Trump Has FIRED AG Pam Bondi, The PURGE Is Happening | Timcast IRL
Download Rumble Wallet and step away from the big banks --- for good! https://rumblewallet.onelink.me/bJsX/timcastirl
SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/
Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwNTXWEjVd2qIHLcXxQWxA/joinShow more Hosts:
Tim @Timcast (everywhere)
Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/
Libby @LibbyEmmons (X) | https://thepostmillennial.com/pod
Producer:
Carter @carterbanks (X) | @trashhouserecords (YT)
Guest:
Jayne Zirkle @JayneZirkle (X)
Podcast available on all podcast platforms!
Trump Has FIRED AG Pam Bondi, The PURGE Is Happening | Timcast IRL
For advertising inquiries please email [email protected] Show less
Donald Trump has fired AG Pam Bondi, and there were rumors bubbling up in the Beltway, but it kind of hit pretty quick today when reporting came out that Trump was planning on firing her, and then sure enough, like half an hour later, yeah, she got fired.
She's going to be moving, of course, and Donald Trump has said she did a great job, and everyone's cheering for her, but on the surface, I think everyone's aware that her handling of the Epstein files has been pretty dang bad.
Now, we don't know exactly who's going to take over.
The rumor is Lee Zeldin, but everyone is clamoring, Harmie Dillon, because they want someone fierce who will actually get the job done, but Man, I don't know.
Forgive me if I might feel a little let down based on Trump's administration thus far.
But there are several other people that apparently may be on the chopping block Tulsi Gabbard, maybe Kash Patel.
Rumors are.
However, reporting is nah, these people are safe.
And it'd be pretty crazy for Trump to fire everybody.
But there is another resignation of someone who was working for the administration.
So we'll talk about that.
Plus, a whole lot more aliens, of course, are back in the news.
Because now you've got Rep Tim Burchett saying if the American people were given access to the briefings he's got on aliens, the country would come unglued.
Following what Matt Gaetz said about alien hybrid breeding programs, one would suspect that Congress has just plumb lost their minds, or aliens have been lording over us this whole time.
Maybe those conspiracy theories about shave chipping reptilians were correct.
Probably not, but it'd be fun anyway.
And of course, we've got this major Act Blue scandal where they may have been taking massive amounts of foreign donations for Democrats.
Can't say I'm surprised, but this one's massive, and it's going to have a big impact on the midterms.
We will see how it plays out.
Before we get started, my friends, I've got a great sponsor.
So, my name is Jane, and I currently serve as communications director for the Lawfare Project.
We are a Jewish civil rights organization that is taking on care in the Muslim Brotherhood.
We recently sued Carnegie Mellon University and found a billion dollars worth of Qatari funding going through the university through our discovery process.
Trump has fired AG Pam Bondi and, okay, everybody's celebrating.
The rumors are that she was begging not to get fired.
Rumors are rumors, but I will tell you this, guys, in an era when like half, more than half of the conspiracies were proven correct, let me just say this.
I really doubt the official, like, can I just put it like this?
What is even the point of Trump being like, no, no, Pam is moving to a very important private sector job to be not soon?
Just say you fired her, dude.
We get it.
No one for a second genuinely believes this was an amicable departure where she got a brilliant private sector job.
Everybody knows the PR game is fake.
She got fired.
She mishandled the Epstein files.
Everybody's embarrassed.
She embarrassed a whole bunch of these right wing media personalities.
And Mike Cernovich was there and he was talking about how it wasn't an op, it wasn't a manipulation.
Like they genuinely were trying to bring people in and say, we're going to give you these files.
But Pam Bondi just did a really, really bad job embarrassing herself.
Donald Trump and all of these right wing personalities that showed up.
So, sure enough, finally, she's been fired.
And I wonder if the timing is due to trying to get in someone, maybe it's Lee Zeldin before the midterms.
Well, 12 days before the Epstein deposition that she was supposed to give, too, which it looks like she's still going to have to give, but it will be interesting to see what comes of that.
This could be really interesting because this is pretty wild.
She could now say, I don't know.
And she can say, Congressman, I was in the process of reviewing our files in preparation for this deposition, but since being terminated, I no longer had access and I have not prepared.
You know, I think that that would be something that would make the base happy.
I think they'd like to see it.
But I don't think that a new AG, at least now, has enough time to do things to repair the damage before the midterms, which I think that.
I think this is probably what's going on.
But Trump, if he'd have done this last fall, he might have been able to do something that actually, you know, to stop the bleeding and repair the damage before the midterms.
And if he keeps delivering speeches like the one that he did last night, which was so vague, it had very low energy, it didn't give any of the actual information that people wanted.
That was not a very effective speech in terms of, you know, What the base is looking for, or what the American people voted for.
Certainly not what I voted for.
I mean, one of the things that attracted me to Donald Trump was that he assured us all that he was not going to start new wars, that he was going to be a peace president.
And I feel like he betrayed the country by going into Iran at this point.
And yeah, in terms of Bondi, we already knew that she was the second choice.
I have a conspiracy theory, and it's that my conspiracy theory is that.
Trump knew things were getting bad.
He wanted to go into Iran.
Marco Rubio laid out why.
They knew it would sour all of the Trump admin individuals.
There are many people who have careers moving forward or could.
Tulsi Gabbard's not particularly old.
And so, if it is true, Tulsi Gabbard gets ousted.
I don't know that it is true.
They're denying it, I guess.
I wouldn't be surprised if right now the plan is what comes after MAGA, right?
Trump is going to be out and he's the personality.
So, how many of Trump supporters will get behind just Vance?
You'd probably expect a decent amount to break off.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if their PR campaign, their political strategy is Trump's souring among moderates.
Joe Rogan and Theo Vaughn were just making fun of him.
So, Trump fires a bunch of people, becomes the villain on the way out, and salvages the career of other individuals who may come back into other administrations.
Well, I think we're talking post MAGA, but, you know, remember, if Republicans lose the midterms, which quite honestly, it doesn't look that great for them right now, you know, we're going to find ourselves in another situation that it's just impeachment hoax and lawfare campaigns.
And so, really, that would put a stop to a chunk of MAGA right there.
No, I would love it if Harmite Dillon got that job, but Lee Zeldin, look, the rumors were that Bondi was going to get fired and that Lee Zeldin would take the job.
Sounds like they were right about half of it so far.
There was like 500,000 people who moved to Florida, basically.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see.
I think that it is such a fascinating question.
Is there MAGA without Trump?
Is there a coalition without Trump?
You know, one thing that we saw after Charlie Kirk was murdered was a complete fracturing, and that was.
You know, I mean, in retrospect, it wasn't surprising, but at the time and watching it happen, it was certainly kind of like, really, we're all going to go down with this now?
Like we're years away, it's an eternity until then.
But the rumors were when Kent got out that Tulsi would also be coming out.
She would be politely and honorably critical of the war with Iran, as she always has been, and present an anti Trump alternative that is not Trump derangement syndrome, that respects Trump admin personnel.
And then you can imagine a scenario where Tulsi Gabbard is debating Marco Rubio, saying, I worked with Marco, he's a great guy, he served its distinction, we just disagree on those issues.
And Rubio says, Tulsi, I appreciate it, you've been fantastic, but you were wrong.
And it tries to bring a more moderate, unified culture back to the United States.
I would be into it because that's what we're missing we're missing that sort of situation where everybody agrees that their opponent has only the best interests of the country at heart and they just disagree on the best way to achieve the shared goals.
I've been harping on and on about forgive me, guys, for bringing myself into this, but somehow I find myself wrapped up in some of these stories.
These AI bot campaigns that try lumping me and Jack Posobic and Mylanopoulos with Tucker and Candace.
And the funny thing is, before these AI bot campaigns started popping up, and I don't know they're all AI bots, but there is this generic thread where it's like, I am done with Tim Pool, I am done with Milo, I am done with Jack Posobic.
Before those popped up, I said, The rumors were that there was going to be an anti interventionist Democrat moderate base.
I mean, let's just be real.
The idea was Tulsi Gabbard versus Rubio.
And these were the rumors when Joe Kent stepped out.
And I'm going to point out, I think I'm not supposed to talk about this kind of stuff.
And there's a lot of people in the know with access are probably very, very mad.
But they never explicitly said, Tim, don't tell anybody this is what's going on.
It may have been implied.
So, well, I apologize if that's the case.
But I don't think that's the case.
I just want to stress the rumors going around with that Joe Kent is not at odds with Trump, he is friends with Trump.
Like Trump pulled him out after he missed, like he tried to run for Congress, he didn't get there.
He's leaving, criticizing Trump, and becoming this conservative voice of anti interventionism.
Meaning, woke is out.
If Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Kent become prominent players as an alternative to Trump, representing moderates that started to take control in the Democratic Party, woke is completely iced out.
And you will get a Democratic Party, or perhaps just independents that shut out Democrats, you will get a Democrat or moderate party that say, Oh, we all agree child sex changes are crazy and abortion at the point of birth is nuts.
Nobody wants that.
This gun control is excessive.
And the alternative to Trump becomes something most Trump supporters would go, eh, okay.
When Trump leaves, this is the plan they're laying out where you split the Trump administration between the moderates.
And the conservatives, and now it doesn't matter because you own the board, you have both parties basically aligned with this one vision.
I think this is supported by a few things the massive money going into moderate Democrats across the board in primaries, crushing like Colbert teaming up with Tallarico to hoax people so that Jasmine Crockett gets booted out.
We saw how many squad members lost their primaries, and now none of the year remember when they were running puff pieces on Hassan Piker?
Now they're running hit.
Pieces and Democrats are refusing to be involved in events where he's present.
It is becoming very, very clear that woke and progressive left is politica non grata.
So I wonder again if these are just rumors.
I assume there's some truth to the rumors, and the people behind the scenes who are planning these politics are going, Tim, you're close, but pretty far.
The idea being there must be a plan in place for when Trump is out of office.
And you make a good point.
There are people who only show up for Trump.
So what do you do?
Control both sides of the coin.
That way, the progressive far left don't even have a foot to stand on.
Well, and then we get rid of the extremes on both sides.
We're back to something sort of where the crazy people are fringy and everybody else is just sort of middle of the road and we have forever wars forever.
That only lasts for maybe another, I mean, maybe another two presidential cycles because the young people look at people on the far left and far right as.
Ascendant.
They look to those voices and they're more likely to agree with people like Hassan Piker or like Nick Fuentes than they are with someone like Marco Rubio.
I think a big problem that we're facing now, especially when it comes to the threat of Islamification, is this new block of voters were born largely after 9 11.
And so they really haven't experienced a large scale magnitude of terror attack and that nature.
I'd put it like this Israel has no support among young people, it's minimal.
It's like, what is it, 30%, mostly leaning right.
I think Pew's research came out and said 54% negative perspective on Israel.
The U.S., the military industrial complex, and the machine that Trump is laying out.
Let me pause real quick.
You see that letter from the Iranian president where he said, This is not about Israel.
The US has been targeting us for a long time.
I don't think Iran comes to the defense of Israel willy nilly.
I think the truth is the military industrial complex tolerates a lot of Israel's whims because we do have an alignment in this region.
And that means that the deep state, the machine state, is not going to tolerate a generation of people that do not support our operations in the Middle East.
When you take a look at the 2000s, Anti war voices did not exist in the corporate press.
They very much want to go back to this position where, again, it's perfect.
You've got a Tulsi Gabbard base that are, with all due respect to Trump and Marco, who I think are good and honest people, I don't think this was the right play, as opposed to, with all due respect to Dave Smith, Dave Smith.
Because the idea is to push those people far into the fringes.
Indeed.
So that they could go back to the situation of like, you know, George Bush versus Al Gore, two candidates who both would have ended up going into Afghanistan.
You know, Obama, George Bush both ended up going into Afghanistan.
The we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan is a very popular opinion nowadays, and it's because.
I think it's because of the fact that we were in Afghanistan for 20 years.
If we had gone in, hold on, hold on, hold on, let me finish.
If we had gone into Afghanistan and done what we did up until May of 2011, and on May 7th of 2011, picked up shop and left, that's just days after Gothic Serpent, that's just days after they went into Pakistan and got bin Laden.
If they'd have just picked, they said, okay, mission accomplished, we're out of here, and left, right?
That would have had a totally different perspective on the war in Afghanistan.
I mean, and I just have to say, I've always supported Middle Eastern interventions and war in Iran.
And Think that Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, for all their contracts in the Middle East and the construction they were doing, has been a blessing for this country.
And I, for one, welcome our new pro war overlords.
In other words, pick me.
The ultimate media pick me.
No, we'll see, because as I've already been mentioning, which is funny, I was talking to Jeremy Hambly of The Quartering, and I'd been saying on the show for quite a bit that the effort right now is the media companies are going to start buying out podcasts.
Where they are going to cut off the fringes and heavily promote the middle ground.
And you know what?
I hope it's a genuine effort.
I fear it's not because we've all been, you know, we all suffer from post censorship stress disorder.
But the idea is this.
Let me ask you guys first, I think we all agree if powerful megastructures and billionaires intend to isolate political opinions so that only those who bend the knee to the machine are allowed to speak, that's a bad thing.
However, I ask you guys this if millionaires and billionaires and big networks Buy into shows for the effort of propping up genuine conversation, respecting the speech and opinions of these shows, but trying to promote conversations that are respectable, thus having the effect of icing out the fringes.
I think that the corporations that would be doing the buying would tell themselves the second thing, but would actually still just keep doing the first thing.
My question is if the effect of whatever the intention is, is that genuine conversations, honest thought prevail, are lifted up through promotion and access, and the fringes do their things, but eventually fall to the wayside, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
I don't trust corporations that had giant syringes dancing around.
I'm just saying that, like the pipe dream, it would be beautiful if the mainstream prominent conversations in this country had conservatives and liberals enjoying a beer together and debating the minutiae of tax policy as opposed to throwing Molotovs at each other.
Well, more importantly, leftists throwing Molotovs at conservatives.
No, well, but I think that one thing that we had during the Mockingbird era, if you will, is we had a shared information network so that everyone was getting the same news and everyone was able to talk to each other about the same news.
I mean, now we're in a situation where just as someone curating news for readers and trying to figure out what's out there, there's no clear news cycle at all.
I'm going to say this right now, and I know Phil's going to agree with me on this one.
If the powers that be intentionally spent money to eliminate the speech of gay communists and prop up everybody else, we'd all be happy.
W. Like, if there's a billionaire who's like, I'm going to invest money in a media apparatus that promotes everybody except the wackaloon gay communists, we're all happy.
And I gotta say, I knew myself, if there had been any doubt, I knew my son was a white kid when at about five years old, he told me Don't Stop Believing was his favorite song.
They just tell the crowd to go da, And then they're like, okay, what's this?
And then Simon Cowell's like, it's Africa.
And then the whole audience is singing Africa and they've got the different harmonies and the lyrics going because everyone knows that song.
I would love that.
I would love a unified culture.
And I think that's the point of the culture war.
So that's why I say, as much as there will be a bunch of libertarians and middle of the road libs, Who are like, it is wrong to censor.
I'd be like, you know, if it's just the Marxists who get censored, I don't care.
Like, if liberals, conservatives, libertarians, moderates are all debating, but the wackaloons are just outside looking through the window, I don't care.
But it is shockingly egregious when you mention that violence, when your opinion is that violence against settlers in the West Bank is self defense, and then you go on to say, and the babies are settlers too.
I mean, what they're teaching kids, like, you can't believe in God.
You're.
Evil if you're white, these privilege tests that Charlie Kirk would talk about all the time, that whole ecosystem is coming back to completely bite them in the butt because these kids have over radicalized to the point that they actually are dividing the Democrat Party because they would rather have the AOCs and Zoran Mandamis than the Gavin Newsomes.
And the Democrats are like, oh, shoot, we went too far.
I mean, I think when you're dealing with politicians or with most of the Democrat politicians, yes, I agree.
But I mean, you know, Clyburn's still the guy that's kind of the kingmaker in the Democrat Party, right?
If Clyburn says you're the guy, then you're going to be the guy.
And Clyburn is looking at all of these people like Hassan Piker and all of the far leftists, and I don't think that he's going to get behind them at all.
That being said, this is something that we talked about for the past year, at least, probably a year and a half since the election of Donald Trump.
Is there a civil war that's going on and that has been going on in the Democrat Party between the progressives, the communists, the DSA aligned wing of the party, and the normal Democrats?
I think that at the end of the day, the normal Democrats will end up doing what Spanberger has done in Virginia.
They'll go ahead and they'll say that they're.
Moderate, they'll say that they're middle of the road so that way they can get the money from the big donors, but then they'll rubber stamp whatever policy the progressives can get put into place.
The reason is because you're not going to get the big donations from the big donors if you're campaigning on we have to have a wealth tax, we have to have a tax on your net wealth.
You're not going to get those donors to give you big checks.
They're not going to write big checks to the PACs.
You're going to have to do small donations, and there probably isn't enough money.
That will come into your campaign to actually win.
But, anyways, but yeah, look, the point that I'm making is the people that have money that have historically given to Democrats and to Democrat causes, they're not going to give to the progressives, people like Hassan Piker, people like the squad.
You saw a slew of very progressive candidates in Illinois get trounced.
Is motivated by hatred of people that have done better than them, that think that the world is worse off because of billionaires, think that the reason that their life is not as good as they believe it should be is because some billionaire somewhere has stolen money or whatever crazy person BS they imagine.
Well, part of the thing, too, is that all of the people who are like tax the rich, they imagine that Americans are out there believing that they're going to be poor forever.
And part of being American is imagining that someday you too could be rich.
Like, you know, most Americans sit around and like go to work, hustle, and imagine when they can make their money and start, you know, whatever it is that they want to do with all their money.
But if you have this wealth tax, then what you're really saying is, why would I work really hard?
If I'm going to work really hard and get my money, I don't want to be taxed to death.
So I wonder when I see the top podcasts all being staunchly anti war, in many ways anti America.
I say in many ways because I'm not going to play stupid games like they hate America, but they're very critical of the US foreign policy, as well as particularly anti Israel.
But then you don't see in media right now the same kind of fervent or maybe that's not the right word, but passionate investment into a media apparatus to Stop this kind of sentiment.
The reason why I ask about whether there are any big podcasts that are in favor of this war is because it seems interesting that you'll have the Ellisons purchasing principal stakes in TikTok as well as CBS.
But then on the audio side of distribution, it is complete Wild West or it's the complete other direction.
The question I then have is is it that Spotify and Apple and YouTube want to promote?
Anti war, anti establishment, anti America, and anti Israel content?
Or is it just that's what the Wild West is producing because there's massive international audiences that will prop it up?
I mean, I feel like when it comes to YouTube, they're motivated by who's buying ads.
The whole apocalypse and stuff, that was because of the situation where they didn't want ads being played on what people considered objectionable media.
And Turning Point was a major player in helping Donald Trump get elected.
And whatever you believe about the Charlie Kirk assassination aside, after the fact, I would not be surprised to find prominent leftists at Google and YouTube saying, Put your thumb on the scale against Erica Kirk.
We will make sure Turning Point is destroyed.
Look at what these people say behind the scenes.
Look at what they're willing to do in the streets.
Look at what their judges are willing to do.
Is it at all possible that there are people at YouTube who would look over their shoulder, look around, and then type in?
I make these videos 15 times a day, and I've never gotten that one time on Timcast IRL, Timcast, or Timcast News.
So I can't even appeal it.
It says you will get a strike.
The video will be removed.
Then, when you sue them, you can submit the paperwork to YouTube to get the video, to get the strike put on hold or something.
And I'm like, what?
I've been on this platform for 16 years and never experienced this.
So I emailed my liaisons, my contacts at YouTube, and they said there's nothing we can do about it.
Well, sure enough, I contacted the copyright holder and the company, and they apologized.
First, they tried claiming it's not fair use.
Then I said, Come on, bro.
And they released it.
Then I asked YouTube this important question Why is it that on Timcast IRL, Timcast News, and Timcast, three channels all over a million, I have never once been flagged for copyright, despite making all of the exact same videos?
But this new channel, I've gotten flagged maybe 10 times already.
In the matter of a few months, with only like 30 or 40 videos.
So that would mean one of two things.
There is a shield placed on this channel and others that prevent copyright claims from disrupting the show.
Perhaps it's a platform wide thing where if you have over a million subscribers, they default to, we're not going to let you take these videos down because they're established channels that typically know what they're doing.
This new channel has only around 87, 88,000 subs, so they're like, no protections for you.
There could be something else that is foul play.
There could be a restraint on these channels that acts as a de facto shield.
Somewhat inadvertently.
And this is what I submitted to Google.
I said, I can conclude one of two things.
I said, if you are shielding my main channels, either as an intentional thing personally for me or because YouTube has a protection for large channels, then I am grateful.
If, however, you have put a restraint on my channels that isolates it from the YouTube ecosystem, thus, copyright doesn't exit this bubble and enter our isolated sphere, well, now I'm mildly perturbed.
The argument I'm making is this YouTube, perhaps, Has the main YouTube body of prominent, well known shows they promote, and they have isolated off a mini YouTube that is a separate ecosystem that does not interact with the main body of work.
If you are on that main platform and you submit a copyright notice, the algorithm automatically attacks anything in that sphere that is using those videos, which captures my new channel, which was just made.
And the channels outside of it in the isolated shadow ban bubble will not be impacted, not on purpose, but because they are a detached node that YouTube is isolating intentionally.
Which would explain why Candace Owens is propped up and recommended to new users who just signed up for YouTube and why people constantly complain why, even after watching the show every single night, It doesn't appear on even my channel page because it appears that there's what's called a tiny room shadow ban on this channel.
Or I'm completely wrong about everything, who knows?
I can only say this it is a fact that I have never, that in the past three years, we have not received any copyright claims on my principal channels, but the new channel is getting them like crazy.
Another theory would be that new channels have weights put on them to prevent new personalities from rising up and causing problems.
Ladies and gentlemen, Tim Burchett says America would become unglued if we got his alien briefings, pushes for public release anyway.
He was asked about Matt Gaetz's claim that the military briefed him on alien breeding programs where, well, I'm going to extrapolate from what he said women are kidnapped to be impregnated by aliens.
I just want to make something very clear.
Matt Gaetz stated in The Benny Show.
That he was briefed.
They're alien hybridization programs where people are captured from war zones and migrant caravans for alien hybrid breeding so that the alien hybrids can communicate between both species.
Well, the implication, of course, is that they're women because men don't need to be kidnapped in order to get their genetic material.
Women need to be held if they're going to provide their bodies for the creation of life.
So it sounds like that's what he's saying.
Tim Burchett was asked about this and said, I can't comment because I'm still in Congress, but if America got the briefings that I got, It would become unglued.
Now, I want to show this from Space Weather News in response to this.
Native Patriot says new meteors in Costa Rica.
Is Space Force fighting a battle we're not allowed to know about?
The conspiracy is that when humans discovered aliens, they knew that if they brought aliens down to Earth, it would cause massive economic destabilization, panic, riots.
And so, over the past 15 or 20 years, they have been gradually introducing more and more information to the public.
That normalizes the existence of UFOs and aliens.
For example, we discussed the O'Hare UFO incident.
I had just left working at O'Hare two months prior and had friends who were there.
And I had a friend who was on Mannheim Road who said he got out, looked up, and saw the UFO hovering over the airport.
It's a well known incident, one of the most famous.
Could it be that that incident was intentionally done to create a brief glimpse in a small pocket of people and then leave so these stories of UFOs become normalized over 20 years?
If I was working in government intelligence and they said, we need to, how do we introduce the idea of extraterrestrial life to humans who believe we're mostly or likely alone?
Well, you do what you're doing right now with Obama saying, of course aliens exist.
I mean, like, probability wise, I don't mean literally.
Then you get Matt Gaetz saying aliens exist.
Everyone hears these stories, start to rationalize it in their mind.
The next thing you do is you have unknown objects in the sky.
You wait a year or two and everyone's used to seeing these strange things.
Then you have a story of like military intervention and a video comes out showing a vehicle and we're like, we don't know what these things are.
Slow and gradual introduction.
And then minor communications like, we're getting signals from an object.
What could this be?
People get normalized, they get bored with it.
And then finally, they're like, there's, then everyone sees something hovering over DC.
Wow, another one of these things.
Remember 10 years ago when we first started seeing them?
Then five years later, It lands and people are like, Oh, look at that.
And there's a lot of different ways that the universe could actually be constituted that we don't actually perceive because we're not designed to see the universe the way that it really is, first of all.
Second of all, all of the.
Messages and radio waves and stuff that have left the Earth, they've only gone about 100 light years.
So that's actually only a handful in the galactic scale, a handful of stars that we could actually.
That may be true, but inadvertently, the signals we've been broadcasting have been creating perturbations in the subspace radio frequency, which has reached faster than light.
Again, they needed to find a way to explain how they talked to the Federation of the Planet, so they created subspace.
Yeah, I could be moved from this position if there is new physics that we discover or there is a ship that's shown.
But as of right now, the way we understand the speed of light, because the speed of light isn't just the speed of light, the speed of light is the speed of causality.
Or I guess two dimensional with a third dimension for time.
The interesting thing about it is if you existed in a higher dimension, like you were a four dimensional being, well, we are technically four dimensional beings, sort of.
We can manipulate three dimensions and we free fall through the fourth.
If you were existing in full control of the fourth dimension, but free falling through the fifth, you would perceive time as space.
So it would be like imagine if you can go into a building and you're like, oh, this hotel is 100 rooms.
But there's a theory that the way that the universe is actually created, like, they actually exist is there is no linear time that time is a part of space.
So, it's called, like, they call it space time.
So, like, there is no future or past if you're outside of time.
Like, the block universe is like, it's like, think of a, like, a, a, a, Piece of bread, like that's sliced up into pieces.
In the block universe, you can go to any point in time and just like you go to any location.
South Park responds to Pam Bondi firing with a savage eight word callback.
South Park skewered Attorney General Pam Bondi in a Halloween episode last year, depicting her with feces on her face every time she praised President Trump.
Well, they reposted it today, and it's nasty, so I'm not going to show.
I literally know who Dan Scavino is because I've been on Laura Trump's show with Aaron Elmore, who he recently got married to, and I've seen their pictures on Instagram.
I mean, I just wish America was allowed to laugh again and not, you know, be forced to constantly fixate on politics and division.
And that's what's ultimately sowing, you know, all this hate within the culture.
We're not just allowed to enjoy things that are genuinely funny anymore.
You know, I just want to go back to the days of Cartman crying to his mom in a Best Buy about not being allowed to buy an iPad or Towley and Mr. Hankey.
South Park was massively culturally relevant and they have relegated themselves to a tiny pocket of fringe wackaloons who are 70 years old and hate Trump and know everything about him.
The scene where he, like, it really is relevant to me when the famous scene where he brings the young female lawyer out to some wind turbines and she goes, worried about green energy encroaching on your land.
And then Billy Bob goes, not green, alternative.
These wind turbines aren't here to generate energy for the grid.
They're off grid generating energy for oil pumps because we can't get transmission lines out here.
And a lot of people don't realize wind turbines are placed in remote areas where they want to pump oil but can't get power lines in.
Well, that's why on, I think it was the Navajo Hopi Reservation, there was like a huge push for solar panels just to create shade structures with refrigerators underneath them so people could keep their insulin cold.
Especially like, you know, the fact that you can actually put the cooler right underneath the solar array and put out a little chair, too, in the shade.
There's the conspiracy theory that anytime someone makes a breakthrough in high energy return on energy investment technologies like fusion, the U.S. government kills them because it will disrupt the petrodollar system.
What's this thing where, like, recently there's been people who are really excelling in their fields and engineering getting killed in their houses by random homeless people?
Yeah, so when you look at the great flood maps, the theory about the axis is going to shift 90 degrees or whatever.
Ben Davidson talks quite a bit about this that we're not just going to see the poles flip, but when they do, the earth will tilt.
And then when that happens, a flood will wash over everywhere, but the Appalachian Mountains will be one of the only places left untouched by the flood.
Yeah, and you know, I'm not supposed to say this, but it's probably late enough in the campaign that it doesn't matter.
But we moved to West Virginia, and the reason why Mount Weather and Raven Rock are within 10 to 15 miles of here is because we have all been briefed as prominent CIA selected media personalities to survive the Great Flood, which is coming in three or four years.
And I figure at this point you can't do anything about it.
But here's the funny thing there are people who believe it's impossible to succeed organically in media.
And that all, like, I actually met a guy and he was like, hey, man, I watch your show.
And he was like, is it real?
And then I'm like, is what real?
I was like, like, your show.
And I'm like, yes.
And he's like, no, but like, all of this stuff's not scripted.
And I'm like, what stuff?
And he's like, with Candace and like Tucker.
And I was like, it's all real.
And he was like, it's not like the government puts you there.
There are people who genuinely don't think it's possible because they can't do it and they can't understand how.
So they project and think Tim Cast and Candace Tucker and, you know, Cenk Ueger must be selected by the elites to be the play actors on the great stage of the narrative machine.
I mean, can you really blame people for kind of being like that?
Like, they don't know, people don't have any idea what's real.
They don't, all the institutions, they don't trust them anymore.
And now you've got AI basically, you know, annihilating their brains with videos and stuff that you literally can't tell the difference from real.
Only, or you can only tell the difference between whether it's real or not by what's happening in it.
And you have to be like, Okay, that's too absurd to be real.
But there's, you know, the videos of people going down these like, you know, mile high water slides, and it's like, oh, he just fell off the water slide.
That looks just like you would think it would look.
It was, to me, obvious that it was AI, but the comments, they thought it was surveillance footage, like ring camera on a motorcycle drives by and crashes into a car.
And I'm like, oh, that's clearly AI.
But all the comments were like, whoa, man, he was speeding, like all crazy.
And they're posting memes and GIFs and all that stuff.
One of the problems with modern society is this you always hear these communists say things like, you know, we're the first generation of it worse than our parents.
Ladies and gentlemen, as Muslims across the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth begin preparations to celebrate Eid after fasting for the holy month of Ramadan, I just wanted to convey my heartfelt best wishes.
The United States does not have the statutory capability to protect itself.
That's a fact.
The fact that the Supreme Court is set to rule in favor of keeping birthright citizenship, despite the fact that every argument makes sense.
I'll put it very, very simply for everybody there's no argument against what I'm about to say.
Wong Kim Mark says domiciled.
Fair point.
Illegal immigrants have no allegiance to us.
They've broken our laws and come in here in violation.
You are not allegiant to a power you seek to offend.
That's not allegiance.
That's threat of action against.
So, the Supreme Court should just say if you're a legal, temporary, or permanent resident, that includes tourism through a visa, your child will be a citizen.
If you enter illegally, you clearly have no allegiance, are not domiciled, and subject to removal, your kids will not be.
The fact that John Roberts' statement is, it may be a new time, but it's the same Constitution, he's basically saying, F the United States and your country, we will not protect it.
And the entire goodwill of the United States is being entirely abused.
And our judicial system, from the lowest court on up, you know, from the lowest court that releases criminals so that they can go murder women at Fairfax bus stops, all the way up to the Supreme Court, are completely captured by this idea that they, like you were saying, they can't do anything.
They won't do anything to protect the United States.
So the point is this the Supreme Court, the conservatives, they absolutely have the power to say, yeah, okay, no, like obviously this is an exploitation of the 14th Amendment.
I mean, I think it's a long shot that they do, but it is absurd to me that, you know, if anything, if I was on the court, if there's an honorable court and they felt this was a task for Congress, then the ruling should be Trump's executive order shall stand until Congress intervenes, as this is their role to set these standards.
Instead, it seems like they're going to be like, yeah, we know China's gutting and destroying this country, but yeah, who cares?
Congress is not going to pass a law pertaining to a constitutional amendment.
So one of two things has to happen.
Clarity needs to be provided as to the interpretation of the amendment by the Supreme Court as it pertains to illegal immigration and birth or tourism, or Congress would have to repeal or replace.
The Fourth Amendment, which is functionally impossible.
So, any good steward would simply say it is the interpretation of this court that the Fourth Amendment does not protect birther tourism nor illegal immigrants having anchor babies.
The Supreme Court is composed of those who seek to destroy this country and spineless loser cowards who will not do their jobs.
Thomas and Alito said, we are obligated to answer the question in Texas v. Pennsylvania as original jurisdiction only goes to the Supreme Court.
That is, state suing state is Is a task of the Supreme Court.
And five of the justices said no, for no reason.
And we know what that reason is.
We are terrified.
We don't want to die.
And we are cowards.
They will not do their jobs.
What was asked by the Solicitor General is quite simply in the 19th century, the question of birth or tourism didn't exist, to which John Roberts agreed.
And then responded, it may be a new time, but the same Constitution.
Indeed, a question is being asked as per the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Does this apply to To birth tourism and anchor babies.
And if they defer and say, leave it to Congress, well, no, we're asking you to interpret the intent based on the writings of the framers, what this was meant to be.
And they could overturn Wong Kim Ark.
They could apply the domicile standard, which would omit temporary visas like tourism, and it would omit illegal aliens.
And if they refuse to do that, they're abdicating their responsibilities because they're spineless cowards.
There was a very interesting article published by the New York Times where they said Trump has already won.
He will lose birthright citizenship, but he already won.
And that is the initial ruling ending universal injunctions has basically given Trump carte blanche to do anything he wants, which is very interesting.
And this seems to be a break in the system, an exploit.
Maybe exploit isn't the right word, but it works like this.
Universal injunctions should have never existed.
The idea that a lower court federal judge can issue a nationwide injunction makes no sense.
So the Supreme Court ruled you can't.
The issue was that Donald Trump, I think it was pertaining to transgender military officers or something like this.
There were two that sued, or two or three.
And then Trump said that they won.
Trump then got an appellate court to block that injunction.
But then another court in a different jurisdiction issued an identical ruling.
And they said, hold on there a minute.
How do we have two different federal judges?
Doing the same ruling and then a higher court only putting a stop on one of those injunctions while another injunction exists, this can't make sense.
So the Supreme Court said, yes, a federal court can only apply relief, can grant relief to those who have standing and sued themselves.
This will require a special class for any broad categories, which means if Trump says by executive order he is barring citizenship from anybody who is here based on birth tourism, they will sue and Trump won't fight it.
They are angry because if the Trump administration does not appeal, they have no opportunity to go to the Supreme Court to get a nationwide relief for all in that category.
They would have to form a class of individuals that are anchor babies or birth tourism babies.
And so if Trump decides, okay, Those two individuals won, and I won't appeal.
There will be no higher court.
There will be no precedent set by any higher court nationwide.
So basically, Trump can keep issuing executive orders every single time, tweaking them a little bit, and they will have to keep re suing.
So these two individuals who get relief as birth to us and babies, Trump can issue a new executive order that encompasses them, but it's a different order and not to sue again.
And it'll keep happening.
Like Cuomo did with free speech when he shut down churches.
So the court said you have to reopen.
He says, okay, and then issued a new executive order shutting down churches again.
Yeah, and that was a crazy case too because, what was it, like a Jewish leader and a Catholic leader brought that case to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, you know, for an emergency ruling to open the churches.
And the Supreme Court was like, oh, it's moot because they're open now.
And they were like, no, no, it's still not moot.
It's still not moot.
You know, that was a crazy ruling.
That was so infuriating.
I was so angry just as a, just living in Brooklyn as a Catholic person.
I was just so mad that the Catholic Church complied.
I was like, what are you doing?
You're seriously denying the Eucharist to everybody because of Cuomo?
507 says, The only time I've ever seen our government come together and agree on anything was when AIPAC had them ban TikTok.
There's no unseeing that will affect Zoomers forever.
There is an unseeing that.
Most people don't care, and most people are driven by what makes them popular.
So if TikTok starts promoting non political content, Zoomers are going to completely forget whatever.
If TikTok went in the algorithm today and said, We're going to make it so that only videos pertaining to Casperu coffee will be seen, you'd have literally every Zoomer drinking Casperu and claiming how great it was.
There'd be some dissenters, of course, but they wouldn't matter because most of them are just going to fall in line.
RE3 Tard says, was hoping you still did live shows.
Happy birthday, Ian.
It's my birthday, too.
Jesse Dalba claims to have been deplatformed and debanked like Fuentes.
He has a give, send, go.
Jesse Dalba, biker, YouTuber.
We do live shows.
We're planning some.
We're trying to figure out how we're going to do it, but there's some stuff always in the works.
Visited the Casper location in Martinsburg today, and it's nearly complete.
But these things always take a lot longer.
And I will say, surprisingly, As it took us years and we eventually gave up on trying to do it ourselves, we teamed up with Mamba Collectibles and John, shout out, who is making it all work now, has gotten it nearly to the point of opening and it's just basically about to open.
It was a thing that we had at a family, I think it was Christmas, where it was basically lightly sweetened whipped cream with thin chocolate wafers, making this very light dessert that was delicious.
So, you could eat like three bowls and you're only getting like 400 calories.
Peter Gohock says, hey, Tim, geophysicist Stephen Burns said, we're going through 3Eye Atlas's debris field, and that's probably what most people are seeing.
But there was a post that said, at a certain amount of money, your standard of living won't deviate from the wealthiest people on the planet.
So they were like, the thing about wealth is that Bezos wakes up and he does work, but the work has a massive impact.
You wake up and do work.
You want to find the point where you are making enough money to where you have the same standard of living as any billionaire because, again, you do at a certain amount of money.
You don't need to worry about owning one of the biggest corporations on the planet once you reach a certain level.
If you're Bezos and you keep working and you do, that's fine.
But the point of it was it is very possible to get to the point where you never have to work again.
All right, everybody, we're going to go to that uncensored portion of the show over at rumble.com slash Tim Guest IRL, where we will say naughty words and make jokes that are not so family friendly.
Smash the like button, share the show, and all that good stuff.
Well, going back to the Pam Bondi thing, the Daily Mail actually reported that Trump's reasoning for the sudden dismissal of Pam Bondi.
Oops, sorry.
Daily Mail reported that Trump's reasoning for the sudden dismissal of Pam Bondi.
Was in part because the president believes that she tipped off Eric Swalwell about the FBI's efforts to release investigative documents that related to his relationship with the alleged CCP spy.
And now there's not real clarity, according to them, about why she did that.
It's apparent that they have some type of friendship, but that's what they're reporting at least.
Well, I think we're sort of in uncharted territory here where this influencer space has now gone into a presidential administration.
Like, these are no longer just presidential appointees.
These are social media figures.
These are sometimes podcasters who are now in these, you know, very, very influential positions within our government.
And these aren't, you know, small roles either.
Like, the Attorney General of the United States, especially in this context of, you know, the level of lawfare and weaponization that she had to deal with, that's a massive undertaking.
Yeah, I mean, we had a situation where the people who were telling us this isn't normal were also giving us stuff that was really not normal.
Like a whole bunch of trans kids, they're like, that's normal.
Transing your kids, that's normal.
Million abortions a year, that's what's normal, folks.
That's what's really normal.
Men with boobs, massive border insecurity, like, this is the normal stuff.
So we had a, like, the thing with where you had so many people despising Trump and you still do, they weren't providing anything better, they were providing everything worse.
You know, yeah, I do think I wonder if Trump's, you know, attempts at this during his second his second term were him trying to find people that weren't the whole, you know, deep state swamp creatures.
And just that there are very few people that are competent and will do the job and are not already deep state swamp.
Um, the people that he's got to come in from industry that are generally they seem like they're better, but they don't want to be in the administration.
Yeah, and and and I get that, but like these people are like, like I said, he's he's very competent, he's probably the smartest guy that that Trump's got.
Um, but I just feel like I'm of the opinion that.
You know, most people that are successful, you can't just replace with someone else and they'll be successful.
So, like, getting a really, really good attorney general that can do the job is a whole lot easier said than done than trying to find an attorney general that can do the job that isn't, you know, in bed with the bureaucracy or hasn't been a major player in the bureaucracy.
And, like, to her credit, too, there were some subpoenas, there were some investigations, but when you're talking about that versus You know, what they did to President Trump and literally got very close to putting him in prison until he died.
I mean, that just looks like political theater in comparison.
And so I think, you know, the American people who voted for President Trump, they're expecting these people behind bars.
They're expecting the Biden family behind bars, the Clinton family behind bars.
And anything less is really a disappointment to a lot of people, even if it may seem, you know, somewhat unrealistic for people who know just the level of bureaucracy that you're dealing with.
But I think, again, to that sort of like average person who just voted for Donald Trump, It is disappointing.
And I don't really know if there's a solution forward to necessarily fix that.
Like, what they were hoping for was never going to happen.
Like, Donald Trump wasn't going to get in and just be like, all right, you in jail, and just like start tossing people into jail.
And people, because people vote for a king, they vote for a guy that can do whatever they, whatever emotionally is satisfying to them.
And that's not how DC works.
And this is a point that I make regularly on the show.
Nobody likes how the sausage is made.
Nobody likes the fact that DC works slowly.
Nobody likes the fact that the reason there are only two terms.
For Congress people and are two years for Congress terms and six years for Senate terms is because the people that are elected to represent the people are going to do what their people want.
That's why the House is full of clowns, right?
The Senate is generally more, it works slower, it's more deliberative because they got longer and they aren't technically supposed to represent the people.
But the people expect results right away.
They want, I mean, people were calling, People were saying, oh, Trump's done six months after he got into office.
Six months after he's sworn in, they're like, oh, it's over.
It's done.
He's not going to do anything.
Nothing's going to happen at all.
And they ignore all the stuff that he actually was doing, you know?
And I don't think that Donald Trump has delivered on the things that he said he was going to, but I think that he's far and away better than the other option.
And whether people want to admit it or not, you are actually left with only two options when it comes down to voting.
I. Want the United States to be dominant in the energy sector.
I don't want China to get a foothold.
I don't want the weird, creepy bullshit that they do to become dominant internationally and the Belt and Road Initiative and all of the shit they've tried doing, which is nasty and fucked up.
We are better people than they are.
The Chinese people are fantastic.
We always love the people of the country, but their government is fucking shit.
And I don't want to live in a planet where they win.
If soft power isn't getting the job done, I don't want war.
Keeping the seas open for trans, for at least until we can transition from the system, if that's the case, because cutting it off right now just means we collapse.
And I like you can make the argument, hey, look, blowback is a real thing and unintended consequences are a real thing without saying the United States deserved it.
You know, and I think there are too many people that get lost in that thinking that because the United States has done things in the world to try to better its position and try to fight communism and all sorts of different things that have been, you know, public policy, international policy, foreign policy.
Because they've done those things, other countries do those things too.
The United States is not unique in this, and it doesn't make the United States uniquely bad.
The United States is actually uniquely good.
We still give away more money than, like, basically all the other countries on earth combined.
I mean, look, the, the, the, Way that NATO is organized now, the fact that it took Donald Trump doing all the things that he's done to get NATO countries to spend even 2% of their GDP on their own defense.
If you look at, like, I was watching a, it was some streamer or whatever, just a little clip, and the totality of NATO, like all of the countries, when it comes to their military strength, is basically half of what the United States has.
Like, the US has double everything that NATO has.
NATO combined, not just one country, but like all of NATO.
The United States is the power of NATO.
And the fact that the United States says, look, we could use some help here, we want some help here.
And they're like, no, no, no.
But the United States has been the biggest proper up of the Ukraine war.
But imagine a bill where agencies can suggest best practices, but they must measure outcomes.
If someone can achieve a better measurable result, whether with a creative solution or an alternative method, that should also count as complying to the regulation.
If the regulation doesn't improve the actual outcome, the why they're doing it, it expires or it needs to be re justified and re voted on.
Yeah, no, so regulation should have to have a measurable standard and result in which they are supposed to get better at, or they fail and are no longer a regulation.
So, my question is for mainly Tim because you talk about this a lot, but everybody else, I want to hear your ideas on it.
You mentioned the RPM CPM on Erica Kurt content.
Could it be a high return because it is mostly female audience and they are highly susceptible to marketing so the companies know they will reach very gullible people who are sad, lonely women with this very disposable income?
You can check RPMs by gender, and they're fairly flat.
Subject, like, yeah, it's just that's not really advertising works.
The insinuation, if that was true, it's that marketing companies would be specifically going on Google and typing in women, which is not the case for most advertising.
Maybe to a certain factor, but I wouldn't say to a factor of 4X.
That makes no sense.
Like, typically, if you put it this way, I'll put it like this advertisers don't care as much about gender.
That's why they started marketing makeup to guys.
They want to sell.
So they're going to go on and say, find me whoever will buy this, and it will lean male as well.
So, like for Google Ads, we've been advertising for a long time.
You can choose by gender, but then the question is with an algorithm that will choose the best customer for your product, I've never, in all of the marketing we've done on media related stuff, even media that we thought was favorable to women, the argument is actually the inverse.
If you have a product that women want, you actually want to sell it to men, women will already buy it.
So, you do want to inform women that the product exists.
But thinking about it this way, like at Fusion, for instance, if we have a video and we're like, women love this kind of content, well, then we need to put more money into men.
If women are more likely to get it, that means our ad spend on women is going to be lower.
So, we have to put more money focused on men.
So, you really just wouldn't do it.
We'd go in and say, doesn't matter what the gender is, sell the product maximally.
And certainly, there are companies that are selling tampons and like literally things only women will buy.
But we saw this with makeup.
They don't need to advertise.
Makeup to women in the same way as they were trying to advertise it to men because men don't wear makeup and they want to increase their market share.
By the looks of it, it looks like the birthright citizenship hearing is not going the way that Trump expected and in turn, like against the Constitution.
Does the panel think that this will be the Straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of the perceived authority of the Supreme Court?
Well, I think the bigger issue that you bring up is that many people will perceive this as the Supreme Court refusing to do their job once again and such an egregious hole that clearly no framework or founding father thought would be possible or should be allowed.
And the excuse is, well, because they didn't think of it, we'll let the country burn.
It really got my brain kind of turning with one of your morning segments when it came to talking about the aliens with Matt Gaetz and his claim that they're abducting humans and impregnating them.
And I was like, that is the most wild shit I've ever heard.
So I got my brain thinking, well.
What if this is the reason they can't talk about the Epstein trap?
Because Epstein was funneling children or people to these aliens and actually causing this whole, you know, they were facilitating the whole process and helping it.
And that's why they can't let this information out.
They can't tie anything back to anyone because the aliens are involved.
And if it gets out, it's going to cause everything to collapse.
And, like, really, it's going to cause everyone to freak out.
That's the warp hypothesis, which is 80 to 100 years old, which is an explanation for FTL travel.
The issue is like the technology of Star Trek is based on actual scientific hypotheses using antimatter compressors to warp space time, which moves you between space, not through space.
Yeah, the idea is that using matter-antimatter compression, you would create a warp, an expansion of the forward space.
I'm sorry, a compression and an expansion in the back, which moves space, not you.
That's the theory behind how Star Trek operates, and they move faster than light.
They're not actually moving at all, they're between space by warping it.
The issue would be how do you contain?
I mean, this is Star Trek built off of these hypotheses and made a show about them.
How do you contain antimatter, antimatter, matter explosions, and how do you produce enough antimatter to do it?
I think we have one trillionth of a gram in U.S. stockpiles for antimatter.
So if we got to the point where we could produce it at scale, then, and you could contain, you could create a warp engine that warps space and you would travel faster than light.
But you don't need to either because using standard forms of propulsion, all we need to do is build a moon base where we can shuttle resources much more easily.
And then you launch for deep space missions from the moon.
It just takes a very long time.
So human colonists could functionally travel to Alpha Centauri, I think over 100 years, because you maximally just increase speed.
What if the aliens that we're encountering came to Earth in a similar fashion, have no means of return, and came here because they saw a planet that had no life on it, we're going to colonize.
And by the time they got here, due to time dilation, human civilization now exists.