THIS COULD BE THE END | Timcast IRL #1465 w/ Brandon Herrera
Brandon Herrera and Tim Pool analyze the potential end of the Iran conflict, noting a 30% crude oil price drop after Trump's claims, while debating whether regime change in Cuba or Venezuela requires invasion or simply economic isolation. They critique omnibus bills like the "Voltron law" for obscuring NFA abolition strategies and discuss mandatory gun ownership as a tactic to shift the Overton window against Democratic bans. The conversation covers geopolitical stakes at the Strait of Hormuz, skepticism regarding Afghanistan's 20-year conflict, and legal challenges to the NFA, ultimately suggesting that peace through strength and national reciprocity for concealed carry permits offer a path forward over traditional military interventions or bureaucratic stagnation. [Automatically generated summary]
Gas prices were, there was a fear it was going to skyrocket because crude oil had shot up so high due to the closing of the Strait of Hormuz.
And then Trump comes out and says, the war is basically over.
They got no Navy.
They got no Air Force.
They got no missiles left.
So we're looking like it's pretty done.
He said that the original timeline for four weeks actually were going much, much more quickly than that.
And then instantly, the market turned around.
And the price of crude oil dropped 30%, the biggest drop, the fastest drop we've seen, I think, ever.
Just because Trump said, I think I'm done.
So this could be nearing the end of the war, or however you want to describe it.
But the interesting thing is, the Ayatollah's son reportedly survived an assassination attempt.
However, while the reports say that he was wounded, there are rumors circulating that he actually didn't make it.
We don't know for sure.
There's no official confirmation on this, but that is the rumor right now.
And oh boy, it's coming home.
There's a really crazy story, guys.
Over the weekend, Islamic extremists lobbed IEDs, improvised explosive devices at protesters in New York City.
Now, that in and of itself is absolutely insane.
And then you add on top the depravity of the media, who has repeatedly misled the public by framing this as though the protesters planted bombs at Mamdani's house.
It's ridiculous seeing these headlines they're putting out saying suspicious devices found near Mayor Mamdani's home.
When the real story is, with video, Islamic extremists threw nail bombs at protesters.
Absolutely insane stuff.
We're going to talk about all of that, my friends.
Before we do, we've got a great sponsor for you guys.
It is Venice.ai.
Check it out, my friends.
Sam Altman said, ChatGPT, we'll get to know you over your life.
ChatGPT's got the former director of the NSA sitting on their board right now.
Edward Snowden called this a willful calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth.
Make sure you guys go to Venice.ai.
Now, Alexa, I don't want to say this name, but your Amazon device listens to us and recommends products based on our conversations.
Matter targets us based on our browsing and engagement history.
So why would we assume AI is going to be any different?
It took us far too long to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data in the last decade.
Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Even OpenAI has hinted, they may require users to prevent a government-issued ID.
Venice utilizes leading open-sourced AI models to deliver text code and image generation to your web browser.
No downloads, no installation of anything.
Private and permissionless.
They don't spy on you or censor the AI.
Messages are encrypted, and your conversations history is stored only in your browser.
AI can be extremely valuable, but we shouldn't need to give up our privacy to use it.
Get their pro plan, which unlocks the full platform and all features, including PDF uploads for summaries or insights, the ability to turn off safe mode for unhindered image generation, the ability to change how Venice interacts with you by modifying the system prompt, limitless text, and high image limits.
You can go to venice.ai/slash Tim.
Use code Tim.
Do it right now.
Shout out to Venice for sponsoring the show.
You guys rock.
And don't forget, my friends, to smash the like button.
Share the show with everyone you know.
If every single person who was watching right now took the URL and just shared it across every social media platform, we would be the biggest show on the planet.
That would be awesome.
So if you do like the work we do, please consider sharing, subscribing, and liking.
Aside from that, joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we have Brandon Herrera.
We're not out of the woods yet, but we completed the one goal that we had in the very beginning, which is getting the rhino Tony Gonzalez out of office.
You came really close the first time around by within a couple hundred votes, I think, is the reporting.
This time around, aside from the fact that people already were questioning his choices, we got this other story in which people really questioned his choices about this affair and everything like that.
So we'll get into this later on for sure.
But, you know, in all honesty, I'm more interested in what you want to bring, like your story about what you want to bring to Congress, which is particularly dysfunctional.
He said pretty much in a phone interview, President Trump told me the war could be over soon.
I think the war is very complete, pretty much.
They have no Navy, no communications.
They've got no Air Force.
He added that the U.S. is very far ahead of its initial four to five week estimate, estimated timeframe.
Now, I don't know what that really means for Trump to be like it's very much, pretty much complete, but you take a look at oil prices.
When Donald Trump comes out and says, I think we're done, oil drops from 97.
It was over 100 before, down to 84 just a few hours later.
So it's looking like the market is reacting to this may be the end right now.
And I will stress this: based on my conversations with people in the Beltway, a lot of these fat cats and big wigs, the big money, they've been acting as though they fully expect this to be wrapped up in a couple of weeks.
Not an exaggeration.
So it really does sound like there's people putting their money where their mouths are.
But I'm curious what you think about is Trump just bloviating or are we actually getting this thing to end?
Look, if this actually does get wrapped up, you know, say, say on a fast timeline within two weeks, and the U.S. can make a legitimate claim that the majority of their goals were met, think that it might end up being you know a positive thing look the iranian regime has always been or at least for the past 47 years has been a thorn in the side of basically everyone in the west all of the middle east they're all their neighbors hated them um
They were constantly funding terrorism.
There's plenty of history of them attacking U.S. forces.
Because of Iran, there was a lot of people that were in Iraq that ended up losing limbs or dying because of the bombs that they were supplying to the insurgents and stuff.
So again, I wasn't for the war beforehand, but if I am pro-America, so if it ends up where they wrap it up in the next week or so, I mean, I think that's a good thing for the United States.
But let me just add real quick, also, Phil, the way your laptop mandar is angled, your shirt, because they can't see the second word, it looks like it just says, I stand with Israel crossed out.
But then you can only see the top of Palestine, so it looks like you actually stand with Palestine.
There's this post on Reddit that went viral where they said, I can't remember who they said Trump Jr. and someone else bought, invested into a drone manufacturer or something like this right before the war started, signaling that they knew and they're profiting off of it or whatever.
But I don't think these leftists understand what invested in means.
They assume that investment only just means like, I'm going to make money.
They don't understand it means I am funding the creation of what they're doing.
So like if we're getting involved in war and we know that there are enemy countries that are producing these specialty drones for warfare, and you're like, if I provide money, we can have those too.
See, they don't understand the point of what investment is because they're communists.
So, you know, and Reddit's just basically all communists.
I guess if they have the, you know, the chain of command or whatever, the line of succession, and he wiped them all out, I guess you could say 40 or whatever.
I don't know that actual, but my understanding is that they came in and they voted for his son to come in.
And we'll get into all that too, but I'm curious, Mr. Harris, you will be very likely going into Washington, D.C. What do you think about Trump?
You know, they're not calling it a war.
They're saying it's a combat operation.
Heg Seth said, we'll have the lawyers, you know, figure that out.
It's very obviously a war, but I'm curious what you think of it and what would your position be?
The thing is, though, I really, you know, less so with this Iran conflict, but we'll see how it pans out.
But especially with Venezuela, is if we are going to get involved with something, I vastly prefer the kind of conflict where you go in, the entire op takes an hour.
You go in, you get out, you accomplish it, you get it done, and you don't spend 20 years somewhere, spend trillions of dollars in a war that fathers and sons are fighting in the same conflict generation apart.
Like, just go in, get out.
Like, the way that Trump's doing this foreign policy-wise is putting 20 years of Bush-Cheney policy, foreign policy to shame.
You know, the challenge I have with it is I would say I completely agree with MUSA, and I would add one caveat.
There is a challenge, and I think you'd probably agree.
There is the president does have the ability to engage in military operations in an emergency.
Just go and do it.
And that's been the criteria that they have exploited to be able to continually go to war.
There is something that's challenging in that if Iran is really about to strike a bunch of U.S. personnel or ships or something like this.
I'm not saying.
I know people are going to be like, Tim, we sent all those, but no, no, I'm saying, let's say we've got troops, you know, and then Iran's like, we're going to go blow them all up.
Trump says, okay, we're going to take out their capability to do this.
If he goes to Congress and says, put it to a vote, you just told the whole world your next military move.
And that is, I think, largely why they don't want to go to Congress, but also how they exploit the rules so they don't go to Congress.
I mean, that's clearly like, it's kind of like, I think it's the same justification for no-knock raids.
Like, I am largely against no-knock raids, but I understand there's certain situations in which case you're like, okay, we have verified actionable intel.
If we try to knock on this door, there's 18 armed cartel members on the inside.
They're going to light us up.
You know, I understand the use case for it.
I just think it's overused, especially when it comes to law enforcement, no-knock stuff like that.
And then if you threaten to take that power away because they're abusing it, they'll say, then what will you do when you actually need to no-knock raid?
It's the same thing with abortion, where they always come back to the, oh, well, it was rape or incest or whatever when like the vast majority of cases, like the very vast majority, that's not the case.
I posted a quote from Stephen Colbert about gas prices because everyone's a retard and I know.
And so I was like, I'm going to post Stephen Colbert's quote without quotes in it and then ignite the internet and get really angry.
For those that don't remember, there's a huge story three years ago where Colbert said something like gas is hit an all-time high, but I'm okay with paying a buck or two for a clean conscience or something like this because we are going to get involved in the war in Ukraine.
So now that Donald Trump was saying, look, oil prices are temporarily going up.
And now all of a sudden liberals were losing it being like, MAGA's going to support high gas prices.
Was like, this is the perfect opportunity for me to trap all these libs.
I'm going to quote Stephen Colbert, who they defended, in this context, and then they will insult and attack me saying MAGO will do anything for Trump.
Because, well, and it does point out the fact that like people are just headline readers nowadays.
Like, how many people actually take the time?
And, you know, I'm guilty of this occasionally.
How many people take the time to actually open up the article and read the context behind the two sentences that they read before, you know, that are in the headline?
This is like the sole basis for my job in media is that, you know, people are always like, Tim's kind of a milk toast fence.
And I'm like, yeah, because my opinion on like the tax rate and, you know, the policy for abortion, I go, wow, I don't know if I'm smart enough to answer those questions for you guys, nor do I have the clarity, of a moral clarity to tell you how to live your life, but I can certainly tell you the media lied to you about everything.
So that's the challenge we have right now, it's not even that the media lies, which they do incessantly.
It's one of the stories we've got pulled up.
It's that people don't care.
So that, you know, the NBC knows they can write this fake headline making the victims of a terror attack sound like the perpetrators because most people are not going to read the story.
They're going to read the headline.
And I guarantee you now, there's a bunch of lips going around saying, did you hear about the white supremacist rally where they threw explosives at Mamdani's house?
Because that was the headline that NBC created, even though the real story is anti, I guess the protest was like anti-Islam or Islam critical or something.
And Islamic jihadi extremists lobbed nail bombs at them.
And then the media frames it to make them the bad guys, which again, we'll get into.
But yes, people aren't reading the news.
They're just skimming the headlines and then assuming that's the truth.
I'm sure you've seen the billions of AI videos that have been going around where it's, you know, like an American fighter jet being chased or an American helicopter being chased by a dude on a flying carpet.
This is going to one-shot your grandfather on Facebook.
Speaking of the lies and manipulations of the media, I have a tweet here from NBC New York, which reads: Multiple arrests made after, quote, suspicious devices found outside Gracie Mansion, home of Mayor Zorhan Mamdani, during anti-Islam rally and counter-protest.
Now, any person who heard that is going to assume that anti-Islamic protesters planted suspicious devices.
In fact, what actually happened is that an Islamic extremist lobbed a nail bomb at protesters.
And here we have a video where there's the guy.
And you know what?
I love this.
This guy, Walter Madison, says, I was in the middle of saying, as a born and raised New Yorker, we welcome everyone in the city, when he threw that over my head.
And as we learned after the fact, what he's throwing is a nail bomb.
Yes, which is actually, I'm glad you brought that up because TATP, they got very lucky on that because people were like, oh, the fuses, you know, they didn't ignite, whatnot.
TATP is very notorious for being an impact explosive.
But he said, think about how bad it would be if a nuclear device was lit off by Islamic extremists, all the poor Muslims or whatever would face all that hate or something like that.
And yeah, that's the way the media operates.
So the question is, what is the job of the press?
It's to inform the public so that they can make the correct decisions to better lead their country through the democratic processes.
That means you tell people, Islamic extremists threw an improvised explosive at protesters and they say, okay, let's assess that and figure out how we should adapt our country, our city, our state, or otherwise.
When you put the headlines like this, what are they going to think?
Oh, wow, white supremacists are scary.
That's what Mamdani said.
Mamdani did the same thing.
Zorhan Mamdani tweeted Jake Lang, a white supremacist, blah, blah, blah.
And then he said, what happened next is even worse.
It is wrong to use violence and explosives.
He made it sound like Jake Lang showed up and his guys threw explosives.
Yeah, it's like the Sultan Nitson said in that passage about a soldier was about to be murdered, stabbed, and then he fought back, grabbed the knife, and stabbed the attacker, criminally charged for it.
And when he was in court, they said, why didn't you flee?
And he said, he was trying to kill me.
And he said, you could have run away.
And so it's the poor, the poor criminal.
Why didn't you, you know, actually a really great example?
One of my favorite episodes of Made with Children, a show I'm not a big fan of, because El Bundy's always losing.
Except, no, ma'am, they had their successes.
But I love the episode where he punched a guy in the face and then sued the guy for hurting his hand on his face.
And I guess the point of the story was it was always, something was always backwards or whatever.
Or the point of the show, it's always going wrong.
But this is basically how they operate with these terror attacks.
Like you just said, how dare you create the opportunity to entice these poor young men?
You know, and I assure you right now, there are lefties in New York saying that I guarantee this, because I've been in their meetings, they're probably saying things like, well, you got to understand they're internalizing white supremacy and victimhood, and they're lashing out at the only way they know how.
Yeah, I mean, they take away the agency of the people that are actually carrying out the crime.
They say, well, these poor people don't know any, they don't know better, or they can't help it, or what have you, which is completely and totally taking away their agency and the fact that they are human beings that actually make their own decisions.
This is the one thing where I realize TikTok started it, and now AI is definitely one of those things that I'm seeing how easy it is to fall behind.
Because I think this is where I'm pushing back.
Where I'm like with my parents or my grandparents, I don't understand how you can't understand Facebook or whatever when it was coming out.
Now I'm like, nope, nope, this is scary.
This is robots.
I understand the importance of it, but like whenever I see AI music or AI art and things like that, my initial response is just like, uncanny valley, wrong.
I think when that happens, if there was a member of Congress that was like an advisor or an advisor to Congress that was AI or something, like a state advisor.
I've had a few in the past couple of years, it's gotten dramatically better.
A couple years ago, I talked about it quite a bit where in West Virginia, there's like a, I think it's West Virginia.
It might be Western Maryland.
There's a like three, it's like six lane highway, so three and three.
So to turn left, you have to stop in a median and then wait until the road clears.
So I'm in the middle lane autopilot going, I think like 70 miles an hour, and there's a pickup truck sitting in the meeting waiting to turn.
And as soon as it pops up on the, it was in the Model S, it slams the brakes on from like, and me and my wife are like, need to say, we were like, holy crap.
And I, you, you tap the get the accelerator to stop it, make it go forward again.
Tons of things like that.
And then I was in Hagerstown, Maryland, and it was autopiloting.
And there was like a Nissan Center or something sitting in front of me turning right.
And Tesla was just going straight for it.
And it wasn't stopping.
And when it got maybe within a couple inches, I just jammed the wheel to the left.
So the way Elon put it is, I think, in the crash testing of the Cybertruck, he said, if the Cybertruck gets in an argument with another car, it will win.
I brought up AI Brandon because I feel like Congress, where you're going most likely, is pretty busted up right now.
Like one guy has to represent 700,000 people and can't literally, like, you can represent yourself.
You can't represent me.
I can only represent myself effectively.
You could pass a note for me, but then what, 700,000 people, you're going to like, you've got to make your own decisions at some point and we can trust you.
But that system, it's getting so big, it feels like it's not sustaining.
It's about the district, not every single individual as an individual.
And even when it was 35,000 people, it's impossible.
Come on, you think back in the day when they created the country, one guy was going to go to each and every of the 35,000 and be like, literally what you want, I will advocate for.
No, sometimes there's going to be contradictions.
So I agree with you in essence that it is getting pretty wild.
these districts are getting so massive but the general idea is do you have a do you have an understanding of what your district is looking for and wants in terms of you know uh brandon will be going to dc uh dealing with federal policy and representing the interests of everybody in this district correct And that means there's going to be challenges.
And I don't mean just to say this about Brandon, but literally any member of Congress.
You got 100,000 people who think raw milk should be banned.
You got 100,000 people who think raw milk should be legal.
I mean, I feel like on one element of it, you could interpret it that way.
Things are getting crazy in that regard.
But also on the other one, with the age of information technology and instant communication, you could say that representatives, if they actually gave a damn about representing the people that they were responsible for, they're in the best position possible because they can instantly from D.C. talk to their constituents and ask what they need and ask what they want and ask what the issues are from the district.
But that's also, that's giving a lot.
That's asking a lot.
That's asking the congressmen to actually care about what their constituents need.
Technically, I'm still the president of U.S. term limits for the state of Texas.
I mean, a lot of what I did when in between the last two elections, or the last election and this one, was go to the Capitol in Austin and ask other members of the state legislature if they would sign on to the term limits pledge.
Because I don't think anybody goes to D.C. and gets better.
I'm kind of of the opinion that if you have term limits, you're going to end up giving the bureaucracy more power because you have people that are only there for, say, for Congress, it's whatever, four terms, right?
They're only there for eight years.
Just at the point where they really learn the ins and outs about D.C., they're term limited out and they have to leave.
So what could end up happening is the bureaucrats and the staffers that don't have any kind of term limits end up running the show even more than they already do, which we understand that staffers really do a lot of making decisions for Congress.
They tell their congresspeople or their senators, this is how we're voting or what have you.
But what do you say to people that say term limits actually aren't going to solve the problem?
Well, here's what I would argue in return: I don't think it's going to solve the problem.
I don't think any one thing, this is a massive, multi-multifaceted problem.
I think it's going to help in regards with the incumbency advantage because not only do you have the name recognition that comes with incumbency, but a lot of times you have the fundraising ability and everything.
Like once you get to the levels of, for example, John Cornyn right now, who's done 24 years in the Senate.
He's asking for 30.
He might get it.
I don't think he will.
But he has the ability to throw $100 million at Ken Paxton because he's essentially invincible at this point financially.
And so like that's something that snowballs and people don't get better.
John Cornyn, I mean, he was never great, but he certainly did not get better.
And now he has like a fraction of a billion dollars to throw at his opponent who's objectively a better candidate.
And so I think you're actually kneecapping the ability of good incumbents to hold these people accountable.
I mean, in my race, I got outspent $13 million, like 10 to 1 initially.
And it was just because the guy had access to the appropriations committee and to all the big PACs and super PACs and everything like that.
He was able to throw all that money at me.
And I think if you start holding these people accountable in the sense that they can't continue to snowball those resources, things get a little better.
I'm thinking about like AI, about using an AI to compile what your district wants.
And then so it's easier for you as a candidate to focus on.
Because I think what's going to happen is you're going to go to DC and get, I don't know what's going to happen because it's up to you.
You know, you're sovereign, but if there is a temptation to get sucked into DC politics and like be part of the gang there and then kind of turn a blind eye to behind what's the past, you know?
I have, what is it, three days to cut off my arm or else just tell us if you get notice all the teeth marks on the inner forum of all new members of Congress.
Instead of being like, hey, don't do that, which is like, well, all the Congress people pretty much, there's a re, they go there and they get involved with political, you know, federal politics.
If we had an easier way to compile what the districts want and need using like an AI or some sort of system.
Like maybe I came off as a bit of like a Luddite a second ago, but like I understand the utility of AI in that regard.
But at the same time, I just, I don't know, especially what I'd like to do is kind of approach the problem from the other side of things when it comes to, because I know I guarantee any DC staffer watching this, they've used AI to summarize bills and they've used AI to figure out, okay, I have a 500-page bill on the table.
Chat GPT, what does this say?
Summarize this in 500 words.
I guarantee that's happening.
Let's approach it from the other side and stop having these 4,000-page bills.
Like, let's start going back to like couple page bills that any reasonable human can actually read and understand because otherwise it's just staffer slop.
Well, I mean, to be fair, I mean, the first time I met Matt Gates, I was asked by his staff to fly in and testify in front of a congressional field hearing on ATF overreach.
And I think it was like the end, the ATF Act, which, if I'm not mistaken, was either like a one- or two-page bill.
I read it while I was sitting there waiting to testify on it.
When they bring in the omnibus, I don't understand why Thomas Massey doesn't just sneak up behind it, lift it up and just slide in a one-page amendment.
Because nobody reads it, and they're going to be like, wait, what happened?
My pitch to Thomas Massey was because he said they was able to get an amendment into an omnibus like a year and a half, two years ago, that said if they didn't pass a budget, they would reduce all existing budgets by 1% or something.
And everybody in Congress was like, oh, that's meaningless because we'll just pass another omnibus or whatever.
We'll get the budget done.
And so when they didn't and everything dropped a point, he was like, that's how you do it.
And my pitch was using something like that where they'll make a concession, can you orchestrate this kind of like, how would you describe this?
Series of bills, sleeper bills, that, oh, oh, we would call this a Voltron law.
Each individual component of the law does very little and most people don't care.
But when all of them get activated, then they abolish the NFA or something.
There's a lot of priorities, I mean, specifically in my district and some that apply nationally that I'd love to get done.
But one of them, I mean, again, comes down to border is codifying a lot of the stuff that President Trump has done to solve the border crisis.
Because my God, I mean, I campaigned in this district last cycle, and I talked to the sheriffs.
I talked to a lot of the Border Patrol and National Guard guys deployed on the border off the record, entirely off the record, just listening to the actual problems that they were dealing with.
And now campaigning in this district for the second time, it's night and day.
I mean, it's a complete shift.
I mean, a lot of those problems went away.
The only problem I have with it is a lot of it was done with executive order.
And if it's done with executive order, that was one stroke of a pen, made it go away.
If we get another, you know, another Democrat president at some point, which we will, it will happen eventually.
If one stroke of a pen made it go away, one stroke of a pen can make it come back.
I have a pitch that I assure you all listening at home is not a joke.
I believe that Congress, members of Congress, maybe you or Thomas Manson could do this, present a bill for mandatory gun ownership.
Make it a requirement that people in Guns NACU laugh because it is kind of crazy, right?
And we would all love the idea.
But the actual strategy is to force the debate in the other direction.
So instead of constantly having a debate over which guns should get banned this time, the debate should start with the Republicans saying, we're going to make it mandatory for everybody above the age of 18 to own a gun.
You are required to go to the Department of Gun Services, the DGS, where you will then fill out the paperwork, like basically just here's who I am, so that you can get your one sidearm and long gun.
Everyone must do it.
Then when Democrats say you're crazy, say, okay, how about we just go with don't ban guns?
So I do laugh, but there is actually, I think there's at least two states that have a county that did something similar.
I think one of them is Georgia and the other is Tennessee.
I could be could be wrong on that, but they did it and they don't enforce it, but they put it out there because they're saying, like, this is our local crime prevention.
Like, and, you know, the NRA leadership has changed a lot since then.
They seem to be going in a much more based direction, which I'm thankful for.
I'd like to see some results, but I will never forgive them for capitulating on the bump fire stocks and whatnot.
Like when the push was coming from the Democrats, to my understanding, they were the ones advocating behind the scenes, like, oh, well, what if we just allow this to be banned?
It's like, no, no, no, you should be fighting for us.
You shouldn't be figuring out what the least consequential compromise you can make is.
Right now, well, because if you actually look at the letter of the law, when it comes to a machine gun, it is a weapon that fires more than one round per pull of the trigger.
And because the forced reset triggers forcing the reset, meaning that the trigger resets and you have to pull the trigger again, your own force of the trigger pull is pulling the trigger.
If they wanted to amend the NFA and make that a machine gun, they'd have to get it passed through Congress.
But as it stands, it does not meet the definition of a machine gun.
Therefore, they're all legal.
And man, this is that's the new wild west in the gunfront right now.
My general real question for you, Brent, because you're, you know, AK guy is your handle on Twitter, and like you're notoriously a gun rights activist.
At what point do the Second Amendment kind of be like, should I have a nuclear ballistic warhead that I can carry around and like accidentally drop on the rounds and bring it on?
So there's also all sorts of stuff that's technically banned that civilians have access to just because of stuff that's fallen off the truck.
You see it at gun shows and different things like that.
It's kind of like, yeah, you know, it's one of those, like, there's never been a legal determination on it.
So like it just kind of, because it's never been commercially for sale.
It's only been military.
A lot of the diehard gun nuts will know kind of the stuff that I'm talking about.
But a lot of people don't know that there's actually an ATF form specifically.
So like when you do e-file, so I'm getting kind of a little technically in the weeds here, but you do like a form two, form three, form four online through the ATF.
On their own website, there is a drop-down option, and I do not know what it is for.
Well, I would imagine, you know, Lockheed or Raytheon or whoever is developing U.S. nukes is going to submit a form for it and be like, although I kind of feel like when you're at that level, it's rubber stamped.
I am of the opinion that private citizens and entities in the United States are legally allowed, should be legally allowed to own nuclear weapons.
Only, hold on, I'll clarify because all the libs freak out when I say this, because it is constitutionally protected and we have not amended the Constitution as such.
I don't think people should be able to get nuclear weapons.
However, technology has outpaced the perception, our understanding of arms, weapons, et cetera.
And so the liberals have to make the argument the Founding Fathers could never have thought about a semi-automatic, which is just plumb not true.
They had, when the 1300s, they had that multi-barrel gun.
That being said, nuclear weapons is something different.
But they did know and actually required the services of privateers with the most advanced weapon really.
I mean, imagine if there was like an aircraft carrier floating around that was just owned by some guy and he's just like a, like Jeff Bezos buys an aircraft carrier and just mans it and he's got weapons and he's got a couple nukes on it.
That's how it used to be.
And so until we amend the Constitution and say the right of people to keep arms shall not be infringed, except if it is considered to be a weapon of mass destruction, which includes, then my opinion is the government restricting people from having access to it is an infringement on our rights.
And it is a duty of the people to amend the Constitution as the Founding Fathers have laid out if they would like to change that.
Also, I had a pragmatic argument on the nuclear weapons front, which was, you know, it requires, that's something that is done on a national level.
That is a massive technological feat.
I mean, the Russians had to steal information from us to figure out how to do it after, you know, they had a massive war machine and everything else and a bunch of German scientists.
If someone in 2026 had the resources, the ability, the engineering team to be able to enrich uranium and be able to put together a nuclear weapon on an island Doctor Evil style, your law is not going to stop them.
Like, and they used to ask, like, you brought up the privateers, they would ask privately owned vessels bearing cannons to come help us, you know, mess up some of America's enemies.
Let's jump to this next story from the New Republic.
Trump officials are suddenly buying doomsday bunkers.
Completely separately, we are on the 10th day of an ever-expanding Iran war.
Well, as you already know, Trump said the war is very nearly complete.
So we'll see if that actually turns out to be true.
The market certainly reacted as though Trump is always telling the truth, or at least always correct.
So they must know something.
We got this.
They say at least two members of the president's cabinet have recently purchased bomb-proof bunkers.
Ron Harbor, the creator of Atlas Survival Shelters, told the Telegraph of the weekend that orders have gone up tenfold since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran.
But among his anxious clientele are two chief members of Trump's team, according to the shelter maker, saying, One of them texted me yesterday asking me, when will my bunker be ready?
He told the Telegraph.
So these bunkers can range from something like $20,000.
We've actually, I think I might have a, no, we don't.
I have to log in the Telegraph to get the photos.
But they've got $20,000 tubes that they just lower into the ground.
Pretty easy.
But then they've got these really amazing pre-constructed bunkers that look like, you know, nice little apartments.
Question.
Trump cabinet members buying nuclear bunkers because they can or because they know something we don't?
You like walk out of a skiff and you're like, I can't tell you what went on in that meeting, but I will tell you that Atlas bunkers are the best bunkers.
You know what I was thinking would be a really cool idea, though, is you can get mountainside property really cheap because it's hard to do anything with, right?
And so I was like, what if we took one of these 250K bunkers and dug it into a mountain?
So what you need to do is find some, you go to New York, find some Islamic extremists that have TATP that can blow a hole in the side of a mountain for you.
Dude, you could do like a bunch of them next to each other and build either a city or build tunnels between them and have just like a megalopolis in the side of a mountain.
Well, part of the reason why you build a bunker, or part of the one of the things that people like about building bunkers is anonymity.
They like that people don't know where it is, keep it secret.
Because ostensibly in an end of the world scenario, if you have a bunker and your neighbor doesn't, your neighbor might want to try and come and get into your bunker.
Well, you know, it depends on what your skills are.
The funny thing is, I'd imagine most billionaires don't have functional skills for survival.
Maybe presumptuous of me to say, but probably the I'd imagine farmers are going to be the first, well, preppers are obviously going to be the ones who survive any kind of real nuclear strike or apocalypse or whatever.
But outside of anyone who's specifically preparing for the end of times, farmers probably would do the best.
Hunters, people who naturally have basic survival.
I'd imagine a tech billionaire would be completely useless.
Now, to be fair, they're smart.
You don't get to these places without being smart, and technology is important.
The question is, how would Elon apply his knowledge in a situation where it's like seven dudes in the middle of a field, city's gone, there's no fuel, cars aren't running, and they're like, okay, we got to survive.
No, I think outside of like a fallout style bunker where you have an actual functioning society with a lot of people that you could trust, okay, when we go topside, we have something that we can actually rebuild with.
I'm not sure I'd want to survive a situation that I would need a nuclear fallout bunker.
And he'd always be like, we'd walk into a restaurant where your exit's at.
He was a Marine.
So you walk in and go there and there.
He's like, that's right.
And a firefighter.
Because the amount of people that die in burning buildings because they don't know where the exits are.
There was one crazy video where a fire started in a bar and everybody ran to the front door and got stuck.
And then the guy who filmed it calmly walked out the emergency exit and then filmed everybody just stuck in the door because they all pushed each other in and then got, yeah, it's brutal, man.
Oh, I think that was one of the big, God, I could be misremembering this.
I think it was in New York or something like that, but there was like an attack on, I don't remember if it was just a nightclub or like a gay club or something like that.
It was one of the biggest mass casualty events because they lit it on fire.
So I want to show this map and explain about what did Iran ever do to us.
Right now, the concerns and the reason price is skyrocketing is because the Strait of Hormuz is under threat by Iran.
And you've got these Gulf states.
You've got Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates.
You've even got Oman and the Saudis.
And there's a lot of oil here.
20% of oil and natural gas they want to get out to the rest of the world to do business with.
You are allowed to sell stuff.
That's what they're doing.
So Iran right here, the whole time has basically been saying, we will blow you up unless we get what we want.
At a certain point, everybody's just like, dude, these a-holes need to be stopped.
I am not advocating for anything that we did in Iran because my concerns are instability in the region.
And that could screw the whole thing up even more.
My point is only to say that when you have a bunch of different countries that sell 20% of natural gas and oil to the rest of the world, and they're constantly under threat of being blown up by Iran unless we give Iran free stuff like pallets of cash.
You get an Obama who says, okay, Iran, what do you want?
Just don't screw with the oil trade.
And so he gives him a bunch of money.
Then you get a Trump who says, I'll just kill you.
And they're like, well, we can make nukes.
Then I'll kill you faster.
So you pick your leader, right?
One leader is going to try and bribe him and pay him off.
Doesn't seem to work.
They keep blowing up our people.
They keep threatening the strait and oil trade, among other things.
And then you get Trump.
And I got to be honest, Trump's the kind of guy who's going to press the button.
So it is what it is.
Right now, we've been seeing reports that ships have been turning off their transponders and moving through the Strait of Hormuz and then turning them back on to try and get past Iranian missile strikes.
That's insane.
Look, whatever the issue is, I'll put it like this.
Call the United States bad for whatever it does in Afghanistan and Iraq, fine.
Call Iran bad.
There are other countries involved that are pissed off that Iran is shutting down the strait.
And more importantly, When the strikes happened, Iran started bombing Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates and these other countries who did not engage in hostilities against them.
If they bombed the military bases, which they did, you'd say, oh, wow, this is war.
When they start striking hotels and apartment buildings, you're like, what they're trying to do is get the people.
This is what Tara raised.
They want the people in these countries to get angry that they're being targeted in the war so that they go to their governments and put pressure on the government so that the government goes easier on Iran.
And they're most, you're speaking about government, because the people are mostly, I don't even think the majority of the population is Muslim in Iran.
Someone was telling me stats earlier, they're saying, is it literal majority or is it not?
Because, well, I think you're kind of misstaking what I was saying.
I was saying, if we have to do this, let's do it quickly to the least amount of American lives.
If it was up to me, like if I had a vote right now, based on the information that I have, which granted is less than they have, I'm not sure if that changes anything.
I would vote no if I was asked if we were going to declare war in Iran, if we would go in ground invasion or like declare an official war, I would vote no.
I think we've, you know, I'm typically an anti-war hawk kind of guy, not the way I'm going to do it.
However, I feel like my policy on it is very much to make a weird analogy.
It's like the Bill Burr bit about like, no reason.
It's a rock and a hard place because the issue is, and I think, you know, I like to bring this up, it's not just the Strait of Hormuz.
It's also that Iran's been funding the Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been bombing the Red Sea down here where the ships are trying to come on in to the Red Sea, where they head up through the Suez, get to the Mediterranean.
Iran has basically been disrupting a massive amount of global trade.
And Obama tried bribing them.
If we give them some money and tell them to chill out, but they have not chilled out.
Attacking us in Iraq, I get the United States should not have been in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I got to be honest, I think the point of going to Iraq and Afghanistan was largely to stage a pincer strike around Iran.
You know, we've got military bases all along the edges.
But Iran has been, look, at any point, if Iran was like, no, no, no, we're not going to interfere with global trade, no one cares about Iran anymore.
So for that matter, if we zoom over here, I'll tell you all about Trump's interests.
So here we have Nicaragua.
China was trying to build the Nicaraguan Canal.
They wanted to build it straight through here, and it would have disrupted, I believe it was whatever this is, Lake Coquibolka, is that what it is?
Or it might have actually been up here.
But they wanted to build a canal that would compete with the Panama Canal.
And this is some 10 years ago.
They ultimately abandoned the project after it just like cost an insane amount of money.
The reason why Trump wanted Panama back, the reason why Trump wants control of the Strait of Hormuz, he wants Iran shut down, basically.
The reason he wants Greenland, it's all about controlling international waterways for trade for oil.
The United States tells the world one thing.
You will use the U.S. dollar for all oil purchases, which means our economy is going to be great no matter what, because you got to use our money to buy oil, which means you've got to come to us first.
However, they say in exchange, you will be able to freely trade around the world without someone blowing you up.
We'll go after the pirates.
We will police the seas.
This is, I'm not saying it's a good thing.
I'm saying this is the mechanism of the United States and why we have a strong economy, despite not producing as much as other countries do relatively.
We have the petro-dollar system.
So when you get countries complaining, we can't ship goods to the Red Sea anymore because of the Houthi rebels, Trump goes to Iran and says, are you going to stop arming these guys who are blowing up civilian transport?
And they go, maybe, give us money.
And Trump says, no, I'll kill you.
When they threaten the Strait of Hormuz, Trump's not playing a game like Obama and says, no, I'll kill you.
Now, if you're not a fan of the Team America World Police stuff, that opinion was always allowed.
I am not telling you you should support any of this.
I am telling you this is the mechanism by which all of this is happening, the reason why they're doing it.
Yeah, I mean, I think that it's pretty clear that America lives, or the living standard that Americans have is because of the petrodollar.
And if we were to change that system, it would be a massive change in the living standard of all Americans.
And as much as people say, oh, I don't want to see the U.S. to be the world police, as long as the U.S. is the world police, we should continue to do things that will try to keep the U.S. living standard as high as possible.
Because you think that poverty is bad in other countries, if the petrodollar goes away, you're going to see a significant decrease in living standard.
And that means the poor are the ones that are going to be hurt the most here in the U.S.
And I've got to give a shout out to my boy Nick, the fat electrician, real quick, because he had a very good video breaking down the history of why America went after Greenland and just the long-storied history since just after, I believe, the Civil War, attempting to purchase the Greenland territory and the reasons that we had interest there, especially with the strike capabilities later on and decreasing our strike time to places like Russia and everywhere else and just having that ability.
Because I think we came to an agreement after the end of World War II because during World War II, obviously, you know, they were overtaken and we had placed American bases in Greenland itself.
I do think that the liberal economic order that is overseeing this, you know, collusive global takeover is the least worst global order we've ever seen in human history.
It's been 80 years of no world war, limited.
The internet, the amount of food people are sex trafficking.
There hasn't been a famine.
There hasn't been a famine in like 80 years.
I don't think there's been a famine in like 150 years in the United States, if that, maybe even more, ever in the United States.
So it's pretty impressive.
Like if we can stabilize and develop our drone delivery systems so that we can spread resources out, I think this system could work.
Well, so I actually was having this conversation the other day because I'm like, look, is America perfect?
No, absolutely not.
Nobody ever has been.
But I think that right now the United States, as it stands, in possibly the history of humanity, has the most power, like the most might to good ratio.
Like to freedom of its individual citizens, to how little we leverage it against the world for nefarious purposes.
I think this is probably, again, the most power-to-good ratio that has ever existed on planet Earth.
Yeah, I mean, essentially, if you put the kind of military might that the U.S. has in the hands of, oh, I don't know, the Huns, you know, I think that they're not.
Because the obvious, I mean, the mathematical answer to that is at some point, somebody's going to have those powers and use it to kill thousands of people.
So it's like, all this is like a Reddit version of the trolley problem.
It is an interesting question as it pertains to war and two powers because you look at it from the perspective of not Superman, but you're a global world dominating hegemonic power.
You know another country is rapidly gaining power.
You can blow them up right now to prevent them from doing it.
However, if you don't, they will rival you then, and now there will be – that's essentially what the scenario is meant to be.
The challenge with this, the Superman question is that what if it's an Islamic extremist?
And now he's immortal, invincible, and he's going to start massacring not thousands, but millions of people.
And you can't stop him because you only match him.
You'll be locked in a fight endlessly and the collateral damage will probably still make the millions.
And so the ultimate question is, I feel like this is a question to try and explain geopolitics at a grand scale to children, aka Redditors, adult men who have the mentality of children.
Yeah, I don't think that the U.S. is going to actually need to take Cuba.
If I understand the news reports coming out, they haven't had power in something like a week, and the people are rising up like people are rising up like America says, you know, said they were going to rise up in Iraq or say they were going to rise up in Iran.
And if you're working and they're paying you sometimes and then all of a sudden some foreign entity wants to pay you a bigger contract, you're like, why am I still taking this?
Give me something.
Like, what is the purpose of me staying in this contract anymore?
Can you imagine if before all this is done, if Trump pulls off in Iran what he pulled off in Venezuela?
This is the thing I was saying.
Like, you know, I was asked by a reporter at the Wall Street Journal how I felt about the attacks on Iran, the war.
And I said, I'd advise against it.
I wouldn't vote to support it.
I oppose it.
And I think it's because we have post-intervention stress disorder as millennials from Iraq and Afghanistan.
And not to mention the stories of Vietnam.
We do not trust that these operations are going to play out the way they claim they will, nor do we trust the reasons for going in and doing it.
That being said, if Trump is able to pull off a regime change without a ground invasion in Iran, which would surprise the Helmie if he could, people are going to be very, very happy about it.
And so when all this is said and done, Venezuela is looking like said and done.
I mean, it's pretty crazy.
If Iran ends up the same way and then Cuba falls into the U.S. fold, Trump's going to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents, if not the greatest president we've had ever.
The most offensive thing, like Trump is secretly getting paid cash in the back room by Israel for foreign policy that brings peace to the world, ends war and conflict, stabilizes trade relations between a bunch of countries.
Like, what if Trump's motivation for all this world peace is that there's like a small child that he wants to murder just in the middle of Tehran that he can't get to?
There's like just some little kid.
He's on Call of Duty and he said he was going to bang Trump's mom.
And Trump was like, I'm going to find you.
And he's like, you can't.
I'm in Tehran.
He's like, oh, yeah.
And so he brings peace to the Middle East, stabilizes relations all over the world.
I was actually, I found him to be uninspiring in, you know, eight years ago, whatever.
Recently, the way he's been handling all this foreign policy stuff and press stuff, I actually think he's not a perfect guy, but he's handled it very professionally, especially considering the political tumult between Democrats and Republicans.
He's played it very professionally.
I respect it tremendously.
One of my biggest criticisms of Trump going back to his first campaign was his lack of decorum.
He approaches us from a very abrasive, culture-warry kind of approach.
And JD Vance does that as well.
Now, I'll give JD Vance some respect in that.
He's very tactful and academic in his insults.
I can respect that.
But Rubio has been very hard for Democrats to go after because he's kept it very professional and calm.
He hasn't fired back insults or plenty of these dirty games.
I'd imagine if they insulted him in some dramatic way, like with Trump and they called him a racist, Rubio's response would be like, well, I'm terribly sorry if I've done something to give you that impression.
I mean, we all remember Marco from the little Marco, like those days.
I think uninspiring is probably a good word for him back then, but I honestly, like, I had my worries about him taking the role that he has, but I think he's, I agree with you entirely.
He'd been around before that, and I always thought he was a war hawk.
But as I've learned more about global geopolitics and that, like, you, you can't just never go to war when you have the largest military on the planet.
So I guess the liberals are mad at me because I praised Trump's masculinity on the attack in Iran.
My point was, not that I would call the attacks well-advised.
I'm skeptical, but hopefully optimistic.
But I said that I loved the masculinity of it in that the Iranians came to the negotiating table saying, we have enough material for 11 bombs, and that's where we're starting the negotiation.
And Trump's response was like, I'll just kill you.
Like, again, I'm not saying that means you should go to war.
I'm saying that video of Mark Wayne Mullen and O'Brien from the Team Service Union is just one of the greatest, manliest videos on both parts for both of them.
The idea is I like the story of the guy who's sitting in a bar, minding his own business, having a drink, and then the loudmouthed dudes messing around.
And he comes up and tries to start a fight with the guy.
And the guy says, Listen, I apologize.
I'm not interested.
I'm going to be on my way.
But then when they finally don't let the guy, it turns out he's much more badass and he beats them all up.
Sorry, just like the biblical interpretation of, oh, the meek shall inherit the earth.
It's like, well, one of the translations that I was hearing was it's not meek as in like weak, you know, it was more of the those who carry swords but choose to keep them sheathed.
And that's something that a lot of veteran friends of mine, veteran advocate friends of mine say, if you want to help combat veterans, make less of them.
You don't want to go to war for no reason.
There's a lot of baggage that comes with it, not only American lives, but a lot of the things that they had to go through and a lot of the things that you still have to take care of afterward.
That being said, you should always be prepared for it when the necessity comes.
Again, if you want to screw with us, we will show you what $1 trillion a year looks like.
The issue I take with the attacks on Iran are less to do with that we're going to war, but that we do not have a good track record on regime change.
And that is the argument against it.
The expense, the waste of time and energy, 20 years flushed on the toilet in Afghanistan.
That being said, you make a great point with the Bill Burr comment that there's plenty of reason to put the smack down on what the Iranians have been doing in the region.
It's not about us, about literally everyone else destabilizing it.
And so my only hope is that whatever Trump ends up doing, we want to get out cleanly.
We don't want a bogged down 20-year conflict.
It sounds like the rumor in the Beltway is they expect it to be a couple weeks.
That they're just going to just bombard this place.
And then everybody who holds stock in these defense contractors are going to get very wealthy because they got to replenish those armaments.
I mean, official statements from the U.S. are going to try and rally as much support as possible.
They're going to say, you know, Trump's saying it's almost done.
Maybe it's not.
Who knows?
But then, of course, on the Iranian side or the pro-Iran side with Russia, China, they're going to be claiming all of the worst things imaginable, like the U.S. is intentionally killing children.
I don't remember what exactly it was, sewer system or whatever it was that was that was blowing up in the streets, but it seemed like that was pretty legit.
It is kind of hard to tell, especially when you've got people that are so bent on discrediting either side, whether it be people that are counter signaling the United States that are saying, oh, Iran's actually winning.
Look, the Iranians have, they haven't been launching a lot of drones because they're saving their weapons for later.
But I mean, that kind of stuff just doesn't really make sense because they've already lost.
Like you said, 1,400 people.
There's a bunch of people that have, a bunch of people of their senior leadership were taken out the first night and stuff.
And it's like, well, what point do you start using your best weapons if it's not to save the people that are or prevent the people that are in charge from being blown up?
I mean, we've spent billions of dollars developing weapons that'll be able to, if we want, that we can discombobulate, but also that are literally just flying swords, right?
Like you can take out an individual person with a Hellfire missile that doesn't have a warhead on it.
We're going to go to your Rumble rants in Super Chat.
So smash that like button and share this show with everyone you know, my friends.
But before we go to your rants, my friends, go to Timcast.com and click join us and become a member of the Discord community.
We've got tens of thousands of people that are hanging out in the Discord.
They want to be friends with all of you.
And more importantly, it is my 40th birthday.
Oh, indeed.
The big 4-0.
That's it.
I'm officially over the hill as per the standard life expectancy, which is, of course, 79.
That puts me on the back end.
And it's all downhill from here.
So the only thing I can do is say, if you'd like to get me a birthday present, please join our community at Timcast.com.
The community is always hanging out.
They've got live chat.
They've got early shows, after shows.
And we do the uncensored members-only show Monday through Thursday on Rumble exclusively.
But if you want to call in and hang out with us and talk to us and our guest, you need to join the Discord community at Timcast.com.
So I humbly request, my friends, if you want to get me a birthday present, all you need to do is sign up and join the community because it's not just about me.
It's about building community itself.
And we're trying to make this the principal component of everything that we do, a long-standing group of people that become friends, that can work with each other.
Because as I enter my 40th year, the one thing that we've been discussing over the past couple of years is I will eventually be unable to work.
Who knows?
Maybe I'll do this for another 20 years.
But there needs to be a mechanism by which other people are able to carry out from everything that we've done.
make friends, build shows, build community structures.
And then maybe in 100 years, there will be a new company or the company will still exist.
And there will be a big community of people who believe in freedom, truth, justice in the American way, and all that good stuff.
So again, join us.
And I appreciate all the birthday wishes and the super chats and rumble rants.
But now let's read what you guys have to say with all of this.
All right, we got Disgruntled Vetti.
He says, General Herrera, when do we, the Autistic Army, get to buy our AK-50?
If we were actually going to ever mass produce, like manufacture the AK-50, we'd have to find a very good manufacturing dance partner with that because we do not have the capabilities to do that right now.
Well, to get the design down and to get it to where it is today, I mean, it's been like nine years, probably nine, 10 years.
And this is like, it's a garage project.
Like, it's something that we would put down and then pick up six months later, wait for parts from a machine shop, kills the project for four months, you know, that sort of thing.
But we'd need somebody like, we worked with Titans of CNC on some of that.
They were incredible to work with.
We would need somebody like that to partner with on the manufacturing side because, I mean, we're a bunch of idiots in a garage.
We don't have that sort of mass production capability.
Code Man Red says, I don't know how you did it, but I started watching TNG, and it seems we're watching the same episodes.
The last two Star Trek references Tim made were episodes I just watched last week, Fifth Wall Broken.
Well, it's because when I got sick, I started the series over again, and I've been just watching all the episodes.
I'm also rewatching Deep Space Nine, which I just got to stress, guys, the last three seasons of Deep Space Nine are just so incredible, and I really do recommend you watch it.
Again, I get frustrated with people who are just like, I don't like sci-fi.
But if you really just ignore the sci-fi stuff, like I don't care for the aliens or whatever, have you ever watched Deep Space Nine?
It is prescient, and the writing is interesting, and it makes you think, and it's relevant to what is going on today.
So we've talked about the episode in The Pale Moonlight, which may be one of the best episodes of television just in general, where the Federation stages a false flag attack to trick one of their rival nations into joining the war on their side.
It's amazing to watch how they wrote this stuff out.
But also just the beginning of the Dominion War in general.
So basically, there is a military faction that repeatedly is sending military vehicles to a, let's just call it a country in Star Trek.
And eventually the Federation says they're at the point where they have built up an army where they could launch an attack on all fronts, you know, all Federation frontiers, and we would get crushed.
So they mine a wormhole, the entrance to where these vehicles are coming through, which triggers the beginning of the war.
And then from there, it's just, it's war stuff.
It is the politics of war, conflict, disaster economy.
It's really interesting writing.
It's a sci-fi setting, but man, I cannot stress how good that's.
Voyager happened, and we all kind of rolled our eyes.
Jonathan Frakes recently was talking about how people don't like Starfleet Academy, the new shows.
And he's directed a couple episodes of the latest stuff.
And Jonathan Frakes, you are an absolute legend, and you add one of the best voices to the Star Trek universe.
But good sir, please hear me if you ever hear this.
If you want to understand why people don't like New Trek, the point he made was that when they launched The Next Generation, Trekkies got really offended because they replaced the cast and crew and it was a new fake version of the show.
And yes, indeed.
But I was a little kid and I grew up watching you.
And so understand that the original Trek audience and the audience that I inhabit are it's a Venn diagram.
We overlap, but we are not the same.
So when I watch The Next Generation in Deep Space Nine, literally throughout the 90s, I'm a little kid in the early 90s, and the show's already been on the air.
I think it first aired in 87.
I'm one.
Understand this.
The brilliant quotes, the interesting logic, philosophy, conflict that exists in The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and even to a certain degree in Voyager does not exist in Starfleet Academy in these new shows.
For example, there's just so many great quotes.
One of the latest that I absolutely love is Data the Android loses, let's just call it chess.
He's playing a game called Stratagema against a master who beats him, and he's supposed to be unstoppable.
He's an Android.
So he finds himself defective and says, something must be wrong with me.
I need to figure out why I'm not functioning properly.
And so he basically calls in sick, thinking that if he can't solve this properly, something must be wrong.
And then the captain comes to him and says, you are my second officer.
You need to do your job and stop doubting yourself.
And Data says, but there must be a defect.
And then we get one of the greatest quotes ever.
He says, he says, Commander, it is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose.
That is not weakness.
That is life.
That is what I'm talking about with Star Trek the Next Generation.
That's the kind of great writing that we got in the early 90s.
Now you have like the sci-fi makes no sense, a permeable hologram that becomes sick because she's not really permeable or something.
And she says, I can't deal with your midday energy before I even pulled my underwear up my butt.
That kind of quote is deeply offensive to those who were inspired by the moral philosophies of the 90s Star Trek era.
I feel like for a long time, the baton got passed down to new people who loved the original source material or at the very least respected it.
And nowadays, that's just not a requirement.
And that's not just a Star Trek thing.
That's a Star Wars, Halo, whatever.
It's almost, it seems like with the exception of Fallout, it's like you're required to hate or disrespect what everything that led to you having that job built on.
The characters were all gross and weird and had pronouns.
One of the characters was a morbidly obese, like, central, like, like Native American-looking guy.
Why would anyone want to play these games?
And aesthetic matters.
Marvel Rivals is now one of the top games.
Why?
All the women look like they're naked.
Their suits are basically just their skin color.
That's how comic books do it.
All the men are insanely jacked, like they have 2% body fat.
And everybody wants to play the game and they want to be the superhero.
Every time.
Have you guys, did you guys see Dakota Johnson did the topless ad for Calvin Klein?
Sexy is back.
Okay.
I was saying, whatever Justin Timberlake was bringing back, that wasn't it because after he made that song, they brought in a bunch of morbidly obese people to Calvin Klein.
So whatever he thought was sexy, that's not working.
Dakota Johnson did Calvin Klein, where she's topless, and she's basically reading lines about a sexy woman.
I think people finally realized with Ozempic, we are aspirational.
So when they did all this body positivity stuff and they were like, you can be fat, what they were really saying is you are fat and we're trying to sell you a product.
And then once they made Ozempic and all the women got skinny, now they're like, okay, let's bring back the naked chicks again.
I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that you should aspire to be fit.
You should aspire to be healthy.
You know, there are these like, you know, all throughout human history, we've had these paragons of what, you know, the proper male and female form should be.
Even if you can't get there, you can aspire to it, get as close as you want.
And the byproduct is you're healthier because of it.
RFK, man, we don't talk about him a lot because he doesn't do like military and all, but I think he's like the unsung hero of the decade, like man of the year.
Maybe in retrospect, people realize how he saved a nation by stripping some of these toxins out of the diet.
And to me, I don't think a lot of the stuff that he's doing, like the whole maha, like make America healthy again movement, I don't see why that should be polarizing.
It's like, okay, let's take the poison out of our food.
Let's stop feeding slop to our children.
Let's maybe get them to be a responsible weight, teach them how to do a push-up.
Like that should be all basic stuff that we all agree with.
Because there's something that he says now that I truly, like it struck a chord.
It's something along the lines of, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it's something along the lines of, one of these days, I truly hope you love your children more than you hate Trump.
During the primary, they already legitimately tried.
It's like, oh, yes, you stole one of the photos that we put up of a private comedy show and try to pretend I was stealing valor while we raise over a million dollars for veteran charities and such.
It's like, okay, well, you know, the thing about politics is nobody really cares about telling the truth.
Anyway, we are going to go to the uncensored portion of the show over at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL and take calls from you all, our beautiful Discord members.
Also go to graphene.movie and check out this trailer for this graphene documentary that we're building.
It's badass nanotech.
Like if you want to get some white hill energy, look into the new scientific breakthroughs that are going to be supporting a lot of this political momentum and change that we're seeing all around the planet.
Weirdly enough, that's a weird complaint, but it looks like when they do, if you've ever had like a colorblind friend that played video games and they do that like color inversion where everything's like pinks and greens, it looks like that.
Like, when you're playing a video game, whether it's, you know, Red Dead or Cyberpunk or whatever, like those big games, like the big AAA games that have done very well, they want to self-insert and they want a good storyline.
I feel bad for Sony on this because clearly what happened was a bunch of old fogies brought in like some 34-year-old chick and she was like, trust me, this is what kids are doing.
They got the crazy purple hair and they were like, okay, let's go with the microscopic fringe woke aesthetic for a $400 million game.
Yeah, I don't think there's a way you can force nuance into a person.
If they've already made up their mind, they've already decided this is the take I'm going to have.
I'm not sure that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.
I just, I don't see a scenario where if somebody's already like, this is what I believe and there's no way you can change it, you might be spinning your wheels on that one.
And it might, there's certain family members that I have that disagree with me politically.
Still, you know, I'm very lucky.
They're very supportive and everything, but they disagree with basically every political take I have.
Yeah, like I understand your frustration, but I think to Brandon's point, you can't force nuance on someone.
If they're determined to look at things in a negative light because they dislike Trump, you're not going to be able to convince them by saying, well, look, Iran has been messing with global shipping with the Strait of Hormuz and around the Red Sea.
When you say you can't bring nuance, I want to bring nuance to what that means exactly because I don't think it would be easy to get to convince my mother or somebody to like Trump, but that wouldn't be my goal.
My goal will be to get her to understand why things are happening.
Well, I mean, it's kind of like if you bring two things together that are kind of butting heads and both get hotter and hotter and hotter the closer they get together.
It's like, maybe you just disengage.
Like for the sake of family, especially, maybe it's just better certain times.
Like you can try.
And if that doesn't work, honestly, disengagement is better because you want to preserve your family.
You want to preserve good relationships, even if you disagree on things politically.
So first, happy birthday, Tim, and congratulations to Brandon on his primary win.
This is coming to you live from Communist Canada, where our government has given us until the end of October to surrender or destroy essentially all legally owned semi-automatic rifles.
So basically, the compensation is not even going to cover a fraction of what's up there.
It's going to be a giant cluster fuck.
So my question is for Brandon.
There are thousands of beautiful rifles up here, Gucci ARs, CZ brands, you name it.
And they're all about to get crushed.
Legal export is still technically possible from our end, but nobody is pursuing it.
And I think the ATF might have something to do with it.
Do you know if there's any realistic mechanism like dealer imports, private transfers, or anything that can legally rehome Canadian guns to the U.S. before they get destroyed?
There are legal avenues for that, and there are definitely companies that do export from Canada to the United States or import in that regard.
However, a lot of the stuff that you guys have up there is stuff that is illegal for us to bring into the United States.
Like, you guys get a lot of imports from places like China.
Like, you guys can still have Narincos.
You have the Type 81s.
Like, you have a lot of stuff that we can't get here.
And unfortunately, for that, you're just toast.
Like, that stuff that, because of sanctions put in, I think, either in the Daddy Bush administration, the Clinton administration, especially with the Chinese stuff, we can't bring that in.
And so, unless you find another place, it's going to the torch.
And I'm sad to see so many American companies complicit in that.
That was the biggest thing is like they even started doing like selling freezing, where even in like private transfers, things like that, you cannot change ownership of things like handguns, which that's thanks to, I believe it was Prime Minister Blackface Trudeau, put that in effect.
But it basically is just continuing to crunch that down to where there will probably be little to zero private firearm ownership in Canada in the next 10 years.
That is, if everyone complies, but yeah, well, based.
And I got just one question for you, Mr. Brandon Herrera.
I feel like this guy's one of the usual suspects.
You know, time and time again.
I get all these people saying, I'm going to do what you need us to do when they let me down.
unidentified
What guarantee do I, as a fellow member of the great state of Texas, have that you will go into the ring with these other politicians and introduce the legislation the people been asking for?
Well, I know, I don't think I have the ability to oust anybody who votes against me, but the truthful answer to that, and it feels weird to be able to say this without coming off, and I could say this on the uncensored after-show, without coming off like a fucking asshole.
But it's all the things that they use to tempt politicians right now is money, power, fame, women.
I've got all that.
I literally, I want for nothing in that regard.
Like, I'm actually taking a massive pay cut to be able to do what I'm doing right now.
I put about a half million dollars of my own money to make sure that my district was represented the way that I wanted it to.
So they can't buy me because they can't afford me.
Even in the Big Beautiful bill, like I was asking members of Congress that night, and I don't know if I've ever told this story, but I was calling members of Congress that I knew that were resistant on the Big Beautiful bill.
I was saying, listen, we need to fire the Senate parliamentarian.
Please do not accept this right now.
We have the ability.
If Thun would actually just fire the Senate parliamentarian and get the version of the Big Beautiful bill that completely basically removes the NFA when it comes to SBRs, suppressors, we could have the biggest gun rights win in this country in the last 80 years plus.
I was very disappointed with that, but that was a deal I was willing to take.
I know how you get the ATF abolition or maybe the NFA repealed.
You just, when you get there, you just tell all the members of Congress: if they sign on to this bill and put it in, you will sign on to killing 20 kids in the Middle East.
Last time I actually got a personalized video from you when you were at the ranch sending off demo, you sent me congratulations for getting married, and then you told me it's kind of fucking gay, and I laughed my ass off.
Honestly, my biggest legislative priorities right now when it comes to the Second Amendment in particular are trying to fight for things like national reciprocity.
I think that the NFA is something that we've seen as weak.
It's something that I think can be handled in the Supreme Court.
I'm going to help that as much as humanly possible, especially when it comes to now the fact that the Big Beautiful Bill passed and reverted that down to the 0% tax, which, according to the Supreme Court from 1937, when they put it up on Second Amendment grounds, the only reason why the NFA is still legal and constitutional is because it's a registration of the tax.
Now that the tax has been removed, I think that there's space to move on that as far as that being unconstitutional.
At least I hope so.
But I think our biggest priority Second Amendment-wise should be national constitutional carry.
I think that constitutional carry was a pipe dream in the 90s, and now more states have it than don't.
And so we've made very positive progress in that.
And I think that that should be something that we are eyeing like a Christmas turkey.