Start 2026 with better sleep! Try Beam Dream: https://shopbeam.com/TIMPOOL and use code TIMPOOL for up to 35% off—limited time.Show more SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/
Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwNTXWEjVd2qIHLcXxQWxA/join
Hosts:
Phil @PhilThatRemains (X)
Ian Crossland (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/
Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere)
Producer:
Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere)
Guest:
Bobby Sauce @takenaps (X)
Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Show less
Everybody that says nothing ever happens, well, today is a bad day for you.
Three ringleaders of the anti-ICE mob who stormed a church in Minneapolis over the weekend have been arrested.
AG Pam Bondi announced today on Twitter.
Now, there's a lot of people that are upset that Don Lemon was not arrested, but we're going to get into why that happened and the conditions surrounding that.
There's also a big lie going around.
Democrats are lying about ICE and getting a five-year-old in custody and stuff.
So we're going to go over that and prove, show you why this is all BS.
The murder rate has dropped precipitously in 2025.
I think if you like, if you macrodose like aspirin as well, this is not a health recommendation for anyone at home, but it will make your eyes much bluer.
Well, from the New York Post, we're going to jump right into it.
Three ringleaders of anti-ICE mob who stormed a church, including school board member arrested, A.G. Pam Bondi announces a BLM leader who served on a school board awoke TikToker and a third alleged ringleader of an anti-ICE mob who stormed a Minnesota church on Sunday.
We have arrested Nake Levy Armstrong, who allegedly played a key role in organizing the coordinated attack on City's Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
A.G. Bondi said, listen loud and clear, we do not tolerate attacks on places of worship.
Excuse me, worship.
Armstrong allegedly led the Raush group, including Don Lemon, from the Radical Justice Network, to storm the church and call out resident pastor David Eastwood, accusing him of moonlighting as the acting field office director for ICE in Minnesota.
A picture of Armstrong being, a picture of Armstrong being led away in handcuffs was shared by the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam on next Thursday morning.
I think that this is evidence that there is actual things happening at the DOJ.
People love to say nothing ever happens.
They're not doing this.
And I understand the impulse because people wanted to see like Trump come in and just start swinging the hammer and start arresting everybody that they didn't like.
That was never realistic, in my opinion.
The DOJ actually has to build cases.
People would love to point at January 6th and say, well, January 6th, they had arrests two days later.
They had arrests three days later, et cetera, et cetera.
I mean, I just think justice was served and that they targeted the person that was funding and organizing it.
And they will, you know, we're out to see if they're going to keep arresting every person that was there and if they're going to, how harsh it's going to be.
But the organizer, I think you actually have this girl pulled up.
So the reason I bring this up is because Nakima Levy Armstrong, she is an activist, right?
She has been around the BLM, the left.
You know, she's a lawyer.
She's been involved in this kind of basically propaganda for, you know, at least since 2015.
She was in Ferguson.
And now at this point, she's made a career of it.
She's, let's see, she began as an associate law professor at the University of St. Thomas.
She attained tenure at a university, was granted a full professorship.
Excuse me.
She's worked for the NAACP for law students interested in working with underserved communities.
So she's steeped in this.
She's the one that organized this.
And I think that it's more important, and there's people that are going to be upset about this.
It's more important that they arrested her than Don Lemon.
Now, before you start throwing eggs, Don Lemon is a personality that people see on the news.
They hear them all the time.
They don't like the things they say.
So they've got this emotional reaction to Don Lemon.
This person is actually an organizer.
She does the work, as they would say.
She's out there consistently trying to not just raise funds and stuff, but she's organizing these protests, which in my opinion, they're not legal protests at all, right?
Going into a church is clearly illegal.
Obviously, she's arrested for it.
Getting Don Lemon would have been satisfying emotionally, but this is something that will actually affect the network on the ground.
Like, they might think they were protesting, but I guess because of the unruly nature of the experience, the DOJ, or at least Harmeth Dylan, I think, was referring to it as a riot.
This is the first person you obviously want to bring in front of a bring in front of a judge.
Again, to Phil's point, because she has experience organizing.
She has experience in these activist networks.
It's a safe bet that a lot of these Minneapolis area activist networks probably depend on her, depend on her experience, her leadership, these sort of things.
But, I mean, to a lot of people in the audience point, like, we want to see a full-blown crackdown from the DOJ.
I can be a little patient, you know, to make sure they get these cases down right, to make sure they have this all buttoned up when they do, again, start prosecuting.
But I do think Don Lemon needs to be held accountable here.
I think, again, to Bobby's point, the lack of high-profile arrests is a little frustrating to people because we did see under the Biden administration that, again, the DOJ is capable of going after the top dogs when they want to.
I have a lot of grace for the Trump administration, the DOJ, because, again, it's hard to root out all of these deep state apparatchiks that are, you know, that make up the DOJ.
But at a certain point, I think Don Lemon really would send a massive message to the left.
And that should be, I know it probably is a big focus for the DOJ, but they really need to get that across the finish line.
Today I was thinking that about it, and like maybe that it would be a bad message to send.
It would send a message if you arrested Don Lemon, but like if you really want to screw it in, you go after the little guy that can't defend themselves.
I know it's a horrible thing to say because that's what they did with January 6th.
The people that don't have the money to afford the defense funds, the people that were there kind of like just came along for the ride, you crush them.
And it's not, that's not necessarily the ethical thing to do, but that's if you really want to, because they're nobodies.
The news won't make a big deal out of John Doe, number seven, like, but Don Lemon is going to get constant headlines as long as he's in jail every day.
It'll be about Don Lemon, be the pariah, you know?
So to that point, if they broke the law, I think they should arrest them.
It doesn't matter whether the big guy or the little guy.
So about to the point of Don Lemon, right?
From the postmillennial.
The DOJ attempts to charge Don Lemon over storming St. Paul Church with an anti-IS group.
The magistrate declines to sign the complaint.
So the DOJ actually put the effort in to get Don Lemon, but it seems that the magistrate wouldn't sign the paperwork.
Now, I've heard conflicting reports that this particular magistrate was a guy that had signed a bunch of the January 6th stuff.
But because there's conflicting reports, I don't want to talk about the guy's name and stuff.
But from the post-millennial, they say a federal magistrate judge in Minnesota has reportedly refused to sign a complaint from the Department of Justice charging former CNN host Don Lemon in connection with the storming of the St. Paul church.
Lemon was seen embedded with the anti-IS agitators, kissing one of the organizers on the cheek and handing out coffee.
A source familiar with the matter told CBS News that the Attorney General is enraged at the magistrate's decision.
This comes after two women, organizer Nakima Levy Armstrong and St. Paul school board member Chantilly Louise Allen have been charged with violations of the FACE Act for their roles in the incident.
A separate source told the outlet that the Department of Justice could still find other avenues through which to charge Don Lemon.
Now, I do think that they're going to end up charging him.
I think that they're going to, because I think that they want that scalp.
I think that they really do want to have that high-profile person.
But I also think that they have to get it past judges.
And there are so many activist judges that are in, I mean, all across the United States.
Yeah, I mean, the nice thing is the DOJ will still have options here.
The federal magistrate not signing off doesn't eliminate.
They can still bring this before.
They could assemble a grand jury to seek a charge.
So it's not the end of the world, but I think it's in this postmillennial article.
You might have read already is that DAG was furious with the federal magistrate, as she should be.
Because again, I mean, the fact that they can pop all these other people on Face Act charges, but they can't get Don Lemon just tells you that probably there is some sway over this magistrate.
The problem with the grand jury is it's going to be assembled in Minnesota.
Yeah, judges are getting hung up all the time, and it's because Republicans are weak and they are still sticking with this antiquated blue slips system, which is just like hamstering us.
And it's a completely optional system.
It's not in law anywhere.
Like we just voluntarily allow Democrat senators to block our judge appointments.
But I mean, to my point, like with the DOJ, again, they have other options.
So this isn't necessarily saying like, well, the Biden administration did it, so you should do the exact same thing.
It's just to say like, don't give up, don't blackbill, like get creative here in the DOJ.
And again, I'm preaching to the choir if anybody's watching that's within the DOJ.
But yeah, you can't let this Don Lemon thing go.
I really think it's going to be red meat for the base.
And right now, it does seem like morale.
It's this year we've started off hot, but before that, we needed some victories.
And I think this is a victory you could add to the pile in 2026.
Civil rights division assistant attorney general Harmy Dylan wrote in a response to Lemon claiming he was at the church in a journalistic capacity.
She says, no one has the right to protest by trespassing into a private house, especially a house of God Almighty.
Freedom of the press does not protect journalists nor anyone else when they are actively committing crimes.
And that's something that's worth noting.
The idea that Don Lemon wants you to internalize and want you to really believe is that he was just there covering.
But like they said earlier in the postmillennial piece, he walked up to Nakima and gave her a kiss on the cheek.
He was handing out coffee to the people that were there.
That goes beyond just being a journalist.
I mean, if you're in a combat zone and you're wearing a press badge, but you're handing out magazines full of ammunition to the guys or you're walking around with the group that's going to attack someone and you're handing out food or coffee, there's going to be a whole lot of questions about are you really a journalist?
And I think that that's the same kind of situation here.
Don Lemon could have gone there and actually acted like a journalist, but you could listen to the questions that he was asking the pastor there or the preacher there.
And he's obviously politically aligned with the protesters.
He went there with them.
He knew about the situation beforehand.
They informed him they wanted him to cover it because he's aligned with them politically.
Again, he was handing out coffee, you know, helping to organize this or at least making them more comfortable.
So I don't think that you can actually, you know, realistically or convincingly make the argument that he wasn't involved.
Can say he wasn't one of the organizers, but he was definitely one of the protesters, particularly when he was there asking questions that were looking to make people uncomfortable, which he said in a follow-up interview after the show.
It seemed like the foreknowledge was kind of part of the problem.
The sad part about all of this is that even if they do arrest Don Lemon, this activist woman, I think, kind of got exactly what she wanted.
I don't think that these people are going to go to prison for multiple years.
I would bet if they even do get prosecuted, they serve little to no time at all or get a slap on the wrist.
And now every person that never knew who that activist girl was now knows who she is.
And she's going to use this as a badge of honor going forward.
I watched the, you know, like the perp walk type photos on New York Post, and it's, this is the most press these people have ever got.
And Don Lemon, for lack of, for, for lack of a better word, he's going to get a ton of press from this as well.
And I think that in the end, they're not going to serve something proportionate enough to how much this is going to galvanize their position in their whole group of agitators.
Now, does that mean that you don't prosecute them?
No, but I think it's going to end up helping them in the end.
And they're not going to really serve that much time.
So I'm not sure what kind of time they're facing with the charges.
I'm not even sure what they're being charged with.
But the idea that, and I know that you said, you know, we should prosecute him.
And I agree.
I don't think that we should be looking for reasons to be negative about it just because this is actually the first kind of victory that the DOJ is kind of giving to us.
And again, I don't know what the charges are going to be, and I don't know how long the maximum sentence is, but it's my opinion that they should be like, you should throw the book at them, right?
Like whatever the maximum is, that's what they should get.
And I don't see a whole lot of, you know, I don't find the arguments against that convincing.
And what you're alluding to is something that we hear fairly frequently when people say, well, you don't want to, and not that, again, not that you're saying this because this is a bit of a different argument, but it rings similar to the argument, well, you don't want to do the things that the Democrats would do, or you don't want to do this because you'll anger the left or you'll embolden them or you'll upset them.
And that is just, to me, that's not convincing.
You have to exercise power when you have it.
And you have to do everything you can to make sure the charges stick and make sure that they go to jail for as long as possible.
And the reason is they're going to do that to conservatives when they get into power again.
If it was like three months and it blew them up, it's like maybe they baked that into the cake where they're like, this is going to make us look like a freedom fighter.
I think that the point of that is to intimidate people on the right.
I really do think that it was about intimidating not just the people that were at that church, but other people that are basically on the right, other people that go to church, basically saying, look, you're not safe, right?
They're saying you're not safe in your house of worship.
You're not safe walking around the street.
And this is something that politicians have said.
Maxine Water said it herself.
You know, tell these, get in their face and make sure that they know that they're not welcome.
The Democrats really do want to intimidate people out of their political opinions.
Now, I know that that doesn't work, right?
You confront people and you push them, and people tend to double down on what they already believe.
But the impulse from the Democrats, I really do think, is about intimidation.
They want to scare people.
They want to make people feel like they shouldn't have, they're wrong for having these opinions.
So at the very least, they'll keep their heads down.
So that way the Democrats can go and do, or the activists, the left can basically do what they want to do unimpeded.
But what I'm saying is, is that there could have been a lot of people that were at that church service that agreed that ICE is bad.
Just because they're at church doesn't mean that they disagree, that they think Renee Good should have been hurt by that.
So I'm just saying there was no specific stance that they were taking just by the act of being in that church at that time.
They could have been leftists in there that just happened to be at church and these people march in and they're yelling at them.
If it was some type of right-wing organization or a specific thing where it's like, these people have all declared that they believe this thing, then that would make more sense.
Not that I'm saying that they don't want to do what you're saying.
I think that's why they targeted like the Southern Baptist church specifically, because the SBC, the Southern Baptist Convention, it's an overwhelmingly conservative denomination.
It's like 80% Republican, I'm pretty sure.
And I think that's actually why it matters, the specific church that they went after.
Because again, to your point, if it was like a Methodist church or Episcopalian, probably the majority of congregates would be agreeing with their protests.
But the fact that they've specifically gone after evangelicals is a very strategically smart play if you're like a leftist trying to intimidate.
Because again, like evangelicals are the largest religious group in the United States.
They're overwhelmingly conservative.
They have a very conservative temperament to begin with.
And then you have people like Jennifer.
I think it's Jennifer Welch came out after when she was interviewing Don Lemon and she was like, yeah, the church was filled with white supremacists because she's saying, again, from her perspective, that is how they view evangelicals.
They view evangelicals as a stand-in for middle Americans.
They view evangelicals as these kitschy conservatives that just aren't up with the times, these sorts of things.
And so I think that's specifically why they went after that church.
I mean, I know they were alleging that the pastor was like some like moonlighting as an ICE field agent, field off agent officer, whatever you want to call it.
But I think it was like a very strategic decision they made to go after a Southern Baptist church.
Now, he didn't know any of the people in that church, but he just is going to accuse them of being white supremacists to justify his actions, right?
The pastor, even if the pastor was an ICE agent, he worked with ICE or whatever, that doesn't make him a white supremacist.
But the left does this.
They say, well, you're a white supremacist.
You're a Nazi, you're this, so I'm justified.
It's all about moralizing their attack on you because they don't want to think of, or they don't think of themselves as the bad guy at all.
They wanted to sit there and say, look, we're obviously the good guys.
You're obviously the bad guys.
So what we're doing isn't trespassing and breaking the law and invading your church service, which is a totally peaceful and very normal American thing to do.
What we're doing is we're breaking up a white supremacist rally.
We're in here, you know, we're like Captain America punching the Nazis.
And that's exactly what this guy thinks, how he thinks of himself, you know?
And so I think it's worth pointing that out.
This guy is all, I mean, in my opinion, he's all bad, but they're going to sit there and they're going to always just justify their behavior and say, look, those people are obviously bad people.
And it goes beyond just the people in the church.
That's what they think of anyone that doesn't agree with them because you'll see people all the time saying, well, you know, that guy's a Nazi.
Well, that guy's a Nazi.
Well, that guy's a Nazi.
And the person doesn't have, you know, they just have politics that are different.
You know, 20 years ago, they had very normal middle-of-the-road politics.
They called, you know, you talk about Donald Trump, Donald Trump's a Nazi.
Well, 20 years ago, Donald Trump was a Democrat, you know?
Well, I don't think, I think it's actually a miscalculation to say that people on the left call you racist or a white supremacist purely for like framing purposes.
I don't think they actually think that far ahead.
I think they legitimately, in their worldview, they believe that anybody that would be opposed to any sort of immigration enforcement whatsoever, they genuinely believe you are racist.
They genuinely believe white supremacists.
They're not labeling you that just as a justification for their beliefs.
They legitimately think that he legitimately thought you're a racist.
He legitimately thinks these people in this church are white supremacists because of their, even in your case, like vague, vague support of borders, these sorts of things.
Because in the leftist framework, like all of this is reductive.
All of this is just impediments to like individuality, impediments to sort of like liberating people from these like pre-assigned identities.
And so it's actually like, if you look at it from a leftist framework, it would make absolute sense that someone that is just against Hillary Clinton broadly would be a racist because in their, again, in their framework, it makes total sense.
Maybe it's that he heard on Rachel Maddow that Trump was a racist and anybody not Hillary Clinton was a Trump supporter, therefore also as racist as Trump.
Well, yeah, his calculation was just Trump is supportive of border enforcement.
Hillary Clinton is wishy-washy on it.
So by not voting for Hillary Clinton, not like, you know, crying tears of joy at the thought of Hillary Clinton being president, you are then abetting Donald Trump to win in the election.
So, you know, it goes through a few different levels.
But yeah, by not, again, throwing your full weight behind Hillary Clinton, that and their in their framework makes you a Trump supporter and their framework because you're not helping Hillary beat Trump, that sort of thing.
I noticed this with older generations is you guys always talk about how you have friends that are on the left, friends that are liberals, these sorts of things.
I've gone into Zoomers.
People now know I'm like, I'm 24.
I find that like, I don't really have any friends that are on the left because I think there is like a filtering that occurred probably with younger millennials and then down where things got so calcified, the, what's the word I'm looking for?
The stratification of political beliefs occurred at such a level that legitimately, I don't really have much to talk about with someone that's on the left.
Like we are in two completely different worlds at that point.
Yeah, entrenched.
Like so the actual foundation for a friendship to even be built on is just not there.
When previously, like when you guys were growing up, the disagreements would be on maybe more like policy grounded things like tax policy, maybe your view on foreign policy, these sorts of things.
Where now it's like literally, if you're on the right or left, that is a reduction of your worldview fundamentally.
And if you just have a completely different worldview from someone, you're literally one person seeing, you know, a six, the other person seeing a nine.
It's really hard to find the ground to like actually build a friendship on unless you like grew up together.
And even that case, like a lot of people that I grew up with that have, you know, developed like left-wing beliefs, we don't really even keep in touch anymore.
Cause again, it's like, you can only talk about sports for so long.
You know, I think it just wasn't in your face, really.
Like when I was building a lot of my friend group, it wasn't in my face.
It wasn't like they could lock you in your house and force you to get vaccinated or you lose your job.
It wasn't that, it didn't seem that serious.
It's like the president sucks.
We don't like him.
The money is fake.
It's not backed by anything.
And that was the end of it.
We didn't talk about it in such a way where it felt more daunting on our everyday life and as visible.
Trump is on TV every single day, no matter whether you want to know about him or not.
And I think that that brings it into the conversation where you see the fragment between you and that person more and it makes those decisions to stay apart.
How many people said, oh, you can't come to my wedding if you're not vaccinated or you can't come and visit my newborn baby if you're not vaccinated.
That was a real thing.
And it's just like, what is even that?
I have to stay outside.
How do you hang out with a person if that's the case?
And then it further starts to bleed into where maybe they sit there thinking, well, if he won't do this to come to my wedding, then is he really my friend?
I think it started before then, but I just mean that the level of severity for how much it could fragment your a potential friendship with a person was never more in your face really until then.
And this is more of the significant disparity between what the left believes and what the right believes.
But this is a little more blatant and in your face.
So, the Washington Post is reporting that ICE detains four children from Minnesota District, including a five-year-old.
Washington Post says, immigration and customs enforcement agents in Minnesota have detained at least four children from the same school district this month, including a five-year-old boy.
School officials in Minneapolis suburb said Wednesday.
The events have inflamed tensions between residents and ICE officers, sparked by the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Goode by an ICE officer this month.
The Trump administration has sought to justify the presence of ICE personnel by saying the officers are detaining immigrants convicted on violent crimes.
The administration doesn't have to justify ICE's presence.
The fact that there are illegal immigrants in Minnesota and Minnesota does not detain and turn these illegal immigrants over to the federal government for deportation is the only justification that ICE needs.
And it bothers me that the Post would even portray it like this, right?
But it gets worse.
Why detain a five-year-old girl? Zena Svetnik said.
The superintendent of the Columbian Heights Public School District, located just north of Minneapolis, said at a news conference: You cannot tell me that this child is going to be classified as a violent criminal.
Five-year-old Liam Kone Ramos and his father, who the Department of Homeland Security identified as Adrian Alexander Clonez-Aires in an email statement, were detained in their driveway Tuesday afternoon just as they were returning from the child's school, according to a news release from Columbia Heights Public School.
Now, this man is an illegal immigrant.
And when ICE approached, he ran, leaving the five-year-old child standing there.
One of the ICE agents stayed with the child.
The other ICE agent took off after the illegal immigrant.
When you get arrested, if you have kids, your kids are separated from you because they don't put your kid in the jail cell with you.
This is something that is as mundane an activity, a law enforcement activity, as it can possibly be.
Every day people are arrested.
Every day people are separated from their children because we don't throw kids in jail with adults.
But the way that the left has been portraying it is that this child was detained.
ICE is so mean and so bad, and they're just detaining children and they just want to throw kids in jail.
And doesn't that just tug at your heartstrings?
Well, it's all BS.
It's all a lie.
So I don't know that there's any remedy for this because, again, the Washington Post reports it.
Actually, here, from Homeland Security, ICE did not target a child.
The child was abandoned.
On January 20th, ICE conducted a targeted operation to arrest Adrian Alexander Clone Ares, an illegal alien from Ecuador who was released into the U.S. by the Biden administration.
Agents approached the driver, Adrian Allen Alexander Clonez-Aires, fled on foot, abandoning his child.
For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Clonez-Aires.
Parents were asked if they wanted to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates.
This is consistent with the past administration's immigration enforcement.
Parents can take control of their departure and receive a free flight and $2,600 with a CBP home app.
By using the CBP home app, illegal aliens reserve the chance to come back the right legal way.
Look, man, if the government is offering you three grand to get out of the United States and you're here illegally and then you could come back, that is the way to do it, right?
Like, you don't want to get picked up by ICE and then lose the possibility of coming back.
Take the money and run and file your paperwork and come here legally.
It reminds me of the reminds of the kids in cages controversy.
I don't know if we're turning back the clock here.
Like, Ankh may have to lay this out for, I'm just kidding.
Everyone remembers the kids in cages, where the left is literally making the argument that we should be throwing children in general population prisons.
Like, that was the legitimate argument they're making.
Is they're like, no, you should detain the children with the parents and then put the kids in detainment centers with like other adults.
Like, are we new around?
Not to mention all of the trafficking going on.
It's the same thing where it's just like they've latched on to this battle cry that actually doesn't really make any sense under just the lightest bit of scrutiny.
And it's just bizarre.
And but the thing is, like, they already got their talking point.
There's nothing we can say to someone in the audience.
There's probably no one watching that would be supporting this sort of talking point.
But no matter what you say to someone on the left, explaining this out, explaining what the procedure is, what happened, it doesn't matter.
I mean, look, if you were honest, they could have said that the, or if they wanted, if the press was honest, they could say that the child was in the care of, you know, because that's what it was.
They were taking care of the five-year-old because it's freezing out.
You don't leave a kid standing there like, well, that's five years old with no idea what's going on.
Being like, why did my dad run away from me?
Why is my dad being chased by the cops?
Like, you're the ICE officers are trying to take care of the child's best interest by not letting the kids stand there in the freezing cold.
Yeah.
But the media want not just, and this is the big problem, right?
Rep Jimmy Gomez says, ICE just used a five-year-old boy as bait, forcing him to knock on his own door so they could arrest his father.
Trump, ICE, and CBP don't see these families as people, and that's exactly how they're treating them.
When the federal government treats kids like criminals, something has gone seriously wrong.
Totally made up, making everything worse.
Now, I mean, Jacob Fry is absolute garbage, right?
Like, if this guy actually cared about the people in his community, he would be helping to apprehend the criminal aliens and turning them over, but he doesn't want to do that.
And then there was one thing that I saw.
Chuck Todd had made a comment.
He said, the lack of empathy.
Is it a feature or a bug?
And it's like, Chuck, and I chimed in here and I ratioed the crap out of him.
You're either an active propagandist or a gullible fool.
And that's exactly what he's an active propagandist, obviously.
It's simple to find the information of actually what happened.
You know, I'm sure that he follows ICE or the Department of Homeland Security on X.
He could just read their statement, but he doesn't.
Chuck Todd, you know, it's kind of useful that he kind of looks like Jim Kramer because he really is the Jim Kramer of politics where it's like generally the position he has on any sort of incident, the opposite position is probably the correct take to have.
So yeah, this is just the lack of empathy.
You should be thankful that ICE is even like demonstrating empathy in the first place because that's, again, their job is to just conduct an operation.
So the fact that they actually are taking care of these kids, that they actually are demonstrating a degree of empathy is great because it's like, look around the world.
Look around the world how their federal police handle affairs.
And you'll find pretty quickly the United States is actually an outlier.
Imagine how stupid you would have to believe that, or you'd have to be to believe that ICE just swarmed this five-year-old kid.
It's like, oh, no, they treated this kid like, if there was an actual video of what actually happened with the kid, I bet it's very nice and very friendly.
But they're painting it as if they like, you know, rappelled down from a helicopter and tackled him into the fire.
I mean, it's like the Emilio Gonzalez picture from the 90s where the guy's pointing an MP5 at the kid, you know, to grab him.
And that happened in the United States, but that was 30 years ago now.
And like, this is not the way that law enforcement behaves at all anymore because everyone has a phone in their pocket with a video camera.
And law enforcement can't afford to behave like that.
They have to do everything they can to abide by the law.
And they're actually, they try to use as little force as possible.
That's why having body cameras has been the best thing that's happened to law enforcement in forever because there's so many people that are so quick to say, oh, well, law enforcement does this, law enforcement does that, and they're so bad and blah, blah, blah.
Well, they're like, they're making hay when the sun shines.
They're looking for absolutely anything to make you look like an inhuman monster.
It's just sad that people will actually see this and believe it.
That's the part that blows my mind the most.
Not so much that they're doing it because they're trying to make something out of nothing, but that people actually do believe this, that this is actually happening as they're framing it.
That they believe it because they want to believe it and then they engage in it.
They engage in spreading the story because they want other people to believe it and they want they want other people to feel the same kind of anger at ICE regardless of whether it's justified.
I just think that I don't know if it's chicken or the egg, but I just mean that I mean that the fact that people will see something like that from Chuck Todd and be like, wow, or from Mayor Fry and say, wow, they're treating him like an, like an, like a violent combatant.
Like the fact that people believe that is crazy.
The fact that they're posting about it is unsurprising to me is what I'm trying to say.
Like that there is a person on the other end on X that's logging on and seeing that and being like, can you believe how these ICE agents are treating these five-year-olds without even looking into it?
These guys playing on their emotions, that to me seems par for the course.
But the fact that people actually believe it is what I'm so surprised about.
When's the last time you saw any hubbub over an unarmed black man being shot?
It just hasn't happened since the advent of the body cameras.
And yeah, the left were the ones that pushed for it.
I think if the right knew how that played out, they would have been like, yeah, sign us up.
I do remember like the right was a lot at the first.
I was like, I don't know, maybe.
Hilarious.
And we've gotten some like really hilarious photos out of it.
Like that one lady that I think she like threw boiling water on the cop and then she like charged on him with a knife and it created like the funniest photo I've ever seen in my life.
So it's like total lip tard own self-own with that move.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're advocating against body cameras because it's an invasion of your of your rights or something like that in the near future because it's been such a disaster for them.
I'm not sure exactly how it went down, but they just went over.
They went over and the robot took the guy out.
But the idea of robot cops, I don't think that, I don't think that the American people are ever going to be comfortable with totally autonomous law enforcement.
But I do think that you'll see in the coming probably five years, you'll see a lot more robot partners.
Look, man, robots are going to be so cheap and everywhere.
Nowadays, you can get, there's actual humanoid robots that I posted a link and some stuff about it a couple of months back, probably halfway through the year last year.
And you can actually get a robot for your house right now.
Humanoid robot.
They're around $20,000, $30,000.
And I've said this a bunch of times.
When you offer the upper middle class a $30,000 robot that you pay $500 a month for for 72 months, and you've got 6% financing or whatever, and it does your dishes, it picks up after you.
It mows your lawn.
That is going to be the hottest product.
Elon Musk is totally right.
That will be the hottest product in the country because you're going to have basically this robot that gets consistent updates, downloads, anything that you want it to do.
You can go ahead and type it.
You'll be able to type into an AI and say, hey, I want my robot to do this.
And it'll download it just like in The Matrix right into the robot.
And then the robot can do it.
You're going to see all of the low-skilled jobs.
They're going to be gone because robots will do it.
Because right now, you got to pay someone.
You know, say you're paying an illegal, right?
You're a business owner and you're paying illegals to pick strawberries, right?
And you pay them under the table and you end up paying them $25,000 a year, right?
Total for the whole year.
That's a huge amount of money for an illegal.
They don't have to pay taxes on it.
But if you can buy a robot for $25,000 and it lasts you five years, the math is simple.
Well, because there was an article in the New York Post from like 10 years ago where they're like by 2025, the majority of women will be having sex with robots.
Well, because that's what's interesting is like, you know, a lot of these fellas, a lot of these, the guys are really receiving a lot of vitriol for like rizzing up ChatGPT.
Because when I see them, you know, show what their chat logs look like, a lot of times it's just like epic game.
I'm like, you know, I kind of respect you really did rizz up ChatGPT.
Something that's interesting to me, this is a bit dark, but I've seen this happen a few times, is when a guy like fumbles a girl.
For people in the crowd, don't know what fumbling means.
It means he failed to, you know, close a deal, making her his wife, or that sort of thing.
They load their text messages from the girl they fumbled into ChatGPT to recreate her personality.
But the person that's doing it to replace her absence, I'd equate that to like those TLC shows where the girl eats paper towels or eats like couch cushions or whatever.
Anything that facilitates humans interacting with humans and helps people that are having problems, you know, communicating with people, I think that it's actually okay.
If you're an introverted person, it's difficult to learn to interact with people and stuff.
Like, look, so I'm a fairly introverted kind of guy, right?
Normally.
I had to learn how to interact with people.
And I'm perfectly fine with it nowadays.
But, you know, because of being a guy in a band, a singer, like people want to talk to me.
So I had to learn how to interact with people, how to act like a normal person, not to be like, you know, feel uncomfortable.
People that are extroverted, they go out and they hang out with people and they're like, oh, I feel great.
You know, they get after that, they feel energized and stuff.
People that are introverted, they go and they hang out with people and they're like, man, I need some time away from people.
I need time alone.
And I had to learn how to get through that.
If you have a chat bot that helps you to learn to interact with people so that way you can go out and do normal people things, not bang toasters, but go out and do normal human being things.
I think that that's actually a win for society because it'll help to get people to, it'll help to get people to make more babies, to interact, have more fulfilled lives.
Because human connection is the thing that makes people feel fulfilled.
And if you are a person that's kind of depressed and don't really know how to talk to people, but you talk with a chat bot and it kind of helps you build up your confidence and you can go out and interact with people better, you're going to have more people that are better adjusted and you're going to have more people that feel more confident going on.
And obviously it's not going to work for everybody, but the people that it helps will actually have a more fulfilled and gratifying life.
All right, we're going to jump to this next story here.
A little more white pilling for you guys.
From CBS News, murders plummeted more than 20% in U.S. last year.
The largest drop on record study shows.
I hear that it's the, oh, actually, it says right here.
Murders plummeted more than 20% in 2025 from the year before, the single largest one-year drop on record, and it might be the lowest murder rate in the U.S. since 1900, a study released Thursday by the Council on Criminal Justice found.
The annual crime trends report analyzed data from 40 large cities across the United States for 13 different crime types, including murder, carjapping, theft, and drug offenses.
Alongside homicide, which dropped 21% from 2024, carjackings have declined 61% since 2023, while shoplifting is down 10% since 2024.
In general, the overall crime rate declined with violent crimes at or below level seen in 2019.
The analysis found drug offenses were the only category that rose during this period.
Well, sexual assault remained even.
This is actually evidence that deporting people is probably a good thing.
If you are going to send, if you're going to close the border, right, and stop people coming in, and that's going to have a 20% drop in murder, never open the border again.
Never.
Like, I mean, I mean, obviously, I'm being a little hyperbolic there, but like deporting criminals works.
Deporting criminals not just gets criminals out, but it makes criminals less likely to commit crime because they're going to get F and deported.
I think that this is, I don't think any person could think that this is a bad thing.
Like, we all want the murder rate to be lower.
But not to like, don't call me black pilled.
But when I look at what they're saying there, they said from 40 large cities.
So which 40 large cities?
That's one thing.
The second thing is that when Biden was the president, one of the things that Trump said is that the, and a lot of Republicans said is that the crime statistics are not real because they're not reporting to the FBI in these certain areas.
So the crime statistics are off the charts.
So it's like, are the time, are the crime statistics that they're giving us now to prove that they're low, are those correct?
Are they being compared to the ones that were the real statistics that we didn't have because they weren't reporting it?
So what even is anything?
And it says 40 cities, which 40 cities have it?
Did any other cities go up?
So as much as I want and like to celebrate this and would love to believe that it's true, these little small details confuse me where it's like, if we had the worst economy a year ago and now we have the best economy in the world, if we had the highest crime rate ever and now we have the best, it's like, where are we, where are we?
Like, I don't think if you're in the Trump administration or if you're a Trump supporter, we should just be like jumping for joy over this.
Because to your point, I mean, these cities are starting to phone it in probably maliciously on their crime data because they're like, we can go to these cities.
Things are not improving.
Like, we're not idiots.
Philadelphia is not improving.
New York City, not improving.
Los Angeles, not improving.
Even Omaha, I've never been, but Raleigh, not improving.
So it's like there's no way that Los Angeles saw a 39% drop in homicides.
That's absurd.
And then you dig into it.
Like you're seeing where they play it fast and literally like the racial classifications where it'll be like an obvious like Guatemalan and they're like, it's a white guy.
Yeah, the Trump administration has made it very clear that if you can't clean up your mess and we're sending in the National Guard, we're going to put pressure on you.
We're going to even touch your federal funding.
So all that really did, it was great.
I'm 100% supportive of the National Guard coming in.
But this is why we can't trust the crime data now because they are now directly incentivized to muddy the data.
And people were saying, people, for the record, people were saying, you can go on Twitter.
People were saying this when the first crackdown happened in Washington, D.C.
They said, these police departments are going to start fudging the numbers to keep the Trump administration from sending in the National Guard.
But that's a double-edged sword because the Republicans are going to use that saying, look at how successful Donald Trump is.
Look at how successful Donald Trump's policies have been.
And so you've got, I mean, I think that the, I'm not sure which is a more compelling narrative because again, if Republicans are saying, look, our immigration policies have caused crime to go down, et cetera, et cetera.
You know, people that aren't from these cities are going to say, well, okay, well, that's pretty good.
Maybe I should vote for the Republicans again.
And then the individual cities, obviously the politicians from the individual cities will say, well, see, my policies are actually good and they're reducing crime.
So maybe there will be more, maybe Democrats that are in positions of power now will get re-elected, but it still will credit the Donald Trump administration.
Do you think that the Donald Trump administration is going to be able to capitalize on this kind of information and say, look, our policies are helping?
Because it's just not from a political, like from a political science point of view, it's not actually advantageous to applaud blue cities for lowering crime.
I mean, you could attribute it to some directives from the federal government, but that just doesn't seem wise.
The Trump administration right now is actually incentivized to accurately portray the situation in the cities, which is they are out of control.
They like are crying out for federal intervention.
I haven't seen, I mean, maybe I'm wrong.
I actually haven't seen any federal agencies like, you know, chest beating over this data, nor should they.
They should continue doing what Trump had talked about previously, which is that some of this data is skewed.
But what's not being talked about, what should be talked about, is that they're also misrepresenting racial crime data.
And it creates a lot of problems.
It makes it more difficult to draw a policy to accurately give the people a picture of what's going on.
Because in most of these cities, it's mostly black people committing the violent crime.
But now you're seeing the black crime rate drop down.
And then you just dig a little bit.
You just spot check different cases and it'll be like literally a Guatemalan, literally a black guy.
Well, I'm aware of the fact that there are times where they'll go ahead and misrepresent the race of the person committing crime, and particularly when it comes to Hispanic or Latino people, they'll call them white.
And it's never the other, it's never like a white person getting labeled as black or Hispanic.
It's just because, again, there's different incentive structures that would kick in if you accurately sort of laid out to the American people like who's committing the violent crime.
I mean, we saw it after Arena's Rutzco.
Like everyone for like two weeks was very comfortable going out and saying black crime is a huge problem.
Just black culture in general is making our cities unlivable.
But then like two weeks later, granted Charlie happened.
So that was, that took precedent.
But then after that, like people stopped talking about it.
And I was like, okay, well, we're never going to actually like our cities are never going to be livable until we're just very direct and can and confront like black crime as a reality.
It reminds me of, it reminds me of in 2020 when it was the elections and the ballot issues and proving it.
And I remember thinking to myself, you know, if I was a leftist mailman, for example, and I obtained a bag of what I knew to be votes and I didn't want Trump to win because I thought he was a fascist dictator that was going to destroy the country and democracy would die forever.
You know, couldn't I, wouldn't nobody have to tell me that I should just throw these ballots in the garbage and pretend that I lost them if I got them from a, let's say, a nursing home in a red area that I knew that they were likely to be Trump ballots.
Wouldn't I just know to throw them out because I'm helping to save the dictator?
I would wager that it's highly likely that these types of things as well could be altered in that same way, where you don't necessarily need to get a directive from the top-down Democratic Party to say, hey, fudge these numbers, but they're like, hey, man, you know, the captain of the police squad says, don't put it in as a black guy, put it in as a white guy.
And it just kind of trickles through us like an unspoken understanding where this benefits us.
And what it also does is it makes Trump going and knocking down doors and getting people out not seem like it's justified because it's really not that violent.
Police unions are one of the last institutions in America that are actually conservative still.
Like if you go and, again, spot check different cities, look at their police unions, they're typically endorsing Republicans.
They're typically made up.
I mean, police officers, we all know police officers, like the majority of police officers are like conservative patriots.
It's the police chiefs, which are appointed by the mayor, or it's sheriffs, which are elected by the county.
Typically, these counties are blue.
So unfortunately, they're taking directives from those guys.
And then also a lot of the desk jobs and police departments are not staffed by like patriots that are on the patrol.
They're staffed by just whoever they can find a lot of times.
No offense to there's some great people I know that work on police desks, but they're pulled out of like the general population.
They're not like police, like hardened police officers.
So those are the people that probably have more of a liberal leaning and would be incentivized to hide the ball a little bit and what's going on in these cities.
It's like, I wouldn't be surprised if that type of thing was happening.
It's all types of statistical reporting and all types of everything.
And even in newsrooms or whatever.
If you were a leftist reporter that was for a, let's call it a middle of the line outlet or something, I don't know how many, how many journalists are there with you on the scene to get whatever the story is?
Could you alter it a little bit to serve your own ends?
Could that happen?
Because if you frame Trump as the second coming of the worst dictator in the history of time and the democracy is going to die in darkness and we're going to lose democracy forever and this guy represents an existential threat to humanity as a whole, it's like the collective modification that would happen all the way up and down the chain without any directive, I think would be everywhere.
It's like, I mean, it's not, you know, a top down.
It's not Nancy Pelosi giving out talking points to like the Jacksonville County Sheriff's Department.
It's just like, it's all unspoken.
It's all like, this kind of looks a little bad.
Maybe we can clean things up a little bit.
And they can justify it to themselves.
They can come up with like reasons for why they're doing these things, even if it's explicitly racial justice or something, which you do see from time to time.
And so, yeah, it's not like a top-down directive, even in the media.
Like, even in the media, it's not the New York Times.
I mean, they do have a relationship, obviously, with the Democrat Party.
In many ways, they're like the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, but none of these things require like directives.
A lot of these things are just these people are instinctually liberals, they're instinctually left-wing, and they view themselves as part of a revolution.
And so they're going to behave in accordance with that.
Yeah, that's something that we talked about: the lack of necessity for liberals or progressives to act like progressives, right?
Like you get the, you don't, whereas there are times where I think there's a script that comes out for specific issues, there are things that they want like the thought leaders to say.
Overall, you don't have to instruct the progressive on what to say on each individual issue because it's like you don't have to tell a Catholic how to be a Catholic.
The liberal progressive really does treat their politics as if it's a religion.
And because of that, you don't have to tell them, oh, this is what you're supposed to think about this, or this is what you're supposed to think about this.
You'll get some variation in the way that they apply the doctrine.
But if you're a liberal progressive that went to college, that kind of was indoctrinated with that thought process, it doesn't take someone telling you what to think or this is this issue, you have this opinion, this issue, you have this vision, because the doctrine is part of the way that you see the world.
When people would talk about critical race theory, that phrase has kind of fallen out of favor and people say, oh, woke is dead, so we don't have to worry about it.
It's totally wrong because it's not about just one policy or just some people.
It's a way to view the world.
And it's taught from, you know, from great nowadays, there are people that are out in society that were taught from grade school all the way through college and they got into jobs and human resources.
And so that's just the way they see the world.
It doesn't have to be, it doesn't have to be instructed to anymore.
This is, to them, that's how reality is.
And that's part of why there's such a divide between the right and the left.
People on the right didn't internalize those ideas or were insulated from them somehow, whether it be through family, through their church, through whatever it may be.
And people on the left, they really do see the world through this critical lens where you have to try your best to make sure that you are trying to implement justice for the marginalized communities in every aspect and every chance you get.
Which is, it kind of adds to my point about it being a religion.
Like there are plenty of Christians out there and plenty of people that would say that they're religious, that they're in church on Sunday and then on Tuesday they're out with the boys chasing skirts around town or while their wife's home with the kids or whatever.
There are plenty of people that can that are doing things just to keep up appearances.
Yeah, like a lot of leftism I think is very performative where if you come to them and you say, well, even though I want to protect this group of people and protect this class of people, when you put this policy in that you guys think helps this group of people, here's what actually happens.
It ends up way worse than it is.
Oh, I don't know about all that.
And by me disagreeing with all the people that look empathetic by doing the wrong thing, well, that puts me out of it.
So I don't care about what actually happens.
I care about how it looks like it, like I think, or how empathetic I am here.
And then they get stuck in that trap where now they hate you and they could just say, well, he's not empathetic.
I mean, look, if the left really cared about people that were downtrodden and stuff, they'd all be like, you know, progressives.
I mean, they'd all be capitalists that want to have strong property rights because the engine that takes people out of poverty that has shown over and over again is free markets and property rights.
Those things, if you give those, if you give a population property rights and free markets, then you're going to see a massive increase in wealth and you're going to see a huge amount of the population be pulled out of poverty.
And then, I mean, in the United States, the only people that are in actual poverty are people that can't function in our society due to mental illness or sometimes drug addiction.
But it's a very, very, very small amount of people in the U.S. that are that are chronically poor.
And whether you like him or not, Ben Shapiro has made this point a lot.
There's really only three things you got to do.
Don't have a kid outside of marriage, keep a job for 10 years and get married.
And you'll probably not be in poverty.
You won't be chronically in poverty.
You may, you know, people hit on hard times, people who lose jobs and stuff.
But if you do those things, you can get out of poverty and have a pretty good life in the United States.
Well, irrespective of the cause of the poverty, generally speaking, the free market principles and not the just give us handout is ultimately what will pull them out of it.
It's like by putting them on the dole, by putting them on food stamps in perpetuity for life and not encouraging them to get a job or whatever, you're creating the environment for them to be trapped in that as opposed to get them out of it.
So we both want to help the poor person.
This one will just actually create lasting change.
This will actually trap them, but you'll get all the woke points in the now.
And that's why they don't care about what happens.
The problem is like with all of this is we're only talking about like what white liberals are advocating for.
And you see this problem all around the world.
This is actually like a good example is Malaysia where you have the Malay population which underperforms the Chinese population overperforms.
And the Malay population in Malaysia sets up these massive incentive networks like from the government through welfare, through food stamps to a degree, these sorts of things.
Because like you can never expect a group that underperforms for whatever reason you want to prescribe like why they underperform.
You can never expect them to not advocate for government subsidies.
They're going to want to subsidize their existence to a degree.
So the United States, like part of the issue is, yes, white liberals advocate for these policies because they just perceive like it's going to help them, even though it's misguided and wrong.
But like black Americans, Hispanic Americans to a degree will advocate for these policies purely so they feel like they can keep up with the rest of the country.
And so it's really, this is not a uniquely American problem.
This occurs all over the world is when there is a population in a country that underperforms, naturally they're going to advocate for policies that benefit that population, no matter their size.
Like you see it in South Africa where like black Africans make up like 80% of the country and they have completely reoriented the government to provide them with subsidies, provide them with welfare networks because again, they're just trying to, in their eyes, keep up.
And so obviously if they're underperforming, they're just going to advocate for policies that provide them with subsidies, provide them with welfare benefits and that sort of thing.
From the New York Post, Jared Kushner shows off renderings of futuristic Gaza with skyscrapers and suburbs.
Maragaza, ladies and gentlemen, it is on the way.
Jared Kushner unveiled an ambitious vision Thursday for a cosmopolitan Gaza strip that will attract investment and tourists after years of war, looking much like his father-in-law, President Trump's call for converting the war-torn Mediterranean territory into a Riviera of the Middle East.
Kushner 45 showed off renderings of Lux beachfront skyscrapers and suburban subdivisions for the Palestinian territories, nearly 2 million people, many of whom are currently living in tents beneath rubble in the aftermath of a two-year war that ended in October.
I mean, you can look at these pictures, and I mean, it looks great.
Um, if Israel doesn't vomit, you know, Gaza 51st state two years ago.
They're trying to set it up where there's going to be like an interim administration.
They're claiming it'll be Palestinian-led, and then eventually they do want to turn the governance of the territory back over to the PLO.
And then, this is the purpose of this Council of Board of Peace, things that they're calling it, is they're basically going to try and set up these international structures that will ensure the PLO doesn't just like read like they don't vote for Hamas again.
Well, I mean, the PLO, if it's the PLO, it might actually be something that's possible because, you know, the people in Gaza voted for Hamas, and Hamas, you know, then they ended elections, and Hamas was like, all right, we are here to kill Jews, right?
Like, that's their whole existence.
Whereas if you look at the way the West Bank works, like, you don't have the same kind of violence from the West Bank.
Now, there are obviously some, there are clashes, and there are problems.
There are problems with the Israeli settlements, and there's disagreements and fights about that, but it's not what Gaza was, right?
Like, Gaza had they had to close the borders with Gaza because Gaza was constantly firing rockets into Israel and stuff.
So, if you can get the PLO in there, the Palestinian Authority, like, yeah, not the PLO, is it the PLO?
So, if you can get the Palestinian Authority into Gaza and have them in charge, I think that it's possible.
The new Rafah, they're talking about 100,000-plus permanent housing units, 200-plus education centers, cultural, religious, and vocational centers, and 75 medical facilities.
New Gaza, which would be developed later, would be a hub of industry and employment, he said.
In the beginning, we're toying with the idea of saying, let's build a free zone, and then we have a Hamas zone.
And then we said, you know what?
Let's just plan for catastrophic success, says Kushner, who, alongside special envoy Steve Witkoff, brokered an end to the war.
Kushner also negotiated the Abraham Accords, establishing Israeli relations with four Arab countries during Trump's first term.
And so the grandiose reconstruction vision may likewise seem impossible before it happens.
Hamas signs a deal to demilitarize.
That is what we are going to enforce.
People ask us what our plan is.
What our plan B is.
We do not have a plan B, he said.
We have a plan.
We signed an agreement.
We are all committed to making that agreement work.
There's a master plan.
We'll be doing it in phases.
They've got demilitarization principles.
The next hundred days.
Do you think that this is something that's possible, Tay?
Like, it's not my intention when I'm just saying this as a reality is the reason the West Bank is somewhat functional and Gaza is not is because there's literally, I think it's like a 15 to 20 point IQ difference between Palestinians in Gaza and Palestinians in the West Bank.
Because the West Bank, like if you look, like Bethlehem, for example, like the birthplace of Christ, by law, they have to have a Christian mayor.
Like the West Bank has a lot of these like actually fairly decent agreements with the local population.
It's a much more stitched together, like formalized part of the world.
And then Gaza is like a war zone and it has been for the last 20, 30 years.
I don't know how you get the population of Gaza out of that mentality.
So that's kind of the question.
And it wasn't addressed in this.
It's like, okay, well, what are you going to do with the Gazans?
And what seems to be happening is with Somaliland being set up, obviously now they've been recognized by Israel and they'll probably be in turn recognized by the United States and probably a few other Western nations is the plan is they're going to try and dump a lot of the Gazans there because that's been the biggest issue from the Israeli perspective is that they want to just push the Gazans out.
Well, also to steel man the Arabs' position on why they don't want to take the Gazans because they believe that the only leverage that they have in this entire conflict is the fact that Gazans are there.
And so if you take the Gazans out, the Palestinians out of Gaza, then there's zero leverage left for the Arab states.
Like Israel can just effectively annex it.
So that's the primary reason.
Like Egypt, for example, doesn't want to take them.
Yes, there's like the political ramifications of taking them in.
Like Lebanon is a great example.
Lebanon used to be primarily Christian.
It was like 70% Christian at its establishment.
Actually, the French designated Lebanon to be like the Christian state in the Middle East.
And then as soon as a lot of the Palestinian refugees flooded in, changed the demographics.
Now Lebanon's, by all accounts, a disaster.
But personally, I also agree.
I think it's the primary reason these Arab states don't want to take the Gazans in is because they feel like once you take them in as refugees, they won't go back.
And then Israel can basically do what they want in Gaza.
And then that takes away any leverage that the Arab states would have in the Gaza situation.
It's like they say history rhymes and it's like they're taking these people and they want to repopulate them, but they won't take them because when they arrive, they start making banks and become lawyers.
That's why the post-war situation, the post-war consensus is interesting because we don't really do that much anymore.
You don't see like, again, from countries that are bought into the global system.
You actually don't really see many full-blown genocides anymore.
What you do see is a lot of resettlement where, I mean, obviously Israel's killed quite a few people in Gaza, but like if they wanted to eliminate everyone there, they probably could.
But like what you saw in Germany, for example, after the end of the war, they redrew the borders in Europe.
They tried to clean things up.
What happened was they cut Germany in half.
And now a third of Germany is now Poland.
You have a lot of Germans there.
What do you do with them?
Do you try to integrate into Poland?
No, you deport all of them back to Germany.
So you saw these massive population exchanges occurring in Europe after the war.
So I think that's kind of the precedent.
Again, it's not great.
I mean, you don't want to see like people removed from where they live, but it's the reality.
It's the world we live in.
And so that's, I think, what's going on here is I don't suspect if this happened, which I just don't even think is going to happen anyway, because you got to get the Gulf states to play along and the Gulf states are probably not going to.
They can barely complete a lot of these mega projects in their own countries.
But even hypothetically, if it goes exactly to plan, Gazans aren't going to live there.
They can't really support a sort of a society that looks like this.
Wouldn't it be cool if Jared Kushner and all the people that were going to invest into this project and everybody talking about it, wouldn't it be cool if they did that in like, I don't know, America?
Like maybe Detroit or maybe literally anywhere?
It's like if we don't barely manufacture anything here, wouldn't this be helpful for America?
Yeah, because that's kind of the question is like who funds this?
Again, if it's the Gulf states, that's great.
But either way, like I actually don't think there's going to be much money extracted.
I think everyone's going to get their lunch eating on this project because it's going to be really expensive.
You're going to have to, again, clean, like you're going to have to clean out all of the rubble.
You got to demilitarize it.
There's mines everywhere.
There's a lot of weaponry.
Like it's going to be a very, very expensive project.
But the Saudis are, well, because the Gulf states are, again, they're trying to form like a coalition against Iran.
And so you have these Sunni Muslims looking at Israel and they're like, they could be a more viable partner because Israel is trying to position themselves as the regional power.
And so they just see like, okay, these Sunni states have the same enemy we do, which is Iran.
And so that's what the incentive basically would be for these Gulf states is it's a geopolitical play.
It's how they play ball with Israel and build that relationship.
So in the event that this gives them the ability to have access to more power, then there's a lot of money to be made.
So whether or not they break even or whatever on this particular project, which I can't imagine that real estate developers that have generated billions of dollars for themselves would just go into this thing not being able to make money.
Certainly there's a money play down the line somewhere.
And I would wager that it's probably a ton.
Maybe we'll break even.
I bet they are going to make a ton of money from that.
And that's the way the world works outside of the West.
The West is the only country that when they make these investments, they expect returns, where other countries, the way that they operate when they're building projects like this, specifically China, they don't actually expect returns right away.
They expect these to be geopolitical plays.
Like, look, for example, with China's Belt and Road Initiative, where they built this massive deep water port in Sri Lanka.
Again, they knew they were never going to make their money back on that.
They knew that the Sri Lankan government was never actually going to be able to make payments on it.
So what they did is they spent the money.
They built the port.
like fantastic massive deep sea deep water port.
And yeah, and then of course Sri Lanka falls behind on payments.
They seize the port.
You just bought influence.
So it's like, okay, you lost some money like from a pure like accounting perspective, but you just bought yourself a deep water port in the Indian Ocean.
Yeah, because you have to look at like, you know, and I'm, I'm not, you know, like, I don't really talk about Israel much just because it's not, most of my commentary is like American focus.
But if you look at like the play here, who wins out of all this, Israel benefits like dramatically.
unidentified
Yeah.
And so it's like, yeah, so it's like, you know, just getting the Gazans out, Israel.
Whether or not, I mean, even if you just got the Gazans out and then paved all of the Gaza Strip and it was a parking lot, they would still benefit because they don't have to deal with the terrorism.
All right, we're going to jump to this story, and I think Ian's going to really love this.
From AZ Sports, 49ers investigate wild conspiracy theory that could be contributing to injuries.
The San Francisco 49ers season is over, but this offseason will go slightly different than those in the past.
Per ESPN's Nick Wagoner, the 49ers are investigating conspiracy theory that has really gained traction over the last couple of weeks.
The team is investigating whether or not the electrical substation near the facility is contributing to the extreme rash of injuries over the years.
Because it deals with allegedly the health and safety of our players, I think you have to look into everything.
John Lynch told reporters in his end of the year presser, we've been reaching out to anyone and everyone to see if a study exists other than a guy sticking an apparatus underneath the fence and coming up with a number that I have no idea what that means.
That's what we know exists.
So there's a substation right, I'm looking for the picture here.
Maybe it was in one of the other pieces on it.
So the substation is right next to, here we go.
The substation is right here, surrounded in red.
And this is the 49ers facility.
This is their practice field.
And here's Levi Stadium.
Allegedly, what's going on, what people think is the substation is causing a rash of injuries.
And they spend 90, I guess it says where the 49ers players spend 90% of their workdays.
So you've got a bunch of injuries, and people are thinking that it might be the cause of the substation.
I've been reading, I was basically taking a crash course through ChatGPT about what living near a substation would do to you.
It says that there's four basic ways that it can affect you.
One of them is EMF electromagnetic fields, which are known to cause, it's like not really documented links of weakness, but headaches, dizziness, fatigue, controlled blind studies fail to reproduce the effects, though, generally is what they say.
So you've got electromagnetic fields that could potentially be doing it, stray voltage, grounding issues.
So you might have electricity underground that's causing massive risk there.
Muscle twitching, tingling.
And I mean, muscle twitching for an athlete is like game-breaking.
Noise and vibration, underestimated, but legitimate, it says, and environmental and land use factors, which would be like toxins and the poor air quality.
But this, damn, you know, electricity is so new in the human experiment at this time around that we know of 150 years.
Yeah, you know, it's only a couple hundred years old in the last 100,000.
I mean, maybe they had it before the flood, but we don't really know what kind of effect it's having on our bodies very much.
I love a good conspiracy theory, and I would likely believe something like this if I had more time to dive into it.
But I would almost wager that it's probably more likely the physical, like this, these are the highest, most engineered athletes in the world.
They're getting tested about every possible thing imaginable.
They're doing feats of strength that many of us would never even be tested on ourselves in our entire life.
And on top of that, they made the playoffs and excelled despite all that.
So if you looked at those few guys, I would bet it's the physical therapy team and the doctors that are on the staff that are more likely responsible for dropping the ball.
Well, maybe they're not maybe they're not indicating whether or not a person would be susceptible to injury that specific day.
Like maybe their flexibility is not enough that day and the doctor says, go ahead, you're still good to play.
Whereas another doctor might say, if your ankle is tight and you can't bend to this degree, then it's a bad idea for you to play more than 10 minutes today or something like that.
So I would bet it's the physical therapy team more likely than not.
And I don't think that the San Francisco 49ers would outwardly admit that that was the case because that would be admitting that they failed their own players.
With all the money that goes into any NFL team, you'd think that they would be, if there was any substance to the idea, you'd think that they'd be aware of it.
Well, I mean, there's the Washington Post article that was on this subject.
And if you read in it, they're saying, they didn't say which players, but a lot of these players' agents have been reaching out to the team, been reaching out to the press about concerns specifically that the players are taking longer to recover from injuries than any of their other clients, which is pretty interesting.
And if you look at like the map, obviously you have the substation there.
I was reading about Havana syndrome where back in the day, a lot of these diplomats were reporting that they were getting sick for seemingly no reason.
And they were pointing to EMFs there because, again, in the Washington Post article, a lot of the players, I don't know if it was the players or the agents reporting on behalf of the players anonymously were saying, also, these guys are getting sick a lot more often or they're feeling nauseous and these sorts of things.
And that was the original speculation with the Havana gun is that they were able to deploy some sort of weapon that would, again, like effectively blast EMF at you.
And so it, I mean, these things are all like, it's worth digging into.
I mean, the fact that the 49ers are taking it seriously indicates that this isn't just some like kookery.
Well, I mean, I think, look, if you're, if you're, if you're the 49ers owner, you know, and your players are taking longer to heal, I, I can't imagine that you would leave any stone unturned.
You know, the amount of money that goes into any NFL team, but, you know, the San Francisco 49ers, like, they've got a, a pretty decent history.
And, you know, I can't imagine that the owners would say, ah, that's BS.
There's a lot of money to be lost if you lose Kittle right in the wild card game.
You're losing a ton of money.
So if there is any substance to it, that's the other thing.
It's like, I don't know that the internet, as much as I love the internet and the collective power of it, would solve this faster than the people that have billions of dollars on the line.
No, but like I remember the one, I do remember the one commercial where it was the smoker lady and she's like, and like the shower is running in the background.
And she's like, I can't face the shower because of the hole in my beard.
Richard Slammer says, to Phil's point, you want to bring the enemy leaders in or you want to bring the Tokyo Rose or Hanoi Jane, aka Don Lemon.
Yeah, I mean, look, I don't think that it would be a bad thing at all to wrap up Don Lemon.
And that's, that's not the point that I'm making.
But I do think that if you're looking to have an impact on the ground, I think you get the actual activists and you wrap those people up, put them in jail for any laws that they violated, and you're going to have a much larger impact.
Whereas if you get Don Lemon, it's going to be satisfying, but it's not going to have an effect on the protesters or organizing protests in the future.
I was describing it like this.
Like, Don Lemon is like the whipped cream on the Sunday, right?
The cherry on top.
It's satisfying and great.
But the actual wholesome meal that your body needs is the vegetables and the meat and potatoes.
Like, that's the good thing for you.
The ice cream and stuff, it's nice and you like it, but it doesn't actually do anything for you.
Well, yeah, I mean, that's that's the thing, you know, the sugary, satisfying thing or the thing that's actually going to, you know, help repair your body and give you the vitamins and nutrients that you need.
JDA 93 says, been watching Tim since 2018, but here's my doomer worry.
The FACE Act changes will fail because it's leftists.
However, under Biden, FACE Act stuck old ladies in prison for abortion clinic sit-ins.
I mean, that's true, but we work with the tools that we have, right?
I mean, I love the idea of being like, hey, let's go and write new laws and actually, you know, do things that are going to be more permanent and really fix the problems that we have.
But you go to war with the army that you have, not the army that you want.
So the conditions in DC are as they are.
And so you're limited by what the possibilities are limited.
Yeah, I mean, like, there's no fix everything button in the Trump.
Like, there's not, I think John Doyle made the joke, there's not like a stream of staffers storming in at the fix everything button.
And President Trump refuses to press it.
It's like, unfortunately, the system that we live in was set up very well in the sense of it's actually really insulated from like any sort of disarray.
It's a very rigid system.
And the left has done a really good job over the last 67 years ensuring that that is or that the rigidness is oriented towards the right.
So it makes it really difficult for us to achieve our goals.
So we're just, we're not at the point yet where we can just like effectively run the country like a dictator.
Like you have to remember, like a lot of these Trump policies are popular on fairly razor-thin margins.
And then you have Congress.
Like Congress is going to be completely ineffective.
Like any win so far in the Trump administration for the most part has been through the executive branch.
So it's just like it's a very tricky situation the Trump administration is in.
Like they are a democratically elected government.
And that like, again, comes with stipulations.
It comes with framework that you have to operate within.
So to Phil's point, I mean, they've deemed that this is the most viable possible way to wrap these guys up.
You got to work with what you have.
Maybe this changes in the next few years.
Zoomers, there was a U.S. Gov poll where half of Zoomers just said ignore the Supreme Court.
So, you know, things could change quite rapidly.
But as it stands right now, yeah, we have to operate within this.
Because you got to remember, like, the Republican Party, the Trump administration is positioning themselves as a legitimate form of government, and they're positioning the left-wing, the Democrat Party, as these radical insurgents.
And that's the correct framing, I would say, because that's how you win elections going forward.
Because the American people just aren't ready for a despot yet.
Shane H. Wilder says, if you're the praying type, pray for us at the March for Life in D.C. tomorrow and for anyone who will be affected by this weekend storms.
This weekend storm is looking like it's going to be no joke.
So if you're a prayer, pray for everybody at the March for Life.
That's a very wonderful way to protest and demonstrate.
Abortion is, in my opinion, abortion is probably one of the most wrong things that we do here in the U.S.
I haven't always thought that, but I've, you know, since I had a kid, I mean, look, man, when your kid's six months in utero and you're looking at an MRI or a sonogram and you can see a face, you're like, that is a human being, man.
Bespoke 2147 says, no, Phil, we don't want people not of our cultural heritage here anymore.
No giving them money for legal way.
No more legal way for people who abused our generosity for decades.
Look, I'm not sure what you think my perspective is on immigration.
I'm the guy that says that we should shut down immigration for a decade and deport all illegals, right?
So I'm not sure where you got the idea that I had some kind of like soft spot for illegal aliens here in the United States.
I don't.
But I do think that whatever means we use or whatever way we can offer to get people to leave, I think it's a good thing, especially when you're dealing with the amount of money that they're talking about.
$2,600 is a small amount of money to get to the federal government who just prints it anyways.
And they're going to print it for other stuff anyway.
So it's a small amount of money to get people to leave.
In my opinion, whether it be $2,600 or trebuchet, it's all good if you're decreasing the number of illegal aliens in the United States.
Yeah, like remember, they've quantified that number because they've determined that an ICE operation costs far more than that.
So it's like you kind of look at it like, okay, to a degree, what you're trying to do is you're trying to reorient the incentive structure on immigration.
So you want to reorient the atmosphere around immigration in the America to it being favorable for these people to leave.
And if you can incentivize that, it's worthwhile because, again, it saves us money for having to knock down doors and these sorts of things.
And what happened was he would put on like his Facebook, I think it was like his Facebook or Instagram, like, if you're not planning on voting today, I will pick you up at your house and drive you to the voting booth.
And I texted him and I was like, if someone literally, the things, like you said, the thing standing between them voting or not is like someone else driving them to the polls, they shouldn't be voting because clearly they do not care about like the outcome of the election whatsoever.
So let's just not do that because, yeah, we don't want low propensity voters, but that's not a good, like, that's not a good thing.
We should have people that are engaged in tapped end voting like exclusively.
Yeah, the mail is like the most outrageous thing ever because you'd be willing to do that as a favor to a buddy if you're just like, hey, man, would you just fill this out and just I'll fire, I'll send it for you.
You know, I mean, look, I personally think that we should be, there should be laws that allow people to be committed involuntarily if they're if they're a danger to society or to themselves.
It's too easy for the mentally ill to roam the streets and terrorize people.
You go to any big city and you see that.
There's been plenty of high-profile murders and attacks because of mentally ill people.
And I think that getting those people off the street would be great for society, but I don't think that it's going to end up being a federal thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's New York City has laws where if you've slept on the street for like a certain amount of continuous days, the police can just commit you.
They could pick you up and commit you.
But these things are just like rarely enforced.
They're deep in these city codes.
But like, that's just common sense.
Like, if someone's still on the street after a few days, that indicates that something's wrong.
Because typically the average stint for a homeless person is only like a day or two.
These are people that are like hardened.
They're grizzled.
They're ready for the street.
And it's helpful for them.
Like, we don't want these, we don't enable that behavior.
Like, it's bad for them.
We want these people to get help.
So it's like the most benevolent thing you can do.
As far as the punishing the politicians that post fake news, I would say that a more fruitful use of your time would be to call out your own politicians that represent you and advocate for the policies that are the reason why you elected them in the first place and spend more of your time focusing on them because I feel like there's so many of them on the right that don't do the things that we put them in there for or don't talk about the things that are important to us.
You could yell at you could yell at Gavin Newsome or whoever else a million times, but you don't matter to them.
Whereas in order for a Lindsey Graham or a Thomas Massey or a Ted Cruz or whoever it is, the only one I like out of that three is Thomas Massey.
But in order for them to get re-elected, you need to be talking to them about the things that matter so that they understand that this is something that they need to do in order to get your vote again.
So I just think that's a more productive use of your time.
New York Post says, outdoor gear brand Patagonia has filed suit against a drag performer and LGBTQ activist named Patty Gonia for peddling merch, which the company says rips off its highly recognizable brand markings.
The high-end outdoor brand, beloved by day hikers and finance bros, and also by like dudes that shoot people a lot, alleges the drag queen has caused irreparable damage by trading on the company's logo.
Look at this.
If we zoom in here, this is a Northface, Northface shirt jacket.
Well, I mean, look, he could have kept the same name.
Came to an agreement with the company in 2022 that he would respect the brand's trademarks, but then turned around and filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to use the Patty Gonia brand for a host of commercial endeavors two years later, according to court documents.
Wiley's trademark application shows he intends to launch a wide-ranging commercial enterprise under the Patty Gonia brand, including apparel sales and using the name to promote his upcoming shows and appearances, according to the complaint filed Wednesday in a U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, obtained by Bloomberg law.
I mean, this is kind of obvious, right?
Like you're, you're, not only are you infringing on their trademark, right?
But you're also like a controversial person with a, you know, as an activist, you're going to have like people that are like, no, I think that you're a crazy man.