy?
Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with.
Tough guy.
On what grounds would you arrest Gavin Newsom?
Well, that whole thing's been taken out of context.
They haven't crossed the line yet.
So, Tom, arrest me.
Let's go.
But like any other US citizen, if you cross that lane, I don't care who they are, the governor, the mayor, wherever, when you commit a crime, Every time you see Tom Holman on Fox News.
First of all, they're not law-abiding the entire country legally, which is a crime.
Every time you see these law enforcement officials doing flashy television interviews.
No one's above the law.
Understand that they are taking attention and focus and real dollars and real resources away.
Tom, your response to her.
I take pleasure in the fact I can live in her mind rent-free every day.
And I said from day one, January 20th, we will prioritize public safety threats and national security threats.
However, we will enforce law.
No one hires an illegal alien.
I truly believe either goodness or harm.
They harm them.
Work them harder, pay them less, and undercut their competition.
There's a lot of people in this country that don't like me.
I don't care.
When you listen to Blake and Riley, 17 minutes, that young lady fighting for her life, don't just think, okay, a young woman died.
Think of how she died, the terror that she went through.
This can be the first administration in the history of the nation to have operational, total operational control of our southern border.
We have a lot of work to do.
We got to remove every public safety threat, national security threat from this country, and that's what makes this emergency.
We need the money.
You know, a lot of arrests, more than Biden, nowhere near what we need.
What price Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?
Of course there is.
Families can be deported together.
▲
Export Selection