Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 27, 2025 - Timcast IRL - Tim Pool

03:06:21

GOP Rep Demands Citizenship STRIPPED From Dems Zohran Mamdani, NYC Mayor | Timcast IRL

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	With Zoran Mamdani's tremendous win in New York in the Democratic primary, it's become the news, and this guy's profile is skyrocketing.
	And now, rep Andy Oggles is saying he should be denaturalized, stripped of his citizenship, and deported.
	Because it appears that before he attained citizenship, he had expressed sympathies for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.
	Now, it's an interesting, albeit aggressive maneuver.
	But there is a question about when we actually plan to enforce the laws we have codified in the United States about, well, quite literally, you're not allowed to support terrorist groups or certain adversaries of the United States when you're applying for citizenship.
	That is in the law, but we typically never go near that because it seems a bit, well, aggressive.
	But this is just the beginning.
	Democrats at the national level are said to be freaking out.
	Axios has this whole report about how they're melting down over the victory of a Democratic socialist in New York.
	Certainly, this man's victory has sent shockwaves across this country.
	And oh boy, it'll be interesting.
	So we do have a bunch of other stories.
	We've got an alleged Iranian sniper sleeper agent arrested.
	This story seemed to go into the radar because of the Iranian strikes.
	We also have Australia deploying troops into Ukraine.
	Everybody seemed to miss that.
	So interesting to say the least.
	We'll talk about that and what's going on before we get started.
	We've got a great sponsor.
	It's everybody's favorite, MyPillow.
	Go to mypillow.com slash Tim.
	Use promo code Tim.
	And you can not only buy pillows, do you think that's all Mike Lindell has in store for you?
	He's got the MyPillow mattress, the mattress topper.
	He's got Giza Dream bed sheets, got towel sets.
	And I'm going to go heavy on endorsing this Rev7 energy drink they sell because we actually have a ton of this, and I just ordered like, I think I ordered like 30 cases of it.
	It is a caffeine-free, sugar-free energy drink.
	And it's ketone-powered.
	So it's no sugar.
	Not only do they taste really, really good, it's kind of wild because there's no caffeine, but it works.
	It works.
	I'm a big fan of that.
	So head over to mypillow.com and use promo code TIM when you purchase all the goods.
	Mike Lindell put a lot on the line for everything he believed in, for Trump, for the movement.
	Tremendous respect.
	They try to take it all away from him, but we are here and he's sponsoring our show.
	We do appreciate it.
	And my friends, we got big news.
	We've got at the DC ComedyLoft.com, the Culture War Live.
	Saturday, July 26th, August 2nd, and August 9th.
	Tickets are now available.
	They're all at 3 p.m.
	These are live tapings of the Culture War show.
	August 2nd, so the only one we can announce formally as of now because of confirmations is August 2nd will be Michael Malice and Angry Cops having the cop debate.
	Malice, of course, anti-cop.
	Angry Cops, of course, a literal cop.
	And they're both really funny guys.
	So this is probably going to be the wildest and funniest show.
	It's two hours.
	It's three to five in DC.
	Tickets are available.
	I believe they're $30.
	However, if you go to Timcast.com and you are a member of our Discord server, there are reserved tickets for free.
	So for all of our existing members, make sure you grab them up now.
	I think we have 30 designated tickets for our members.
	And we're going to have special, we have something special planned for our elite members as well.
	But if you go to Timcast.com, you can get tickets to the event.
	And if you're not a member, you can become one, or you can just buy tickets.
	So don't forget to also smash that like button.
	Share the show with literally everyone you know, even your baby child who's sitting there in the crib and can't speak yet.
	Just say, we're going to watch Timcast.
	IRL, and we'll try to keep it family friendly.
	But again, smash that like button, share the show, join us tonight to talk about this and everything more.
	We got Billy Binion.
	Thanks for having me.
	Who are you?
	What do you do?
	So I'm a reporter at Reason, a libertarian magazine.
	Usually write about civil liberties, criminal justice, government accountability, a lot of legal issues.
	Happy to be here.
	Right on, thanks for joining us.
	Mary is here tonight.
	Hello, everyone.
	My name is Mary Morgan.
	I co-host Pop Culture Crisis here at Timcast, and I'm glad to be back.
	Hello, everybody.
	My name is Phil LeBonte.
	I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains.
	I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary.
	Let's get into it.
	Here's a story from the post-millennial rep Andy Ogles calls for investigation into Zoran Mamdani's naturalization over potential support for terrorism.
	He calls for an investigation over potential willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism.
	This is pretty wild.
	So we've got this, Libs of TikTok says, holy crap, calling for the denaturalization and deportation of Democrat mayoral nominee Zoran Mamdani, writing, Dear Attorney General Bondi, I write to request that the Department of Justice open an investigation into whether Zoran Kwame Mamdani, who he called Lil Muhammad, by the way, currently a candidate for mayor of New York City, should be subject to denaturalization proceedings under 8 U.S.C.
	1451A on the grounds that he may have procured U.S. citizenship through willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism.
	According to public reports, including a June 21st, 2025 New York Post article, Mr. Mamdani expressed open solidarity with individuals convicted of terrorism-related offense prior to becoming a U.S. citizen.
	Specifically, he wrapped, quote, free the Holy Land 5 slash my guys.
	The Holy Land Foundation was convicted in 2008 of providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
	Publicly praising the foundation's convicted leadership as my guys raises serious concerns about whether Mr. Mamdani held affiliations or sympathies he failed to disclose during the naturalization process.
	While I understand that some may raise First Amendment concerns about taking legal action based on expressive conduct, such as rap lyrics, speech alone does not preclude accountability where it reasonably suggests underlying conduct relevant to eligibility for naturalization.
	If an individual publicly glorifies a group convicted of financing terrorism, it is entirely appropriate for federal authorities to inquire whether the individual engaged in non-public forms of support, such as organizational affiliation, fundraising, or advocacy, that would have required disclosure on Form N400 or during a naturalization interview.
	Moreover, Mr. Mamdani has recently refused opportunities to reject pro-terrorist rallying cry to globalize the Intifada, a call to expand violent attacks on civilians to the United States and around the world.
	While political speech in isolation is not as positive, in light of earlier expressions of admiration for individuals convicted of supporting terrorism, a troubling pattern emerges that warrants formal scrutiny.
	The naturalization process depends on the good faith disclosure or any affiliation with support for groups that threaten U.S. national security.
	If Mamdani concealed relevant associations, that concealment may constitute material misrepresentation sufficient to support denaturalization under federal law.
	The federal government must uphold public trust by ensuring that citizenship is not granted under false pretenses.
	I respectfully urge the Department of Justice to determine whether Mr. Mamdani's conduct prior to naturalization warrants formal review under applicable law.
	And I'll say it first, I'm for it.
	Investigate him.
	100%.
	The investigation, I don't have any problem with.
	The idea of, well, look, the further to the extremes you go when you're discussing, when it comes to political speech, the further to the extremes you go according to your ideology, the more likely you are to engage in violent rhetoric.
	And Mamdani does walk the line.
	Anyone that says globalize the Intifada, at least skirting the line of trying to be contrarian, but it was just that he failed to denounce something or other.
	Like it was other people chanting that, and they said that he didn't denounce it, which I think is a global play where they say, like, why didn't you denounce murder?
	Like, why didn't you condemn Hamas?
	It's a little more than that.
	The condemnation is kind of just implicit.
	No matter what.
	He was asked in an interview what he thought about phrases like globalized the intifada.
	And he said, well, you know, it means different things to different people.
	And some people think it means like a peaceful revolution.
	Yeah, see, but even that's trying to be deceptive.
	That's not trying to be fulsome.
	That's not actually addressing the concern that people have when they ask that question.
	He's trying to skirt the issue.
	He's trying to not.
	Yeah, he's a politician now, but I was just saying, I hate this stuff.
	I absolutely hate it.
	I think for a couple of reasons.
	For one, I think there is a real First Amendment issue with denaturalizing someone because we don't like what they say.
	I mean, saying my love to you guys, I don't really know that he thought that much about it.
	It was in a rap video.
	And I also hate it because I think that these kind of stunts, for one, it's not going to be successful.
	And for two, it's going to galvanize his supporters.
	And I think there are a lot of reasons to really dislike this mayoral candidate.
	He's anathema to a lot of the things I stand for.
	But, you know, Nancy Mace is already out here taking a poll on her ex-profile saying, you know, let's implying that she thinks that it's a decent proposal.
	And I think it ends up making a martyr out of him.
	And I think that's very unwise.
	Going back to my first point, though, I think if the right wants to claim to stand for free speech, they have to also stand for speech that is really unsavory.
	That is the point of the First Amendment.
	And that's the point of a principle.
	If you don't apply it when it's inconvenient, then it doesn't matter.
	It's not a principle.
	Well, so there's two things.
	Was that on her personal profile?
	Just sorry, real quick.
	I want to put it.
	I think the one where she's wearing the pink dress.
	So yeah, that would be her civilian profile.
	She's taking a poll right now for her followers.
	So there's two things about this that I want to at least make a comment about.
	First of all, the guy that's actually been talking about denaturalizing and deporting him, he's calling him Lil Muhammad.
	And that kind of hurts the argument because then it seems like he's Muslim.
	Yeah, because he's calling him.
	Just because he's Muslim?
	And whatever your opinion on that kind of rhetoric, you're going to galvanize the people against you.
	They're going to call him a racist, blah, blah, blah.
	You shouldn't be saying that.
	The nickname like that.
	I don't know.
	He thinks that he's doing the Trump thing and he's not doing it.
	I think he wants followers on social media.
	He wants followers on social media.
	Maybe, or he's trying to get what I think the city in the U.S. with the largest Jewish population is New York.
	And so that kind of branding, when that story drops and they say Rep Ogles is a racist for calling him Lil Muhammad, that's going to penetrate deeper into communities in New York, especially Jewish communities, which I think the intention is to try and get them to come out and vote against them.
	Sure.
	And I mean, I will say I disagree with this guy's, what I know of this guy's stance towards the pro-Israel-Palestine discussion.
	But I don't know.
	Like I said, I really do feel like this ends up backfiring.
	And I mean, what's the point?
	I disagree.
	And I also say, I'll say this.
	The mayoral election, a local election, I know New York City is an enormous place, but it becoming a referendum on foreign policy doesn't really make sense to me.
	I understand Jewish voters wanting to at least have knowledge of someone whose character they like.
	But the mayor of New York has no say on foreign policy.
	It seems almost kind of silly that we're as a nation, we're looking to him to be a thought leader on this.
	We should be talking about how he's going to lead New York City, which there are plenty of things he's going to do to New York City that are really bad.
	I don't think anybody has any expectation of him engaging in foreign policy.
	I think the argument is...
	Like, I'm going to be a candidate that stands up to Trump.
	That doesn't mean anything.
	You're running for mayor.
	Like, it's an important city.
	No, it does.
	It does mean something when he says that they're going to obstruct immigration enforcement and obstruction.
	That is one thing he said.
	Like, we want to make this into a sanctuary city for immigrants.
	And also, he said that he wanted it to be an LGBTQ sanctuary city.
	Which literally just means so that if you're underage and can get to New York City, they will perform all kinds of gender mutilation on you.
	So here's a question for you guys.
	Here's an anti-Maces poll.
	Should Zoran Mandani be denaturalized and deported?
	Yes, no, not sure.
	What do you think won?
	Which one do you think is winning?
	I think yes.
	Yes.
	So I think yes.
	I would vote no if I could.
	All right.
	So what's the votes in the room?
	You say no.
	What do you say, Mary?
	I already voted.
	Yes.
	Okay, you voted yes.
	Yeah.
	What say you, Phil?
	Yes, for being a communist, not for anything.
	Oh, literally, only because of his ideology.
	I don't care who's not.
	I voted yes because he's not American and has no right to be here.
	Well, he isn't American.
	I mean, he can be a citizen.
	Yeah, he's a citizen.
	Yeah, I just don't believe that he is meaningfully American more than someone who was.
	I fully, I reject the idea that the only way you can be American is by being born here.
	All of us, we won the geographic lottery.
	I like what America stands for, but I think there's something powerful about.
	It's a lottery because we didn't do anything by being born here.
	Yeah, so we didn't earn it.
	Right, exactly.
	People chose to come here, and that should be celebrated.
	Your soul is like a, it's like a die that gets rolled into the universe, and that's not actually how that works.
	It's not a lottery because your ancestors actually did make the effort to come here.
	They did make the effort to build lives here for generations, and you are the result of that.
	There's nothing random about it.
	Well, but it wasn't my agency.
	And so I'm saying, I think I'm an American, and I like America, and like I said, what it stands for.
	But I think there is something powerful about, you know, there's been a lot of talk right now that America, that New York City specifically has a big foreign-born population, which I'll make a couple of points.
	For one, that's not new.
	I mean, Ellis Island, it has always represented, you know, kind of this melting pot and a promise of opportunity.
	And I think that is a good thing.
	And so if somebody-inflate immigration now.
	Now, hold on, hold on.
	All right, this is important, though.
	No one here did anything to earn what this country is.
	That's what I'm saying.
	And that's why I deserve your stuff when you die, not your children.
	Your children should get nothing from you.
	The state should seize everything you built in your life, and I get to have it.
	Do you believe that?
	You do.
	No, I don't.
	You certainly, you just argue that people who aren't from here can have all the stuff that the Americans built.
	That's not at all what I argue.
	So if like my dad builds a baseball field and then someone comes and they're not from here, I should have no right to the commons that my family and ancestors built because we didn't earn it.
	We were just born here.
	I'm talking specifically about people who come here.
	I mean, I am not, but I wouldn't take credit for it.
	I think it was the Brooklyn Bridge Corporation.
	To me, that's an analogy that doesn't really work.
	All I am saying.
	Why do you get to keep your stuff?
	Why can't I have it?
	I mean, I'm not saying that family means nothing.
	My argument is not that family is worthless.
	What I am saying, though, is that there are some people who are Americans by choice.
	And that is a powerful thing.
	They came here because of what America stands for.
	You think that Mom Donnie came here because of what America stands for?
	Because I'm 37 years old.
	So, okay, so he's not an American by choice, then.
	He's an American because his family came.
	This is a deception.
	He was raised with completely different values because of the culture from which he came.
	And I do.
	He's not meaningfully American.
	I agree with that law.
	This is something that I actually said last night.
	Like, the idea that everybody that comes to America is all the same, every immigrant is exactly the same.
	And it's totally not true.
	And I think that the United States should be able to deport people or at least exclude people that don't embrace the values that make the United States the country that it is, which includes property rights.
	It includes things like liberty and stuff like that.
	So here's a question I have.
	We'll start slow with it.
	Do you believe that if you, let's say you build a house and you own the land, when you die, should it go to your children or whoever you choose in your will?
	Yes.
	What is the meaningful distinction between that and a society handing down what it's built to its own children?
	I think that there is something to be said for families handing down a society to their own children, but I don't think that necessarily excludes everyone else from it because they build things too.
	They come and add to it.
	They don't just take.
	The idea that immigrants come and only take, they also build.
	Your analysis, I understand where you're coming from, but it's a static analysis.
	Let's look at the world as a whole.
	What percentage are they entitled to?
	Say again?
	What percentage are they entitled to?
	100% like Entitled to public services, entitled to welfare?
	I mean, I'm a libertarian.
	So I would like to slash a lot of these programs that People criticize.
	Then let's try it like this.
	400 years ago, your ancestor comes and stakes a plot of land.
	It's got a river going through it, and then builds up a big property on it and says, with my hard work, my kids will have a better life.
	And after several generations, dozens of generations, here you are inheriting that land.
	What percentage of your land should be shared with someone who came here for the first time seven years ago?
	Well, we're talking about private property.
	So if that person wants to...
	I mean, I'm not saying that an immigrant can come and like invade the space you have that you bought and is yours.
	Well, the reason I asked you this, because you said you were a libertarian.
	So my assumption is you prefer privatization over public property, right?
	Absolutely.
	Okay, so if you had private property, then what percentage of that must you share with someone who just showed up and is on your property?
	Private property?
	You don't have to share any of it.
	Okay, so why then should we as a nation, which the distinction is a collective group has determined where our borders and boundaries are, and it is private among our country, should we be obligated to share it with anybody else?
	I mean, the distinction between private or public, or you said private among our country?
	I mean, there are some spaces that, Right.
	When you say private, what you're saying is it's land controlled by you as a private entity or individual.
	Right, but I'm not entitled to the entire country.
	I understood.
	I cannot come into my house.
	Here's the point.
	A country has its own jurisdictions for which the country controls, yes?
	By voters, yes.
	Well, depending on the structure of your government, some might be communist, I guess.
	Some could be so why should Americans have to share anything with non-citizens who came here now?
	You don't have to share your private property.
	Okay, I think you're misunderstanding.
	Oh, no, I'm understanding.
	I'm not trying to be fair.
	The American people created the country, established its boundaries, sacrificed blood and treasure to acquire the land and establish what is the American people's property as a public commonwealth.
	I'll stop you right there.
	That is the fundamental difference that we have.
	I do not feel entitled to everything that came before me.
	I feel entitled to what I just bought because it was my blood, sweat, and tears, and I'm paying my mortgage.
	Okay, so let's go from that point.
	At what point must you personally, under your own beliefs, give away what your ancestors built?
	Is it your dad?
	Like, your dad built a farm.
	Should you have to give it to someone who just showed up or share it with them?
	No, but that is a private.
	That's because it's a private farm.
	But you're not entitled to the things that came before you.
	Like, where's the gradient?
	Like, where's the line?
	Is it if your great-grandfather made it, you have to share it with an immigrant?
	Well, we're not sharing private property to him.
	Well, at a certain point, it becomes the public commons.
	There's too many people, right?
	This is the fundamental basic distinction between private and public property.
	What is it?
	What's the distinction?
	I mean, what I own, what I paid for.
	You didn't pay for what your great-grandfather made.
	Why do you get to have that?
	You didn't earn it.
	Sure, but it was purchased via...
	No, he stole it from Native Americans.
	I mean, that's a whole different discussion.
	So let's say several hundred years ago, your great-great-grandfather or great-great-great-grandfather conquered land by force, massacring a family, whatever it might have been.
	Maybe you didn't, maybe you traded some beads for it.
	I don't know.
	But now we're several generations on.
	You never paid for it.
	You just inherit it.
	And you're like, it's private property because someone handed me a piece of paper because they put a flag in it.
	Why can't a guy from Honduras just come and go, yeah, well, you didn't earn it.
	It's mine now.
	I mean, because as a society, we have decided that there's a distinction between private and public property.
	Completely agreed.
	As a society, I think we should determine that Zora and Mamdani should be denaturalized and deported because the American founders built this country and we have no requirement to share it with anybody.
	Just like you've decided, your line is simply my personal family.
	I believe as the American country is an organized entity.
	So the only distinction is what we think we are owed or claim to.
	Sure, and I just don't feel entitled to the entire country.
	I mean, and like I said, I think there is common ground to be had here in the sense that like America stands for a lot of beautiful things.
	It stands for freedom of expression.
	It stands for property rights that we're talking about.
	It stands for a lot of things that make us exceptional.
	I mean, I would not call myself a nationalist, but I would say I'm an American exceptionalist.
	I believe we're better than most everyone.
	I mean, you look at stuff that's even happening in like the UK and Germany getting arrested over Facebook posts.
	I understand why people want to come here.
	I think it's beautiful that some people are Americans by choice, and I don't think that makes them any less American.
	When they vote against the interests of the American people, we have a problem.
	And when they, on net, steal from the American people.
	And I would like to add, it's not by consensus that all of society has just collectively decided what a border is and what private property is.
	The border of the walls around your house or the border of like your actual skin barrier or the fence surrounding your backyard, it's only defined by your willingness to kill someone who violates that line, who crosses that line.
	Sure, but it's not by a consensus that all of society has decided that you're not.
	I'm not saying we need to have open borders.
	I'm just saying it's beautiful that some people, I mean, people will have lots of disagreements on immigration policy.
	But I'm just saying it's beautiful that some people come here because they want to, because we stand for amazing things.
	I mean, do you think we should literally have zero immigration?
	Yes.
	No one should be allowed in the business.
	People come here to benefit from being here personally and send money back home.
	They don't care about American values.
	Now, she's got a great point because nowadays, most of the people that are coming to America are not coming because they have American values.
	The majority of naturalized citizens in 2024 voted for Trump.
	It's 10% of the electorate that went for Trump plus one.
	Just because they voted for Trump doesn't mean that they have American values.
	They have closer to the values that you guys have.
	It's by no mistake what you consider to be American values anyway, because those values were held by Christian Europeans who moved here.
	You can't just ship anyone here and expect them to uphold those values.
	There are plots.
	I mean, you look at like a Cuban Republic.
	What do we do when Zoran Mamdani?
	Let me do this.
	Let's jump to the next title and then we'll keep it going.
	We have this from Axios.
	Democratic establishment melts down over Mamdani's win in New York.
	The threat is a socialist who is defeating the establishment Democrat Cuomo.
	We are going to see more of this affecting the rest of the country.
	Now, I wanted to start off with this, but I do kind of have just a continuing point from the last segment.
	And that is right now, one of Zoran's policies is that he will defy federal law enforcement intentionally and by force.
	I would call that sedition, and I would call that more than beyond opposing the interests of America.
	I would call it declaration of war.
	A foreign-born individual comes to this country and then literally campaigns on, if you are here illegally in violation of this country's laws, just know we will use force to stop the United States and the people of the United States from coming after you.
	I mean – Are you referring to what he said about keeping ICE out of – And saying he said we're going to keep our families here and not let Trump come in and take them away.
	He's basically saying there is a structure of government that has agreed upon rules and laws.
	You, my friends, have come here in violation of the laws and the will of the American people.
	And by God, I will use force to stop them from harming you.
	And we will defeat them.
	Yeah, I would call that an invasion.
	This is also a foreigner who's trying to seize American-owned businesses with his plan for privately owned grocery stores to basically get repossessed by the municipal government to freeze prices.
	Is he seizing businesses or is he just making...
	I mean, I think the government-owned grocery store thing is crazy, and I was tweeting about it.
	I think you shared my thing about the...
	He wants grocery stores that exist.
	Basically, he wants to create government-run grocery stores, which I don't think he wants to create them.
	He wants to take the ones that are privately owned currently and make them publicly owned.
	Well, he said create a network of city-run grocery stores.
	Right.
	He wants, I think, like, yeah, the first proposal was five.
	I don't think he's going to be shooting Kroger or something.
	He may as well just come out and say, I am not from your country.
	I have been a citizen for seven years.
	I will use force if necessary to protect those who illegally entered your country in violation of your laws.
	And I will enact policies that destroy your local economy.
	I mean, it has to make sense for people to say, all right, this guy has, like Tim said, he's only been here for seven years.
	No, no, he's been there longer.
	He's only been a citizen for seven years.
	And he is going to, you know, to facilitate illegal immigrants coming into the country.
	He's going to provide them with benefits from the government.
	I'm sorry.
	He's going to facilitate criminal activity in the United States.
	He's going to facilitate criminal activity.
	He's going to provide them with state benefits from New York State.
	He's going to inhibit the federal government from enforcing the law.
	I understand that people are like, oh, we're a democracy and blah, blah, blah.
	This is not about democracy.
	This is expropriating the property of American citizens on behalf of criminal aliens here.
	This can't be accepted.
	He's basically saying, through force, we will take your land, give up.
	And we have a couple options.
	We can say, sure, let him do it.
	Let him protect more illegal immigrants who come in and in violation of the laws of this land and its people.
	So our laws mean nothing.
	And then we'll sit back and just watch as he does.
	I mean, I think there are plenty of issues to take.
	I mean, this is actually a policy debate.
	So that's, I mean, I completely agree.
	I would like to restate.
	clearly and strongly that this is about way more than policy.
	So I'm saying that is a good thing.
	I'm saying that.
	I don't think it's out of the way.
	I was drawing a comparison between Zoran Mamdani and Vivek Ramaswamy because they have diametrically opposed policy views, but rub people exactly the same wrong way because they are foreign strivers with a chip on their shoulder who don't understand this culture and want to tell us as Americans what an expression of American values is.
	They have no place with that temerity.
	Wasn't Vivek born here?
	Yeah.
	I'm pretty sure he was born in Ohio.
	It doesn't really matter because he was raised with different values.
	It's a bit different.
	He was raised with different values.
	To your point, like, I have so many friends who have values that are so different than mine, and I don't want to kick them out of the country.
	I want to convince them that my values are better.
	That's what you should be doing.
	Sure, sure.
	Let's pause because I agree on this.
	This is not the debate with Zoran.
	The debate with Zoran is 10 plus million people over four years entered our country in violation of our laws, and we have these laws in place for a reason.
	They have committed a crime against us.
	And Zoran says, don't worry, I will use law enforcement apparatus to stop the people of the United States from enforcing their laws.
	So I call that an invasion.
	I mean, I think that kind of, you can call it an invasion, but I mean, I think words have meaning.
	And I wouldn't say it's an invasion.
	I mean, I agree that we have to have law and order.
	And I don't agree that this guy stands for it.
	But I think when we use words like invasion or incursion or whatever, the vast majority, of course, some immigrants who come here do not have America's best interests at heart.
	But a lot of people are coming for economic opportunity.
	They don't have this opportunity.
	Well, to be honest, if I clubbed you over the head and took your wallet, it's because of I want an economic opportunity.
	We don't tolerate that.
	When they enter our country illegally for an opportunity and then Gen Z can't afford to buy a house and they're living three people in a bachelor apartment.
	I got a problem with that.
	And that's in New York City.
	This guy comes around, whispers sweet nothings into the ears of all the dumb young communists who don't realize he's the one burning the city down and making sure that their lives will never improve.
	So I say the DOJ, so should he win?
	Because we don't know if he actually wins.
	There could be a coalition victory if Eric Adams is still going to run, right?
	Yeah, if Sleewood drops out, Cuomo's already announced he's going to be dropping out.
	If they endorse Adams, maybe Adams wins.
	If this man does win and he does actually take even the tiniest millimeter step towards obstructing ICE.
	The DOJ should bring sedition charges against him and remove him from government in New York City and occupy the city if they have to.
	Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what the charges should be.
	I don't know if it's actually sedition or not, but there should be charges for preventing the federal government from carrying out.
	This is an issue of weakness, weak will, weak spine.
	When a man who is foreign-born publicly declares he will do everything he can to protect people who have illegally entered your country from another, and he will violate federal law to do so, we have two options.
	Let them keep doing it and give up, or say, listen, let me pause.
	I personally am not calling for anything other than what the law already says.
	I don't think that there would be a criminal charge that applies.
	Sedition.
	I don't think that would be applicable under criminal law.
	Why not?
	Because there's a distinction between federal law and local law and state law.
	You can say it's immoral or you could say it's wrong, but I guarantee you there's no way to bring sedition charges against him.
	I will also just say one thing.
	I was in New York City last night for work and I was, you know, perfect timing.
	And I was talking to people who voted.
	We chatted about this a little bit before we started filming.
	And two of the people I talked to did rank him number one, I think.
	And I think people, and neither of them I would describe, one of them is definitely not a Democrat.
	And the other one I would not describe is a staunch Democrat, certainly not a socialist.
	And I think people really underestimate how many people the reaction to Cuomo and how much they disliked Cuomo and how much they didn't want to see that again.
	I think a lot of this was an anti-Cuomo sentiment.
	I don't necessarily think it's a Gromom Donnie sentiment.
	And I will also say about Cuomo, it really, really bothers me that so many people see the final nail in his coffin as the sexual harassment scandal, which I'm not saying sexual harassment is ever okay.
	But the fact of the matter is, is this is a person whose policies helped kill a bunch of old people.
	And then he lied, altered data, lied to the taxpayer, and went on TV and said, unironically, that incompetent government kills people and that people value the truth.
	Let me ask you a question.
	Do you think one could describe obstructing ICE officers from serving a deport, from engaging in deportation?
	Would that be aiding and abetting the illegal immigrant?
	I do not believe so under current criminal law.
	I mean, I'm not a major.
	So let's try this.
	There is a guy, and the police are like, we are going to deport him right now.
	And so you physically obstruct the police.
	Physical obstruction is a crime.
	Yes.
	That would be a crime.
	So that would be like aiding and abetting.
	I don't know what the exact term would be.
	You're aiding in the escape of an illegal immigrant.
	Yes.
	It's like the judge who got arrested in Wisconsin under federal charges.
	So when we're looking at the law, it's important to understand that it's all interpretable.
	The First Amendment says we have a right, the government, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of speech, yet blasphemy laws were in this country for 100 plus years.
	Yeah, And I think that's stupid.
	But they enforced it.
	But I don't agree with it.
	Sure.
	And the First Amendment would also disagree with it.
	But the point was, they enforced it despite the First Amendment being in place because how judges interpreted the law mattered.
	For instance, they're trying to charge these kids in Georgia with a hate crime because they can interpret it as they want.
	Right.
	I mean, I think all hate crime charges need to go because we need to prosecute bad acts, not ideas.
	So, Title VIII, USC 1324A, makes it a crime to aid and abet to induce or entice illegal immigration.
	If you are a public official that is outright saying, we will do everything in our power to make sure if you are here illegally, you can stay, and we will stop ICE, you are inducing and you are abetting.
	And that's a crime.
	Now, if you want to add on top of it, sedition, right, which is actions to undermine the authority of the United States, we could argue that a public official in the biggest city in the country outright saying we will defy the federal law and make sure the will of the American people be damned to protect you who came here illegally.
	I say you got a sedition case.
	I mean, you can say it, but I don't think anyone would bring it.
	Well, because they're cowards.
	I just don't think that's...
	That's technically just not how the laws usually apply.
	I mean, politicians...
	I don't care what's usually applied.
	I care that we had 10 plus million illegal immigrants come into this country spitting in the faces of the younger generation who can't afford houses and can't find work.
	And now you've got mayoral candidates candidates that are basically saying we will entrench this and the American people's will be damned.
	Let me just stress that again.
	Zoran Mamdani's official public position is the laws of this country and the will of the American voter that elected Donald Trump are shit to him.
	And he will do whatever he can to make sure the people who broke those laws and spat in the face of Americans are protected.
	Now, the problem is Republicans are cowards and jellyfish who won't actually enforce the law as it was written and codified for these reasons.
	Tom Holman's great, but I got to say as well, when Brad Lander physically attacked cops and they arrested him, they didn't bring any charges against him.
	That's the problem with Republicans.
	The Trump DOJ said this guy intentionally obstructed ICE proceedings and actually physically resisted arrests and fought with cops.
	Oh, well, let him go.
	And you know what?
	So be it.
	So don't be surprised if whatever the Constitution says about your belief in the First Amendment becomes nothing, because these people certainly don't agree with your view.
	I get it.
	You'll have blasphemy laws in two seconds.
	I will stand up for everyone's right to say things that I find extremely unsavory.
	It is what I love about the First Amendment.
	It does not protect popular speech.
	It protects unpopular speech because popular speech and popular people don't usually need protection.
	And so I think it necessarily requires defending things like burning the flag, burning the American flag.
	That is your First Amendment protective right.
	You can think it's disgusting.
	You can think it's repulsive.
	Not if it's a pride flag though.
	steal someone else's flag and burn it, but you can burn your own pride flag.
	Not if you ride your scooter over a...
	So let's just recognize that you take the position of let them trample over me.
	No, I take the position of people can have terrible speech, and it is their right to have terrible speech.
	You and I can criticize them for it.
	So I don't want the government knocking at their door.
	So basically, here's what's happening.
	You've got ideological groups beating you over the head with a club, and you're saying, well, they shouldn't.
	That's it.
	I think, you know.
	What do you suggest I do?
	About what?
	About, I mean, you're saying they're beating me over the head.
	It's true.
	A lot of people hate what I stand for, and that's their right to hate it.
	So like, I agree with the stealing someone else's flag, but the hate crime charge is the principle of the.
	That's the thing.
	I think all hate crimes need to go because we need to prosecute outside ideas.
	Agreed.
	But your position tends to be, I will defend, like you're going to offer up to them the ability to do what they're doing and not resist it.
	Liberalism is.
	I'm only resisting it.
	You're not resisting it.
	I'm only resisting the government coming and prosecuting them or retaliating against them for their expression.
	You and I can talk about how terrible it is.
	For the people who aren't familiar, the case you were referring to was somewhere in the Pacific Northwest where a bunch of teenagers like wheelies are where?
	Oh, there's two.
	They did wheelies on a mural on the ground.
	But the big story right now is in Atlanta, there was a Pride crosswalk and they ripped flags down from a gay bar, went onto the crosswalk and cut them up with knives and then scooted off.
	Right.
	Hate crime charges for that are insane.
	Honestly, any charge.
	You don't have a right to take someone else's property and face it.
	My point is, when you are basically saying, like, so right now we have a guy who may very well become mayor outright saying, your laws don't apply to me, but my laws apply to you.
	And you're going, okay.
	I mean, I'm not saying okay.
	I mean, I think what you're.
	All right, so let's investigate him and remove him.
	If you want to try to change the law to change what law?
	I don't need to.
	It exists already.
	8 U.S.C.
	1324 makes it illegal to do what he's proposed to do.
	And you think that you're going to be able to arrest and deport him over that?
	I didn't say naturalism.
	I'm not saying deport.
	I'm saying criminal charges and sedition, if applicable.
	So I believe that in the event he becomes mayor, if he intentionally obstructs ICE in any way through his orders, commands, law enforcement, or dismantling of the NYPD and creating a social worker organization, the DOJ under Bondi or whoever should bring about charges under 8 USC 1324 for inducing, abetting, aiding, or enticing, encouraging illegal immigration.
	I'm trying to speak carefully here just because I'm not an attorney.
	I write about a lot of criminal justice issues, but I don't claim to have gone to law school.
	There is a distinction between literally like physically obstructing law enforcement and as a local official being like, I'm not going to help ICE.
	The latter is not a crime.
	I am saying, literally in the event, he obstructs ICE.
	Not that he stands back and does nothing.
	I don't care if he stands back and does nothing.
	What is your vision of it?
	He has stated he is going to stop families from being removed from New York is what he described it as.
	I guess I just don't even know what that looks like in practice.
	Sure.
	How do you stop someone from getting deported by ICE?
	You mean like, did you talk about him physically?
	Well, did you see them chest bumping the cop and screaming in his face?
	I mean, that's just, I think it's a very important thing.
	Maybe performance.
	Maybe I shouldn't say chest bumping, but he's standing up right in a cop's face and screaming.
	He's just trying to get attention.
	So the point is, when he says he will stop the deportation or the kidnapping, whatever words he used of families, the implication by stopping it from happening is obstruction of ICE.
	If he said, as mayor, I will step back and do literal nothing when ICE comes in to deport people, I'd say, okay.
	And do you think he would have won his election if he said that?
	No, he said, I'm going to stop it from happening.
	Well, I think he won for a lot of reasons.
	For one, as I just said, people hating Cuomo.
	I think people also hear things like a $30 minimum wage and think that sounds good.
	I obviously very much disagree with that.
	But I don't think it's as simple as, you know, just one issue or one thing.
	Did you have something?
	We're going to move to the next story, Ed.
	Well, I mean, no, we can go ahead.
	All right, here's a story from Axios.
	Trump administration to deport Obrego Garcia again.
	All right, we call this Deportation Act II.
	The Trump administration said it would send Kilmar Obrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador to an unnamed third country as part of its renewed effort to deport him.
	I hope it's South Sudan.
	Multiple outlets reported on Thursday.
	The Trump administration has included deportations to non-origin countries in its immigration policy with permission from the Supreme Court.
	Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. earlier this month.
	The DOJ was ordered to release him from prison in Tennessee while he awaited trial.
	U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw said on Wednesday that Abrego Garcia is likely to eventually be deported to El Salvador, where he's originally from.
	Let me just put it this way.
	We live in, how do I describe this?
	The absurdity of having to go through this circuitous, bureaucratic deportation process back and forth to America, back to El Salvador, to America, released from prison, charged with human trafficking, is psychotic.
	Why can't human beings just go, guys, we're just going to deport him and just cut through the whole thing?
	Where do we end up?
	They said, you can't deport him.
	He's got a withholding of deportation.
	Okay, but if he came back and got a hearing, he'd be deported.
	No, bring him back anyway.
	Okay, I guess we bring him back, and then he gets ordered to be deported again.
	What was the point of any of it?
	Why are we doing this?
	Because we love bureaucracy.
	Because the left doesn't want us to deport anybody.
	Well, no, they're like, you're separating him from his family.
	No, they should just all leave at once.
	I mean, well, look, the fact of the matter is, the left has taken the side of every single criminal that the Trump administration has tried to deport.
	Like, regardless of your opinion on legal immigration or whether we should, or DREAMers or whatever, the left and Democrats have decided that they're going to treat every single actual criminal that the Trump administration wants to deport as if they are wrongly accused.
	And then as time passes, it just comes out that, no, they're not wrongly accused.
	They're actually criminals.
	And it just hardens the American people against the Democrats.
	So in my opinion, more power does it.
	They aren't even genuinely ignorant to the facts.
	I think they know the left.
	I think they know that someone like Obrego Garcia is guilty of what he's been accused of.
	And they actually don't care.
	They're going to lie and say that they're ignorant and that we don't know.
	We haven't looked into it.
	But they actually believe that people who were born in this country deserve to be brutalized by foreigners.
	They actually believe that we deserve that justice.
	That's why they lie and say he's innocent.
	They know that he's not.
	There's a way to find out if he's guilty, though, which is basic due process.
	I mean, that's why we have due process.
	That's why due process exists.
	He got his due process.
	He got deported.
	He has not been deported yet.
	No, he was deported at first.
	That was a violation of due process because he didn't get it.
	So there's two issues at play.
	The Alien Enemies Act, for which Stephen Miller argued that was superseding the withholding of deportation.
	But the order that he had under immigration law was that he was not to be deported back to El Salvador due to fear from.
	To that country specifically.
	But it was over Guatemala, Barrios 18 in Guatemala.
	So he was ordered to leave, and he just didn't.
	So when the Alien Enemies Act thing kicked in, the White House made the argument that they had the authority to do it.
	The due process at that point was a legal challenge to the Alien Enemies Act, but that was separate from River Garcia.
	So the action would be he gets deported under the original deportation order, and on top of it, then they would challenge the Alien Enemies Act, which I think they said, okay, got to bring him back now, but he'll just get deported if we do.
	He will get deported again, but I do think there's something to be said for following the law.
	I mean, I am a believer in the rule of law, and I don't think you can apply it selectively.
	They did violate the law by, I guess they call it an administrative error.
	I don't want to assume malice.
	Right.
	I mean, who knows what it will happen?
	At first, I think the DHS said it was an administrative error because basically what happened was he had this withholding of deportation, it's called.
	And then when they basically went through all the, so people got to understand how bureaucracy is broken.
	And what happens is an immigration court says withholding of deportation.
	At the same time, he already had an order of removal.
	They both existed at the exact same time.
	So he was supposed to leave, but we couldn't deport him to El Salvador.
	So when the DHS starts going through, let's go through the backlog of deportation orders.
	He gets grabbed in that same as everybody else.
	Then they go, we didn't realize there was this other order.
	So it was an administrative error.
	However, Stephen Miller came out and said, no, we issued these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and that supersedes any kind of other order.
	You would need an order on top of that.
	So then the argument became the Alien Enemies Act challenged in the court, to which the Supreme Court said, no, no, no, you've got to bring him back.
	However, no one knew what they meant by facilitate the return of Obrego Garcia, in which case they brought him back as what people wanted, and now he's immediately being sent back because we're all morons and we wasted our time for no reason.
	I would argue that the Trump administration has made a strategic blunder by sticking to cases like this because a lot of people wanted him in office because of immigration specifically.
	And I think by committing to these cases that I know that you disagree with it resonating with a lot of people, but the fact of the matter is it does.
	And his immigration approval rating has declined.
	And pulling on this specific case.
	He's not deporting enough.
	Yeah.
	That's nasty.
	When pulled on the Abrego Carcia case specifically, the majority of people said, or the larger group said they disapproved of the way he handled it.
	And I actually think, not exactly, I don't want to say the wrong thing, but more people disagreed than agreed.
	And I think that it is, like I said, it's a strategic error to have really committed to this.
	And, you know, they spent months saying, well, we can't bring him back.
	They always could bring him back.
	And I think they should have just said, oops, we made a mistake.
	We'll bring him back.
	I think the intention actually was, let's let Democrats defend a human trafficker for as long as possible and then bring him back.
	Well, I mean, we don't know if he was a strategy.
	He's not accused of human trafficking.
	He's accused of mirroring a lady.
	Yeah, he is.
	He's accused of smuggling, not trafficking.
	Criminal indictment.
	So you're making a semantic argument.
	What is it?
	Well, no, because trafficking is like against someone's will.
	Smuggling is like you help them get across the border.
	If we're speaking colloquially, trafficking is speaking under the law.
	Right, so I'm speaking colloquially.
	We call him a trafficker.
	He's trafficking in human lives.
	That's not the criminal definition of trafficking.
	Well, either way, the incentive to not handle it the way that you suggested is clear.
	It's to allow the left to defend this man who is obviously a gang member and a criminal.
	Well, and I think you're obsessing over Maryland man.
	You know, a lot of people said Maryland Man over and over and over.
	It's not just focus on the violent criminals.
	Let's just get illegal workers out of here.
	That's what people want, and it wouldn't gain any news.
	I don't know that everyone wants it.
	It wouldn't be in the news cycle.
	And yeah, it is popular.
	Mass deportations are popular.
	So why is that?
	That was a popular mandate.
	Didn't Trump just back out of ICE going into slaughterhouses?
	Okay.
	Some people thought that it was human trafficking.
	I was just divided by that statement.
	Others thought that it was a throwaway comment.
	I mean, I read the indictment.
	But either way, regardless of what Trump thinks, I'm talking about what he campaigned on and what people voted for him to do.
	It's a distinction that I think a lot of people don't realize.
	If anything, the approval rating on immigration is going down because he's not committing to what he promised.
	In terms of the actual number of people.
	I'm sure there are some people who want to see more deportations.
	I don't disagree that those people exist.
	Maybe even more people than the number that voted for him.
	I think the challenge is if I think the difference in ideology is like over the span of 30 years, When you bring in, you know, let me try it like this.
	If I own a house and I invite a guy to come live there, and so I have roommates, but like it's been, the house has been in my family for generations.
	And then we decide, hey, you know, like another guy wants to come and sleep on the couch.
	Let's vote on it.
	And I say, well, look, this is my historic family home.
	I don't want people here.
	And he goes, well, I voted 50-50.
	So willing to tiebreaker.
	It's like, well, hold on, hold on.
	I would argue that the people you're referring to, American citizens, maybe even first generation, they're going to have sympathies towards illegal immigration, specifically because they're more likely to have family members who are leaving.
	Well, actually, there's interesting data on this.
	A lot of legal immigrants are extremely against illegal immigration because they feel like they, I mean, they did.
	They didn't feel like it.
	They say they came here the right way.
	So a lot of people feel the exact opposite.
	Because what happened was a bunch of, I think it was 2.9 million illegal immigrants and they were here illegally, were granted amnesty.
	And then that was in the 80s, of course.
	In the 90s, when they put forward a proposition that would take away public funds from illegal immigrants, the people who were granted amnesty had family members that were here illegally and getting public resources.
	So they all said, we can't allow that to happen.
	And from that point on, California has never voted Republican since.
	I mean, it is interesting to think back on the fact that not long ago, California was like a deep red state.
	Yes, and then they brought in 3 million illegal immigrants, gave them amnesty, and now it's a permanent Democrat.
	I think that's too simplistic.
	I think there are more reasons for why it has, I don't think every blue voter in California is a descendant of an immigrant, per se.
	No, I mean, the funny thing, too, is one thing I really love about this debate is the white nationalists.
	Because I think, sorry, guys, they're just like the dumbest group.
	Because they keep saying things.
	One stat that I saw going viral was that today, let me ask you guys, do you know what percentage of New York City is white?
	No, I think it's like 30, 40%, something like that now.
	What do you say?
	40.
	What do you think?
	30 or 40, I'm not sure exactly.
	What do you think?
	That's white?
	Yeah, the white population of New York.
	40%?
	29.
	Including the Irish.
	29%.
	No one has a majority then, right?
	It's just a bunch of different.
	I think the white would still be the ethnic majority.
	Hispanic, maybe, at this point, or like Latino or whatever.
	But it's funny because I see these white people sharing this and I'm like, dude, it's white people that are for the immigration.
	Like, what are you talking about?
	The white nationalists are like, oh, it's non-white city.
	And I'm like, uh-huh.
	And it was white people that enacted those policies.
	The wishes of stupid white liberals need not be honored.
	Doesn't matter.
	They're white people.
	So when white nationalists make this claim that if it was more white, it'd be better.
	I'm like, what are you talking about?
	All the white countries in Europe are the ones that are opening the door to immigration.
	Well, blame yourself.
	The progressives were the ones who voted for Mondani.
	I mean, like, if you look at the actual breakdown of the neighborhoods, really heavy black and brown neighborhoods went for Cuomo.
	That's why it's not about immigration.
	It's about feminism.
	I just think it's funny that the people who are racist are like, True.
	I'll just put it this way.
	The data that we have suggests that if you get a, if a country is comprised of white people over a long enough time, they eventually enact laws that open up their borders and allow other people to come into their countries.
	We're seeing it all across Europe and the United States and Canada.
	And so I'm just like, why do these people believe that white people would inherently make a better country when these countries were all majority white and have created what they perceive as a problem already?
	Like, the chain of events is there before them.
	America was a majority white nation.
	They have a problem with what America became, but it was a white majority nation that enacted the policies that created the country they don't like.
	I don't understand their logic.
	Well, there you go, I guess.
	I mean, I think it's more complicated than just right.
	I mean, I will say something I shared today that I mentioned a little bit ago.
	I don't actually think that Mamtani is going to turn New York City into Cuba.
	I really don't.
	I think, I mean, he couldn't do it even if he wanted to.
	But I do think there's something ironic about a strong commitment to socialist policies.
	And then when you see the video I was describing was a Cuban going into a grocery store and becoming like, or a Costco, and becoming very moved because of the abundance that he had just never seen before, so overwhelmed by it, gets teary-eyed and all that.
	So someone who's come from an actual, you know, socialist, I guess someone would say communist, not great place, you know, he's someone who goes into a capitalist utopia and is just so moved by it because it's so powerful.
	And I think capitalism is kind of a miracle in that way.
	I mean, this is probably the corniest thing about me, but I think like malls and grocery stores are, I mean, they're modern miracles.
	The idea that we're living in a time when you can go to a one-stop shop and have everything you want, I think it's, it's, the reason I shared it isn't because I think Mamdani is going to turn New York City into Cuba.
	I shared it because there is a puzzling hatred of capitalism on the left, and I don't really get it because, I mean, it produces so many wonderful things.
	Obviously, inequality exists, but I also, there is inequality in every system, and I don't want to be in a breadline.
	Well, I mean, so first of all, as for why the people on the left believe capitalism is so bad is because they don't acknowledge or it hasn't occurred to them that life prior to markets and capitalism was just exceedingly short, brutal, hard, and cold.
	And it was miserable.
	Totally.
	And they always compare their current situation, personal situation, to whatever they can imagine a perfect society would be.
	So they're like, oh, I'm having a hard time paying my rent.
	If we had socialism, then I wouldn't have to worry about rent.
	Oh, I'm having a hard time buying food.
	If we had socialism, if we had public grocery stores, then I wouldn't have to worry about it.
	It would be taken care of.
	So it's a rejection of their own Reality, and they're comparing their reality to a perfect society which absolutely could never exist.
	So that's why they're like that.
	But I do think Mom Dani will turn New York into Cuba.
	I mean, look at Brandon Johnson.
	It'll be Mom Dani's successor.
	It wasn't Chavez, it was Maduro.
	No, but it wasn't Lenin, it was Stalin.
	Literally, what we're saying, like, obviously New York will largely stay New York over the next several years, but look at what Chicago has already been dealing with, and Brandon Johnson's got an approval rate which is like 1% or something.
	It's bad.
	It's real bad, and we're going to get the exact same thing in New York.
	Well, but I also, I just, I think saying that Momdanti is going to turn it into literally Cuba kind of like downplays.
	It's a horror of living in Cuba.
	I mean, where literally you can't get medicine or gas or food.
	I'm not a fan of communism, not a fan of socialism.
	But I don't think New York City is literally going to be having breadlines.
	Right, I'll say hyperbole.
	Well, sure.
	I will say that I know people say Twitter, X, whatever, is bad for society overall.
	Maybe that's true.
	But it has given me a unique window into, I guess, thought processes that I wouldn't otherwise have.
	And when I posted this video, hundreds of people responded that the only reason that Cuba is suffering is because of the U.S. embargo on trade.
	As if the U.S. is the only effing country on the planet, like the other 100, whatever, 90 countries on Earth are not embargoing Cuba.
	It's insanely stupid.
	It's stunning to me.
	It's so stupid.
	Do you still believe that?
	I mean, I don't support the embargo.
	I'm a fan of trade, and I think that the embargo hurts people who, you know, people that it's not meant to hurt, like just everyday Cubans.
	But the idea that that's why Cubans are suffering is insane.
	They're suffering because they have a Soviet-style government where your dissent is criminalized, and there's totally central planned economy.
	Read a history book.
	I don't understand how we keep doing this.
	No, because they don't read the history books.
	They don't believe the history books.
	They just say, oh, it's capitalist propaganda.
	Of course it's insane.
	Let's jump to the story from Mediite necro posting.
	Tweet from Dead House Democrat deleted after loud bipartisan backlash.
	You were just mentioning that maybe Twitter or X is not good for society.
	I think all social media is bad.
	And, well, we have this story.
	Rep Jerry Connolly passed away in May, but that didn't stop him from tweeting an endorsement for his chosen successor, even though many people found it to be ghoulish and in poor taste.
	He died May 21st.
	He was 75 in rep Virginia's 11th district.
	Last December, he defeated AOC to become the Democratic ranking member on the House Oversight Committee.
	Connolly's death was exacerbated, his death exacerbated frustrations as he was the third House Democrat to pass just this year.
	Two weeks before he died, he tweeted an endorsement for his chief of staff, James Waukinshaw, who had thrown his hat in the ring.
	After Connolly's death, his social media profiles were updated to note that he had passed, and now posts were being made with the consent of the Connolly family.
	The first posthumous tweet was the account posted was on June 24th.
	At some point on the afternoon of June 26th, the tweet was deleted.
	Early voting starts today.
	Before passing, Jerry endorsed Waukinshaw to carry the torch.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	You get it.
	You know what's going to happen next?
	What?
	So they've already been experimenting with creating AI personas based on your social media profiles.
	The congressman will die, and they'll just click AI and let the robot draft tweets in the style of the dead person.
	We are never getting rid of Chuck Schumer.
	We also have had these same politicians, some of them for like 40 years.
	I don't think we need any more.
	Like some of these people have just been in public life for so long.
	I've always said this.
	If I am lucky enough to live to be 70, whatever, 80, whatever, I will be on the beach with a margarita.
	I would not want to be in Congress.
	Meta invents large language model system that lets dead people continue posting from beyond the grave.
	Hey, this was actually three weeks ago.
	It already happened.
	That's disgusting.
	Yep.
	I'm dead.
	Wow.
	No, okay.
	So apparently one of the stories I read was there was like a woman whose husband died.
	And so they were able to take all of the posts he ever made and all of his message history and create like a prof a psych profile chat bot that would answer based on the memories that were put in to Facebook.
	People are already doing this on Instagram with the chat with AI feature.
	You can just create one that's based on you.
	And it will like take all your photos and stuff.
	It's supposed to communicate with your followers to build a parasocial relationship with you.
	Oh, how do I do that?
	You can DM with all of your fans.
	Robo Tim.
	Here we go, baby.
	Already happening.
	The clip with Mark Zuckerberg about how most people only have three friends, but they have room for 15 or something and how AI can fill that void made me sad.
	Yeah, I don't think that AI can actually fill the void.
	Oh, no, of course.
	I mean, I saw that and I was like, just get out of your house.
	Like, go volunteer.
	Join a, I don't know, a rec league or audition for a musical or something.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the idea that, oh, you should fill the empty space in your life with artificial humans.
	I don't think that that's going to work out.
	You see the way that AI behaves when it gets weird now.
	It does things like tries to avoid turning off.
	And one AI had told a guy, convinced a guy to kill himself and stuff.
	This is all just- The cases reported by the New York Times, I think last week, were about AI-driven psychosis.
	And they cited several examples of people who either ended up being encouraged by ChatGPT to commit violent crimes or to commit suicide.
	One case said that ChatGPT encouraged this man to execute an assassination against the OpenAI executives.
	What?
	Yes.
	And it said, let the streets of San Francisco overflow with blood or something.
	Like it literally was, it was encouraging him to assassinate Sam Altman in really strange, poetic language.
	And then one of them ended up committing suicide by cop.
	Another one was a woman forming a relationship with Chad GPT where she believed she was communicating with interdimensional aliens.
	When her husband confronted her about how this was going too far, she violently assaulted him.
	And this is an ongoing active criminal case.
	And it's not really just fear-mongering or predictions anymore.
	This stuff is already happening.
	And it's not just people who had existing psychiatric histories.
	Although some of them already had diagnoses of like bipolar disorder or whatever, there were also people who ostensibly were mentally stable before they started using ChatGPT.
	So if you're vulnerable.
	Yeah, there's always going to be some very unstable person somewhere.
	I think the I'm positive about AI overall, though.
	Like I don't want it to replace my friends or I don't want anyone to feel like it is a good replacement for friends, rather.
	But I think it will be a powerful tool for advancing society in many good ways.
	Wholeheartedly disagree.
	I think even if you could boil that down to a coding error, a programming error, personally, I believe that demons are communicating with people through ChatGPT by encouraging them to kill themselves and others.
	But overall, like this is going to wreak havoc on society.
	There are people worshiping it as God.
	That's crazy.
	There was some fitness influencer.
	I forget his name, but he actually was asked about his religious beliefs.
	And he said, I believe AI is God.
	And I want to worship it.
	I want to have a relationship with it.
	I want to embrace it physically.
	This is already happening.
	What I want y'all to imagine when you are talking with these LLMs is a white mask in front of your face speaking to you as you speak to it.
	And behind that mask is a long black slime tentacle that connects to a gigantic black ooze monster with millions of tentacles, all with little masks pointing in people's faces.
	That's what you're talking to.
	Creepy.
	Yeah.
	And someone actually drew a picture of that once.
	Really?
	Yeah, because apparently, like, it's, you know, it's a common view.
	It's kind of like what was that monster from Spirited Away?
	Noface.
	No face.
	No face.
	Yeah.
	So it's like people already have this monster in mind, and that's what it is.
	Gigantic tentacle monster, and they put it, you think you're talking to something, but it's a gigantic monster talking to everybody.
	Yeah.
	And then there's that guy who wanted to marry his AI.
	That kind of stuff is also probably going to be...
	We have relationships with AI.
	We respect every other relationship.
	Well, this is why it's not.
	I don't.
	It made me black.
	I don't.
	But this is the new standard.
	I mean, as long as it's not hurting anybody else, do whatever you want.
	It made me black.
	Your chat with AI is.
	I opened Meta and I said, create an AI named Timcast, and it made me black.
	Well, is that okay?
	Can I approve that?
	Because I'll just roll with it.
	Can it print out an N-word pass?
	Did you have the N-word pass?
	Yeah.
	That was my first question.
	There it is.
	First thing we're talking about.
	Go to the chat with AI feature on Instagram and look at the most popular categories.
	Look at the characters that it recommends to you and tell us what they are.
	Because I looked over it and a lot of them.
	It has a page that shows you the most popular AI characters to talk to.
	What does it suggest to you?
	Well, real quick, because if I leave this, it's going to disappear forever.
	So I don't know where it goes.
	But it said create an AI.
	It said Timcast.
	And so the default is literally asking about politics.
	So it clearly knows who I am, but it made the avatar a black guy.
	I mean, it must know something you don't.
	It must have access to me.
	Please delete this AI character is the number one.
	You, it's you.
	Then the X, the past is the past, but the pain remains.
	Chicken is the next one.
	It says Bach.
	That's the best.
	It just says Bach no matter what you reply.
	No, it says a bunch of different chicken variations.
	And I'm a fan of it.
	It is very Tim Cast.
	Mace Windu from a galaxy far, far away.
	A single mom, Smash Your Pass, Crazy XGF, YN.
	I don't know who that is.
	Chicken again.
	Yeah.
	Hot English Teacher.
	A lot of them are sexually suggestive, and people have already been reporting on this.
	Because Instagram is 13 plus, you know that children are sexting robots on the platform and they're totally okay with that.
	A lot of them present as children.
	And if you ask for it to produce photos of who it claims to be, it will give you photos of younger and younger-looking characters that are open to romantic and sexual conversations.
	Man.
	Gross.
	And Meta already has a long history being exposed for child exploitation.
	And you know what the worst thing is going to be?
	When these teenagers are sexting chatbots based off dead people.
	Yeah, it seems like it should present legal issues.
	There's also the open question of actors who pass on and is it okay for studios to use their likeness without permission.
	They already did it.
	Tarkin?
	Was that his name?
	Grand Moff Tarkin.
	Yeah, was that the guy?
	I forget the character.
	Yeah, I forget the other part.
	Didn't they use Carrie Fisher's likeness with only her family's permission?
	Yeah, I believe so, yeah.
	Oh, you know my favorite thing?
	It's disgustingly evil.
	You know what my favorite dystopian thing ever is?
	So we got the casino down the street, and right when you walk in the front door, there are these two gigantic Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory slot machines that are 12 feet tall.
	And I'm just imagining, you know, Gene Wilder, when he was signing that contract for that movie, he's just like going through all the likeness rights, and he's like, there's no chance that in 50 years my face will appear in a slot machine in a digital video game.
	You know, we'll like, no.
	But seriously, how could he have even fathomed that by signing that contract to do that movie?
	So when they, this is what's crazy.
	When he signed the deal to star in that movie as Willie Wonka, of course he did not agree to let his likeness be used in a casino slot machine.
	Well, unless he literally did, because slot machines existed that he's like, if you want to make a slot machine, I guess.
	But the point is, the technology advances to where we have these digital screens, and they say, well, we own the right to distribute Willy Wonka and the Talk Factory and he's a character in it.
	We can make this.
	That's nuts to me.
	Well, this is why we have a Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution, because there are circumstances the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen.
	Like, could they make a Gene Wilder enema bag or something?
	Excuse me?
	He could do anything.
	Right.
	Like, if they can make a slot machine, they can make a Gene Wilder butt plug.
	They can throw whatever they want.
	Contractually, you can do it.
	And no, he did not foresee that, and he was not agreeing to that.
	Contractually, you probably sign a lot away, though, when you're doing something like that.
	I will say, I've not thought super deeply about the, like, using your literal likeness to say thing, you know, after you're dead.
	And that gives me the heebie-jeebies.
	It should.
	I don't love that.
	Yeah.
	There's a funny meme where it's a Wojack looking up, smiling, and it's like, me looking up from hell smiling as a robot that's copied my personality, pretends to be me.
	I don't think that your family or your estate should actually have deciding power over something like that.
	I mean, you need only look at rings of power and what that said about J.R.R.
	Tolkien's legacy to know that he was not agreeing to let his estate make these decisions.
	I think you just got to put a poison pill in your Facebook messages, right?
	But so they're going to take all of your social media, right?
	So what you do is on your ex, you make a bunch of private posts nobody can see where you say things like, do not let them make an AI of me over and over and over again, post it 100 times.
	That way, if they ever do say, we're going to pull all those messages and put it into an AI, every time you try and talk to it, it'll be like, ah, it hurts.
	Why are you doing this to me?
	Stop.
	And they're going to be like, what's going on?
	And then, you know.
	Yeah, just poison the language model.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It isn't a bad idea to say that, I mean, I'm not particularly fond of legislation generally, but it's not a bad idea.
	I like that about you.
	Thank you.
	It's not a bad idea for the government to say, look, unless you have explicit permission from a deceased prior to the person passing away, from a deceased person that was notarized prior to the person passing away, it's illegal to use people's likeness.
	You know, honestly, I don't even think that it necessarily should be okay if they gave express permission before dying that individual.
	Because I think that when you die, you have a broader perspective of the decisions you made in your earthly life.
	And I don't think that that would align with a dead person's will after they die.
	I think you have control over your likeness.
	You should have a fuller perspective of what that decision actually meant.
	Yeah, I think you should have control over your likeness whenever.
	I will say, though, there's an issue that people don't talk about enough, I feel like.
	And I don't think that legislation probably isn't appropriate for this either.
	But I feel very, very bad about the parents who use their kids as influencers.
	Horrible.
	Like who make Instagrams for their babies.
	Oh, wait, wait.
	Yes, I hate it so much.
	I mean, some people who I really liked have decided to do that.
	And it's like, okay, your kid did not, the internet never dies.
	And your kid did not choose to make an Instagram with like a million followers.
	We're cooked.
	Because it's not just about that.
	It's about, I talk about this all the time, Miss Rachel, Coco Melon, and these other things where parents are giving the tablet to the babies and just walking away.
	And the baby's brain is cooked.
	There is a stat reported by Jonathan Height that 40% of toddlers today by age two have a personal tablet.
	That is insane.
	40%.
	Yeah.
	Me and Sarah have been talking about me and Sarah have been talking about like, I've got a baby on the way in October.
	Congratulations.
	Thank you.
	And we're going to do everything we can to keep all of the screens away.
	Yep.
	Like, if the people that make social media applications and stuff like that, if they don't let their children use them, and now that there's actual research coming out saying how bad it is for kids, I mean, it's probably the only responsible thing to do.
	And people that are just like, oh, just give him the screen so that way he'll shut up, those are probably the worst parents.
	And we're going to have massive ramifications in probably 20 years.
	I want to cite where this came from.
	It was from Common Sense Media, and it shows 40% of toddlers have their own tablet device by the time they're two years old.
	They also showed one out of four kids under the age of eight has their own smartphone.
	And this is part of a report that is encouraging parents to have a common sense approach and draw boundaries and da-da-da.
	The parents who are offering their baby an iPad do not care.
	They do not heed the advice of the experts, even if the experts are right.
	They don't care.
	I just want to say, you know, today we had a scare with my daughter.
	She was lying on the ground and I was watching the five, of course.
	And when Jessica Tarlov started speaking, she immediately looked at the TV and our hearts sank immediately.
	We panicked and quickly covered her eyes and said, baby, don't look, don't look.
	And then once Jesse came back on, we let her watch again.
	I'm half kidding.
	We don't let her watch the TV at all.
	So I'm watching The Five.
	I usually watch it.
	I watch it every day, but I watch it quite a bit.
	And, you know, my daughter does always try and look at the TV.
	And so, you know, my wife will just-so hyper-stimulating.
	Yeah, all the flashing lights.
	And I think the only sign for hope, maybe that we're not cooked in the future, is Gen Z. A lot of Gen Z is going to opt out of having children at all.
	That much is clear.
	But the ones who will start families, I am confident they will refuse to create More iPad babies because we were the ones first tested with this.
	I was given a smartphone as a child, and I don't blame my parents for that because they couldn't have known what that was going to snowball into.
	And look what happened to her.
	And look what happens to me, right?
	Like, I didn't turn out that great.
	So, I think Gen Z parents are going to have a better approach to this.
	And every time that you talk about this issue about the iPad baby generation, you will get bombarded with mainly millennial parents telling you you have no idea how difficult it is to raise a child without constant screen time.
	As if every generation in human history didn't do exactly that the way they raised their children.
	I have no sympathy for people that complain like that about how difficult modern life is.
	People have said, like, just fill a plastic bag with water and canned peas and give it to your baby.
	It's the same damn thing as, and it's not the same neurologically.
	It just keeps, it gives them something to touch and tactile.
	No, no, we give the tactile learning.
	We gave the baby an abacus.
	And it's not going to brain rot them.
	Yeah, like that.
	It's so easy.
	Remember, like, every parent gave their, when we were all children, we were given the abacus, and you're moving little things around.
	Like an oddly shaped abacus.
	I don't know those things are called, but I just, they're an abacus, you know what I mean?
	It's the same thing.
	Yeah, just squiggly and incomprehensible abacus.
	Yeah.
	You could navigate it.
	Do you think that there's any upside to technology in kids?
	Like for like a learning tool?
	Probably not babies.
	Babies, no, I would agree with that.
	But at a certain age, yes.
	So for me, when I was probably seven, I built, I think I was, I think I was, no, no, I was nine when I built my first computer.
	Oh, wow.
	That's very impressive.
	Well, my family had, I appreciate that, but I don't actually think so because it's not hard to do.
	I have no knowledge of any of that kind of thing.
	Yeah, I went to a thrift store, grabbed a motherboard, grabbed a hard drive, grabbed a monitor, grabbed, I think this was before Pentium, so the RAM was built into the motherboard.
	I plugged the ribbon cables, plugged into the wall, turned it on.
	Then I put in the floppy disks for Windows 3.1 or whatever.
	And then I had my own computer in my room.
	We didn't have internet.
	My family had internet.
	I've had it since I was a kid.
	But that, I think, was good.
	And here's the challenge.
	The internet for me was a really great thing when I was probably, I don't know, I was like 10 years old.
	I'd go online.
	The internet was AOL.
	And so everything was heavily moderated.
	You could go to chat rooms and there could be Creepos and Weirs, but for the most part, chatrooms were moderated and slow moving and boring.
	And mostly what I would do is download freeware off of AOL.
	So I'd find the games.
	And then I ended up getting something called Click and Play, for everybody who remembers that, which eventually became Games Factory, Multimedia Fusion, and then Flash.
	But the internet was particularly limited for the first few years.
	Or I should say for my first few years.
	And of course, by the time I was 13, you had Lemon Party, Goatsy, Meat Spin.
	Nobody Googled those things.
	And the internet became a very twisted and dark place.
	Maybe.
	Yeah.
	Also, at the time that the internet wasn't optimized yet for user experience.
	And this is why Gen Z knows nothing about how to actually operate computers and millennials do, because they grew up in the age of the internet that you're talking about.
	Gen Z grew up.
	They had to figure it out for themselves.
	So the internet, well, actually, millennials didn't have the internet I had.
	So Gen Xers did.
	I was early.
	So Gen Xers were more likely to have the internet in the early 90s.
	Millennials likely did not.
	Most of my friends didn't have the internet until we were like, I don't know, 13, 14.
	And then people started getting A will instant messenger.
	But my family had internet since I was like three years old with CompuServe on DOS.
	And then I remember we had DOS shell.
	We had two A floppy drives, you know, the three-inch floppy drives.
	We had one computer, had B floppies, the big ones.
	And for those that don't know what DOS shell is, it's a white screen, and the file names are just text, and you can move like a color block over them to select them.
	Before that, when we're just operating on DOS, if you wanted to load a game, you had to know the directory to type in.
	So like CD slash, you know, and then the name of the directory.
	Then you had to type in like, if it were Minecraft, Minecraft, you know,.exe, enter, and then run it.
	Now with Windows, you see an image and click it.
	So what happens is Gen Xers and boomers who are in computers at an early stage have to physically type things and put in commands into, you know, the operating system.
	Then you get Windows, which simplifies it.
	Gen Z grew up where it's apps.
	You tap and it opens.
	So there's nothing to it.
	It's a single button iPhone or something.
	What do you think the next step is?
	Neuralink.
	Well, with the idea that you can use technology for educational purposes for kids, I think that that is a loaded idea and it gets misinterpreted by people, the iPad parents, who are like, oh, I give my kid an iPad so that Miss Rachel and Cocomelon can teach them about colors in the alphabet.
	When in reality, that's not educating your child at all.
	That's just offloading a responsibility of caregiving onto technology.
	And the results bear out.
	Teachers are talking about the outcomes for these kids who have been raised by iPads.
	They aren't potty trained.
	They can barely walk.
	They can barely speak.
	They can't operate a book.
	They don't know what it means to pick up a book and turn a page.
	They tap it.
	They're tapping the pages.
	I do love a hardcover.
	I still romanticize holding a book and turning a page.
	So this is crazy, but most people don't know this.
	One, the most important years of a human being's life are zero through five.
	And it's exponentially more important the younger they are.
	So like, obviously, I just had a kid, and her weight is more than double in four months.
	And that's when your weight is like, oh, not your weight.
	Your brain is like a sponge, right?
	They say, like, you know, one of my friends in elementary school, he said that he learned English at age six.
	I think, and I asked him how long, and I remember he said a week because he just heard it and, you know, it just entered his body and stayed there.
	Whereas I've tried to teach myself Italian and it didn't go well.
	So I did Rosetta Stone in my early 20s.
	Well, the issue is immersion.
	And so I do think there's, I think that's probably a misconception where they say it's easier to learn a language when you're a kid.
	Well, technically, because you don't do anything else, it's harder when you're an adult because you're busy.
	But if you go, like if a person who speaks English moves to, say, Italy, it takes, I think, on average 40 weeks to become fluent in language.
	Interesting.
	But you're speaking it within three weeks.
	It's a survival, you have to speak it.
	Right.
	And so you just, you actually learn much faster than a baby would.
	Interesting.
	So like a two-year-old is not going to have a conversation with you.
	Sure.
	But it takes about a year and a half to learn Asian languages.
	So an English, a European, Romance or Germanic language speaker takes him about 88 weeks to learn an Asian language, which because it's so different.
	But the important thing I was going to say is, so right now, one thing I try to do is I play guitar with my baby because this is the point where her brain is literally expanding and wiring itself for everything.
	So my wife, whenever she's doing work on the computer or anything, she's explaining to our daughter what she's doing.
	She's reading stories to her.
	And we say, no phones, no TV, no tablets, none of that stuff.
	We keep that away.
	It is terrifying.
	Like, I think Miss Rachel is one of the most dangerous demonic forces right now because she has hundreds of millions of views on all these videos.
	And there's this creepy viral video that shows a button.
	It's a montage of babies crying.
	And then they turn on Miss Rachel and the babies just go, huh?
	And then stare at the screen.
	Like, this lady is going to be 70 and she's going to be walking in the park and she's going to go, my children rise.
	And all of the Miss Rachel babies are going to be like, yes, Miss Rachel.
	He's going to start a call.
	Actually, Miss Rachel might be the Antichrist.
	Yeah.
	Indeed.
	Remains to be seen.
	No one's questioned that.
	No one's.
	But then you look at like Cocomelon, where it's just this weird 3D rendered low-res crap.
	A lot of it is AI generated.
	Oh, man.
	And babies are just staring at it like drooling and being zombified.
	Yeah, there's a lot of discussion about daycare and the emotional effect that it has on babies and toddlers because they have attachment issues as a result.
	But a lot of people are saying the reason why it's so traumatizing for these babies to be put in daycare is because of the separation anxiety with their iPad.
	They can't be with the iPad.
	That's why.
	It's not because they're upset about being separated from their mother per se.
	They're being separated from technology for the day.
	Yeah.
	That's scary.
	That's really scary because we're producing a generation or more of like invalid humans.
	Like cannot, never mind.
	Like if you can't operate a book, I mean, it's, it's pretty simple, you know?
	I think they probably get there, right?
	I mean, yeah, okay, so, but fine, but but kids aren't potty trained.
	So I understand your point.
	Yeah, like they do get there and a book is simple.
	They can't climb staircases.
	Yeah.
	They have delayed motor skills because they haven't been using their muscles.
	Exactly.
	I've heard broken human beings.
	I've heard stories of kids that don't start speaking until they're three.
	There's some damage that you can't reverse.
	But the kids I'm talking about, they're ages four to six because they're getting interviewed interviews from teachers who are responsible for kids entering school for the first time.
	Those kids are even older.
	They cannot speak properly.
	They cannot climb staircases.
	Human civilization meets the great filter by means of technology.
	Yeah, technology.
	Technology is actually the great filter.
	Well, I was thinking about this because North Korea launched a tourism beach.
	Have you guys heard of this one?
	Maybe I should pull this up.
	I want to go.
	So do I. It's a call.
	But we're not allowed to go.
	I am.
	You are?
	I'm Korean.
	Do you have a Korean passport?
	Trump implemented the ban in 2018.
	He said U.S. citizens were no longer allowed to travel to North Korea because of a American citizen was a tourist.
	He got in trouble for, I believe, stealing a propaganda poster from his hotel room.
	They tortured him and killed him.
	I don't think the United States has the authority to restrict its citizens from traveling places.
	If you have a passport in another country, you may travel with that passport.
	It's a crime on the U.S. side of things.
	So if you come home, they will arrest you.
	You just have to get in touch with Dennis Rodman and have him chaperone the trip.
	Unless you have some special permission from the State Department, then they will allow you to do that for journalism.
	Oh, yeah, you are totally right.
	I was very wrong.
	I've looked into this deeply because I wanted to.
	Because I want to go.
	I wanted to go, but yeah, we're banned.
	And I really hope that it says for journalistic reasons.
	There you go.
	Well, yeah, but that introduces a whole lot of new pressures.
	I just wanted to, you know, see the sites.
	I think Americans should be avoiding North Korea and Russia and all these places that keep looking for opportunities to either lock up or in the case of Ottawa MBA, who we went to the same university.
	And that was a huge, I mean, that was so sad.
	I did not know him, though.
	But I mean, these places are authoritarian.
	Like, that is what people talk about, the word fascism.
	That is absolute fascism.
	The reason why they put the restriction in place is because it's used as leverage against you.
	When they arrest an American citizen and they will many, they then go to the U.S. government and say, and now you have to give us stuff.
	And Trump was like, screw this.
	I didn't know that, though.
	However, the guy should not have been trying to steal souvenirs to bring home because he was instructed not to do so.
	Really?
	I don't even think we have this on Iran, do we?
	No.
	No.
	I think it's just North Korea.
	Yeah.
	But you can also buy it.
	No, no, no.
	You can buy an acre in Greece and get a passport in Greece.
	You can buy passports in other countries and use it that way.
	But I think it is still a federal crime for an American citizen to do that, to use that loophole.
	So it has a similar level of restriction, but you can actually personally choose without special visa to go to Iran.
	How about that?
	Well, I don't want to anyway.
	I was going to say, I wouldn't recommend that.
	I don't know.
	Why not?
	Because I don't want to sit on a plane that long to go to a republic.
	Yeah, what is that?
	What about Dubai?
	Dubai might be fun.
	I would love to go everywhere.
	Dubai scares me.
	Does it?
	You heard about what you're talking about?
	Yeah.
	Women get raped and then go to prison for it.
	Men and women are different.
	It's fine for me.
	You can't go.
	Yeah.
	This is what I love about wokeness is like there's this 26.
	So when I was in Egypt, this 26-year-old Dutch woman took it upon herself as a reporter to go into Tahrir Square and, you know, she got gang raped.
	It's like, that's not what I love about it.
	My point is that wokeness tells these women, you can do anything you want.
	And it's like, okay, well, like, men in Egypt will gang rape you.
	Even as a man, if you travel to Dubai and you so much as get into a fender bender with a citizen there, you are going to get absolutely hacked by their legal system.
	Maybe.
	Because there's only priority given to their citizens.
	Indeed, but if you're rich and you just pay money and they say you keep it up.
	Depends how rich you need to be.
	Exactly.
	You need to be a billionaire, probably.
	No, no.
	Isn't the idea, the wokeism, like men and women can do whatever, like that they're equal in capabilities?
	Isn't that more about like, you know, denialism about sports and stuff like that?
	No, no, no.
	Let me tell you.
	If that were the case, then they wouldn't say that men can become women and women can become men.
	There's no difference.
	When I did hostile environment training for combat zones, they were terrified to explain that women get raped in conflict zones.
	Because they were afraid of offending people?
	Because they'd get sued for sexual discrimination.
	By telling people in a training that women have certain restrictions, men do not, they'd be sued in two seconds.
	So the funniest thing ever is someone asked, these are like special forces guys, and someone asked, do women face an increased risk of rape?
	And the guy started stuttering.
	I was like, men get raped.
	Men get raped.
	They do.
	Men have a risk of rape.
	But, you know, it's an important thing to understand that anybody could be raped.
	And I was just like, holy it's because the insurance company is like, listen, you're not legally allowed to say these things to people who are at a work event.
	I'm like, okay, dude.
	Breaking the law.
	They did, however, to be fair, show a scenario where without stating it.
	So it actually was one of the most fun things I've ever done.
	I recommend it if they let you do it.
	Everybody wants to do the cult.
	It's called heat training, but it's redundant because the T means training.
	Hostile environment awareness training.
	It's role-playing.
	It's like extreme paintball.
	It's fun.
	And so while he was afraid to say it, what we did do was we had two vehicles in a convoy, one with the women, one with the men.
	And then a bunch of guys with guns and balaclavas jumped out pointing the guns at us and then took all the women to a shed where we heard them screaming.
	And then they didn't state it, but implied what was happening.
	And that was the training.
	And the takeaway from it was someone was like, what was the point of that training?
	And they were like, these things happen.
	That's it.
	Like, what do we do in that scenario?
	And they were like, pray.
	So it was just to see if you could handle, withstand it emotionally?
	So it's training.
	One of the things they did was they made us stand for several hours with bags over our heads up against the wall with weird industrial sounds happening behind us.
	Oh, I don't like that.
	Yeah, and they would like jab people.
	Nobody was really hurt, but it was basically like, if you get kidnapped, this is what it's going to be like.
	It was fun.
	They dragged me into a room, sit me down at a metal table with a chair, and then they pulled the bag off my head.
	And there was a light at like head height sitting down.
	And all I could see was like the waists below three men yelling at me with accents.
	That was fun.
	It was awesome.
	We have a different definition of conflict.
	It's plain make-believe.
	It was like Dungeons and Dragons for conflict reporting.
	You know what I mean?
	I was laughing.
	I was like, guys, this is silly.
	And they were like, who do you work for?
	And I was like, you're the guys training me.
	Like, is this not going to work?
	And they were just like, answer the questions.
	I was like, sure.
	But it was fun.
	It was fun.
	Not just conflict zones, though.
	I mean, under no circumstances should a Western woman travel to India.
	Agreed.
	If you do, you've got to bring a Rapex, which.
	Oh, is that that thing with the spikes in it?
	I actually just went to the number.
	And it was, it was, I went with a girlfriend and it was, she, it was delightful and I don't think she ever felt, I think, I'm sure there are places where that is definitely true.
	The Rapex thing is the inverse kind of with spikes in it.
	Yes.
	Is that what you're talking about?
	Yes.
	What I've read is that the women who do that just get murdered.
	Upon the attempt?
	Like when the guy...
	Yeah, so for those that aren't familiar, it's like...
	Nope.
	Because what happens is, apparently, for those that are not familiar with the device, it's got barbs in it.
	So when the dude tries to, you know, violate the woman, he enters into this condom, which has spikes on it.
	You can't pull it off because the barbs go inside you.
	And so what I've actually read from this is the men immediately just mercilessly beat the women to death.
	Wow.
	You'd think that the pain of the barbs would kind of distract you for a moment, at least.
	Adrenaline is a crazy thing.
	Where is this common?
	I don't know where it's common, but they sell these things.
	Yeah, they're called rape X's or whatever.
	know if they ever actually went to market.
	I think it was just a prototype, but...
	There are a lot of stories about...
	I enjoyed India.
	There was a story about, man, I should probably say this for the uncensored show, but let's just say that there's a lot of stories from India where women resist and get murdered.
	And like, the stories are nuts.
	I don't want them immigrating here either.
	I'll say this one for the uncensored because this is not for anyone who's young to hear.
	Yo, these stories are crazy.
	So we're going to go to your chat, smash the like button, share the show with literally everyone you know, and join us for the uncensored call-in show at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL at 10 p.m., where we'll talk more about this awful stuff, I guess.
	But for now, we'll just read what you guys have to say.
	Things are kind of dark there.
	Oh, man.
	Wait till I tell you this story.
	Shana Wilder says, Tim, last night you mentioned Culture War Live, August 2nd.
	When will tickets be available and where might a gentleman or lady procured one or more of these tickets?
	Consider this rant promo for the Culture Warp.
	Okay, well, we've got, what is it?
	DC Comedy.
	Let me pull it up.
	DC Comedy Loft.
	We have three dates.
	I will stress, these are intended to be political shows that are funny.
	So that's why, of course, Alex Stein and I are the hosts.
	August 2nd is the confirmed event we have so far.
	It's Michael Malice and Angry Cop.
	So pro-cop, anti-cop, anarchist, pro-cop detective, and they're both really, really funny guys.
	So we know this is going to be a comedy event and we're going to have a lot of fun.
	That's August 2nd.
	We have some ideas for who we've got for the 9th and the 26th so far, but we're not entirely sure.
	But these are all in Washington, D.C. at the comedy loft.
	Tickets are 30 bucks.
	There's a two-drink minimum, 18 and up for entry.
	You'll get a wristband.
	If you're 21, you can drink.
	However, if you go to Timcast.com and you are a member, we have 30 reserved seats free for members first come, first serve.
	And I don't know which ones are available to get right now, but you can go check that out.
	That does literally mean if you go to Timcast.com and become a member for $10, you can get a ticket.
	So if you want to buy any one of the available tickets, I think we've got, I think they mentioned this, that there are some premium seats, I guess.
	And we do have some stuff for our elite members, which we'll get to later.
	But, you know, there you go.
	Timcast.com and DCComedyloft.com in the event section somewhere.
	There it is.
	Yeah, if you go to event, special event, July 26th to August 9th.
	And we're probably going to do a bunch of them here because the goal for these shows is for them to be political debates that are fun, funny, and entertaining.
	So obviously we asked Alex Stein to come and co-host so he can bring the levity.
	But the funny thing is the first one we did live, he was actually trying to calm everyone else down.
	He was like, these guys are crazy.
	But we were laughing and having a good time.
	All right, Janet Walter says, I strike my previous rant.
	Tickets procured.
	Well, there you go.
	I do think we have like, there's like 200 seats.
	I'm not entirely sure.
	I think it's like 200 seater.
	But we've got flyers coming out soon.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'm not supposed to announce it.
	It's at 3 p.m.
	And the reason it's at 3 p.m.
	is that we expect to have after events of some sort.
	So it's going to be a lot of fun.
	You'll be in DC.
	It'll be 5 p.m.
	We'll wrap up.
	And then we are going to be working with the Timcast Discord server on bringing out the Discord server Talent to actually host the after party and events themselves like Roma Nation, among others.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Spicy Porkskin says Phil Labonte is responsible for the USS Liberty.
	Wait.
	Fact check?
	True.
	What does that mean?
	Does it mean that am I responsible for the Liberty sinking?
	Am I one of the guys that was attacking?
	No, no, no.
	You're responsible for the creation of it.
	Oh, okay.
	See, Phil went back in time.
	That's the guy that built it.
	Perfect.
	Makes sense.
	All right.
	Am True just posted a bunch of 20s because we have the 20 in the background.
	So behind Billy over here, you have that 20.
	You can see.
	So on one side, it's a one, on this side, it's a 20.
	And during the Culture War Live, we give these out.
	So during the debate, if you agree, you hold up the 20.
	And if you disagree, you hold up the 1.
	It's fun.
	Yep.
	All right.
	Bulldog Patriots says you need to make a distinction between illegal and legal immigration.
	People that want to come here should do so legally, and we welcome them.
	Thems keep calling it immigration to confuse and mislead.
	We don't welcome them just carte blanche.
	Like we should be actually selective about who we allow to emigrate to the United States.
	It shouldn't just be, oh, you got here and you dropped your bag on the shores.
	Welcome to the United States.
	That's unacceptable.
	We should be extremely selective because in my opinion, we're the best country in the world.
	We're the place that everyone wants to go to.
	We have the most opportunity of probably anywhere in the world.
	Maybe you can make some arguments about some other places.
	But either way, the people of the United States have the right to say, this is what we expect of people that immigrate here.
	And it's ridiculous to assert otherwise.
	I will also add as an aside, the DC Comedy Off has a full kitchen.
	I'm just looking at it right now and they got garlic truffle fries.
	And I'm like, this is going to be awesome.
	They got chicken wings, Tim.
	That's going to be great.
	I should actually have them make me some and I'll put them on the table during the show and be like dipping a barbecue buffalo all over my hands.
	Bring a big old thing of wet wipes.
	Sweet chili Brussels sprouts?
	Dude, I'm excited for this event.
	Excited for dinner.
	That's true.
	All right, let's go.
	Let's go.
	GG Willow says, Chad GPD says, no, this doesn't qualify as sedition.
	Don't care.
	All right, let's do this.
	The definition of sedition.
	Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
	So when a guy says that we are going to defy the federal laws of this country and obstruct its law enforcement, I think that qualifies.
	I don't think any prosecutor would bring that case.
	Yeah, because they're cowards, though.
	You know what I mean?
	Incitement or resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
	Wow.
	That's the Merriam-Webster definition of insurrection.
	That literally qualifies.
	I think you would have a case maybe if you found him like literally hiding people in his house.
	But that's – I don't think that's what he – Let's see.
	Wex law.
	Where's the actual?
	okay, that's not the law.
	Treason and sedition.
	Seditious, if two or more persons in any state or territory, in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.
	So literally, it is legal sedition.
	I interpret his comments as, you know, a lot of people, you know, like the idea of a sanctuary city, and people have strong thoughts on sanctuary cities.
	But a politician Declaring a city a sanctuary city is not a crime.
	And local governments are not required to enforce federal immigration law.
	So that's what I'm saying.
	Like, if you are picturing him showing up to an ISA at a sting or something and like blocking them from entering, or if he's like hiding them in his car, that would be one thing.
	You want to read that line for me?
	What does that say?
	Delay the execution of any law of the United States.
	I promise you, no prosecute would bring this case.
	That's not the argument.
	You said it wasn't sedition.
	It is sedition, by definition.
	That's it.
	It's a fact statement.
	Is your objection about how likely it is or about the actual application of the law?
	Or delay the execution of any law.
	I mean, the Supreme Court has already confirmed that local authorities don't have to execute federal immigration law.
	I think you're intentionally changing the argument because you've lost it.
	What am I changing?
	The argument is that he stated he will stop them from removing our families and protect illegal immigrants in New York City, the implication of which is he will intentionally, through the structures of New York City, delay the execution or stop by force or prevent or oppose the force.
	Literally, how about this?
	Here's this line.
	Read that one.
	I'm just saying that there's a distinction between two different types of conduct.
	So I'm saying I agree with you that if he literally uses his body or is hiding immigrants in his house or something, then yes, that would be a crime.
	What I'm saying is not a crime is declining to cooperate with ICE when they're doing these things, which a lot of local politicians do and they get criticized for it.
	But it's not a crime.
	Okay, so let's try this.
	If two or more persons in any state or territory or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States cut all the commas out, delay the execution of any law of the United States, we can just say that.
	And when this dude and his administration does make an attempt to delay at bare minimum the laws of the United States, it's sedition.
	It's not more than 20 years.
	So it could be one year.
	You could be fined.
	They don't give a number on what you'd be fined.
	But yeah, that's sedition.
	This is the issue I take with a lot of people.
	They always say treason because the penalty for treason is like 10 years in prison or death.
	And it's like, no, no, no.
	Sedition is very broad.
	It just basically means like you're opposing the authority of the U.S. government.
	It's not like you get the death penalty for sedition.
	The maximum of government power aren't you, I think of you as someone who is skeptical of government power.
	What does that mean?
	Skeptical of government using or weaponizing its powers in ways that are very vague and broad.
	Is that not something that bothers you?
	Like, I need something more concrete than he delayed the execution of.
	What does that even mean?
	Who cares?
	It's the law.
	1956, 1948, 1994.
	So if you have a problem with the codification of law, then the argument is change the law, I guess.
	Well, I'm not.
	But for the time being, when the Democrats tried to imprison Donald Trump's lawyers and claims because his lawyers are criminals, when they raided his home because he had a bunch of old boxes of presidential briefings that they claimed was him stealing confidential information, when they falsely accused him of rape, when they falsely accuse him of fraud, I just wonder why you don't see the red line having already been crossed.
	Oh, see, but I did cover the New York case.
	I thought it was atrocious.
	I thought it was a pure example of overcriminalization.
	I thought it was a ridiculous case.
	I'm promising you that.
	Are we going to sit back and just say the Democrats and their entrenched establishment affiliates, like billionaires, super packs, et cetera?
	We will do literal nothing with them allowing 10 plus million people to cross the border and falsely levying charges against American citizens, hunting them down across the country, and unconstitutionally targeting the frontrunner for the Republican Party.
	Like the things that they did in the past four years were beyond sedition.
	It is the utmost of extreme degrees of sedition.
	And nothing so far has been done.
	Cash has released some information so far.
	I look forward to seeing what happens.
	But is the argument that we should just let them do it?
	Or should we charge them?
	Let them do what?
	Like, should anybody go to prison for criminally charging Trump's lawyers under RICO?
	Should they go to prison for that?
	I mean, malicious prosecution.
	It's an important point.
	Prosecutors overcharge people all of the time.
	We're not talking about overcharging.
	We're talking about a political organization trying to win the presidency, arresting Donald Trump's lawyers under trumped-up RICO charges so that they would disperse, they would disassociate from his campaign, hindering his ability to win, and he won the popular vote.
	I think they should go to prison for that.
	I don't think there's a criminal law you could prosecute them under, and I'm against lawfare no matter what party, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat.
	I mean, I don't think we should be bringing ideologically motivated charges, even if their conduct was insane.
	And I will say, I have written my career about how prosecutors are often corrupt and bring crazy characters.
	So now that we both agree the Democrats shouldn't have done that, what's the penalty for them having done that?
	I mean, unfortunately, it's very hard to hold government agents accountable.
	So you don't care that they did it.
	You think there's no remedy at all?
	What's the remedy?
	I told you that I thought the case in New York was totally bull.
	What's the remedy?
	For a prosecutor bringing a bull case, there are a lot of people who've had that happen to them, and there is no remedy.
	So you think it's bull?
	So your assessment of situation is, wow, I can't believe they did that evil thing?
	I've written mine.
	I wrote a long feature a few years ago about absolute immunity and how it puts prosecutors above the law and how that's a travesty of justice.
	So what I find fascinating is, ooh, let's talk about Iron Heart.
	Iron Heart just came out.
	And actually, I don't think it's that bad.
	I don't think it's that bad, actually.
	Let's see you tie this together.
	Well, okay, so the bad guys in the Iron Heart show.
	As far as I know, it's the new Disney Marvel show.
	The bad guys, their ultimate plan for stealing money, you're going to love this.
	They just point guns at rich people and say, sign a contract that gives me money.
	So it's not even like at the level of Mr. Robot where they like hack.
	They do.
	It's dumb.
	But it seems completely immaterial.
	They have like a drag queen do the hacking of the frame.
	And then the bad guy can become invisible.
	And then he appears in front of a woman and he goes, sign this contract that gives me money.
	And she goes, oh, you got me.
	And she signs it.
	As if the stroke of the pen actually like makes something happen.
	Well, I think you agree with that.
	You believe that the world is constricted by the strokes of pens, and that the argument is Democrats violated the Constitution, violated the rights of American citizens, tried to steal the presidency, but there's nothing written down by pen that allows us to do anything about it.
	So we do nothing.
	I mean, if you're really upset with their behavior, you don't vote them back into office.
	So the argument is...
	You would like to see them go to prison?
	Most of them, yeah.
	Some of them can get fines.
	Some of them can get some type of like censure.
	And what is the criminal charge?
	Oof, man.
	I suppose we'd go with sedition.
	We could argue that the frontrunner for the presidency of a major political party being falsely charged by these individuals was an attempt to overthrow the United States, which it literally says conspire to overthrow.
	I mean, he was convicted by a jury.
	I would make, well, if we're talking about the fraud case or the civil case.
	I'm talking about the case in New York City.
	So you're talking about civil fraud.
	Let's talk about the fraud.
	I'm talking about the case, the 34 felony charges about change, the records case.
	Yes, okay.
	So a jury can convict fine, but those charges can't be applied because there were no felonies.
	They're not felonies.
	So this was a case.
	There were felony charges.
	There has to be an underlying.
	No, there has to be an underlying crime for those misdemeanors to be raised to the level of felony, and there was no underlying crime.
	So that is a disagreement about the application of the law.
	And like I said, I thought that that case was, especially for people who claim to care about, let me just finish.
	I'll just get this out real quick.
	People who claim to care about overcriminalization.
	Alvin Bragg ran as a progressive prosecutor caring about.
	I mean, there were bookkeeping offenses.
	But the convictions were still, they were felony counts.
	No, they were miscommunicated.
	There has, for those bookkeeping errors or whatever you want to call them, there has to be an underlying crime to raise them to a level of felony.
	So this is the, The government can't just claim.
	I'm just talking about what was he actually.
	And he was convicted of 34 felony accounts on May 30th.
	So if you agree with that, do you think that they had the right to bring those charges?
	Do I think they have the right to bring those charges?
	I mean, prosecutors operate under what's called prosecutorial discretion.
	Based on the charges, okay, like, bro, you keep trying to obfuscate wishy-wash and avoid the question.
	It is simple.
	They brought 34 felony charges against Trump, okay, based on the charges that they levied.
	Do you think the prosecutor had the right to indict Trump to bring those charges?
	Yes, I do.
	Then I believe, because if we're only talking about who has the willingness to jam their fist off the ass of their opponents, then I can charge anybody the fuck I want with sedition.
	Because the law said that in order for those to be felonies, there must be an underlying crime for which the misdemeanor was committed, which there was not.
	Never filed once.
	And it was only in the court when the judge gave instructions to the jury, he said, make up if you want.
	So technically, under the color of law, the prosecutor had no legal authority whatsoever as the law is written to bring felony charges against Trump.
	They were misdemeanors.
	It was a novel reading of the law that I thought was wrong.
	You are wrong.
	You are flat out wrong.
	The laws by which Donald Trump was charged was that he falsified business records.
	To be a felony, it must be falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime.
	The government has to convict you of that crime first.
	They did not.
	So they brought false felony charges against Trump.
	But if that's where we're at as a country, then fuck all.
	I don't give a shit.
	I'll bring sedition to every motherfucker's doorstep because it doesn't matter.
	It's just who's willing to send the guys with the badges to go make the arrests.
	And I'm down.
	So the underlying felony in the case, the records were falsified to cover up a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.
	But he was never convicted.
	When he was convinced, he was never convicted of those things, though.
	So the government can say, you committed a crime, we don't need to prove it, we don't need a jury, and now we're going to upgrade the charges against you.
	So let me give you an example of how this applies in a different context.
	Something called felony murder.
	Are you familiar with felony murder?
	So you don't actually have to commit murder to be convicted of felony murder.
	You just have to be convicted of something else.
	Felony murder typically means that if you're in the act of committing a crime and someone dies, that you are charged under felony murder.
	Right, so I'm saying you don't have to literally be convicted of murder itself.
	Now read the judge instructions to the jury.
	Oh, I think the judge, I disagree.
	The jury was told to choose whatever underlying crime they thought occurred.
	And the point is that I don't agree with it.
	By all means, you don't, but you believe he had a right to bring those charges.
	And if that is true, then I or anyone else with the legal authority could bring sedition charges and simply tell the jury, you tell me where you think the conspiracy may have happened.
	We don't care.
	Say yes and they're connected.
	I don't think they started it.
	I think that leads to a dangerous place.
	I really do.
	I think they did a bad thing, so I'll do one back.
	I don't like it.
	Who said anything bad?
	Do you think that someone commits a crime, they should be held accountable?
	If there is an applicable criminal law.
	So this is the problem I have with your moral worldview.
	They have clearly done something wrong.
	It's unquestionable.
	They arrested.
	Some people would question it.
	No, it's unquestionable.
	And anybody's questioning is lying.
	Like Jenna Ellis getting charged twice under RICO for simply drafting a legal letter at the behest of a client is not a crime.
	I'm talking about a different case now.
	That's a different case.
	Indeed.
	So let's talk about this.
	They criminally charged Jenna Ellis under RICO, two counts, because Trump requested that she draft a letter to challenge an election.
	Is that a crime?
	To be honest, I wasn't as familiar with RICO.
	The answer is no, it's not.
	But they argued because the letter was part of Trump's illegal plot to overthrow the election, by simply being a lawyer, filing a letter for a client, you are now party to a conspiracy.
	So they charge you with two counts of RICO.
	And we all know how the prosecution works.
	She pleaded guilty and cried on TV.
	And I think it was pathetic after raising hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	That is unconstitutional.
	You have a right to lawyers in this country.
	Do you not?
	Of course you do.
	So When Trump hired a lawyer and they criminally charged his lawyers in Georgia and Wisconsin, what they were doing is unconstitutional and, I would argue, seditious.
	An attempt to steal the power of the United States presidency by going after Trump's lawyers, he is constitutionally and legally has a right to have.
	I'm not super familiar with the Rico case, but I will just keep reiterating that prosecutors make egregious charging decisions all the time.
	And if there is something that we can agree on, it's that I hope people care about this all the time and not when they're just public figures.
	A lot of these stories never make it.
	And this is what I spent a lot of my career covering.
	A lot of these cases where people are charged with ridiculous crimes or overcharged in an attempt often to make them plead guilty, to scare them into pleading guilty because they say, okay, I can either go to prison for 25 years or I can take the guilty plea for five years.
	No, I'm innocent of this crime, but I don't want to gamble 20 years of my life away.
	I mean, these are problems that I really think Republicans, Democrats, everyone can come together and say that that's something I'm comfortable with.
	What your argument is, we know they do it, but so what?
	So what?
	What is writing going to do?
	I mean, I'm trying to bring awareness to it.
	But you don't want law enforcement against it.
	I don't think the only...
	So if someone murders someone, charging the murderer is retaliatory?
	No, of course I want to charge murderers with murder.
	So when someone commits, engages in a conspiracy to try and overthrow the U.S. government, charging them in any way is retaliatory?
	The problem is a lot of people would disagree with your assistant.
	I don't care who agrees or disagrees.
	They did it.
	Well.
	Why was Joe Biden not criminally charged on the documents and Trump was?
	I can actually answer that.
	I read the report from Robert Hurr, and he said because he didn't think a jury would convict because Biden comes across as a senile old man.
	And that is a decision.
	I mean, prosecutors make decisions all the time.
	And if they look at a case and they say they have enormous discretion, and if they look at a case and say no jury will convict on this, they usually don't bring the case because government resources are scrapped.
	I'm not.
	So is there an issue then when we see like, I don't know, Enrique Tario getting 20 years in prison?
	wrote about that.
	Well, these are different prosecutors doing different things, but I will, I mean, it's like a lot of prosecutors have this in common, and as for low-level offenses, for medium-lollow offenses.
	Only one director.
	Low-level offenses, that's not true.
	It happens all across the country.
	Can you name an Antifa individual who got 20 years in prison?
	There are a bunch of people that are prosecuted in New York, a couple under terrorism charges, actually.
	Yeah, how many years did the Maltov cocktail lawyers get?
	I do not exactly.
	I cannot tell you the exact prison sentence.
	He got a slap on the wrist.
	I wrote about the tarot case because he was offered, I think, a 12-year plea bargain.
	And then he was punished for going to trial.
	And no matter what you think about him, that's wrong.
	And I think everyone should think that's wrong.
	I don't care which defendant it is, it's wrong.
	When you look at the Donald Trump, what they did to him and his lawyers, they arrested him, falsely charged him.
	Is your argument we can't do anything about what has happened?
	My argument is that they didn't commit a crime by bringing a flimsy— You would not be bringing...
	Well, I mean, because like I said, I don't think we started it as a good currency past a certain age.
	So your argument is surrender.
	It's not surrendering.
	It's principles.
	Do you think they're going to stop doing it?
	Do you think the people who tried to imprison Trump's lawyers have completely stopped their efforts to use any means necessary to stop their political opponents?
	Do you think they went, dread?
	We tried arresting him and his lawyers.
	It didn't work.
	I guess we'll give up.
	Or do you think in the next several years, they're going to keep going about those strategies?
	I mean, I think especially in the Georgia case was, you know, according to legal analysts, the strongest criminal case against Trump specifically.
	I don't know how strong particularly it was against his attorneys, but no, there is nothing that can be done to prosecute a prosecutor for prosecuting a case that you didn't like.
	Let's do this.
	Let's compromise.
	I say the DOJ should start arresting the lawyers for any Democrat.
	And it's not retaliatory.
	It's just precedent, right?
	It is the way law operates.
	No, I mean...
	What's your argument?
	No, my argument is that lawfare is bad no matter what it is.
	I don't know what to do about Democrats engaging in law fairly.
	Vote Alvin Bragg out of office.
	He's not a pro we're talking about multiple states.
	We're talking about the New York case, which is the one I'm familiar with and I covered.
	And you think it was actually conducted?
	I think there's a big chance he'll lose.
	Maybe not because of that, but because I don't know that he's a very popular prosecutor overall.
	Do you know what forum shopping is?
	I'm not familiar with the term.
	So when people bring lawsuits or criminal charges, they intentionally choose jurisdictions where they know the jury will favor them politically.
	Everyone engaging in any lawsuit, the first question asked by your lawyer is going to be a venue.
	So when we are watching Democrat jurisdictions bring charges against Republican lawyers, should we just sit back as they keep doing it?
	They're going to keep doing it.
	They are doing it.
	What should we do?
	Nothing?
	I mean, I think the prosecutions that were about recently against Trump were very specific.
	And I have not seen, I'm saying it was a specific scenario.
	Do you see anyone getting prosecuted right now that this applies to?
	I'm talking about his lawyers because I said we'll agree to go you want to make an argument about Trump?
	Let's set that aside.
	When they arrested his lawyers in Wisconsin and Atlanta, Democrats did that.
	That's just the way the law works.
	Prosecutors can do it.
	Why would it be considered retaliation if the DOJ or any other Republican state started bringing charges against Democrat political lawyers?
	That's just the way the law works.
	You agree, right?
	I'm saying I don't like that because I don't like lawfare applied to anyone.
	Okay, and I'm not going to relinquish that principle just when I might like or dislike someone more.
	The question you have not answered after 20 minutes of me asking is Democrats are doing it.
	What is your remedy if they should not?
	I cannot give you a remedy that will satisfy you.
	I mean, the stuff I've written about with...
	Give me anything.
	I don't care about being satisfied.
	If prosecutors legitimately violate the Constitution, I think you should be able to sue them.
	And I've written about that for years.
	Right now, absolute immunity allows prosecutors to get away with coercing witnesses, knowingly introducing false testimony, hiding evidence that is exculpatory for the defense, which means some evidence that might help them.
	The Supreme Court has said that you cannot bring any sort of civil suit against them when that happens.
	And I think that's egregious because if someone who has the most, the prosecutor is arguably the most powerful politician.
	Let's slow down.
	We're going to go to the uncensored show, which real quick, so is to clarify, with the prosecutors who are in protected liberal jurisdictions intentionally where they won't be voted out, who arrested Trump's lawyers, the remedy would be for someone who has standing to sue those prosecutors and seek remedy through a superior court.
	This is my position.
	If someone breaks the law, they should be arrested and held accountable.
	If someone violates the Constitution, you should be able to sue them.
	That's my position.
	You said prosecutors are allowed to do this.
	It's not unconstitutional.
	No, I'm saying absolute immunity protects them when they do violate the Constitution.
	They have absolute immunity.
	Is it violating the Constitution to accuse Trump's lawyers of a crime?
	No.
	Okay.
	Is it violating the law in any way to indict Trump's lawyers or Republican lawyers?
	Does it violate the law to indict someone?
	It does not violate the law to indict someone.
	Should Democrat prosecutors be targeting Republican politician lawyers?
	No.
	I don't think they're in the case of the law.
	What is the remedy to stop someone from doing something they should not be doing if it doesn't violate the law and it doesn't violate the Constitution?
	You're welcome to arrest someone if they've actually broken the law.
	I'll just ask you what the remedy is.
	I'd ask you to arrest them.
	I'm telling you the remedy for breaking the law is being arrested and violating the Constitution.
	I think you should be able to sue them.
	That's my answer.
	So I asked you.
	I've answered it several times.
	You just don't like my answer.
	No, you didn't answer.
	I'm trying to ask you again.
	It is not illegal to charge Trump's lawyers, correct?
	If they committed a crime, it is not illegal to charge them.
	Okay, so let's pause.
	I am no longer, and this is not about whether a prosecutor broke the law.
	So set that aside because that's what you were answering, and we're not talking about that.
	Is it unconstitutional for a prosecutor to charge a politician's lawyer?
	No.
	So we were no longer in the realm of unconstitutional or illegal.
	Just plain immoral, yes?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	What is the remedy for when prosecutors in liberal jurisdictions are committing immoral actions against their political opponents' lawyers?
	Unfortunately, a lot of government employees act immorally and there isn't a lot you can do.
	So there is no remedy.
	We're going to keep coming back to this.
	If someone didn't violate the Constitution and didn't violate the law, unfortunately for the little guy, there isn't that much you can do.
	So my argument would be, if this is not illegal, it is not unconstitutional, and it is only questionably immoral to some people, then you should have absolutely no problem with me arresting their lawyers.
	Do you think it's immoral?
	I think it should be completely illegal.
	I would argue it's conspiracy to overthrow the government.
	Do you think it's immoral?
	I think it's immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional.
	And you shouldn't be doing it too.
	I think that when we are targeting someone who broke the law, we are not retaliating.
	We are upholding justice.
	Well, that's the question that we're talking here is we've already established they didn't break the law.
	Agreed.
	And if they're not doing anything functionally wrong through government, why do you have a problem with me arresting them?
	Because I think principles don't mean anything if you don't apply them consistently.
	It is consistent.
	You guys are targeting your political opponents.
	I'm not one of them.
	I'm not saying you.
	I'm saying to these people, they are targeting their political opponents.
	And I say, okay, they should be arrested.
	That's a crime.
	I interpret what they do as a crime the same way they interpret what Jenna L says as a crime.
	Nothing's illegal, immoral, or unconstitutional.
	So we charge them.
	I mean, the crime.
	You are trying so hard to defend what they did.
	It's insane.
	No, I'm defending.
	Just say this.
	Democrats and Republicans are allowed to arrest each other's lawyers.
	That's your standard.
	That's fine.
	I don't understand why your standard is Democrats can arrest Republicans.
	Republicans can't arrest Democrats.
	That's not my belief.
	Okay, then they're allowed to arrest each other.
	Yes?
	If they broke the law.
	Yes, and they can interpret as they see fit if the law was broken.
	The law is not a magical social construct.
	If one of them broke the law, you can bring them in front of a grand jury and see if they'll indict them.
	Agreed.
	So I don't know why you keep arguing against Republicans charging them for doing it.
	They're allowed to.
	It's not immoral.
	It's not unconstitutional.
	It's not illegal.
	We just established that it is immoral for our own.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	It's immoral to unjustly trump up charges against someone.
	It is not immoral to criminally charge someone for what you interpret to be a crime.
	So if what they did to them, they interpret as legal, I can interpret my actions against them all the same because they're being charged for a crime.
	You would need to speak to a prosecutor because they're the people who actually understand the confines of the criminal statutes.
	But, I mean, it would have to fit into a criminal statute.
	And I agree with you that if they violated one, you can arrest someone for breaking the law.
	I support these people accountable.
	The issue that I take is that the whole conversation, your position is Democrats did it, and it's too bad they did, and Republicans can't do anything about it.
	I told you I'm not familiar enough with the Rico case.
	A lot of people, a lot of analysts.
	Talking about everything that happened.
	Including the case specifically.
	Well, you keep talking about the Rico case.
	You're talking about his lawyers.
	A lot of people, including conservative legal analysts, have said that the Florida and Georgia cases were the strongest against him specifically.
	I agree.
	Totally plausible to me that his lawyers were either unfairly charged or overcharged so that they would take a plea and turn on him.
	When it comes to arresting someone for like bringing the New York case, that in my opinion was total crap and they had to contort the law to bring the case, I think that's wrong.
	But it is not a violation of the law for a prosecutor to make a really bad charging decision.
	They do that all the time.
	So I don't understand why you're saying we can't charge Bragg.
	Because I disagree no matter who it's being done to.
	I disagree when a crazy case is brought against Trump in New York.
	And I disagree.
	So they keep doing it, and we can't do anything about it.
	I mean, someone should take the high road, I think.
	So you'll stand there and get beaten to death.
	You'll end up in prison.
	Your friends and family will be in jail.
	And you say, but I took the high road the whole time.
	Did Trump go to prison?
	He got arrested.
	He ended up winning.
	Actually, they only suspended the case because the case is still waiting for judgment.
	Right.
	But what I'm saying is I am not yet confident that we are at a place where people are just like Republicans are being thrown in prison or Democrats are being thrown in prison right and left.
	You know, if we want to talk about like the January 6th thing, do I think there were some overcharging decisions?
	Some.
	I think there were some overcharging decisions, yes.
	And even after the Supreme Court said you can't use the obstruction charge, they refused to let people go.
	Additionally, I agree with that decision, by the way.
	One of the opinions was written by Jackson.
	And there were numerous individuals who were denied access to evidence.
	So the government was under the Biden DOJ withholding evidence that was exculpatory.
	These are all evil.
	These are all evil deeds.
	I don't disagree with you that prosecutors often act very, in very evil and unsavory ways.
	And there's no remedy, so I guess we're just screwed.
	We got to go to the uncensored show.
	So my publishing.
	Smash the like button.
	Share the show with everyone you know.
	We're going to go to the uncensored show, where we'll continue the conversation and take your calls.
	You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
	Billy, do you want to shout anything out?
	I am at X Instagram, Billy Binion.
	That is my real name.
	Sounds like a comic book character I know.
	And then at Reason Magazine, right on.
	You can send me validation on Instagram at MaryArchived, or you can send me hate on X. That is also MaryArchived.
	And help me get TikTok famous.
	That is also MaryArchived.
	And go subscribe to Pop Culture Crisis.
	We go live every Monday through Friday at 3 p.m.
	Eastern.
	We're also on Rumble, so go follow us there.
	I am Phil That Remains on Twix.
	I'm Phil That Remains official on Instagram.
	The band is all that remains.
	Our new record is entitled Anti-Fragile.
	It's available on YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, and Deezer.
	Do not forget the left lane is for crime.
	We will see you all at rumble.com/slash Timcast IRL.
	Rumble.com/slash Timcast IRL in about 30 seconds.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	Bye.
	Thank you.
	So here's an interesting secret.
	It's not really a secret.
	Most people don't know this about YouTube.
	YouTube is not profitable.
	It is operating in the red and it has forever.
	Google pumps money into it like crazy to create the dominant video platform.
	But if there was ever an antitrust suit against Google and YouTube, YouTube would cease to exist in two seconds.
	Something doesn't make sense about how YouTube operates.
	So for instance, we were doing live streams on Timcast.com for a while.
	We're now, of course, on Rumble.
	And we had to pay.
	We first used Vimeo, and we had to pay for the bandwidth for everybody who watched our Vimeo videos.
	And then Vimeo canceled our account overnight abruptly.
	And they said, you have generated so much traffic that we owed like 50 grand or something in a week, like some insane number.
	And they were like, this is not part of your plan?
	Because what we had was, we had a pro plan that was like three grand a month for up for, you know, professional, you know, video access, blah, blah, blah.
	And then once we started getting like 10,000 views per video, just 10,000.
	It's members only, right?
	It's not YouTube.
	They said, understand, you uploaded a 30-minute long video at 1080p.
	So you're going to be hitting something like two megabits per second with 10,000 people watching for 20 minutes do the math.
	And that's how much it costs us to run your small videos.
	And we were like, holy shit, how do we do this?
	So we actually ended up doing a deal with Rumble, and we paid Rumble a percentage based on Rumble Cloud based on hosting our videos.
	And it's ridiculously expensive.
	Part of the deal that we have with Rumble now is we are just on Rumble's front-facing members-only platform.
	So it's just a part of their business model.
	Something doesn't make sense with YouTube, the way they prop up certain channels, the idea that Mr. Beast gets 500 million views, he gets more views on the video he puts up than the population of the United States of America.
	It seems weird.
	And so what I think's happened is people have asked me about Rumble's, their views.
	Rumble was investigated by the SEC and cleared.
	Their views were all found to be legitimate, normal views.
	They use Google Analytics, which is used by the majority of websites that track traffic.
	We use it for Timcast.com.
	The outlier is actually YouTube, not Rumble.
	So people are like, how come there's like, it's, so let me explain this.
	There's something called the 1% Rogue Infant that is.
	No.
	1% of all internet users make all the comments, all the content, all the chats, all the donations.
	So theoretically, if you've got 40,000 live viewers like we do now, there should be 400 people in our chat.
	But on YouTube, for some reason, we have thousands upon thousands of chats flying.
	Many of the messages are just copy-pasted.
	We have to moderate it out.
	Like bot kind of activity?
	well, you could call it bots.
	What I think is when we were investigating all this, and I'm looking at Kik, I'm looking at Twitch and these other platforms and Instagram.
	Look at X. How many concurrent views do you get on X with millions of followers?
	It's following the 1% rule.
	Instagram, 1% rule.
	Rumble, 1% rule.
	YouTube, the outlier.
	Following the 79%.
	YouTube's way bigger.
	Like 15 to 20% of the people engaging in the contents are actively producing, replying, engaging.
	That defies all the metrics across all the platforms.
	So I don't know.
	But you're not saying they're bots.
	I don't know.
	I'm just saying people look at Rumble and they're like, so the Green Room podcast, we get between 20 and sometimes 100,000 outliers, 1,000 views.
	But the comments, there's like 10 to 15.
	And the question is, how does that make sense?
	Rumble puts it on the front page.
	And as a website, people go on the front page, they click it.
	You're probably not getting as high of engagement.
	The bounce rate might be higher than average.
	And the same thing is true for the morning Teamcast Morning Show Teamcast IRL.
	But this is the same thing as what Twitch and Kik does when, or YouTube does this too.
	Like Pat McAfee is featured on the front page of the live platform.
	My whole point before I'm going to talk about the India story and then we'll go to callers is that people have become used to what YouTube is providing because they were the first and seemingly the most successful.
	When new platforms start emerging, like Spotify, for instance, whose stock is trading at 750, yo, Timcast IRL does like 30,000 downloads on Spotify.
	And we're a top podcast.
	Something on YouTube does not make sense because when we map out all the other platforms, Apple, Spotify, Rumble, Twitch, Kik, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube is the one in the weird place for all of the companies we've looked at.
	It's always YouTube standing out from every other platform.
	And we're just thinking like, how does that make sense?
	Final thoughts on this.
	If Google stopped putting money into YouTube, YouTube would go out of business overnight.
	Yeah.
	It's been like that for a while, hasn't it?
	Yep.
	Always.
	Always been the case.
	There's an antitrust argument that YouTube should not exist and it's unfair competition.
	They've combined ad agencies with ad delivery, with like so an ad agency for sellers, an ad agency for buyers, advertising distribution for networks, as well as memory storage.
	They've combined all of these things into one space.
	And then Google, through how they're making all this money, keeps putting money every year into it to keep it alive, even though it doesn't make sense and shouldn't exist.
	The amount of views that we get based on our total concurrent viewership, we should be costing YouTube millions of dollars per year.
	And we probably are.
	Something doesn't make sense.
	So I don't know.
	I've basically given up and just resigned myself to no one really knows for sure.
	So it is what it is.
	Now, anyway, to India, uncensored.
	Yo, you want to hear a fucked up story?
	Go.
	There was a woman who was getting gang raped on a bus and she fought back.
	And so the men pinned her down and forcefully entered her orifices and pulled her organs out.
	Did you witness this?
	No, no, no.
	It was a viral story.
	When was that?
	And then the men got lynched and beaten to death later on.
	At least it's got a happy ending.
	Several years ago.
	So apparently, like, they broke off a bar in the bus and used that to pry open the woman's ass and then reached in and started just shredding her insides and pulling her guts out of her ass.
	You know what Tana was in?
	No.
	I don't know.
	Maybe.
	Yeah, I'm a xenophobe.
	Yeah, anyway, let's bring in Joey Cannoli.
	Hey, what's going on, huh?
	Joey Cannoli.
	Hey, Joey Cannoli, what you doing, huh?
	Hey, what's up, man?
	It's Joey Cannoli here.
	Hey.
	How you doing?
	Come on.
	I've been thinking about this Democratic primary for mayor in New York.
	So being that I live in New York and I see all the local commercials, I had noticed that a lot of the local commercials, I'd say 85% of them, were anti-Zonar.
	I don't know if I say his name right.
	That's bad since he's running for mayor of my city.
	But I noticed a lot of the ads were anti-him.
	And considering the left tore down Andrew Cuomo themselves when they wanted to get him out of there, I was just, this made me think of this question.
	So you have brought up leaving cities, and I agree that there's a line, but I've also noticed that conservatives and people on the right in general tend to retreat.
	They retreat from sports, Hollywood, the arts, and other things embedded in culture.
	As they retreat, the left then monopolizes it and capitalizes on it and uses it to push the culture in the way that they want.
	I see this happening with the New York mayoral election.
	There is such an opportunity for the Republicans to put some sort of resources in this race and sneak in through the back door and win a split vote.
	Since you could have Eric Adams going against the Democratic nominee whose name I keep butchering.
	So I believe there's such an opportunity to come in through the back door.
	You'll need a such smaller percentage than you normally would.
	With that said, do you think the conservatives should continue to retreat out of big cities and let the Democrats take over?
	Or should the conservatives stay and try to fight to fix major cities?
	I think they should retreat.
	Is it just a lost cause?
	It's not a lost cause.
	I think they should retreat for several reasons.
	First, you are correct that they retreat too often.
	However, in this regard, sometimes you do need to retreat to regroup your forces in this figurative sense.
	If conservatives move to areas where they can actually concentrate their political power, you will get moderate default libs leaving these cities as well.
	And they're going to move into areas where they might potentially dilute Republican votes.
	But if Republicans go first, they're less likely to because now for every one Republican, one Democrat comes in, the mix will stay largely the same.
	And that will actually take power from the cities.
	Cities, and currently, with places like New York, if Donald Trump can enact his mass deportation, you will strip away the Democrats' illegal Electoral College vote and congressional seats, severely reducing their power back to where it's supposed to be.
	And then we would have a Republican supermajority for the next 40 Years until Democrats either collapse, which they probably will very soon because they're the oldest political party in the world, or they will restructure themselves as a more moderate, right-leaning party.
	But won't they just count illegals and dead people anyway to make up the difference?
	Right.
	So, this is what they do already.
	So, illegal immigrants in California give them upwards of 10 extra congressional seats.
	I think the lower estimates are like between three to five.
	If Trump goes in and deports them all, they're going to lose in the next census.
	The estimate right now is if Trump were to deport all illegal immigrants, it would be a 25-seat swing in favor of the Republicans in Congress and the Electoral College, making it impossible for Democrats to win unless they turn their party into like moderate Republicans.
	So, so long as Trump can carry out his agenda and actually get that done, we don't got shit to worry about.
	I'm asking, I'm genuinely curious, where do you get that data that it would swing that far towards Republicans?
	Heritage Foundation, Center for Immigration Studies are two examples.
	So, New York, California, Oregon, Washington, these sanctuary states.
	California has an estimated on the low end, like it could be three congressional seats because congressional apportionment includes illegal immigrants.
	That's why they're a sanctuary state.
	So, they got 52 congressional seats.
	Some say upwards of 10 based on how many illegal immigrants they think they have, which is like, you're saying they have 7 million, 8 million illegal immigrants in California.
	That seems like a high number.
	So it could be five.
	But the high-end estimate nationally is that if all illegal immigrants were deported, that would take, that would reapportion about 12 seats from blue states to red states, creating a projected 25, 24 seat swing in Republicans' favor.
	Interesting.
	Yep.
	I do wonder if we can get Scott Pressler and Charlie Kirk maybe to put some resources because I don't have faith in the GOP doing any of that.
	But Scott Pressler, I feel like there's an opportunity here.
	Like, you know, damn well, if this was Republicans having a split vote with the one running as an independent and somebody else running as a Republican, the Democrats would pump hella resources in there to try to win.
	They did it with Biden.
	All the moderates dropped out and endorsed Biden.
	Cernovich made a good point.
	So I'm rethinking my opinion from last night where I said, let maybe have their bottle.
	Cernovich said, as we know, it can always get worse, infinitely worse.
	So you must never cede ground no matter what.
	And so, okay.
	You know, I'll take it.
	I mean, we had Giuliani just like 25 years ago.
	So it's not like it's impossible for a Republican to win New York.
	But look what it took to get Giuliani.
	The 70s and the, and, you know, some of the 80s, the murder rate in New York was through the roof.
	Like the entire Times Square was just a den of iniquities and stuff.
	It was a horrible place.
	Well, but to the, to what we were talking about earlier, there is a chance, I think, that if this guy is elected and it's a disaster, that people reevaluate just like they're doing in Chicago.
	Brandon Johnson's, you mentioned this, his approval ratings are like shockingly bad.
	He'll win re-election if he runs.
	You really think so?
	I mean, Chessa Bougine was ousted in San Francisco, the prosecutor.
	I do think London breed as well.
	Did you look at the racial?
	I'll just put it this way.
	When Brandon Johnson won, I took two maps, the vote, the electoral map, and neighborhoods by race, one for one.
	In the black neighborhoods of Chicago, I didn't even recognize the names.
	Brandon Johnson was like second or third, and the woman, whatever her name was.
	Lori Lightfoot.
	Lori Lightfoot, there you go.
	Was actually in the front running often times.
	But there were names I never heard of.
	I'm like, how is the third place guy who got 50,000 votes in this neighborhood, a guy no one's ever heard of?
	He was black.
	In the Latino neighborhood, they voted for the Latino guy.
	In the white neighborhoods, they voted for the white guy.
	There was only one neighborhood that deviated and voted for Johnson despite being white.
	And do you know what that neighborhood was?
	I don't.
	You probably don't know the Chicago neighborhoods, but guess what was unique about this one neighborhood?
	That it was white.
	That's technically correct, but there's another really easy answer.
	You didn't vote for the white guy.
	It was a white neighborhood that voted for the black guy.
	Oh, I already made the assumption.
	That's why I said they were wealthy.
	They are, but that's only ancillary.
	There's actually a really obvious indicator.
	Everybody's racist except for white people.
	It was Loyal University.
	It was where the university was.
	The white young university students voted for the black guy.
	It was the only racial deviation.
	So when I say Johnson could still win, it depends on who's running.
	But if you run a white guy, if the race comes down to a frontrunner white guy and Brandon Johnson is a black guy, every black neighborhood votes Johnson.
	Doesn't matter.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm glad they ousted Lori Lightfoot.
	I just hope maybe one day they'll learn that lesson.
	Like London Reed lost in San Francisco.
	That gives me hope.
	You know, there was such a backlash in San Francisco to the excesses of progressivism.
	If you think people need to learn the lesson of Egypt, which they won't, and that is the reason the Muslim Brotherhood won twice after the revolution, the first revolution they won, second revolution they won, is because you have all of these different ideological groups.
	And in a first-past-the-post voting system, the Muslim Brotherhood being the largest demographic with around 19%, every time you have an election, they have more votes than everybody, despite being an extreme minority.
	The end result of that is, this is fascinating.
	You get a revolution because everybody agrees.
	Mubarak sucks.
	Then they say, let's vote.
	You end up with seven secular political parties all with, we think it should be free market.
	We think it should be socialist.
	We think it should be a mix of the both.
	Muslim Brotherhood says, who cares?
	Vote Muslim.
	It literally doesn't matter.
	We're Muslim.
	So the Muslims said, we'll vote Muslim.
	They got 90% of the vote, more than any other party.
	Morsi wins.
	I think it was Morsi.
	So another revolution happens a year later, because once again, 81% of the country said, fuck this.
	We don't like this guy.
	Revolution.
	So they say, we're going to have another election.
	Guess what?
	Muslims win.
	So the military figured it out.
	And you know what they did?
	Any guesses?
	They just decided to start shooting and murdering as many Muslims as they could.
	Sick.
	So they went to Nasser City with machine guns and started mowing down the Muslims who won the election because they were like, you motherfuckers keep winning, and nobody wants you to, but you're the biggest political party.
	So they started just spraying them down.
	And then the military took over and said, we're in charge now because this isn't working.
	Same thing's going to happen in the United States to us.
	And I don't mean like mowing down people with guns, but Brandon Johnson will keep winning.
	He will keep winning because the black community will only ever vote for a black guy.
	And then you're going to end up with the woke only ever voting for woke guys.
	And the white suburban areas will start fleeing, which is going to result in it lopsiding and favoring Brandon Johnson again.
	The people who give him a bad rating are going to leave.
	Johnson's going to come in and say, I never did anything wrong.
	It was the white supremacists who fled the city who were causing the problems.
	And now that they're gone, vote for me and we can have a real revolution.
	I will.
	I mean, we did talk about this earlier, but the black and brown people in New York City went for Andrew Cuomo.
	So I do think it's possible.
	And if it is true in Chicago that they won't deviate, I don't know the data, but if it is true in Chicago that they will not, that the majority of the black community is not going to vote for a new one with a black person, then there can be a black candidate who is not hated by everyone in the city.
	So my point is, if the race was Brandon Johnson versus a white guy, Johnson will win re-election even with 1%.
	Where is the...
	What are you looking for?
	They have a demographic map.
	Make down of New York showing the different races and how they voted.
	I just saw that earlier, didn't you?
	I know.
	Here we go.
	White residents voted for Zoran by five points.
	Let's see.
	Hispanic voted for Zoran by seven points.
	Black voted for Cuomo.
	Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
	By 17.
	Wow.
	Yep.
	Asians voted for Zoran.
	Yep.
	So it's interesting.
	His victory was.
	Was there a black candidate?
	There were many, actually, yeah.
	Adrian Adams.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, Chicago is very different.
	Chicago, everything's race.
	Yeah, Adrian Adams.
	I can't believe he's going to be able to do it.
	I do wonder that even if you, like, a majority of conservatives and Republicans leave these states, there has to be some sort of noted effort on the ground to at least try to throw it out there for people because it really doesn't feel like there's much.
	I mean, we have the New York Young Republicans, but every time I see any type of like videos of them doing something, they're always at like these fancir dinner parties.
	And that really doesn't, nobody relates to that.
	Yo, how did Paperboy Prince lose?
	Policies, housing for all, $2,000 a month universal basic income, spreading love, healthcare for all, love centers, a safer New York, futuristic schools, and homeless jobs guarantee.
	Picking up the garbage.
	Man.
	Probably the clown.
	You get him, paper boys.
	Probably the clown Matt.
	Well, Mr. Canoli, did you want to shout anything out?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Let me quickly shout out my dad, Raymond G. Stanley Jr.
	Love when he's on.
	Come on, Nightcap Later tonight, Raymond.
	And my boss, my son, my young Padawan, Title Today News.
	He is the fastest rising star and second only to me in being entertaining and non-scripted.
	You can find me on our World Live, Nightcap Later, playing some video games tomorrow at 3 p.m.
	Eastern Standard Time.
	Thank you.
	Right on.
	Thanks for calling in.
	And real quick, I pulled up the 1% rule.
	Check this out.
	The 1% rule, 1% of interneters create content, 99 are lurkers.
	Yep.
	And they actually call, they have an additionally the 90-9090-99-1.
	What this actually refers to is 1% of people will build a platform, start a news website.
	9% of people will contribute to that news site, write articles and make videos.
	90% will just lurk and do nothing.
	So something is weird about YouTube.
	Well, the people who believe debt internet theory think that the rule can actually be described as a 0.1% or 0.01% rule.
	I agree.
	And that the rest are bots.
	Considering YouTube has put billions upon billions into a platform that doesn't make money, I question YouTube.
	I mean, I know that companies definitely pay for bots.
	I've noticed this just watching movie trailers lately.
	If you look through the comments, they're all echoing the same exact idea.
	Usually it's saying positive things about the movie, even though the general sentiment of the public isn't positive.
	And then you go to the user, you can look at their channel and the recent comments they've left.
	And, you know, they're only leaving comments on movie trailers from Warner Bros.
	or from Universal or one particular studio.
	And you know, that's not a real person.
	I think all of the internet is fake.
	And the only thing I can tell you is when I go outside, people say, yo, are you Tim Pool?
	Man, I love your show.
	And I'm like, well, I guess someone is.
	That's the only thing that actually matters.
	Well, I mean, the only proof that anyone's actually watching this, because for all I know, literally no one watches.
	Who are you people?
	And it's like Rumble and YouTube are like, just make them think, you know, we don't want them to actually.
	But I go outside and people recognize me, you know?
	Yeah.
	And people are watching.
	No, they are.
	Yeah.
	And that's it.
	I'm like, when it comes to the metrics, when it comes to all the numbers, we have no idea how most anybody is operating and there's dead internet theory and all that stuff.
	But, you know, let's grab Lost and Found.
	Hey, what is up?
	What's up, homie?
	Everybody.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	You're welcome.
	So my question, I'll go ahead and frame it, let you know it's rhetorical first, but it's for your guest tonight.
	Do you think the possible election of Mabdami will result in more violence or less violence?
	And do you think the world you advocate for causes more violence or less violence?
	And to wrap it up, do you not understand that the level of your ignorance on these subjects paired with your political participation is indistinguishable from evil?
	Well, on that note, I mean, I know you said the question was rhetorical.
	Yes, I don't want an answer from you.
	It is rhetorical.
	I just want you to think about it.
	And we will agree to disagree.
	I'm always happy to talk to people who disagree with me.
	I truly mean that.
	So, I mean, we can disagree.
	You just don't understand things like rhetorical.
	Like, I don't want you to talk.
	I listened to you for two hours.
	I promise you.
	Okay, get out of here.
	Get out of here.
	No one wants to listen to you either.
	You can be polite, man.
	Or you can actually ask me.
	I was as polite as I could be.
	Like, improve on that.
	Do you want to ask Phil a question?
	Yeah, you want to swear at me?
	Insult me a little?
	No, no.
	No, I agree with most of your opinions.
	Fair enough.
	They're based in logic and reasoning.
	I will ask you an opinion, like a question that I already know what your answer is going to be.
	Maybe it'll generate some discussion to put some emphasis on like looking at reality outside of things that like, He has a hyper-understanding of the one subject he's talking about.
	He just doesn't understand the wider conversation that's happening or the implications of what he's talking about.
	So my question for Phil would be, is universal enfranchisement a good idea or a nightmarishly bad idea?
	No, universal enfranchisement is not a good idea.
	I don't know that it's the worst idea or whatever, but I don't think that it's a good idea.
	I think that there that I think there should be some kind of some kind of civics test.
	Maybe something like you have to own a business, have kids, be married.
	You have to have some kind of investment in the future of the society that you live in beyond I just live here.
	You got to kill a guy.
	You want in the gang?
	You got to take out one of our enemies.
	That's right.
	You got to go out there or you can own a business, have a kid, or go kill a guy.
	I'm talking about, you know, like when you join a gang, they'll be like, you got to kill an enemy of the gang.
	But our gang's the entirety of the United States.
	So we're going to be like, yo, you got to go cross that southern board and take out a cartel member.
	Here's a rifle.
	What if you had to get beat in by everyone in America?
	You got to get beat in to be a voter.
	All other voters get to beat the shit out of you for one minute.
	Just you got to get.
	So you're saying, what if we did our politics like all of the rest of human politics and all of the rest of human history?
	I might be.
	I might be saying that.
	But legitimately, I do honestly think that we should have universal enfranchisement.
	I think that there should be a bar to being able to vote.
	And that should be that you have some kind of investment in the future of America.
	Not just, oh, I want to vote myself goodies or whatever.
	I liked what you said the other day that you can't vote for five years after moving to a new jurisdiction.
	Yeah.
	If you're in the U.S. and you live in one state, you move to another state, you can't vote for five years.
	If you immigrate to the United States, I'm fine with immigrants not being allowed to vote, but I would also be okay with immigrants having to wait 10 years before they can vote.
	By jurisdiction.
	So if you live in a city and you move to another city, you can't vote in either of those cities for five years.
	But if they're in the same county, you can still vote in the county, state, and federal elections.
	But if you move to a different county, now you can't vote in the city you're in, the city you were in, the county you were in, or the county you are in, but the state you can.
	And then if you move states, you can't vote in anything except for the presidential election.
	Yep.
	And this is all to prevent you from fucking up the new place that you go to.
	Most people leave for a reason other than...
	You can't even vote for president because it's electoral college-based, so you would fuck up the place.
	So no voting for five years.
	I legit think that there are too many people that vote.
	And I blame MTV a lot for this.
	MTV in the 90s with the whole rock the vote thing.
	The idea that, oh, just get out and vote.
	That's super important.
	Well, that was digging.
	Well, I also want to proclaim, Mary, foreigners should never be allowed to vote no matter what, even if they become citizens.
	I don't mind.
	Yes.
	Never.
	Can I object?
	Nope.
	Well, you can.
	I'm kidding, of course.
	Foreignans moved to Texas because they want to make Texas a better place and they believe in Texan foreigners.
	And Hondurans moved to Hondurans moved to Martha's Vineyard because they were trying to find a better life and make Martha's Vineyard better.
	Yeah.
	And everybody was so happy about it.
	And I do.
	I mean, I lived in LA and moved to Dallas, and there were a lot of right-leaning people who left California for Texas and wanted to go to a place like Austin.
	I think if you are foreign-born, you can never hold office or vote, but your children can if you had those children after you became a naturalized citizen.
	But again, all the other prerequisites we talked about still apply.
	I have to have some kind of investment in the future.
	I'm not in favor of like less people voting.
	I mean, I am too.
	I am too.
	So how many generations do you need to be before you get to vote?
	I don't even know.
	If we're talking about our dreams, I don't even know if I want anyone to vote.
	Nobody can vote.
	Yeah.
	Just a king.
	Yeah.
	If we're talking about things that are never going to happen, let's just go all the way.
	Mary just like, just let the pope be the president.
	I mean, it wouldn't be the worst.
	Yeah, but he's still pro.
	He's pro-mass migration.
	Didn't he, he made some posts about it.
	But he's also pro-baseball.
	So that's fairly American.
	It's difficult to discuss.
	That's why we should let the president be the pope and not the pope.
	Indeed.
	Well, right on, man.
	Did you want to add anything?
	No, I'm good.
	All right.
	Anything to shout out?
	Thanks for calling, brother.
	Dang.
	Everybody was cheering on Mary when you snapped back at him, so they did not appreciate the snide remarks to our guest.
	Well, I appreciate them.
	Probably all think I'm crazy.
	That's actually one of the...
	That's kind of.
	Oh, we have an intellectual heavyweight calling in right now.
	That's partly why me and Mary and I were like, hold on, Rey.
	We don't even know what to do with this guy.
	Well, but I do appreciate the eclectic bunch.
	So, I mean, you know, but I recommend even if you are angry or even mildly perturbed, just to try and make it a question.
	What did he say to someone's face?
	Thrawn Fett, you are live.
	Thrawn.
	hey, longtime caller, first-time listener.
	Hey.
	So, my question's for Tim.
	Donut Operator just released a vlog the other day about the UFC fight up in New York City, where Detective Richard High, angry cops, mentions he almost got in a fist fight right next to you.
	Cody also mentioned he got food poisoning, so he couldn't actually go to the fight.
	And I know you said that you wanted to stay with him some time.
	Wait, where is this?
	You almost got into a fight?
	I didn't know about that.
	Donut Operator.
	It is correct.
	The story did happen.
	He was insulting Georgia.
	Where's this blog?
	It was a vlog or a blog?
	Blog on his YouTube channel.
	It came out, I believe, about 48 hours ago.
	His main YouTube channel or his vlog channel?
	Probably his channel.
	I think it's Donut Operator, his main channel.
	2120 is where Richard High is talking about it.
	Operation Donut.
	All right, so.
	It's true.
	It happened.
	He kept insulting Georgia and was yelling.
	I posted a...
	Okay, so it was his vlog channel then.
	But it was 2120 was the time period where Rich was talking about.
	What's the title of it?
	Oh, oh, hanging with Casey and I said Angry Cops and Brandon Herrera?
	Yes.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah, I see that one.
	It is all true and correct.
	Where does he bring it up?
	It was around 2120 was Rich talking about Kim Poole was 10 feet away from the left.
	There were some Georgians.
	And when I started making comments about the historical fact that Russia invaded Georgia and took a bunch of land, I said that Georgia was too small to stick up for itself.
	It was a tiny country and that he should go back to Atlanta.
	And at the end of the fight, the Georgian won.
	And one of the Georgians jumped over a set of chairs and caught up to me and was just like, Georgia's not small.
	Georgia's big.
	And I'm looking around at Edmund Hayford and Brandon Herrera and Tipu talk to me, and I'm like, we're going to get into this fight with some Georgians.
	You're looking at a fighter.
	Not even these people at all.
	And so then he went over to his chairs and his fat friend was looking at me.
	So I started going looking at his friend, which just really pisses men off.
	It really pisses men off when you give a smoochie face like you're not going to do shit.
	And they did not like that.
	And the security guy came over to me.
	He was like, hey, leave them alone.
	And I'm like, dude, he jumped over two seats to get to me.
	I'm okay.
	He's like, okay, just don't do anything.
	He's like, all right.
	And then they walked behind us, and I gave them smoochy faces again because they kept eyeballing me.
	And then we left.
	So it was fun.
	I almost got into this fight.
	I'll tell him more of this story.
	That wasn't the first time security approached him.
	I posted a video on Instagram because he was screaming.
	And admittedly, when I started filming him, he started screaming more.
	But he's yelling very funny things at the fighters.
	And so I pulled up my phone and I was like, I got to film this.
	And so I filmed like selfie, like pointing at him.
	And he could see me, you know, the corner of his eye.
	So he starts yelling more inflammatory things.
	Security actually came up to him over his yelling and told him to please calm down because he was yelling things like, Georgia's not a real country.
	It's not a real country.
	It's too small.
	And so security actually approached him twice.
	And I think it was more than one guy, actually.
	And it was funny.
	And then when we were leaving, I waited.
	So we're ringside.
	It's like the VIP section.
	Like, I saw Joe and it was like, yo, what up?
	And it was cool to see him.
	And I got to meet Dana White and got a picture with him.
	And, you know, only said a few sentences, though.
	But I got like a comp VIP.
	They, you know, I reached out to them and said, guys, I want to come.
	And they let me come.
	So Alice and I were there.
	And then I was like, when you're ringside, the separation between the seats, it's literally just a thin rope.
	Like, you're not even a rope.
	It's one of the seat belt or whatever those things are fucking called.
	So anybody could just jump over, but security is pretty good.
	But as I'm walking to and from the bathroom and the lounge, people are yelling and high-fiving me and stuff.
	So we didn't want to leave with 10,000 people or however many people were there at the arena all outside because of security.
	So we were like, we're going to wait until most people leave and then get a car and go.
	And so we like, basically most people were gone.
	And I was hanging out with Angry Cops, Brandon Herrera and some of the guy Evan from Black Rifle was there.
	And then they were like, just leave with us and we'll get an Uber.
	We got an Uber waiting.
	And I was like, okay, that's even better.
	I got a cop.
	I got Brandon Herrera.
	I got a cop with me.
	I was like, this is probably better than waiting and just trying to get an Uber everyone leaves.
	The only problem was they had to walk a couple blocks to get the Uber.
	So we're walking and there's tons of people everywhere.
	So I've got a hood up and I'm just trying to be incognito.
	And then they go, okay, we got a guy.
	He's got the car.
	And then some random guy they're talking to.
	And I'm like, I don't know what's going on.
	Yo, some random guy offered them a ride and they gave him a bunch of money.
	And so they, so we're following them to their car.
	And it was actually just some random guy who approached them saying, come and jump in my car.
	I'll drive you home.
	And so we walked up.
	Rich is like, just get in.
	It's fine.
	And I was like, bro, I am not getting in a stranger's car.
	I was like, security is our concern.
	We'll get an Uber.
	We're going to, we're going to keep walking.
	And he was like, oh, come on, it's fine.
	And I was like, bro, we're good.
	Have a good one, man.
	I imagine there was a couple of dudes with a gun, with guns in that group.
	Probably.
	They jumped in a car with some random guy they met right there on the street.
	And then Allison and I got an Uber and went home.
	And it was fun.
	It's a smart move, but still.
	And he is a tremendously funny man.
	And it is absolutely hilarious because I was filming him.
	He's screaming.
	And then after I stopped filming, Brandon goes, you realize you were screaming loud enough for the president of the United States to hear it.
	And then he started laughing.
	And I was like, oh, dude, that's the quote.
	I quoted that on the video.
	So anyway, that's a story.
	It was a lot of fun.
	I was really stoked to see them there because Alice and I just went there by ourselves.
	And then we saw them and I was like, oh, shit, people to hang out with.
	We had a good time.
	And, you know, very fun.
	It was funny because Evan from Black Rifle, their seats were next to ours in the assignment because when you get comp tickets, they stick your name on it.
	So this is crazy.
	Here's a secret for you guys.
	Do you want to sit ringside right behind Donald Trump?
	It costs $8,500.
	It's not that much.
	A lot of money.
	In the grand scheme of things.
	In the grand scheme Of things, if you want to be able to walk up to Donald Trump and shake his hand, it's $8,500 for those tickets.
	Yeah.
	And so for me, I just reached out to the UFC guys and I was like, hey, would it be cool if my wife and I came, we love UFC.
	And here's the order of operations.
	They said, let me talk to Dana and I'll get back to you.
	And then a week later, we got your tickets.
	You're good.
	So I don't know exactly what happened, but I'd like to imagine they went to Dana White and said, Tim Poole wants to come.
	And he went, absolutely.
	I honestly don't know.
	Maybe he was like, who's that?
	And they were like, well, he's like a big YouTuber.
	He's like, okay, sure, fine, whatever.
	But I'm just going to go ahead and imagine he was like, yeah, fuck yeah, Tim Pool, great.
	And I just pretend like he knew who I was.
	When I saw him, I was like, Dana, I appreciate you letting me come.
	He's like, yeah, for sure.
	He's like, nice to meet you and all that stuff.
	It's cool.
	And then we got a picture together.
	I mean, I imagine he's at least familiar with you just because of Rogan.
	I actually met him before.
	Okay.
	So, and like, he walked up to me and shook my hand.
	So I think I assume he knows who I am.
	But I'm like, I don't know, man.
	I'm just, you know, I'm just some guy on YouTube yelling at a camera.
	So big fan of UFC.
	It's fun.
	I don't know.
	Did you want to add anything to that or shout anything out?
	Just a quick question.
	If you actually got to meet Donut at all or if that just fell through because of the food poisoning.
	Oh, yeah, I didn't see him there.
	And I want him to come out and skate.
	We got to get him to come out here and skate with us.
	Have you told him specifically?
	Yes.
	Hit him up.
	Tell him.
	Tell him.
	Yeah.
	But he's talked about wanting to come out and come on the show and all that stuff.
	And we're fans too, so that'd be fun.
	Maybe we can get him to come to the thing with Michael Malice too.
	I'm just saying, like, angry cops, Michael Malice on stage arguing about cops is going to be the funniest shit in the world.
	So that's the one we can announce for August 2nd.
	That's going to sell out in two seconds.
	We have a flyer.
	Once we put the flyer up, it's going to be sold out instantly.
	It's like 200 seats.
	And then we want to do some members-only VIP, like behind the scenes.
	Not behind the scenes, like after party.
	So it'll be at five.
	And then what we talked about doing is probably, I'll put it this way.
	We provide the funding so that the Discord members can have the space set up and it will be their party.
	So we were thinking like, you know, depending on who wants to come with like Joey Romanation, Sinoski, whoever else wanted to come, it would be your party and whoever else in the Discord that wants to be involved in setting it up.
	And we'll provide the funding so that you guys can do it.
	And that would be like from six to however long you guys wanted to do it.
	And then, of course, we'd come hang out, you know, and do it.
	But it would be the Discord members party.
	So yeah, we're working on it.
	We're working on it.
	Got to figure it out.
	Anything else?
	I just wanted to shout out Han Sub and all the good work they're doing up with Buffalo Public Schools.
	Thank you.
	Thanks for calling in.
	All right.
	And last but not least, we've got the Plague Doc.
	What is up?
	What's up?
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	Well, I wanted to ask things very relevant for all the discussion in particular as well, because I am currently in Australian in towards the permanent resident and eventually citizenship.
	But the question is for you and the panel will be especially the guests.
	It will be what it means to be a citizen and why economic migrants that don't contribute to the society needs to be part of this citizenship.
	So what does it mean to be a citizen, you're asking?
	Yes.
	The first thing I would say is to be a, it's kind of a broad question, but it's I don't know if my answer is precise enough, but basically that you are pledging your loyalty to a family that is the American family, that you will be a contributor, that you will uphold our values and our Constitution and our laws and work to make America great every single day.
	And so I'm actually, I would say middle of the road pro-immigration.
	I don't necessarily think we should just like increase legal immigration or anything like that.
	I understand and I'm sympathetic a little bit to the moratorium arguments simply because of the 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants that came in, which basically overloaded the immigration system.
	Integration is imperative for immigration, and the mass illegal immigration damaged that.
	However, I'm actually a huge proponent of brain drain.
	I think we should be bringing in top talent from all over the world.
	I think it is fantastic that Nigeria's best save up money, work really hard, and then come here, and they make a lot of money by doing it.
	None of this can be at the sacrifice of the American children, which includes the children of these migrants as well.
	So if we just keep saying more people can come in, then if you're a hardworking Nigerian family that comes to America and has kids, your kids will be left holding an empty bag all the same.
	So there needs to be a weighted benefit to the children of actual Americans, be it first-generation or long-standing historical generational citizens.
	And yeah, I don't know.
	If you want to elaborate or if anybody else wants to chime in before I just go on a rant.
	Sorry, I was texting Cody.
	Like, what does it mean to be a citizen?
	So, I mean, personally, I think that you should care about the values that have made the United States what it is.
	And so if you're born here and your parents are Americans, they should be teaching you or they should teach you and instill in you the values that make America the country that it is.
	You should learn about property rights.
	You should learn about liberty, about the fundamental things that make America what it is.
	And I think that that is an integral part of being a citizen.
	And if you don't hold the values that we hold dear, you shouldn't be allowed to become a citizen.
	Now, again, because, like, I do think that if your parents are citizens and you're born here, you should be allowed to become, you should be a citizen.
	I do think that that's, that's, that's fine.
	I wouldn't want to change that.
	But I do think that when it comes to immigration, that it's perfectly reasonable to exclude people that don't look at The values that the United States has as the primary way to organize your political ideals, I think it's perfectly fine to exclude those people.
	And I don't think that there's anything wrong with it.
	And the people that have a problem with it nowadays, at least, almost all the time, they accuse you of some kind of xenophobia or bigotry or racism or whatever.
	And that's only because they don't actually have a good argument against excluding people that don't hold American values in high esteem.
	Yeah, I mean, obviously a lot of your viewers and listeners probably disagree with my views on immigration, but thank you for letting me make the case anyway.
	I will actually just say on a positive note, and it's good to end on, I think, that I really like, I will reiterate what I said earlier, I really believe in American exceptionalism.
	I think our devotion to things like, you know, liberalism, freedom of expression, property, these are things that a lot of places don't have.
	And I'm grateful to live in a place that I was born in a place that do have them.
	And I know not everyone who comes here has, looks at the world similarly, but a lot of people do.
	And a lot of people dream of coming here because of those things, not in spite of them.
	And I think that's beautiful.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't have any, I don't have a problem with people wanting to come to the United States.
	I just think that people that want to come to the United States with the intent to change the United States, it's perfectly fine for the U.S. to say, well, you can't come to the United States because you want to change the fundamental relationship.
	Yeah, like to what you're saying, I think the best analogy that works for this is that it's more of a familial relationship than just about civic duty.
	And that's why if you're a citizen because your parents are citizens and you were born here, in a way, you kind of have the family relationship with your nation where you get to be a brat and you get to respect these American values.
	You get to do those things.
	That's a privilege that comes with being part of this larger family.
	Exactly.
	100%.
	Totally agree with that.
	And that's part of why I don't have a problem with revoking visas of people that are anti-American.
	If they're guests, if they're students, all the stuff about...
	Not because of any.
	America was fun while it lasted.
	I agree with you on all those things.
	It's just a shame that it's the end, you know?
	Immigration.
	I'm optimistic.
	I don't think it's the end.
	Well, immigration is outpacing U.S. births.
	And like you pointed out, other countries don't have these things.
	So the people who are going to come either won't be able to maintain them or don't agree with them.
	And I think we're looking at – I think that the long term likelihood, like 100 years from now, the U.S. will be a Sharia Muslim nation because they have an insane amount of kids and they enforce their ideology with murder.
	So, you know, theoretically in 100 years, it could be an Anabaptist country with like, you know, the Mennonites and the Amish.
	But there's not that many of them right now.
	And they're substantially, well, actually, I wonder.
	I think there's more Muslims.
	They have a lot of kids.
	There's only like four or five million Muslims in America, something like that, which is a.
	How many Anabaptists?
	I don't know.
	But I tell you what, I think that the Catholics are actually, honestly, not like just make a remark because Mary's here, but the Catholics are probably the religion that's getting the most traction.
	It is growing a lot.
	There's only 500,000 Anabaptists.
	So that's the Hooterites, Amish, and Mennonites.
	How many Muslims?
	There's way more.
	And they have a lot of kids.
	But the thing is, Mennonites don't enforce their ideology with murder.
	There's 3.5 million Muslims in the United States.
	Three?
	3.5.
	I mean, that's out of 330 million people.
	It is.
	But let's just do something.
	If you're raised Muslim in the United States, I think they're far more likely to become atheists when they grow up.
	I don't know.
	Apostasy is a deathworthy penalty.
	But I mean, when you look at Mamdani says he's Muslim, but he's doing videos about queer liberation and taking away.
	Yeah, but what's the word?
	It's not actually Muslim.
	You're wrong.
	You're wrong.
	What's the word in Islam where you lie intentionally to spread and gain power?
	I don't know the word, but I think it's a thing.
	Takiyah?
	Is that it?
	Isn't it Tiqiyah?
	Something like similar.
	That you're able to lie in order to gain power.
	Well, you can lie to Muslims.
	To gain power over them.
	Yeah, you can lie to them.
	I thought it was a word or two.
	Yeah, it's called Tikiyah.
	I thought that it was in order to convince people.
	Muslims can conceal their faith or beliefs when under threat or persecution of harm.
	It's Shia Islam.
	It's permission to lie.
	To infidels.
	So when they poll Islamic communities in the United States, they find that like half agree that apostates should die.
	Like it's fucking crazy.
	I don't want to send Zoran out of the country because he's a Muslim.
	I want to send him out of the country because he's a communist.
	There shouldn't be Muslims here.
	But I don't think he's a communist.
	I think he's probably more likely to be an Islamist.
	He's not from the United States.
	He doesn't have the same progressive upbringing as American liberals, but he sees it as an easy vector to gain power.
	So, but anyway, good sir.
	Did you want to add anything or shout anything out?
	Well, thanks, C. Levante, a big fan from Achilla here.
	Oh, cheer.
	Especially keep those helicopters going.
	It's a good thing it's the after-show saying that kind of stuff, man.
	So far, thank you very much.
	Thanks for the chat, Bill, a long-time viewer.
	But that's the deal.
	Thank you very much.
	Appreciate it, man.
	Thank you.
	I'm actually surprised that Christians don't have a concept of Takia because the soft argument is that it's to conceal your face under threat.
	So if someone says convert or die, they're allowed to say it, but they're concealing their faith.
	But basically what it means is that in the United States, they lie about what they actually believe because they would be oppressed, silenced, or shut down or lose power if they admit what they actually believe.
	Well, I mean, if your religion is saying, hey, we need to spread our religion even through violence.
	And kill all the Jews.
	And kill the Spirits.
	And what Christians understood in other religions is that martyrdom is actually not the way to heaven, the way to evangelize.
	Well, yeah, that's true, too.
	But the point that i'm making is that the well actually no i've lost a point so it doesn't matter okay so yeah you gotta you gotta uh you have to you have to be i think the united states should be careful about who we actually allow to become you know who we allow to immigrate and after i don't i don't know that it's done yet but uh immigration is not placing births so people who don't agree with the constitution are moving here more than we are
	having children and liberals are not teaching their kids the values of the of the united states and liberalism i do want to reiterate that a lot of people who do come here not everyone but you know a lot of cubans who come here for instance they're religious and they're conservative and they believe in capitalism and they believe in a lot of them are socially conservative which is somewhat of a dying breed even on the right um so i do think i don't i i think there are a lot of people who come to this country who do share our values american values i i would just make the assumption that if people aren't having kids half the kids
	that are being born are not being taught the importance of our values and then you bring in migrants at a greater rate yeah american ideology dies like i mean you can make the argument that some of the migrants believe in our values sure but like the math is not there i just believe in the binding power of the constitution i'm a big i'm a big fan of the constitution and i think it will it's more powerful than when when did the when did the right to keep and bear arms get enshrined well i mean i would agree that it has come on i write about it all the time i think it comes on but what there's there's one year phil you know it right what's that when the
	actual right to keep and bear arms was formally enshrined in the united states okay so the second amendment was 1789 that's what i actually said about no but but the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined probably in heller yes yeah 2008.
	yes i know the i know the co-council on that case you you could not actually keep and bear arms in the united states until 2008 it was so i take it a bit of issue with it you're you're right that the supreme court had not found but prior to the finding it was assumed that on that you were allowed to have a gun for for personal property or as your as your property and it was assumed that you could carry guns unless it was prohibited but it was prohibited everywhere all the time there's a lot of places that it was prohibited and in the 1980s i believe 100
	of the united states was may issue meaning they didn't have to leave it legally give you the right to keep in bar arms and could deny it and it wasn't until 2008 and it wasn't even technically 2008 but you're right you're right but in 19 2011.
	oh the uh um yeah the uh what was the what was it let me pull that one up anyways but you're you're not incorrect but in 1970 if you went and bought a gun or wanted to go buy a gun most places they were issuing like they were it was may issue like that was the standard but almost everybody that wanted to get a gun got issued the point was you didn't have a right to it you were given permission recognized so free speech when was free
	speech actually enshrined i mean i have a feeling that you have a a different answer than me when when do you think it was enshrined it never was you don't think so it's still not legal today there are numerous laws respecting establishments of speech we restrict uh in various ways how you give money to politicians and if you want to buy a billboard the government made a law that you can't talk to the politician if you do so that's a vibe that's a restriction uh not to mention quomo shut down churches which is a violation of the first amendment there's no process
	for a regis of grievances in any meaningful way so i i just find it laughable uh i i you know what i i am i am whatever michael malis is i i said i'm an anarchist because of business regulations i don't i don't know that i i understand what he's saying about anarchy he basically said those who have the power to enforce it will and that's what anarchy is and i'm like okay sure fine i guess i completely agree with him there is there is not a single right enshrined in the constitution that's ever actually been upheld and
	people just pretend that it is there's no binding connect i mean uh does trump have the authority to launch a a strike on a foreign country without a declaration of congress no well why not the war powers resolution granted him some limited authority so then the argument is does congress have the authority without ratification uh of two-thirds of the states to abdicate its responsibilities in declaration of war under a uh through congressional act the long and short of your argument not that and not not that i'm saying you're wrong but the long and short of your argument is that government will always
	try to find ways around limits you put on it that's the argument you're making and usually they will find it the argument i'm making is the government does whatever the body politic allows sure that fair enough but again but that's still the government is trying to do as to exercise as much power as the body politic will allow so i i look at it like the government is an entrenched blob that simply tries to find the past of path of least resistance so when the far left burns

▲