LIVE: Trump Address Iran War In Historic Speech | Timcast IRL
Tim Pool and guests dissect Trump's "Operation Epic Fury" speech, debating whether claims of decimated Iranian forces signal regime change or incoherent strategy compared to Marco Rubio's missile shield focus. The conversation pivots to the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship arguments, where Solicitor General John Sauer contends the 14th Amendment excludes illegal immigrants, sparking a clash between legislative remedies and constitutional repeal. Amidst discussions on asymmetric warfare, false flags, and the moral dilemmas of allying with "evil" entities, the hosts analyze the structural differences between the fragmented right and the cult-like left, ultimately questioning if America faces a slide toward mob rule or a meritocratic republic. [Automatically generated summary]
But the big news, of course, is the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on birthright citizenship.
And it sounds like they are inclined to deny Donald Trump.
We're not sure exactly, but it looks like their attitude is nah, if you're born here, you're a citizen.
So we'll talk about that and more.
Before we do, we got a great sponsor, my friends.
It is Beam Dream.
Go to shopbeam.comslash Tim Pool and pick up your nighttime blend to support better sleep.
I drink this every single night.
It's got alphenine, magnesium, and Reishi, all the good stuff to help you sleep.
Melatonin if you want it, non-melatonin version if you don't.
And I am not kidding.
My sleep score, I have a sleep checker, has dramatically improved since I started taking Bean Dream before bed.
It's low calorie, no added sugar, and I am a massive fan.
It is not a joke and is not scripted when I say I drink it every night after the show, and I feel like it's done wonders for me.
Especially after having a new child, many people were asking, How's your sleep?
And I'm like, Actually, it's been okay.
I drink Beam Dream and I'm doing all right.
Now, how's that for an endorsement, Beam?
Shout out.
Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys.
I really do love the stuff.
You can get it at shopbeam.com slash Timpool.
Up to 35% off right now.
And don't forget to go to timcast.com.
Join now.
Click that button to support the show.
As a member, you make this possible.
But more importantly, you join a network of tens of thousands of people that are hanging out.
And it's not what you know, it's who you know.
If there's something you're trying to accomplish, a project, a business, whatever it might be, the more people you have in a network, the more successful you will be.
So join.
Our community, because there are a lot of people that want to help you get started, and perhaps you can help others get started.
And more importantly, you can help us do the work that we do.
So, smash that like button right now.
Share the show with everyone you know.
If everybody watching shared right now, we'd be the biggest podcast in the world.
And considering we're not, it must mean y'all don't share the show.
Maybe just once you might consider doing it.
Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Michael Malice.
I think it's, I quote what Justice Scalia said in his Hamdan dissent, where their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment.
I think that shows that their interpretation has made a mess of the provision.
No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.
And as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Alito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils.
He said that about statutory interpretation.
I think the same principle applies here, and I think we quote that in our brief.
John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General, is correct in his assessment that the Fourth Amendment does not address the birth tourism companies and illegal immigrants.
Real quick, the principal argument made by John Sauer was that Wong Kim Ark stated.
A domiciled immigrant in this country who has a child, that child will be a U.S. citizen.
And the argument from John Sauer is that illegal immigrants are not domiciled here.
And Alito points out correctly if they are subject to removal at any point, it would be impossible for them to be domiciled here.
He then brings up the issue of birth tourism, where they enter here either illegally or under false pretenses.
So the issue that I see here is I believe John Sauer's argument in this regard is correct that the Fourth Amendment does not address birthright citizenship in these contexts, and the Supreme Court does need to answer.
And if they want to answer, you're wrong, that's fine.
But to simply say, but, you know, the Constitution says the same, so we're not going to do anything, does not answer these questions.
So it is correct of John Sauer to say, you must address this.
But there's also something called stere decisis, which is what John Roberts was voted in on, which is his point if something has been around for a long time, it should take a lot for the Supreme Court to overturn.
But my point is simply that Congress cannot remedy this, as per the argument from the Supreme Court that the Fourth Amendment was crafted specifically so that Congress would not intervene in what determines safety.
A foreigner coming here and speaking or flooding us, which are threats which we can address, and a Chinese national becoming the president and dismantling our country.
I'm saying This argument is not an argument on technology.
This argument is the foundation of the country, of our governance cannot function because of these new exploits that are attacking it.
And all we need now is the Supreme Court to say narrowly if someone, the Supreme Court can say, if a Honduran, for example, enters the country illegally and seeks to live here and gives birth to a child, they can say that child is a citizen.
However, if an individual comes here through birth tourism, They are not.
They could do that.
More importantly, I think the end result of this, and that's what's so shocking about John Roberts' argument, is the Supreme Court went leaps and bounds to say, even Katanji Brown Jackson, allegiance can be temporary.
And she is correct.
Many people are making fun of her for saying this.
She goes, If I go to Japan and I steal someone's wallet, I am subject to their laws.
They can arrest me.
That is temporary allegiance to their system.
In fact, if someone steals my wallet, they will remedy that for me, which is temporary allegiance.
However, she actually just argued why they should end birthright citizenship because the people who intentionally break our laws have shown they have no allegiance.
So, in this context, when he says we have these birth tourism things, the argument is if a person intentionally violates our laws for the purpose of exploiting this, it should not be allowed.
It's just very dangerous when you have a president unilaterally deciding the law because, in four years, first of all, the other point of this, they were pointing out, Well, if this is true and you vote, you judge the way Sauer wants, you're going to de citizenize, or whatever the term is, many people who have been regarded citizens for years.
And he's saying, no, it's just going to go forward, not retroactively.
But legally speaking, if you're going to overturn birthright citizenship, it would make much more sense to remove the citizenship of people who are birthright citizens than to just say going forward.
Because if you're saying birthright citizenship is illegitimate and the analysis of the 14th Amendment that's been going on for like whatever 80 years, however, is wrong, then all those people who had currently been regarded citizenship through birthright citizenship should retroactively not be regarded citizens.
So if someone's 30 years old and their parents were illegal immigrants, but they've been living here for 30, like, They were born here and they lived here for 30 years.
Because we're not robots and the law is not drawn by mathematical absolutes.
One of the biggest mistakes, I love this point, that people tend to make is that they think that if the words are written on a piece of paper, it's law and it must be.
And then, like, one of the jokes you'll see is there's an old trope where a guy is doing surveys out in the street or he's doing petitions and he's like, We want to save the forests.
Can you fill out my petition saying you want to help save the forests?
And they're signing a power of attorney form.
And then people go, like, oh man, Netflix did a show where a woman's life was being turned into a TV show.
And they said, when you signed up for Netflix, the terms of service said, that is not real.
That's not real.
If I asked Ian, would you like to buy this gavel from me?
I'll drop a sales contract.
And in it, it said, he's now indentured to me or I own his home.
He'd go to court and say, I wasn't giving my home to him.
I'll say, I have a contract right here saying he was.
The judge will say, shut your, get out of my court.
It is law that you can wear any clothing you want to work and go by any name you want.
And as any individual subject to any public accommodation, you must be accommodated equally as to any other person.
Which means, and I called a human rights attorney and asked him this if I went to Harlem dressed like a Southern plantation owner, and when they asked me my name, I said it was Massa, are they legally required to say that name as they say everyone's name when their drink is ready?
And he said no.
And I said, well, hold on.
New York City's human rights law.
Specifically states they must be equal.
And Massa is an Iberian name.
It's Spain and Mediterranean.
It's a common name.
If they're offended by my culture, why could they deny that?
And he said, because it will be viewed as culturally insensitive and they don't have to do it.
And then I said, and if I sued, he said, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom.
But my point is it's a slippery, and I'm not saying it's wrong.
I don't want birthright citizenship.
But when you have this idea that the president, whoever he is, is going to unilaterally decide things which affect millions of people through executive order.
The issue is, as human beings, we try to find how to navigate forward when we change the system.
DACA is not born here.
I said, if someone was born here by illegal immigrants, anchor babies, and they've been here for 30 years, it makes no sense.
If you were brought here as a child and you've been here for 20 years, knowing full well that it would be 13 years or whatever, that Obama signed an executive order granting you some kind of temporary status, I'm sorry.
I don't think it's as easy as you think it is, specifically for the reason is there's an enormous Infrastructure in this country through NGOs and other agencies.
Yeah, because again, the argument from it does look like Kavanaugh is sympathetic to Trump, Thomas and Alito, of course, Roberts is on the fence, and Amy Coney Barrett seems to be leaning away.
And I think the important thing is, I think people on the right often are like, if we don't get it this way, like it's a wrap, throw their hands in the air.
If you look at Democrats, whatever issue they had, including the ERA, they fight for it for decades.
They never give up.
They're like, let's try this route.
Let's try this route.
Let's try this route.
So, I would tell people who are opposed to birthright citizenship, as I am, if this goes down, as it almost certainly will, don't say, like, well, America's done.
It's a wrap.
There are other mechanisms, there are things you can do to restrict the capacity of people to become citizens.
As they vote, and they vote for these things, but all joking aside, as we've already stated, Barack Obama gets in and by decree says, These people have permanent status.
The second problem is that now that the Supreme Court is offered up this, conservatives are the people who say, I know that this is destroying my home, my way of life, and the gifts that I will leave my children.
But it's the right thing to do.
And Democrats are like, thank you for bending the knee and dying for me.
Because, first of all, there's a universal, and I'm saying this as a legal immigrant, there's a universal belief that legal immigration is sacrosanct, that this is something we need more of, that if someone's an illegal immigrant, they're beyond the pale in terms of criticism.
Yeah, it does feel like it's an emergency, but it shouldn't always be treated like that's what you're saying about executive orders because they'll say, hey, we have to do this now.
Even if it tries to get anything, even if they try to do any kind of prosecuting or whatever, there's going to be a judge somewhere that's going to put an injunction on it immediately.
If this were to, his executive order were to go through and the post office could no longer deliver, would the states there be able to sign up a contract with UPS?
And I was saying that the media, the people that are overseeing the transition to the New World Order, they're trying to destroy the United States' Constitution, are making it look evil.
They're trying to make it look as evil as possible.
I think there's a big asymmetry, and I'm confident you all will agree, between the acceptability in our culture of leftist violence and use of power and right wing violence and use of power.
I think why I disagree with you when you said we tolerate left and not the right.
The tolerance is not due to a perception of the violence, it's due to a fear of the violence.
People don't speak up against the left because they'll lose their jobs.
During the censorship era, if you were at work, like the guy at Netflix who said, here's a list of racial slurs not to say, they fired him.
This censorship period, which we see now at the NBA with this crazy story, if you at work said, F Donald Trump, you're fine.
If you said, F LGBTQIA, you're fired.
The tolerance for these threats is not because people accept their causes, it's because they're terrified of the violence.
If you speak out against the far left, they will beat you to death.
If you speak out against, I called, I referred to this as, there's Pascal's wager, and I made a joke about it, calling it Pasobic's wager or something like that, where I said, so are you familiar with Pascal's wager?
If you go to the average left liberal, they couldn't tell you what happened in Ferguson.
There was an article written in defense of looting.
Okay.
And the perception among liberals was that black people in Ferguson rose up against the oppressive police, busted up all the stores, and took back property owned by foreigners.
The real story, as I was on the ground, is that the local black people were begging the police for help to stop.
So the clarification is when you say there's tolerance for looting violence, my disagreement is the left is wholly ignorant of the violence that is done in their names.
The average budget I think there's more left wing ideologues who support left wing violence than there are right wing ideologues who would support right wing violence.
But I would argue this go to any liberal and ask them about M29, and they'll say, What's that?
Ask them about the 150 law enforcement officers that were beaten and attacked during the insurrection at the White House, and they'll say, That never happened.
Which is why, you know, what's really funny is there's this.
We've mentioned it a little bit because you brought it up this campaign where there's clearly AI bots that are attacking me and a handful of other people.
So it's like me, Jack Basobic, Tucker.
There is a coordinated effort to sow discontent on the right so that factions can't come together.
And the left is just a cult, which is the issue that we have, I suppose.
So long as the left is good at this and they are fomenting hatred among right wing factions with each other.
Or if Kim Jong un ran for office, but she was like, we're going to end the birthright citizenship day one, you'd be like, or if the Israeli government killed 30,000 children and we ally with them to destroy and take over the Middle East.
That's a reasonable alliance, even though what they did is pretty horrific if that's what they did.
If the Israeli government slaughtered Gazans, like children in Gaza, and we allied with them anyway for our goal, that would be like an example of allying with potentially evil, if you want to call that evil.
Well, if a situation was like your country was being destroyed literally in your last city, and it's like, well, we're all going to die, or we can ally with that crazy guy you just mentioned.
They ally with the crazy guy.
And that might be better because you might survive.
Because if it's like, if we don't ally with the American communists, we're going to die, then you're like, well, no, The American communists are going to kill you too.
Like, there's a line where there's a tremendous evil.
If you are fighting, it's like, If you are fighting evil to preserve your way of life and a secondary evil equally as a threat says, join me and we'll kill them and then I'll kill you, you'd be like, no.
A bunch of short, chubby, mustachioed pedophiles who are begging for children are like, Ian, if you and I win this battle right now, we stop the communist threat and we get 100 children and we'll leave.
In this situation, it's like the liberal economic, the global technocratic machine wants to absorb everything.
And if we have to fight against that, if we have to preserve American freedoms, I'm willing to ally with evil Americans to make that happen because there's still America.
For example, let's suppose one country is about to go to war with another country, which would guarantee thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention military, are going to die.
And you have the opportunity to Kill their leader and preempt it.
So if Donald Trump wanted to deal with, if he wanted to secure voting, for instance, for the midterms, the easiest thing he could do is have some Antifa guy blow himself up at a ballot box.
Because I don't think the reaction would play out necessarily like you do, because I think a lot of times whatever happens, it's going to blow up in his face.
Sure, but how often do you have a Donald Trump figure try to run a false flag?
During 2020, hold on, remember this.
During 2020, when Antifa was going to burn down that federal building, was that Seattle or Portland, whichever it was, they brought the attorney general in front of Congress to explain how dare you defend federal property from being burnt down.
Because what an evil person would do is say, Tell me, so the president is evil, and they brief him and they say, Sir, you have to go to the bunker, emergency bunker.
He goes, Why?
What's happening?
They say there's thousands of protesters outside.
They're starting fires.
And then he says, Brief me.
What have they done?
Well, they've just set fire to the historic St. John's Church.
Last night, we saw terror, the worst this country has ever seen, some say.
And what he would say is when thousands of peaceful protesters came out, we respected the First Amendment and the grief these people felt over the loss of life in Minnesota.
But when the extremists joined their ranks, unfortunately, our media reports did not convey the degree of violence that had been undertaken.
And for this, I made a grave error.
I instructed our law enforcement to stand down as we feared innocent, peaceful protesters could be hurt.
Well, it turns out that these individuals were, in fact, violent extremists.
They have destroyed the historic St. John's Church and they have laid waste to the White House.
And for that, I know you may never forgive me.
And for that, I will apologize at every opportunity.
But mark my words I will have justice.
And the American people will know justice as we seek these violent terrorists down.
Across the country and lock them up.
And then he creates a task force and a committee, the M29 committee.
And then they start holding hearings, bringing in leftists and saying, Did you have something to do with this?
They put these people in prison and they all get arrested.
Because the point is, Trump would intentionally foment the destruction of American icons and monuments for the purpose of installing a political agenda.
Let me ask you a question because I remember 2020 very vividly and I'm sure the people in this room as well.
Do you disagree with my contention that if Trump was didn't go as far as he did on COVID with many of the restrictions, either through his decisions and things he said, that he would have been impeached or removed from office.
So when the left crossed the line and left Andy No bleeding from the ears and drenched with blood and broken teeth, all of the media was like, this is too much.
There are people who, Tim, we'll all agree with this.
There are many leftists that, if you play them the clip of Trump speaking at Charlottesville, will tell you, Yes, I heard him praising white supremacists.
And our brave astronauts on the successful launch of Artemis II.
It was quite something.
It will be traveling further than any manned rocket has ever flown and will very substantially pass the moon, go around it, and come back home from a distance that has never been done before.
It's amazing.
They are on the way, and God bless them.
These are brave people.
We want to God bless those four unbelievable astronauts.
As we speak this evening, it's been just one month since the United States military began Operation Epic Fury, targeting the world's number one state sponsor of terror, Iran.
In these past four weeks, our armed forces have delivered swift, decisive, overwhelming victories on the battlefield.
Victories like few people have ever seen before.
Tonight, Iran's Navy is gone, their Air Force is in ruins.
Their leaders, most of them, terrorist regime they led, are now dead.
Their command and control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is being decimated as we speak.
Our enemies are losing, and America, as it has been for five years under my presidency, is winning and now winning bigger than ever before.
Before discussing this current situation, I also want to thank our troops for the masterful job they did in taking the country of Venezuela in a matter of minutes.
That it was quick, lethal, violent, and respected by everyone all over the world.
After rebuilding our military during my first term, we have by far the strongest military anywhere in the world.
And now we're working along with Venezuela and are, in a true sense, joint venture partners.
We're getting along incredibly well in the production and sale of massive amounts of oil and gas, the second largest reserves on earth after the United States of America.
We're now totally independent of the Middle East.
And yet, we are there to help.
We don't have to be there.
We don't need their oil.
We don't need anything they have, but we're there to help our allies.
Tonight, I want to provide an update on the tremendous progress our warriors have made in Iran and discuss why Operation Epic Fury is necessary for the safety of America and the security of the free world.
From the very first day I announced my campaign for president in 2015, I have vowed that I would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
This fanatical regime has been chanting death to America, death to Israel for 47 years.
Their proxies were behind the murder of.
241 Americans in the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, the slaughter of hundreds of our service members with roadside bombs.
They were involved in the attack on the USS Cole, and they carried out the countless other heinous acts, including the blood, just horrible, bloody atrocities of October 7th in Israel, something that most people have never seen anything like it.
This murderous regime also recently killed 45,000 of their own people.
Who were protesting in Iran, 45,000 dead.
For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat.
The most violent and thuggish regime on earth would be free to carry out their campaigns of terror, coercion, conquest, and mass murder from behind a nuclear shield.
I will never let that happen, and neither should any of our past presidents.
This situation has been going on for 47 years.
Should have been handled long before I arrived in office.
I did many things during my two terms in office to stop the quest for nuclear weapons by Iran first.
And perhaps most importantly, I killed General Qasem Soleimani in my first term.
He was an evil genius, a brilliant person, a horrible human being, however, the father of the roadside bomb.
And he lived just horrible what he did.
Iran would have been.
Perhaps in far better, stronger position.
Had he lived, we would have had probably a different conversation tonight.
But you know what?
We'd still be winning and winning big.
And then, very importantly, I terminated Barack Hussein Obama's Iran nuclear deal, a disaster.
Obama gave them $1.7 billion in cash, green, green cash.
Took it out of banks from Virginia, D.C., and Maryland, all the cash they had.
He flew it by airplanes in an attempt to buy their respect and loyalty, but it didn't work.
They laughed at our president and went on with their mission to have a nuclear bomb.
His Iran deal would have led to a colossal arsenal of massive nuclear weapons for Iran.
They would have had them years ago and they would have used them.
It would have been a different world.
There would have been no Middle East and no Israel right now, in my opinion, the opinion of a lot of great experts, had I not terminated that terrible deal.
And I was so honored to do it.
I was so proud to do it.
It was so bad right from the beginning.
Essentially, I did what no other president was willing to do.
They made mistakes, and I am correcting them.
My first preference was always the path of diplomacy, yet, the regime continued their relentless quest for nuclear weapons and rejected every attempt at an agreement.
For this reason, in June, I ordered a strike on Iran's key nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer.
Nobody's ever seen anything like it.
Those beautiful B 2 bombers performed magnificently.
We totally obliterated those nuclear sites.
The regime then sought to rebuild their nuclear program at a totally different location, making clear they had no intention of abandoning their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
They were also rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles and would soon have had missiles that could reach the American homeland, Europe, and virtually any other place on earth.
Iran's strategy was so obvious.
They wanted to produce as many missiles as possible, and they did.
With the longest range possible, and they had some weapons that nobody believed they had.
We just learned that out.
We took them out, we took them all out so that no one would really dare stop them.
And their race for a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon, a nuclear weapon like nobody's ever seen before, they were right at the doorstep.
For years, everyone has said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, but in the end, those are just words if you're not willing to take action when the time comes.
As I stated in my announcement of Operation Epic Fury, our objectives are very simple and clear.
We are systematically dismantling the regime's ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders.
That means eliminating Iran's Navy, which is now absolutely destroyed, hurting their Air Force and their missile program at levels never seen before, and annihilating their defense industrial base.
We've done all of it.
Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone.
Their missiles are just about used up or beaten.
Taken together, these actions will cripple Iran's military, crush their ability to support terrorist proxies, and deny them the ability to build a nuclear bomb.
Our armed forces have been extraordinary.
There's never been anything like it militarily.
Everyone is talking about it, and tonight I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion.
As we celebrate this progress, we think.
Especially of the 13 American warriors who have laid down their lives in this fight to prevent our children from ever having to face a nuclear Iran.
Twice this past month, I have traveled to Dover Air Force Base, and it's been something.
I wanted to be with those heroes as they return to American soil, and I was with them and their families, their parents, their wives, their husbands.
We salute them, and now we must honor them by completing the mission.
for which they gave their lives, and every single one of the people, their loved ones said, please, sir, please finish the job, every one of them.
And we are going to finish the job, and we're going to finish it very fast.
We're getting very close.
I want to thank our allies in the Middle East, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain.
They've been great, and we will not let them get hurt or fail in any way, shape, or form.
Many Americans have been concerned to see the recent rise in gasoline prices here at home.
This short term increase has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers and neighboring countries that have nothing to do with the conflict.
This is yet more proof that Iran can never be trusted with nuclear weapons.
They will use them and they will use them quickly.
It would lead to decades of extortion, economic pain, and instability worse than we.
Can ever imagine.
The United States has never been better prepared economically to confront this threat.
You all know that.
We built the strongest economy in history.
We're going through it right now, the strongest in history.
In one year, we've taken a dead and crippled country.
I hate to say that, but we were a dead and crippled country after the last administration and made it the hottest country anywhere in the world by far with no inflation.
Record setting investments coming into the United States over $18 trillion and the highest stock market ever, with 53 all time record highs in just one year.
It all positioned us to get rid of a cancer that has long simmered.
It's known as the nuclear Iran, and they didn't know what was coming.
They've never imagined it.
Remember, because of our drill baby drill program, America has plenty of gas.
We have so much gas.
Under my leadership, we are number one producer of oil and gas on the planet without even discussing the millions of barrels that we're getting from Venezuela.
The Trump administration's policies, we produce more oil and gas than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined.
Think of that Saudi Arabia and Russia combined, and that number will soon be substantially higher than that.
There's no country like us anywhere in the world, and we're in great shape for the future.
The United States imports almost no oil through the Hormuz Strait and won't be taking any in the future.
We don't need it.
We haven't needed it, and we don't need it.
We've beaten and completely decimated Iran.
They are decimated, both militarily and economically and in every other way.
And the countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage.
They must cherish it.
They must grab it and cherish it.
They can do it easily.
We will be helpful, but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on.
So, to those countries that can't get fuel, Many of which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran.
We had to do it ourselves.
I have a suggestion.
Number one, buy oil from the United States of America.
We have plenty, we have so much.
And number two, build up some delayed courage.
Should have done it before, should have done it with us as we asked.
Go to the Strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves.
Iran has been essentially decimated.
The hard part is done, so it should be easy.
And in any event, when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally.
It'll just open up naturally.
They're going to want to be able to sell oil because that's all they have to try and rebuild.
It will resume the flowing, and the gas prices will rapidly come back down.
Stock prices will rapidly go back up.
They haven't come down very much.
Frankly, they came down a little bit, but they've had some very good days over the last couple of days.
We've done actually much better than I thought, but we had to take that little journey.
To Iran to get rid of this horrible threat.
With our historic tax cuts, where people are just now talking about receiving larger refunds than they ever thought possible, they are getting so much more money than they thought.
That's from the great big beautiful bill.
Our economy is strong and improving by the day, and it will soon be roaring back like never before.
It will top the levels that it was a month ago.
I've made clear from the beginning of Operation Epic Fury that we will continue until our objectives are fully achieved.
Thanks to the progress we've made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly, very shortly.
We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.
We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.
In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.
Regime change was not our goal.
We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders' deaths.
They're all dead.
The new group is less radical and much more reasonable.
Yet, if during this period of time no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets.
If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their.
Electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.
We have not hit their oil, even though that's the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding.
But we could hit it and it would be gone, and there's not a thing they could do about it.
They have no anti aircraft equipment.
Their radar is 100% annihilated.
We are unstoppable as a military force.
The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B-2 bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust, and we have it under intense satellite surveillance and control.
If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we'll hit them with missiles very hard again.
We have all the cards they have none.
It's very important that we keep this conflict in perspective.
World War I lasted one year, seven months, and five days.
World War II lasted for three years, eight months, and 25 days.
The Korean War lasted for three years, one month, and two days.
The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years, five months, and 29 days.
Iraq went on for eight years, eight months, and 28 days.
We are in this military operation, so powerful, so brilliant, against one of the most powerful countries for.
32 days, and the country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat.
They were the bully of the Middle East, but they're the bully no longer.
This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future.
The whole world is watching, and they can't leave the power, strength, and brilliance.
They just can't believe what they're seeing.
They leave it to your imagination, but they can't believe what they're seeing.
The brilliance of the United States.
Military.
Tonight, every American can look forward to a day when we are finally free from the wickedness of Iranian aggression and the specter of nuclear blackmail.
Because of the actions we have taken, we are on the cusp of ending Iran's sinister threat to America and the world.
And I'll tell you, the world is watching.
And when we do, when it's all over, the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous, and greater than it has ever been before.
May God bless the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and may God bless the United States of America.
Americans are asking why the United States had to attack Iran now?
Well, let me explain.
Iran wants to have nuclear weapons.
Of that, there is zero doubt.
If what they truly wanted, which is what they claim, is nuclear energy, Well, they could have nuclear energy like all the other countries in the world have it.
And that is, you import the fuel and you build reactors above ground.
That's not what Iran has done.
They build their reactors and their facilities deep in mountains away from the public glare.
And they want to enrich that material.
The same equipment that they could use to enrich material for energy, they could use to quickly enrich it to weapons grade.
So it is clear that they've been offered every opportunity to have a nuclear program that allows them to have energy, not weapons.
And every single time they have turned it down.
But why the attack now?
Well, what was Iran trying to do?
Iran was trying to build a conventional shield, in essence, have so many missiles, have so many drones, that no one could attack them, and they were well on their way.
We were on the verge of an Iran that had so many missiles and so many drones that no one could do anything about their nuclear weapons program in the future.
That was an intolerable risk.
Under no circumstances can a country run by radical Shia clerics with an apocalyptic vision of the future ever possess nuclear weapons.
And under no circumstances can they be allowed to hide and protect that program.
And their ambitions behind a shield of missiles and drones that no one can do anything about.
This was our last best chance to eliminate that conventional threat, that conventional shield that they were trying to build.
And the president made the right decision to wipe it out now.
That is the goal of this operation to destroy their conventional missiles and their drone program so they can't hide behind it and finally have to deal with the world seriously about never, ever having nuclear weapons.
It implies that they're going to have to get the Iranian regime to allow inspectors into the country, basically capitulate and become servants of the country.
One of the points that I've heard a lot of people making is that the reason that we couldn't do anything about North Korea getting a nuclear weapon is because of the location of Pyongyang.
They couldn't even gamble on trying to, is because if they tried to strike North Korea, North Korea can just use artillery and wipe out, what, 10 million people in Seoul?
And so, what the goal is here is to prevent Iran from achieving that kind of weapons capacity with conventional weapons, making it too costly for the U.S. or someone else to go and actually attack them because there's so much ability.
I think Rubio should have added, Rubio should have said this everything he said.
And I want the people of this country to understand that while the safety of the region, our allies, our troops are paramount, understand that the threat from Iran would also destabilize the economy here in the United States and abroad.
As we are seeing now with the shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz and gas prices going up.
If we waited and they aimed nuclear weapons at us or our allies, gas prices would have gone up $4 a gallon.
This is just a small factor, but understand it's a big picture, and the safety of the people and the lives is the most important.
I know they don't understand, but it's only, he's still, Ruby only gave us half.
Or part of an equation because you blow up all their conventional weapons, their missiles and drones, and then wait four years, they're going to have another round of conventional weapons.
As a force for war and a global power, has been the most moral that we have seen in the past, I don't know, in our history, in the history of the planet.
Certainly, you can look at the Nazis and everyone goes, oh.
Certainly, you can look at Napoleon and go, really?
You can look at Russia and China and go, good God.
And you look at America and you go, well, they did do a lot of bad things, but all things considered, my argument is I sit online, I see these activists from left to right or otherwise, and they say the U.S. is the worst terrorist on the planet, the U.S. is evil.
All of these things, and that is just not true.
It may not be correct, functional, or moral what they're doing.
Those arguments are always allowed.
But my point is China was threatening to destroy one of the largest aquifers in Central America so they could compete with the Panama Canal.
They have no regard for human life and what is moral or good.
Certainly, one could argue the US does bad things, and I would argue, welcome to war and global conflict.
So, by all means, criticize the war.
I'm not saying not to.
I'm just saying, Don't come to me and claim that Iran is morally just.
Don't come to me and say China is morally just or good or that Russia is.
Because I will tell you, the United States is infinitely, infinitely better and more moral than all of those countries.
Very good at not turning on its own people because of our decentralized legal systems where local police basically trump essentially the exterior forces.
So the U.S. is moral in that way that it hasn't genocided its own people.
But we're not at war in Iran.
So you're saying in times of war, you might blow up a school of children, but we're not at war.
A guy just said, Let's go blow up that school of children.
The point is, the American military is the most constrained military in terms of global powers.
Hearing the things that our men and women in uniform go through when they're like, We're getting shot at, we're not allowed to return fire because of the risks.
The U.S. military goes to painstaking lengths to avoid what communist China does intentionally.
I think that the point people make, and I'm not saying you disagree with this, Isn't that the Iran or Chinese are good people, but that they're acting in certain ways that make rational sense?
And you can understand other countries looking at what happened with Iran being like, you know what?
And then we can take a look at what the US response was with Iran right now.
Iran, Trump, I would argue, embarrassed, humiliated even, because the 12 day war was a failure.
He said we got their nuclear capabilities.
What did we see from satellite photos?
It looked like they got all of the enriched uranium out before it was blown up.
And guess what?
That's true.
Trump failed in that regard.
I bet Trump was pissed.
And now it's like, okay, well, if we're going to shut him down, we're going to do it.
I believe it has more to do with just uranium, protests, or whatever.
But I will stress the U.S. says, we will target your military.
There may be accidental collateral damage.
I do not believe the U.S. intentionally targeted school children.
That's a waste of a billion dollar missile or a $50 million dollar missile.
You're not accomplishing any goals with doing that.
Look what Iran did.
They targeted hotels and civilians.
Iran threatened to target critical infrastructure of our allies, uninvolved, like Trump mentioned, as well as civilians, because the threat of terror makes an honest person scared.
The criminal at the bank points the gun at the innocent woman, knowing the police don't want her to die and would rather the criminal escape with all of the money than the innocent person die.
That's evil.
And that's what Iran is doing.
So, I'm not justifying that we go and do this because, again, moral arguments are allowed and we can have them.
Functional arguments are mostly where I stand, but moral matters to me.
But you take a look at what Iran's been doing in the region, arming rebels who blow up civilian cargo ships, which they've been doing for years.
And we're supposed to just sit back and be like, well, you know, we can't do anything about it.
I reject that.
Now, again, my principal concerns are the moral expense, like this school that was blown up.
We should have an investigation.
My concerns are the function.
If we do this, will we actually succeed?
And even Eric Prince said it's a roll of dice.
But I will stress on Venezuela, while skeptical because my fear is the function, morally, we are 100% justified.
And I am glad that Trump succeeded in Venezuela.
The Venezuelans stole our assets and we had a treaty with them.
But if he's sitting there talking about who knows if it's bluster, about targeting electricity, which is going to affect a lot of civilians, at a certain point, you can't just say it's just war.
Let me ask you a question, and it's not necessarily just for you, but a thought experiment I like to ask people when it pertains to war is you're in the middle of the woods, you're lost, you have a small satchel of food and a canteen, it'll last you about a day, and you have a rifle.
This is one of the things I learned when I was writing the White Pill.
Before he was president, Reagan was taken, or maybe during, I don't remember, was taken down to a bunker and given a simulation of nuclear reciprocity.
And they're like, okay, press this button.
And he goes, wait, wait.
If I press this button, Millions of Russians are gonna die?
And they're like, yes.
And he's like, uh huh.
And his aides are like, he knew he wasn't going to press that button, that he was knocking out.
And what's amazing is Gorbachev, who was head of the USSR, was taken to an actual mock room and they walked him through it.
He goes, I'm not pressing this button, even in this simulation.
So the point is it was funny because the point of the thought experiment is just for you to envision being in a scenario where you're approaching an unknown.
But the point of the experiment is, Imagine you're in these scenarios where there's no right or like you don't know what's going to happen.
You have no idea how to address a stranger who's armed.
Is this person you're lost in the woods and you're starving, you're hungry, you have one day left of food, and this guy might be thinking, I don't want to, he might knife me in the back.
There was a couple that went biking around the world because they wanted to show everybody how peaceful it is, and then a car pulled over, jumped out, and slipped and chopped their heads off.
So I'm like, there are crazy people and we've been threatened and freaked out by it, but they're gangbangers in Chicago who freaked me out all the same.
One thing that I think high net worth people understand that low net worth people do not, and it's not meant to be derisive or humble bragging, but it's true the amount of knives that get placed in your back when you have money are orders of magnitude greater than when you don't.
When you are working class, you have betrayers and you have backstabbers because everybody does.
But when you have money, there are people who will kill you for no reason.
There are people you thought your friends.
Who will leak private messages from you?
There are people that you would claim to be your friend, and when you die, will leak private messages to exploit to make money on the internet.
I was thinking, like, turning, like, yeah, friendships are cool, people are great, but if you have a stockpile of food and they don't, you're kind of slick.
There was a dude I knew, and we were probably best friends for a couple of years.
And a few years ago, he started posting on X fake stories about me using pictures that we had and like proof that he knew me to try and build clout.
He would go on X. There was a guy that I knew that I considered a pretty good friend who hacked into one of my servers and then started leaking like inane messages between Discord members.
This is a long time ago for no reason other than to attack me and profit off of knowing me.
The amount of people who will betray you when you have things, regular people just have not experienced this.
Tim Ferriss had this great essay about 10 things that happen to you when you're famous.
And Tim Ferriss is obviously a huge name.
And one of them was, you're going to have, he's like, imagine you have a village of a million people, right?
Out of that million people, 100 of them are going to be crazy.
And I don't mean crazy, like weird, like crazy, like they think they're married to you.
And he goes, When your audience reaches, I just got named, someone just, a stalker of mine, just filled out their living will in Canada and made me the beneficiary over their parents and brother.
No, I do hear that, and I've experienced that, obviously.
The distinction I'm drawing, however, from the phenomenon of crazies who know you like I always talk about, I'm not scared of Antifa, I'm scared of the guy who thinks I stole his spoons and is like hunting me down.
There was a woman on X who said, I broke into her house at two in the morning and turned her TV on, waking up her family.
And there are people on the left who are responding like it was true.
But real quick, my point is there are people that I would consider, would have considered to be very good friends who I'm still friends with on social media who found that they could exploit their connection to me to profit and promptly knifed me in the back.
And I was shocked the first couple of times it happened, the lengths people were willing to go to do it.
And so I.
We talk about the guy in the woods.
Let me put it like this You are in the woods and you have a stack of food that is going to last you for three months, and a man is approaching you with a rifle.
Yeah, I mean, look, to your point about crazy people doing things like the guy that killed Daryl Abbott, guitar player from Pantera, he was in a band called Damage Plant at the time.
He got on stage and shot him because he believed that it was Daryl and his brother Vince that caused Pantera to break up.
If you want to start a business, start a band, make a movie, whatever it is you want to do, the more people that you know, the more likely you are to succeed.
We've got tens of thousands of people in our Discord community.
You'll pop in and say, Guys, I'm trying to make a comic book, and someone's going to be like, I can help.
And you'll get that project started.
Or maybe you can help someone else get their project started.
But more importantly, as a member, you support this show and make it possible.
Without you as members, this show would not exist.
Omega Resetsu says, until Michael Malice can answer and prove how anarchism can work without collapse or being subjugated by outside powers, I cannot take anything this clown says seriously.
I do think that it's probably an on or off switch, but it's worth noting the way that Michael, if I understand correctly, not to speak for you, but the way that Michael understands it, it's very much a personal thing.
No, but I would like them to read the anarchist handbook and learn more because just even though they still are not going to hear it, the Latin root doesn't really matter to them.
In the same way that people say, the joke is everyone's an anarchist.
Atheist with one exception.
You don't believe in Zeus.
You don't believe in Thor, even if you believe in your one God.
If all of us went to another country where alcohol was illegal and someone was passing around a beer at a party, we would ask ourselves, do we want to drink?
What are the risks?
But at no point in our head are we like, well, the government says it's wrong, so we're not going to do it.
So anarchism is that approach to every government, including your own.
No, no, because I've been basically making this point that one of the big stories I think is happening right now with Gen Z is the expansion of gambling in casinos across the country.
But why won't they enforce the law in West Virginia?
Well, apparently they have stopped doing the child drag shows because I made these threats.
So when I came on the show and said Berkeley County is having child drag shows and they were doing it next door, like literally on the street at my property.
They apparently canceled it and stopped doing it, saying they were scared that I was going to get the governor or someone.
Because I actually complained to the AG, Morrissey, when he was attorney general.
I went to him and said, You're the attorney general of the state.
Why are there child drag shows in Berkeley County?
Jefferson County banned it outright by county decree, like ordinance or whatever.
And he said, That's the prosecutors.
He's like, I'm the AG.
I don't do that.
He's like, I'm the lawyer for the state.
And so we look at the DOJ and the AG and we assume she's going to direct these things.
We assume the states do it too.
But apparently, just by saying I did, they stopped having them.
I think that the president, and this is one of the big issues, I think, in America, the president has a lot less power than people think he does in our system.
One of the things that people give me the most crap about when it comes to talking on this show is I'll be like, You know, look, nobody likes the way the sausage is made.
The federal government is supposed to act slowly.
It's supposed to work slowly.
It's actually not supposed to do most of the stuff that it does.
So they have missile launchers, which is another component of the objectives to remove their missile launcher sites, which are SAM sites, surface to air missiles, as well as surface to surface.
I do not believe the majority of Iran wants a revolution.
So, the way I've explained it is imagine what Iran is doing to the people in Iran.
They're showing videos of BLM protests and ICE protests saying the people of America are desperately fighting an evil regime and they're calling for Trump to be removed.
And Trump killed two innocent people because he won't give up power.
What I've heard is like 25% of the people are actually pro Iranian regime, 25% are very, very anti Iranian regime, and 50% of the people are like, man, I just want to go to war.
And I said, If you played it to lefties, and she seems to be an honest lefty, broadly speaking, the way you describe her, what percent of them would be converted?
And there's another of the greatest poker players ever, Mike Madison, who was friends with Daniel and who's a Trump guy.
And he would try to explain to Daniel when he's wrong and they would argue until one fateful day when Mike Madison said, I took my phone, pulled up the video of Trump speaking, and I said, You are wrong, watch.
And he pressed play and slid it across the table and Daniel went, Fine, and looked.
And then after watching the video, he went, Wow, I didn't know that.
Michael, that point that you made, like trying to explain this to someone is trying to explain to a person that not only is the weatherman not wrong, he's lying to you.
That's what it sounds like.
And it's such a great way to articulate it because That seems like such an absurd thing.
The point Breitbart was making is that there are people who don't pay attention to politics in the least, but when they go to the voting booth, they check Democrat.
We're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show right now.
So smash that like button, share the show, and head over to rumble.com slash timcastirl, where we're going to say naughty words and make jokes that are not so family friendly.
And when he was asked, he would, first of all, he was totally fearless.
He would just say, like, oh, it'll be fine.
Erica will take over for me.
That is what he said over and over.
I saw them interact all the time, almost on a daily basis.
Even when he was traveling, he was calling her all the time, he was talking to her all the time.
Charlie and Erica were partners, they were husband and wife in a deep way.
Their marriage was incredibly admirable.
I've seen a lot of marriages.
Some of them are good, some of them are bad.
Charlie and Erica's was exceptional, they were on the same wavelength.
I saw how much that relationship, I didn't know Erica as well prior to Charlie's death, but especially in the wake of it, I saw how much everything he'd done meant to her and how completely committed she was to fulfilling his mission, what he had done in life.
That she knew the life I thought I was going to live has changed very abruptly, but I am fearlessly going to embrace the new one because I know it's what I have to do for my husband and for his legacy.
That is the reason she was put front and center.
And she hasn't really, she's become the CEO of the organization because that is what.
Charlie wanted, and it's because I saw it with all the people who were senior at Turning Point.
There wasn't even a question that that is what was happening.
Can you please release the video you shot in Aspen of him naming her as his successor a couple of weeks before he died?
Just feel that it would go a long way.
And he says, Candace, We haven't bothered playing it because we know psychopathic predators like yourself do not care what is true or false, and normal evidentiary logic has no effect on you.
You're the kind of person who sees coded messages in the number 33, but then ignores evidence like DNA on a rifle or Tyler Robinson's own family members turning him in.
Playing the audio at Amfest already wasn't enough.
You'll obviously just say it's AI or a hologram or an Israeli actor or something.
So, what's the point?
We give it the possibility of any good faith conversation with you months ago.
It's like trying to reason with a maniac brandishing a knife and screaming at people on the subway.
Point being, if you know what BPD looks like and you've had to deal with someone with borderline, you can see it from space.
And if you haven't, it's like, what are you, what, just because he has a piano, just because he's got a cloak, what does that have to do with sucking dick?
It's also possible that she's married to a British lord and her lawyers are working in a building with federal agents for some reason, and it may be on purpose.
But I like she's not making it up, but it's being made up for her.
Because what I would say is Tim Cast and Jack Posabek on the list makes literally no sense unless the narrative machine wants these people to be on a life raft as MAGA sinks.
YouTube was putting her show in what we call the default front page, which is For the algorithm, people who have never been exposed to her are getting.
There are people that I know are apolitical that YouTube is suggesting Candace Owens to, and now they watch religiously.
Certainly, the machine wants that.
Marjorie Taylor Greene broke from Trump and has now left MAGA, and she is calling out the MAGA machine.
Tucker Carlson, he's a mainstream media guy.
His dad was CIA.
He's, of course, party line.
He's friends with Trump.
Milo, now, certainly that may be the most anomalous, but what has Milo been saying?
Exactly what Tucker and Candace have been saying.
He is saying what is.
The anti MAGA line.
He also has left MAGA.
Jack Posobick is a, he is of the internet in the space, but he is also a moderate guy.
I don't know if this is true, but the rumor is all of their social media is managed by a company that doesn't care for politics, it cares for engagement.
I think I had this tweet before the election, and I said, or right after, I don't remember, I apologize.
And I said, guys, Trump's not going to do mass deportations.
The space isn't there.
And a lot of people disagree with me correctly, and they're like, it's not about the mass deportations.
Unhabitable for them, so people leave on their own.
Which is, I was very impressed that people had that like shrewd strategic approach.
So, I think to your point, it's never really going to be about dragging people out of houses, it's going to be about making an environment where it's inhospitable for them to stay.
I had a second part here, and that was the question of everybody's thoughts on transitioning from the current democratic republic into a meritocratic republic.
I'd be okay getting rid of the representatives at the People could effectively participate, but the Senate is kind of like just in case the people go crazy.
My question is for Malice, Michael, and anybody at the table?
Malice, Michael.
Yeah.
Actually, it's the same name I gave you last year, last time you were on.
So, Michael, do you see America?
Becoming something similar to the USSR.
People have been comparing the current state of America to the fall of Rome.
I was wondering if you see America becoming something similar to the USSR or some form of socialist or communist state in the future when the Democrats take back power.