Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 11, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:14:25

Dexter Reed Is George Floyd 2.0, Media LIES To Start Leftist Riots, Reed SHOT COP, Cops Fired Back

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL Dexter Reed Is George Floyd 2.0, Media LIES To Start Leftist Riots, Reed SHOT COP, Cops Fired Back Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:10:27

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:30

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Make sure to head over to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support our work directly because this show is made possible thanks in part to viewers like you.
		If you like the work we do, become a member and you'll also get access to uncensored members-only shows from TimCast IRL Monday through Thursday at 10 p.m.
		You can also join our Discord server and talk with like-minded individuals.
		Now, let's get into that first story.
		Welcome to the next attempt At George Floyd.
		Only this time it didn't work.
		It was a feeble attempt, but they're still trying.
		This is the story of Dexter Reed.
		A man who reportedly opened fire on police 11 times, injuring an officer, before the officers returned fire, killing the man.
		And what does the media do?
		They show images of his graduation.
		They show pictures of him smiling.
		Videos of the mother saying, they killed my baby and they killed me.
		Well, the story's actually really simple.
		I'll tell you.
		A guy was driving with no seatbelt, with heavily tinted windows.
		The police pulled him over.
		He had something covering his face, refused to roll down his window.
		They instructed him to do so.
		He began to roll his window back up.
		Some of the officers draw their weapons and say, stop screaming over and over again, and he doesn't.
		And then, he appears to, in body camera footage, open fire on the officers, who run in panic, screaming, shots fired.
		Before, re-approaching the vehicle, returning fire, and killing him.
		He was, uh, 26, I believe.
		Now you've got all over the media, they're saying, but why?
		Why a hundred shots?
		Why so many bullets?
		To end the threat.
		I don't know what you want.
		I don't know what you expect.
		It's a sad story.
		I get it.
		But it's a story of a guy who shot a cop, and the cops shot back.
		I don't care if you're a cop, a mailman, I don't know, a welder.
		If someone comes up to you and opens fire on you, you have to defend yourself.
		Or die, I guess?
		But as we like to mention on this show, the quote from Solzhenitsyn about how in the Soviet Union, there was once a young member of the army, a soldier, and someone was trying to kill him.
		So he grabbed a penknife and defended himself as he was on the verge of being killed.
		And he went to prison for it.
		To the Gulag.
		And he said, what should I have done?
		And the prosecutor said, flee!
		That's right, you run away!
		Okay.
		Do you see what they're doing?
		You see the point of this?
		The point of this is, if you're a police officer, you cannot enforce the law.
		This is the pressure environment I talk about all the time.
		And the reason why I say, I won't back the blue.
		Now, to these officers, I wish them the best.
		It's a terrifying situation.
		The officer was injured.
		I hope they get better.
		I hope it's not too serious.
		I hope that no harm comes to them.
		Let me tell you about the system that's being created by all of this, and the purpose of it.
		The purpose of this is to make sure the police know, if someone shoots you, literally, you can do nothing.
		But don't worry, don't worry.
		Because Daniel Penny in New York, he will do nothing to you.
		So what happens?
		It's not about the individual officers, but I think it's important you all understand this context.
		Police are being told, if you defend yourself from violent gang members, criminals, or even from being shot at, You're in trouble.
		Now, as for Daniel Penney, they know that good, law-abiding citizens will smile, put their hands behind their back, and say, sorry, officer.
		The cops know there's nothing to worry about there.
	That's the negative pressure environment.
	It's like dog training.
	I'm not trying to disparage the cops, but it is.
	When the dog nips at you, you give him a little bop on the nose, or you don't give him the treat.
	You say, hey, no nipping.
	Don't do it.
	And then the dog stops.
	And when the dog does the good thing, you give him the treat.
	So what do we have now?
	When police defend themselves from a black man who is shooting at them, we will try to destroy your life.
	But when you arrest a good Samaritan, oh, the city leaves you alone.
	Why would I trust the system of policing that is adhering to this kind of reality?
	Well, let's go through the story.
	I don't see this one working, although I think it is fair to point out that conservatives fell, for the most part, hook, line, and sinker.
	They fell for the Ahmaud Arbery story.
	Laughably ridiculous.
	You know, look, man.
	The right gets itself, whatever you want to call it, only a few more brownie points above the left in terms of being able to actually understand what's going on in the world.
	Now there's certainly, in my opinion, way more honest and smart people who align themselves with the anti-establishment faction, which is not necessarily conservative.
	But oh boy.
	Do they fall for this stuff?
	The Ahmaud Arbery story being a great example.
	When you had conservatives come out and go, see?
	We got justice for Ahmaud Arbery.
	That proves we're not racist.
	And I'm like, Ahmaud Arbery was a burglary suspect and the McMichaels are going to prison for the rest of their lives for trying to confront him.
	But you can argue that all until you're blown in the face, fine.
	But the guy who filmed it went to prison for the rest of his life.
	That makes no sense.
	I don't think you know anything about the Ahmaud Arbery story.
	And here we are.
	Now we'll see.
	I don't know if it matters that the anti-establishment crowd, the right, whatever, is calling out the fake story because the left might just buy it up and go burn down cities anyway.
	But let me start you with this.
	Ah, we love it from the Washington Post.
	This is what evil looks like.
	These people are evil people.
	They are stupid, and they are evil.
	The Washington Post writes, Police fire 96 shots in 41 seconds, killing black men during traffic stop.
	You know what the headline should read?
	Let's, uh, here, let's just do this in real time.
	Let's see, police fire, uh, how about this?
	Man shoots cop.
unidentified		Police respond.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's see, police respond.
		by firing here we go there we go there you go i just fixed the headline for you in real time man shoots cop police respond by firing 96 shots in 41 seconds killing black man during traffic stop but no no no i we can do one better we can do one better here's the here's the headline let's just do this Let's take the whole thing.
		Man... Let's see.
		Man killed after... No, no, how about this?
		How about this?
		Man dies after shooting cop and cop defends self.
		Hey, there we go.
		I fixed the headline for you.
		Now, unfortunately, for everybody, it is really fun to, uh, for those that are just listening and not watching, I'm clicking inspect on the article and then editing the code of the article to change the headline.
		This is not the real headline.
		Although it should be, it's not.
		Here's what they write.
		Dexter Reed's mother remembers the last time she saw her son alive.
		Mom, I'm going for a ride, he told her, before heading out in the car that he had purchased just three days earlier.
		Reid, 26, was killed that same day, when tactical unit police officers fired 96 bullets at him in 41 seconds, according to Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountability, or COPA, which investigates allegations of police misconduct.
		Quote, he was just riding around in his car.
		Dexter's mother, Nicole Banks, told Fox 32 Chicago on Tuesday.
		She broke down in tears.
		They killed him.
		COPA released video footage of the shooting Tuesday and said its investigation of the officers who's a deadly force on March 21 remains ongoing.
		The Chicago Police Department told CNN that it was cooperating with COPA's investigation and that it cannot make a determination on the shooting until all the facts are known.
		This investigation has concluded.
		The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
		Now hold on.
unidentified		Hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why did they mention the body camera footage?
		Why doesn't it say, COPPA released video footage of Reid opening fire on officers, striking an officer, before they returned fire?
		Why is that not in here?
		Yeah.
		Oh, don't worry.
		It'll probably be buried somewhere at the bottom because I'm gonna give you a shout-out, Jennifer Hassan?
		Is that your name?
		You are an evil piece of human garbage.
		You are evil.
		According to COPPA, police stopped Reid for purportedly not wearing a seatbelt in several body cam videos.
		Multiple officers can be seen exiting an unmarked vehicle and surrounding Reid's car, which had tinted windows.
		Okay.
		Now, you gotta understand, there is a tint limit in Chicago and Illinois, and we'll get into that.
		I don't know if the tint of his vehicle exceeded the limit, but this actually is... well, it's an issue.
		Now, some people might argue I have a right to tinted windows or whatever.
		I don't know.
		It's an interesting argument, whatever.
		But in Illinois, there's a restriction.
		It's 35%, meaning that 65% of light has to be able to pass through.
		Is that what that means, right?
unidentified		No, no, no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think 35... Yeah, yeah, yeah.
		35 means that you're blocking out 35% of the light.
		Is that how it goes?
		Maybe I have it backwards.
		I think I have it backwards.
		35% means that 35% of the light must pass through.
		It's like, it's like pretty decent.
		Actually, I think I have an image.
		So, uh... Okay, right, right, right.
		So, 5% tint means 5% of light can pass through.
		15% means 15%.
		35% means 35% of the light needs to pass through.
		So it's decent.
		It's like a decently dark tint.
		Let's read more.
		The officers demanded he unlock and open the door, and not to roll up the window.
		Upon stopping Mr. Reed, multiple officers surrounded his vehicle, giving verbal commands.
		When Mr. Reed did not comply with these commands, officers pointed their firearms at Mr. Reed.
		Perhaps it's because he had an illegal possession of a firearm.
		And so he was like, uh oh, I'm going to jail.
		Now, I gotta be honest.
		In most circumstances, depending on the context in which someone has denied their right to keep and bear arms, I'm on the side of the person with the gun.
		Not a guy shooting cops, however.
		You win this in court, you don't win it by literally shooting cops, that's how you die.
		But, apparently this guy had a past and he was facing gun charges.
		I don't like the idea that someone has their right to keep and bear arms stripped because they were keeping and bearing arms.
		Like, if there's a guy with no criminal record, and he has a gun, and they go, oh, that gun's illegal, you're under arrest, now you can't have guns anymore.
		It's like, yeah, no, I don't buy that.
		Now, if you're a guy who, like, robbed a liquor store and they say you can't have guns, that I get.
		That's due process.
		Here we go.
		Look, look how evil, look how evil Washington Post is.
		Multiple officers surrounded his vehicle while giving verbal commands.
		Officers can be seen retreating as they ask Reed to exit the vehicle, then shots can be heard.
		Really?
		COPPA said in its review of the footage and initial reports appear to confirm that Mr. Reed fired first, hitting one officer while four others returned fire.
		Now, why didn't you put that in the headline and in the opening paragraph?
unidentified		Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
		See you on the tour!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Reid can be seen staggering out of the vehicle before collapsing into the road.
		His officers approach his motionless body.
		They can be heard telling Reid not to move.
		A pool of blood can be seen in the ground next to Reid.
		Why were there so many bolts fired?
		Because that's the training you get to end the threat.
		There's another video going viral.
		A guy walks into a gas station and a security guard puts his hand up and says, nah, you gotta go.
		And the dude starts screaming, don't you touch me!
		Don't you know who I am?!
		And then pulls out a gun.
		And the security guard then unloads into this man.
		The guy collapses on the ground and goes, really?
unidentified		Really?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And then, uh, the security guard got shot too.
		Got shot in the leg.
		But it's fascinating.
		This guy walks into a gas station, pulls out his gun.
		What do you think's gonna happen?
		So this dude's driving a car.
		It appears he's got a mask on.
		He's got tinted windows.
		The cops are like, don't roll up your window, and he does.
		And then, shots fired.
		A cop is shot.
		He shoots a cop.
		The cops run screaming.
		The cops run screaming.
		It's in the body camera footage.
		And then they return and open fire on the vehicle.
		Ending the threat.
		What are you supposed to do?
		But y'all, I'll tell you this.
		This woman, The Washington Post.
		So you get these guys going around New York punching women in the face.
		And I'm the bad guy when I'm like, I think it's funny.
		It's irony.
		The same women who would write stories to cover up for a guy who tried to kill people.
		That are like, it's not fair what happens to me.
		I'm gonna laugh about it.
		You wanna lock up the cops who are trying to stop the criminals?
		Then okay, when you get punched in the face, I'm gonna laugh about it.
		I don't want you to get punched in the face.
		I don't want anybody to get shot at.
		I'd love to live under Skittles and candy canes and rainbows.
unidentified		And dance around the land of chocolate.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But that's not real life.
		Real life is that bad people do bad things.
		And we're trying our best to be fair and just.
		But y'all lie.
		Look at this.
		Andrew M. Stroth, the family's attorney, said the officers did not announce they were police officers, and the footage shows many officers in plainclothes.
		These people are such scumbag liars.
		Dude, when you pull up the body camera footage, I'm not gonna show it in great detail.
		Let me see, I got body camera footage somewhere.
		You pull up the body camera footage, and you can see, let's see if we have, uh...
		I don't want to show anything graphic here, but there's numerous angles.
		I don't think I actually pulled it up.
		They're wearing uniforms with vests that say police and have badges on them.
		A couple of them are in plain clothes.
		A couple of them aren't.
		I grabbed this footage so you can see that he appears to have... I don't know if I can zoom in on this.
		Let's see if we can zoom in.
		Alright, you can't really see all that well because of the way the framing is.
		But, uh, he's got his face covered, it appears.
		You can see he's wearing some kind of mask.
		Over his mouth, I guess.
		He then starts rolling the window up!
		And the cop's like, stop!
		Don't do that!
		Why?
		Because then they cannot see you.
		Like, so what are you gonna do?
		You gonna get into a standoff?
		An armed standoff with the cops?
		There was only one way this was gonna end.
		Unless the dude just surrendered.
		But if you're in a car and you're surrounded by cops, and you roll your windows up and refuse to open the door, that's what happens.
		Let me tell you a story!
		Let me tell you a story for all these lying grifters.
unidentified		2012.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Man, 12 years ago, Chicago.
		Actually, I wonder if this story still exists.
		Let me, uh, let me see if I can find it.
		So, 2012, and, uh, look at this!
unidentified		Look at this!
		We got it from, uh, from NBC News!
		Hey!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm from Chicago!
		Independent journalist detained at gunpoint by CPD.
		The streamer said the experience was scary, but the police acted professionally.
		Oh boy!
		Oh boy.
		And, uh, which independent journalist do you think that is?
		So, independent journalist and prolific protest livestreamer Tim Poole, who was covering the NATO protests in Chicago since Thursday, and a group of other streamers, was pulled over by Chicago police Sunday morning around 2 a.m.
		and detained.
		Police surrounded the vehicles that contained the livestreamers approached with guns drawn.
		Poole and his fellow livestreamers turned on their cameras to document the exchange, which lasted about 10 minutes.
		The streamers included members of We Are Change.
		Hey Luke, remember that one?
		And said the experience was scary but the police acted professionally.
		Look at this, NBC Chicago.
		Let me tell you what happened.
		So it's Chicago, and we get surrounded by like 12 vehicles.
		There's like a couple unmarked vehicles, they're all black.
		We were in, what were we in?
		We were in like an SUV, like a mini, like a small size SUV or something.
		Cops walk up, guns drawn, and start trying to open the door.
		Hey, just like in the body camera footage.
		And you know what we did?
		We had our hands up, and we unlocked the car doors, and they brought us out, searched everything, and then told us to leave.
		Now, I am greatly offended by this.
		Don't get me wrong.
		We did nothing wrong.
		The cops cuffed us, went through our walls, took our IDs, wrote down credit card information, or whatever was on our credit cards.
		I don't know if it was the actual credit card numbers, but they took our credit cards out.
		Mine, at least.
		And, uh, they were taking our equipment, and they were, like, banging it on the side of the car, looking for something.
		And then, cop walks over, and he looks at the cop who's got me in cuffs, and he goes like this.
		You can't really see my hand.
		And then the cop uncuffs me, and he goes, Your vehicle matched a description, so we had to stop you and check, but you're free to go.
		And then we left.
		Now, a whole bunch of other creepy stuff happened because I don't trust Chicago cops.
		Long story short, they tried planting drugs in our car.
		Someone did.
		And, uh, true story.
		It's a crazy story.
		I'll give you the gist of it, otherwise people are going to ask me what happened.
		But this is a story that you could have watched live.
		Now, I want to clarify.
		This happened live on Ustream.
		Ustream was the old streaming service back in the day.
		Here's what happened.
		So we get back to our apartment.
		Lights are all turned on.
		Doors open.
		Alarm was going off.
		Something like that.
		And that was actually why we were heading back to the place we were staying.
		There's a little bit more of the backstory as to whose apartment it was, but needless to say.
		We get out of the car, and I said this.
		Okay, here's what's gonna happen.
		Luke and I are public figures.
		Only he and I will go in and collect all the belongings.
		Why?
		Because if someone else from our crew, who is lesser known, goes in, they're gonna have a hard time defending themselves, and it'll be easier for the government to go after them if they're trying to frame them or something.
		And that's true.
		And so the idea is, like, if it was Luke or I, we could fundraise.
		We could say, hey, look what they're doing, and it would generate a lot of press, and it would be a lot harder for them to go after us.
		So we go in, and I said this.
		We're taking all of your bags out of the apartment.
		You will empty them completely.
	Every pocket, every section.
	You will then take anything disposable, and throw it in the garbage.
	Your clothes and your equipment, you will put back in your bag, we'll put it in the car, and then we will leave.
	So this one guy we knew, Shows up late.
	He was also staying at the apartment.
	But he wasn't with us when the cops surrounded us.
	And he says, I need to go and get my stuff.
	And I said, No.
	Luke will go get your stuff.
	You will wait outside.
	And he was like, But I gotta go in.
	I gotta go downstairs.
	I gotta grab stuff.
	And I said, That's fine.
	You can go do whatever you want.
	But you're not riding with us.
	You'll stay here.
	And you will not come with us.
	And he's like, But I gotta grab something.
	And we are like, tell us what you want, we'll bring it out, and then you will throw away disposables.
	He's like, okay, fine, I guess.
	Here's where it gets crazy.
	We get in the car, we're driving, we're leaving.
	And there's this other, uh, we're live the whole time.
	Livestream, because I'm like, I don't want, I don't want them to frame us for anything.
	Everyone's gonna watch exactly what's going on.
	Exactly what we're saying.
	And, uh, we get back in the car.
	And so we're talking and streaming.
	I get messages from someone who's like, they are talking about you on the police scanner.
	You need to stop talking about where you're going.
	And then I'm thinking like, no way, dude.
	And then I get another message and it said, this is not a joke.
	They are talking about you on the police scanners.
	Stop giving away information.
	And so we were like, all right.
	The next morning.
	When I was talking about it, I was like, look, I don't know if it was the right thing to do that I said, empty out your bags, throw everything away.
	But I just thought it was smart, I thought it was smart, because why not?
	And then, the one dude goes, yeah, and it was really crazy how so-and-so was trying to get me to bring the Adderall in the car.
	And we were like, what?
	He was like, yeah, they texted me saying to go in the basement and grab their Adderall pills.
	And I was like, why would you do that?
	And they're like, they told me to.
	And I'm like, It's their apartment, why would you take drugs from their apartment and put it in our car?
	It's like, they asked me to do it.
	Yeah.
	Holy crap.
	I suppose, instead of making a long story short, I just told a long story.
	But yeah, legit.
	We looked at the text messages, and they were saying things like, you need to go and grab my medicine, you need to have it on you.
	And he was just like, why?
	And they were like, can you please just do me this favor?
	And he's like, okay.
	Then he texts back, Tim won't let me grab it.
	And they're like, so who cares?
	And he's like, he's telling me I can't ride with him if I do.
	And then she was like, I thought you were my friend.
	And he was like, I'm sorry, Tim won't let me take it.
	If that dude took those drugs and put them in that car, and they really were tracking us, and then pulled us over, we'd all go to prison.
	Mandatory minimums.
	It's crazy.
	And so I wonder if what happened was, when they pulled us over, searched the vehicle and found nothing illegal, they couldn't do anything.
	So they said, cut him loose.
	Told some guy to plant some drugs on our car.
	Maybe.
	Anyway.
	I'm going off on a tangent.
	My point here is simple.
	When we got pulled over at gunpoint, we opened the doors.
	Nothing happened.
	Not saying the cops are good dudes.
	But nothing happened.
	We didn't get shot.
	We didn't roll up the windows.
	We had our hands up the whole time.
	Windows weren't tinted.
	We said, okay, we're gonna open the door now.
	Opened the door and got out.
	They had their guns drawn.
	What do you think we're gonna do?
	And it was funny because Luke was holding his phone in his hand.
unidentified		That was 12 years ago.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Now this dude, this is what they give us.
		They want more riots.
		They want another George Floyd.
		Let me play this clip.
		Let me let me let me play this this clip.
		Here you go.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the first podcast network.
		the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
		We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
unidentified		This is America on trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm sad that somebody died.
		I suppose the issue is, if you shoot a cop, they will shoot back.
		But I'll tell you this, my friends.
		In West Virginia, you shoot anybody, they're gonna shoot back.
		It's not unique to the cops.
		I'm not mad at the cops about this.
		I don't care what, whatever.
		This dude shot at cops.
		The body camera footage, you can see the cops running and screaming.
		One of the cops got shot.
		Now, there's an argument to be made, for sure.
		If the Washington Post wanted to be honest, they could say, police said they were shot.
		Video shows shots are fired.
		It's hard.
		You know, you want to do honest reporting, say this.
		Body camera released shows officers surrounding a vehicle when shots are fired and officers flee.
		According to two police officers, they were shot.
		And it is true.
		An officer was shot.
		You could say it like that.
		There is a possibility, there is, that it wasn't Reed who opened fire and the cops planted the gun in his car.
		Sure.
		I'm gonna have to go with Occam's Razor on this one.
		That a guy who was refusing to comply with a traffic stop, wearing a mask and rolling his window up, did so for a reason.
		Probably because he was armed.
		And he was about to get in trouble and go to jail.
		And then he decided he wasn't gonna go to jail.
		And he didn't.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
		Okay, here's a prediction for November, one that I didn't make up.
		There will be World War III before the election, and the election won't happen.
		That'd be surprising because, you know, if war were to break out, I don't see that as being an excuse to not have elections.
		However, I guess the argument is if war breaks out and there are elections, Joe Biden wins.
		But I don't know if he's the guy who can actually get a polling bump from being at war.
		The general idea is that wartime presidents win.
		I got a feeling that if a war breaks out, people will be terrified of a Joe Biden presidency.
		And even Trump's staunchest critics are going to be like, we'll take the crazy guy in Donald Trump.
		And not the guy whose brain doesn't work.
		But the news we have right now is actually fairly alarming, because it seems like, at the very least, the U.S.
		is gearing up for World War III.
		That's right, we've got two buzz phrases here at TimCast.
		It's either Civil War or World War III.
		It's never just regional conflict.
		It must be one of the two most serious outcomes that could possibly happen.
		Look, I don't know how this turns out, and there's been a lot of conversation about World War 3 for a very long time, so who knows.
		I remember back during Operation Protective Edge, I think it was called, this is 10 years ago, in Israel, there was fear that World War 3 would ignite.
		For real.
		So Israel goes in this campaign against Gaza.
		And then I got all these journalists who cover the Middle East saying, like, if Iran takes action over the attacks on Gaza, it's going to pull in other countries.
		The U.S.
		will be forced to be involved.
		You're then going to see BRICS nations.
		It's going to light up.
		Fair.
		It wasn't a wrong assessment, but it was a little premature.
		Now what are we looking at?
		Well, now Israel's actually going in.
		Has gone into Gaza.
		There are many civilian casualties.
		Iran has been striking U.S.
		targets with proxies and militias.
		And there's a fear that Iran might actually launch a missile strike.
	They're closing their airspace for drills.
	On top of that, the U.S.
	is embroiled in war in Eastern Europe against Russia.
	China is now engaging in conflict with the Philippines in the South Pacific.
	And it looks like the pieces are lined up substantially more so than they were 10 years ago.
	Well, let's go through this and break it down.
	At the same time we're hearing this, support for Israel and the United States is going down because Americans don't want to be involved in war.
	I just gotta have to break it to you, everybody.
	It's patently clear people don't like conflict.
	And so whether it's the nation going to war or a guy in a bar having someone talk smack, people don't want to fight.
	You ever see Fight Club?
	Great movie, by the way.
	I can't believe it's been 25 years.
	And there's that scene where Tyler Durden says, your homework is to go start a fight and lose.
	Most people do everything they can to avoid a fight.
	It's the smart thing to do.
	And then there's that scene where it's like, You know, they shove people and then the people are just like, leave me alone.
	And then there's that scene where he knocks the Bible out of the priest's hand and then sprays it with water and then the priest is like, wow!
	And that gets him really angry.
	But most people don't want to fight.
	The American people, looking at what's going on in the world, would prefer we don't fight.
	And unfortunately for the deep state, Joe Biden is in this wishy-washy position.
	And it looks like your only opportunity is to support Donald Trump.
	At the very least, Donald Trump is pro-Israel.
	Not like You know, not pro-Israel the way the Democrats were 10 years ago.
	But now that Democrats fear losing, I'll put it this way.
	Joe Biden probably supports Israel way more in terms of military than Trump would.
	And he's gonna pretend like he doesn't because they need the progressive vote.
	We'll see.
	But let's jump into the news.
	Here's the story from the Daily Mail.
	Joe Biden tells Iran, don't attack Israel.
	With Middle East on a knife edge as Tehran closes airspace for military drills and Washington warns missile barrage could be imminent.
	President tells Ayatollah, US support for Israel is ironclad.
	Quote, as I told Prime Minister Netanyahu, our commitment to Israel security against these threats from Iran and proxies is ironclad.
	And you know, I actually feel kind of bad imitating Joe Biden's voice, but sounding so clear.
	Let me say it again, I'm Claire.
unidentified		We're gonna do all we can to protect- Okay, now you don't even know what I'm saying.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We're gonna do all we can to protect Israel's security, Biden said at a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
		Biden's top diplomat, Anthony Blinken, affirmed his words and told Israel's Defense Minister Yoav Galant in a phone call that the U.S.
		would stand behind Israel if Iran decides to attack.
		An attack by Iran or its proxies against military and government targets in Israel are imminent, Bloomberg News reported, citing intelligence sources, with one source saying, it's more a matter of when, not if.
		Tensions in the Middle East today flared after an Iranian news agency published a report on X saying all airspace over Tehran had been closed for military drills before quickly removing the post and denying it had ever issued the news.
		But Iran has promised to retaliate for an Israeli strike in Syria on April 1st that killed several senior Iranian commanders when Israeli forces hit the Iranian embassy building in Damascus.
		There's been a lot of news coming out of the Middle East, too.
		I saw one tweet that said that Israel was pulling ambassadors.
		I haven't verified that, but it certainly seems like with all the news we got... Yo, we got Russia!
		We got Iran!
		We got China!
		Maybe World War III?
		It's right around the corner.
		The airstrike killed Gen.
		Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who led the elite Quds Force in Lebanon and Syria until 2016, according to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
		It also killed Zahedi's deputy, Gen.
		Mohammad Haji Rahimi, Hajriahimi, trying to pronounce that right, probably getting it wrong, Hajriahimi, and five other officers.
		Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Israel must be punished and it shall be for the strikes on the embassy, he noted in a speech Wednesday for Aid al-Fitr, that attacking an embassy means that they have attacked our soil.
		So let me just make that clear for all of you.
		They're saying outright, Israel attacked an embassy.
		Embassies are the territory of the nation for which represents an embassy.
		Like, our embassies are U.S.
		soil.
		That's the way it works.
		You know, there's a funny story about, I think it's George Washington.
		I think it was Washington.
		He vowed never to set foot in Britain again.
		So when they built a statue for him, they imported U.S.
		soil to put on the ground where they could plant the statue of George Washington.
		People take their territory very seriously.
		Now, I get it.
		I get it.
		A statue is very different from blowing up an embassy.
		Quote, the evil regime made a mistake, and it should be punished and will be punished, he added, according to IRNA, the state news agency.
		Iran's main proxy group is Hezbollah, which is based in southern Lebanon and has been trading fire with Israeli forces almost daily since the war in Gaza erupted in October.
		Israel has not explicitly acknowledged it was behind the attack, but it has put its military on alert.
		An Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz... That's his name, really?
		Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, wrote on Next, If Iran attacks from its territory, Israel will react and attack Iran.
		There are fears an open war between Israel and Iran could turn into a much broader conflict after Israel's foreign minister, Israel Katz, said in an apparent response to Ayatollah's promise of retaliation that Israel would respond if Iran attacks from its own soil.
		I love that.
		That wishy-washy, we know you're attacking us, but as long as it doesn't come from your soil, it's fine?
		Laughably absurd.
		While this is happening, U.S.
		support for Israel hits a new low as Iran threat looms.
		This from Newsweek.
		They say Israel's on high alert for the promised Iranian strike, which U.S.
		officials said on Wednesday could be imminent.
		Quote, we're going to do all we can to protect Israel's security, Biden told reporters.
		I just I got to ask you this.
		Look, I don't I don't know why we're involved in Israel's wars.
		I think the reality is that Israel is a proxy state for the United States.
		And this is what I really can't stand about the Israel Derangement Syndrome people.
		They're like, Israel is puppeteering in the United States, and Jewish people working in media are pushing this, and AIPAC isn't registering, and I'm like, guys.
		Correlation and causation.
		The United States uses Israel as a proxy in the Middle East.
		Okay?
		I think it's laughable that the U.S.
		is at the behest of Israel.
		No, Israel's at the behest of the U.S.
		Simply put.
		They say a new poll released this week shows that the American public support for Israel is waning across the political spectrum amid its devastating offensive on the Gaza Strip, a conflict that has unleashed fresh violence across the Middle East and put pressure on U.S.
		forces there.
		I gotta admit, we face Iraq in a hard place.
		Let me tell you something, my friends.
	I've been to Israel.
	I've been to Tel Aviv.
	Beautiful.
	And, uh, free.
	You walk around, you do what you want, and there's rules and there's laws and there's all that stuff too, but it's impressive.
	I've also been to other countries.
	I've been to Egypt and Morocco.
	Not that I've been to anything more serious, maybe Tunisia or Libya would be more serious, but you know, for instance, in Egypt, they take their religious law very seriously.
	Not as seriously as some countries, but for instance, you're not allowed to gamble or eat bacon.
	You, tourist, not allowed.
	At the hotel, they had bacon.
	I'm putting in air quotes.
	So I go down for breakfast at the Hilton, and they have, you know, tomatoes, eggs, bacon, or whatever, and the bacon is beef!
	No pork.
	They had a casino in the Hilton.
	This was wild.
	There was a casino.
	It was fun.
	I didn't game or play any games or anything.
	There were people playing some game.
	I don't know.
	I don't remember what they were playing.
	Blackjack, probably.
	And there was a sign at the front of the door saying, if you are Muslim, you cannot... If you are an Egyptian citizen, you couldn't come in.
	It was only for tourists.
	Crazy.
	I suppose they're fine with... I don't know.
	What's the right word for someone who's a non-believer?
	Not someone who abandoned their religion, but they don't care.
	If you gamble, they take your money.
	But not if you're Muslim, and not if you're a citizen of Egypt.
	But I say this because in Israel, things were nice.
	You know?
	It was relatively peaceful, despite all the things that are going on.
	And I say this because I recognize the difficulty in... Man!
	There is a real question of what happens if Iran attacks Israel.
	If the United States does not get involved, how do things spiral out of control and where does that lead us?
	Ben Shapiro has warned of something akin to the Samson Option, they call it.
	Iran attacks Israel, the U.S.
	says, look, we're not going to be involved.
	Israel then says, we will not be destroyed.
	Fires nukes, triggering a greater conflict for which we'll be roped into.
	Ben Shapiro's argument is that the U.S.
	should be involved to deter any potential escalation into World War III.
	Fair point.
	I really do think so.
	I don't know that I completely agree with that being the action we should take, but it is a point we must consider.
	Where are we better off?
	Stopping Israel's war from escalating by being heavily involved, or saying, you know what, you're on your own, putting Israel in a heightened threat position, to which they say, okay, then hellfire it is.
	I'm not saying I agree with Ben.
	I'm saying he makes a good point, one that's worth actually contemplating.
	I'm not a big fan of American intervention into foreign countries.
	I do think, however, there are harsh realities we may not like to accept based on our morality.
	That is, me personally, America first.
	Close the border.
	Alright, I should say secure the border.
	I'm actually for immigration.
	I just think unfettered, unchecked, illegal immigration destroys us.
	We want to secure the border.
	We want to bring back jobs.
	We want to bring our troops home.
	We want to get NATO to pay their fair share.
	I'm fine with international treaties and military alliances and all that stuff.
	That's obvious.
	But I don't like the idea of the U.S.
	being involved all over the world the way they are.
	Afghanistan, Iraq, big mistakes.
	Syria, big mistake.
	And then you take a look at what's going on in Israel, and then there's a question of this.
	Okay.
	Where we are right now is different from where we want to be.
	So I'll put it this way.
	I can sit here and say, Donald Trump is the best president of my lifetime.
	And people will then say, oh yeah, Tim?
	What about all the drone strikes he engaged in?
	And the lack of transparency?
unidentified		Ha!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're not actually anti-war.
		And I'm like, dude, I'm taking the best I can get.
		Like, if there was a candidate who was polling double digits and was poised to win, who was going to do all these things domestically we thought we needed, and was 100% anti-war and had no record of drone strikes, sure we could vote for him.
		But right now we have Donald Trump pulling our troops back, setting a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan, getting our troops out of Syria, at least trying to, decimating ISIS, and they say, yeah, but he upped drone strikes.
		And I'm like, yeah, well, that's what you'd expect as we're pulling our troops out.
		Imperfect.
		The best we can get.
		Which brings us to the current situation that we're in.
		I believe it would be beautiful to just be like, we should not be involved, and we're gonna... Yeah, absolutely.
		Like Ukraine?
		Why are we entering that conflict?
		Israel?
		We're deeply involved in that conflict.
		And I'd like to see us removed from it.
		I don't understand why we are funding Israel wars, or Israel's wars, or even involved.
		It's a foreign country, we should be worrying about ourselves.
		The problem and the reality is, I don't have a good answer for you.
		I really don't.
		Because we are deeply involved.
		And there are American citizens and dual citizens who have been taken hostage.
		I don't know what to tell you.
		I'll just tell you this.
		It is not as easy to just say, we cut funding 100% and disappear.
		Because then the region destabilizes and then it's war and conflict.
		I will say the same thing of Afghanistan.
		I don't think the appropriate move was to just shut everything down and up and leave.
		We had talked about this numerous times when it was going down, and it is to slowly pull your forces back, slowly, and require the Afghan security forces to start picking up the slack on those key roles.
		Instead, Joe Biden abandons Bagram Air Force Base, allowing looters to come and pillage it, cutting off air support and logistics for pilots who abandoned their helicopters and just fled Yeah, that was a terrible idea.
		So we can't do that.
		We can't do in Israel what Biden did in Afghanistan.
		But now we have a problem.
		Iran's threatening war, and here we are, attached to the hip to this country we should not have been.
		So again, I'm not telling you I have a good answer.
		I really don't know.
		I'm saying, consider the potentials.
		And that's why I said Ben Shapiro makes a good argument.
		Now, I know Ben Shapiro's biased on the issue.
		As a Jewish man who has family in Israel, he's deeply concerned about Israel being protected.
		Fine, fair point.
		But I do still think, regardless of that, there is a deep consideration we must make for, if the U.S.
		right now says, you know what, we're cutting off all support, we're cutting all funding, and we're leaving?
		Will Israel just say, then Samson Option it is?
		And I'm not saying that's a good reason to stay, I'm saying, consider what happens if that does.
		And maybe your answer is, it's worth the risk.
		Absolutely fair point.
		I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying I have a good answer, I'm just saying, we really gotta consider these things.
		I don't know that the end result of where we're at is going to be good.
		What I can say is, I guess, you don't want to go cold turkey.
		I mean, some things maybe, but I think right now we're...
		I think it's fair to say we're in a rock and a hard place.
		We're screwed over by the previous administration's support for the conflict in the Middle East.
		Probably because they wanted to prevent China and Russia from being able to take this territory and access these resources.
		The U.S.
		wanted to surround Iran because the U.S.
		wanted to invade Iran.
		It was part of its plans.
		So they go into Iraq and Afghanistan.
		They provide massive support to Israel because Israel provides an intelligence operating base and weapons manufacturing for the U.S.
		for their operations in Israel.
		And now here we are, staring down the barrel of not just war with Iran, but Russia and China as well.
		The U.S.
		bit off more than it could chew, and it is a disaster.
		And maybe the reality is, it is just a disaster.
		And if that's the case, maybe we do just back down.
	And we say, we're done with this.
	We shouldn't have been here in the first place.
	I don't know what happens after that.
	I know with the fall of Afghanistan, China moves in and starts harvesting all that lithium.
	And here we are.
	Russia, from The Guardian, advising against travel to the Middle East.
	Here we go, baby.
	Russia on Thursday advised against travel to the Middle East and German airline Lufthansa extended a suspension of its flights to Tehran as the region was kept on edge by Iran's threat to retaliate against Israel for an attack in Syria.
	I'm actually surprised that Germany has flights to Iran.
	I didn't realize that was a thing.
	Iran has vowed revenge for the April 1st airstrike on its embassy compound in Damascus.
	According to Reuters, Russia's foreign ministry told citizens they should refrain from traveling to the Middle East, especially to Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
	Quote, We strongly recommend that Russian citizens refrain from traveling to the region, especially to Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, except in cases of extreme necessity.
	The tense situation in the Middle East region persists.
	So we get it.
	Here we go.
	A spokesperson said Lufthansa had decided not to operate a flight from Frankfurt to Tehran last week to avoid the crew having to disembark to spend the night in the Iranian capital.
	Lufthansa and its subsidiary, Austrian Airlines, are the only two Western carriers flying into Tehran, which is mostly served by Turkish and Middle Eastern airlines.
	Austrian Airlines, which flies from Vienna to Tehran six times a week, said it was planning to fly on Thursday, but was adjusting timing to avoid an overnight layover.
	Take a look at the flight patterns.
	This one's really interesting.
	You'll see that there are now flights that go from like Hong Kong, and they'll go up and they will turn right.
	You can't see my hand.
	Turn right to avoid flying over Russian airspace.
	I think we're at war.
	I think that's the truth.
	We are at war.
	They just don't want to admit it.
	Let me show you this.
	We do have this story here I'll mention briefly.
	Iran is days away from becoming a nuclear power, they report.
	Great, more fear-mongering.
	How China is hacking America, from Newsweek.
	That's right.
	China raises private hacker army to probe foreign governments, and the scale to which they are attacking the United States is unprecedented.
	They say the sheer scale of China's latest attempt to infiltrate U.S.
	infrastructure has surprised the entire cybersecurity industry.
	So you mean to tell me we have three boats which have lost power, one destroyed a bridge, one hit a bridge, and one was stopped just before it could have potentially knocked out a major bridge in New York.
	And when we say, could this be a cyber attack, they go, no, no, no, you're crazy!
	By the way, the scale of the cyber attack from China on the U.S.
	is unprecedented, and we are surprised.
	And I'm like, okay.
	So why should I not be concerned about potential cyber attacks which could shut down navigation systems or destroy major U.S.
	infrastructure?
	This is what you need to realize, man.
	When World War III happens, oof, when?
	Hopefully it doesn't.
	But if it does, your water will stop working one day.
	You'll be in a decently sized city, and you'll turn your faucet on and nothing.
	Why?
	Because China will have hacked into the industrial control systems of the main water reclamation facility and turned the pumps off.
	It really is that simple.
	And then when they try to go on the computers to fix it, they're locked out.
	Why?
	Hard drive's been encrypted.
	Yep.
	There are a bunch of interesting cyber attack techniques.
	There was like, there was one thing a long time ago, like a worm bomb or something.
	It was a file that had the code just kept replicating itself.
	So it jammed up the entire computer with this self-replicating code so that you couldn't do anything.
	And I think we've defended ourselves from rudimentary attacks like that.
	But now you've got these ransomware encryption bombs.
	As soon as it gets on your computer, it encrypts your hard drive and you can't access it.
	You don't have the code.
	These things will pop up on your screen saying, send this money now, or we will encrypt your computer, and then it's like, you'll never use it again.
	All your data is lost.
	That same technique, without the ransom, attacks an industrial control system that's not properly air-gapped or isolated, and then they can't get in to fix the machine, and what do you do?
	No water.
	That can happen all over.
	They can mess with local GPS, local data centers, You know, Eric Prince told me on The Culture War, he said, look, everybody he knows who's been in a situation like this, with civil war, whatever, unrest, it happens instantly.
	One day everything's fine, the next day you wake up, there's no electricity, no water, and no internet.
	And then it's good luck.
	Do you have a radio?
	I'm not kidding.
	Do you have a radio?
	Because if the grid goes down, how are you going to be able to try and collect information?
	And information is one of the most powerful tools in any conflict.
	So they have those radios that you can crank to charge, and you gotta do a lot of cranking.
	Maybe you can bolt it down to a 2x4, then strap a bike chain around the crank, and pedal to charge up your radio.
	Solar panels would be good, but I recommend a radio.
	I'd also recommend that you guys download survival guides onto your phone right now.
	Hopefully nothing happens, and it's fear-mongering, but we'll see.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	It's time for everybody's favorite subject, abortion!
	Oh boy, abortion.
	Carrie Lake has sparked a big debate and criticism.
	Because in the past she praised Arizona's abortion law, but now she says she doesn't.
	Well, we have a statement from Carrie Lake to read where she put it in her own words.
	But many critics are already calling her out, saying she is pro-abortion.
	Welcome to the rock in the hard place, conservatives.
	If you concede your moral argument, you, well, I mean, you concede your moral argument.
	What's the idea?
	That Trump comes out and says, we let the states decide whether they have abortion or not.
	And then you're basically saying that states get to choose when someone gets murdered?
	The issue is, are you for or against abortion?
	And it looks like conservatives are conceding they can't win politically if they come out in support of banning abortion.
	So then the argument, I suppose, is that Trump will claim he's not for it, but then secretly, once he's in, he will do something about it.
	I don't have to tell you, pro-lifers, you got a rockin' hard place right in front of you.
	Now let's take a look at what Carrie Lake actually said.
	We have this.
	Carrie Lake says, my statement regarding today's Arizona Supreme Court abortion ruling.
	This is from a couple days ago.
	And Carrie Lake did say she was going to come out with a statement.
	I don't have that pulled up.
	I'll double check just to make sure.
	Because if she does put it out, we definitely want to make sure that we get her statement on this.
	And I don't believe... Okay, so it says tomorrow, and this I guess technically was last night?
	When did you post this?
	At 1 a.m., so it could be tomorrow.
	Tomorrow, I will be releasing a full video that outlines exactly where I stand on the issue of abortion.
	I hope that you will watch it.
	I hope you will share it.
	All right.
	Here's what Kerry Lake said in a statement.
	Following today's Arizona Supreme Court abortion ruling... Okay, well, I gotta pause.
	I gotta pause.
	Let me give you the context real quick.
	So this is the big story.
	Arizona's got an 1864 law banning nearly all abortions in the state.
	The law is out of step with Arizonans, she said in a statement.
	She called on state lawmakers to come up with a solution that Arizonans can support, but mislike an ally of Trump in a 2020 election denial.
	I like that they added that, had voiced enthusiastic support for the law less than two years ago
	when she was in the midst of a scorched earth campaign for the Republican nomination for
	governor.
	Asked then what she thought of the ban, she said she was thrilled it existed and called
	it a great law.
	Asked for comment, the late campaign pointed to a post from Caroline Wren, a senior advisor
	for Miss Lake, who insisted on Tuesday that Miss Lake Lake was not referring to the Territorial Era Law in the interview, but in the 2020 appearance, Ms.
	Lake cited the 1864 law's number in the Arizona State Code.
	I'm incredibly thrilled we are going to have a great law that's already in the books.
	I believe it's ARS 13-3603.
	She said in a 2022 interview in the Conservative Circus with James T. Harris, she made other remarks.
	Ms.
	Lake's retreat from the fervent anti-abortion rhetoric of her early 2022 campaign reflects the sharp changes in the politics of abortion nearly two years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
	Okay, so here's what basically happens.
	Trump comes out and says, state's rights issue, no national ban.
	Pro-lifers are up in arms.
	No, you're abandoning the pro-life position.
	You are giving up the moral high ground.
	I believe that is the correct moral argument.
	I don't know that it's a winning political argument.
	I'm also not a staunch absolutist when it comes to banning abortion.
	But we'll talk about this.
	First, let me show you Carrie Lake's statement, April 9th.
	Following today's Arizona Supreme Court abortion ruling, Carrie Lake released the following statement.
	In addition to covering the state of Arizona as a fair and honest journalist for 27 years, I have traveled to every corner of the state on the campaign trail, I speak to more Arizonans than anyone, and it is abundantly clear that the pre-statehood law is out of step with Arizonans.
	I am the only woman and mother in this race.
	I understand the fear and anxiety of pregnancy and the joy of motherhood.
	I wholeheartedly agree with President Trump.
	It's a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual state and her people.
	I oppose today's ruling, and I am calling on Katie Hobbs and the state legislature to come up with an immediate common-sense solution that Arizonans can support.
	Ultimately, Arizona voters will make the decision on the ballot come November.
	As your senator, I will oppose federal funding for abortion, federal bans on abortion, As your Senator, I will fight for baby bonuses, making adoption more accessible and affordable, strengthening the economy so that mothers can afford a baby, protecting IVF, extending the child tax credit, paid family leave, investing in child care.
	I am not going to D.C.
	to legislate an issue that has been returned to the states.
	I'm going to D.C.
	to secure our border, strengthen our families, and help President Trump make America great again.
	Look, I'm not a staunch pro-lifer, so I actually like much of what she's saying so far.
	I think the issue with the Arizona law, and I think to be fair, Carrie Lake's previous comment may have been like, oh, it's a great law, it's like a passive thing, and she was probably ignorant to the deeper meaning of that law.
	So people are coming out being like, now Carrie Lake's flip-flopping, and I'm like, eh, whatever, man, look.
	Carrie Lake is the kind of person who will break it down for you and tell you if her position changed or not.
	And I'm gonna make this assumption of Carrie Lake because, I gotta be honest, had her on the show several times, and I've talked to a lot of politicians.
	There are very few who actually will just outright address a question instantly.
	Like, I've had a bunch of politicians where I'm like, how do you feel about Thing?
	And they'll go like, well, Thing is a great thing, and I'm glad you asked the question about Thing.
	And I'm like, stop!
	I said to Carrie Lake, should biological weapons be allowed?
	She goes, no.
	There's no problem just saying that.
	I can respect that.
	Here's my assumption.
	I don't think Carrie Lake really knew exactly the implications of the pre-territory, of the pre-statehood law.
	Where there's almost no exceptions.
	And she's probably saying now, look, I went and talked to a bunch of people and I realized Nobody agrees with it.
	Like, the current iteration of the law, it's gotta be changed to be a bit more nuanced.
	Me?
	Yeah, I'm a moderate.
	I think that's fair.
	Lila Rose has chimed in.
	I think it's fair to say she is an anti-abortion activist.
	I don't like describing people as pro-life or pro-choice.
	I wash my hands of it.
	it's fair to say she is an anti-abortion activist. I don't like saying, like, I don't like describing
	people as pro-life or pro-choice. In her statement in plain English, let individuals and states decide
	whether or not to kill pre-born children. I wash my hands of it. What a terrible disappointment.
	Lila Rose is morally consistent and logically correct.
	Sorry, Republicans.
	Welcome to the reality.
	The reality is, regular people in this country don't care about killing babies.
	I know that all the Democrats are going to go, How dare you, Tim!
	They're not babies!
	They're fetuses!
	They're babies.
	Shut up.
	I'm sorry.
	And then people go, Aha!
	This proves Tim doesn't care about killing babies, dude.
	Your moral arguments don't work on me if I've asserted a moral opinion.
	Now, if you want to talk about facts, we can debate facts, but moral opinions are based on internal philosophies and faith, and they're much more difficult, but let me explain.
	To all the pro-lifers, and look, Lila and Caitlyn, they both follow me.
	Shout out.
	Fans of both.
	To pro-lifers who say killing a baby is murder, I have repeatedly asked questions that many can't answer.
	Here's one for you.
	Do you believe that an individual has a right to defend themselves and others in the instance an individual faces threat of death or great bodily harm?
	I'll give you a scenario.
	You're walking down the street, boop boop boop, minding your own business, and you have your legally and constitutionally protected firearm.
	Let's say you got a great, you got a 1911, 45, and you see a guy about to kill another guy.
	Do you believe it is legally justified to stop that man before he kills the innocent person?
	I will make it unambiguous.
	There is a guy sitting on a park bench with his headphones on, and he's tapping away on his legs with pens like he's playing the drums, and then some crazy shambling guy walks over, pulls out a knife, and then is about to just literally kill this random guy on a bench.
	And you yell, stop.
	The guy with the headphones on can't hear you.
	The guy with the knife explicitly states that he is now going to end the life of this stranger, and takes the blade.
	Do you believe you have a right to save that man's life?
	Okay, most two-way people, even many Democrats, are gonna be like, yes, of course.
unidentified		Right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, like, what do you do?
		He's gonna kill the guy.
		You protect the innocent.
		The question is really simple.
		I don't want to make it overly complicated.
		Do you believe that you have a right to defend the lives of others?
		Is it protected?
		The answer is yes.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The question then becomes, you see a woman who is eight months pregnant.
		Eight months!
		The baby can survive on its own.
		And a doctor has the tool to destroy the baby's body.
		That's what they do.
		They rip it apart.
		And you're standing there.
		You're at a clinic.
		And you can clearly see, there's the doctor and he goes, I am now going to terminate the life of this eight-month baby.
		Would you, in the same instance, intervene and use potential lethal force to stop that doctor from killing that baby?
		I have talked to people who are pro-life and they went, yes.
		Like, there's no question, and I can respect that, it's morally and logically consistent.
		If you believe killing a baby is, aborting a baby is murder, then why would you not?
		And then I've met many who said, oh, well, you know, it's different.
		Ah, it's different.
		Is that right?
		Here's the problem.
		You cannot argue that abortion is murder and at the same time argue that states have a right to determine when someone is allowed to kill someone else.
		Let me clarify.
		Obviously, there's due process involved in the death penalty.
		I am also against the death penalty.
		It's a really difficult question.
		These are all very difficult questions.
		People then naively say, So, you don't want to kill criminals and rapists but innocent babies?
		No.
		I don't want to kill anybody.
		I want the babies to live.
		And I want people who are violent, deranged people to be locked up forever.
		Why?
		Listen.
		If someone is a violent, deranged rapist and murderer, and you are protecting someone's life, yes, I believe you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself and others.
		If someone is captured, and the state tells me that he deserves to die, I'm gonna be like, I don't believe you.
		Because we know people like Kamala Harris exist.
		And that's a challenge.
		So I certainly think there are people who forfeit their lives when they try to take the lives of others, or seriously harm others.
		These are legally codified things.
		But when you've got a person dead subdued, I don't mean like literally, I mean like they can't do anything, and then the state approaches me and says he did it.
		I'll be like, well, you know, look man, he's not a threat to anybody right now, and I'd rather not risk any percentage of killing an innocent person.
		I'm not going to sanction the state to kill people.
		Now, as for the unborn, the issue I have is, one, I think abortion is wrong.
		I think that it is used as contraception by many women.
		I think it's gross.
		I think there should be restrictions upon it, but I think there are two things that need to be asked.
		The limitations of government on determining when a person must provide their body to another person.
		I don't have a good answer for you.
		The idea that a woman could be raped, and get pregnant, and then the state says, your body is now to be shared with someone else, that's a crazy concept to me.
		My brain, I cannot, just can't do it, sorry.
		And then people say, well of course Tim, so we entertain exceptions for rape and incest.
		And I say, well, incest is really bad.
		Not the same as rape, if it's consensual, but I get your point.
		And that's where I agree with many conservatives.
		In which case, we can say that abortion after a certain amount of time, I don't know, 15, 16 weeks perhaps, and, uh, you know, with exceptions for rape and incest, I say, okay.
		And the health of the mother, obviously, when it comes to physical health.
		And that puts me in the traditional pro-choice position.
		Now you have Democrats who want to remove all restrictions, And so anyway, let me get to the political point I was trying to make.
		Instead of rambling on like, I hate arguing the morals of abortion.
		Republicans now are arguing.
		So the first thing is, the limitations of government on when they can mandate a person provide their body to another person.
		The second is, determining when a person's constitutional rights begins.
		Because the 14th Amendment says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
		That means, That means right now the federal government has determined that babies gestated to 8 months are not legal persons.
		I think that question should be answered.
		But so long as we have the current ruling of the Supreme Court, the answer is, the federal government does not recognize personhood until the baby is outside the womb.
		Which makes no logical sense.
	A baby at 8 and a half months, inside or outside the womb, is the same baby.
	And so this argument from the left that, well, so long as there's an umbilical cord, the mother can kill it.
	I'm like, that makes no sense.
	The Supreme Court needs to make a determination on personhood.
	I'm sorry, it has to.
	I'm not saying what answer it should give.
	But this has to be logically consistent.
	Republicans saying, like Carey Lake, that the states should decide, I get it.
	It's a political move you may have to make.
	That means you've lost the moral argument.
	But this means you are saying a state can sanction the murder of someone, can kill someone without due process.
	That, to me, is crazy.
	That's crazy.
	I'll just say right now, life begins at conception.
	There's no question.
	Anyone arguing otherwise is making a political argument.
	It is scientific fact.
	It's just ridiculous that anyone would argue otherwise.
	The questions we have, me for instance, when it comes to pro-choice versus pro-life in the traditional sense is, abortion is wrong, should not be used as contraception, should be banned after a certain amount of time, and should only be allowed in these limited circumstances, and it is a difficult position we take knowing it's morally impossible.
	I don't have any good answers for you.
	I am not the judge, nor would I ever want to be.
	I am no king, and would never want to be.
	But I can tell you this, this is all politics.
	Good luck, I guess.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	It's a video that's gone viral several times.
	A trans woman says men love trans women.
	And then goes on to talk about how, you know, this trans woman has met a bunch of guys before who just can't get enough.
	And it brings up interesting questions and the philosophies around gender ideology, in which you have leftists who argue that a straight man could date a trans woman.
	Well, I suppose technically you could, but the point is, They're saying, uh, you know, people have responded to this video saying that, uh, I know straight guys who date trans women, and I'm like, no, those are gay guys.
	And this trans woman talking about how guys just can't get enough, it's like, yes, those are gay guys.
	And it really is quite simple to break down.
	I won't bury the lead because I know there's gonna be a bunch of leftists making comments on this, but the point is simply this.
	If the argument is, you were attracted to the appearance of an individual as feminine or masculine, that would mean, as Lance from the Serfs on TimCastIRL argued, that a biological man, imagine a 45-year-old construction worker with a beer belly, and his wife is also a 45-year-old construction worker with a beer belly, who's fairly strong and masculine because she works construction too, The argument is they're gay because the woman looks manly.
	Well, no!
	It's a woman and they're attracted to each other and they have a family and have kids.
	You're allowed to... Women are allowed to look manly.
	Men are allowed to look feminine.
	It doesn't mean you're gay or straight.
	It's the weirdest argument that it's like...
	If you want to simultaneously argue that a straight man, like imagine a 27-year-old guy with a beard, is dating a trans woman, you're like, that's straight.
	It's like, yeah, but they're two males.
	It's homosexual.
	It is same-sex relationship.
	Not gender.
	No one ever said it was same gender.
	Make a different word for it, I guess.
	But that argument would follow.
	That you have a guy, so you have two gay guys, and one gay guy is very effeminate, and so like, that's a straight couple.
	It's like, no, those are two guys who identify as gay and are male.
	You see where this goes?
	Let me play this video for you, and then we'll break it down, and we'll talk about the comments on the video.
unidentified		Here we go.
		I do not care what the media tells you.
		I don't care what the comments say.
		At the end of the day, I'm living experience.
		There is, however, this weird phenomenon, though, of being the first trans woman that a guy has ever been with, because I'm telling you right now, there comes some weird obsession.
		Like, you almost become this objectified mythical creature that they cannot get the experiences they have with you with anybody else.
		No matter how many women There's a few things to break down in this.
		The first is main character complex, or whatever you want to call it.
		Maybe they always run back to you because the feeling that you give them is something that nobody else can because you
		are letting them be Authentically that the attraction to trans women is so real
		and I do not care what the media tells you I don't care what the comments say at the end of the day
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's a few things to break down in this The first is main character complex or whatever you would
		want to call it This trans person by all means they can live their life
		They do whatever they want, but they're saying like wow the attraction that I experienced. It's so real
		Yes.
		You've encountered people, and it's a selection bias, who are attracted to you.
		I'm happy for you.
		I think that's nice.
		You'll be happy, you'll live your life, and all that.
		But imagine if I said something like, dude, women love me.
		I go out all the time, and I got women talking to me, and it's like, well, yes, but there's 327 million people in this country, half of them are women, and a microscopic portion of them might want to talk to me.
		You know what I mean?
		So to make a blanket statement where it's like, wow, women really love dudes!
		Well, yeah, sure, there are people who like guys, people who like girls, and so for this trans person, You find yourself in an environment where there are guys who are into you because they are homosexual.
		And I'm not saying it to be mean.
		It's the weirdest thing.
		The left gets so mad about this.
		They're like, shut up!
		Don't you say that!
		I'm like, why are you so mad about being called gay?
		Like, you're dating a trans person.
		Like, you're in the LGBT community, man.
		Like, what are you mad about?
		And they get really offended by it.
		So, look.
		This trans person says, wow, guys really like me.
		Well, yeah, you met guys who like you.
		Like, that's great.
		I'm glad.
		And then you're like, but man, they keep coming back for more no matter how many women they're with.
		Yeah, they're called gay guys.
		There are a lot of guys who don't know they're gay and then come to realize they're gay and then want to be in gay relationships.
		This is like an actual, a fairly common story for a lot of people, men and women who are gay.
		Like a guy, you know, there's tons of stories of guys, like there's even trans stories, but there's tons of stories, stories of like, Men and women who got married, and the woman later is like, you know what?
		You know, I'm gay the whole time, and then they get a divorce.
		And then there's, uh, same thing with men, like, the dad eventually is like, I don't, you know, I'm just not into it, and then the guy ends up getting a divorce from his wife.
		Yeah, because they didn't realize, they didn't know.
		So, this story she's telling is basically that she meets a guy, the guy realizes he's into males, effeminate males, but males nonetheless, and then they're just like, I would prefer this over that.
		Yeah, you met a gay guy.
		So it's like the weirdest thing that people take this approach where they're like, no, they're straight.
		So someone responded to my post saying, I know two straight dudes with hot trans women.
		As said in the hot crazy matrix, they're unicorns.
		Okay.
		I'm sorry.
		No, like that is just wrong.
		They're not straight.
		You cannot call a guy who is dating a male, like two males together, cis-heteronormative, to use the left's nomenclature.
		Imagine a, quote, woman who actually does dress up, is fun and sweet, and never nags, loves giving head, uh oh, not so family friendly, I know impossible yet, no, I'm sorry, gay guys, okay?
		You're allowed to be gay.
		I got no problem if you're gay.
		Please be happy and live your life.
		But this is just, you're not a straight guy, okay?
		So this is where we end up with this whole argument.
		You've got a guy, and he decides to be in a relationship with another male, but that male looks to a varying degree feminine.
		The argument then becomes, how many grains of sand make a heap in order to be a woman?
		So, you know, my family opened a coffee shop on North Halsted in Chicago, and it's called Boys Town.
		And, uh, there are small effeminate gay guys who look feminine.
		And if they, you know, if they put on a wig or whatever, you might confuse them for a woman.
		And they're dating big, burly, masculine dudes in leather.
		And you call one a twink and one a bear.
		That's, like, been a thing for a long time.
		That's what they say in Chicago.
		I don't know if this terminology still applies.
		I have no idea.
		But, uh, imagine by today's standards.
	Because this is what happened when we had Lance from the surfs on the show.
	He's like, they're straight.
	I'm like, what?
	It's two guys!
	It's two, two men!
	No, they're straight.
	Because the one guy looks female.
	Like, oh shoot, come on.
	And my favorite, one of my favorite moments ever was when Lance, I asked, I was like, so if there's like a guy and he's dating a woman who's very masculine and like manly looking, that's gay?
	And he's like, yes.
	And then Ian was like, that's not cool, man.
	You can't call someone gay because his girlfriend is ugly.
unidentified		And it's like, You can't!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Dude, it's so wild to me that YouTube allows that kind of stuff, where it's like, imagine the insult of going up to a guy and his girlfriend, and the girl is masculine, and then you're like, are you gay?
		Like, what?
		Because your girlfriend looks like a guy.
		Like, it's so mean to the girl, and it's just an insult to the guy, and like, that's allowed on social media.
		That's non-offensive.
		Dude, come on.
		It's also like the abortion argument.
		I love this where it's like, The left argues that, you know, abortion should be allowed and all that stuff.
		And I'm not sitting here arguing, guys.
		I'm not pro-life.
		I'm definitely not with the left versions of pro-choices.
		But there's so many things you can do that break the leftist ideology or the cult-like behaviorists.
		You can say something like, I hope you get an abortion.
		Or, have you talked to your doctor about whether abortion is right for you?
		And you're basically saying like, I don't want you to have kids.
		That's an insult.
		And then there's also the, do you think Lizzo is beautiful?
		And they go, yes of course, well you look like her.
		And then they get mad and they cry.
		There was one viral post where a guy said that he told some girl she looked like Dylan Mulvaney and the girl started crying.
		He was like, I know this liberal chick in my college, always talking about like these issues and stuff, and I complimented her by saying she looked like Dylan Mulvaney and she began to cry.
		It's like, yeah, because they don't actually believe anything they say.
unidentified		Look.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Words matter.
		And we're trying to understand the world.
		And I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, up, down, left, right, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, whatever, man.
		But there's a simple reality.
		You cannot have a male who gets plastic surgery and then claim it is heterosexual because heterosexual means different sexes and homosexual means same sex, alright?
		All right, this has been a very important message for everybody.
		But think about the end result, as I already mentioned, right?
		If this is the world do these people have, there is no logically consistent cis or whatever.
		So we've actually seen this where there was a funny video where a guy is holding up a sign or something and it says like, I don't know, something about abortion or whatever.
		And then some woman is like, why do you think you have a right, you know, a man has a right to tell a woman what to do?
		And he's like, did you just assume my gender?
		And then she was like, uh, well, uh.
		Yeah, their ideology breaks themselves.
		So now you've got the only existing argument is that they're trying to eliminate the concept of gender segregation as it is, but then there's no such thing as trans.
		Like, if anything and anyone is a woman, there's like a video of a guy who's got a beard wearing a dress, and he just looks like a dude in a dress.
		And he's like, I'm changing what it means to be a woman because gender stereotypes are wrong.
		And all these women are like, yay!
		And they're clapping.
		It's like, okay.
		So then there is no man and there is no woman.
		So there's no protections for women.
		But then they're like, yeah, but you can be trans.
		Okay.
		So this person right here.
		Let's operate into that argument.
		There is no right or wrong way to be a woman.
		Okay, that's a guy.
		That's it.
		If you say that the social norms surrounding gender are fake, made up, and do not determine whether you're male or female or a man or a woman, then this right here is a male putting on stereotypical female affectations, in which case, I'd argue, there's no right or wrong way to be a guy.
		So, I would assume that's a guy, right?
		You can't have it every direction, okay?
		And if there's no logical consistency, then you don't have nothing.
		But thank you for coming to this silly PSA.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
		over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲