Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 11, 2025 - Timcast IRL - Tim Pool

02:10:34

Leftist Anti ICE Just OPENED FIRE On ICE Agents In California At LA Riots | Timcast IRL

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Trump DOJ has officially ended the probe into Prince Andrew over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, meaning he's now free to travel, he's off the hook, and what?
	He's literally in a photo with Keylane Maxwell and Virginia Dufray, but all right, I guess.
	And here's the crazy thing about it.
	Virginia Dufray reportedly took her own life.
	And shortly before she did, she was in the hospital appearing to have been seriously battered, which they claimed was a car accident.
	And then the car accident she got into, the bus driver was like, what?
	I tapped her tail.
	She never got a car accident.
	And then she posted up in the hospital saying, please, I just need to see my kids one more time.
	And it's like, huh?
	And then she took her own life.
	The whole thing makes literally no sense.
	But right now, the theory online from many, many people is that there's puppet strings.
	Trump is not in control.
	And several prominent Trump supporters are saying this.
	Maybe, maybe not, but the Prince Andrew thing is hilarious.
	It's like, here's a picture of him with E-Lane Maxwell.
	He went on the island.
	Here's an underage woman who accused him and said he did it.
	And they're like, nah, he, I. Okay, okay, I guess.
	So we'll talk about that.
	We've got a bunch of other really big stories.
	We've got the State Department's going to be laying off a massive reduction.
	I believe it's around 1,800 staff members.
	A district court judge in New Hampshire has said that Donald Trump cannot block birthright citizenship, establishing a class, that is, infants of undocumented parents.
	So we'll talk about that.
	And don't forget, we went and saw Superman today.
	I would say the movie is good, and it was not woke.
	I'll give you my thoughts on it.
	I don't think there was anything overtly political in it.
	And actually, in some ways, I think you could argue it was anti-woke.
	So all in all, I thought the movie's actually pretty good.
	Though James Gunn certainly has a chip on his shoulder about getting canceled because of mean tweets at Hex or people pulling up his tweets, which were, you know, inappropriate jokes.
	And there's a scene in the movie which really hurt the film, but seems like James Gunn wanted to make fun of Mike Cernovich, I guess.
	So we'll talk about that and more before we get started.
	We've got a great sponsor.
	It is shopbeam.com.
	This stuff is going to help you fall asleep, my friends.
	We're constantly pulled in 100 directions between the news, politics, work, and family.
	And for me, sleep was the first thing to suffer.
	Trust me, I felt it every day.
	In fact, I modified my diet a bunch of times.
	And then, you know, ultimately, I just listened to my wife, and she was like, you're not sleeping enough.
	And I was like, all right, I don't go to sleep.
	Well, so several months ago, we started using Beam Dream to help with sleep.
	I haven't looked back.
	Before Beam, my nights were restless.
	I'd crash hard, wake up two or three in the morning with my mind racing.
	It'll be rough to get back to sleep.
	But I was probably getting between six and seven hours of sleep.
	And then I bumped it up to about eight.
	Shout out to Beam.
	And it tastes great too, by the way.
	So now I am getting about eight hours of sleep every day.
	I fall asleep quickly right after the show.
	Usually after the show, after we wrap, I go straight to bed.
	Stay asleep.
	I wake up.
	I feel great.
	No grogginess.
	I wake up feeling like I have energy.
	It's fantastic.
	What I appreciate the most is that it's not some gimmicky quick fix like other things.
	Beam Dream is a science-backed blend of magnesium, alphaanine, and other natural ingredients to help your body genuinely relax and recover without leaving you feeling groggy the next morning.
	It's also got zero added sugar and just 15 calories.
	It's already improved over 18 million nights of sleep, including mine.
	So make sure you guys go to shopbeam.com slash TimPool.
	You get to 35% of the VZE promo code.
	And I'm just going to throw this in there.
	The reason why I think, you know, I was having a hard time with recovery and why sleep was so important is I learned about HGH and testosterone production in the male body during certain periods of sleep.
	And if you're not getting enough REM or deep sleep, then your body is not going to be producing the hormones it needs to actually recover.
	So that's why I think improving my sleep with the help of Beam especially has made me feel a lot better.
	So shout out to shopbeam.com.
	Use promo code TimPool.
	Click the link in the description below.
	Also, don't forget, my friends, DCComedyLoft.com.
	The link is in the description below.
	Come hang out with us live.
	July 26, 2025, 3 p.m.
	The door's open at 2 o'clock.
	It's a live taping of the Culture War podcast.
	I will be there.
	Alex Stein will be there.
	We got a couple of guests that we're confirming right now.
	It should be a big show.
	And we want to hang out with you.
	Now, if you want to come up on stage and debate, you got to get tickets now while you still can, because we're actually going to bring up people from the audience onto the show to be a part of the live debate.
	So once again, dccomedyloft.com.
	Click events, check it out.
	You'll find it in there.
	But don't forget to also smash that like button, share the show with everyone, you know.
	Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Nick Sorter.
	How's it going?
	Appreciate you having me again, Tim.
	It's great to have you.
	Who are you?
	What do you do?
	All right.
	I'm an independent reporter.
	Typically try to cover stories that the mainstream media won't, like East Palestine, Ohio, Maui, Western North Carolina, and now the Hill Country down there in Texas.
	I just got back from there literally like two hours ago.
	So running on fumes over here, but you know, it's an important story to keep talking about.
	Right on, we got Ian hanging out.
	Man, it's good to be here.
	And you were talking about sleep earlier in the Ad REIT with Beam and a little life hack about sleep.
	Sleep and rest are not the same thing.
	So if you want to make sure you get restful sleep, have good digestion from my experience.
	So when you sleep, lay on your back with your arms over your head like this, and it lifts your diaphragm and you'll start hearing like gurgling in your stomach, this digestion kick on.
	And then you'll get like what'll feel like two hours of sleep in like 15 minutes.
	You'll, you'll, you ever, if you ever feel like that, it's this.
	So the connection between rest and digestion, try it out.
	Let me know what your, what your results are like as well, Phil.
	Have you told anyone who you are yet tonight?
	No, no.
	You just got to figure it out.
	Hello, everybody.
	My name is Phil Levante.
	I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band, all that remains.
	I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary.
	Let's get into it.
	Here's a story from the New York Post.
	Prince Andrew free to travel abroad as FBI N's probe into Royals Jeffrey Epstein Link.
	Wow.
	I wonder if there was any evidence that he was involved with Epstein and Maxwell and there were victims.
	Could it be perhaps the statements from the victim and the picture of him with the victim and they're letting him just go?
	I'm pretty sure that the powers that be are not going to appreciate us constantly staying on this story.
	And I would not be surprised if we face a massive censorship from the algorithm over it and smear campaigns, because they'd certainly appreciate if we talked about something else.
	You can see how flustered they're getting.
	But yo, check this out.
	It's the news.
	Prince Andrew can finally end his self-imposed travel ban after a leaked memo revealed that the FBI is closing its investigation into the Royals Epstein links.
	The disgraced Duke of York, 65, has left the UK once in the last six years over fears of an arrest.
	Civil lawsuits are being subpoenaed.
	Now it appears as though the scandal-scarred prince, who has been kept at arm's length from the royal fold, is able to venture out of the UK without fear of repercussions.
	He has been abroad once since the scandal erupted, a source told The Sun.
	He has always been very nervous about going abroad and felt he'd always be looking over his shoulder as he could be subject to civil action or worst, being arrested.
	Hopefully with this out of the way, it means that he can at least leave the country.
	What's he supposed to do with the rest of his life?
	He hasn't been convicted of any crime and can't sit around doing nothing at Royal Lodge forever.
	I suppose the big question is, is the U.S. going to issue an arrest warrant for him and then demand the U.K. extradite him?
	Not anymore.
	Or not extradite.
	Yeah, I was going to say, I guess not anymore.
	I mean, they did try, they had to work with the UK authorities before to actually be able to interview him.
	And then all of a sudden they just decided in 2024, okay, well, we're not even going to go down that road anymore.
	We're not even going to try to interview Prince Andrew.
	But, you know, there are so many other things that a lot of people don't know.
	They don't realize that he lied about the amount of time that he said that he spent with Jeffrey Epstein.
	It turns out that it was about 10 times as much time as he said that he spent with Prince Andrew or with Jeffrey Epstein.
	And also the fact that there were text messages between the two of them saying, okay, can't wait to play again soon.
	You know, we'll play more soon.
	I mean, just the weird stuff like this.
	I mean, if you're not going to give any sort of answers as to why you would drop the investigation into the Epstein case in general, at least give us some answers as to why you're going to let this creep walk free and not even try to, you know, even if the UK police or whatever don't take him into custody, at least like show us that he is a pedophile.
	In the court of public opinion, we'll convict him.
	Well, they have said that the administration is alluding to the possibility of more information coming out, right?
	I've seen at least some reports on that.
	Judicial Watch put out our report saying that they're still reviewing Epstein files.
	So, I mean, if that could, you know, produce some kind of answers, I'm sure that it's not going to be enough, but I mean...
	You guys remember when three months ago, Virginia Duffrey, the alleged victim of Andrew, killed herself?
	Allegedly, right?
	And how weird it was where, like, a week before that or whatever, she was in the hospital, all bruised and battered, saying, I'm in the hospital dying from a car accident.
	My kidneys are failing.
	I just want to see my kids one last time.
	I believe.
	And everybody was kind of like, is she just begging the deep state not to murder her until she sees her kids?
	I think Epstein, I don't know why I think this.
	He said that someone tried to poison him while he's in prison.
	Do you guys remember that at all?
	I don't know, but let me just say, now that there's no principal witness against Prince Andrew.
	Andrew, look at this.
	The probe is gone.
	Epstein's brother was interviewed by Piers Morgan.
	I don't know if you guys saw that.
	He said he thinks that Trump is heavily involved with Epstein.
	And Piers is like, there's no evidence of that.
	He's like, well, if it were true, I wouldn't be surprised.
	Dershowitz was saying, I didn't see that.
	Dershowitz was saying that he had to.
	We've only talked about that.
	We got it.
	Okay, so we'll talk about that later.
	Pull up that video.
	So it's like there's two levels of, like you were saying, censorship now.
	Is this story trying to go out?
	Like, not only is it this level of the people that run the world, the 12 families, the bloodlines that are in control of the monetary system, the liberal economic order, whoever they are, there's that level of people playing with Jeffrey Epstein.
	Then there's the American government, which doesn't have to take the bullet for this one.
	It's not the American government's responsibility to take the heat for Epstein.
	Epstein was a global consortium, this whole thing.
	The U.S. government, like, I don't blame them for not wanting to bear the brunt of this, but at the same time, Cash looked like, or Dan Bongino looked like he was in a hostage situation.
	I literally, I think that they came and people think that these people are like video game villains or like movie villains that aren't real.
	But I think he was approached and they're like, if you tell people what is going on, we're going to kill your family and not just your immediate family, your entire bloodline.
	And we're going to choose when they die and we're going to choose how.
	And it's going to, this is called a blood vendetta.
	It doesn't ever go away.
	Your family lineage will be wiped out.
	And if you tell anyone that we told you this, your family lineage will be wiped out.
	I don't think that happened.
	I don't know.
	But I'm just like, I'm done acting like they exist and then why in cognitive dissonance?
	I mean, so there's two principal probabilities based on what we know.
	And that is Trump went in and said, ha ha, Prince Andrew, what a great stand-up guy.
	Let's get him off the hook and all my Epstein buddies, whoo-hoo.
	Or he said, oh, crap, they've got me by the balls and I have no choice.
	Which one is it?
	I don't know.
	I don't have any sense as to whether or not they're telling the truth.
	I know that everything looks suspicious as hell, and that's why I'm hoping for more answers when the, I'm hoping they'll release more information, and hopefully there are some answers there.
	But just because I don't know doesn't mean that I think that Cash and Dan Bongino are now a part of the conspiracy.
	Right.
	The Maxwell thing, I'm going to call it the Maxwell files.
	Everyone plays with Jeffrey Epson.
	He was one of her guys.
	It's the Maxwell, her dad, Robert Maxwell.
	They are the ones at the center of this.
	And they're a blackmail operation.
	So it doesn't surprise me that Cash and Dan were blackmailed.
	Like, that's what they do.
	That Trump is being blackmailed.
	That's very likely.
	Or I shouldn't say it's very likely.
	It is probabilistic in that it is a blackmail ring that they're trying to break, and now they're being blackmailed.
	That wouldn't surprise me.
	Well, I mean, it's possible, but I don't think that there's actual evidence of anything.
	No, I don't think there's any.
	Not that I've ever seen.
	You know, you know, people look at this and they'll say, oh, well, your theory is totally wild.
	It's totally, it's so far out there.
	But what breeds that is the fact that, you know, we all feel like, and rightfully so, that we're being totally lied to.
	You know, it's probably the most brazen lie I feel like I've heard out of this administration so far.
	And I hate to say that.
	You know, we got to the point where, you know, when was Bondi lying?
	Was it when she was on Fox News 15 times or is it now?
	You know, it's one or the other.
	It doesn't go away.
	You can't say you have all these files on your desk, you have all these videos, all this information, and this binder is only phase one, and we're going to release so much more and then say, oh, well, poof.
	No, it doesn't exist.
	None of it exists.
	And this issue is not going away.
	As much as they think that this is just another piece of news where it's just going to, people are going to forget about it and move on.
	I'm telling you, if they don't explain themselves and they're not transparent about this process, what made them close the case?
	What made them decide they're not going to release any information?
	This is going to be a stain on the administration if they don't act on it.
	Last night, the conversation came up that if it were revealed and it completely destroyed the world order, like the Saudi princes, the Russian magnates, all the Chinese bureaucrats, all the people that were involved in this somehow turn on the people that released the data, the American government, and then they blacklisted, they stopped working with the American, just fucks up the entire order.
	Would you be the one to pull the trigger?
	Would you release the files?
	If there was not only it's not going to, like, what would it solve?
	We're talking about child rapists, because the fact that none of these people are being held accountable is the reason that they're going to continue.
	This stuff is still happening.
	It's still happening.
	And it's going to be enabled more.
	If you don't do anything about it, there's no consequences.
	I totally disagree with that.
	The idea that if you don't hold them accountable, it will only produce more.
	Even if you hold them accountable, there will be more.
	For all of human history, wealthy people, powerful people have taken advantage of children or taken advantage of their positions of power and broken the law.
	So the idea that this would solve that, no.
	If it prevents one child from being raped, it's worth doing.
	It would be justice for the people that actually have broken the law, and that's good.
	That's something that we should go for.
	But there are a lot of people that are like, oh, this will fix everything.
	This will not fix anything.
	There will just be a new crop of people doing disgusting things.
	That's what I was thinking is if you remove the people, the positions that are still there functioning.
	And if you put new people into those positions, that behavior...
	Okay.
	If there's a CEO of a company and he gets fired, you put a new CEO in.
	He's going to be functionally doing the same thing.
	But if there is a CEO who's a pedophile and you remove him and you put a new CEO there who's not a pedophile, then you've gotten rid of the pedophile.
	It's like their whole families.
	It's these families.
	And you can't, how are you going to.
	All the people in the family are blood?
	I think are bad.
	I think that you should probably have evidence for holding people accountable.
	Surge before the show, like, what would you do if you were born into one of the richest families on earth and had everything ever?
	You just do what your family did.
	And so that's what's happening.
	If you remove the perpetrator and a new person gets, the family's still there.
	And I'm not suggesting to try and take over family or get rid of families because that's, you know, that tit for tat.
	You know, I don't want my family obliterated.
	I think the issue is that evil is easy and it always has been.
	It is easier to succeed as an evil person than as a good person.
	And humans are animals, man, and people will take advantage of that.
	The mammal, you know, they'll use you as a slave if they can.
	I just want to be clear here.
	So the argument here is, you know, taking down the pedophile ring will not stop people from feeling enabled to do this.
	these rich, powerful elites.
	So you don't think any of them would be deterred if they were...
	You don't think it enables them.
	If they're not held accountable, nobody's held accountable, and they know that.
	Like Prince Andrew didn't leave the country.
	He was terrified.
	So yes, arresting them will inhibit these people.
	One issue?
	Those people, but it won't inhibit the people that come after them or other rich people.
	No, the point that I'm making is rich people, powerful people have always felt that they're above the law, and they've always done things that are outside of the law.
	So yes, the people that have broken the law, we should punish them.
	I think that they should release all the information.
	Like if there are people that have violated children, they should be prosecuted, go to jail, whatever the maximum punishment for the law is.
	Yes, but to say that doing this will fix a problem, no, no.
	That's trying to fix the human condition.
	There will always be evil people.
	You put, give people money and you give them access to power.
	But do you think there is more or less murder when we arrest people for murder?
	I think that the people that commit murder don't think that they're going to get caught or don't care.
	The vast majority of the people are.
	Which is more or less murder when we enforce against murder?
	I think there's probably the same amount.
	I don't think that there's more or less.
	So there's no point in enforcing against murder because- The reason that you have laws against them is so that you punish the people that do.
	I don't believe that it's a deterrent, though.
	I genuinely don't.
	I think the law is a deterrent.
	It can function as a deterrent.
	It is for me.
	For normal people, but you're not a person that would commit murder.
	If it was people and I was encouraged to my whole life, I might be a murderer.
	Like if you were supposed to and you were raised that way.
	I think that people that would commit murder will commit murder regardless of the law.
	I don't think that law is deterred because people break the law all the time.
	I break the law when I speed, right?
	Like that's people break the law all the time.
	So your level of comfort with breaking the law is what actually matters.
	If you are the kind of person that's impulsive and you're like, I don't care, I'm going to go do this.
	The law doesn't stop people from murdering people.
	People still murder.
	I'm pretty sure there would be a substantially greater amount of murder, particularly coming from the left as a good example, if they thought there would be no enforcement action against them.
	I'm not so convinced.
	I honestly don't know what to do.
	Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
	I'm pretty sure the antifa guys who lured those cops out and shot them in the neck would have just been much more overt about it and walked up to the building in a line with rifles, blasting into the building.
	No, because the reason that they didn't do that isn't because of the law.
	It's because of the guys with guns.
	They were literally going after other dudes with guns.
	The deterrent is people that are going to shoot back, not the law.
	There's the best of the issue is you have the authority to use the law.
	The police have the authority to respond with lethal force.
	Most places and most people have the authority to respond with lethal.
	So when these people have been advocating for killing cops for years, why aren't they doing it?
	Well, they're doing it.
	They're not.
	Well, the people that advocate for killing cops, but that don't do it, they're not the kind of people that generally are murderers.
	Look, if you have someone break into your house and you're in a state that's not a stand-your ground state, most people are not going to say, F you, I'm going to shoot you, even to save their own lives.
	They're going to try and get out of there because they're afraid of killing people, not because they're afraid of what's going to happen.
	Why is that gangbangers in Chicago have other people commit murders for them?
	Well, I mean, there's a lot of reasons for that, right?
	Because they put people in a position so that way they break the law, so they go into the system.
	So they're committed to the gang.
	So stuff like that.
	Yes, but you know the real reason.
	What?
	There is one reason why adult gangbangers in Chicago get kids to commit murders.
	Part of it is because they want the shorter sentences and stuff like that.
	The first and only reason is they literally will tell the 15-year-old, you'll get locked up for three years.
	I'll get locked up for 20.
	You go do it.
	So the law clearly is a deterrent.
	That right now.
	I think it is also.
	People that are actually willing to go and commit murder, the law is not a thing.
	It's not a theft.
	In California, they made theft illegal up to $1,000, and there's so much more theft.
	It exploded.
	The law was preventing that, was making people not do it.
	It's like the law is basically saying, like, hey, if you do this, I'll hit you.
	And so people are like, I don't want to get hit, man.
	Throw it a force.
	Literally force.
	I think the police force.
	I think when it comes to violence and stuff like that, I don't think that when it comes to murder and stuff, I think the people that will commit murder are the kind of people that will commit murder.
	And I don't think that they're the best.
	I think both directions of this argument are valid because there are people that will commit acts regardless of the law, and especially people that feel like they're above the law or people that are so psychotic they don't even care about the law.
	There is those.
	Maybe that's both, the people at the top and the people at the bottom of the belt.
	So they're quite literally gangs in Chicago that will publicly state the law is a deterrent.
	They'll be like, no, we can't do that because we'll get locked up and we can't get locked up right now.
	You know what concerns me, though?
	Because you were saying if this could even save one kid, breaking up this pedophile ring or breaking up this cabal.
	But what could happen is it disrupts order so drastically that we have another Libya appear and child trafficking times a million.
	What are the circumstances where that happens, though?
	The U.S. dollar fails because the banks give up on the liberal economic order because they betrayed them.
	Off of jailing pedophiles?
	Yeah, the Swiss banks that are involved in this stuff will be like, all right, fuck these people.
	This liberal economic order, we're going to China.
	We're going to Russia.
	They're dead to us now.
	And so is Germany or wherever they're importing their masses into.
	Yeah, I don't think a system like that should deserve, it should be allowed to exist.
	It's impossible to stop it, dude.
	The viciousness of humanity is.
	So is your argument that we should not try to stop evil from happening?
	Sometimes trying to stop evil will create more harm is nothing.
	Is it that there is evil that is so powerful, we are best left to just do nothing?
	Yes.
	All right, I'll see what happens.
	I think there are some, what you would call evil, there are some aspects of humanity that are just unstoppable.
	This is the first argument about this.
	I just realized Ian was wrong.
	I'm back.
	I don't know if it's good or evil, but there's viciousness and destructiveness.
	Oh, shit.
	Ladies and gentlemen, we've been tracking this riot that's been going on, and we've got breaking news.
	Breaking news.
	It looks like, holy, holy crap, from Breaking 911, left-wing terrorists appears to open fire on ICE agents during a raid at a farm in Southern California.
	So it appears as a video.
	I'm going to have to actually watch this first.
	Do you want to, we'll switch the, because I'm bringing this live.
	I just saw it.
	I just put it up.
	This video right here, it appears a protester from the game.
	Oh, yeah, he's on loading.
	Yeah, it's not a game.
	We can show this.
	There's nothing graphic.
	I just didn't want to see like a cop.
	Of course.
	I didn't want to put a cop getting shot on.
	Ten minutes ago, I started seeing the story.
	So we're zoomed in right here.
	Check it out.
	You can see him.
	He pulls his gun.
	And he's on load.
	He's a protester fired some kind of gun at federal agents.
	This happened this afternoon.
	He was aiming hot.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm surprised he didn't spray down his buddies.
	It appears a protester fired back with that weapon.
	It looks like he fired at least a couple of times.
	We have not heard about any agents.
	This is going to be the norm.
	Yeah, it's going to happen.
	It's going to happen all summer.
	You guys mentioned last night about if the police stomp down on this, like come hard, that it would make it worse.
	But I don't agree with that.
	I think it would shut it down.
	I think if the police come with an iron fist, this stops.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	You put the people that would do this kind of stuff.
	You wrap all of those people up and you put them in jail.
	Also, you got to find where the funding's coming from because when they did that in California, those LA riots stopped.
	They went after the funding and like two days later, it was done.
	At what point?
	Now, you guys seem to be more libertarian leading than anybody.
	But at what point do we just say, you know what, screw this?
	We're done.
	We're getting the military involved.
	Oh, I think that should be the case now.
	Yeah, I feel like we are wasting time here.
	We've got three and a half more years.
	If we want to hit these deportation numbers, we need the military involved.
	And they'll put a stop to this.
	These people aren't going to be opening fire on Marines as easy as they are ICE agents.
	It's just not going to happen.
	Weaponized drones, whatever the military wants to bring in.
	I mean, if they really want to stop, but there'll be a lot of collateral damage.
	As soon as the military came into Los Angeles, the riots were mostly quelled, almost overnight.
	It was incredible.
	Why not send, I mean, we've got the military.
	Bring back the 40,000 troops we have in the Middle East.
	Put them in California.
	Put them in Texas.
	You can activate the National Guard in California and activate the National Guard in Texas, but I don't know about the military that's full-time.
	We have the story.
	This is the background.
	Federal agents clash with protesters during ICE raid at Southern California Farm.
	And as you can see here, this is just the general video.
	Some federal agents there who appear to have been carrying out a large-scale immigration enforcement.
	This is about 50 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
	And at one point, federal agents were seen throwing smoke canisters towards the protesters, sending the crowd running in the opposite direction.
	Now, just to orient you again, about 50 miles northwest of LA.
	This is just outside of Oxnard, California.
	For those of you familiar, some protesters were seen holding flags, appearing to poke military vehicles that were passing by.
	At least one person has been arrested and another was seen pinned to the ground.
	We'll continue to bring you updates when we have them.
	Wow.
	So again, going back to this video, this was posted 20 minutes ago.
	So, you know, right after we start the show, and once again, it looks like, because it looks like similar footage, they appear, these people appear to be running from tear gas.
	Take a look at this video right here.
	It appears a protester.
	He's shooting a gun.
	This is a gun fire.
	It was a really chaotic scene at the time.
	A lot of smoke was fired.
	He's touching it with his bare hands after he unloaded his gun.
	It appears a protester fired that guns with that weapon.
	It looks like he fired at least a couple of times.
	We have not heard about any agents being hurt.
	He didn't hit anything like that.
	Right.
	At a weird angle.
	I'm wondering, you know, it's hard to tell what kind of weapon he actually has.
	Some kind of small and grainy.
	You know, look, I'm going to say this.
	I know a lot of people are not going to want to hear it, but is there a possibility he's got an airsoft or a BB gun?
	I don't care.
	You fire a projectile at a point.
	It looks like a gun.
	You should be turned into Swiss cheese.
	I'm sorry.
	Like, no questions asked.
	So here's the next question.
	These police in this video, as we can see, let me pull up this video again.
	You can see these cops here.
	Sending the crap.
	And they've got gas masks, tear gas, and pepperball guns.
	At what point do they need to come out with live ammo?
	I mean, like, do they need to be at least having some guys on the ground with rifles prepared to return fire in the event?
	We don't know exactly what happened, but this video looks like one of these protesters, terrorists, I guess, just pulled out a handgun and opened fire.
	And the principal assumption I'm going to make is it's a nine millimeter or something.
	Yeah, I mean, look, most of the time, there's a guy, there's at least a couple guys doing overwatch when they line up like that.
	So there'll be guys like back on like a truck with like a DMR designated marksman rifle.
	So there's probably, there's definitely dudes that have lethal force capacity there.
	But the guys on the line, usually they're just with pepper balls and gas masks and stuff.
	This sounds like the perfect use case to actually start integrating the military into these large-scale raids.
	Is there anything on the books at this point that's really going to stop the president from fully federalizing the California National Guard?
	I know Newsom keeps trying to fight it, keeps trying to take back control of the National Guard.
	But if that doesn't work, then at the end of the day, what is stopping the president from invoking the Insurrection Act and actually using that to help with these ICE raids?
	So far as my understanding, when Trump sent the Marines in, he did not need to invoke the Insurrection Act because they were protecting federal property.
	And so they're not enforcing law.
	Because of something called posi comitatas, U.S. military can't enforce domestic laws.
	If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, they can.
	Citing the reckless, like the lawlessness, the law is not being enforced locally, so we will come in and federally enforce it.
	I think California and New York especially right now, Trump should be sending in the troops.
	And you know what they did when, who was this?
	Was this, was it Jon Stewart on Daily Show, whatever?
	They were heavily criticizing Bannon and Pesobic and others for saying send in the troops, but they twisted what was being said as if, and then it might have been clapped.
	I don't know if it was Jon Stewart, but he was like, they are saying to send the troops against us, against us.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	I think Donald Trump needs to send federal law enforcement and if military, if necessary, because they are opening fire, shooting law enforcement in this is now, it's Thursday, in less than one week.
	We have three instances where leftist terrorists have opened fire on law enforcement.
	I want to see, I want to see National Guard, the Marines, whoever else, protecting these guys and making sure when they carry out their constitutionally sworn duty of enforcing the law as Congress has passed it, that terrorists will not kill them.
	You guys talked about Kent State, the Kent State Chief.
	I went to Kent State University.
	I was there on the Hill.
	1970, May 4.
	The National Guard was there.
	There was a protest against the Vietnam War, and the college kids were throwing rocks at the cops at the National Guard.
	And the National Guard opened fire on the crowd and killed four people and wounded.
	I don't know about Crosby Sells Nashing Young wrote a song, Ohio, about it, which is very good.
	So at what point do you return fire on these people?
	Obviously, they pull a gun and start shooting.
	You put down the active shooter, I think.
	If someone starts throwing rocks, what if the rock hits a cop in the head and does serious damage?
	What if a rock kills a cop?
	Do you open fire on the guy throwing the rocks?
	That's the question about if you bring in the military, when do they stop firing?
	When it comes to people throwing rocks, you should use less than lethal.
	So if you have like rubber bullets or beanbag rounds from a shotgun, use those because they're less than lethal.
	They're not going to kill someone.
	Start shooting, obviously, then the police should defend themselves.
	People are going to die.
	Okay.
	We already had at that No Kings protest, those liberal guys unloaded indiscriminately into the crowd and killed an innocent person.
	And so that was, they were targeting an Antifa guy, which is weird, but they were trigger-happy lunatics who pulled out their guns, started shooting.
	The police need to be able to stop someone from killing people.
	What do we want?
	No one to die.
	You can protest.
	You can block the streets.
	You get arrested for it, but no one should die or get seriously injured.
	This guy pulled out a gun and started shooting.
	How do you stop that from happening?
	Beanbags, no guarantee.
	Rubber bullets are no guarantee.
	Pepper spray, tear guessed, none of these are guarantees.
	In fact, through all of those, the guy was getting tear guessed as he was shooting.
	Unfortunately, the reality is, if someone is an active shooter trying to kill police and probably could have killed other bystanders who are protesting, you need to neutralize the threat to maximize the saving of lives.
	That's why they have, like I said, that's why they have designated marksmen.
	But the thing is, there's all those people around and the police are just not going to start shooting into the crowd.
	Like if there's a guy in the crowd shooting, the police are not going to start shooting back into the crowd.
	Wow.
	Because then the chances of hitting someone innocent is way too much.
	And the Trump administration can't afford that.
	So no matter how much you want the emotional satisfaction of getting the guy that was trying to kill the cops, you can't because once the bullet hits the guy, it goes through him.
	They don't stop in people, you know, and you're responsible for every round that comes out of the gun.
	I'm also thinking about it from the other perspective, which I tend to do, of if you were being suppressed by a government and the government was trying to stomp out your protests and you're like, this is our land, get out of our territory, as the citizens of California might be feeling, maybe occupied.
	Like the desire to fight back doesn't stop.
	ABC has picked the story up.
	I mean, this is it.
	This is confirmed.
	ABC eyewitness news.
	A protester is seen firing some kind of weapon at federal agents.
	You know, many of us believed, I falsely believed, I think many of us believed that during the 2020 riots, these liberals in the cities were going to learn their lesson from the violence and that it might change their minds.
	It didn't.
	It didn't change their minds.
	I suppose the assumption made by these people was that Trump was president and he didn't protect us, so why bother voting for him?
	So the lesson they actually learned was the opposite.
	Then when Joe Biden got in and everything got bad, they said, this is the fault of bad leadership in Joe Biden.
	I believe Donald Trump, he's got to go in and stop this.
	And it's not even, you know what, you know what?
	Guys, the right is so afraid of being called fascists, they won't even use the powers the law grants them.
	The Insurrection Act exists.
	It was passed by Congress.
	It is not unconstitutional.
	It is not fascistic.
	It is how we enforce laws in this country.
	It's actually democratic.
	We voted for Trump to stop the illegal immigration.
	Now terrorists are trying to kill cops.
	Trump has the right to defend this country, these towns, these states, send in the military, invoke.
	I mean, look, he already won on the National Guard.
	Send in the National Guard first.
	And if that's not enough, then you Insurrection Act and you put a couple of people on the street corners where these people are shooting at cops.
	Yeah, look, I mean, considering, like, we just talked about, this is the third attack.
	In less than a week.
	Third time that the police have been shot at in less than a week over immigration.
	Two cops shot.
	So, I mean, look, it's time to put the foot, you know, bring the boot down.
	Like, you know, start rounding people up.
	Start saying, no, you can't protest at these things.
	If you, you know, gather for a protest when ICE is trying to do an operation, we're going to arrest every last one of you so that way ICE can do the operation that they need.
	No, this is important.
	You guys might have seen it.
	I just realized this.
	Here he is shooting, right?
	Yeah.
	Once he gets back by this car, he starts shooting again.
	Right, right there.
	See him?
	Yeah.
	He keeps going.
	Even though we can't see him.
	Dude runs right in front of him.
	Yep.
	Dude runs right in front of him.
	You can see right here, he raises the weapon again and appears to fire.
	Is that truck, keep going a little bit, the truck up top, keep going forward, forward?
	Is that the one where you can see the tire?
	Is that a police vehicle?
	Yeah, a police vehicle.
	This one looks like it's a police vehicle.
	So that might be shooting at the police vehicle.
	Maybe above the hood of the vehicle or above the roof to try and hit somebody on the other side of it or something.
	Some people are commenting right now that it looks like his gun's jammed.
	He was having problems with it.
	It's a high point.
	Yep.
	But I just noticed I was watching it.
	He raises the weapon a second time.
	You can see right there, just off frame, he's raising the weapon.
	It's an unprecedented time because you're talking about bringing down the boot, rounding people up, saying you can't protest, which is just antithetical to the essence of the protests in the United States.
	We're way beyond that.
	Exactly.
	It's not normal paradigm.
	I was thinking, like, people talk about nostalgia for the 90s a lot of times.
	I think it's because the 90s and 2000s was the most, or the 80s and 90s were the most peaceful era.
	It was so peaceful.
	The 90s particularly were so peaceful.
	The Berlin Wall came down.
	It was this feeling of we have world peace now for like 15 years, from like 86 to Joseph Owen, Desert Stall.
	Yeah, those were all under, you didn't hear about it.
	It was like we did limited warfare things.
	And what's that?
	It was limited warfare.
	Yeah, and very kept, well, there was no internet to be like, hey, look how fucked up limited warfare can be.
	And then 9-11.
	The Berlin Wall actually came on down in the 80s.
	It was 89.
	Yeah, 89.
	It was that was that.
	I remember watching that on TV.
	It was just a peaceful time.
	It wasn't chaotic.
	It was ordered.
	Well, I do largely agree that people long for the 90s because it was the end of the Cold War.
	The U.S. dominated.
	There was a massive economic expansion.
	And those of us who grew up in the 90s, it was like, it was great.
	America was on top of everything.
	So I grew up in the mindset of I would never consider firing on a crowd of protesters, but now a dude pulled out a gun and shot at a guy.
	It's in a different realm.
	I have been saying this for some time now.
	Zoran Mamdani made it clear when he said he would stop Trump from enforcing the law.
	These people do not view themselves of the American tradition.
	They hate America.
	Zoran Mamdani allegedly has this blog.
	I don't know if it's actually his, but it's been going viral, where he talks about how he wishes he was white and how he feels such envy because he just wants to be white, but he can't.
	And so this is what motivates these people, disdain and jealousy.
	So this guy is basically saying in his campaign, when Donald Trump is elected, because he says illegal immigration is bad.
	So people say, okay, Trump, get the illegal immigrants out of this country.
	Zoran says, we will protect you.
	Now, who is you?
	Who are the families he's talking about?
	When we talk about conflict and factions and war, each side will refer to their enemies as their enemies.
	They'll say terrorists, right?
	But the left doesn't call these people terrorists.
	They'll call them rebels or freedom fighters or heroes, probably.
	When Zoran Mandani says protecting families, he's saying the people who broke our laws have spit on our Constitution and have nothing but disdain for our way of life, our traditions, and our laws.
	And when he says he will stop Trump from deporting them, he is telling everyone in the United States, you as an American, your will be damned.
	I will stop your president from doing anything about what we are doing.
	What I ultimately mean to say by this, Ian, you say, I never would have dreamed on opening fire on a cop.
	Well, yeah, because that cop is an American just like you.
	These people don't view themselves as American.
	They fly Mexican flags, Colombian flags.
	They fly flags of Honduras, and they're doing it because they want to make California Mexico again.
	So why is that guy shooting?
	Because he's thinking you, when he says you, to the ICE agents, are enemy occupiers of the land I seek to take away.
	Yeah, I think that's true.
	One American doesn't do it unless they're a criminal thinking, I don't care about anybody but myself.
	Yeah, I mean, at this point, they're also portrayed as martyrs, too.
	I mean, you go back, I do believe a little bit of this has to do with the Luigi effect, right?
	Where this guy has been raised up to the point where he is a saint in the eyes of so many people because he murdered a healthcare CEO in cold blood.
	And now with all these politicians out there, obviously Democrats, coming out and calling these guys Nazis, Gestapo, you know, every name in the book, constantly villainizing these people, they're empowered to go out and do this.
	And I mean, they're like, spend a few minutes on Reddit and look what they have to say about these kind of people.
	I mean, it is a disease at this point.
	And I don't know how we pull out of this.
	It's going to continue getting uglier unless we put the foot down.
	Can we just take a pause for a second and point out how ABC said, quote, a protester was seen firing some kind of weapon?
	I think the moment you're looking at a person opening fire, you say insurgents or terrorist.
	Yeah, they've broken ranks with the protest if they're opening fire on cops.
	They're no longer part of the protest.
	No, the protest has become a riot or an insurgent action.
	Because I'll tell you what's going to happen.
	Not everybody in the group obviously is going to agree with a guy shooting at someone.
	They're probably going to freak out and be like, I ain't sign up for this.
	But I guarantee you, a bunch of these people are going to be like, we will hide you and protect you.
	But you might also have an agitator in the crowd with them, and then they open fire.
	So you don't want to blame the whole crowd for one guy stepping out and doing.
	I disagree.
	I mean, honestly, you have to.
	You know why?
	Because when they all wear black masks and jeans and hoodies so that you can't prosecute and figure out who is doing the shooting, and then when they're told, show up doing this to obfuscate and cover it up, you got yourselves a unified action.
	So going into it with the black block, just know you're part of whatever any of these other black block people do is what you're saying.
	You can protest in other places.
	They're going to where ICE is trying to conduct operations.
	They can go downtown, hold up signs, and protest these blah, blah, blah operations and stuff without actually trying to prevent the police from doing what the police are supposed to do.
	So if they go there where the police are actually trying to perform operations, round them all up, put them in jail, even if it's only vicious conspiracy.
	What is?
	What these people are doing.
	That's just one of the charges.
	Attempted murder is the next charge.
	For sure.
	That guy with the gun.
	Yeah, attempted murder.
	In D.C., when Trump first got elected, hundreds of far leftists were rampaging through the city, smashing windows and starting fires.
	And they all wore the same clothes intentionally so that you couldn't figure out who did what.
	And that way, even if the cop watched a guy, he's wearing all black.
	He throws a brick and the cop grabs him and says, I got him.
	He threw the brick.
	What would happen is they'd go to court, they'd say jury trial, and then to the jury, the defense would say, what clothing was the defendant wearing?
	He was wearing a black hoodie with a black mask, sunglasses, and black jeans.
	And was there anyone else wearing this?
	Yes, they were all wearing it.
	So is there a possibility you grabbed the wrong person?
	No, I saw him do it.
	That's him.
	Then they say to the jury, do you really believe, imagine in your own mind, that there is a crowd of 300 people all wearing the exact same clothes.
	You can say beyond a reasonable doubt, you grabbed the correct person, especially in the mayhem Of pepper spray and rocks being thrown.
	And the jury goes, agreed.
	They dismissed all the charges.
	And that's, I don't know, that's literally what happened.
	That's the intention.
	That's what they want it to be.
	The government tried charging them with conspiracy by saying, when you show up wearing these clothes so that you can cover up for the people who are violent, you're in a conspiracy.
	And it was thrown out.
	It was dismissed.
	And then Antifa, various individuals, sued the city and won a million bucks.
	If you want to get, let me get this out.
	I want to hear what you say.
	No, no, no.
	I was scoffing at that fact.
	To call it a seditious conspiracy, if you can find funding for this and it's organized, yes, that is a seditious conspiracy.
	They're trying to overthrow the...
	It's a broad.
	I was listening to you guys argue.
	It's literally right here.
	If two or more persons, if two or more persons in any state or territory in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States conspire to overthrow, put down, destroy by force the government 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 of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprison not more than 20 years or both.
	If you are dressing up to cover up for other people, when you say we can't blame the whole group, I understand what you're saying, but I will counter with this.
	They know violence is a high probability and is likely.
	They know the reason they wear those clothes is to protect others who engage in violence.
	If someone then draws a gun and opens fire, it's exactly what these people signed up for.
	And considering that five days ago, a group of people, currently there's an FBI manhunt underway for one of the accomplices in the shooting on an ICE facility.
	There is no excuse, in my opinion, that you have a group of people launching fireworks at an ICE facility.
	And when they come out, a guy in the woods shoots a cop in the neck.
	And these people are going to feign ignorance.
	We had no idea that was going on.
	Yeah, well, it happened twice.
	So you expect me to believe that two instances where there was an armed ambush on immigration officers, shooting two cops in three days.
	And then less than a week later, you show up to this event and a guy draws a gun and you're going to go, I had no idea that could happen.
	Yes.
	I'm thinking about like in military conflict, if you are fighting against an enemy platoon and only one of them had a rifle and they're shooting at you, you don't like let all the other ones go.
	The entire platoon is your target.
	And you could think of these guys as a platoon of enemies all wearing a uniform.
	We're not in that domestic warfare situation.
	We're in the United States.
	They should all get arrested.
	They should be charged with accomplices to attempted murder, whatever the charge would be.
	We cannot be afraid of being called fascists when we enforce the law.
	Let me just pause real quick.
	In five days, what are we going on?
	We're going on six days.
	Leftists in three different instances have opened fire on law enforcement who have sworn an oath to the Constitution to uphold its laws and enforce them as they have been passed by Congress.
	Donald Trump won the popular vote.
	What these law enforcement officers are doing is the will of the voters, that is democracy.
	The agents came out with less lethal weapons because they're not trying to cause permanent harm to the people who are protesting.
	In response, they opened fire.
	I am surprised at the restraint of these law enforcement, considering in the past week, we've seen two ambushes.
	You'd think these officers would already be coming out with at least one guy prepped to use lethal force to put down an armed terrorist ambush.
	With a group like this and one guy pulling out a gun and opening fire, they all must be arrested and charged.
	We cannot be sitting here saying, no, no, no, no, hold on, guys.
	Let's just err in the benefit of the doubt that these people had no idea that there was going to be another armed ambush for the third time in a week.
	No, no, no, no.
	We can't do that.
	These people need to be made aware of a few things.
	One, we believe that based on the news, let me pause it like this.
	These protesters know more about the protests than you do, than I do, than anyone, any of us here or anyone online, because they're directly involved in the organization of these things.
	So you have to go to me and say, who do you think knows more about the planned actions?
	The actual people on the ground in that moment or strangers on the internet?
	And I'm going to say, I'm pretty sure the people who are there, who are told when to be there and why they should be there, know more.
	Okay.
	So then you think it's likely that these people are aware of the ambush on CBP and ICE last week?
	Probably yes.
	Because these people are having meetings about resistance to ICE.
	So the probability they know that there is violence against cops, two cops have been shot, is substantially greater than the average American.
	When they show up within the same week and a guy draws a gun, I say, if you are in these groups of people that are attempting to kill law enforcement, you will get arrested and charged.
	And what does that mean?
	Maybe we don't go seditious conspiracy.
	Maybe you want to be a little forgiving.
	Fine.
	That means they get a charge with accomplice to attempted murder or assaulted an officer, whatever it might be.
	But they all must be arrested and charged for the actions of the one guy with the gun.
	Makes me think of January 6th with all those people getting arrested that were just there, trespassing, the Trump up charges, and similar with the riot or it is completely different, Ian.
	If there had been a riot at the Capitol and then three days later, another riot at the Capitol, and then a week later, a thousand people showed up and there was a riot at the Capitol, I'd say, at what point are we going to be like, yo, those people knew a riot was going to happen?
	Like, it's the third time it happened.
	Well, the government said they knew beforehand.
	Without evidence.
	They hit seditious...
	Well, they text like, The people who walked in and were milling about it there were some people that were planning to get out.
	If you rioted, you should have been arrested on January 1st.
	You had to define riot.
	Is it yelling?
	No, it was the people who were punching cops and smashing windows and forcing their way into the window.
	The people were blocking, standing between that guy and the other cop.
	So you're saying the people who are involved in the riot and there is evidence that they were violent towards cops and smashed and vandalized, you charge them for sharing.
	And that guy that fired the gun, you charge him for firing the gun.
	That's right.
	Because this is the third time and, right, this is the third time we've had an ambush on law enforcement and these people are coordinated and organized, it's a little bit different.
	If there was a random group of people that, okay, after the shooting, let's say right now, because this is live, let's say they disperse.
	Then seven people walk up and are walking around, pointing cameras.
	If the cops went to those random people and arrest them and charge you with conspiracy, I completely agree.
	That makes no sense.
	They had no idea what was going on.
	They're walking down a public road.
	For the people on January 6th who walked up to a building on the other side where there's no riot and the doors were already open and they're like, I don't know, it's a public building.
	You're normally allowed to go in it.
	Why charge those people?
	This is the difference.
	Anybody who was in the riot, I believe, should have been charged.
	Now, I agree with the pardons on J6 because three years is long enough.
	It's a little too long for a riot, in my opinion.
	A couple of years is fine for assaulting an officer and vandalizing and desecrating or whatever you want to call it.
	I think you would have to prove that the people in the crowd with that guy who opened fire had been there before in order to say that they were conspiring.
	Yeah, I don't care.
	I'm going to say this one more time.
	I don't care what terrorists who are trying to murder cops say about me.
	That's what they said about the January 6th people.
	It doesn't matter, Ian, because you're completely wrong.
	Facts are on our side.
	What are you talking about?
	Okay, good.
	Let's try this one more time.
	We here read and watch the news all day, every day, and we are well aware of the true facts of January 6th.
	That is, a riot did occur.
	It was bad.
	People did assault officers.
	That is bad.
	Vandalism occurred.
	That is bad.
	But the state went after people who didn't do anything.
	People who an hour later were walking around on the grass, or Owen Schroyer, who never went in the building, or Brennan Strzok, who never went in the building.
	I am saying these people are actively in a small group during the same week where two other immigration officers were fired upon, and they're dressing in a way where they were told to dress to coordinate their actions.
	The uniform's interesting.
	Maybe you could argue if they're there in uniform.
	I would argue this.
	Again, if there was a riot at the Capitol, and then three days later, there was a riot at the Capitol, and then three days later, there was a riot at the Capitol.
	At that point, I'd argue, I think the people who are showing up are well aware that the intention is to riot at the Capitol.
	Now, I don't know about hunting them down across the country and trying to give them 20 years.
	Like I said, three years was too long.
	But for these people who are shooting cops, nobody on January 6th shot a cop.
	The media lied about cops dying.
	So what do you get charged with for assaulting an officer in a riot?
	Maybe a couple of years.
	Instead, they put people in solitary for three without even giving them a trial in some circumstances or withholding evidence.
	That's dramatically different.
	My point is you've got a cluster of like 20 people who have meetings, direct action.
	They've organized, they've shut up, and a guy pulled a gun and shot and tried to murder law enforcement.
	I want to know the funding.
	I want to know about the organization.
	This is exactly what I'm talking about.
	If there is a conspiracy here and people are grouping, it's not just emergent.
	We got to know who.
	Like you said, what do we do?
	How do we stop this without bringing the boot down?
	You figure out who's paying these people.
	There's a global culture war right now.
	Bring the boot down.
	Maybe you got to do both, but you've got to figure out why is this?
	Because if you just stop these, new people will emerge and do the same role if it's being funded by a communist global organization.
	I'm using the same argument that you were using with the pedophiles, too.
	Trying to stop the person doesn't stop the behavior.
	But you know, I want to talk about this part.
	Sorry, just one last point.
	Maybe when people who show up and provide cover for armed terrorists who are trying to murder cops, maybe when they get arrested and charged, and again, I'll say this, for the people that are party to that group who are apprised of the meeting and the action and the plans, maybe they'll say, I had no idea he'd draw a gun.
	Okay, well, you still get a year in jail for that.
	You are party to a group that tried to murder police, okay?
	Maybe when that happens, people stop showing up and giving cover to armed terrorists who are trying to murder law enforcement.
	If you're there in a uniform, man, and somebody else with your uniform on opens fire, commits a crime, I mean, your organization should be called a terrorist for one.
	Let me ask you this.
	What do you think would happen if your buddy asked, he said, hey, can you give me a ride to the bank real quick?
	I got to deposit a check.
	Oh, and he went and robbed the bank.
	And then he pulls out a gun and runs the building.
	Of course.
	You're an accomplice, even though you didn't know.
	You might get a reduced charge if you truly didn't know what was going on, but I would imagine you'd be implicated.
	Yeah, but you were talking about the issue where people are afraid, especially on the Republican side, of being called fascists or whatever.
	But the political ramifications of that, I don't think, you know, outside of like MSNBC pundits and such, that run-of-the-mill Americans are not going to side with you on cracking down on rioters that are opening fire on police officers.
	This is still a 60% 70%.
	It's how Americans want to see illegals deported.
	They don't want to see police being injured.
	They don't want to see rioters.
	It goes further than that when you're talking about shooting police officers.
	What are we at?
	80-20 now?
	Well, I mean, that's the thing.
	This is such a safe bet for the Trump administration to bring the boot down on because nobody likes this stuff.
	Nobody wants to see rioters.
	Nobody wants to see people hurting cops.
	Nobody wants to see illegals staying in the country and taking spaces at the hospital, taking up spaces on any kind of government assistance roles.
	The American people have made it very clear that they want to see deportations of illegal immigrants, not just criminal aliens, but actually the ones that are committing crimes, but even people that are here illegally.
	And if they're just trying to keep their head down, the American people want to see illegal sent home.
	This is not a hard problem for the administration.
	So what are we waiting for at this point, though?
	I mean, do we have to wait until one is actually killed before we put the boot down?
	Let me jump to this story.
	We've got this on the post-millennial.
	Wanted FBI manhunt underway for armed antifa suspect allegedly involved in the ambush shooting outside ICE detention center in Texas.
	Benjamin Hanil Song, 32 of Dallas, is wanted for attempted murder and is considered armed and dangerous.
	So we got somebody on the rung.
	They say the FBI believes Song purchased four of the firearms connected to the premeditated attack, which was allegedly carried out by a North Texas anti-facelle.
	Ten heavily armed members of the cell have been arrested and charged with attempted murder and other crimes.
	On July 4th, local and federal officers were lured to the area outside an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, and found themselves fired upon by a group of heavily armed militants dressed in black military-style clothing, according to the criminal complaint, one officer was shot in the neck but survived.
	Authorities said the gunmen fired approximately 20 to 30 rounds of ammo using AR-15 style rifles.
	So I got a question.
	Shot in the neck area from an AR-15, the presumption is that's going to be what?
	2-2-3 or 5-5-6?
	Yep.
	Seriously.
	Because if you actually got in the neck with it, it's going to cavitate, isn't it?
	It's going to vaporize a lot of your.
	Yeah.
	He probably got nicked.
	Thankfully, it was on the level of the shot that Trump got because he was released.
	So it didn't get a significant amount of...
	This is crazy.
	This guy is on the run.
	They say the FBI believes Song hid in the woods for roughly 24 hours after the ambush before escaping on foot.
	An FBI agent wrote in the court filing that Song's cell phone was traced near the scene of the crime beginning at 11.30 p.m. shortly after the attack and remained in the area through the day of July 5th.
	This guy laid and waited for a day.
	These people are not messing around.
	We had Yoram on the show on Monday and he says, didn't we see this in the 2020 riots?
	People are shooting cops.
	And I said, no.
	While we did see cops get shot, this is militant.
	The stuff we saw in the 2020 riots was more wanton.
	There was an instance where that guy with a sniper rifle went up on the roof in Texas.
	Absolutely.
	This is now two instances of organized, like strategized action.
	That is, these people were heavily armed.
	One guy hid for the ambush.
	They acted like routine protesters launching fireworks.
	And when the cops walked out, they unloaded with a rifle.
	This is like, okay, they say there's sleeper cells in the United States, potentially, from all this illegal people coming in.
	Of course, they're not gonna come out and be like, nine of them be like, "We are from Iran, and we will take..." They're going to go into an Antifa protest.
	They're going to be the one with the gun, try and get all their other American protesters arrested.
	So it's like a double win for them.
	Not only do they get to go after the government and scare everybody, they get to screw over all these other protesters.
	I'm not saying this guy was an insurgent or anything.
	I'm just saying this kind of thing, it's going to like you see one guy here, one guy here, one guy in that group.
	They could be foreign terrorists.
	Do we actually know?
	It says he's of Dallas, Texas.
	Do we actually know, or is this like Maryland man from El Salvador?
	Song, so he's not.
	He probably hasn't been in the United States for six generations.
	The guy's obviously got some Asian heritage, maybe Chinese, I don't know.
	Song Korean.
	Not that the first thing I thought was, oh, great.
	Is he a Chinese nationalist?
	That's the first thing I thought.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I'm like, get this racist shit out of your head, dude.
	But where else?
	What?
	I had another piece I'm going to come up with in a minute.
	Well, I mean, look, apparently this is the guy that was kind of like facilitating for everybody.
	And he's pretty well known among people that are on the left and people that follow the left.
	I guess Andy No was saying that he's had interactions with this guy as well.
	So look, this kind of stuff is just going to continue to escalate.
	That's what I'm thinking is they're getting away with it.
	I'm like, okay, this story is already written.
	The story of reality of humanity.
	Like we're just living a predestined thing where, oh, now Palantir is going to take over.
	They're going to have a super spy program domestically.
	They're going to have drones in the sky above us constantly for our own safety to make sure that we find all the illegal things.
	And that's the reality we're talking about.
	California in the next 30 years.
	California is doing that with fireworks.
	There's a guy that's going to get off $100,000 fine because in the LA area, because he was setting off fireworks and the police had drones just, you know.
	It's $1,000 per firework.
	And even if it's at your house and you're not there, you still get charged with it because they passed a law that social happenings at your dwelling are your responsibility, so you get fined for it too.
	So if I go into my neighbor's vacation house and start blasting off fireworks for July 4th, he gets charged with it.
	I'm good.
	It's fantastic.
	Yeah.
	Legal doesn't mean good.
	So we get this over-obsessed system of legality where everyone's like, it can't happen because it's illegal.
	Yes.
	Hey, dude, this is getting nuts.
	ICE using Blackhawks to support the farm raids.
	Watch this video.
	Who have showed up to vehemently protest what's going on here.
	And just for the last Border Patrol helicopter has entered the scene here.
	They are landing in the middle of the farm as we speak.
	It will appear that they were not planning to be here as long as they have been.
	And so this helicopter that you're looking at here, guys, apparently just made a run over to Van Nuys Airport for some cases of water, which is what they're bringing into the scene here.
	So there are a whole team of ICE.
	They're just hydrating law enforcement.
	I thought they were dispatching more units.
	They're definitely showing.
	But they were doing that during the LA riots.
	They did bring a Blackhawk in and unload tactical gear with it.
	So we know that they are, and I just looked at the registration on that.
	That is a DHS helicopter.
	This is, let me just say, holy crap, what we're starting to see this past week.
	And I hope it's a blip.
	You know, when the 2020 riots happened, we said, we hope it's a blip.
	And it got bad over that year and the next year with violence.
	And then we kind of had a lull where probably because Biden was in charge, Antifa wasn't going as hard as it did in 2020.
	But Trump is president now.
	He's enacting the will of the people.
	And we're on what, month six?
	And we're not even.
	And now we've seen militant strategic ambushes on law enforcement.
	I don't see how this goes away.
	I think it escalates.
	I think it escalates to the point where we are forced to deploy the military and have military intervention.
	I mean, what is the incentive for them to slow down and stop right now?
	There's hardly anything.
	We have this conversation like every other week, almost, where we ask the question amongst ourselves, what is the logic behind a de-escalation?
	It would only be to enhance stability, domestic stability, in case there's a global conflict and a war.
	Like the Russians in 1916, the Russian Revolution screwed the Russian empire out of World War I. They couldn't even fight in the war because there's domestic.
	This is all about domestic stuff.
	I mean, this isn't really international.
	I wish borders protected us, but it's all international at this point.
	This is not accidental.
	This is a global move.
	The culture war, they call it, is like they're using internet to seed communities of people to do uprisings.
	They're funding probably crypto being passed behind black channels.
	It's all connected, man.
	Yeah, it is.
	And I tell you, communism, fascism, global tyranny would love probably the most thing they would love at all to see the United States fall is to see this democracy kill itself.
	It would be the ultimate win for, like you said, this experiment of freedom where we're all kind of legally equal.
	It's real new.
	It's tenuous at best.
	So that would be the one reason to de-escalate is to maintain stability.
	But that doesn't necessarily mean in the long run that we would be stabilizing.
	There are a million reasons to de-escalate.
	There's an infinite number of reasons to de-escalate.
	The question is, what is the logic for a path that results in de-escalation?
	There isn't one.
	Well, off the top of my head, maybe not, but yeah, I like that.
	Hypothetically, Donald Trump crushes them and then stops.
	He goes in with a heavy hand and then they stop.
	But I think I don't know that Trump would go heavy enough.
	And like I said, the right is scared of being called a fascist or fascists.
	So they keep saying, oh, we better not.
	We better not.
	And it's like, okay, well, the reason why we're seeing this degree of violence is because when the far left came out with explosives, they didn't get arrested.
	And so the college kids and the people they were recruiting, they were like, look, if you come out and join us, you won't get arrested.
	It never happens.
	Okay.
	And so the next step is obviously guns.
	I think you have to crack down on it because it's like a fire, a brush fire right now.
	And it's multiple brush fires.
	And if you don't put them out, one of those can create a forest fire, which can destroy your entire ecosystem.
	And I saw that in 2020.
	I was like, why did he not bring out the National Guard day two of those stupid riots?
	I'm like, why is this still happening?
	Why has three days have gone by and it hasn't been quelled?
	And you know, they call it pacification.
	That's the word that the militant conquerors want to use about like, we're just bringing peace and stability.
	We're pacifying the populace.
	Well, what does that mean?
	They're going in there and stomping it down with guns, swords.
	Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised.
	I know it's probably cliche to see if we go down the Roman Republic route and the Republic, as we'd call it, crumbles and it becomes something else.
	I mean, we called it the Roman Empire after the fact, but I don't know that we would do that because people have an aversion to that.
	Begging for a strong man like Caesar, that would be Trump, and then giving him massive authorities.
	Caesar took it, or they basically gave it to him.
	Jack, we asked it to him.
	In the event that, like, let's say within a year, this is 100 times worse.
	Trump's going to be granted emergency powers.
	He's going to insurrection act the entire country.
	He should be impeached if it's 100 times worse.
	He's not doing his job.
	Trump should be impeached if insurgent, leftist, violent terrorists are attacking the country.
	We need a real president that would stop that from happening.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	I kind of interrupted what you were saying.
	If someone were, a president were to let this get 100 times worse, they should not be our president.
	That's ineffectual leadership.
	Oh, so you think they need to bring down...
	I'm kind of with you.
	I mean, I think you have to crack down.
	Like, you have to bring out heavy weapons.
	No, you don't bring out heavy weapons.
	Anything about heavy weapons.
	I'm talking about heavy weapons.
	Like, you scare the shit out of the people that are doing it.
	They should have one cop right there armed with a rifle for the phone where the cipher bullets come from where you can't even see kind of thing.
	So people are like, I just don't even want to go outside.
	Only in the event.
	Okay, Ian, only in the event the police are about to be killed.
	Right.
	That's my point.
	I'm saying they should all be arrested and charged as accomplices so that the other people, these young people who join these riots, know you can't be party to these things.
	We will punish you.
	You'll be punished.
	You'll be arrested.
	But when I say it gets 100 times worse, I don't know that there's theoretically any reasonable thing Trump can do to prevent it from getting 100 times worse.
	If the far left organizes in a short period of time and decides to go out in the streets with rifles and start unloading on law enforcement, that's not something that we just predict is going to happen.
	Unless you're suggesting Donald Trump begin a mass surveillance program of these people and then arrest them before it can happen.
	Because it's not just these people.
	It'll be everybody.
	That's the problem with mass surveillance.
	My point was what we are seeing here, some people are suggesting in the comments that these are cannabis growers, probably cartel linked, and that's why they're opening fire.
	If it does turn out, cartel interests say this is now war, and it is 100 times worse, meaning you are seeing rifle fire from the shrubs, it's the bushes at cops.
	Cops are in armored, you know, APCs are taking fire.
	The military is coming in.
	If something like that were to happen, the American people would say, Donald Trump, we grant you the supreme authority to stop this.
	And let me just add one more thing.
	Let me ask you guys this question.
	Actually, let's do this.
	Let's start here.
	I just saw your poll in the chat on YouTube.
	All right.
	Let me launch this story from the New York Times because this is a big component of it.
	Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order in class action challenge.
	Didn't we do that last week?
	What?
	Didn't they just have a finding about this like two weeks ago?
	The universal injunctions were stopped.
	But let's start here.
	What we are seeing right now is Donald Trump's agenda, the will of the people, and the response to the left.
	There's an institutional conflict happening where judges are trying to stop Trump and the people's agenda.
	And then you have in the streets, people are shooting at Donald Trump.
	I'm sorry, they're shooting at Donald Trump's agenda is what I mean to say.
	They're using guns against law enforcement to prevent the agenda from happening and targeting what we want, you know, stopping what the American people have voted for.
	So right now, I want to ask you guys some questions and so we can address how Trump responds to what's been going on.
	Let me just, for the sake of it, for clarity, people may be just joining this segment for the first time.
	We have just gotten within the past hour a report and a video of a man opening fire on law enforcement in these raids northwest of L.A. Monday, we had an armed rifle, a man with a rifle ambush CBP officers shooting a cop.
	And Friday, an organized, militarized group ambushed police outside of an ICE facility.
	So with that being said, I have a question for you guys.
	What do you think would have happened if Abraham Lincoln said, after seven states seceded from the Union, if he said, okay, I guess?
	There would have been two countries, the North and the South, and then they would have went to war.
	It probably would have been 10 times the blood.
	Because Two countries can't exist on this continent together alone.
	Canada and the United States currently exist on this continent.
	Because New England wants the Gulf of Mexico sea access.
	They want Pacific Coast access.
	Let's try this.
	Nick, what do you think would have happened if Abraham Lincoln said, okay, when the South seceded?
	Well, I mean, it depends.
	Are we talking about what would Northern Patriots have done?
	I mean, I don't think that we would have actually allowed that to happen.
	In the event, Abraham Lincoln said, seven states have seceded from the Union.
	Okay.
	What happens next?
	Well, he wouldn't have been elected again.
	That's probably true.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So four years later or three years later, I think, yeah, it would have been four years later because the secession happened before he got in.
	So he gets in.
	So before he even got into office, seven states had seceded.
	He gets in and says, guys, we accept this.
	So he wouldn't get elected again.
	Let's just pause there.
	There will be, right?
	Phil, what do you think would happen?
	I think that there would be foreign powers trying to influence the United States and the Confederate states.
	The stability of both of the countries would have been in question.
	I think that it's possible that the southern states might have actually aligned with like France or something like that.
	Okay, with Spain.
	Right.
	And so over a long period of time, there'd be trade disputes and quabbles.
	Squabbles.
	Wow.
	Surprisingly, you know what wouldn't have happened?
	The Civil War.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's why I said a war would have broken out.
	I think it would have.
	It just would have been a global war with foreign powers funding both sides.
	My question to you is, what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln decided not to engage the citizens?
	In the short term, there would have been a successful secession, and in the long term, there would have been a horrible war.
	We're not talking long term.
	The point I'm making is the Civil War started because Abraham Lincoln put his boot down and said, we are not going to let the Union dissolve.
	The South was content to sit where they were and said no.
	And Abraham Lincoln said, well, actually, Fort Sumter was Abraham Lincoln, it was basically the U.S. government saying, look, this is our base.
	You can't have it.
	And then the Battle of Bull Run was the North basically saying, we will fight you for this.
	And then after that, Abraham Lincoln said, we are going to amass troops and go down to the South.
	That's why Southerners called the War of Northern Aggression.
	But I'll say this, slavery is evil.
	So Abraham Lincoln said the Union will not be dissolved.
	He did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves.
	He did it to destabilize the South, as evidenced by the fact that Maryland and Delaware were allowed to keep their slaves.
	The point being, Abraham Lincoln said, I will suspend the Constitution where I see fit.
	I will arrest the Maryland legislature where I see fit.
	And he is called the greatest president in this country.
	It was the Baltimore riot is why he suspended habeas corpus.
	There was this riot in Baltimore.
	It was too close to the Capitol.
	It was a big threat.
	So he's like, fuck, fuck it.
	Arrest them all.
	No matter what.
	Don't care.
	Don't care why.
	No evidence needed.
	You lock them up and you keep them there forever.
	They were at war.
	And he did.
	Yeah.
	This is before.
	This is the start of the war where he decided.
	Are you sure?
	Well, look it up.
	Because if it was mid-war, my point is the beginning of the war established territories.
	The U.S. government, Abraham Lincoln, basically said, we need a corridor between Pennsylvania and D.C., and Maryland is a slave state with Southern sympathies.
	So he arrested a third of the Maryland legislature because they were sympathetic to the South and a slave state so that they would not rise against him.
	And he suspended habeas corpus in a corridor from Pennsylvania to D.C. so that they wouldn't be obstructed.
	Yeah, you're right.
	It was the Baltimore riots of 1861 right at the beginning, considered the first bloodshed of the American Civil War.
	Huge riot broke out in Baltimore and then they had military clampdowns.
	And so my point is the right is so afraid of being called fascists and that they don't enforce the law as it's written, let alone what Abraham Lincoln did.
	Had Abraham Lincoln not done that, that probably the United States would not be here today.
	Agreed.
	And so my point is, all I'm saying is that Donald Trump should use the laws placed before him within the constitutional powers that have already been adjudicated, the Insurrection Act, for instance.
	He just won on the National Guard case last month and shut down these extremists how he needs to so that we do not escalate to that point.
	And my counter is you are the process that you commit.
	So what we do, how we get there is going to dictate what we are when it's over with.
	But at the same time, Lincoln shut down habeas corpus and then brought it back.
	Like you don't have, just because you do a horrible tyrannical thing or just a dangerously powerfully tyrannical thing doesn't mean that that's always going to be how it is forever after that.
	Like there are going to be moments of crackdown.
	Right.
	So the way I look at it right now is there will come a time where a line is drawn and we don't know what that line will be or when it will be or how or where.
	Abraham Lincoln had a choice.
	He could have said, hey guys, I'm getting into office in a couple months and these seven states have declared secession.
	There was a period where for several months, they were just operating as if they were the Confederacy.
	Then Abraham Lincoln, so after Abraham Lincoln got elected, he was president-elect, they declared they were seceding out of fears that he would shut down slavery, which would damage their economy.
	The actual argument from Lincoln was, no, no, you can keep your slaves, just no new slaves anywhere else.
	That was still a threat to them because you had bleeding Kansas for seven years where people were shooting each other over slaves like John Brown.
	So they secede.
	Abraham Lincoln, a couple months later, gets in to office and then says, I'm not letting that happen.
	So Fort Sumter happens.
	I could be totally wrong about this, but I think it was Fort Sumter.
	No one actually died in the conflict.
	One person died due to an accident or something.
	It was like misfire.
	And then the Battle of Bull Run was bloody.
	And I believe it was after that Abraham Lincoln, because they were defeated, called upon to send like 15, was it like he called 15,000 troops or something like this.
	Whatever he ended up doing it, he called for troops to go quell the rebellion, which resulted in four more states seceding and joining the Confederacy, which I think included Virginia.
	I don't know if, I don't think Virginia seceded initially.
	It did not.
	Yeah.
	And then because of the actions of Lincoln, basically saying, Constitution be damned, they went, holy crap, this is, we don't want this.
	And then he said, don't know, don't care.
	I am going to do whatever it takes to preserve the Union and stop you.
	You're asking where that line is, it seems like.
	I think the line is kind of obvious at this point, in my opinion anyway.
	As soon as you see a situation like this where somebody is opening fire and an ICE agent is actually killed, I think that's the line.
	I think once you cross that, I think the political pressure on Trump by itself is going to force him to act in a swift and strong manner, which is going to require the military.
	What more assets can DHS bring out on their own?
	I mean, at this point, they got to be close to tapped out.
	I mean, you can bring more manpower and stuff in, but at that point, if you're getting ICE agents and such killed, just look at the base.
	Look at what the base is going to do at that point.
	They're going to freak the hell out, and President Trump isn't going to have a choice.
	I think he's going to have to bring in the military.
	If it's cartel stuff, that got mentioned earlier.
	If it's actual cartel stuff, I mean, are they considered terrorist organizations at this point?
	Yes.
	You do like behind enemy lines.
	Have you military actions if that's the case?
	Have you ever watched any of the cartel stuff from Mexico?
	Like what the cartels actually look like?
	It's not just like, it's not like the old, you know, like mobster movie stuff.
	Like they're, they're rolling around with like actual full-on.
	Snarco tanks?
	Yeah, they have kit.
	They have they've got like full-on like 134 Gatlin guns, M2 machine guns.
	They're all kitted up.
	They have rocket launchers.
	They have grenade launchers.
	It's far closer to what we fought, what the U.S. fought in Afghanistan than it is to, you know, any kind of just, you know, police action stuff.
	So they were, they would need legitimate military assets to actually engage.
	Where do they get the weapons from?
	Well, they have javelins now from Ukraine.
	So they got them from the market.
	And that's true.
	Yes, absolutely.
	The Sinoloa cartel has javelins.
	Long-range missiles.
	Yes.
	Well, service to air, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Like, it's no joke.
	Like, to take on the cartels would be an endeavor as similar to taking on the terrorists in the Middle East or in Afghanistan.
	Yeah, it's not as mountainous in Mexico as it is in Afghanistan.
	I don't think that's a lot of fun.
	There's mountains.
	There's mountains on the west of the western side.
	And even still, the topography isn't as important as it is the weaponry that they have.
	Right.
	They're using 2005 weapons, and we have 20, 25 weapons.
	They're using drones, dude.
	They're using 2025 weapons.
	Let's jump to, so I did pull the story, but let's actually dive into it.
	We have this from the New York Times.
	A district court judge in New Hampshire has blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order in a class action challenge.
	So this was filed by the ACLU, and they sought to create a class of people that was future people or current people born after February 20th and illegal immigrants as their class.
	So the judge ruled only existing infants are subject to this ruling, but that does mean infants in the entire country.
	Trump cannot enforce the ban on birthright citizenship for now.
	So he'll likely appeal this.
	The interesting thing about it is that because of the way the Supreme Court ruled on district courts and class actions, Trump just needs to create a new class himself.
	So like make an executive order saying if anybody wants to register their child for their birth, register their birth, they need to have two, they each have to have a legal form of ID on them at the time of, and then what happens is then they're going to be like, that's not fair.
	And then they're going to, then ACLU will be like, anyone who doesn't have a legal form of ID is our, within our class.
	And then Trump could just keep doing it.
	But this is the second case here where they have circumvented this Supreme Court ban on nationwide injunctions by deciding that it's all of a sudden a class action lawsuit.
	It's not like these infants or their parents signed on to the lawsuit.
	The judge brought them in by himself.
	So I don't really understand.
	At what point is that is that actually allowed?
	Is that part going to be challenged as well?
	Because it seems like they're just using a loophole here.
	What am I missing?
	I mean, I feel like the...
	I feel like the administration just should just totally ignore this judge because the Supreme Court's already decided.
	No, the Supreme Court decided you need a class.
	Oh, okay.
	So, all right, yeah, all right.
	So the circumstance of the ACAU created a class.
	The judge said this class is protected and that class is all infants.
	But everyone's not.
	Leto specified that this was a downstream effect.
	So the Supreme Court should step in and say.
	The Supreme Court said Trump could not enforce the ban for 30 days, specifically to create leeway for groups to challenge his executive order.
	But how did they create a class?
	So they file a class action and they list in their filing, our class is as such, and the judge says yes or no.
	The judge removed the unborn and adults from the class, creating a singular class of infants.
	I think it's specifically infants of undocumented parents is the class.
	And then he said, I roll from the bench.
	Trump can't do this.
	They used this, I believe last week, too, this same little loophole thing where they decided that all asylum seekers are a class as well.
	And so they should be allowed to go through the regular asylum process at the southern border again, you know, after Trump made the executive order kind of shutting that entire thing down.
	So, I mean, it, but, you know, I don't know the legality of this.
	I'm assuming that the Trump administration is going to very quickly challenge these two cases, but it seems like we're back where we started.
	I mean, we're essentially still facing nationwide injunctions under a different name.
	I mean, am I wrong?
	Am I missing something?
	So the issue, there couldn't be an injunction that affects the entire country so long it's not granting relief outside of the plaintiffs.
	So if it's a class action and the plaintiffs are nationwide, it affects them nationwide.
	I think that's fine.
	It creates this path where Trump can just create a bunch of new classes himself.
	So again, Trump could be like, so let me add that to this.
	Actually, I was wrong.
	It's not just the children of undocumented, but also to those born to academics in the U.S. on student visas.
	What?
	Weird, weird class, but sure.
	Anyway.
	A Chinese guy comes here and he's 23 on a school visa and he has a kid.
	The kid's an American citizen.
	That's how it is right now, always.
	That's so messed up.
	It's ridiculous.
	So anyway, for Trump, he need only sign another executive order.
	And he can do it any way he wants.
	Like I said, he could do that.
	You need to have a legal ID when you're registering the birth of your child.
	Otherwise, that's an illegal registration.
	That's a void registration.
	And then basically the illegal immigrants are going to be like, we don't have those.
	And they'll be like, well, then we can't register the child.
	So then they can't claim he was born here.
	Then they're going to file and sue and say it's unconstitutional.
	You can't do this.
	And they're going to claim black people don't have IDs or something.
	And then Trump could just say, okay, he can line up 50 executive orders and say, I will see you all in court on this.
	Now, don't get me wrong.
	It's kind of messed up.
	He can't do that.
	That's what Cuomo was basically doing in New York.
	He shut down all the churches.
	They sued.
	The judges, the court said, open the churches.
	And he went, sure, the churches are now hereby opened.
	And another executive order, slightly different.
	Can't go to church now.
	So he kept doing that.
	Trump could play the same game.
	He can then say after the IDs, he could say something like, you need proof of residency.
	You know, that's it.
	And then they're going to be like, oh, we're going to sue.
	He could literally just make the same executive order again, and they're going to have to sue him.
	They were doing it with district court judges.
	And then it'll have to go to the Supreme Court again, and it would just tie everything up.
	And in the meantime, in this period, birth recitership is effectively stalled.
	As long as it keeps going.
	Stalled in that it's not happening right now or stalled in that.
	It would be stalled until, I don't know.
	Trump wins or loses, I guess.
	Stalled as in kids are American citizens or they're not and they're not.
	So that's the law right now?
	So right now, this injunction stops Trump from enforcing the registration of babies as U.S. citizens, effectively, of the children of non-citizens.
	So they've put this stay on specifically these kids, which is interesting because it's actually really interesting.
	Trump actually has a big victory here.
	If this is the, I want to read this look.
	It says, the decision applies nationwide to babies who would have been subject to the executive order, which included the children of undocumented parents and those born to academics.
	My question then is, what about the children born to a tourist?
	Is Trump still winning a bit on this?
	Interesting.
	Because tourists are documented.
	They just hear on temporary statements.
	Stay in cards.
	People here on green cards also.
	Their kids are not citizens.
	Right.
	Well, I guess that is what that would indicate.
	The judge is just trying to pick away at the mountain.
	So we're making steps forward here is what you're saying.
	I mean, little steps.
	If that's the direction you're heading, speed forward.
	But yeah, I mean, the kind of the class stuff, that is what Alita was talking about when he.
	Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	Guys, I just never trust the New York Times.
	Never trust.
	Noted.
	So my understanding based on the New York Times reporting, and I always read a couple stories, and then I choose my principal source.
	And so I had read, you know, like CNN and NBC, and then I said, I'm going to go with the New York Times, got a better headline.
	I pulled up the actual statement from the ACLU.
	They may have just banned abortion.
	No, tell me.
	Future persons are a legal class, protected and deserving of representation before the courts.
	Future persons.
	Oh.
	ACLU can't make that decision.
	No, no, no.
	It's in the court order.
	It says, in light of the above, this court grants petitioners' motion and provisionally certifies the following class for the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief.
	All current and future persons who are born on or after February 2025.
	And then it goes on to add, where that person's mother was unlawfully president of the United States, the person's father was not a U.S. citizen, or a lawful permanent resident at the time of said birth, or the person's mother's president of the U.S. was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident time.
	They have just certified future persons as a class deserving of representation and injunctive relief.
	I should have just read the direct order.
	That's my fault.
	I apologize because this is what we've been talking about the whole time.
	This means every single pro-life group should right now be launching 20 different lawsuits everywhere they can in every single state.
	This judge just said future persons, like kids that aren't even conceived yet, have a legal right to representation.
	Holy.
	The thing is, you can make something a law that doesn't make sense.
	This sounds like it doesn't make sense.
	Like if you said it is illegal for a human to fly straight up in the air 7,000 feet, you could pass that law.
	It would never happen.
	People don't fly straight up in the air 7,000 feet.
	So like, what's the point of that law?
	Same as this.
	They're not people.
	There are no future persons to become future persons.
	You understand?
	Well, yeah, there are.
	No, they're not future.
	They're nothing.
	There's nothing there.
	It doesn't become something.
	Yeah.
	So unless they're already conceived in the womb, there's no person to say people that aren't even conceived yet in that law.
	They're indicating that children that have yet to be born in three years from now, which means they're not in the womb at this point.
	No, no, it's pretty specific.
	It says, if it says right there, it's in the future persons who are born or after February 20th, 2025.
	It's very specific.
	It says right there.
	Future persons that are born in 29.
	On or after February 20th.
	So if a kid's born in 2029, this law would still affect them, even though they haven't been conceived yet now.
	They're not a future person right now.
	They're literally saying someone who could be born 20 years from now.
	A future person means every conceivable human ever.
	Yeah.
	Like robot.
	You want to talk about personhood?
	I think India gave dolphins or elephants personhood or something.
	Dolphins.
	Yo, this is wild.
	All future persons is an infinite statement.
	A future person could refer to, like you just said, dolphins.
	Like if in the future personhood is granted to a dolphin.
	Artificial intelligence personas.
	So this is, okay, so we had Will Chamberlain on when the Supreme Court issued this ruling.
	He's an actual lawyer.
	And we were talking about what does it mean that they argued for future persons?
	And he was like, I don't know that future persons can have legal standing.
	Wait, what?
	And I'm like, that's the class they're seeking to, that's the group they're seeing to form a class against or for.
	Future person, ignore all the weird semantic problems.
	What the ACLU meant is a baby in the womb.
	That's what they meant.
	I mean, I think they do literally mean someone who was conceived a year from now as well, but they're trying to sneak that in there.
	They're basically saying a baby in the womb, not yet born, is a future person, and they have legal standing as a class to be represented according to this judge.
	This means any pro-life group should file with the exact same judge or citing this ruling, argue They would seek injunctive relief to block any abortion so long as this is in effect.
	Like, is it illegal to kill a future person?
	That's the question.
	The argument is simply this: if you can get injunctive relief granted to a future person for the issue of citizenship not yet received, you better damn well be able to protect their life from indeed they're a future person, and you are protecting them from the termination of their life and the inhibition of their future personhood.
	So, are you saying so are you going to the point where you can say that, okay, a class action lawsuit could be filed by moms for life or something like that, and that class is future persons who were born on or after February 20th, 2025?
	Is that what you're talking about?
	Like creating a class out of that with this same judge to block a board?
	Now, here's what's going to happen.
	This same judge is probably going to be a liberal or just be like, no.
	And then we need this to happen right now.
	Every single pro-life group tweet it out, share it.
	They need to be filing tomorrow to this same district judge in the same district because he needs to then explain why in one instance he would allow legal standing as a class of future persons for illegal immigrants, but not for those about to be aborted.
	And then if you simultaneously have in both instances, I do not grant this as a class, then we get to ask the question, why is that?
	Or he just goes, okay.
	And then you say, all right, before you can abort a baby, the baby gets representation and that person will represent them before a court.
	You just, having all the abortion, anti-abortion, pro-life activists saying, I need to legally protect my future child, my future child makes no sense.
	It violates every norm of the abortion debate.
	It's so ridiculous.
	And it pokes a hole in this guy's argument.
	You cannot legally protect, I mean, you legally protect the unborn.
	You can do that, but they don't have order-granting class certifications.
	They're future persons.
	Like, they're not persons.
	You can't have a future person.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	The unborn in the womb are future persons from a technical standard.
	Unless they die, you never know.
	They're a person when they're a person.
	Right.
	And that's always.
	Yeah.
	You can't do that.
	This is actually, it needs to be adjudicated in the 14th Amendment, which I've pulled up time and time again.
	And my belief is that abortion will be abolished because of the 14th Amendment.
	I think it will too, but that's because they're going to put neural nets in the infants in the womb and be like, oh my God, they're smarter than I am.
	Let me just read.
	All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, period.
	No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
	Semicolon.
	Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
	Now, hold on.
	Read the first sentence for me, Ian.
	All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
	So what they've stated is that citizen is a word that means person who has been born or naturalized in the United States.
	And was subject to the jurisdiction at the time.
	Agreed.
	That would imply that persons are persons before being born.
	All persons born.
	So able to be born, you must have been a person to be born.
	You become a person once you're born.
	Because here's the argument.
	You could theoretically argue that they're saying a person is a human being.
	And if you are a human being who was born or naturalized and subject to jurisdiction thereof, you also qualify as a citizen.
	Well, then, if that's the argument you could take, maybe they will.
	I would also argue it's saying a person who is born implies you were a person before you were born, but that's neither here nor there.
	Take it if you want.
	It says, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.
	The argument then becomes exactly what I just said.
	When do you become a person?
	It doesn't say in the 14th Amendment, you become a person upon birth.
	If that birth is in the United States, you are a citizen.
	It says persons born.
	It also says you can't deprive a person of life, liberty, or property.
	The question the Supreme Court needs to answer is when does someone become a person?
	Yeah.
	I think they're going to say that they become a person because of this.
	This is why the ACLU said future persons, because they were trying to avoid this.
	I think they can't, though, and I think they know it.
	Yeah, that's crazy.
	Because they said future person in their class, not unborn persons, because they knew what that would mean.
	The problem is, so long as future persons have legal standing as a class to be represented, to seek injunctive relief, anyone should be able to sue on behalf of a class, the unborn, seeking injunctive relief against their own termination.
	Now, the problem here is, if they say, no, the baby can be terminated, the argument is, why can future persons be granted injunctive relief on something that has not yet happened in one instance, but not the other?
	I think the ACLU has walked themselves into a pit trap.
	You'd love to see it.
	You'd love to see it.
	Screw the ACLU.
	So the, I don't know if you guys know, but the U.S. attorney, Bill Essay, he's the...
	Yeah, the official attorney for the Central District of California.
	He just tweeted, the federal agents are executing a search warrant at this marijuana farm.
	Agents have already arrested multiple individuals for impeding this operation and will continue to make arrests.
	Don't interfere.
	You'll be arrested and charged with federal offenses.
	So, like, this isn't just about illegals.
	This is about a search warrant on the marijuana farm because they believe that it's tied to cartels.
	That's where that shooting happened?
	We got to do one more segment.
	We got to do one more segment, ladies and gentlemen.
	Oh, look, yeah.
	Ladies and gentlemen, we went and saw Superman.
	Check it out from the Hollywood Reporter.
	Superman Review.
	James Gunn gives DC Studios Crown Jewel a gleaming polish with help from David Kornsweet and Rachel Brosnahan.
	So the big story was that it was woke.
	The director had made comments about immigration.
	Sean Gunn, his brother, had made comments about people who spread hate.
	And the immediate assumption for many people was that it was going to be woke.
	Another story is Superman used to say, truth, justice, and the American way.
	And now he says, truth, justice, and the human way.
	When we went and saw the movie, and I will tell you this, it is not woke.
	It's not political.
	There's only one political comment in it.
	And it was a joke mocking, it wasn't really mocking anybody.
	It was just an overt general statement that didn't direct anything towards anybody.
	I will get into spoilers in a little bit, but I'll give you guys a heads up so we can talk a little bit about it right now and address the political stuff.
	It was not about immigration, it was not political in any way.
	From the trailers, you can see, so this is not a spoiler.
	You know, Superman's basically like he stops a war between two nations.
	That's technically as political as it gets.
	The motivations of the villain have nothing to do with wokeness, Marxism, critical theory.
	It is classic Lex Luther versus Superman.
	I thought the movie was pretty good.
	However, I will say this, and this is kind of a spoiler, but it's kind of not.
	Guys, the interdimensional monkeys is true.
	I knew that.
	I knew it.
	So a while ago, there was a leak that in the movie, there were interdimensional monkeys that were spamming Twitter, insulting Superman to make him angry.
	And I thought someone made that up to mock James Gunn Superman by throwing some stupid idea out there.
	Indeed, it is in the movie.
	And the beginning of the movie was okay.
	And I was like, eh, I don't know how I feel about this.
	C minus, maybe.
	Now it's a D plus.
	And then the moment I saw the monkeys, F, I was almost ready to walk out of the theater.
	But I rolled my eyes and I went, oh my God.
	Literally, Lex Luther has an army of interdimensional monkeys that are insulting Superman on Twitter.
	Interdimensional how?
	We'll get into that a little bit because I don't want to get spoilers, but they are interdimensional monkeys.
	They are normal earth monkeys in an interdimensional plane.
	There you go.
	Cool.
	So what I will say is after this, I was flatlining.
	Like, if there's like a meter showing, like, how much do I like the movie?
	In the beginning, it was the intro showing off Lex Luther's abilities spiked way up to the top.
	I was like, yes.
	Because what I love in superhero movies is humans who are better than superheroes.
	That's why I like Batman.
	That's why I like Iron Man.
	That's why I like Doctor Strange.
	Human, regular humans who acquire their ability through hard work.
	Like Doctor Strange studied, Iron Man invented things, Mr. Terrific invented things.
	I love that.
	So beginning was like really good.
	And then it slowed down.
	I was getting bored.
	And I was like, it's okay.
	I guess it's whatever.
	I'm not really.
	And then the monkeys thing happened.
	And I was like, I will walk out.
	I swear to God.
	Stuck around a little bit.
	And it improved so dramatically, in my opinion, that I gave the film an eight out of 10.
	And I probably would have given it a 10 out of 10 if they didn't do the monkeys thing and the beginning was a little bit stronger.
	You know, movies, music, they tend to take the shape of if the beginning and the end are awesome, it's really the middle is not too important.
	It's how you feel when it starts and how you feel when it's over.
	It's the most important.
	Well, generally, if it starts strong and ends strong, you have a relative success.
	Let's get into some spoilers.
	Now, I will stress the whole movie's already been spoiled because a few days ago before the movie came out, a review was leaked that basically laid out the entirety of the plot.
	Some people have tried making claims there's an Israel-Palestine reference in it.
	There is not.
	The two nations that Superman stops from going to war is a wealthier Eastern European nation and a poorer tribal South Asian nation like India or Pakistan.
	I think they intentionally avoided getting, like, they were like, let's not make it easier.
	I think they intentionally avoided making it look like Ukraine and Russia or Israel-Palestine.
	So it's random countries.
	The map where it shows the countries are is a nondescript close-up, so you don't really know on the planet where it is.
	And they're made up countries.
	The conflict is that Superman feels he has the authority to engage in global affairs.
	And the U.S. government is like, this is causing us problems, but we don't want to intervene because Superman's largely good.
	And then basically, the principal motivations of Lex Luther is, actually I would argue this.
	It actually kind of digs at communists and wokeness.
	If you really want to find a political message, Lex Luther's motivation is that he is jealous.
	This is literally the plot.
	Superman has done nothing to earn his powers.
	He is naturally gifted, and that's an affront to what it means to be someone who works so hard.
	And so these leftists who are upset at people who are naturally beautiful or white privilege, you never earned that.
	You didn't make it.
	It was done for you is basically the motivations of the villain.
	I still wouldn't call it woke, like political in any way.
	But if you really wanted to squeeze it in there.
	It sounds like they attempted to depoliticize it so extremely that they took truth, justice, and the American way out of it and they replaced it with the human way.
	Like they deeply, I'm fairly certain never in the movie was it ever brought up.
	Oh, really?
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	That was what Dean Kane tweeted about earlier.
	That's what he was complaining about.
	I don't remember anywhere in the movie that being said.
	He was American propaganda.
	Superman was American propaganda beginning in the 30s and 40s.
	He'd fight Red Skull, beat up Nazis, you know, all about America.
	It was a big, big American movie.
	Yeah, if anything, you can argue there's a, I think they did a pretty good job avoiding the pitfalls.
	So, okay, we'll get a little heavier into the spoilers just for you guys, so you know.
	A war is about to break out.
	Superman stops the war from happening, causing an international incident.
	The Eastern European nation is aligned with the U.S. U.S. corporations sell weapons to them.
	They're pissed.
	And the poorer nation is actually kind of a backwards bad country.
	And there's anger at Superman because he didn't, like, why you don't have the authority to go around and just do whatever you want.
	Lois Lane criticizes, and this is actually in the trailer.
	She's like, did you consider what was going to happen if you did this?
	And Superman is being criticized because there's negative repercussions after the fact that there's a reason why the U.S. doesn't just intervene wherever they want, whatever they want, despite the fact they tend to.
	And Superman's unilateral actions can result in collateral damage after the fact and other conflicts.
	Did the military industrial complex complain about all their profit losses towards Superman and build a kryptonite weapon?
	Okay, you ready for more spoilers?
	Okay, I guess so.
	Lex Luther was selling weapons to the Eastern European nation.
	And when Superman stopped the conflict, that put at risk Lex Luther's $80 billion contract.
	I like this plot.
	This plot line is good.
	There's more to the plot than that.
	But early on when they're like, why is Lex Luther doing what he's doing?
	Basically, Lex has an army of monkeys because he's antagonizing Superman.
	So it's Lex Luther.
	The army of monkeys thing, if it had been AI, if it had been an army of AI robots or just like a supercomputer Doing it, would it have not been cheap?
	Was it just that they were monkeys?
	The reason why James Gunn had interdimensional monkeys typing on Twitter was because he was intentionally insulting the people who got him canceled, which is Mike Cernovich.
	He's calling Mike a monkey.
	Oh, that's awesome.
	In a movie.
	I know.
	If I was Mike, I'd be laughing.
	Mike Cernovich.
	So basically, Lex Luthor is talking to Superman, and then he's like, he's like, and here's my network of monkeys.
	And then you see these computers hanging from racks with monkeys.
	And it actually shows the monkeys typing.
	There's this.
	And they're typing things like, who could support Superman at this point?
	He's bad.
	The only reason that was in the film, because it's unrelated to literally anything in the plot, was that James Gunn wanted to say the people who are posting nonsense hate on Twitter are monkeys.
	And there's that old adage of if you put a million monkeys in a room for a million hours, they would write Shakespeare.
	Sure, but he had hardwired the brains of the monkeys to be able to type smart things and insults.
	Oh, he smartened the monkeys?
	They were wearing like helmets or something.
	Oh, Lex Luthor.
	And I was going to walk out.
	I was like, James, no.
	No.
	I like James Gunn's movies, okay?
	Guardians is awesome.
	Suicide Squad was good.
	And I had, look, I had read all the stuff saying he was going to be woken about immigration.
	And I was like, I don't know if I believe it.
	Then Sean Gunn said some stupid comments that were sounding political.
	James Gunn, what Brett was saying, and I could be wrong after ask Brett later, but I'm pretty sure he was saying, the person who interviewed James Gunn took his comments out of context to try and make it political.
	And I think there's a lot of people trying to make the movie political because, I don't know, online zeitgeist hate on the movie.
	I thought it was great.
	I guess Superman was political when they built him in the 30s, but it doesn't mean he always has to be political.
	Mr. Terrific saved the movie.
	Okay.
	I was so excited.
	I love the character, Mr. Terrific.
	For those that are not familiar, he's a child prodigy who becomes a billionaire.
	He becomes oppressed after losing his family in an accident and then is convinced by some other superheroes to use his wealth and technology and resources to be a superhero himself.
	And he's got these things called T-Spheres.
	So he basically walks around and he has drones that he uses to project energy, force fields.
	He can lift himself in the air.
	He flies with them.
	Does it help him move faster?
	Like manual dexterity and stuff?
	No.
	That'd be cool.
	They hack stuff and he can see what they see in the cameras.
	So technically in the comics, the spheres can do whatever plot device they do.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I've been playing a lot of Rim World and there's this Technomancer class where he's got this ball that follows him around.
	I think that the acting may have been a little dry, but the character is fantastic.
	And after the Monkeys thing happened and I was so pissed off, they gave us a Mr. Terrific fight scene that was awesome.
	Did he fight the Monkeys?
	He did not.
	But it was so cool to see Mr. Terrific using his technology, taking on a bunch of bad guys.
	And then I was like, okay, I'm reinvested in this movie now.
	And then it gradually improved from there.
	Metamorpho was really cool.
	I thought the Metamorpho fight scene was really great.
	And the actor who played him nailed this character.
	I love it.
	Spoilers, okay?
	We're in spoilers.
	There's bad guys, not a heavy spoiler, but Metamorpho is surrounded by bad guys and they're like, freeze.
	And then his body turns to green bubbles.
	And they go, what are you going to splash us?
	And he's like, yes, with sulfuric acid.
	And then sprays them all.
	And they're like, ah!
	Or it was like hydrochloric acid or something.
	great how they did metamorpho.
	I thought it was The character was pretty shy.
	Yeah, I like that.
	That's kind of Killian Murphy's Scarecrow.
	I love that.
	He's like one of my favorite actors.
	Timid, timid.
	Yeah.
	Well, maybe somebody, fan fiction, someone should AI create a scene where Superman goes into the monkey room and just heat rays all of them, blast them.
	They're like, ah!
	There's one point someone brought up that I will address too, a major negative for the film that I knew the moment they did it, they couldn't correct it and they damaged Dolore miserably and I'm pissed about.
	But so we, as Slain Hope says, they made Superman's real parents into space Nazis.
	Wow.
	So what happens is, this is politically relevant.
	So I know it's a big spoiler, but it's politically relevant.
	In the beginning, they don't give you an origin story for Superman.
	They give you a scene where he's recovering and there's a robot being trained via programming.
	So they're explaining to the robot, which is basically you, the audience.
	So they're like, Superman likes to hear the message from his parents.
	It soothes him.
	And it's his parents.
	I think it was Bradley Cooper, by the way, which is awesome.
	And Jalel?
	Jor El.
	Jor El Jal.
	I mean, the problem is they ruin the character.
	But anyway, the message is, we love you so much more than anything.
	We found a planet, Earth.
	We're sending you there.
	You can do the most good.
	Be a strong man and bring the truth of Krypton.
	And then the message is damaged.
	And he's like, I don't know what the rest of the message is, but I will try to live up to that message to be good and to bring the truth of Krypton.
	So he becomes a superhero.
	Lex Luther breaks in and his cybernetic henchman, she's got nanobots, breaks into the mainframe and it was able to download the message.
	And by downloading it, recovers the corrupted data in which they go on to say, take as many wives as you can, have as many babies as possible.
	The humans are weak and stupid and you can control them and enslave them and blah, blah, blah.
	And then, you know, and then the mom is like, take as many wives as you can and have many babies so that they will grow up with your DNA and bring the strength of Krypton, blah, blah, blah.
	And I was like, okay, that's ultra cringe.
	It wasn't overtly political, but it is not true to the characters.
	And it is insulting to what they could have done with Jorrell.
	So I was not a fan of that.
	Joerelle, he was like a capitalist.
	He was like a rich guy on Krypton.
	He had wealth because he could obviously send his son on a spaceship.
	Yeah, they all kind of did.
	It was a highly advanced civilization.
	And he was a scientist.
	None of them had superpowers on.
	It was only Earth's yellow sun that gives those humans power, those people power.
	So they were under a red sun.
	He was a scientist.
	Jorrell is a scientist.
	And so then he knew the planet.
	He predicted the planet was going to be destroyed, but they didn't listen.
	So he sent his son off.
	And then they've evolved that story quite dramatically.
	They introduced Supergirl only briefly at the end.
	And it's that actress.
	I can't remember her name, but people will probably be excited to see her as Supergirl.
	I'll just say this.
	That was really, really bad.
	It wasn't political.
	They're not space Nazis.
	They're just the motivation of Superman's parents is to repopulate Kryptonians.
	And so they're like, take a hairman, as many wives as you can, have many children.
	You got to understand that means he could have like 700,000 women.
	It is.
	I got to say that.
	It's probably 100 million women.
	As much as that is cringe, the scene where Guy Gardner walks up to Superman and he's like, how many wives do you have, man?
	It's like Nathan Filling was amazing and it was really funny.
	He was like, hey, is that true?
	How many wives do you got?
	And Superman's like, I don't have a bunch of wives because Lex Luther was trying to destroy his reputation.
	Oh, but no one said deep fake.
	No one's like, no, it's a deep fake.
	My parents never would have said that.
	There were a few poorly written lines, which is Mr. Triffitt goes, I know these guys.
	He's like, I know these digital forensic guys.
	It's a real message.
	And I'm like, no, no, no, no.
	Come on.
	You could have written that better.
	You could have had them say maybe it was fake and they should have said it was fake.
	And then they could have recovered the character arc of Superman's parents.
	There's another scene where Trump is covered.
	Trump.
	Look at my brain.
	Superman, well, you know, it's a Fraudian slit, but it's probably envisioned the man.
	Superman is encased in nanites and he's about to crash into the earth.
	And Lex Luthor goes, unsheathe.
	He's the only one armored.
	And I'm like, are you the only one being protected or something like that?
	And I'm like, yo, that line was a little heavy.
	What is he talking about?
	Unsheathe.
	What does he mean?
	The nanite lady covers him in nanites.
	So then Superman flies towards the earth to crash.
	And then Lex Luther yells, unsheath.
	He's the only one being protected.
	Like, he needed to tell the audience what it meant and why this mattered.
	A little overt.
	The point was that because he was covered, as he crashes into Earth, he was being shielded by her attack on him.
	He had to tell the world.
	He had to tell him that he was.
	He had to explain to the woman, but really to the audience.
	He didn't need to do that.
	It could have been written much, much better.
	But anyway, we got to go to your chats and all that.
	But I will just say, I think James Gunn might actually save the DC cinematic universe.
	It was great.
	It was really well done.
	And I'm mostly excited that they did not pander any stupid political ways.
	Superman is a white guy who the arguments were like higher level politics on when you can invade and when you can't invade.
	Nothing about being a white man.
	Nothing about money.
	Nothing about being a billionaire.
	None of that weird, stupid garbage the left is trying to inject in it.
	Literally not a thing about immigration.
	Never, the closest thing they got to immigration was Lex Luther being like, you're just an alien.
	And then Superman says, no, I'm just a person.
	I wake up the same as you.
	That's what you don't understand.
	And I'm like, that's fine.
	He didn't say you're an immigrant to my country and my planet and you're ruining us.
	Immigration was never an issue.
	So do you think that came about because of the backlash and the, well, not even just backlash, but the financial just catastrophe that Snow White was for Disney?
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, okay, you know, because that was fairly recent.
	So I'm not sure how long this movie took to produce and make and come out.
	Okay, we got to grab some remote, so I'm trying to go quick.
	We had to put that in there.
	But anyway, smash the like button, share the show.
	Head over to rumble.com slash Timcast IRL for the uncensored portion of the show coming up at 10.
	Let me try and grab as much as I can because we got a good one here.
	Seven Legion Studio says, hold on, the message from Jorrell makes the immigration message really based.
	The immigrant was sent to overthrow the local government and outbreak the local population.
	Yes.
	I was thinking exactly that.
	This way I didn't like how they basically muddied Jorrell.
	But I was thinking this when we were leaving, Lex Luther's motivation is you never, he's like Galileo and Einstein and these individuals.
	And they actually, he was like, I think he says something like as dim as they actually were, they actually did something.
	They contributed something and they earned it to have their names remembered.
	You did nothing just by being an alien and being here.
	Everyone says your name.
	And I'm like, that is communist right there.
	The ethos of these Marxists is you were born to wealth and privilege.
	You don't deserve it.
	You shouldn't have it.
	And I will take it from you.
	But not really in that Lex Luther, like, is a billionaire who built up.
	So it's not, it doesn't really play that way.
	But then I'm like, Jorrell telling his child, the people of the country are of the planet are dumb and to outbreed them, to rule over them and take as many wives as you can.
	I'm like, if that's the message of immigration James Gunn was sending to people, he pikes.
	Yeah, that's a little.
	Immigrants are coming to take over your country by outbreeding you.
	Didn't realize he was so right-wing.
	I got to be honest, though, Nathan Fillion was amazing.
	And the interaction about Superman having harems was really funny.
	Having harems.
	Lois Lane's like, I never believed it.
	It was good.
	Anyway, here we go.
	AEI-owned you says, Tim, one theory I have not seen.
	Bongino may be serious death threat.
	Pliable.
	Thinking ahead, lull these Fs into a false sense of security.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I'm pissed.
	I don't think so.
	The false sense of security stuff, I don't.
	When Prince Andrew had his charge, the investigation dropped, sounds like someone with weight told them what to do.
	And apparently it was a leaked memo.
	Another leaked memo.
	The Prince Andrew thing.
	Yeah.
	Well, the more information comes out, the happier I am.
	Happier?
	The more information that comes out because then they can actually do something.
	Like the more information that comes out about like Epstein.
	Yeah, about Epstein.
	The more we learn about how letting them go...
	No, no, no, no.
	No, not at all.
	St. Miles says, FYI, the riot at Kent, the riders were also using slingshots to throw those rocks at the National Guard.
	Thinking about that, I was thinking about at one point because they were like throwing rocks as a rough, but it's not horror.
	But then like, what about slings?
	You know, you can kill someone with a sling press.
	Well, they were throwing rocks through the windshield of ice suburbans at one point.
	I mean, if that rock would have gone through the windshield and actually hit one of the ice agents in the head, I mean, that's the definition of deadly force.
	I mean, at that speed, throwing a huge boulder through the window.
	Melindi says, are you kidding me?
	90s, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City.
	Fair point, but I would say you also had the LA riots.
	So there was tumult.
	There was tumult.
	But I think it was the control of information as to why we feel this way in that every time you turned On the TV, the narrative was controlled, and you felt stable.
	It just felt more stable.
	I will say that even with those things, today, every day, it's something new.
	It's like there's no escape from it.
	That's why Rudyard was saying, get off the internet and go hide.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, what you were saying is like, I can't, I don't want to not pay attention.
	You have to pay attention.
	I think what it is, you need to feed back into the system.
	It is good to get away from the input and like just blockade the negativity so that you can grow and become healthy and then put into the data.
	Like you want to give, and I think video is the best way to do that.
	Text just is a wall of scratching, but video, you hear the tone, you see the eyeballs.
	So feedback.
	There was a super chat on YouTube that said they liked Ian and it just disappeared literally as I was about to read it.
	It must have been a lie.
	They said every so often Ian says something I wholeheartedly agree with and then it just vanished.
	YouTube was like, shit, too much too soon.
	Maybe.
	Yeah, delete that.
	But I appreciate it.
	All right.
	Quantum Strange Quirk says, please get Doug Ten Naples on the show.
	He's an animator, video game designer, and Christian conservative.
	YouTube deleted his channels a few years ago after Media Matters attacked him, and they recently restored them and apologized.
	Whoa, amazing.
	What is his name?
	Doug what?
	Tanipol?
	Ten Naple.
	So it's T-E-N and then capital N-A-P-E-L.
	Big G says, watching Superman, and I feel like I am watching the cartoon from when I was a kid in the 90s.
	It's awesome watching it now with my son.
	Guys, I'm telling you, it's the like, to be fair, the script is a little cluttered, you know?
	I don't know that I, I think someone's telling me like Nerd Roddick said, one thing happens, then one thing happens, so then one thing happens.
	And I'm like, well, I wouldn't say it like that.
	Like you can follow along why the things are happening.
	I did not like the intro at all.
	Well, I should say this.
	The very, very beginning, I was, so I'm in the theater and I'm like, I just finished dinner.
	I better run to the bathroom right now.
	It's going to start any minute.
	And so I run to the bathroom and I'm thinking, I got to be there for the opening scene.
	The opening scene is going to be everything.
	And I was very disappointed.
	The opening scene was just landscape with text.
	And I went, oh, come on.
	The opening scene should have been of Superman.
	It wasn't.
	Oh, yeah, like him.
	It was text backstory for the recent plot.
	So it was like Superman stopped a war.
	This has led to some tumult.
	And then Superman, it's from the trailer.
	He slams into the ground.
	I wonder if they talked about that and they're like, well, we should do, because they would have had to hire a young actor to play young Superman if they wanted to show him doing that stuff growing up.
	Maybe that's a big asshole.
	I think they shouldn't do that because everyone tries to do some kind of origin.
	We don't need that.
	What I will say is Lex Luther was, I wish Lex Luther had a little bit more testosterone.
	Nicholas Holt is a great actor.
	He's not as weasel as Jesse Eisenberg's Luther, but he is still kind of a he had more anger and more force within him, but he still isn't enough tea.
	Like, I like the Superman cartoon Lex Luthor, where he's tall, fit, and has a deep voice, like he's an imposing figure.
	Yeah, he's the president.
	He's got to be.
	He becomes.
	But I also really love that Justice League line when he was running for president and the question confronts him and he's like, what's your plan, Luthor?
	And he's like, why do you want to be president?
	And he goes, do you have any idea how much power I would have to give up to be the president?
	And it was a great.
	He's like, I don't want to be the president.
	He was doing something else.
	Dan Bongino, man.
	How much he gave up to be that.
	Indeed.
	Love you, Dan.
	But Lex Luther, that's not what I'm saying, by the way.
	I love you.
	So I guess we're in spoiler territory.
	I don't know.
	Some people might just.
	Superman spoiler?
	Lex Luther is able to.
	Superman gets defeated.
	That's that scene in the trailer because Lex Luther is coordinating the attacks against him.
	And I thought it was amazing.
	I love the writing.
	Lex doesn't have the strength to beat Superman, but utilizing tools that he has to fight Superman with strength, but his mind behind it to control the fight, he beats Superman because he's smarter.
	So it's like, that was a great contrast to what Superman was versus Lex Luther and why Lex Luther is such a great villain.
	He's an industrialist, super intelligent man, and Superman is this physically strong demigod.
	And Lex Luther is able to feed him by his intelligence.
	And like the legal system manipulating him.
	The power of capitalism.
	But just the psychology.
	Lex is so smart.
	He stands right up in front of Superman's face when Superman's super angry.
	And he has no fear because he knows what motivates Superman and Superman's limitations.
	He knows Superman won't hurt him and can't.
	So Lex can do whatever he wants.
	Does he want to kill Superman?
	In the comic books, that is the principal goal of Lex Luthor.
	So, you know.
	But in the movie, I mean, it's not even that important.
	I guess it's not really a spoiler.
	Like, the movie is literally, that's why I'm saying it's not political.
	The movie is literally, Lex Luther's like, I must kill Superman.
	He doesn't say it like that.
	It's well written, his motivations and his anger.
	And there's a scene where Superman says, he literally says, he's like, everything about you, Lex, it's envy.
	And then Lex yells, he's like, do you think I'm dim?
	I know I'm driven by envy.
	That's exactly what this is about.
	I thought that was amazing.
	He's self-aware, heavily, highly emotional, and will tell you to your face.
	Like Lex is introspective and angry.
	I thought it was fantastic.
	You know, there's a type of evil, the ignorant evil where they think they're doing good.
	Then there's the malicious evil where they know they're doing evil.
	Let's read one more Super Jet from Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, I'm a bad person.
	I lulled when Lex's interview of the street vendor ended sooner than expected.
	So unexpected.
	I like the movie, but the message from his parents really hurts the movie a lot.
	Yeah.
	But let's just say there's a scene where a street vendor is being, let's just say, interviewed by Lex Luthor while Superman is incapacitated.
	And it ends rather abruptly because Lex Luthor is a villain and you should not be laughing, but Raymond was laughing.
	Anybody who's seen the movie, they're going, oh, geez.
	It's still kind of funny.
	All right, my friends, we're going to go to that uncensored portion of the show.
	So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.
	It's going to be at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL.
	Don't miss it.
	You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
	Nick, do you want to shout anything out?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Just, Everybody, just don't forget about the people down there in Texas.
	This happens every single time there's a natural disaster.
	These people end up being abandoned, and once they're abandoned, the government has no incentive to actually get these people back up on their feet or at least help to do so.
	So, you know, if you're a praying person, say a prayer for them tonight.
	And, you know, everybody down there definitely appreciates their support.
	I'm not going to ride your jock too much, bro, but you went out of Texas like day one.
	And I mean, you were like a hero with the getting the Starlink for the people in rescue.
	Your work, I mean, if you haven't followed Nick's sorter yet, watching you bloom over the last couple of years has been really thanks.
	I appreciate it, man.
	Thanks a lot.
	It really does.
	It's nonstop, bro.
	It's really, really great.
	Anyway, thanks a lot, Nick, for coming and check Nick out on Twitter for sure.
	I'm Ian Crossland, so follow me out wherever you want.
	And I'll see you later.
	I am on Twix at Phil That Remains.
	The band is all that remains.
	You can check us out on YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, and Deezer.
	And don't forget the left lane is for crying.
	We will see you all over at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL in about 30 seconds.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	Oh, what's that?
	Yeah, Zach Asmund Gold is, you say he's going crazy?
	Yeah, I just saw the thumbnail of one of his most recent videos, and it was like, fuck it, I give up.
	I'm fucking done with this bullshit.
	Give him everything.
	I can't take it anymore.
	Looked like he was doing everything.
	I didn't watch the video.
	It looked like he was insinuating bring as much government force as you want.
	I'm okay with it.
	He's basically talking about, if I remember correctly, he was talking, I wasn't watching all of his shows today, or his clips today.
	I don't usually watch him live because it's on Twitch.
	I don't usually watch Twitch.
	But he was talking today about the Epstein case in particular, and him saying that he thinks that the cover-up is just, there's just way too many things that are lining up for it to be cover-up and just thinks that, yeah, that's why he's angry.
	It's justifiably so.
	He pointed out the video that I think it was like Coffeezilla on his second channel put together a video of a bunch of all the different times of Trump talking about it, other people in the administration talking about it, Cash talking about it, Dan Boncinha talking about it.
	I don't know if that was the most recent video, or what was the reason he said he was most angry about it?
	I just saw a video thumbnail today yesterday.
	He was mad about that.
	He looked like it's been building for him.
	I can see his patience are wearing thin, and he's got 100 million people listening to him.
	Shout out to him.
	I love him.
	Zach, I love you, brother.
	I want to be there for you in whatever way I can.
	So I feel the pain.
	And CoffeeZilla's other channel is a VoidZilla.
	His VoidZilla channel also does great work.
	Yeah, Zach, I've been following Zach for, that's Asmen Gold, I don't know, a decade almost, eight years.
	I love him.
	There's this funny World of Warcraft video gamer because I'm just thinking, we're getting this, I want to get this developer, video game developer, on a show sometime, and that we should talk more about video games because of the way it influences the culture.
	And then I thought of Zach.
	Do you ever go and do Gamer Meads?
	I used to once in a while.
	You should.
	Yeah, it's just about getting here and doing it.
	Not so much about playing the games, interviewing developers.
	I'm more interested in interviewing the game developers than playing the games online.
	That's the thing about Asma.
	I'm not really into games.
	My little brother was really big into video games his whole life and stuff, into game design and stuff.
	I never really got into it, but it's funny because I can watch him and kind of the stuff they talked about.
	He streams on Twitch.
	Streams on Twitch, but eclipse all of his stuff on YouTube.
	I'm surprised Twitch hasn't banned him.
	Yeah, I know.
	But the amount of money he makes on Kik2 is astronomically more than what he's making on Kickstarter.
	Is it because Kik pays him?
	Yes, exactly.
	Kick's a casino, right?
	Sponsored by all the big casino people, yeah.
	I don't know what they're doing.
	I think Kik is a casino.
	So are they, you know, you might know something about this.
	I'm curious.
	You see these side-by-sides on X where you see like, okay, here are my monthly Twitch earnings.
	Here are my monthly Kik earnings.
	I don't understand how Kik is like 10X.
	What Twitch is.
	Is it because of the gambling ads?
	Is that all that is?
	A lot of money is funding it, basically.
	I believe there's someone tying the money to somewhere in the Middle East as well.
	I don't really know.
	I was going to say, it's hard to believe that that would be profitable for the amount that they pay out.
	I mean, anything's profitable if you have any, if we're doing sports books, should we try and restream on Twitch?
	I mean, we could.
	We get banned in two seconds.
	I don't know.
	I don't know because, I mean, they put up with Hassan.
	Yeah, but Hassan.
	Yes, but he's not on the left.
	Hassan will be mad about it, and then Hassan will make a video about it, and then Twitch will ban us.
	Right.
	I mean, maybe.
	I mean, that's what happened.
	Crying is worth it.
	We're basically self-banning if we don't give it a shot, so we might as well.
	I mean, we should just be restreaming on all platforms.
	Kik, apparently, Kik is hot.
	Who owns Kik?
	The payments on Kik are crazy.
	I don't know if you'd be partnered with them in order to get them out.
	I think you should get a kick in Twitch.
	I think kick is like, isn't kick like, It's controlled by Ed Craven and Bijan Tarani, the co-founders of stake.com.
	Correct.
	Yep.
	It might be a separate company, but they have that ethos of.
	But it's like, the way I heard it described is that Kik is the venue for stake.
	So every casino has a venue to bring people in so that they can get them to gamble.
	Oh, my kid.
	Yep.
	You can gamble on the stream or TV.
	I mean, there's no reason we shouldn't be streaming on every platform.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Maybe we just do it and see what happens.
	Sure.
	Wouldn't it be funny if all of a sudden the viewership's like tripled?
	It'd be funny.
	Two Cast OnlyFans channel coming soon.
	Yeah, why not?
	Gamification of Twitch.
	it could get to the point where you're making so much money on Twitch that you hire a dedicated Twitch admin that just plays with the chat during the show and makes sure all the bits are kicking and the hearts and the emojis are cool looking and all that stuff.
	So, I got to ask you something about you guys here, you are monitoring the chat a lot of the time, right?
	Tim, I'm sure you monitor the chat, you know, a lot of the time.
	How much shit talking goes on against any?
	Because I don't watch the chats when I'm on something.
	It's all shit talking.
	I probably should.
	The whole thing.
	I'll look at the channel.

▲