Tim Pool and guests dissect escalating tensions over the seizure of the Iranian vessel Tusca, nuclear code rumors, and potential World War III involving China and Russia. The group debates corporate personhood ethics, Democratic strategies to expand the Supreme Court, and the dangers of surrogacy and genetic engineering. Discussions also cover election mechanics, trucking industry deregulation, foreign ownership of carriers, and Justin Martin's analysis of Mark Mullen's expanded ICE enforcement powers under new immigration funding. Ultimately, the episode argues that systemic failures in governance and regulation threaten global stability and individual liberty. [Automatically generated summary]
Yesterday it was reported that the U.S. fired on the engine room of an Iranian flagged vessel that tried to run the U.S. blockade into the Strait of Hormuz.
It is now being reported the U.S. believes this was a Chinese laden vessel carrying dual use materials, meaning the reason this Iranian vessel tried to run the blockade is that it was providing supplies to Iran, which could be used for war.
Meanwhile, European intelligence is reporting that Russia may be supplying drones to Iran For their war effort.
And in the wildest of stories, which many people are saying is pure nuts, still a video is going viral of a guy claiming.
Donald Trump tried to activate the nuclear codes, but was stopped.
Now, I think that one's a little nuts, probably coming from some anti Trump wacko, but it's been going viral on X.
So, you know, I'll mention it, but still put a, yeah, probably not.
Well, the question now is whether or not all of the conflicts that are happening around the world add up to a World War III.
And surprise, surprise, Russia's foreign minister once again is saying we are already in World War III.
Pundits across the board are saying it is now with Russia and China supplying weapons and intelligence to Iran.
To continue to disrupt U.S. efforts in the Strait, they are suggesting with 20 plus nations now involved in this war, it is World War III.
Of course, all right, we'll tone it down a bit.
We don't really know for sure, and we won't until sometime.
In fact, according to some historical academic reports, we didn't call it World War II formerly in the United States until after the war was already over.
And the question about whether or not World War II was a world war was happening before it even began and well into the war was going on.
This could all die down.
To be honest, considering now that we're over a month in and Trump has whipped back and forth as to whether or not we're actually going to have peace talks, we're going to stop this conflict, or it's going to escalate, it's hard to see how this slows down, especially with the latest reporting that an Iranian vehicle was potentially carrying weapons from China or dual use items.
Let's be careful here, meaning it could be used for war and tried to run a U.S. blockade.
There is a video of the U.S., they're instructing.
With a threat of death, a vessel to turn back.
And these videos tracking these transponders in the straight are nuts with all the ships turning around.
Wait till you see this video.
It's absolutely crazy.
We're going to talk about this.
There is a lot of other news, of course, but this one certainly does take the cake.
James Carville said on a podcast when the Democrats take power, it is one party rule.
D.C., Puerto Rico statehood, pack the Supreme Court.
Don't say it, just do it.
And there will never be a Republican government again if that does happen.
We're going to talk about that and a lot more.
Before we do, we got a great sponsor for you guys True Gold Republic.
Freaked out enough yet about what's going on in the world?
Well, I gotta be honest.
With the whiplash in oil prices and Trump going back and forth and complete uncertainty, it's gotta be hard to figure out how to prepare correctly and appropriately for what's going on.
You look at the world right now, we got active wars.
NATO is under pressure.
The dollar is being weaponized.
Gold can't be printed.
It can't be sanctioned.
It can't be devalued by a press release.
Central banks are buying it at record levels right now.
The people who run the system are hoarding the one thing they cannot print, and that tells you everything.
Insert True Gold Republic, real physical gold and silver, not paper, not ETFs, money you can hold.
Check out their independence bundle, a physical gold starter kit, a one on one with experts, and bonus precious metals on top.
The chaos isn't coming, my friends.
It is already here.
So go to TrueGoldRepublic.com slash Tim to claim your independence bundle or call 800 628 GOLD.
We got Fox News, China linked route exposed after U.S. seizes Iran bound ship with suspected dual use cargo.
China's foreign ministry warned the Strait of Hormuz situation remains sensitive and complex.
Well, first, we've got this from NPR.
Yesterday, U.S. seizes Iranian cargo ship in Strait of Hormuz.
They say the U.S. Navy gave them fair warning to stop.
The Iranian crew refused to listen.
So our Navy ship stopped them right in their tracks by blowing a hole in their engine room.
Trump said U.S. Marines have custody of the vessel.
And that it is under U.S. Treasury sanctions because of the prior history of illegal activity.
U.S. CENTCOM said in a statement that the Iranian ship refused to comply with U.S. warnings over the course of six hours before the U.S. fired on the ship and boarded it.
American forces acted in a deliberate, professional, and proportional manner to ensure compliance.
The latest update from Fox News the vessel Tuska remains in U.S. custody as American forces continue inspecting what maritime security sources told Reuters is likely dual use cargo following a voyage from Asia.
Shipping data shows the Tosca made multiple recent stops in Shuhai, a major port in southern China, before transiting through Southeast Asia and heading towards Iran.
Part of a pathway, analysts say, has helped Iran sustain trade flows despite U.S. pressure.
The seizure comes as part of a broader U.S. effort to enforce a naval blockade on Iran, aimed at pressuring Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping lane.
The ship had docked in Port Klang, Malaysia, on April 12th, and was en route to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas when it was intercepted.
The Tusco was seized in the Gulf of Oman, just outside of the Strait of Hormuz, as it was approaching Iranian waters.
It tried to run the blockade, which seems like a particularly foolish thing to do, which would seem to indicate there was something aboard that ship that they really perhaps needed in Iran, said Ray Powell, director of Sea Light, a maritime transparency initiative, told Fox News Digital.
Powell said the vessel's route through Malaysia is notable, describing waters near the Singapore Strait as infamous for ship to ship transfers due to relatively weak enforcement, a tactic that can make cargo movements harder to trace.
He added that the ship stops in China, raised questions about the origin of its cargo, though what was on board remains unknown.
Let me show you this right here.
I want to show you this viral clip.
Mario Nafa reported the U.S. Navy boarded a seized Iranian flagged vessel in the Arabian Sea yesterday.
We've got Potentially a ship trying to run the U.S. blockade with Chinese bound dual use cargo, as well as reports European intelligence believes that Russia is supplying drones to Iran.
Not only that, with the shooting down of the F 15E, many were concerned that I believe the F 15 is a stealth fighter, meaning Iran should not have had the capabilities to track it, but somehow did.
And these people suspect Russia has been providing the technology to detect U.S. airships.
This is expanding beyond.
Just Iran, and it's now pulling in other world powers.
Not to mention, it already involves around 20 or so countries.
So, I don't know when everyone will just agree it's World War III, perhaps when China makes a direct statement.
But I will add this World War II was a series of global conflicts, not one single declaration.
When we look back in hindsight, historians say it began when the Nazis invaded Poland, they say 1939.
But at the time, the media had already claimed World War III was going on.
Some said it still hadn't begun.
And several years later, people started to say the phrase more colloquially.
And it wasn't until the war was over that the U.S. formally called it World War II.
So perhaps we won't know.
We will just watch it happen.
And then after all is said and done, people might be like, yeah, I think that was World War III.
I mean, yeah, there's kind of some bizarre things happening right now.
I mean, we saw this morning on Maria Bartoma's show where she was saying Trump had called her.
Yesterday, and said, Hey, tomorrow, as in today, there would be a deal signed in Pakistan between the Iranians and the US.
That was what he said.
That's what she said.
That he said, it's a lot of here's he said, she said, kind of tough.
And so now you look at what happened in Pakistan today.
Well, the Iranians didn't show up, and they had signaled through their state agency or state media earlier today that they weren't even going to show up.
So there's kind of a bit of a diplomatic mess right now.
So that's why Trump, I think, he's looking at again, keeping the straight clothes as economic leverage because obviously, like the military operation as far as toppling the Iranian regime. hasn't manifested.
We haven't even really moderated the regime.
I mean, if anything, all the people that got replaced after we would kill their leader, they would just get replaced by someone with the exact same ideology.
So it doesn't really make Iran a preferable.
They're not more, you know, they're not more tenable to negotiate with as it stands.
To Tim's point, though, like in regards to sort of the inklings of world war here, I mean, yeah, I mean, everyone points to Poland, but yeah, you look at World War II, I mean, the Marco Polo Bridge incident could really be cited as the beginning of the war.
That's when the Japanese and the Chinese actually started exchanging fire.
You're kind of looking at this, and maybe some people will go back.
And if this truly keeps kicking off, because we're seeing right now a power block stitched together the Chinese, the Russians, and the Iranians.
And you could look back at, I don't know, maybe the withdrawal from Afghanistan is when the war started, or perhaps when obviously Russia moved into Ukraine, maybe that's when the war started.
But what is obvious right now is that three man coalition, I guess the fourth would be North Korea, if you want to include them, that doesn't seem to be unraveling anytime soon.
And if anything, this Iran operation has stitched China and Russia closer together, which I don't really think was the intention necessarily, but that's just been the result.
I mean, this story says right here the Chinese are sending dual use cargo to the Iranians.
Well, where has China been sending dual use cargo?
Russia.
They've been sending it for years.
I mean, they've been supplying the Russians with this dual use cargo.
I mean, stuff they'll do is they'll call it cooling fans.
You know, we're sending cooling fans to Russia.
What's the big deal?
Well, it's actually drone engines.
That's the most common source of like dual use cargo.
And they'll typically dock it in like Malaysia or the Philippines.
And what you do is you, almost like a movie, you respray the side of the cargo and it says from Malaysia now.
This is why I'm saying Trump's motive is shutting down the straight.
Of course, he's going to say something totally different because he doesn't want anyone to know.
Like the US government, not just Trump, they're not going to come out and be like, here's our war plans.
But you take a look at what's going on.
This is a great point.
He is now, whether accidentally or otherwise, forcing the world to buy oil from the U.S., which for the first time since World War II is about to become a net oil exporter.
Now, it's going to mean everything gets more expensive for everybody, but it also means it's going to get a whole lot worse for everybody outside of the United States.
I mean, look, I mean, you're looking, China's window right now of truly asserting themselves as a global superpower is now closing.
It is now closing.
Again, like, the American GDP and the Chinese GDP have diverged, like, quite extensively over the last few years.
And China's population is aging rapidly.
They still haven't really tested their military.
Like, they haven't actually been in a hot conflict really ever, or at least certainly not in the last few decades.
So, they're kind of looking around at the global economy.
They might be thinking to themselves now might be the time to strike on Taiwan because all the East Asian allies are hurting right now.
Again, they're paying out the wazoo for energy at the moment.
I know they're buying it from the United States, but still they're in a strategically much worse place than they were before the war.
Taiwan, again, 50% of their energy grid is built off of LNG.
So, they're all like on their knees right now.
I mean, there's a serious crisis.
If you go read the press over there, like, they're freaking out.
And so China might be thinking it's now or never, and that's what could really kick things off.
Now, I don't expect them to, but I'm just saying the odds of it happening now, I don't know what Polyomarket or Kalshi is saying, but I would imagine it's higher than it's been in a minute, just purely because of how vulnerable, again, East Asia is right now.
And the U.S. also has diverted a lot of our munitions.
We've completely abandoned East Asia, maybe not completely, but we've largely abandoned our military posture in East Asia to sort of apply those resources to our Middle Eastern operation right now.
So munitions are very low in East Asia.
A lot of our navies out of the region.
It's really just our bases.
Our bases are what's providing our posture in East Asia right now.
So it's a really like the last two weeks, the world's just completely changed, to say the least.
We got to throw this fact check in real quick because this video has been going massively viral.
Jimmy Dore posted it saying that a CIA analyst was claiming that Trump threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran and that Dan Kane was like, no, and like threatened Trump.
The fact check is, Kane did not storm out of an emergency meeting after Trump suggested threatening Iran with nuclear weapons.
They claim that the initial claim was that Dan Kane stormed out of an emergency meeting with Trump.
They say, uh, Lead story searched Google News, Yahoo News, did not find any matching reports for Dan Kane stormed out of an emergency meeting.
If the Trump said he wanted to threaten Iran with nuclear weapons, had such an incident actually occurred and been confirmed by sources, major news outlets would have widely reported.
I do want to stress that's the stupidest rationale for a fact check.
No one's yet reported outside of rumors, therefore it must be false.
But let me see if I can find the scuttlebutt.
Because I do have the video from Jimmy Dore, but I want to make sure I get the article on this one first.
This is like The Mirror is not some random unknown blog.
This is The Mirror.
This is like a well known publication in the UK.
Trump blocked from axing nuclear codes by head of US military.
They claim.
Retired CIA analyst Larry Johnson said on his YouTube show, Judging Freedom, that during an emergency meeting on Saturday, Trump tried to access the nuclear codes.
One report coming out of that meeting at the White House is that Trump wanted to use the nuclear codes, and General Dan Kane stood up to him and said no.
He invoked his privilege as the head of the military, so to speak.
It was apparently quite a blow up.
There are some very bizarre things going on in D.C.
The claims have not been confirmed, and it is unclear what the nuclear codes would be.
And then there was a report out that they had an emergency meeting Saturday night.
And apparently, well, one report coming out of that meeting at the White House is that Trump wanted to use the nuclear, so called, use the nuclear codes.
And General Dan Kane stood up and said no.
He invoked his privilege as the head of the military, so to speak.
It was apparently.
Quite a blow up.
There are pictures of Kane coming out of that meeting with his head down to the ground.
So, you know, there's some very, very bizarre things going on in DC.
Anytime he wants to like muddy the waters to get everybody all up in arms and distracting and stuff, he's got to go throughout these other securitist routes.
Like all the reports that are coming out now, again, I think this is trial balloon stuff, but I'm seeing more and more reports about the U.S. preparing an invasion, like drones flying over Cuba now.
Yeah.
Secret meetings with Cuban officials.
I think they're freaking out.
Again, what if the reports on a U.S. invasion of Cuba were to force the Cuban government to start negotiating?
Yeah, you know, and this is maybe, this is kind of one of my pet issues is like Guantanamo Bay.
Why are we not turning that into like Hong Kong 2.0?
Because the actual part of, like, the actual concessions that we got as far as like what we can utilize, there's a lot of land there we don't use for development.
I'm like, we should just turn it into like a paradise so that way Cubans look across the fence and they see like skyscrapers in their eyes.
Yo, Cuba is a fascinating story about why, like, liberating someone isn't always the best thing for them.
Sometimes you want to take control of them because, like, when we liberated Cuba from the Spanish Empire in 1898 with the Spanish American War, we gave them sovereignty and then a communist dictator took it over.
And now, but had we taken it and taken control of it, like Puerto Rico made it a territory, it would still be a peaceful, probably, well, I don't know, not like Puerto Rico is a haven of wealth, but it would have a better shot than Castro's, you know, demolition of the country.
I mean, this is the case with, like, pretty much every decolonization, like, post-decolonization story throughout the world, is that more often than not, they just diverge back into, or they revert back into, like, basically tribal warfare.
I mean, this is what you saw throughout Africa.
There's exceptions, obviously, like, Singapore actually probably was better off decolonized, so to speak, but that was for a variety of other reasons.
But yeah, like, Cuba is a great example of we cut them loose and then what it took 20 years before they had a literally a communist government.
I mean, like, Yeah, maybe we should just sort of incorporate them into the fold.
And now you have an elite ready to go because they have an entire elite in exile.
They're all in South Florida.
You could just tell them to go back to Cuba and take back, like, whatever their lands were or whatever and just rebuild the economy.
So, one of the claims on the Iranian cargo ship is that it was carrying ammonium perchlorate, sodium perchlorate, sodium chlorate, oxidizers and propellant chemicals like dual use materials, which can be used for ballistic missiles.
Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to provide federal funds for energy projects targeting areas including domestic coal power and power grid infrastructure.
The move allows the Energy Department to deploy funding to overcome delays, financial shortfalls, and market barriers, and to support projects such as coal fired power plants and facilities that manufacture gas turbines.
Trump said the actions are necessary to strengthen grid infrastructure, unleash reliable energy, and support national defense, citing concerns about high energy costs and the nation's aging and constrained electric grid infrastructure.
Two things here Trump invoking wartime powers.
With the Iran war stuff going off, it's kind of freaky.
Except presidents invoke wartime powers all the time.
The question is is this just a move for energy independence to strengthen us in the United States?
Or is it executive encroachment that our legislative branch is so dysfunctional, the president is just rubber stamping projects now?
I think you thought for a second that it was an AI company, or I'm sorry, an energy company, but Palantir is just like a government contractor for surveillance.
But to the story, I mean, Biden and Obama both invoked wartime powers over cleaning our electric grid up, as far as like Obama was trying to, I think it was literally, he just called it like.
The Green Act or something, and he used wartime powers.
And then Biden did the same thing.
And Biden, this is like 2022, he invoked wartime powers to build out like clean energy.
And he did it.
The reason he justified it was he was saying because we're competing with China for renewable energies, like in the renewable energy race.
So we need to invoke wartime powers in our economic war against China.
That was like his rationale for it.
So this idea that this is like a unique thing is just like laughable.
I mean, invoking it for renewable energy, like what are we doing here?
Since he's been in office in the second term, they've been trying to reinvigorate the industrialization, re industrialization of the U.S.
I feel like this is just like a, in case of emergency, break glass measure because we're expending 1,000 Tomahawk missiles in Iran and we build 100 per year.
Any attempt to ramp up production of anything in the U.S. is going to require a ton of energy.
And I think they're realizing we have a limited amount of time left in this term, and we got to get as much done as humanly possible.
The LNG, that's methane, liquid natural gas is methane.
CH4 is the Chemical structure, you can strip away the carbon and turn it into graphene.
I know it's, I brought it up a lot of times, and then you left over with all that hydrogen.
Similar, you actually turn carbon dioxide into methane and then turn that methane into graphene with the hydrogen byproduct.
But I think you're probably right that the ideal for the power structure is to maintain the oil and methane chain and not open up a new fuel source yet until we have total control.
Like, I don't know what they're thinking, but I mean, the inevitable transition to another fuel source is coming.
There's constant jostling over Bible and like Quran translations because it's like, okay, clearly you can't like copyright the Bible, but this specific translation we have copyrighted, like, I don't know, like the New Living translation or something.
So, it's like spawning all these new translations that are really obscure.
If you are sued, you have to pay the damages, right?
So they'll look at your assets and say, What does Ian own of value?
Nothing.
The person might go, he does have the rights to these songs and they do have a potential value.
I'll accept the rights to that.
Now you've lost the rights to your song and they can do whatever they want.
You'll never see a penny for it.
So how about you form like a corporation that isolates that IP so that it can't be seized in its way?
And to be fair, the corporation is still an asset of yours.
It works in the inverse.
If you as a representative of a corporation do something defamatory, they can't come after you personally after the fact unless you personally are involved.
The purpose of corporations is to limit liability to key areas.
Otherwise, you could own a house.
And then someone slips on a banana peel at a work, a business you own, and then sue you and take your home from you because something the business was doing.
So we separate these so they're legally distinct.
To be fair, there's still ways to go after the individual, the principal, and go after his assets as well.
Just harder to do.
So corporation just doesn't mean a whole lot when you say, I don't like corporations.
So, today, you don't pull up a 30 year old law book to figure out what the contract means.
You go to a lawyer.
And then you agree, yes or no.
And if you agree to it, that's your choice.
You can't be like, yeah, well, I want the job, therefore they should give me beneficial terms.
You're basically saying the government should interfere in the negotiation between me and another entity because I want from them something they don't have to give me.
And only if I said to somebody, you will be an artist, we have a right to your likeness to market and portray and do all this art for the span of X amount of time, do you agree?
Now that's another, that's a better way to go about it for the span of X amount of years, but across all space and time through all universes is insane.
But, and also, like, IP law, if you're like an individual and you want to, like, license your likeness, that benefits you.
Now, now you're in the driver's seat because if there were no IP law in regards to likeness, like, you know, a football player can't control his naming printed on, you know, any piece of merchandise or his photo being put on any trading card.
I would actually say that, you know, it actually benefits the individuals primarily until someone else buys it from them.
Like, I don't want some company, some, Yeah, I mean, if you pay a lawyer and he thumbs through it and then misleads you on what the terms of the IP likeness exchange are, it would be thrown out in court in two seconds.
What if mass layoffs receive in the next five years, mass layoffs, 20% unemployment, corporations come in and they're like, we will give you universal basic income if you sign your likeness to us across all space and time.
But we were talking contracts and stuff, and the way my brain works, everything goes to trucking.
So there's actually like a big class action lawsuit against a lot of these trucking companies because these drivers are starting to realize oh, I can take this contract, punch it into ChatGPT, and realize just how much I'm getting ripped off.
Because even the lawyers, the lawyers all work for the trucking companies.
Well, the problem we have with illegal immigration has always been these companies basically going to illegal immigrants knowing that they have no legal recourse no matter what they agree to.
Contracts don't exist, basically, because the individuals didn't have legal standing to enter into these contracts to begin with.
Famously, some of these companies would bring in illegal immigrants from Mexico to work in certain factories.
At the end of the month, when pay was due, they'd call INS.
This is back in the day.
They'd call ICE.
Show up, deport them all, pay nothing.
That's a totally different issue.
If one of these people had a contract and they're illegal immigrants or unlawfully working or bunk CDLs, they go to court over this.
They're going to be like, oh, Ice is waiting for you outside.
You know, I don't, I'm not like totally against IP law because I think it is reasonable in the right situations, but like owning data is very concerning for the future that we're going towards with like owning the schematics for a gun.
If you then can say, now no one can trade this data online or it will be a felony to send this email to your friend with that information because I own that information.
And if a corporation then buys all those things and then shelves them, it kind of defeats the purpose of the little guy making money off his invention, which was the whole purpose in the common man's mind about why IP works.
Corporate personhood, the legal concept that corporations are treated as independent entities separate from their owners, managers, and employees, granting them certain legal rights and responsibilities, typically associated with natural persons.
So corporate personhood means that a corporation is a standing legal entity unto itself, which means it can be fined and penalized in whatever ways you can fine and penalize it for breaking the law.
It means that they want people to be shareholders and stakeholders in their process.
And if you violate their corporate ethos, you lose your free speech, you lose your right to speak, you lose banking, you got to be part of the corporation.
I could go on and on, but I mean, it's the World Economic Forum's modus operandi is corporate serfdom, basically.
No, it's like not the moment it happens, but if you're born, say, factory towns, you're familiar with what those are?
Corporate towns, they would set up little towns and then they'd pay them with corporate scrip, and the person would only buy food from the company stores.
So, again, do you understand the idea that if there is no factory or corporation, You are not being oppressed, and the existence of it does not oppress you.
It's very high because, I mean, like, here's the difference.
You know, people always make this distinction.
It's very true.
The Republicans are retarded broadly, and then the Democrats are evil.
And I think that is, again, when you look at these types of things, it's true because Republicans will like throw out these grand ideas all the time, and it never actually manifests into policy or it rarely does.
It only happens to the executive, like in Trump's second term.
I mean, any idea that Congress has thrown out there, like the Save Act, is dead.
So it never happens.
The Democrats, on the other hand, like when they propose ideas, they do it with the full intent of delivering on that proposition.
So again, Carvelt, you know, some people are hand waving in this way, and they're saying, well, you know, he's like a, you know, advisor that's kind of on the Fringes of the Democrat Party, as far as like he's not anywhere close to the power structure.
But I actually don't know because, again, I think he's a good thermometer for what the mood of the base is in the Democrat Party.
And I think the Democrat Party going into 2028 really has no appetite to moderate at the moment.
Like, I know on the conservative media, we're like, oh, Gavin Newsom's a shoe in.
But I'm like, hang on, hang on.
If you look at what Democrats are saying, again, normie Democrats are saying, they're all saying the exact same thing.
They're all saying Trump's second term is a fascist takeover of the United States and we need to respond.
We need to meet fire with fire.
Fight fire with fire in this instance and actually go back at them and ensure that this can never happen again.
They're saying during Trump, too, is this can never happen again.
They just don't have the willpower, I think, for a variety of reasons.
No, I think they're in on it.
Yeah, I mean, I think for a variety of reasons.
I mean, the main one I would say is they've bought into sort of the principles of proper governance, and they don't actually realize that we're sort of in a civilizational battle at the moment.
They don't really, when they saw the Charlie Kirk thing happen, they just went, wow, that's sad.
You know, things happen.
The reaction from all of us in the commentariat and the reaction from the base and really everyone on the right was, oh my gosh, they want to do that to us too.
He was just in the way.
Guys, do something.
And Republicans were like, and Congress were like, wow, that's just a really tragic thing.
You know, bad things tend to happen sometimes just spontaneously.
Anyway, We can't repeal the blue slips because they're part of our government.
We've been using them for decades.
They don't see things in the same way we're seeing things, like, oh my gosh, we're on the precipice of Brazil or South Africa, do something.
They see things as, I've made it to this point and I'm going to make sure that I hold up this form of proper governance and democracy and this beautiful republic and that.
I mean, that's kind of the, I guess what a lot of people point out the fault with democracy is that it works really well when the government is broadly benevolent or broadly accountable to the people.
But then as soon as there's that incentive structure, right, is broken, as soon as there's a block in between the government, how they operate, and then the voters, right, like the people, then that's when you end up in these situations where you effectively have an autocracy, but then you don't actually have.
Any leverage you can pull to get rid of it.
I mean, like, you know, you had these throughout Europe, throughout, you know, for centuries, I mean, you would have like massive upheaval, you know, you would have these kings overthrown and these sorts of things.
And that was recourse that was actually fairly accessible.
Like, it would take very small militias to go in and just, you know, topple a government, where now it's basically impossible.
People can't organize, people can't really do anything.
The only recourse you have is at the ballot box.
But when you're locked in a two party system, or even in Europe, we have parliamentary systems, but that's dominated, you know, primarily by like neoliberals, you don't really have any recourse.
There's not really any options you do have.
The best you can do is, again, push the party that is, Broadly similar to your ideology, and then push them in the direction that you want them to go.
That's what we've seen with Trump.
You know, you had people outflanking the Republican Party on the right by and large.
And so when Trump came along, they're like, okay, finally, this is a chance to sort of reform the Republican Party.
And I think the Democrats are in that moment right now, where I think the Democrats are outflanking their establishment to the left and they want to push the Democrat Party to the left.
So you're going to see that play out in the next primary cycle because that's the only recourse you have.
You know, the reason I asked this question is that Democrats, that's what they think.
They think democracy is over.
Trump's a fascist dictator.
We must do whatever it takes to protect humanity from being destroyed by Donald Trump.
And if that means stealing elections, if that means redistricting in Virginia, if that means arresting anybody in our path or even blowing up Tesla facilities, they will do it.
The reason why Trump draws so much ire is because he disturbed the status quo by and large.
You know, people can argue, like, how effective has he been at disrupting the status quo?
I'd say, Quite effective.
But that's why he draws the most ire from the Democrat Party is not because he's the most radical, not because he's the most, you know, out of the box or unorthodox, but it's because he's the most effective way.
He's been the most effective vehicle thus far in disrupting the status quo.
And so now they're reacting.
Now they're saying, oh my gosh, we got to extinguish this fire.
What's the phrase that's like, you're going to kill a squirrel with a bazooka?
The people have been radicalized, whether to become one of Trump's acolytes or to be one of his haters, to the point where they will throw away the American Republic to try and defeat a perceived enemy.
And whether that enemy is real or not, they're willing to.
That's so crazy because that would be the obvious way to destroy the United States is to get the people to turn on each other.
Well, you have to look at like going through the Obama era into the beginning of the Trump era is like we, I think the American people by and large realize there is a systematic issue.
Something needs to change.
Something needs to give here.
So I actually almost sympathize with the far left because they're seeing the same thing I'm seeing, which is the very basic fact that yes, this is broken.
Yes, this isn't working.
Now, obviously, their applications are completely out of line and they would probably get me out of the, you know, get rid of me if they had the option.
But at least I can concede that.
Okay, they've also seen the same thing that I'm seeing, which is we need a radical change in this country.
You, I mean, like you know, like I said, going into the Trump era, you had mass migration on you know, basically unfettered for 50, 60 years.
That's going to put a lot of pressure on the markets, put a lot of pressure on people's livelihoods.
I mean, you saw purchasing power has declined slightly, but if you look at some metrics like the housing market, I mean, the housing is completely detached from earnings, from real wages.
So housing has gone up exponentially, and that's like the number one thing people are going to need.
That's the number one thing where someone can measure how well they've done in life is like, what's their house like?
Is their house pleasant?
They have a pleasant environment.
That's how you determine how well you're doing in life, that's sort of the score.
Is like, oh, my environment's quite pleasant.
That means I'm doing fairly well for myself.
And so people go crazy when you sort of eliminate obvious indicators of their prosperity.
Anderson Cooper, he did an internship with the CIA for a couple of years, then just became a prominent personality in American mainstream media where he's on every single night and has been for 20 years.
But I mean, as far as like him inheriting that like Vanderbilt wealth, like it didn't really happen.
So, like, we used to have, I'm saying this as examples, we used to have a system where actually there was a lot of churn in the elite and that was kind of a very natural thing.
That was a very good thing.
Where now I do, I do see what you're saying is like there is a lot more rigidity.
And the elite, this is a truly elite class in America, and that does indicate some issues.
Like if there was a piece of river land that someone owned and that's the water source, and he's like, Hey, you can all live on my property, but I get access to your firstborn child.
People would be like, We're going to revolt against that guy.
It's like some things you have to have to survive.
And if anybody, through threat of force or whatever, prevents you from it, like some of the basics, you know, if you're prevented from clean water, who's preventing you from going to Nestle just bought a bunch of water sources?
So, like, if a corporation's like, look, you have to play our game to drink our water, you're like, come on, at some point.
Then, so if I move out to the middle of a desert where there's no human beings and there is a small plot of land with a water source and nobody's there at all, right?
So I file the registration and I say, we're going to be setting up a little factory here.
There's no one around for miles.
Now, with this factory, I'm producing some food and farming from that water.
People start showing up because there's food and water, and they go, I deserve that.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it was effectively that if a company goes to the middle of nowhere, invests money, brings in supplies, and builds a company town, it's communism now.
And it's like, in the most technical of senses, sure, but it's all voluntary.
You choose to come and work for the company town, and if at any point you don't want to, you can just pack up and leave.
The response from communists about the United States is that it's too hard to live any other way.
Well, I agree.
It is certainly easier to work as a cashier at McDonald's than it is to forage in the woods and build shelter and survive in the wilderness.
So you can make the choice.
Then many people say, well, it's no choice because, you know, if you go, they'll arrest you.
Bro, I am telling you, there are a lot of homeless people that choose to be homeless and they are taken care of and they get free stuff.
Like, you don't have to do anything in the society.
Kind of speaking about the Chinese model, I just saw a story today that I don't know how many tens of thousands of people are homeless because they failed their social credit score.
They said the wrong words online, so they lost access to their bank and now they live on the street.
I got a question.
All by choice, they could always leave, but like, can they?
So, with deer population, we know that when deer population reach environmental equilibrium, they all suffer.
That is, the deer eat all available food until there's not enough food yet for the entire population.
They become sick and starving and they all suffer.
So, what we then say is, the deer need to be culled.
We intentionally, as humans, hunt the deer, killing the bucks, so that the food supply can regrow and the deer now have full bellies.
So, I suppose the question is understanding this nature of reality, do you believe it is conducive or it is functional for human society to allow those who do not produce enough to survive to be subsidized and reproduce?
I think, like, in instances of like mental handicap or sort of any handicap, like it's justifiable, but that's obviously like an exception, not disproving the norm.
So the end result of subsidization of families, and I don't mean humans, and just in general, of populations that can't produce enough to sustain themselves, is that.
So if you have 10 people, five overproduce and five underproduce, so you take from the five to give to them to create equilibrium, they all die.
They all suffer.
They're miserable.
Maybe fighting breaks out.
Yeah.
Now, for us, with technological advancement, we've staved a lot of that off.
But now I think it's one of the reasons the Malthusians wanted to curtail population growth and they advocated things like abortion.
There was this post that I was reading about UBI.
I did a video on it talking about how this guy believes that in the future, We will come to realize that advocating for abortion, soft euthanasia, was actually the merciful way to deal with people who are consumers and can't produce for themselves.
Outside of any moral issue, there is a question of we know in nature if you subsidize a population that can't sustain itself, you will create a population that becomes destitute and eventually just dies without your assistance.
That's why we have signs everywhere saying, do not feed wild animals.
We as human civilization intentionally do this.
So, we are ever expanding every day the population of people that can't actually survive on their own.
And I mean adapting for technology.
Like, knowing that life is getting easier and easier every single day, there are people who are a greater and greater detriment, right?
Like, the average American right now would not survive a thousand years ago.
They just lack the skills to even start a fire.
But technology and social cooperation has made it so these people can survive.
Adapting to that, there are people who are capable of going and getting a job and providing for the system enough to get an output.
There are people today that are still worse than that and can do literal nothing.
I implore you all to share that with women in your life because it's radicalizing.
And anyway, he responded.
He said he shared the clip to be self deprecating as he and Baum found it funny that while most babies find it easier to say dada, their baby went with mama.
Okay, so just those that don't know, the reason why babies say dada first is because babies spend more time with their mothers, and mothers make references to dad more often than dads make references to mom.
To be fair, it's entirely possible that moms and dads reference each other equally, but as long as the baby is with mom more often, the repetition of mom saying, Where's dad?
That's dad.
Babies go da, da, da first.
They do say da, da and mama with comparable frequency, slightly leaning towards da, da for that reason.
So I think the reason the baby is saying mama is because they were telling it over and over again, No mama, no mama.
And so it started repeating what they were saying as they made references to mama.
Seeing them laugh and say there's no mama feels cold.
And that is an ad commented under the video, while another called McAnally and Baum cold blooded criminals for depriving the child of a motherly bond.
Now we've got a couple posts.
Matt Walsh responded to the homophobic baby story saying, This story is horrifying.
It's also a direct result of the legalization of gay marriage, in quotes.
If you're willing to pretend that two men can be married, then there's no reason to object to the equally grotesque farce of two men pretending to be parents.
To which I responded, and I think I have to go back a couple times.
I said, two men approach a woman and ask her to become pregnant by one of them, and they will then pay her to take the child from her.
I see no functional difference between this and a woman just offering to sell her child outright.
It's a semantic debate by degenerates that want people to be allowed to sell children and an effort to devalue human life.
Now, Brandon Strzok has chimed in, triggering the debate.
He said, 3,000 births every year are through surrogacy, and the majority of them are heterosexual couples.
Tim, why don't you call out surrogacy in general since you feel so strongly about this?
Seems silly to focus on the small pool of gay couples using a surrogate when a much larger swath of people are doing the same thing who aren't gay.
So, what's up with that?
My response to Brandon was, What did I say?
I do keep up.
You're confusing a current news cycle for the scope of my arguments on the issue.
To which he responded, But it's only news because they are gay.
If you feel so strongly about this, you should go stick microphones and cameras in the faces of thousands of straight people who are doing the same thing every single day.
Indeed, whoever filmed, there was a viral story where a guy was asking a gay couple with a baby about surrogacy.
And about child molestation, and they started punching him and beating the crap out of him.
And another guy came up and threatened to murder the guy.
And now we're getting many individuals defending him, even people on the right.
So I will just say this for Brandon a woman who doesn't want to carry a baby, so she hires another woman to birth that child.
That's wrong.
That's creepy.
I don't think it should be allowed.
A woman who cannot bear children on her own and needs assistance to do so, I also think is wrong, but.
As someone who is not a staunch conservative, I'd be willing to make certain exceptions for a woman who wants to have a kid but physically cannot do it.
That's a struggle.
I'm not a big fan of it, but I'm willing to have a debate on the issue.
I'm only trying to be somewhat compassionate to a woman who would normally do a natural birth but physically cannot for some reason, and she wants to have a child.
The problem is a child grown in the mother is attached to that mother, there's a chemical bond.
The child that nurses off that mother sends chemical signals back and forth.
This is all very important for the child's development.
So, any individual that pays a woman to give birth and then hand that child over is human trafficking, in my opinion.
So, yes, to Brandon Strzok, I think it is all bad.
I think it is substantially worse because, in the instance of many gay surregacies, the female surrogate is actually providing her own eggs, meaning the baby is biologically hers.
Now, it is one million times worse if gay men or anybody goes to a clinic and receives a donated egg and then uses their sperm to fertilize a random woman's egg they purchased.
To be gestated in a different random woman.
Now we're talking man made horrors beyond your comprehension level stuff.
Like Brandon Strachey is in his bio, former liberal, but he's like regurgitating like left wing boilerplate, which is just hilarious in this instance.
In addition to that, no, it is, yeah, to your point, I believe, yeah, gay adoption or gay surrogacy is significantly worse.
I mean, I would broadly be against surrogacy anyway, but no, I'm comfortable saying gay couples, you know, participating in surrogacy is far worse because I do think you do have the right to a father and mother.
This is why when people end up in instances of single parenthood, everyone acknowledges this is not the optimal condition to be raised in.
Everyone can acknowledge, even if it turns out well, like I know this situation very well.
It's still everyone can concede that it is sort of a tragic situation to be in because everyone knows that having a father and a mother will provide the best outcome for the child.
And then there's no limiting principle on gay adoption.
Okay, if you have gay adoption, why is it just two parents?
That's just arbitrary at that point.
Because the whole purpose of monogamy is saying it's a man and a woman.
With a gay couple, why not?
That means three dads must be even better.
That must mean four dads is even better.
Because again, they would acknowledge that a single father is sort of tragic, but two fathers, that's fine.
So then why not three fathers?
Why not four fathers?
What's the limiting principle here?
It's just completely arbitrary.
You're just completely warping the concept of monogamy, completely warping the sense of, again, a couple, of marriage, of child.
Everything about it is just fundamentally broken and it's going to cave in on itself as it already is.
That is, Womb factories, baby factories, they're going to grow human beings in bags.
We are moving towards a society where a woman who wants to be a mother but is a girl boss goes to a facility where they take an egg and the husband's sperm and they say, We will grow the baby for you in this artificial womb.
We will send you progress reports and they'll get emails being like, Oh, baby's growing.
They actually made a movie about this that was really bad because it had no ending and I am sick.
I am warning you, Hollywood.
If you keep making movies with only two acts, I will come for you.
And fix those movies.
But they made a movie and it was about a woman who wants to have a kid, but she has a job she can't leave.
So she buys an artificial womb where they put the fertilized embryo in it.
And then you put like food packs on top that the baby then eats and consumes.
That's where we're going.
That's the point of all of this.
So I will just say in response to my post, Heidi Briones says 90% of surrogacy is gestational, meaning the surrogate is not the biological mother.
I asked, where do gay men get the egg from in gay surrogacy?
Egg donor.
Different woman, like sperm donors from an egg bank.
Then, my fear of what's going to happen is we're going to genetically engineer a bunch of people because we have no, like, look at what they're already doing.
These people are going to be smarter, faster, and stronger than the average person, which is going to create a threat to governance on the Earth.
And we're going to then isolate these people and freeze them and launch them into orbit because we have no idea what else to do.
And then, when in 100, 200 years from now, when like a starship is flying through space and they accidentally find these, they're going to open it up and the dude's going to try and take over the world and kill Spock.
Yeah, because you could like optimize for the perfect trucker, you know, like you know, I could see it now, like Jack Lynx, that just like animate, just like they get fired up.
I'm like, is this how they're going to backstop it when the populist kind of upheaval of the immigration system takes root and then these companies look around?
They're like, we still need cheap labor.
If we're not careful here, I'm usually hesitant to go to worst-case scenario, but in this instance, I'm like, that actually seems.
Pretty realistic, actually, is that again when they start feeling the pinch on labor instead of what paying workers more?
No, they're just going to say, Well, let's just spawn people, like let's go to clone army.
But what they're going to do is they're going to be like, We're going to design your baby just like you like it, but we're going to own the rights to that baby's persona.
They're going to create templates like genetic profiles that you'll license and that they'll own the IP to that profile.
That's what another reason why I'm like, Dude, this IP's and they will say things like, If you agree to these terms, in the event your baby goes on to be a movie star, we're entitled to 5%.
You already saw a little bit during the Olympics some of the stars, if you dug into their background, they were sort of conceived through surrogacy or conceived through surrogacy, sort of like where they could control for parents with the best genetics.
I won't say which names, but there were like prominent athletes that were sort of like test tube babies, quite literally selecting for the best genetic traits.
Send the video of the baby saying mama to every woman in your life, every single one.
And don't provide any context.
Don't say you hate these men.
Just be like, hey, I want you to, oh, this video, you got to see it.
And then see their reaction because I will tell you, as I have shown many women this video, they immediately start welling up.
Yeah.
Because they understand.
And what I think is for a lot of these, a lot of people defending this, they have no kids.
Yeah.
The only thing I saw when I watched that video was imagining my daughter crying for mama if something, heaven forbid, happened to my wife and she was no longer around.
And someone, like, let's say somehow, you know, Alice and I were out of the picture through some tragedy, knock on wood, and then someone, You know, some guy is with her and she's saying, Mama, and he's laughing, being like, No, Mama, no.
I'm just like, The nightmarish reality of that, the horrifying torture for that poor child.
The reality is this whether or not that baby actually meant Mama, like I want my mother, sure, make the argument babies don't actually understand what these words mean.
We reinforce it.
That baby knows what a mom is.
Human babies nurse.
They want to.
It is instinctive that the baby is looking for its mother, whatever you think, and it can't find it.
And then I was even seeing like postpartum, the postpartum depression and that sort of thing among surrogate mothers is like insane.
Like, I mean, it's really grim.
I don't even want to get into it because it's disturbing, but it's like the postpartum disorders that would come from a woman who has to surrender her child through surrogacy is mental.
You see all these different stories about these women, some of the things they do afterwards, and it's quite horrific.
I'm curious about these rates of postpartum depression if these women had like children of their own.
So I talked to my sister about this years and years ago.
And if like having babies was a job, my sister would be like the LeBron James of having babies for people.
She just, she's one of those women who just loved being pregnant.
She's got four boys of her own.
And she was like, I would be a surrogate in a heartbeat.
You know, again, this was like, You know, 10 years ago.
It's one thing to say that.
It's another to actually go, you know, follow through with that.
But yeah, I'm curious if these are women who, if this was their first child and then they had to give it up versus, you know, they had children before and they're like, oh, here I go again.
It's, I mean, look, you know, you look at outliers and to like Ian led off with it.
I mean, it is tough to like go to a couple who are like struggling with fertility and then just say like, sorry.
But I mean, it goes back to when you're, when you're, when you're defining policy, right?
When you're like trying to implement policy.
You can't make policy based off of exceptions.
You have to base policy based on norms.
And I would presume, again, I would have to look at the data, but I presume the majority of surrogacy are for vanity reasons or in situations with their homosexuals.
I would doubt that a lot of them are fertility related, or at least the majority.
I could be wrong there.
I'll check afterwards and I'll correct it if that's true, but I would presume it's not the case.
And when you look at the popular vote, you see Democrats tend to win.
So they've been making this argument that we should just, every state that's under this compact, and that way if the popular vote swings Democrat, your state then just votes Democrat.
The only problem with that, there are blue states where Republicans won't vote because they feel like it doesn't matter.
They say, well, it's 55% Democrat.
We're never going to pull that five point swing, so I just stay home.
In the event they switch to the national popular vote, in California, for instance, you will see a major uptick of Republican votes.
This could actually change the game because there are more reds, there are more Republican voters in blue states than blue state voters in red states.
So it could dramatically shift things in favor of Republicans.
Well, that's the reason why Virginia is the shocking one because, like, thus far it didn't matter.
Because, look, if the Democrats are going to win, or sorry, if the Republicans are going to win the popular vote, they're definitely going to win the electoral college.
But now with Virginia, again, that's the first one where it's like Republicans could win Virginia and that could win them the electoral college.
But if they lose the popular vote, now the Republicans lose the election.
So that's why it's like this is the first one where it's like, holy crap, like, we got to do it.
Yeah, you hear those old doo wop songs, and it's like the women must have been a lot better back then because not only would one guy sing about it, but he'd get like four guys to join him to sing about the same woman.
You don't see that anymore.
You just see power ballads, just one guy singing.
He doesn't get like his squad to join him and sing about these women.
So I don't know, maybe the quality of women has declined on the market.
El Jefe Lopez says the media just makes ish up, and Trump is a B to not just start arresting those lying media POS.
Well, he can't.
He can't just arrest journalists for lying.
Thinker for Life says, the longer the straight is closed, the larger the price plummet right before the midterms.
That's a good point.
What people don't understand is that happiness is relative.
So, famously, there was a study that found a lottery winner and a paraplegic one year after their formative moments, either winning lottery or becoming injured, registered the same levels of happiness.
Shocking, isn't it?
But it's because humans adapt, you have to.
And happiness is relative to your current circumstance.
If you took a guy from like the year, I don't know, 1300, right?
And let's just say he's like a serf with no family because only I think 40% of men reproduced back then.
And then what's going to happen is people are going to say, I mean, the Republicans are probably lying, but I'll flip a coin on whether or not they're lying.
You know what I mean?
Like, look, I don't know what Democrats are going to do, but Republicans are claiming they'll do it.
Worst case scenario is they don't, and no one was going to do it anyway.
Okay, I'm in favor now of all of that, so long as for everyone that comes in, a leftist has to leave.
You're just like a communist who doesn't want to do work, who thinks they're entitled to everything, versus a guy willing to go through the Darien gap to get a job in America.
If you had the choice between a communist who grew up in, you know, like, the suburbs of New York, Then moved to California, went to Berkeley, and is part of Antifa.
If we could deport that person and bring in some Indian guy who traveled 2,000 miles from South America to the Darien Gap, which would you rather have?
The American, but a communist, or the guy who crawled through the Darien Gap to come here for a job?
Once they replace as many drivers as possible with low skill, unqualified individuals and we get a bunch of accidents, they're going to say, we have to automate this.
No, I think the Tesla Semi, the Freightliner eCascadia, those are great for small local runs, going from the Pepsi plant to another Pepsi plant, charging overnight.
But as far as them actually doing over the road freight, having to go into a truck stop, We don't have the charging infrastructure.
It takes too long to charge them, period.
By the time you get to a regular truck stop, if there's three trucks ahead of you in the fuel line, that's 45 minutes you're already waiting.
But from the warehouse to the gas stations, I think that probably will happen.
So, like, if you have a Dunkin' Donuts distribute, like, factory where they make all the donuts for all the, like, 20 stores, one truck electric autonomously could pick up the donuts, drop them off, and come back and charge, and that would work.
Well, so there's a company right now called Gattick.
The way that they're kind of sneaking into the radar is they are not class eight trucks.
They're like the much smaller trucks.
So they mostly do B2B.
So they go from the Walmart distribution center to a Walmart store, and it'll be the guys on the dock unloading the trucks.
But again, they've been around for a while, but they only have 10 trucks.
So you look at any of these companies that are in this space and you actually look at how many trucks they have running right now, it's very, very few.
Most of this is just they're still trying to nibble around the edges and the.
Rate at which they can grow at scale is just not here yet.
There's, God help you if you get rear ended by one of these guys with like a non domicile CDL because the company that they drive for, you know, you go down the highways and you see billboards for like, you know, truck attorneys all the time.
If one of these guys rear ends you, they don't have any assets for that attorney to go after you.
If you're, I'm not saying to do this, if you were to get rear ended by a semi truck, you want to get rear ended by one of the big guys who has lots of assets and lots of money to go after.
They call those nuclear verdicts.
Anything that's over a million or $10 million will just completely wipe out a trucking company.
Now, the water system itself, there are restrictions on whether or not we can dam or do anything because we've looked into all this.
But as the creek that we have is non navigable, no one can come onto our property and take access to that water.
That being said, upstream, You can't interfere with, pollute, or compromise that water intentionally.
We can't either.
But the point is this if people needed to access any of the private land because they needed that water, they cannot.
It was secured by the individuals who live here for the purpose of protecting themselves and their family.
If it was as such that anyone could just go into anyone's property and take it, there'd be no point in buying land with water on it, and nobody would.
But land with water is more valuable than land without.
Now, you are correct.
There are many properties nearby with navigable water, for which when you own a portion of that, They can travel down it, and there are certain restrictions.
Also, there's like fishing restrictions.
But again, my point is we have a pond and we have a creek.
We control it.
We own it.
Nobody can come on the property and touch it.
And I can drain the pond and destroy it if I want to.
As for the creek, we can do some things to it.
We can trench it out and expand it and make it bigger.
We can create a pool.
We can actually trench it out and then dig a gigantic pool and create a pond if we want to.
But we cannot stop the flow to or pollute or damage that water because then you're causing problems downstream.
The only issue is a lot of people do, and you can't prove it.
So, if one day you went to your water and noticed there's something off about it, good luck figuring it out because there's going to be a thousand houses upstream and you're going to figure out where the source is, I guess.
So I was looking for the songs in the soundtrack, and I was like, what song is this?
Because all I remember is the Bingle, Bangle, Bungle, and I looked it up on Reddit, and it was a bunch of leftists complaining about how racist the song was and how problematic it was.
And I was like, oh, wow.
And then I looked up the lyrics, and I was like, oh, I get it.
There was a TikTok video a while back of a black guy at a ski resort, and he's like, look at these white motherfuckers just leaving all this shit lying around.
I lived in Indiana for a while as a child and I noticed, and I'm not saying this to drag Indianans, but there is like an inferiority complex in Indiana.
Indiana's got, because everything with me is trucking, Indiana's got a shitload of problems in trucking right now.
We've, I, I had a, one of my big like Twitter moments, uh, this year was, uh, I ratioed two Indiana senators in the span of a week because they were talking about trucking.
And I just laid everything out saying, hey, look at this random suburb in south of Indianapolis, Indiana.
There's 250 trucking companies here.
What's up with that?
And it just blew up.
And Senator Jim Banks, his general counsel, reached out to me, gave me a personal cell.
So he's like, what the hell is going on?
I'm like, how much time do you got?
So I spoke on the phone with her for a few hours.
And that's basically been my quote unquote career for the last few months I just.
Publicly say, like, you know, fucked up shit that's happening in trucking.
So, in the 2008, like, housing crash, there was a ton of suburbs out there that just halted production.
Like, they had all these houses, like, 75 to 90% built.
They just stopped.
There was one guy from California who migrated from India, saw all those cheap houses, and was like, that's a fucking steal, bought all the houses in the area, and then just started bringing in all his cousins from California and India over the last.
15 years, and they've just completely dominated the trucking area down there.
There's a politician or a wannabe politician in Indiana named Sid Mahant.
He owns a handful of trucking companies and CDL schools.
And Indiana is unique versus other states where if I have a CDL and I live in Florida, but I want to move to Indiana, I have to retake the knowledge test in English.
And this is before Trump, before Obama.
This has been law in Indiana for years.
Sid was having this problem where all his drivers from California.
Couldn't move to Indiana because they can't speak or read English.
And so they couldn't take the knowledge test to transfer the CDLs over.
So he ran for state Congress to try and pass this law to overturn that rule.
Well, he borrowed $2 million to fund his own political campaign.
He got kicked off the ballot and he's running again right now.
And he's tied in with their Secretary of State in Indiana, like the two of them have owned businesses together.
That's where we see a lot of the shenanigans in trucking in different states.
You look at states where they're having all kinds of issues with trucking.
Look at their secretary of state and see what they're up to.
Nebraska, their secretary of state is, there is no word for it, but you know, like the term otaku, like guys who are just really.
It's a chicken or the egg issue because since 1980, so pre 1980, trucking was fucking sweet as a driver.
You were paid great, low turnover.
A lot of guys were in the Teamsters.
Like we had it made.
Jimmy Hoffa could pick up the phone at any moment and say, My guys aren't getting what they want.
Shut it down.
The whole fucking nation grinds to a screeching halt.
The government at the time was like, we got to fucking do something about this.
So they just steamrolled the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 through and it completely 100% deregulated the industry.
There are zero barriers to entry into trucking whatsoever.
Tim, you could take out your phone right now and in 30 minutes, I can walk you through the steps of starting your own trucking company.
You don't have to prove that you know anything about trucking.
You don't have to prove that you've read the 800 pages of all the federal rules and regulations involved with running a trucking company.
You can just start a trucking company.
And so we went from like, 17,000 to 14,000 trucking companies to 1980 to like half a million within like just a quick number of years.
So the market was immediately flooded.
A bunch of the old legacy carriers went bankrupt and turnover was just like insane.
Like nobody would stay at a trucking company for more than a year because everybody was hopping from one job to another or just quitting.
So this narrative of a truck driver shortage started popping up in the 90s where the big lobbyist group in the US called the American Trucking Association, they don't represent truck drivers, they represent large truckload carriers.
Their whole bread and butter is, you know, all these big trucking companies, they pay dues to us so that we can take their money and lobby Congress critters to get what we want.
So they've been lying about this truck driver shortage for years and years and years.
And that's kind of where things start falling apart, where they start importing guys from overseas in the 90s.
And what they didn't anticipate was all these drivers that they were importing were going to start trucking companies of their own and then start importing the drivers they want.
And so now they've completely abandoned the shortage narrative.
They've moved on to other pet projects like truck parking or.
You know, CDL, like the whole idea of starting your own CDL school, it's a self certified process.
You don't have to prove that your class is worth the shit.
You can just say, I am a trucking school and I register with the FMCSA, and the FMCSA goes, okay.
So you just start funneling guys through your pipeline all you want.
And to his credit, Sean Duffy shut that down earlier this year.
With Trump's recent alienating much of his base, do you see those that voted for and believed in the original principles of MAGA to continue to stay with MAGA and justify Trump from the coalition?
Or do you see them starting a new movement on the right with all the original principles they voted for, like no new wars, America first, mass deportation, prosecution of crooked Dems, et cetera? to rival whatever Trump and MAGA has become now.
Well, Trump's diehards are always going to be for Trump no matter what.
It's his untouchable base that pollsters have always found.
Then there's the coalition, which includes anti interventionists and libertarian types, liberals.
They're going to break.
This is actually becoming an issue because events are coming up where I'm talking to a lot of the organizers and I'm saying, like, yeah, I don't think I'm interested in whatever that right wing lineup's going to be.
I don't want to be like at a TPUSA where Bannon's screaming at Shapiro, who's screaming at Candace.
Like, I'm not interested in any of those things.
So I think Trump's core.
Base of supporters aren't ever going to leave them.
And I think that the coalition is shattered and going to break off and do their own things where they don't like each other.
The problem is, like, within the Republican Party, they've pulled the Republican Party.
Their support for the Iran war is at like 88%, something like that.
So even if there were like a pressure group among the coalition, right, the 2024 coalition, it wouldn't matter because you're not registered Republicans.
When the primaries come around, the Trump base is still going to be in control of ultimately who's going to be the Republican nominee.
So I suppose if you're talking about an outside political movement, I think the way I see it, I mean, maybe you disagree, but the way I see it is a lot of people that came into the coalition and voted for Trump, a lot of them, I'm not saying the commentariat, but a lot of those voters were not super politically involved voters.
My evidence for this is Trump gets a lot of first time voters.
And so I'm not sure those people really have the desire or willpower to start a third party or any sort of pressure group within the Republican Party or any sort of political movement broadly.
And I think come 2028, you're going to see that coalition stitched back together because the main reason the coalition happened in 2024 wasn't necessarily because of Trump's gravity.
It was more of an anti Kamala kind of fervor, anti political correctness, et cetera, et cetera.
So, yeah, I mean, I see what you mean.
I just think the problem is the way that the dynamics in the Republican Party is, he still has massive support within the Republican Party among registered Republicans.
I think Trump is just such a cult of personality that once he's out of office, I couldn't tell you.
Yeah, I like Vance.
I'm a millennial.
I'm a dad.
I see a lot of stuff in common with him as far as that goes.
But I think once Trump is out of office trying to get whatever next coalition they're trying to build, that's going to be hard.
I think it's going to take Democrats coming back in.
And figuring out what they have to be opposed to.
Because that was the whole point of MAGA, they were just opposed to progressivism.
Then once they got into the second term here, all those coalitions start falling apart because it's like, okay, we made it.
Now what are we for?
It's very easy to be against something, but then trying to hold a coalition of different groups together based on what stuff you're agreeing upon is like next to impossible.
So there is ICE has, again, when you see a truck on the road, you have no knowledge whether or not that driver is here in the country legally or illegally.
What I would suggest to you is take a photo of that truck and upload it to a website called searchcarriers.com.
It will pull up all the information on that truck.
Copy the address of that trucking company and then put it in the search and see if there are additional trucking companies registered at that address.
That's like your interesting.
That's like your red flag Numer Una right there.
If you don't want to do the copy and paste stuff, there is like a paid tier and it will do the connection stuff for you.
But that's basically been the way I operate through this.
If I'm on the highway and I see an Amazon truck, I photograph every fucking Amazon truck I see.
Believe it or not, constantly shitposting them on Twitter.
What's been amazing with this?
At least this Trump administration, if you are loud enough and you are bringing receipts, somebody will reach out to you.
I never in my wildest dreams would ever imagine, never imagine like Pete Buttigieg reaching out and being like, yo, what the fuck's up with these trucking companies?
Sean Duffy has not reached out to me.
Derek Barrs has not reached out to me.
Well, I talked to Derek Barrs at Match last year, but people within that organization do reach out and say, what can we do?
The MAGA crowd is always like mass deportations, mass deportations.
My philosophy is mass denaturalization.
And then mass deportation.
Most of these trucking company owners have been in the country long enough that they are naturalized citizens, but if they are caught committing fraud at this scale, they need to be debanked, denaturalized, and deported immediately.
And lastly, how do we prevent this from happening again in the long term?
I understand, you know, administration to administration, things are going to change and things, you know, like all the executive orders that Biden put in were in direct counter to all of Trump's, and then Trump reverses it.
So, right now, there actually is a bill in front of the House and the Senate, Delilah's Law.
It will tighten down.
It's not a new regulation or anything.
It's a law, so it's going to be a lot harder for something that to get overturned in the next administration.
If they can pass Delilah's law, it heavily restricts the issuances of CDLs.
Non US citizens, there's literally like two cohorts that can do it.
It's a very, very small group of like very temporary agriculture workers, and that's it.
And it also bans the usage of foreign dispatch services.
How they enforce that part, I got no idea.
I'm just thrilled that it's even in there.
But yeah, pass Delilah's Law and raise the barrier to entry.
It is absolutely insane that you could be a guy with a laptop in France and with a couple keystrokes in half an hour open up a trucking company in the US.
There's like a high profile fatal wreck that's like caught on video.
And over 5,000 people a year are killed on US highways involving accidents with trucks, whether the car crashed into the truck or the truck crashed into the car.
But because now there's like so many dash cams in the trucks now, all this footage is coming out and people are really starting to see this horrific footage.
Especially with trucking, it gets even worse with the foreign ownership because once I started screeching about trucking enough, People would come to me with like rumors about, you know, oh, we hear, you know, the military loads are getting kind of squirrely.
And I'm like, what?
Because I used to haul what's called AAE freight, arms, ammunitions, and explosives.
So I was a DOD contractor.
I'd go to military bases.
We'd deliver bombs, explosives, munitions, all kinds of cool shit.
And so I knew that industry inside and out.
And to even hear like rumors about that kind of shit, I'm like, people's careers need to be evaporated.
And eventually, two executives from a trucking company that were in that space came to me with a bunch of receipts.
There's a guy in Kenya who owns a trucking company in South Carolina that's one pickup truck.
And somehow this guy is getting like 200 loads a month out of this one pickup truck.
And so he's getting awarded all these military contracts, the whole military freight.
But when you look at his company activity on GenLogs, this like trucking visibility platform that has cameras all over the United States, no movement, none whatsoever.
So what this guy's doing is he's taking.
He's getting awarded contracts to haul military freight, and then he's brokering those loads out to outside carriers.
So, and that alone is like scary enough.
But again, we don't know what kind of electronic logging devices these carriers that are hauling this freight are using.
So, Every time I talk to guys in the administration or in the military about what's going on, they're always like, okay, yeah, that's a little squirrely.
And I'm like, no, you don't understand.
It gets even worse because all that data of the truck movement is being monitored by guys overseas.
So all they got to do, just like how the OP load got stolen or Guy Fieri had his tequila stolen, these guys are watching military loads get moved around all over the United States.
And say we need to go kinetic on Iran next time or another country, all they got to do is look at the volume of military loads being shipped around the country.
And they know before we even have boots on the ground.
Because we got to supply those guys first.
And it's just every time we've brought this up, some of these things, you sound insane when you start ranting on this stuff.
But even people in the administration are like, this is fucked up.
We got to really take care of it.
But then Minneapolis burns down or some other bigger headline pops up and they've been kicking this can down the line.
So we're really fortunate that these guys that are doing this shit, all they want to do for right now, all they want to do is haul the freight.
It's very easy, it pays very well.
They're not stupid enough to fuck with it right now.
I'm worried about when enough of these guys are in the space that they do want to start fucking with it and then we get run for it.
So, my question for you guys is there's a couple YouTube channels that have been really exposing this as well.
Bonehead truckers being the primary one that I watch.
But there's a ton of these accidents that are taking place all across America that are making national headlines that are involving H 1B visa drivers as well as illegal drivers.
Is it time now to conduct a 24 to 48 hour safety stand down, just shut trucking down for 24 to 48 hours to examine everything and clean it up?
If you have like a pre-pass, if you pay into this network and they might have like a pre-scale before you get to the scale, if everything checks out, you get a green light.
You're away, you go.
Uh, but for the unlucky few who have to go into the way station, the officer will have you pull up onto a scale, it'll weigh you.
And if everything checks out, you don't have any hoses falling off, they don't hear any air leaks, you're good.
You're gonna go.
If they do catch something, it's okay, driver, pull around, pull around back, bring your paperwork in.
And that's where these guys are getting popped in like Arkansas, where you know they roll up, the paperwork is out of order, or like the registration on the truck isn't right, and then they can't even talk to the officers because the guy's from China and he's been fresh off the boat for six weeks.
So, when you hear about like Sean Duffy or DOT bragging about X number of drivers being taken out of service because they can't speak English, it's a fucking parking ticket.
Like, these guys are immediately back in the truck and rolling again.
Unless they're taken out of the truck and having their immigration status checked and then put through a detention center, they don't stop.
They have partnered with ICE, with their DOT, and they run these operations called Operation Guardian every couple of weeks or months.
The very first time they ran one last year, it lasted three days and only three days because they ran out of room.
Within the span of three days, it was like 159 trucks that they had in custody and all their drivers, and they just ran out of room.
So they keep doing this operation every few months.
Now, Mark Wayne Mullen, the new head of ICE, I'm really bullish on him.
I think he's going to start expanding the operations that they've done in Oklahoma to other states, and we're going to see some heavy enforcement going forward.
Because that's always been.
What everybody in the industry has been waiting on is like, okay, all these new rules, these new regulations are all coming into effect, but where's the enforcement?
Like, we don't have enough boots on the ground.
We don't have enough bodies to throw at the problem.
Now they do.
With the big, beautiful bill, we had $187 billion in immigration enforcement, $80 billion going directly to ICE.
That's a lot of cash on the table for the states.
And I think if the states want any of that pile of cash, they're going to have to go through.
I don't know if there's a legal term for it, but they can basically be deputized into ICE, their law enforcement.
Because for years and years and years, if I'm a DOT cop and I pull a driver over, I'm a DOT cop.
I'm not ICE, I'm not INS.
Whether that guy's in the country or not legally, that's not my thing.
If my buddy is next to me, he's an ICE agent, he wants to check him, by all means, but it's not my job.
That's so common in government thinking, it's not my job.
To what degree have truckers that were forced out of the business during the Biden administration gone and what level of pay is going to bring them back in?
Well, I mean, speaking of new people coming in, in the federal prison system, the most popular.
Programming classes, the written portion of the truck driving class, you see a lot of the former inmates following through and actually getting their CDL.
The prison to trucker pipeline is like one of my biggest pet peeves because most of those programs are basically just like a money laundering front from the states because, again, they're all operating under the assumption that there's a truck driver shortage.
There is not, has never been, and never could possibly be a perpetual nationwide truck driver shortage in the U.S.
We issue more than 450,000 CDLs every single year.
And again, there's only half a million trucking companies in the US.
So every time you see one of these programs, it's a push by lobbyists at places like the ATA that are just trying to flood the market with more capacity and bring down wages.
Yeah, on paper, it makes sense because it's like, okay, we want to lower the rate of recidivism and we've got to get these guys a job somewhere.
But what you don't realize is that most of these trucking companies, depending on where you're going, if you have a felony on your record, they're not going to let you inside the facility.
So, any kind of real money that you're going to make in trucking, as far as like hazmat freight or sensitive cargo, those avenues are completely blocked from you.
You know, if you're lucky and you can get a job in like waste management somewhere, Or a construction site where you have to use a CDL, that's a good path.
But for the most part, a lot of these like prison, the trucking pipelines, it's just a mega carrier somewhere that's needing more bodies because everyone keeps quitting because they're not paying enough because there are too many truck drivers.